• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Resurrection of Christ - What's the evidence for and against a literal resurrection

Rough Beast Sloucher

Well-Known Member
It's My Birthday!
I didn't single out the Gospel writers, the topic of the thread did. I strongly suspect that all religion is, in some degree, delusional - that's not the problem - the problem is that we (a) despise the "delusional" aspects of the human experience so much that we refuse to admit that they are an essential part of human life and then (b) insist that the experiences that are derived from the fanciful flights of human imagination must convey some more profound and ultimate truths about the world that must have originated from a supernatural divine source.

My position is that 'fanciful flights of human imagination' is a useful tool for carrying cultural ideals. Greek mythology stories were very much about Greek humanism with all its glories and foibles. There were a great many different and even contradictory stories about each of the gods and heroes. They were all believed but with a difference. The personages and events were conceived as existing outside of normal time. An example I once read (Armstrong?): To ask in what year Dionysus was killed makes no sense. Dionysus is always killed and always returns to life. It is not by accident that Hamilton subtitled her Mythology as “Timeless Tales of Gods and Heroes”.

We might see the Gospel writers in this light, authoring stories that carried different messages. The problem is that Jesus was supposedly a real historic figure who lived in a particular place and time in the recent past. This led to the requirement among the faithful to accept all the Gospels at face value, despite ‘apparent’ contradictions. The more this viewpoint is challenged, the more tightly it is held. The challenges were not common for many centuries until the printing press and a significant increase in literacy. There were not a great many people comparing the different parts of the Gospels before that because access was generally practical only for the hardcore faithful.


Right! But don't you agree that to suggest that what they really had in mind was to produce a symbolic representation of events that would take place at a specific time many centuries after they wrote is an enormous stretch of the imagination that is in no way borne out by a consideration of the text, context or history of the time in which they were written?

I do not see a whole lot of symbolism in the Gospels in the strict sense of ‘this stands for that’. There are evocative references, like the ‘cloud’ theme employed by Luke in Acts, but that is really a different literary technique.

The Olivet Discourse passages in the Synoptic Gospels look to me to display an expectation of Jesus coming back any day now, although Matthew and Luke tend to de-emphasize just how soon it was really going to be. As I said earlier, John ignores it and Acts switches tracks, these being written too long after Mark to take the ‘not taste death’ and ‘this generation’ passages as real. John 21 even appears to explicitly disavow such an expectation. Looking for Olivet prophecies to be fulfilled now as a sign of the approaching end is IMO to totally misunderstand what was originally intended to be understood.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
It amazes me how Baha'is always find a way to support their beliefs. What do you got on walking on water? A load of #<*£ right?
And Baha'is are different from any other religious believers who find ways to support their beliefs exactly how? :rolleyes:
Of course there are some supernatural things in every religion... that kind of goes with the territory when God is involved, since nobody can ever prove God even exists. :D But at least our beliefs are rational. ;)
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Well that's the million dollar question isn't it? I wonder if this might be why there have been hundreds of apparently mistaken recognitions of the return of the Messiah starting from just a few days after he died and continuing right up to the 21st century.
No, this is not the reason. Do you know how specific some of these prophecies are? Only One Person could have fulfilled all of them. It is not that difficult to figure out who that was if one can read. :D

William Sears, Thief in the Night
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Thanks, I know that quote well. I was going to post it to our friend, but I changed my mind since I did not want to give him any more rope to hang me. :) :(

I think we hang ourselves when we go off on tangents that are unrelated to the OP. I spent the last year on another thread started by another Baha'i.

How are these Great Beings explained?

It turned into a Baha'i versus everyone else thread as several individuals including Siti, Old Badgers and C G Didymus criticised, probed and questioned the Baha'i faith from just about every angle imaginable. It went on for nearly a year. I thought the Baha'is on the whole did a reasonable job of defending their Faith. However this thread is not about whether the Baha'i Faith is right or wrong or whether Baha'u'llah' is the fulfilment of what prophecies. Its about the evidence for and against Jesus being literally resurrected. Its really a topic that anyone can contribute to.

Good to have you here.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
And the problem with this line of reasoning is that you have permitted God to overrule nature in one case but not the others.

Of course we know for certain that Mary was not only not a virgin when she conceived Jesus...

