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

[Neb]

I am the author of the OP, not another.

The purpose was to invite an honest and open discussion about a core belief of the Christian religion. There is no disrepsect to Christians and certainly no provocation.

"Honest and open"? I am as honest and open as my belief is dictating me about the literal resurrection of the Lord Jesus.

This what happened after the resurrection,

Mt 28:12 And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave much money unto the soldiers,
Mt 28:13 saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.
Mt 28:14 And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and rid you of care.
Mt 28:15 So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying was spread abroad among the Jews, and continueth until this day.

and this FAKE NEWS is still spreading like wildfire to this very day.

 

[Neb]

Clearly Baha'is, while believing in the same God, bible, and Jesus, have a differing POV, in that we see the resurrection narrative as allegorical and not an historic fact.

Christians and Baha'is have many beliefs in common but clearly have differences that many evangelical Christians would see as being irreconcilable to the truth as they see it. I accept that, and in starting this thread, its not my intent to cause conflict and contention. It is simply to examine the evidence for and against differing perspectives of the resurrection of Christ.

Christians have the bible to prove the literal resurrection of the Lord Jesus, the Son of God.

Paul said: “ Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?” 2 Corinthians 6:14

IOW, Christians and Baha’i do not have anything in common. We do not believe in the same God, the same Bible, and the same Christ. The Jesus that you know is not the Jesus of the Bible that was crucified, died, and was buried, and LITERALLY resurrected on the third day.

Your belief is in conflict with this belief. We have nothing common and you know that.

My first response on this thread hits it right into the core of your main belief and that is “The True Manifestation of God”.

“That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld, and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us—“ 1 John 1:1-2

Baha’u’llah is or was not the True Manifestation of God based on the Bible and you know that.

While you and another Baha'i (@Trailblazer ) are discussing prophecy amongst other issues, and are free to do so, it is completely off topic IMHO.

”off topic”? This is not a song tuning into a dance so everybody will sing kumbaya or be merry and happy. This is about one's main belief being challenged. You are challenging the literal resurrection of the Lord Jesus with references, with cut and paste you got from the internet, with unproven science, even from atheist’s websites. You will throw in everything just to disprove the resurrection of the Lord Jesus and invoke “Clearly Baha'is, while believing in the same God, bible, and Jesus”. We do not believe in the same God, in the same Bible, and in the same Jesus. We have nothing in common.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

Why do you think people accepted Christ, when He obviously did not Phisically fulfill a great deal of the old Testament Prophecy in the ways the Jews were waiting for?

Why is it then acceptable to take the same stance with the Resurrection and Return of Christ?

Why would we think we are more likely to be able to see Christ, when He returns, especially as many now have drawn a conclusion as to how has and now it will happen, just as the Jews had done?

Regards Tony

Most of the people at that time would have had only the vaguest notion of what the requirements for a Messiah were. Throwing out the oppressive Romans was probably a big one although there does not seem to be any significant evidence that a real historic Jesus preached anything of the sort.

The Gospel of Mark appears to be in possession of genuine early traditions about Jesus, that is, material that fits well with the time and place despite that era being gone when Mark wrote. If one looks beyond the Pauline influences and the miracle stories (about which Paul seems to know nothing), what Jesus said (according to Mark anyway) points to a message directed against the rule-obsessive, and rule-inventing, Shammai Pharisees and toward a revival of the spirit of the Law. To Jesus it was about what you did or did not do in the real world. Love God, love your neighbor and all that implied. This would have been a popular theme to the lower classes. Roman oppression was bad enough. Pharisees – fellow Jews no less! - brow-beating everyone on picayune ritual matters that were not even in the Torah was something the people could rally against without risking Roman wrath.

This message of Jesus was not something new. It can be found in the Prophets from Isaiah’s ‘mercy not sacrifice’ to the long rant by the Lord against perversion of the spirit of the Law in Malachi. Mark makes John the Baptist the messenger promised in Malachi. Did perhaps the people think of Jesus as that messenger? Recall that a real historic Jesus would have lived before Paul saw Jesus the ‘Son of God’ (a probably messianic reference) through the lens of Philo of Alexandria. It seems to me that the people could very well have seen Jesus in messianic terms without needing to apply the list of attributes developed by the ‘scribes and Pharisees’.

