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

[Trailblazer]

Well - at least some Baha'is are prepared to state their case unequivocally - so much for the goal of "religious unity"!

I call an ace an ace and a spade a spade, just as all Christians do regarding what they believe... I see no reason to do otherwise. Most Christian doctrines are incompatible with the Baha'i Faith. Coddling people is dishonest.

Nice talking with you... It is always nice talking with you... You call it like you see it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Maybe he should!

Actually, I wish God would pay more attention to us... The only time we ever SEE Him is when He sends a Messenger... In between revelations we don't hear a thing.

 

[oldbadger]

As I have said and will say again,

I know!
...and again...... and again........
I'm not repeating common sense claims with good historical probaabilities again and again.

Origen, the only source we have for what Celsus said, says nothing whatsoever about Mary being a Temple virgin. The apocryphal 2nd century Infancy Gospel of James has Mary be a young virgin residing in the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, but that is hardly a Hellenized environment.

Excellent! The ancient Catholic tradition, which perfectly deflects any investigators away from Nazareth/Sepphoris where Mary could well have been a real Temple Virgin in a Pagan Temple (Sepphoris would have been hellenised)

The whole story of the nativity is a very poor maniuplation in attempts to reverse the whole story into ancient prophecies.

Christos is the anointed one, the Greek equivalent of Messiah. Considering that the Messiah (defined various ways) was in the popular imagination as a promised deliverer in those days of Roman oppression,

No.............. Yeshua didn't stand against Romans, there WERE NO ROMANS CONTROLLING GALILEE, so that's total faklse history. Both he and the Baptist stood against a corrupt, greedy, hellenised, hypocritical Priesthood! The Baptist and Yeshua contented against the priesthood!

I said that both Matthew and Luke presented made-up stories about the Nativity.

I know you did. At least we can agree on that.

The point you are missing (ignoring?) is that neither Matthew nor Luke fit the timing required of the Sepphoris claim.

Of course I am! Even you write that these stories are made up, stretched from a few basic facts to fit with p[rophecies............ almost embarrassing in the light of recent historical researches.

Herod’s killing of his (grown) sons might have put the idea of Herod in Matthew’s mind. Nonetheless the ‘Slaughter of the Innocents’ is a clear reference to Exodus 1-2 in which Pharaoh kills the Jewish male children but Moses escapes. This is one of several times that Matthew links Jesus and Moses.

Yes........ he made it up! We are seeking to discover the historical balances of probabilities and possibilities from the mess of nativity fibs together with the claims of outsiders like Celcius, whose suggestions fit rather better with what history that we have.

Again, ........................

Constant repetition cannot make your claims any more strong. The whole history of Sepphoris was avoided by the gospels, and city where the handworkers of hilltop communities like Cana and Nazareth would have gained livings.......... there wasn't anything else there that could be described as a living.

...................... Maybe Luke wanted to avoid the Moses link because his audience was Gentile. Yes,it is preposterous. But it is a made-up story written long after the timeframe of that story. No connection with actual events.

WE know this, and agree this, that Luke and Matthew fabricated stories, but don't think that Celcus did.

The only thing that we know of that Celsus said concerning this matter is "when she was pregnant she was turned out of doors by the carpenter to whom she had been betrothed, as having been guilty of adultery, and that she bore a child to a certain soldier named Panthera;" The supposed connection with Sepphoris is a modern speculation that does not even work because the timeframes are all wrong.

The story and the time frames are fine. And I expect that Joseph took her back for love (certainly did not have her killed) and had many children by her.

............................... other words, Celsus made up a story about a made-up story. No connection with actual historical events.

No......... Celcus introduced much new info for us, which is more trustworthy than nativity fabrications.
Just because you admit that the gospels fabricated stories doesn't prove that Celcus did, it is more likely that his story shows the facts that were cherry picked BEFORE fabrication.

And please don't suggest that Jesus had a mission against Romans........... there weren't any in Galilee!

 

[Dawnofhope]

And...?

I'm just reflecting on the tone of your comment. To me you have totally misunderstood what Shoghi Effendi is saying and then called him ignorant.

I mean I'm actually not an atheist really but even I were, why would you expect my comments not to reflect my worldview?

Of course I expect you to make comments that reflect you world view but I hoped you would be a litle fairer and less harsh in your judgements.

I know you are not an athiest, but you have very strong leanings towards atheism and can be quite anti-theistic at times. Just an observation.

Is it only OK for Baha'i comments to reflect their worldview but not for others?

We're all entitled to our opinions, of course.

For example, is it OK for a Baha'i to deny the literal resurrection of Jesus based on "implausibility" and yet uphold an equally implausible virgin birth based on a tenuous and confused interpretation of Catholic theology, but it is not OK for others with a different worldview to challenge what seems to them to be a flawed and inconsistent argument? It is a debate forum after all - isn't it?

There is your problem in a nutshell.