...but neither was she herself maintained "immaculate" from the moment of her own conception in the womb of her mother (which is what the Church doctrine of the 'immaculate conception' is really about).

But theologically, it is absolutely confused to reject the notion of "original sin" as I believe Baha'i doctrine does, and uphold the doctrine of the immaculate conception the whole point of which is to claim that Mary was, by the grace of God, "preserved free of the stain of original sin".

The theological reasoning here (in the Shogi Effendi quote you posted earlier) is really confused - quite apart from the logical and scientific absurdity of the argument.

You may be confused (though really you are looking for contradictions in the Baha'i worldview) but I'm not.

Baha'is believe in the God of Abraham as the Christians do. God Manifests Himself through Great beings such as Christ. He speaks to humanity through prophets such as Daniel. God can override the laws of nature and perform miracles though rarely does.

Baha'is reject the Catholic doctrine of the original sin. We do however uphold the Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception. One doctrine is a misunderstanding of the Bible (Genesis 2 to 3). The other isn't (Matthew 1:18-25).
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
What would be so hard to say it was symbolic? It must be, ' cause it ain't scientific.

Baha'is are not atheists. Baha'is believe in an Omnipotent, All-Powerful God who can perform miracles and do great things.

A virgin birth is no problem to the God of Abraham.
 

Rough Beast Sloucher

Well-Known Member
It's My Birthday!
Baha'is reject the Catholic doctrine of the original sin. We do however uphold the Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception. One doctrine is a misunderstanding of the Bible (Genesis 2 to 3). The other isn't (Matthew 1:18-25).

I am confused. What does Matthew 1:18-25 have to do with the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. That doctrine states that Mary was conceived without Original Sin, which idea you reject. Are you perhaps confusing the Immaculate Conception of Mary with the conception of Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit?
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
I am confused. What does Matthew 1:18-25 have to do with the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. That doctrine states that Mary was conceived without Original Sin, which idea you reject. Are you perhaps confusing the Immaculate Conception of Mary with the conception of Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit?

Perhaps. Although I'm a former Christian, now Baha'i, I've never been a Catholic so the Catechisms I'm unfamiliar with. I quick read suggest the doctrines of the immaculate conception and original sin are intertwined as you and Siti have suggested.

Do you have better links that outline the Catholic position on these two doctrines.

Immaculate Conception and Assumption | Catholic Answers

The Original Sin - About Catholics
 

Rough Beast Sloucher

Well-Known Member
It's My Birthday!
Perhaps. Although I'm a former Christian, now Baha'i, I've never been a Catholic so the Catechisms I'm unfamiliar with. I quick read suggest the doctrines of the immaculate conception and original sin are intertwined as you and Siti have suggested.

Do you have better links that outline the Catholic position on these two doctrines.

Immaculate Conception and Assumption | Catholic Answers

The Original Sin - About Catholics

This describes and relates the several aspect of the birth of Jesus
Catechism of the Catholic Church - "Conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary"

The Immaculate Conception section begins at item 490.

Here is a discussion of Original Sin
Catechism of the Catholic Church - The Fall
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Here's what Shoghi Effendi, authorised interpreter of the Baha'i writings, has said. As I understand it, Shoghi Effendi's statements may have a similar standing for the Baha'is as to the catechisms do for the Catholic Church.

"The churches teach doctrines--various ones in various creeds--which we as Bahá'ís do not accept; such as the bodily Resurrection, confession, or, in some creeds, the denial of the Immaculate Conception."

(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to the Bahá'ís of Vienna, June 24, 1947)

"First regarding the birth of Jesus Christ. In light of what Bahá'u'lláh and Abdu'l-Bahá have stated concerning this subject it is evident that Jesus came into this world through the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit, and that consequently His birth was quite miraculous. This is an established fact, and the friends need not feel at all surprised, as the belief in the possibility of miracles has never been rejected in the Teachings. Their importance, however, has been minimized."
(From a letter dated December 31, 1937 written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer)

"Again with regard to your question relative to the birth of Jesus: He wishes me to inform you that there is nothing further he can add to the explanation he gave you in his previous communication regarding this point. One thing, however, he wishes again to bring to your attention, namely that miracles are always possible, even though they do not constitute a regular channel whereby God reveals His power to mankind. To reject miracles on the ground that they imply a breach of the laws of nature is a very shallow, well-nigh a stupid argument, inasmuch as God Who is the Author of the universe can, in His Wisdom and Omnipotence, bring any change, no matter how temporary, in the operation of the laws which He Himself has created.
"The Teachings do not tell us of any miraculous birth besides that of Jesus."

