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

[Trailblazer]

God is absolute therefore my faith must be absolute too not adhering to what the consensus is demanding or relativism.

God is absolute but Truth from God that is revealed to humanity is only Absolute Truth for the dispensation in which it was revealed. That is because humans can only understand a given amount of God’s Truth at a time, not all of it. This is more logic 101 stuff.

As a Manifestation of God, Baha’u’llah had ALL the knowledge of God as did Jesus, but He could not disclose all of it because humanity was not “ready” to hear it.

“Oh, would that the world could believe Me! Were all the things that lie enshrined within the heart of Bahá, and which the Lord, His God, the Lord of all names, hath taught Him, to be unveiled to mankind, every man on earth would be dumbfounded.

How great the multitude of truths which the garment of words can never contain! How vast the number of such verities as no expression can adequately describe, whose significance can never be unfolded, and to which not even the remotest allusions can be made! How manifold are the truths which must remain unuttered until the appointed time is come! Even as it hath been said: “Not everything that a man knoweth can be disclosed, nor can everything that he can disclose be regarded as timely, nor can every timely utterance be considered as suited to the capacity of those who hear it.”

Of these truths some can be disclosed only to the extent of the capacity of the repositories of the light of Our knowledge, and the recipients of Our hidden grace. We beseech God to strengthen thee with His power, and enable thee to recognize Him Who is the Source of all knowledge, that thou mayest detach thyself from all human learning, for, “what would it profit any man to strive after learning when he hath already found and recognized Him Who is the Object of all knowledge?” Cleave to the Root of Knowledge, and to Him Who is the Fountain thereof, that thou mayest find thyself independent of all who claim to be well versed in human learning, and whose claim no clear proof, nor the testimony of any enlightening book, can support.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 176-177

That’s probably the reason why your statements, most of the time, are self-contradictory because there is no truth in it because your belief’s main objective is to bring all religion into one.

It was also the goal of Jesus to bring all religion into one.

John 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

It has been God’s Purpose from the very beginning of time that there be only one religion.

God's Purpose, The Promised Day is Come

Jesus said He must bring “them”all into one fold but Jesus knew that humanity was not yet ready for that, so He was referring to the future when He returns. When Jesus said “they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd” He was referring to His Voice when He returned in the Person of Baha’u’llah.

What Jesus said in John 10:16 is related to the “many things” Jesus had to say later (John 16:12-13).

John 16:12-13 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Baha’u’llah has now said that we are all one people, all of the same fold:

“The utterance of God is a lamp, whose light is these words: Ye are the fruits of one tree, and the leaves of one branch. Deal ye one with another with the utmost love and harmony, with friendliness and fellowship. He Who is the Day Star of Truth beareth Me witness! So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth. The one true God, He Whoknoweth all things, Himself testifieth to the truth of these words.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 288

 

[oldbadger]

Read Mark 14 again. The young man did not stay ‘calmly watching the scene’. He also ran away. Mark 14:52. It was Peter who followed at a distance all the way into the courtyard of the high priest observing what happened. Mark 14:54.

Of course the young man did not watch calmly! He, like everybody else, ran in wild panic! The whole incident was one of wild panic! Do you read my post closely? I don't think that you could. Amazing!
If anybody had been able to calmly watch then the incident of the youth pulling free from his clothing and running naked just couldn't have happened as described..

There was only one person (apart from the failed guards) who would remember that for ever, the person who would make mention of it, even out of important context. Mark.

If you think that Cephas casually watched and told Mark about it then you just cannot grasp what those moments were like, imo.

 

[oldbadger]

All you are doing is quoting Celsus and introducing material not even in Celsus.

Ha ha! I quoted from Origen against Celcus!
I only quioted from the document that you yourself used.

I'll tell you what to do for very fast searches. You copy-paste all of the 8 books into one continious compilation. Then you can fast-search through the lot for any mention of, say, Panthera, or Nazareth or whatever, and then, if you only have a short time before dinner, bed, bath or whatever you can fast search and quote in order to give a quick reply, just as I did.

But what you cannot then do is scroll back from each entry to discover the exact book (for reference) because you don't have enough time.

See? I was quoting from Origen.
Over to you again, and good luck with your answers.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Philosophical Faith is different from Christian Faith. I don’t compromise my faith for the sake of relativism. God is absolute therefore my faith must be absolute too not adhering to what the consensus is demanding or relativism. That’s probably the reason why your statements, most of the time, are self-contradictory because there is no truth in it because your belief’s main objective is to bring all religion into one. I don’t need to adulterate the inerrant word of God just to satisfy my flesh or for my own satisfaction.