Shoghi Effendi was the leader of the Baha'i Faith and the authorised interpreter of Baha'i writings. When Shoghi Effendi uses the words 'immaculate conception', he is not expounding on the catechisms of the Catholic Church but succintly explaining the Baha'i perspective, to a Baha'i who has written to him. Shoghi Effendi is simply using the words immaculate and conception the way they are supposed to be used in accordance with the rules of the English language to express the Baha'i position. He was a scholar of English at Oxford University, England. He is not expounding on the Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception which is an entirely different proposition. Why would he?

What we have are letters written by Shogi Effendi, or on his behalf. We don't have the letters he is commenting on so we don't get the full context. No doubt there will be Baha'is from Christian or Catholic background who have mentioned Catholic doctrines and if that's the case, his references to these are either deliberately non-specific or he mentions the virgin birth.

So what you are doing is applying the classic strawman argument, incorrectly claiming Shoghi Effendi is elaborating specifically on the Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception, whereas he is doing no such thing.

Sure we can move on...but that doesn't change the fact that Shoghi Effendi seems - to any fair-minded examination - to have misinterpreted Roman Catholic doctrine and commented favourably on part of it that he clearly did not believe in. Either he misunderstood it or he was trying to paper over the cracks of this very obvious discrepancy between Church doctrine and Baha'i dogma.

You are not moving on. You are rehashing the same point.

And like I said earlier - if someone (such as Shoghi Effendi) is attempting to overturn a couple of millennia of Christian tradition by invoking 'science' and 'plausibility', then they jolly well have to stand up to the same examination themselves...this line of inquiry speaks directly to the competence of your witnesses - if they cock up (oops!) on the virgin birth etc., why should we believe them on the resurrection?

Repetitive misunderstanding once again. Once you have moved beyond that we can discuss further the main issue at stake which is why the Baha'is reject a literal resurrection, but believe in the virgin birth.

 

[Dawnofhope]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin." "

Please see my comments to Siti above. Shoghi Effendi is elaborating on the Baha'i perspective in regards to the virgin birth and Mary. He isn't elaborating on Catholic catechisms. The words 'immaculate conception' are simply the most succint way to express the point.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

I know!
...and again...... and again........
I'm not repeating common sense claims with good historical probaabilities again and again.

Excellent! The ancient Catholic tradition, which perfectly deflects any investigators away from Nazareth/Sepphoris where Mary could well have been a real Temple Virgin in a Pagan Temple (Sepphoris would have been hellenised)

The whole story of the nativity is a very poor maniuplation in attempts to reverse the whole story into ancient prophecies.

No.............. Yeshua didn't stand against Romans, there WERE NO ROMANS CONTROLLING GALILEE, so that's total faklse history. Both he and the Baptist stood against a corrupt, greedy, hellenised, hypocritical Priesthood! The Baptist and Yeshua contented against the priesthood!

I know you did. At least we can agree on that.

Of course I am! Even you write that these stories are made up, stretched from a few basic facts to fit with p[rophecies............ almost embarrassing in the light of recent historical researches.

Yes........ he made it up! We are seeking to discover the historical balances of probabilities and possibilities from the mess of nativity fibs together with the claims of outsiders like Celcius, whose suggestions fit rather better with what history that we have.

Constant repetition cannot make your claims any more strong. The whole history of Sepphoris was avoided by the gospels, and city where the handworkers of hilltop communities like Cana and Nazareth would have gained livings.......... there wasn't anything else there that could be described as a living.

WE know this, and agree this, that Luke and Matthew fabricated stories, but don't think that Celcus did.

The story and the time frames are fine. And I expect that Joseph took her back for love (certainly did not have her killed) and had many children by her.

No......... Celcus introduced much new info for us, which is more trustworthy than nativity fabrications.

Just because you admit that the gospels fabricated stories doesn't prove that Celcus did, it is more likely that his story shows the facts that were cherry picked BEFORE fabrication.

And please don't suggest that Jesus had a mission against Romans........... there weren't any in Galilee!

Please state exactly what you think Celsus said and provide the original source for it. Since the original treatise is lost, all the knowledge we have of The True Word is found in Origen’s reply Contra Celsum. In particular, please give the Book and Chapter numbers and the exact text where Celsus claims Mary was a pagan temple virgin. Happy hunting.

Where are you getting this stuff about opposing the Romans? I never said anything even vaguely resembling that idea. The mission of Jesus as far as can be determined by reading between the lines of the Gospels was to oppose the obsession of the Shammai Pharisees with the letter of the Oral Law while ignoring the spirit of the written Law. In the era in which Jesus lived his adult life, things were relatively calm between the Jews and the Romans.

And I see you once again ignored the problems with the timeframes. And you continue to ignore the basic question of how Celsus could possibly know fine details of what happened about 180 years before in another place when no one else seems to know about them in any prior source.

 

[Neb]

Please let me know if there is anything specific you would like me to comment on.