(From a letter dated February 27, 1938 written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer)

"With regard to your question concerning the Virgin Birth of Jesus: On this point, as on several others, the Bahá'í Teachings are in full agreement with the doctrines of the Catholic Church. In the 'Kitab-i-Iqan' (Book of Certitude) p. 56, and in a few other Tablets still unpublished, Bahá'u'lláh confirms, however indirectly, the Catholic conception of the Virgin Birth. Also Abdu'l-Bahá in the 'Some Answered Questions', Chap. XII, p. 73, explicitly states that 'Christ found existence through the Spirit of God' which statement necessarily implies, when viewed in the light of the text, that Jesus was not the son of Joseph."
(From a letter dated October 14, 1945 written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer)

"We believe that Christ only was conceived immaculately. His brothers and sisters would have been born in the natural way and conceived naturally."
(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to Dr. Shook, November 19, 1945: Bahá'í News, No. 210, p. 3, August 1948)

"It would be sacrilege for a Bahá'í to believe that the parents of Jesus were illegally married and that the latter was consequently of an illegal union. Such a possibility cannot be even conceived by a believer who recognizes the high station of Mary and the Divine Prophethood of Jesus Christ. It is this same false accusation which the people of His Day attributed to Mary that Bahá'u'lláh indirectly repudiated in the Iqan. The only alternative therefore is to admit that the birth of Jesus has been miraculous. The operation of miracles is not necessarily irrational or illogical. It does by no means constitute a limitation of the Omnipotence of God. The belief in the possibilities of miracles, on the contrary, implies that God's power is beyond any limitation whatsoever. For it is only logical to believe that the Creator, Who is the sole Author of all the laws operating in the universe, is above them and can, therefore, if He deems it necessary, alter them at His Own Will. We, as humans, cannot possibly attempt to read His Mind, and to fully grasp His Wisdom. Mystery is therefore an inseparable part of true religion, and as such, should be recognized by the believers."
(From a letter of the Guardian to an individual believer, October 1, 1935: Canadian Bahá'í News, February 1968, p. 11)

"As to the position of Christianity, let it be stated without any hesitation or equivocation that its divine origin is unconditionally acknowledged, that the Sonship and Divinity of Jesus Christ are fearlessly asserted, that the divine inspiration of the Gospel is fully recognized, that the reality of the mystery of the Immaculacy of the Virgin Mary is confessed, and the primacy of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, is upheld and defended. The Founder of the Christian Faith is designated by Bahá'u'lláh as the 'Spirit of God,' is proclaimed as the One Who 'appeared out of the breath of the Holy Ghost,' and is even extolled as the Essence of the Spirit. His mother is described as 'that veiled and immortal, that most beauteous countenance,' and the station of her Son eulogized as a 'station which hath been exalted above the imaginings of all that dwell on earth', whilst Peter is recognized as one whom God has caused 'the mysteries of wisdom and of utterance to flow out of his mouth'...."
(Shoghi Effendi: The Promised Day is Come, pp. 109-110)

"We cannot be sure of the authenticity of the scriptures of Buddha and Krishna, so we certainly cannot draw any conclusions about virgin births mentioned in them. There is no reference to this subject in our teachings, so the Guardian cannot pronounce an opinion."
(November 25, 1950, to an individual believer)
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
Many Christians believe Jesus was crucified and literally rose from the dead. An empty tomb and the appearance of Jesus before many as recorded in the gospels are cited as irrefutable proofs by conservative Christians.

Dr Bart Ehrhart, Christian and biblical scholar has argued:

'Even if we want to believe in the resurrection of Jesus, that belief is a theological belief. You can’t prove the resurrection. It’s not susceptible to historical evidence. It’s faith. Believers believe it and take it on faith, and history cannot prove it.'

Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? The Craig-Ehrman Debate | Reasonable Faith

The resurrection as part of an allegorical narrative assists us understand the eternal nature of the soul and the power of Christ's Teachings to bestow new spiritual upon those who follow Him.