In my faith when two people argue about religion they are both wrong. Having a discussion about the reality and truth of the resurrection of Christ is an excellent topic for discussion if conducted in the right spirit.

All the best.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Mathew likewise can be seen as having been written for specific purposes around 80 years or so aafter the supposed birth date of Jesus. Similarly there is no trace of anything prior that supports Matthew’s claims. He made them up.

The scholars I've read believe Matthew and Luke to have derived their material from oral traditions and/or another written source such as Q or M.

Q source - Wikipedia

That makes the most sense to me, as these books were clearly endorsed by the Christians in the first century. They must have reflected their collective understanding of message of Jesus to a large extent, and that understanding for most would have been based on oral traditions. Paul of course had a large role to play.

The other consideration is that the gospels (legitamate arguments about allergory and historical truth aside) have been successful in transforming the lives of countless millions through-out the centuries. The narrative and Teachings have capturd the hearts and imaginations of so many. The most plausible explanation for many faith adherents is the hand of God, has ensured a meaningful account of the Life and Teachings of Jesus is available for those who would seek the truth.

What is the evidence that Matthew and/or Luke fabricated a story independant from others?

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

Ha ha! I quoted from Origen against Celcus!
I only quioted from the document that you yourself used.

I'll tell you what to do for very fast searches. You copy-paste all of the 8 books into one continious compilation. Then you can fast-search through the lot for any mention of, say, Panthera, or Nazareth or whatever, and then, if you only have a short time before dinner, bed, bath or whatever you can fast search and quote in order to give a quick reply, just as I did.

But what you cannot then do is scroll back from each entry to discover the exact book (for reference) because you don't have enough time.

See? I was quoting from Origen.
Over to you again, and good luck with your answers.

Origen is the only source for quotes from Celsus, as I have mentioned numerous times in this thread. To quote Celsus, you must be quoting from Origen. What was the point of your hair-splitting? Is it that you have no other response?

I have been through all eight books, not just searching but actually reading for comprehension.. There is no mention of Sepphoris or of Mary being a pagan temple virgin as you have mentioned from time to time. Again what exactly is your point?

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

The scholars I've read believe Matthew and Luke to have derived their material from oral traditions and/or another written source such as Q or M.

Q source - Wikipedia

That makes the most sense to me, as these books were clearly endorsed by the Christians in the first century. They must have reflected their collective understanding of message of Jesus to a large extent, and that understanding for most would have been based on oral traditions. Paul of course had a large role to play.

The other consideration is that the gospels (legitamate arguments about allergory and historical truth aside) have been successful in transforming the lives of countless millions through-out the centuries. The narrative and Teachings have capturd the hearts and imaginations of so many. The most plausible explanation for many faith adherents is the hand of God, has ensured a meaningful account of the Life and Teachings of Jesus is available for those who would seek the truth.

What is the evidence that Matthew and/or Luke fabricated a story independant from others?

There is considerable material in Luke that appears in Matthew but not Mark. More to the point there are numerous themes in Luke that are related to themes that otherwise appear only in Matthew but are changed into their opposites in Luke. These include the genealogy, the nativity story, the Sermon on the Mount, the reading in the synagogue in Nazareth, the focus on the journey to Jerusalem, the details of the post-resurrection narrative.

There are also subtle references to Matthew that Luke inserts that then go nowhere. An example of that is Luke beginning his narrative proper with a reference to Herod, a key figure in Matthew, and then never referring to Herod again. Luke even moves the timeframe to well beyond the lifetime of Herod despite this being out of sync with his later statements about the timing of events and the age of Jesus.

Material common to Matthew and Luke but not Mark might be explained by a common source (‘Q’) despite that source being not only missing but never mentioned by anyone in antiquity. But for those themes that are common to Matthew and Luke, but no one else, and are presented in totally opposite manner argues against such a common source. For example, which nativity story was in Q? Some scholars hypothesize lost ‘M’ and ‘L’ sources known only to Matthew and Luke.