But that is my understanding of Mark, not necessarily what the several NT writers meant to be understood. They clearly had Christ be the Messiah but via a list of scriptural prophecies and references only partly overlapping what Jewish scholars thought of as messianic. The Christian Messiah, that is, the Pauline Messiah, became the Son of God described in the work of Philo. This was a pre-existing quasi-divine entity that was an extension of God into the world, responsible for the creation of the world and the actions of God in the world via the ‘Angel of the Lord’. Paul applied this idea to Jesus and later writers followed suit although not in such philosophical terms until John’s Logos, which in Philo is another name for the Son of God.

The three Synoptic Gospels make it clear that the return of the Son of Man will be widely known and unmistakable. (Mark 13:24-27, Matthew 24:27-31, Luke 21:24-27) If you wish to take the resurrection as purely spiritual and likewise the return of Jesus, that is your privilege. But it is plainly not what the writers meant to be understood.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Why would Jesus ascend into clouds of doubt? Here we have a supposed symbolic story of people finding the tomb empty, seeing Jesus alive, talking to him, touching him, then him rising to be at the right hand of the Father. Where's the uncertainty?

All the Jews were awaiting a King that would rule from a thrown, not one that was crucified, dead and buried.

Mary was the first to have doubt and was the first to find Faith that Christ was Lord even without a Physical Presence.

The Story tells us we must know that Christ is always there in the Spirit. The body amounts to nothing.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Like I said... I have questions and doubts about both Baha'is and Christians.

Put both Baha'is and Christains out if your mind.

The Kitab-i-quan to me is the best way to understand what is the Resurrection. It answers all the questions you have asked.

Read it without thought of what is right and wrong, just read the logic it details and draw conclusions from the thoughts it provokes.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

The three Synoptic Gospels make it clear that the return of the Son of Man will be widely known and unmistakable. (Mark 13:24-27, Matthew 24:27-31, Luke 21:24-27) If you wish to take the resurrection as purely spiritual and likewise the return of Jesus, that is your privilege. But it is plainly not what the writers meant to be understood.

Then there are the Passages that suggest it will not be obvious. Passages such as I return like a 'Theif in the Night'.

Just as Material Clouds prevent the light of the sun reaching our vision, so do spiritual clouds do the same for our spiritual vision.

Thus all eyes that will see are the spiritual eyes not blinded by clouds of doubt and preconceived ideas. The remainer are visited by the 'Theif in the Night'.

Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

The Trust you need to find is in the Scriptures themselves. Trust they are telling us what we need to know.

What are your views on the risen Christ, what makes more sense to you?

Regards Tony

If I trust the Bible as God's Word, then what it's telling me is that I'm a sinner and need to put my trust in the resurrected Jesus to be saved. If I trust the Baha'i writings as Scripture, then I don't need Jesus to be saved from my sins and he didn't rise from the dead. In fact, he is dead, buried and has turned to dust. I don't have to worry about Satan and going to hell or any of the other things talked about in the New Testament. Which would make me think that it was just a book of nothing but misconstrued ideas about what Jesus said. But, if I trust the Baha'i writing, then, for some reason, I'd have to believe it is the true Word of God. Why? Non-eye witness writers that embellished the story? Symbolic stories that supposedly convey some great spiritual truth? But then I have to go beyond that and believe all religions were at one time the Word of God but now have been distorted by traditions of men.

Like I've said countless times, if Christianity is distorted, it happened right from the beginning. Right from the first writings of Paul and the others. The things they taught are not true... if the Baha'i writings are true. From then on, then the early church did interpret the writings. Actually, they picked what was Scripture. So if they were fallible and wrong in interpreting Scripture, why trust the in having picked what is Christian Scripture? So it's not a matter of which makes more sense... I wonder why so much of it doesn't make any sense.

 

[CG Didymus]

The story of Jesus as recorded in the gospels has some historic value but conveys hidden spiritual truths for those with ears to hear and eyes to see. If you take it all as literally true then of course you have the resurrection and the ascension, heaven above, hell below, along with Satan and his demons. The gospel writers never intended their audience to take it all literally, just as Jesus never intended his parables to be taken literally.

A central narrative to Christianity is that of personal responsibility and what God requires of us to attain the kingdom of heaven. You can claim the gospel writers were either gullible or deliberately misleading their audience who were gullible. Other than missing the entire point of the gospels, such a view ignores the profound and positive effect the gospels have had on billions over the last two thousand years.

I don't see how introducing the book of Mormon is relevant.





No. Baha'is don't play with anything. We attempt, however inadequately to make sense of the major religions in the light of Baha'u'llah's revelation.

The signs of God are the Great Educators of humanity and in particular the Manifestations of God and the Revelation from God they bring. These are the signs of God. Not man made doctrines and dogmas.