How about how life started on earth? Then you would answer me "science has completed discredited the literal interpretation" of creation and flood. We could do this for months and never get to any specific details on how your science and religion “completed discredited the literal interpretation” of creation and flood.

Is there a presence of life by means of creation based on Genesis 2:7, or science based on your science and religion?

Or is there the absence of life by means of science based on your science and religion, or creation based on Genesis 2:7?

The presence of life, based on your science and religion, will not only prove your claim to be TRUE but it will also prove that the presence of life, based on Genesis 2:7, my claim, is FALSE. But if there is the absence of life, based on your science and religion, will it prove the presence of life, based on Genesis 2:7? The answer is yes because by testing the presence of life you are also at the same time testing absence of life.

 

[Neb]

I have spent years discussing these verses with a Christian on another forum so I know what Christians believe about what is in John 14, 15, 16 and 17.

I do not believe that Baha’u’llah was the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the Bounty of God. The Spirit of truth is not the Holy Spirit. He is the man who brings the Holy Spirit to humanity, which is the same man as the Comforter, who brings the Holy Spirit to humanity. Jesus was the first Comforter, Baha’u’llah was another Comforter.

What Jesus said in John 14 flows from one verse to the next verse.

John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; -- Jesus says that the Father (God) will give us another Comforter. Jesus was the first Comforter and Baha’u’llah was another Comforter.

John 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. – Jesus says that the world cannot see or receive the Spirit of truth (Baha’u’llah) because we do not know him yet, since he has not come yet; but the disciples know the Spirit of truth because it is the same Holy Spirit that resides in them as a result of Jesus. Iows, the Holy Spirit Baha’u’llah will bring is the same Holy Spirit that Jesus brought, since it is the Bounty of God which never changes.

John 14:18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. – Jesus said He would come but if you tie that together to the two verses above, we can see Jesus did not mean He would come in the same body, but rather the same Spirit would come (another Comforter). Moreover, he could not have addressing only the disciples, because neither Jesus nor Baha’u’llah came during their lifetimes.

John 14:19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.– Finally, Jesus made it perfectly clear that the world would not see Him again after He left; but we will see Him because His spirit lives on forever. As a result of believing in Jesus we will gain eternal life.

John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another/ALLOS Comforter, that he may be with you for ever,
John 14:17 even the Spirit [HOLY SPIRIT] of truth: whom the world cannot receive; for it beholdeth him not, neither knoweth him: ye know him; for he abideth with you, and shall be in you.

The word “ANOTHER” in Greek is “ALLOS” or the same and not the other word “ANOTHER/DIFFERENT” or “HETEROS” in Greek.

Example: Give me “ANOTHER/THE SAME/ALLOS” apple then you will get an apple. If you say give me “ANOTHER/DIFFERENT/HETEROS” then you will get a different one perhaps an orange or another/heteros/different fruits but not the same as an apple. Do you understand this?

Verse 16 says: “And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you “ANOTHER/THE SAME/ALLOS” as the same as the Lord Jesus Christ, and that is, the “HOLY SPIRIT” in verse 17 “even the Spirit [HOLY SPIRIT]” and not the other word “ANOTHER/DIFFERENT/HETEROS” spirit.

Now, if the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are ONE or THE SAME as “ANOTHER/THE SAME/ALLOS” and in John 10:30 the Lord Jesus said “I and the Father are ONE”

Then we have only one conclusion to this, and that is, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit is ONE. I don’t see Baha’u’llah’s name here or another name at all, do you? You could INSERT any name or ANOTHER/DIFFERENT/HETEROS name, in any verses in the Bible, like these verses, but the Greek meaning is so powerful that it will prove you wrong over and over again.

Again for the 3rd or 4th. Hybridized beliefs, i.e., mixing beliefs into one, create its own confusion because it contradicts each other and to avoid such confusion they patched things up with human rules and then they call this “the progressive revelation” from God and preach it to their followers like it really came from God.

 

[oldbadger]

Please state exactly what you think Celsus said and provide the original source for it. Since the original treatise is lost, all the knowledge we have of The True Word is found in Origen’s reply Contra Celsum. In particular, please give the Book and Chapter numbers and the exact text where Celsus claims Mary was a pagan temple virgin. Happy hunting.

I'm not doing homework this week!
I have a copy of the docs that I believe that you accessed to quote from, but not on this computer. (This laptop is empty of docs as an IT security measure)

Where are you getting this stuff about opposing the Romans? I never said anything even vaguely resembling that idea. The mission of Jesus as far as can be determined by reading between the lines of the Gospels was to oppose the obsession of the Shammai Pharisees with the letter of the Oral Law while ignoring the spirit of the written Law. In the era in which Jesus lived his adult life, things were relatively calm between the Jews and the Romans.

Great...... about the Romans. We agree on that then.
But Jesus and the Baptist had huge issues with the Priesthood in general. Not all Pharisees were members of the Priesthood, by the way. If you read what the Baptist said about the priesthood, all of the priesthood, that might help.