The motivation for all of this lost document hypothesizing is the implicit assumption that Matthew and Luke relied entirely on pre-existing sources for their material. For many scholars the idea that Matthew and Luke made up much of their Gospels is unthinkable. To me, the frequent opposition of Luke to Matthew practically shouts that Luke knows all about Matthew and is intentionally changing the passages in question into their opposites. All of those passages involve Matthew stressing the exalted nature of Jesus and the specifically Jewish nature of his mission. Luke’s version stress the human nature of Jesus and the universal nature of his mission.

That is the way I see it. No mysterious ‘Q’, ‘M’ or ‘L’. Matthew used Mark and his own imagination. Luke used Mark, Matthew and his own imagination. All had their own purposes for writing.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

Of course the young man did not watch calmly! He, like everybody else, ran in wild panic! The whole incident was one of wild panic! Do you read my post closely? I don't think that you could. Amazing!
If anybody had been able to calmly watch then the incident of the youth pulling free from his clothing and running naked just couldn't have happened as described..

There was only one person (apart from the failed guards) who would remember that for ever, the person who would make mention of it, even out of important context. Mark.

If you think that Cephas casually watched and told Mark about it then you just cannot grasp what those moments were like, imo.

I see you did not read my post. It was Peter who followed and observed everything. Mark 14:54 Where is Mark supposed to be in all this? The naked man who ran away?

 

[columbus]

hat is not funny considering the shape the world is in today. Any God that would take any longer than it did to send a Messenger is not God at all...

Any God reduced to relying on fallible humans claiming to be Prophets is not much of a God either.

I understand that primitive ancient people couldn't imagine a more powerful deity. But now we can. I certainly don't have any trouble doing so.
Tom

 

[pearl]

The scholars I've read believe Matthew and Luke to have derived their material from oral traditions and/or another written source such as Q or M.

This hypothesis is accepted among a consensus of Catholic scholars as the most probable.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

This hypothesis is accepted among a consensus of Catholic scholars as the most probable.

Not surprising. The alternative is to entertain the possibility that Matthew and Luke invented the unique portions of their stories.

 

[oldbadger]

Origen is the only source for quotes from Celsus, as I have mentioned numerous times in this thread. To quote Celsus, you must be quoting from Origen. What was the point of your hair-splitting? Is it that you have no other response?

Yes!
And I was................... Go on......... pick a phrase or sentence that I quoted from Celcus by rigen, and I'll bother to check the book, Chapter and line for you.

I've just done one for you:-
Book 7 Chapter 18.......
Chapter 18
Celsus adds: Will they not besides make this reflection? If the
prophets of the God of the Jews foretold that he who should come into the world would be the Son of this same God, how could he command them through Moses to gather wealth, to extend their dominion, to fill the earth, to put their enemies of every age to the sword, and to destroy them utterly, which indeed he himself did — as Moses says — threatening them, moreover, that if they did not obey his commands, he would treat them as his avowed enemies; while, on the other hand, his Son, the man of Nazareth, promulgated laws quite opposed
There's one of two............
OK?

I have been through all eight books, not just searching but actually reading for comprehension.. There is no mention of Sepphoris or of Mary being a pagan temple virgin as you have mentioned from time to time. Again what exactly is your point?

Nor did I quote that, but there is indirect info that points to Sepphoris, in as much as a Roman soldier was involved with Mary, and Joseph and Mary indirectly involved through Jesus, a man of Nazareth.

And the Catholic tradition, together with Mary's Levite relative (and class), together with the majority of the Priresthood being hellenised and hypocritical, could guide the investigator to decide that Mary copuld well have been a Temple Virgin in Sepphoris, caught up in the revolt and Roman retaking, saved from slavery by Panthera, and left pregnant.

In fact, it fits rather well compared to the Nativities that you yourself deny.

Let's face it.......... it looks as if you deny it all.

 

[oldbadger]

I see you did not read my post. It was Peter who followed and observed everything. Mark 14:54 Where is Mark supposed to be in all this? The naked man who ran away?

I think you're mixed up. Cephas was no doubt legging it when young Mark pulled out of his clothes to avoid capture and ran naked for his life! Do you think he might have had that experience imprinted for ever? Who else in the uproar would have noticed? And why would Mark have bothered to make mention of that if it was not so memorable?

Cephas followed on behind once he was safe, and the panic over.

I think you've lost the plot.

 

[Dawnofhope]

This hypothesis is accepted among a consensus of Catholic scholars as the most probable.

Thats encouraging to hear Catholic scholars are having open discussions and prepared to look at the evidence. The Christian fundamentalists of course have an aversion to common sense and just want to tell everyone its their way or the highway (to hell). You probably have a few of them in Catholic church too.