Many Christians are good and decent people concerned with fairness, justice, and truth. They rightly look towards the gospels and the life and Teachings of Jesus as inspiration and guidance.

To say all Christians believe they have the monopoly on truth is disrespectful.

To say the Baha'is don't believe in the resurrection is another misrepresentation.



Thanks for clarifying your thoughts. Of course you view the Baha'i perspective as 'dumb' but I know you also see the Christian view as being 'dumb' too. It must feel good not to be enmeshed in all this religious nonsense.



You should trust neither of us, but investigate the truth for yourself, so you see with your own eyes and not through the eyes of others. However Baha'u'llah's standard as to how you approach one of the most important tasks in your life, is high.

No man shall attain the shores of the ocean of true understanding except he be detached from all that is in heaven and on earth. Sanctify your souls, O ye peoples of the world, that haply ye may attain that station which God hath destined for you and enter thus the tabernacle which, according to the dispensations of Providence, hath been raised in the firmament of the Bayán.


The essence of these words is this: they that tread the path of faith, they that thirst for the wine of certitude, must cleanse themselves of all that is earthly—their ears from idle talk, their minds from vain imaginings, their hearts from worldly affections, their eyes from that which perisheth. They should put their trust in God, and, holding fast unto Him, follow in His way. Then will they be made worthy of the effulgent glories of the sun of divine knowledge and understanding, and become the recipients of a grace that is infinite and unseen, inasmuch as man can never hope to attain unto the knowledge of the All-Glorious, can never quaff from the stream of divine knowledge 4 and wisdom, can never enter the abode of immortality, nor partake of the cup of divine nearness and favour, unless and until he ceases to regard the words and deeds of mortal men as a standard for the true understanding and recognition of God and His Prophets.

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Íqán, Pages 3-41

Regardless, you should adhere to the outcome of that search, whatever the outcome.

The Book of Mormon is relevant, because doesn't say Jesus came to the American continent? How could he if he was dead? Also, an angel spoke to Joseph Smith. Wouldn't that put him on the same level as Muhammad? Or, he made it all up? Which means religious leaders do make up stories. Which kind of solves a lot of problems. The Bible could be filled with stories made up by religious leaders to convey a concept of a Supreme Being that is watching us and going to judge us if we don't obey him.

You say, "They rightly look towards the gospels and the life and Teachings of Jesus as inspiration and guidance"?
​

They look to the gospels and find Satan, hell, the resurrection and other things that led them to believe Jesus is God. But, it's you who keep saying that the gospels writers were not eye witnesses. So why trust them?

On being "dumb", I'm referring to Baha'is saying that the Apostles were all feeling down and then got their courage back and started teaching the words of Jesus... and thus, being that they were the Church, the Body of Christ, they brought him back to life... in a symbolic, spiritual way. That's plain dumb. How does that even make sense with the gospel stories?

 

[CG Didymus]

We do not have any clergy who teach anybody anything... Baha’is teach themselves.... The way they do that is to read the Writings of Baha’u’llah, Abdu’l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi, as well as other books about the Baha’i Faith.

The beliefs of other religions have nothing to do with the Baha’i Faith except that their spiritual truths are the same. However, those are separate religions even though they are all from the same God.

The Baha’i Faith does not need the beliefs of other religions because it is a standalone religion with its own Prophet who received His Own Revelation from God.

Progressive Revelation means exactly what it says on Wikipedia:

Progressive revelation is a core teaching in the Bahá'í Faith that suggests that religious truth is revealed by God progressively and cyclically over time through a series of divine Messengers, and that the teachings are tailored to suit the needs of the time and place of their appearance.[1][2] Thus, the Bahá'í teachings recognize the divine origin of several world religions as different stages in the history of one religion, while believing that the revelation of Bahá'u'lláh is the most recent (though not the last—that there will never be a last), and therefore the most relevant to modern society.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_revelation_Baha'i

So where did religions that had many gods and idol worshipping and human sacrificing come from? They are called false in the Jewish Scriptures and God commands many of them to be killed or he kills them himself. Do you see a "progression" of the other religions leading to Judaism?

 

[CG Didymus]

Did Jesus believe them? How can we know?
Jesus did not actually write anything Himself.

As I recall the Bible writers wrote what they recalled that Jesus said... Did John, Luke, Mark and Matthew even write those gospels? From what someone on another forum told me they were not written by them but “according to” them.

Apologetics: How Do We Know Who Wrote the Gospels?