And I see you once again ignored the problems with the timeframes. And you continue to ignore the basic question of how Celsus could possibly know fine details of what happened about 180 years before in another place when no one else seems to know about them in any prior source.

As you know, nearly all of Celcus's writings are gone and lost forever. Just imagine about how many other writings are gone which he had access to.
I see no problems with timeframes at all......... like me, some Christians as well would place Yeshua's birth at circa 3BC, about a year after the Sepphoris action.

And that a Roman soldier could have rescued a young Temple virgin from the slavery lines and had some affair (or rape) with her is much more possible than any nativity account.

And that a handworker called Joseph picked up the pieces of her life can fit as well. This possibility could help to place Mary's lineage into the Levite classes, and fit with her cousins' lineage, who was married to a levite.

Maybe Joseph got her away to the South after tyhe Sepphoris incident which could be the basis of the Journey to Bethlehem/Egypt?

But a command to Galilean folks to trek to another province for tax purposes (ten years later) is a total joke. Roman taxation was in force in Idumea, Judea and Samaria in 6AD and Romans were much more efficient than to require such nonsense.

If you can offer a better proposal please do.............?

 

[Neb]

I know that verse well. It was written for the dispensation of Jesus but it was never meant to apply for all time and eternity.

If it did, it would make all of the other world religions false

That is the truth, there is only one TRUTH, and that is, Christianity. People think there were many roads to the truth so they mix one belief with another and a good example is your belief by saying “Jesus was the first Comforter, Baha’u’llah was another Comforter” this in reference to John 14:16 but the Greek word “ANOTHER/ALLOS” proved you wrong.

and it would mean that God never communicated to humanity before Jesus came to earth.

It did in the Old Testament.

It would also mean that Moses never heard from God

God gave Moses the 10 Commandments in the OT.

and Muhammad never heard from God.

No proof of this as far as Christianity is concerned.

This is logically untenable, which is why I am a Baha’i and not a Christian, well, one reason.
You are free to believe that because you have free will. You already know where the Baha’is stand on this issue and we already know where Christians stand.
Baha’is are not going to become Christians but we will always believe in Jesus and what He sacrificed for humanity.

The TRUTH is not self-contradictory but I see contradictions in all your statements, therefore, logic is saying there is no truth about your belief. You think you could harmonized Baha’u’llah’s name in some of the verses in the bible like, ”Baha’u’llah was another Comforter”, but if one is seeking the Truth it will find contradictions between your statements.

TRUTH IS NOT SELF-CONTRADICTORY. IOW, the TRUTH MUST BE ABSOLUTE.

 

[Neb]

Everyone's always the Last Prophet until the next one shows up.

The Tyranny of Choice. Logic suggests that having options allows people to select precisely what makes them happiest. But, as studies show, abundant choice often makes for misery.

 

[siti]

why the Baha'is reject a literal resurrection, but believe in the virgin birth.

OK - given that you have no convincing defence of your position re. Shoghi's mistaken understanding of the immaculate conception, let's move on.

Why is the miraculous permissible in one case (virgin birth) but not the other (resurrection)? Apart from the fact that Baha'is selectively accept/reject both scientific facts and religious traditions according the whim of their confused founders, what logical reason could possibly differentiate between these two impossible scenarios?

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

I'm not doing homework this week!
I have a copy of the docs that I believe that you accessed to quote from, but not on this computer. (This laptop is empty of docs as an IT security measure)

I gave a link to the text of Contra Celsum in the previous post. Here it is again.

As you know, nearly all of Celcus's writings are gone and lost forever. Just imagine about how many other writings are gone which he had access to.
I see no problems with timeframes at all......... like me, some Christians as well would place Yeshua's birth at circa 3BC, about a year after the Sepphoris action.

And that a Roman soldier could have rescued a young Temple virgin from the slavery lines and had some affair (or rape) with her is much more possible than any nativity account.

And that a handworker called Joseph picked up the pieces of her life can fit as well. This possibility could help to place Mary's lineage into the Levite classes, and fit with her cousins' lineage, who was married to a levite.

Maybe Joseph got her away to the South after the Sepphoris incident which could be the basis of the Journey to Bethlehem/Egypt?

But a command to Galilean folks to trek to another province for tax purposes (ten years later) is a total joke. Roman taxation was in force in Idumea, Judea and Samaria in 6AD and Romans were much more efficient than to require such nonsense.

If you can offer a better proposal please do.............?

Celsus refers to Mary going alone to Egypt, having been thrown out by her husband for being unexpectedly pregnant. (Contra Celsum, Book 1 Chapter 28) So it cannot be Joseph taking Mary away from the conflict in Sepphoris, since she went to Egypt alone, according to Celsus. This also rules out your other speculations concerning Joseph. Only Matthew mentions Egypt, Luke specifically ruling out that journey. So Celsus is using Matthew as a source. This can also be seen in Celsus referring to the reaction of the husband, discussed only in Matthew. But Matthew has Jesus born while Herod is still alive, which is before the Sepphoris incident. Add to this that Matthew’s Jesus is born well before Sepphoris. Nor does he have any connection with Nazareth (and therefore Sepphoris) until well after being born. No connection to Roman soldiers in Sepphoris is possible. This is the case regardless of what year you want to associate with the birth of Jesus. It has to be a year when Herod was not yet dead and therefore before Sepphoris.