So did Christ really rise from the dead and what's the evidence He did? Is there evidence to support He didn't?

With all due respect to my Christian brothers and sisters, why is Christ's Resurrection so fundamental to Christian belief?

The resurrection is susceptible to historical evidence, just as any other supposed historical event. The lack of evidence outside scripture is a real issue.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
The resurrection is susceptible to historical evidence, just as any other supposed historical event. The lack of evidence outside scripture is a real issue.

That's one of the key arguments against a literal resurrection for certain. Fundamentalist Christians don't see that of course and overplay the 'evidence' of the gospels.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Mary Magdalene

"There was one name," the Master answered, "that always brought joy to the face of Baha'u'llah. His expression would change at the mention of it. That name was Mary of Magdala."
(Words attributed to Abdu'l-Baha from 23 June 1912, The Diary of Juliet Thompson)


"Consider! The station and the confirmation of the apostles in the time of Christ was not known, and no one looked on them with the feeling of importance -- nay, rather, they persecuted and ridiculed them. Later on it became evident what crowns studded with the brilliant jewels of guidance were placed on the heads of the apostles, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of John."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Tablets of the Divine Plan, pp. 39-40)


"Peter was a fisherman and Mary Magdalene a peasant, but as they were specially favoured with the blessings of Christ, the horizon of their faith became illumined, and down to the present day they are shining from the horizon of everlasting glory. In this station, merit and capacity are not to be considered; nay rather, the resplendent rays of the Sun of Truth, which have illumined these mirrors, must be taken into account."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p. 104)


"O thou maidservant of God! Every woman who becometh the maidservant of God outshineth in glory the empresses of the world, for she is related to God, and her sovereignty is everlasting, whereas a handful of dust will obliterate the name and fame of those empresses. In other words, as soon as they go down to the grave they are reduced to naught. The maidservants of God's Kingdom, on the other hand, enjoy eternal sovereignty unaffected by the passing of ages and generations.

"Consider how many empresses have come and gone since the time of Christ. Each was the ruler of a country but now all trace and name of them is lost, while Mary Magdalene, who was only a peasant and a maidservant of God, still shineth from the horizon of everlasting glory."

(Abdu'l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p. 122)


"At the time of the ascension of the Spirit (Jesus Christ), the company of those who accepted the new Revelation numbered no more than a few souls. So intense was the alarm and perturbation to which that event gave rise that, for a time, these souls were quite overcome by their agitation and confusion. Then, a few days later, a woman by the name of Mary Magdalene arose, and, by her own example, instilled into them a constancy and firmness which enabled them to arise for the propagation of the Word of God. Although to outward seeming they were no more than fishermen and dyers, yet, through the holy confirmations of the Cause of God, they carried the divine fragrances far and wide, sweetening the breaths of all who inhaled their fragrance and bringing new life to every understanding heart."
(Abdu'l-Baha, cited in "Crisis and Victory," The Compilation of Compilations Vol. I, p. 136)


"Again, it is well established in history that where woman has not participated in human affairs the outcomes have never attained a state of completion and perfection. On the other hand, every influential undertaking of the human world wherein woman has been a participant has attained importance. This is historically true and beyond disproof even in religion. Jesus Christ had twelve disciples and among His followers a woman known as Mary Magdalene. Judas Iscariot had become a traitor and hypocrite, and after the crucifixion the remaining eleven disciples were wavering and undecided. It is certain from the evidence of the Gospels that the one who comforted them and reestablished their faith was Mary Magdalene."
(Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 133)


"The one whose heart is purest, whose deeds are most perfect, is acceptable to God, male or female. Often in history women have been the pride of humanity -- for example, Mary, the mother of Jesus. She was the glory of mankind. Mary Magdalene, Asiyih, daughter of Pharaoh, Sarah, wife of Abraham, and innumerable others have glorified the human race by their excellences. In this day there are women among the Baha'is who far outshine men."
(Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, pp. 174-175)


