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

[CG Didymus]

Why take them at all? With few exceptions, the writers intended what they wrote to be taken literally. IMO much of it is invented, but not symbolic, which would defeat the purpose of writing. In particular, the Gospel writers went to considerable lengths to stress that the resurrection of Jesus was an actual bodily resurrection, without which the promise of a future resurrection and judgment cannot be relied on. And without that there is no reason not to live just for today. Read 1 Corinthians 15.

Exactly

 

[Trailblazer]

Well we could start with the Baha'i founders' woeful ignorance of heredity and genealogy...for a start they seemed completely ignorant of the fact that any genealogical connection they might have had with the family lines of David and Abraham (for example) were, even if true, entirely unremarkable...

Then there's the whole thing about heirship to the leadership of the Baha'i faith...Baha'u'llah had Abdu'l Baha as his first successor and then Mirza Muhhamad Ali - but he turned out to be a right rotter so Abdu'l Baha chose Shoghi Effendi - his grandson - to be Guardian on Abdu'l Baha's death and indicated that he (Shoghi) should be succeeded by his own eldest son or at least another male descendant of Baha'u'llah to be named by the Guardian before his passing. Unfortunately, Shoghi went and popped his clogs both childless and intestate...

...seems not only did Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l Baha fail to recognize the complete lack of significance of their own supposed genetic heritage but they also had zero knowledge of the future of their genetic lines either.

How could anyone with such a clear lack of insight concerning their own heredity and their families immediate future be any more than humans struggling to make sense of the inexplicable vagaries and transience of human existence? Smart guys one and all - and with some eminently sensible religious ideas (if we must have religion at all) - but divinely inspired Messiahs - direct mouthpieces of an effulgent and ineffably glorious God - no - I don't think so.

I will get back to you later on this... I have to run out to the store, well, I mean drive.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

It is not an either/or, it is all phony or it is all true. It is not all phony; it was all misinterpreted by Christians in order to FIT the return of Jesus... But still no Jesus, and there never will be a return of the same man Jesus.

As I have been telling my dear Christian friend Iggy, nothing is claimed in the NT. The NT does not SAY anything because books do not talk. All reading requires interpretation.

Acts 1:1-2 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen

What does this mean: Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost.

There is nothing in the NT that says a body went up into the clouds, nothing. It is all a matter of interpretation as to what actually happened in Acts 1:10-11.

Acts 2:24 But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.

Nothing about a body in that verse either. It was just assumed, like everything else the Christians assumed.

This book entitled Christ and Baha'u'llah by George Townshend is not online but some time ago my husband typed up the entire book for someone on a forum. You might want to pay special attention to this Chapter:

Chapter Four: THE FALSE PROPHETS

As Jesus prophesied, the false prophets contrived to change the essential meaning of the Gospel so that it became quite different from that which the Bible recorded or Jesus taught. Matt. Vii 15-23 and see pp. 11, 12.

It has long been generally believed that Jesus Christ was a unique incarnation of God such as had never before appeared in religious history and would never appear again. This tenet made the acceptance of any later Prophet impossible to a Christian. Yet there is nothing in Christ’s own statements, as recorded in the Gospel, to support this view, and it was not generally held during His lifetime.

Jesus emphatically claimed to reveal God, Whom He called Father, but continually differentiated Himself from the Father. In many such references as “Him that sent me,” “my Father is greater than I,” John xiv 28. “I go to the Father,” John xvi 16. “I will pray the Father,” John xiv 16. “I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me,” John vii 28. He made this abundantly clear, and even stated specifically that the Father had knowledge which was not possessed by the Son. “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” Mark xiii 32. He referred to Himself as the Son, and as a Prophet, Matt. Xiii 57, Luke xiii 33 and was so regarded, Matt. xxi 11, Luke vii 16 and related His Mission to those of Moses and Abraham before Him, and to others to come after Him, specifically “he, the Spirit of truth, “who would reveal the things which Jesus did not. John xvi 12, 13.

The followers of every world religion have invented for themselves a similar belief in the uniqueness and finality of their own Prophet. The result has been that no religion has acknowledged a Prophet of a later religion. The Hindus do not acknowledge Buddha, the Buddhists fo not acknowledge Christ, nor yet do the Zoroastrians. The result of this delusive belief has been that the world religions have not tended to the unifying of mankind but rather to its further division.