Luke having Joseph and Mary go to Bethlehem, rather than already living there as per Matthew, is another example of Luke telling a different story than Matthew. Matthew has the birth of Jesus all mixed up with a unique star and Magi from afar and references to Moses. Luke has Jesus in a manger and visited by shepherds, all in a different timeframe. Matthew wrote to those with a Jewish background and his Jesus is very much the Jewish Messiah. Luke wrote to Gentile converts and talked about the humble universal Jesus. Luke took every opportunity to underline that he was telling a different story with a different point. In this case having Jesus born long after Herod was dead throws away much of Matthew’s nativity account.

 

[Dawnofhope]

OK - given that you have no convincing defence of your position re. Shoghi's mistaken understanding of the immaculate conception, let's move on.

Hard to let it go and say I'm wrong eh?

"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)

Shoghi Effendi was simply outlining Baha'i principles that we share with Christianity, not specifically the Catholic Church. Its the words 'immaculate conception' that have you bamboozled. You make an immediate association with the Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception. If that were true then Shoghi Effendi would be outlining Catholic doctrines, not principles of Christianity.

In that case we would have the Catholic doctrine of:

- The divine origin of Christ
- The Sonship of Christ
- The Divinity of Christ
- The doctrine of the immaculacy of the virgin Mary
- The doctrine of the primacy of Peter, the prince of the apostles

I'm sure all these Christian principles are incorporated amonsgt others within the catechisms of the Catholic Church but there are clearly Catholic teachings in these doctrines that are contrary to Baha'is beliefs.

Catechism of the Catholic Church - "Conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary"

The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church

Catechism of the Catholic Church - I believe in Jesus Christ, the only Son of God

Why is the miraculous permissible in one case (virgin birth) but not the other (resurrection)? Apart from the fact that Baha'is selectively accept/reject both scientific facts and religious traditions according the whim of their confused founders, what logical reason could possibly differentiate between these two impossible scenarios?

Baha'is believe in an All-Powerful God who can create any miracle. In that context the 'immaculate conception' cannot be disproved other than to deny the God of Abraham which you clearly do.

The resurrection, on the other hand, is associated with the ascension, which is dependant on an obsolete cosmology. The creation myth and Noah's Ark story have the same problems.

Simple as that.

 

[siti]

Hard to let it go and say I'm wrong eh?

Not really. You're wrong...there I've said it and now I'm letting go!

 

[Dawnofhope]

How about how life started on earth?

God is the Creator of all.

O SON OF MAN! I loved thy creation, hence I created thee. Wherefore, do thou love Me, that I may name thy name and fill thy soul with the spirit of life.

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, Page 4

As to the beginning of Creation:

As regards thine assertions about the beginning of creation, this is a matter on which conceptions vary by reason of the divergences in men's thoughts and opinions. Wert thou to assert that it hath ever existed and shall continue to exist, it would be true; or wert thou to affirm the same concept as is mentioned in the sacred Scriptures, no doubt would there be about it, for it hath been revealed by God, the Lord of the worlds. Indeed He was a hidden treasure. This is a station that can never be described nor even alluded to. And in the station of "I did wish to make Myself known," God was, and His creation had ever existed beneath His shelter from the beginning that hath no beginning, apart from its being preceded by a Firstness which cannot be regarded as firstness and originated by a Cause inscrutable even unto all men of learning. (Tablets of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 140).

As to the purpose of Creation:
Humankind is the chief member of the body of the world, for he is in the position of the mind in the human organism (Some Answered Questions, p. 178). As human maturity comes with the full operation of the mental capacities, the maturity of the world will come when humankind reaches spiritual maturity. In all the universal cycles, explains ‘Abdu'l-Bahá, "the divine and creative purpose...was the evolution of spiritual man....The tree of life has ever borne the same heavenly fruit" (Promulgation, p. 220). The unfolding of creation, which begins through God's overflowing love, desires continually, out of reciprocal love, to complete its cycle and return to its origin. This love is the force that causes the elements to transition through ever higher forms of life until the human reality appears, a being capable of consciously recognizing and worshiping its Creator, and finding God reflected, so to speak, in itself and all things. Bahá'u'lláh states that man's "capacity to know Him and to love Him...must needs be regarded as the generating impulse and the primary purpose underlying the whole of creation" (Gleanings, p. 65). The rest of creation, then, serves as the matrix for this process, and is a source for educating and training the human spirit (Hidden Words, pp. 32-33). "Man is the collective reality [of the universe]...the center where the glory of all the perfections of God shine forth--that is to say, for each name, each attribute, each perfection which we affirm of God there exists a sign in man....If man did not exist, the universe would be without result, for the object of existence is the appearance of the perfections of God. Therefore, it cannot be said there was a time when man was not. All that we can say is that this terrestrial globe at one time did not exist, and at its beginning man did not appear upon it. But from the beginning which has no beginning, to the end which has no end, a perfect manifestation [i.e., the perfect man] always exists" (Some Answered Questions, p. 196). Stated in another way, "If there were no man...the light of the mind would not be resplendent in this world. This world would be like a body without a soul. This world is also in the condition of a fruit tree, and man is like the fruit; without fruit the tree would be useless" (Some Answered Questions, p. 201).