What's the thinking amongst you guys about the authorship of the gospels?

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

I think you're mixed up. Cephas was no doubt legging it when young Mark pulled out of his clothes to avoid capture and ran naked for his life! Do you think he might have had that experience imprinted for ever? Who else in the uproar would have noticed? And why would Mark have bothered to make mention of that if it was not so memorable?

Cephas followed on behind once he was safe, and the panic over.

I think you've lost the plot.

The verses where Mark refers to the young man who escapes naked fit in well with Mark’s recurrent imagery of clothing as relating to one’s faith in Jesus or the reason for faith, the death and resurrection of Jesus or otherwise some relationship with Jesus. After all, it is difficult to take it as literal, being an unlikely and rather jarring image.

Mark 14:51-52
And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him:
And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.

As I previously showed, the word translated as linen cloth refers to a burial shroud or a nightshirt. The night was chilly enough for the guards to warm themselves around a fire. Why would anyone be outdoors wearing only a nightshirt? Or alternatively a burial shroud? Was this man at the Last Supper recently concluded dressed like that? Or was he simply lurking in the garden in his jammies?

Here are the places where Mark refers to clothing or the like.


@ Introducing John the Baptist
Mark 1:6 And John was clothed with camel's hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins; and he did eat locusts and wild honey;

Reminiscent of the prophets of old, especially Elijah in the desert. John is the Old Testament. Jesus is the New Testament.


@ Mark 2:21 No man also seweth a piece of new cloth on an old garment: else the new piece that filled it up taketh away from the old, and the rent is made worse.

A clear reference to the new way of Jesus as a break from the old way.


@ Mark 5:1-20 is the incident of the man possessed by the legion of demons, After Jesus casts out those demons, the man puts on clothes.

Verse 15 And they come to Jesus, and see him that was possessed with the devil, and had the legion, sitting, and clothed, and in his right mind: and they were afraid.


@ In Mark 5:25-34, the woman with a blood issue touches the garment of Jesus an is healed. She tries to hide in the crowd.

Verse 33 But the woman fearing and trembling, knowing what was done in her, came and fell down before him, and told him all the truth.

Why was she fearing and trembling? One school of thought was that she touched not merely his garment but the tzitzit Jesus would wear as an observant Jew. Her blood issue made her ritually unclean and not allowed to touch a tzitzit. But her faith in Jesus overrode that prohibition. She took a chance and was rewarded for it.

Verse 34 And he said unto her, Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace, and be whole of thy plague.


@ Mark 6:56 repeats this theme
Verse 56 … besought him that they might touch if it were but the border of his garment: and as many as touched him were made whole.


@ The Transfiguration in Mark 9:1-13
Verse 3 And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can white them.

Jesus tells them to say nothing of this “till the Son of man were risen from the dead” (verse 9), relating this to the Resurrection. In verse 13 Jesus says that Elias (Elijah), who is to be the precursor of the Messiah and who appeared with Jesus, has already come (John the Baptist). Tis ties the beginning of Mark’s story to the end. The NT supplants the OT.


@ In Mark 10:46-52 a blind man begs Jesus to be cured. Jesus calls the man to him.

50 And he, casting away his garment, rose, and came to Jesus.

52 Go thy way; thy faith hath made thee whole. And immediately he received his sight

In this case, casting off old garments is connected to expressing faith in Jesus.


@ Mark 11:1-10 recounts the triumphal entry into Jerusalem

7 And they brought the colt to Jesus, and cast their garments on him; and he sat upon him.
8 And many spread their garments in the way: and others cut down branches off the trees, and strawed them in the way.
9 And they that went before, and they that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna; Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord:
10 Blessed be the kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest.

Taking off old garments is connected to an expression of faith in Jesus as Messiah. Mark is using verse 7 as a messianic prophecy fulfillment. See Zechariah 9:9


@ In Mark 12:38 Jesus says to “Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing”
The scribes were among those who opposed Jesus and represent the old order. They will keep their old garments that distinguish them as important.


@ Mark 15:24 And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take.

@ Mark 15:46 And he bought fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre.

@ Mark 16
5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.
6 And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.

The clothing of Jesus is taken, as is the clothing of the young man in the garden. Jesus is buried in a burial shroud, the same word used in the garden incident for what the young man was wearing. A young man in a white garment announces the Resurrection.