Another opinion which Christians universally hold about Christ is that His teaching was absolute and final. They believe that if the Truth were partly withheld from them for a time because they could not bear it, it was divulged at Pentecost in its fullness and that now nothing remains to be revealed. But there is nothing in the account of Pentecost to suggest such an interpretation and there is no one who will believe that Jesus would have named the false prophets as characteristic of His age if this warning was to be followed by an immediate release of all Truth to the Church. What the Bible shows is rather a succession of teachers—Abraham, Moses and Christ, each measuring His Revelation to the needs and maturity of His auditors: Jesus, for example, changes the divorce law and says, “Moses gave you this because of the hardness of your hearts but from the beginning it was not so.” Many times He says, Ye have heard it said by them of old time . . . but I say unto you . . .”

Another universal opinion among the Christians is that Christ was the Lord of Hosts of the old Testament. Yet the Jewish Prophets had foretold that when the Lord of Hosts came He would not find the Jews in the Holy Land, all would have been scattered among the nations and would have been living in misery and degradation for centuries; but when Jesus came Palestine was full of Jews and their expulsion did not begin until the year 70 A.D.; it may be said to have continued till the year 1844.

To confirm orthodox Christian opinion it is customary in all churches to read on Christmas morning, as if it referred to Jesus, the passage which Isaiah wrote about the Lord of Hosts (Isaiah ix 6-7).

“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.”

Yet the descriptive titles given do not belong exclusively to Christ, while some of them He specifically repudiated as if to make such a mistaken reference to Himself impossible. He disclaimed being the Mighty God when He called Himself “the Son of God;” John v 18-47 where Jesus repudiates the charge that He claimed equality with God, disclaimed being the Father when He said, “my Father is greater than I;” (John xviii 36) and being the Prince of Peace when He said, “I came not to send peace, but a sword.” He disclaimed bearing the government upon His shoulder or that it would be His judgment and justice forever when He said, “My kingdom is not of this world.” (John xviii 36).

Many of these false interpretations involve repudiation of the Word of God in favor of the word of man. This impious act is so craftily performed, with such an air of humility, that it might escape the notice of the most sincere and devout of worshippers. Probably few churchgoers realize today that the Gospel of Christ as known to the few in the pulpit is wholly different from the Gospel which Christ preached in Galilee as recorded in the Bible.

In spite of Christ’s promise of further revelation of Truth, through the Comforter, through His own return, through the Spirit of Truth, the Christian Church regards His revelation as final, and itself as the sole trustee of true religion. There is no room for the Supreme Redeemer of the Bible to bring in great changes for the establishment of the Kingdom of God. In fact this Kingdom is often described as a world-wide Church.

Having thus closed God’s Covenant with the Bible, sacred history—God-directed—came to an end, and secular history, having no sense of divine destiny nor unity, began.

Jesus’ revelation was purely spiritual. He taught that “My kingdom is not of this world” and that the “Kingdom of heaven is within you.” His great gift to man was the knowledge of eternal life. He told men that they might be physically in perfect health and yet spiritually sick or even dead. But this was a difficult truth to communicate and Jesus had to help men to realize it. He would say that He was a spiritual physician and that men whom He cured of a spiritual disability were cured of blindness, deafness, lameness, leprosy and so on. This was the real meaning of His remark at the end of a discourse, “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” For a hearer might hear the physical word of Jesus and yet fail to comprehend the spiritual meaning. Jesus, in other words, was forever trying to heal spiritual infirmities. He thus would be understood by His disciples as a healer of spiritual ailments but by others He might be taken as relieving physical ills only.

Doubtless Jesus could, and often did, heal bodily ills by spiritual means, but this was nothing to do with His real work as a Redeemer. On the other handthese spiritual cures which he effected might be misinterpreted as physical miracles, and so were little stressed by Him. (“See that no man know it.) Matt ix 30.

Christ’s spiritual mission was, at an early date, materialized, specifically in regard to such things as the miracles, curing the blind and deaf, raising the dead. Even His own resurrection was made physical, missing the point entirely. Moreover, none of the complex order, of the ceremonies, rituals and litanies of the Church can be attributed to Christ. All are man-made, by inference or invention.