Creation

As you will know the most popular scientific theory of the origins of the world is currently the big bang theory.

Big Bang - Wikipedia

Then you would answer me "science has completed discredited the literal interpretation" of creation and flood.

What is helpful about the creation myth in Genesis is that it teaches as that the God of Abraham created the heavens and the earth, that God has a plan and is systematic in its implementation, and God is concerned for His creation. Central to God's purpose in creation is man, whom He has created in His image.

If the bible is taken literally we have an earth that is less than 10,000 years old based on the ancestory recorded. There is no evidence to supprt a young earth and most scientists have reject the theories of the young earth Christians.

Young Earth creationism directly contradicts the scientific consensus of the scientific community. A 2006 joint statement of InterAcademy Panel on International Issues (IAP) by 68 national and international science academies enumerated the scientific facts that young Earth creationism contradicts, in particular that the universe, the Earth, and life are billions of years old, that each has undergone continual change over those billions of years, and that life on Earth has evolved from a common primordial origin into the diverse forms observed in the fossil record and present today Evolutionary theory remains the only explanation that fully accounts for all the observations, measurements, data, and evidence discovered in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.

As such, young Earth creationism is dismissed by the academic and the scientific communities. One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters, states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution". A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists. For their part, Young Earth Creationists say that the lack of support for their beliefs by the scientific community is due to discrimination and censorship by professional science journals and professional science organizations. This viewpoint was explicitly rejected in the rulings from the 1981 United States District Court case McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education as no witness was able to produce any articles that had been refused publication and the judge could not conceive how "a loose knit group of independent thinkers in all the varied fields of science could, or would, so effectively censor new scientific thought". A 1985 study also found that only 18 out of 135,000 submissions to scientific journals advocated creationism.

Young Earth creationism - Wikipedia

We could do this for months and never get to any specific details on how your science and religion “completed discredited the literal interpretation” of creation and flood.

You want specific details:

Evidence against a recent creation - RationalWiki

s there a presence of life by means of creation based on Genesis 2:7, or science based on your science and religion?

Or is there the absence of life by means of science based on your science and religion, or creation based on Genesis 2:7?

Science can not prove or disprove Genesis 2:7.

Theologically I believe God created all, and science helps me understand a little more about 'how'. That 'how' is not a literally as recorded in Genesis and many Christians scknowledge it doesn't need to be.

The presence of life, based on your science and religion, will not only prove your claim to be TRUE but it will also prove that the presence of life, based on Genesis 2:7, my claim, is FALSE. But if there is the absence of life, based on your science and religion, will it prove the presence of life, based on Genesis 2:7? The answer is yes because by testing the presence of life you are also at the same time testing absence of life.

I don't quite follow you here. but I hope I've answered your other questions. Remember I am a theist who believes in the God of Abraham and science, not an atheist who rejects religions and accepts only science.

 

[Trailblazer]

John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another/ALLOS Comforter, that he may be with you for ever,
John 14:17 even the Spirit [HOLY SPIRIT] of truth: whom the world cannot receive; for it beholdeth him not, neither knoweth him: ye know him; for he abideth with you, and shall be in you.

The word “ANOTHER” in Greek is “ALLOS” or the same and not the other word “ANOTHER/DIFFERENT” or “HETEROS” in Greek.

Example: Give me “ANOTHER/THE SAME/ALLOS” apple then you will get an apple. If you say give me “ANOTHER/DIFFERENT/HETEROS” then you will get a different one perhaps an orange or another/heteros/different fruits but not the same as an apple. Do you understand this?

Verse 16 says: “And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you “ANOTHER/THE SAME/ALLOS” as the same as the Lord Jesus Christ, and that is, the “HOLY SPIRIT” in verse 17 “even the Spirit [HOLY SPIRIT]” and not the other word “ANOTHER/DIFFERENT/HETEROS” spirit.

And that is exactly what we were given in Baha’u’llah, a Holy Spirit that is the same as the Holy Spirit as we were given when Jesus came... It is another Comforter with the same Holy Spirit that Jesus brought, since there is only one Holy Spirit (Bounty of God) that is sent at various intervals throughout history. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the same body of Jesus will return and nowhere in the NT did Jesus promise to return in the same body. This is all about a body, do you realize that? Why is it so important that Jesus return in the same body?