This is a far cry from Jesus writing it with His Own Pen as Baha’u’llah did.

From the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh:

The Four Gospels were written after Him [Christ]. John, Luke, Mark and Matthew - these four wrote after Christ what they remembered of His utterances.
(From a previously untranslated Tablet)
The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments

That's what I've said, but it's in response to Baha'is saying how the New Testament and Jewish Scriptures are the Word of God. So that's part of the problem with what Baha'is have been saying, they deny the Bible in some things then use it for prophesies that they say point to the Baha'i Faith. Christians, as you know, say the Holy Spirit inspired the writers making it the infallible truth. So how do we know anything? If I trust the Christian Bible, and one of their interpretations, I get a totally different concept of spiritual reality then what the Baha'is teach. But I can do that with every religion. They all teach something different, yet Baha'is, I know you don't like the word, twist it to fit into their beliefs.

 

[CG Didymus]

Put both Baha'is and Christains out if your mind.

The Kitab-i-quan to me is the best way to understand what is the Resurrection. It answers all the questions you have asked.

Read it without thought of what is right and wrong, just read the logic it details and draw conclusions from the thoughts it provokes.

Regards Tony

Last book you recommended was the "Dawn Breakers". I saw how long it was and said, "no way". Is there maybe a chapter or something that you can refer me to?

 

[Trailblazer]

So where did religions that had many gods and idol worshipping and human sacrificing come from? They are called false in the Jewish Scriptures and God commands many of them to be killed or he kills them himself. Do you see a "progression" of the other religions leading to Judaism?

Yes, there was a progression. Simply put, humanity was not ready to hear that there is only One God until Judaism, which is why humanity was never told that there is only One God. That is my understanding. Other Baha'is might have a different understanding.

The same is true for the Baha'i Faith. Until the present age, humanity was not ready to hear that there is only One religion of God that is revealed progressively throughout the ages.

“The Purpose of the one true God, exalted be His glory, in revealing Himself unto men is to lay bare those gems that lie hidden within the mine of their true and inmost selves. That the divers communions of the earth, and the manifold systems of religious belief, should never be allowed to foster the feelings of animosity among men, is, in this Day, of the essence of the Faith of God and His Religion. These principles and laws, these firmly-established and mighty systems, have proceeded from one Source, and are the rays of one Light. That they differ one from another is to be attributed to the varying requirements of the ages in which they were promulgated.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 287-288

 

[TransmutingSoul]

If I trust the Bible as God's Word, then what it's telling me is that I'm a sinner and need to put my trust in the resurrected Jesus to be saved. If I trust the Baha'i writings as Scripture, then I don't need Jesus to be saved from my sins and he didn't rise from the dead. In fact, he is dead, buried and has turned to dust. I don't have to worry about Satan and going to hell or any of the other things talked about in the New Testament.

That is far, far, far, infinity far from what has been said to you to date.

It is Christ that saves us, not a Flesh Body, it is Christ the Son come as the Glory of God the Father that now we must turn to. It is not the Flesh body of Jesus or Baha'u'llah we worship. We give the temple due respect, but Worship God through the Spirit.

We have no life without them.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

That's what I've said, but it's in response to Baha'is saying how the New Testament and Jewish Scriptures are the Word of God. So that's part of the problem with what Baha'is have been saying, they deny the Bible in some things then use it for prophesies that they say point to the Baha'i Faith.

It would be easier for you to understand if you read the excerpts on this link that explains the position the Baha’i Faith takes regarding the Bible, from authoritative sources: The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments

Obviously we believe that the prophecies point to the Baha’i Faith because we believe that the Bab and Baha’u’llah were the fulfillment of those prophecies. The way I look at it, they either were or they were not the fulfillment and that can be easily determined by reading the prophecies and comparing them with what has actually transpired before the Bab and Baha’u’llah appeared, as well as what happened when they appeared and after they appeared.

Baha’is do not have to twist anything, what has happened has happened and it is as plain as the noonday sun in Arizona to anyone who is willing to look. Christians refuse to look at the fulfillment of these prophecies and if they do they say that we have misinterpreted the prophecies, and they interpret prophecies to try to make them fit what they believe will happen when Jesus returns. They have all kinds of fantasies about what will happen to fulfill the prophecies, it runs the gamut. What one Christian believes about everything surrounding the return of Jesus is very different from what another Christian believes.