It is interesting to note that the word Mark uses the same Greek word to describe the young man in Mark 14 and the young man in Mark 16. neaniskos Intentional or coincidence?


In the light of all of the above, and the improbability of a literal interpretation of the young man who loses his shirt, the Mark 14:51-52 incident makes more sense as part of Mark’s symbolism than as something that really happened.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

Yes!
And I was................... Go on......... pick a phrase or sentence that I quoted from Celcus by rigen, and I'll bother to check the book, Chapter and line for you.

I've just done one for you:-
Book 7 Chapter 18.......

Chapter 18
Celsus adds: Will they not besides make this reflection? If the prophets of the God of the Jews foretold that he who should come into the world would be the Son of this same God, how could he command them through Moses to gather wealth, to extend their dominion, to fill the earth, to put their enemies of every age to the sword, and to destroy them utterly, which indeed he himself did — as Moses says — threatening them, moreover, that if they did not obey his commands, he would treat them as his avowed enemies; while, on the other hand, his Son, the man of Nazareth, promulgated laws quite opposed

There's one of two............
OK?

Nor did I quote that, but there is indirect info that points to Sepphoris, in as much as a Roman soldier was involved with Mary, and Joseph and Mary indirectly involved through Jesus, a man of Nazareth.

And the Catholic tradition, together with Mary's Levite relative (and class), together with the majority of the Priresthood being hellenised and hypocritical, could guide the investigator to decide that Mary copuld well have been a Temple Virgin in Sepphoris, caught up in the revolt and Roman retaking, saved from slavery by Panthera, and left pregnant.

In fact, it fits rather well compared to the Nativities that you yourself deny.

Let's face it.......... it looks as if you deny it all.

The Book 7 Chapter 18 quote you provided can be seen as referring to Matthew yet again.

In the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7, Jesus champions living the spirit of the law and not merely obsession with the minutiae of rules as the Pharisees and teachers of the Law do. (This was the era when the school of Shammai dominated the Pharisee movement.) Nonetheless in Matthew 5:17-20 Jesus prefaces all that by saying that the Written Torah is to be followed in all respects.

Matthew 15:1-9 has Jesus opposing elements of the Oral Torah, rules not found in the Written Torah, which Jesus defends. The Pharisees believed in the Oral Torah, which Jesus describes as man-made rules.

In Matthew 19:23-30, Jesus combats the notion that the rich are rich because they have God’s favor. This of course would be anathema to the rich. I am not sure where in the Jewish scriptures it says that Jews are commanded by God through Moses “to gather wealth” as Celsus claims. But it was certainly what the rich believed.

Following the destruction of the Temple, and of Jerusalem, in 70 AD, rabbinic Judaism was founded by Pharisees to put the pieces of Judaism back together. Between that and Paul insisting that the Law was out of the picture, is there any wonder that Jewish voices were already saying bad things about Jesus?

I do not see why you quoted this. It just supports my contention that Celsus got his information about Jesus from Matthew and wrote in direct opposition to that.

Concerning your claim of “indirect info that points to Sepphoris, in as much as a Roman soldier was involved with Mary”. You seem to be offering the Infancy Gospel of James as evidence. This work was written between 140 and 170 AD just a short while before Celsus wrote. Its primary purpose was to somehow reconcile the passages in the Gospels where Mary has other children after Jesus with Paul’s ‘sex is evil’ obsession. In this apocryphal work, Joseph becomes an old man incapable of sex, the ‘brothers and sisters’ are from a previous marriage of Joseph, and Mary remains a virgin before during and after the birth of Jesus. Yes, during. It’s a miracle.

The storyline has Mary being a young girl living in the Temple. She is made to leave the Temple before she starts menstruating to avoid defiling the Temple. In other words, there were no ‘Temple virgins’ taking part in any ceremonies.

The idea that the Temple priesthood somehow became Hellenized to the point of changing the Temple from the heart and soul of Judaism into a pagan place of worship is simply unsupportable. We can see in the Gospels that it was decidedly Jewish ceremonies that were carried out there in accordance with Torah rules. Passover is the most familiar event but others such as Tabernacles are also mentioned. Even in the above referenced James, the Temple is seen as a very Jewish place. And women who are old enough to menstruate (and therefore have children) need not apply. The Panthera seducing a temple virgin story is simply not feasible.

In the end all you have is the word Nazareth on which you base a grand fantasy that even Celsus does not say anything about.