Now, if the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are ONE or THE SAME as “ANOTHER/THE SAME/ALLOS” and in John 10:30 the Lord Jesus said “I and the Father are ONE”

Then we have only one conclusion to this, and that is, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit is ONE. “I and the Father are ONE” means that Jesus shares the same Spirit with God so they are one in Spirit. God can manifest His Attributes in a man but God cannot become a man. God did not become a man.

No, we do not have only one conclusion to this, the Trinitarian Christian conclusion, that Jesus is God. “I and the Father are ONE” does not mean Jesus is God. It means Jesus shared the same Holy Spirit with God. Jesus clearly differentiated Himself from God. Here are only a few verses of many.

John 14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

John 16:23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.

Mark 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

1 John 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.

John 7:28 Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am: and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. 29 But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me.

Then we have this:

1Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

How can Jesus be God and a mediator between God and men? Christians have no explanation for these sorts of contradictions.

I don’t see Baha’u’llah’s name here or another name at all, do you?

No, but I see Baha’u’llah’s name all throughout the Bible, whenever “Glory of God” or “Glory of the Lord” are in a verse.

You could INSERT any name or ANOTHER/DIFFERENT/HETEROS name, in any verses in the Bible, like these verses, but the Greek meaning is so powerful that it will prove you wrong over and over again.

You cannot prove that the Baha’i Faith is wrong with your personal interpretation of the Bible. Do you know how many different interpretations of the Bible there are, even among Christians, and everyone believes their personal interpretation is the correct one. What makes your interpretation right and the others wrong?

You are not going to prove that progressive revelation is wrong just so you can hang onto the belief that Jesus is the Only Way. You would have to prove all the other religions are wrong in order to do that, and that includes the Jewish religion, that does not even accept Jesus as a Prophet. Jews have the Torah, which is also the Word of God and much more authentic than the New Testament, that’s for certain. The reason Jews do not believe that Jesus is a Prophet is because the Christians have insisted Jesus is the Messiah of the Old Testament/Tanakh, and Jesus did not fulfill the prophecies for the Messiah of the latter days. The same man Jesus cannot do that now because (a) His body is dead and (b) Baha’u’llah already fulfilled those prophecies.

Again for the 3rd or 4th. Hybridized beliefs, i.e., mixing beliefs into one, create its own confusion because it contradicts each other and to avoid such confusion they patched things up with human rules and then they call this “the progressive revelation” from God and preach it to their followers like it really came from God.

But of course the Bab and Baha’u’llah were Manifestations of God, not to mention Krishna, Abraham, Moses, Zoroaster, Buddha, and Muhammad and other Prophets. The Christians do not have exclusive ownership of an Almighty God and when He reveals Himself to mankind. They just believe they do.

Nobody patched anything up to fit their beliefs except Christians. Christians have misinterpreted the Bible just so they could make Jesus into the Only Way and continue to believe that Jesus was going to return in the same body. Jesus said He was the Only Way and He was the only Way during His dispensation, but He never said He was the Only Way for all time.

No matter how many times you interpret the Bible to make it fit your beliefs, you cannot change the fact that Baha’u’llah was the Return of the Christ Spirit and the Messiah, the Promise of All Ages.

“Dost thou imagine, O Minister of the Sháh in the City (Constantinople), that I hold within My grasp the ultimate destiny of the Cause of God? Thinkest thou that My imprisonment, or the shame I have been made to suffer, or even My death and utter annihilation, can deflect its course? Wretched is what thou hast imagined in thine heart! Thou art indeed of them that walk after the vain imaginings which their hearts devise. No God is there but Him. Powerful is He to manifest His Cause, and to exalt His testimony, and to establish whatsoever is His Will, and to elevate it to so eminent a position that neither thine own hands, nor the hands of them that have turned away from Him, can ever touch or harm it.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 219-220

 

[Trailblazer]

That is the truth, there is only one TRUTH, and that is, Christianity. People think there were many roads to the truth so they mix one belief with another and a good example is your belief by saying “Jesus was the first Comforter, Baha’u’llah was another Comforter” this in reference to John 14:16 but the Greek word “ANOTHER/ALLOS” proved you wrong.

You did not prove a thing with your personal interpretation of a verse. Christianity is not the truth, it is a false religion. The Bible is the Truth, but the way the Christians totally misconstrued it makes Christianity false.

No proof of this as far as Christianity is concerned.

No proof of Muhammad means exactly what? It means that Christians cannot understand the Bible prophecies that are about Muhammad. Why do Muslims believe in Jesus? It means Christianity denied God when He revealed Himself in the Person of Muhammad, and then Christianity denied the Bab and Baha’u’llah. 22% of people in the world who believe in the Qur’an are not all wrong, following a false Prophet.

The TRUTH is not self-contradictory but I see contradictions in all your statements, therefore, logic is saying there is no truth about your belief. You think you could harmonized Baha’u’llah’s name in some of the verses in the bible like, ”Baha’u’llah was another Comforter”, but if one is seeking the Truth it will find contradictions between your statements.