Well might Christ warn His followers that false prophets would arise and misinterpret His teachings so as to delude even the most earnest and intelligent of His believers: from early times Christians have disputed about Christian truth in councils, in sects, in wars.

To sum up, if Christians say “our acts may be wrong,” they say truly. If they say “however our Gospel is right” they are quite wrong. The false prophets have corrupted the Gospel as successfully as they have the deeds and lives of Christian people.

Acts 1:2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:

What does this mean? It means that Jesus will be taken up in the clouds and that on Pentecost, the Holy Spirit will descend of the disciples. Why is this even a question?

Acts 1:9-11
And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

So what is to interpret here? What you are saying is that you do not want it to mean what the writer clearly intended to be understood. You want it to mean something else.

Whether it really happened or could happen is irrelevant. It is what the writer said happened, not some symbolic mishmash to be interpreted as one desires. Acts is all about resolving discrepancies and problems in earlier scriptures. To say that its many events are not to be taken as what the writer clearly says defeats the purpose of the book. Whether they really happened or not does not matter. The writer plainly intended them to be taken at face value.

The idea of the bodily resurrection of Jesus appears unambiguously in 1 Corinthians 15, written about 53-54 AD. The idea of a general resurrection when Jesus returns appears in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 written about 50 AD. No justification or explanation for this is provided. It is assumed to be part of general beliefs already. The several Gospels incorporate these and other ideas from Paul. All of the Gospels use the empty tomb theme, pointing directly to a bodily resurrection understanding. This idea was not invented later on. It appears very early in Christianity.

 

[Trailblazer]

Exactly

CG Didymus said: Christians cling to believing the NT is the truth. Baha'is don't. Baha'is say things in it aren't authentic and some things reported as actual events aren't true and need to be taken as symbolic only.

Rough Beast Sloucher said: Why take them at all? With few exceptions, the writers intended what they wrote to be taken literally. IMO much of it is invented, but not symbolic, which would defeat the purpose of writing. In particular, the Gospel writers went to considerable lengths to stress that the resurrection of Jesus was an actual bodily resurrection, without which the promise of a future resurrection and judgment cannot be relied on. And without that there is no reason not to live just for today. Read 1 Corinthians 15.

The future resurrection of physical bodies from graves and judgment by Jesus is a fabricated fantasy based upon a gross misinterpretation of the New Testament. Where in the New Testament it all went wrong I cannot say, but wrong it is, terribly wrong.

1 Corinthians 15:12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

This is all about spiritual death, not physical death. Bodies once dead do not rise from graves. Souls then leave the body and rise to heaven and take on a spiritual body comprised of heavenly elements in that spiritual realm. They then continue to exist for eternity. The souls who are spiritually alive go to heaven the ones who are spiritually dead go to.... well, I do not know where they go, but they still have a chance to get close to God by reaching out to God, by the mercy of God and the prayers of others. There is no guarantee, and that is why it is best to get close to God before we die.

John 3:16: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

1 John 5:13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.

John 3:5-7 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Where did Jesus EVER talk about rising from the grave? Jesus said to let the dead bury their dead. Being born of the spirit has nothing to do with the body. It means spiritual rebirth, exactly the same thing that Baha’u’llah wrote about:

“Incline your ears to the sweet melody of this Prisoner. Arise, and lift up your voices, that haply they that are fast asleep may be awakened. Say: O ye who are as dead! The Hand of Divine bounty proffereth unto you the Water of Life. Hasten and drink your fill. Whoso hath been re-born in this Day, shall never die; whoso remainethdead, shall never live.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 213

How can anyone possibly believe this refers to the death of a physical body?

In 1 Corinthians 15, that Jesus was raised up means His spirit was resurrected, brought back to life. If Christ’s spirit was not brought back to life, then your faith would be in vain and you would still be in your sins. “22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” means that all shall be made spiritually alive, not physically rise and be alive in bodies. That does not mean Jesus’ soul (spirit) was brought back to life, it means that the Cause of Christ (what He taught and represented) were brought back to life after three days... Had it NOT been brought back to life you would still be in your sins because it was the Cause of Christ that needed to be brought back to life in order to save people from their sins... People needed to get the Gospel message that Jesus taught and the disciples needed to carry that far and wide. Their faith in Jesus needed to be renewed (resurrected).