The Jews do something similar although it is not the same because they do not have any preconceived ideas about who the Mosaich will be. They do however have preconceived ideas about what the Mosaich will do. Because of the way they interpret the prophecies in their scriptures, certain things must happen exactly as they believe they will happen before they will consider that their Mosaich has come. Their preconceived ideas make it impossible to recognize the Mosaich just as it is impossible for Christians to recognize the Messiah.

Christians, as you know, say the Holy Spirit inspired the writers making it the infallible truth. So how do we know anything? If I trust the Christian Bible, and one of their interpretations, I get a totally different concept of spiritual reality then what the Baha'is teach. But I can do that with every religion. They all teach something different, yet Baha'is, I know you don't like the word, twist it to fit into their beliefs.

To be clear, the Baha’is do not need any other religion to fit with our beliefs. The salient problem that cannot be avoided is that the Baha’i Faith is the fulfillment of all the prophecies of other religions so when they challenge us to prove that we have to refer back to their scriptures, since they refuses to accept Bahaullah on His own merit.

Baha’is are not trying to make our beliefs fit other religious beliefs, and in fact we are here on this thread pointing out how our beliefs differ.

What you might consider twisting is simply pointing out the truth; that the spiritual verities of all religions are the same:

“the Law of God is divided into two parts. One is the fundamental basis which comprises all spiritual things—that is to say, it refers to the spiritual virtues and divine qualities; this does not change nor alter: it is the Holy of Holies, which is the essence of the Law of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Christ, Muhammad, the Báb, and Bahá’u’lláh, and which lasts and is established in all the prophetic cycles. It will never be abrogated, for it is spiritual and not material truth; it is faith, knowledge, certitude, justice, piety, righteousness, trustworthiness, love of God, benevolence, purity, detachment, humility, meekness, patience and constancy. It shows mercy to the poor, defends the oppressed, gives to the wretched and uplifts the fallen......

These foundations of the Religion of God, which are spiritual and which are the virtues of humanity, cannot be abrogated; they are irremovable and eternal, and are renewed in the cycle of every Prophet.” Some Answered Questions, pp. 47-48

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

No no....... No you don't!
I understood that KP and KAP were abbreviations for Caesar in Greek.

You started off with saying it was the initials of Caesar, which confused me into thinking that you meant the initials of the particular reigning Caesar, which led into the date marks on the coins, which you seem to have denied existed. Then you changed the meaning of the letters into ‘'Kratos Romaion” which is not the name of any Caesar and not the word Caesar, but is a modern suggestion. Then you denied that the letters were Kappa Rho, despite KP being what the uppercase Greek letters Kappa Rho look like.

Your latest version, that it is a contraction of the Greek word for Caesar, does sound rather likely, considering the Roman penchant for using contractions on their coins. For example, the denarius issued by Tiberius has TICAESAR on it. When Herod took over the minting of the Tyrian shekel and half-shekel around 18 BC, it is entirely possible that, being a Roman appointee, he decided or was told to put a reference to Caesar on the coin.

Two comments:

Once again, Aramaic speaking and mostly illiterate Jewish peasants would have no idea what it meant and would not be upset by it, as you claimed they would.

You clearly did not know for sure what KAP or KP meant until you found this or something like it because of the changes you went through. Learning is a good thing of course but claiming knowledge you do not yet have is something else. I learned things along the way and I am not afraid to admit it.

No no....... No you don't!
...and so you would draw me into a debate which involves looking far back to present you with your posts which showed that you failed to understand something that I wrote?

It is possible that I misunderstood things you wrote and responded inappropriately, as you said I did. If you had pointed out some examples, I would have re-examined them. You seemed to have had specific things in mind but now you don’t, so let it be.

Rough Best, you don't even understand that Yeshua demonstrated and picketed in the Temple on his second visit that week, and picketed again making speech against the priesthood during his third visit, and there it was, written down for you to read.But you can write pages of nonsense about stuff that you don't believe in! :

As I have said and demonstrated a number of times, just removing the supernatural from the Gospels is insufficient to decide what did or did not really happen. John in particular created a great deal of new material to serve his purpose of elevating Jesus to demi-god status, something Paul put forward but got de-emphasized along the way in the Synoptic Gospels. One can see links back to Paul in various places in John.

I presume you are talking about John 7-8 when Jesus went to Jerusalem for Tabernacles, this being the only place where Jesus goes to the temple three times. I see Jesus teaching. I see People uncertain about Jesus being the Messiah because he came from Galilee, not Bethlehem. I see Jesus teaching again and debating with the Pharisees. I see no demonstration or picketing, just a lot of talking. I see nothing whatsoever about the priesthood. But you are still hung up on equating the Pharisees with the priests even though having been shown wrong on this point numerous times.