There are no contradictions in the Baha’i Faith. The contradictions are in Christianity. That is why there are hundreds of sects of Christianity. Sure, there are a lot of Trinitarians but that number is getting smaller and smaller as people wake up to what the Bible really says.

TRUTH IS NOT SELF-CONTRADICTORY. IOW, the TRUTH MUST BE ABSOLUTE.

I guess that leaves Christianity out then, since Christians continually contradict what Jesus said about not being God in the flesh. And this is only for starters.

 

[oldbadger]

Celsus refers to Mary going alone to Egypt, having been thrown out by her husband for being unexpectedly pregnant. (Contra Celsum, Book 1 Chapter 28) So it cannot be Joseph taking Mary away from the conflict in Sepphoris, since she went to Egypt alone, according to Celsus. This also rules out your other speculations concerning Joseph.

Whoa there!
Alone could very well have originally been intended as 'Without Pantera. You must take notice of the 'could be' 'maybe' terms because we a reviewing all on the basis of a ' balance of possibility/probability' here.
It's no good you using a writer as accurate if you don't really believe in anything written by same.

Only Matthew mentions Egypt, Luke specifically ruling out that journey.

No he didn't! You can't suggest that a writer 'specifically ruled out' a claim by never mentioning it! Luke simply fabricated siomething different, nothiong specific there about Egypt.

So Celsus is using Matthew as a source. This can also be seen in Celsus referring to the reaction of the husband, discussed only in Matthew.

No! Juust because one writer's claims overlap with another's that doesn't support a claim that one copied part of another's statements.

But Matthew has Jesus born while Herod is still alive, which is before the Sepphoris incident. Add to this that Matthew’s Jesus is born well before Sepphoris. Nor does he have any connection with Nazareth (and therefore Sepphoris) until well after being born. No connection to Roman soldiers in Sepphoris is possible. This is the case regardless of what year you want to associate with the birth of Jesus. It has to be a year when Herod was not yet dead and therefore before Sepphoris.

Let's cut to it. Are you saying that you believe/like the Matthew account? If so, which parts?
Let's not forget that he needed Herod the Great to be alive for the infanticide stories, and the magi travellers visits to same etc. This is mostly a fabrication in order to reverse itself into prophecies whichMatthew was desperate to show as fulfilled.

So..... just show the parts that you like as histiorical, eh?

Luke having Joseph and Mary go to Bethlehem, rather than already living there as per Matthew, is another example of Luke telling a different story than Matthew. Matthew has the birth of Jesus all mixed up with a unique star and Magi from afar and references to Moses. Luke has Jesus in a manger and visited by shepherds, all in a different timeframe. Matthew wrote to those with a Jewish background and his Jesus is very much the Jewish Messiah. Luke wrote to Gentile converts and talked about the humble universal Jesus. Luke took every opportunity to underline that he was telling a different story with a different point. In this case having Jesus born long after Herod was dead throws away much of Matthew’s nativity account.

Again, same as Matthew's account, please just show which, if any, parts of Luke that you personally support. And don't tell me that Luke was underlining a refutation of Matthew, he was just telling his own story, mostly fabricated and mangled to fit.

Your criticisms won't be needed if you just write what you do believe, if any of of it. Just start by offering your idea of a birth year for Jesus? I reckon it is circa 3BC.

I've given a rough outline of what I reckon could have happened, based upon balances of possibility and probability, given what history we have and what accounts we have, taking agendas into account.

 

[Neb]

No, but I see Baha’u’llah’s name all throughout the Bible, whenever “Glory of God” or “Glory of the Lord” are in a verse.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

If the “Glory of God” is all over the Bible first, then later on Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí Núrí appeared and claimed he is the Baha’u’llah, means the “Glory of God”, that is in the Bible, then anyone could just come out of nowhere pick any words in the Bible and declare the same thing.

There is a religious cult in the Philippines named “Iglesia ni Kristo” or “church of Christ” in English. What they did was changed or altered or forged, like all other cults, Acts 20:28 “the church of God” to “the church of Christ” and teach people that their church, the church of Christ/Iglesia ni Cristo, is the one Paul was saying in Acts 20:28. And in your case, if one sees the words “Glory of God” in the bible, you say: “I see Baha’u’llah’s name all throughout the Bible, whenever “Glory of God” or “Glory of the Lord” are in a verse.”

Acts 20:28 (Lamsa) – “Take heed therefore to yourselves and to all the flock, over which the Holy Spirit has appointed you overseers, to feed the church of Christ [Iglesia ni Kristo] which he has purchased with his blood.”

But if you read this in Greek, the “church of Christ” is actually saying the “Church of God” or “EKKLESIA TOU THEOU”. Either way for me is acceptable because I believe Christ is God, but this cult, Iglesia ni Kristo, just like you, do not believe Christ is God.