In 1 Corinthians 15:12-22, Paul was referring to a spiritual resurrection. That Jesus was raised up means His spirit was resurrected, brought back to life. If Christ’s spirit was not brought back to life, then your faith would be in vain and you would still be in your sins. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive means that all shall be made spiritually alive, not physically rise and be alive in bodies.

16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: and 3 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: refer to the resurrection those who would have otherwise been spiritually dead if the Cause of Christ had not been resurrected; this has nothing to do with physical bodies rising from graves.
not to anyone rising from graves.

What I said in no way negates the cross sacrifice as saving humanity from its sins. The physical resurrection was in no way necessary to save people from their sins. The cross sacrifice and the teachings of Jesus accomplished that.

The only reason Christians have to believe in the resurrection is so they can believe in the ascension and so they can continue to cling to the idea that Jesus us alive in a glorified physical body and so they can continue to cling to the idea that Jesus will return from heaven someday. They also believe that they will rise from their graves and get a new glorified physical body when Jesus returns. This belief is completely untenable for anyone who has any ability to reason. Dead bodies do not rise from graves. Souls leave the body and go to the spiritual world where they take on another forum that best suits the spiritual progress they have made in this world. The mere fact that this is not something we can understand except in words we use to describe it does not mean it is not the truth. The spiritual world is too different from this world for us to understand now. Sure, people can understand having the same physical body that is glorified and they actually want to continue to eat and drink and have sex on earth for eternity.

Why would anyone even want that? I would rather be an atheist and believe I have no afterlife at all. No, we did not live through all the suffering in this mortal world just to be restored back to life and start all over again with a physical body. In eastern traditions that is reincarnation and it is punishment, returning to earth to learn more lessons so one can eventually be worthy of being in the spiritual world and not have to come back here. In Baha’i, we never come back here, our soul continues on our spiritual journey in the spiritual world. It is too bad that was not spelled out in the Bible as it is in the Baha’i Writings, but it is implied. God did not want it spelled out until now because people were not ready to hear it so plainly because they were not spiritually mature enough to understand.

Rising and having a physical body and doing physical things is the polar opposite of what Jesus taught, but of course the teachings of Jesus went straight out the window when the church misinterpreted the Bible and created false doctrines. Whether Paul actually believed a body would rise from the graves we cannot know for certain ,but from what I have read elsewhere that Paul never mentioned the empty tomb, the visit by a woman or women, the stone, the angel/angels/man/men at the tomb, and reunion of Jesus with his followers in his resuscitated body. Rather, he believed that Jesus was taken up into heaven in a spirit body. It was only later, when the four canonic Gospels were written, that the Christians believed that Jesus rose from the grave. Why is this?

“According to the Bahá’í teaching the Resurrection has nothing to do with the gross physical body. That body, once dead, is done with. It becomes decomposed and its atoms will never be recomposed into the same body.

Resurrection is the birth of the individual to spiritual life, through the gift of the Holy Spirit bestowed through the Manifestation of God. The grave from which he arises is the grave of ignorance and negligence of God. The sleep from which he awakens is the dormant spiritual condition in which many await the dawn of the Day of God. This dawn illumines all who have lived on the face of the earth, whether they are in the body or out of the body, but those who are spiritually blind cannot perceive it. The Day of Resurrection is not a day of twenty-four hours, but an era which has now begun and will last as long as the present world cycle continues. It will continue when all traces of the present civilization will have been wiped off the surface of the globe.” Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 222

 

[Trailblazer]

Acts 1:2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:

What does this mean? It means that Jesus will be taken up in the clouds and that on Pentecost, the Holy Spirit will descend of the disciples. Why is this even a question?

Acts 1:9-11
And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

So what is to interpret here? What you are saying is that you do not want it to mean what the writer clearly intended to be understood. You want it to mean something else.

I have no idea what the writer intended it to mean and I don’t care. I do not want it to mean anything because it does not matter to me what it means. I have my own religion and I know what happened to Jesus.