If you think that there is in fact some indication of demonstration and picketing and speaking against the priesthood, quote specific chapter and verse and explain how you come to your conclusion.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

Then there are the Passages that suggest it will not be obvious. Passages such as I return like a 'Theif in the Night'.

Just as Material Clouds prevent the light of the sun reaching our vision, so do spiritual clouds do the same for our spiritual vision.

Thus all eyes that will see are the spiritual eyes not blinded by clouds of doubt and preconceived ideas. The remainer are visited by the 'Theif in the Night'.

Regards Tony

The thief in the night reference relates to when the end will be, not that it will be a secret when it happens. The passages I cited earlier make it very clear that it would be a dramatic and unmistakable event.

Matthew 24:42-44
42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.
44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.

 

[Dawnofhope]

The Book of Mormon is relevant, because doesn't say Jesus came to the American continent? How could he if he was dead? Also, an angel spoke to Joseph Smith. Wouldn't that put him on the same level as Muhammad? Or, he made it all up? Which means religious leaders do make up stories. Which kind of solves a lot of problems. The Bible could be filled with stories made up by religious leaders to convey a concept of a Supreme Being that is watching us and going to judge us if we don't obey him.

The only Christians that believe Joseph Smith's account of Jesus coming to the America are of course the Mormons themselves. Baha'is don't believe Joseph Smith's account of events and so don't consider him on the same level of Jesus or Muhammad.

You say, "They rightly look towards the gospels and the life and Teachings of Jesus as inspiration and guidance"?
They look to the gospels and find Satan, hell, the resurrection and other things that led them to believe Jesus is God. But, it's you who keep saying that the gospels writers were not eye witnesses. So why trust them?

For Baha'is, Satan and Hell, like the resurrection of Christ are not literal but allegorical and symbolic. I don't look to the gospels as literal history. The intention of the gospel writers seems clear to me.

On being "dumb", I'm referring to Baha'is saying that the Apostles were all feeling down and then got their courage back and started teaching the words of Jesus... and thus, being that they were the Church, the Body of Christ, they brought him back to life... in a symbolic, spiritual way. That's plain dumb. How does that even make sense with the gospel stories?

Human beings have a profound capacity for both brilliance and stupidity. The historical reality is the disciples lost their faith (other than Mary, mother of Jesus) and later became assured in their Faith and empowered by the Holy Spirit to spread the gospels throughout the world. A body of Faithful believers was raised that enabled the global faith community we have today. There are ample scripture linking the body of Christ to the Church as I have already shared. The ascension of Christ relies on a cosmology of the universe that is now redundant.

With initiating this thread I've aimed to start a conversation that rises above petty name calling where people on one side of the fence throw insults at the other. There needs to be respect and tolerance for those that hold beliefs different from our own.

My criticism of your stance is that you respect neither perspective, you avoid clarifying your own POV, and instead try playing one side off against the other.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Last book you recommended was the "Dawn Breakers". I saw how long it was and said, "no way". Is there maybe a chapter or something that you can refer me to?

The Kitab-i-quan is the one to understand the Resurrection and return of the Messengers.

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Íqán

This was Baha'u'llah's answer to the Uncle of the Bab as to how is it possible his Nephew could be a Messenger of God.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

The thief in the night reference relates to when the end will be, not that it will be a secret when it happens. The passages I cited earlier make it very clear that it would be a dramatic and unmistakable event.

Matthew 24:42-44
42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.
44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.

It was indeed a dramatic and unmistakable event. History has recorded this. The Bab dramatic Message, the Persecutions, the Execution the greatest story ever told. It mirrored what happened to Jesus the Christ.

The Bab mortal remaind also after 3 days disappeared from whence the bodies were placed. This was also explained away by the authorities, they did not know the Babi had taken them.

Stay well and happy.

Regards Tony

 

[Dawnofhope]

All religious and philosophical faiths have "doctrines". To not do so would mean that they don't teach anything in terms of what should or should not be done.

Its confusing when one religion claims to have no doctrines. Of course the Baha'i Faith has teachings, values, and beliefs like any other religion has. Often the word doctrine can mean a religious teaching or belief that is made up by men and then given the same status as the teachings of the prophet or messenger of God. Throughout Islam, Christianity, and Judaism there are teachings that are assumed to be from Muhammad, Christ, or Moses but are actually from man's imagination.