'After the martyrdom of Christ, to Whom be glory, the disciples were greatly disturbed and disheartened. Even Peter had denied Christ and tried to shun Him. It was a woman, Mary Magdalene, who confirmed the wavering disciples in their faith, saying, "Was it the body of Christ or the reality of Christ that ye have seen crucified? Surely it was His body. His reality is everlasting and eternal; it hath neither beginning nor ending. Therefore, why are ye perplexed and discouraged? Christ always spoke of His being crucified." Mary Magdalene was a mere villager, a peasant woman; yet she became the means of consolation and confirmation to the disciples of Christ.'
(Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p.282)


'When Jesus Christ died upon the cross, the disciples who witnessed His crucifixion were disturbed and shaken. Even Peter, one of the greatest of His followers, denied Him thrice. Mary Magdalene brought them together and confirmed their faith, saying, "Why are ye doubting? Why have ye feared? O thou Peter! Why didst thou deny Him? For Christ was not crucified. The reality of Christ is ever-living, everlasting, eternal. For that divine reality there is no beginning, no ending, and, therefore, there can be no death. At most, only the body of Jesus has suffered death." In brief, this woman, singly and alone, was instrumental in transforming the disciples and making them steadfast. This is an evidence of extraordinary power and supreme attributes, a proof that woman is the equivalent and complement of man. The one who is better trained and educated, whose aptitude is greater and whose ideals are higher is most distinguished and worthy -- whether man or woman.'
(Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 394)


"Mary Magdalene was a villager of lowly type, yet that selfsame Mary was transformed and became the means through which the confirmation of God descended upon the disciples. Verily, she served the Kingdom of God with such efficiency that she became well-known and oft mentioned by the tongues of men. Even today she is shining from the horizon of eternal majesty. Consider how infinite is the bounty of God that a woman such as Mary Magdalene should be selected by God to become the channel of confirmation to the disciples and a light of nearness in His Kingdom. Consequently, trust ye in the bounty and grace of God, and rest assured in the bestowals of His eternal outpouring."
(Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 420)


"Where is the majesty of the Emperor of Russia? Where is the might of the German Emperor? Where is the greatness of the Emperor of Austria? In a short time all these palaces were turned into ruins and all these pretentious edifices underwent destruction. They left no fruit and no trace, save eternal ruin.
"The souls who have been enlightened with the light of the Kingdom, however, have founded eternal sovereignty. They shine, like unto the stars, upon the horizon of everlasting glory. The Apostles were fishers. Consider thou to what a high station they did rise; and to what great sovereignty they did attain, whose duration and permanence runs to eternity! Mary Magdalen was a peasant woman. She was without any name and fame or consequence. But her candle is, in the assemblage of the world, lighted till eternity."

(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith, pp. 384-385)


'A friend asked Abdu'l-Baha how far the individual could attain to that Christ consciousness in himself of which St. Paul speaks as our hope of Glory.
'Abdu'l-Baha turned with a look of great joy and said with an impressive gesture: "The bounty and power of God is limitless for each human soul. Consider what was the quickening power of the Christ when He was on earth. Look at His disciples! They were poor and uncultured men. Out of the rough fisherman He made the great Peter, and out of the poor village girl of Magdala He made one who is a power in all the world today. Many queens have reigned who are remembered by their dates in history, and nothing more is known of them. But Mary the Magdalene is greater than them all. It was she whose love strengthened the disciples when their faith was failing. What she did for the world cannot be measured. See what a divine power was enkindled in her by the power of God!"'

(Abdu'l-Baha in London, p. 88)


'Upon another occasion Abdu'l-Baha said to a group of friends around him: "Taken in general, women today have a stronger sense of religion than men. The woman's intuition is more correct; she is more receptive and her intelligence is quicker. The day is coming when woman will claim her superiority to man.

"Woman has everywhere been commended for her faithfulness. After the Lord Christ suffered, the disciples wept, and gave way to their grief. They thought that their hopes were shattered, and that the Cause was utterly lost, till Mary Magdalene came to them and strengthened them saying: 'Do you mourn the body of Our Lord or His Spirit? If you mourn His Spirit, you are mistaken, for Jesus lives! His Spirit will never leave us!' Thus through her wisdom and encouragement the Cause of Christ was upheld for all the days to come. Her intuition enabled her to grasp the spiritual fact."

'Abdu'l-Baha then added: "But in the sight of God sex makes no difference. He or she is greatest who is nearest to God."'