Celsus invented an anti-Christian story with references to Jesus being obvious reversals of passages in Matthew. Matthew himself invented a story designed to reinforce his notion of Jewish Christianity for his Jewish Christian audience.

 

[CG Didymus]

I've never believed in what the YECs have to say. Most people where I live don't. If YECs had something sensible to say, then more of us might be inclined to take them seriously. Statements like 'science has been hijacked by atheists' and 'make a pact with the devil' turn people off religion.

I respect knowledge, reason and science but am a faith adherent. I have been to university, studied science and have qualifications that relate to science. Is that what you mean by making a pact with the devil?

Here's their reasons for believing in a young earth from Answers in Genesis. You really think none of them are credible?
The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth
#1 Very Little Sediment on the Seafloor

For Additional Information:

• The Sands of Time: A Biblical Model of Deep Sea-Floor Sedimentation
• The Sands of Time: A Biblical Model of Deep Sea-Floor Sedimentation (pdf)
• “Sea Salt, Erosion, and Sediments” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past1 (pdf)

#2 Bent Rock Layers

For Additional Information:

• Rock Layers Folded, Not Fractured
• “Soft-Sediment Deformation Features” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past2 (pdf)
• “Megasequences of North America” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past3 (pdf)

#3 Soft Tissue in Fossils

For Additional Information:

• Two: Those Not-So-Dry Bones
• More Soft Tissue in “Old” Fossils

#4 Faint Sun Paradox

For Additional Information:

• The Young Faint Sun Paradox and the Age of the Solar System

#5 Rapidly Decaying Magnetic Field

For Additional Information:

• The Earth’s Magnetic Field Is Young
• The Earth’s Magnetic Field and the Age of the Earth
• “The Earth’s Magnetic Field” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past4 (pdf)

#6 Helium in Radioactive Rocks

For Additional Information:

• Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay
• Young Helium Diffusion Age of Zircons Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay
• The Age of the Earth’s Atmosphere Estimated by its Helium Content
• “Helium in Rocks and in the Atmosphere” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past5 (pdf)

#7 Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds

For Additional Information:

• Carbon-14 in Fossils and Diamonds
• Carbon-14 Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth
• Measurable 14C in Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming the Young Earth Creation-Flood Model
• “The Pitfalls in the Radioactive Dating Methods—The Radiocarbon Dating Method” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past6 (pdf)
• “Carbon-14 Dating” from Thousands . . . not Billions7 (pdf)

#8 Short-Lived Comets

For Additional Information:

• Comets and the Age of the Solar System
• Kuiper Belt Objects: Solution to Short-Period Comets?
• More Problems for the ‘Oort Comet Cloud’

#9 Very Little Salt in the Sea

For Additional Information:

• The Sea’s Missing Salt: A Dilemma for Evolutionists
  “Sea Salt, Erosion, and Sediments” from Earth’s Catastrophic Past8 (pdf)

#10 DNA in “Ancient” Bacteria

For Additional Information:

• Bacterial Life in Ancient Salt

 

[CG Didymus]

I am not a bit confused. It is the Christians that are confused, all of them, at least when it comes to the Return of Christ.

Just because I do not know something does not mean it is not the Truth. The Truth is the Truth and it would still be the Truth, even if I was illiterate. That is logic 101 stuff.

You cannot refute the Baha’i Faith so it is best you quit while you are ahead. I hardly have to know the Bible at all to refute a Christian. It is like water off a duck’s back.

Did the real God take part in the writing of the New Testament directly or by inspiring the writers?

 

[Trailblazer]

Did the real God take part in the writing of the New Testament directly or by inspiring the writers?

God did so by inspiring the writers with the Holy Spirit.

The Bab and Baha'u'llah were the only Manifestations of God that received direct revelations from God and wrote them in their own Pens.

 

[Trailblazer]

Any God reduced to relying on fallible humans claiming to be Prophets is not much of a God either.

I understand that primitive ancient people couldn't imagine a more powerful deity. But now we can. I certainly don't have any trouble doing so.
Tom

Baha’u’llah was not a fallible human claiming to be God. He was a Manifestation of God, God’s Representative, Exponent, and Messenger, a Servant of God.

He was not fallible. He was infallible.

So what do you believe, that the powerful deity is going to fix the mess in the political system, all the religions at odds, and reverse climate change?

Is there a reason God should do that instead of delegating it to humans?