(Abdu'l-Baha in London, pp. 104-105)


'Let us make a comparison with the days of Christ. He had eleven disciples only, for the twelfth was the cause of his crucifixion. The leader of the apostles was Peter and on the night of the crucifixion his faith was shaken and he thrice denied Christ, though afterwards he became firm.
'All were shaken but Mary Magdalen. She was a veritable lioness. She gathered the others together and said, "Why do ye mourn? Did not the Christ foretell his crucifixion? Arise, and be assured. They have killed but the body; the reality can never die, for it is supreme, eternal, the word of God, the son of God. Why, therefore, are ye agitated?" Thus this heroine became the cause of re-establishing the faith of the apostles.
'My hope is that each one of you may become as Mary Magdalen -- for this woman was superior to all the men of her time and her reality is ever shining from the horizon of Christ.'

(Abdu'l-Baha, Divine Philosophy, p. 50)
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Baha'i Perspective:The Christian Doctrine of the Original Sin

Could we conceive of the Divinity, Who is Justice itself, inflicting punishment upon the posterity of Adam for Adam’s own sin and disobedience? Even if we should see a governor, an earthly ruler punishing a son for the wrongdoing of his father, we would look upon that ruler as an unjust man. Granted the father committed a wrong, what was the wrong committed by the son? There is no connection between the two. Adam’s sin was not the sin of His posterity, especially as Adam is a thousand generations back of the man today. If the father of a thousand generations committed a sin, is it just to demand that the present generation should suffer the consequences thereof?
Abdu’l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 449.

Original Sin and the Sins of the Father
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
And Baha'is are different from any other religious believers who find ways to support their beliefs exactly how? :rolleyes:
Of course there are some supernatural things in every religion... that kind of goes with the territory when God is involved, since nobody can ever prove God even exists. :D But at least our beliefs are rational. ;)
You find ways to support a virgin birth but deny the possibility of the resurrection. It's all part of the same story. Some of it real, some symbolic, but both written as if real?
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Perhaps. Although I'm a former Christian, now Baha'i, I've never been a Catholic so the Catechisms I'm unfamiliar with. I quick read suggest the doctrines of the immaculate conception and original sin are intertwined as you and Siti have suggested.

Do you have better links that outline the Catholic position on these two doctrines.

Immaculate Conception and Assumption | Catholic Answers

The Original Sin - About Catholics

Thanks for that.

Its clear from the Baha'i writings that:

(1) Mary Magdalene is revered as the outstanding woman of the Christianity. This is on account of her outstanding virtues and spiritual qualities. She remained steadfast when the faith of the disciples of Christ waivered after His Crucifixion. She raised Jesus, the Son of God.

(2) The Baha'i writings uphold of Divine mystery of the Virgin birth.

(3) Baha'is reject the notion that the sin of Adam caused the fall of man.

The immaculate conception as expressed in the Catechisms of the catholic Church touch on (1), (2), and (3) above.

Hope that clarifies Baha'i belief in regards the virgin birth, Mary Magdalene, and the fall of Adam.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
There is really no way to know if they knew or not, but that does not matter now. He either did or He didn’t and people are free to believe as they wish since there is no proof; all we have are stories.

Certainly Jesus did not write it because it says “Come, Lord Jesus.” Whoever wrote it is referring to what Jesus said elsewhere but did not understand what Jesus meant. Jesus said He was sending His Spirit again, not that He was returning in the same body.
It matters very much. They said Jesus was raised from the dead. Did they mean it symbolically, and really meant that they, the "body" of Christ, had come to spiritual life or that Jesus himself had come back to life?

The other point. Who said, “Yes, I am coming soon"? Because the writer says, "Amen. Come, Lord Jesus." So he thought it was going to be Jesus. Was he wrong?
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
No, this is not the reason. Do you know how specific some of these prophecies are? Only One Person could have fulfilled all of them. It is not that difficult to figure out who that was if one can read. :D

William Sears, Thief in the Night
Jesus supposedly fulfilled the prophesies of Judaism. But what were the Jews that hadn't converted right away supposed to do? Leave Judaism for a religion that taught in the devil and hell, original sin, that the only way to save yourself from hell was by believing in Jesus, to believe Jesus is part of a triune God etc., etc.? If by their fruits you shall know them, what fruit did Christianity have that proved them to be true?
 
Top