Who cares about what the writers intended? We can never know the answer to that question. All we have are words on a page and different people interpret them differently.

There is nothing about a body in those verses. The Essence of Jesus was not His body, it was His Spirit (soul). That a physical body ascended into the sky was just assumed because of other false assumptions that been made before that. One false assumption led to another till finally we have an entire religion based false upon assumptions. The Christian understanding of the NT is such a mess it took a new revelation from God to straighten it out.

This same Jesus does not refer to the body of Jesus. The disciples were staring up into the sky. The two men dressed in white (angels) came along and asked why they were staring up into the sky. The two men then wondered why the disciples were staring up into the sky and said that the same Jesus who was taken up to heaven will return as he went to heaven. It does not say that the disciple saw a body go up. That was just assumed because of previous false assumptions.

It was the Christ Spirit that ascended, not a body, which is why the angels wondered why the disciples were staring into the sky, since there was nothing to look at. That makes perfect sense since angels can see spirits. Descending from heaven upon the clouds means that the spirit of Jesus, the Christ Spirit, will be made manifest from the heaven of the will of God and will appear in the form of the human temple. Though delivered from the womb of Mary, Jesus in reality descended from the heaven of the will of God, so Baha’u’llah descended in like manner, from the heaven of the will of God.

Whether it really happened or could happen is irrelevant. It is what the writer said happened, not some symbolic mishmash to be interpreted as one desires. Acts is all about resolving discrepancies and problems in earlier scriptures. To say that its many events are not to be taken as what the writer clearly says defeats the purpose of the book. Whether they really happened or not does not matter. The writer plainly intended them to be taken at face value.

So, is the purpose of the book and what the writer intended more important than what really happened?

What the writer said happened did not mention a body. Christians just assume it refers to a body because they are fixated on bodies when in reality Jesus never said the body was important, He said that the spirit is what matters; does anyone care what Jesus said, or do they just care what some Bible writers said in Acts?

John 3:6-7 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again

The idea of the bodily resurrection of Jesus appears unambiguously in 1 Corinthians 15, written about 53-54 AD. The idea of a general resurrection when Jesus returns appears in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 written about 50 AD. No justification or explanation for this is provided. It is assumed to be part of general beliefs already. The several Gospels incorporate these and other ideas from Paul. All of the Gospels use the empty tomb theme, pointing directly to a bodily resurrection understanding. This idea was not invented later on. It appears very early in Christianity.

Just because appears early that does not mean it is correct. Even if Jesus did resurrect bodily, that would have been a miracle of God but that does not mean that bodies of all Christians are going to rise from graves when Jesus returns.

The assumptions that were made about what Corinthians means are ridiculous. Bodies do not rise from graves en masse. Only Christians believe such nonsense. That is one reason Christianity is no longer believable to many people and people are becoming nonbelievers. This is the age of reason. Science and religion need to be in harmony or religion is mere superstition.

Regarding 1 Corinthians 15 you can read what I just posted to CG Didymus.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

This book entitled Christ and Baha'u'llah by George Townshend is not online but some time ago my husband typed up the entire book for someone on a forum. You might want to pay special attention to this Chapter:

It can be found at this link - Christ and Baha'u'llah

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

As I said, you can follow whatever religion you want. But do not claim that the NT supports Baha’i. It does not.

That is a presumption. You want the non-interference of God in the world to 'prove' your religion. How is that different from a plethora of other detailed religions making the same claim or from there not being a God after all?

You can apply the word 'resurrection' as you see fit. but it does not change the fact that the NT authors very clearly intended an actual bodily resurrection to be understood and that the entire religion depended on exactly that.

Exactly

I see you have both chosen to wait. This is a good read in you spare time - Christ and Baha'u'llah

If you are in North Queensland Gulf Country Australia one day, call in for a coffee and snack.

Stay well and Happy, Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

It can be found at this link - Christ and Baha'u'llah

Regards Tony

Thanks so much Tony... I am sure this will come in handy.

 

[Neb]

No, Baha'u'llah did not descend from Ishmael:

1559. Bahá’u’lláh was a Descendent of Abraham Through Both Katurah and Sarah—Jesse, Son of Sarah, was the Father of David and Ancestor of Bahá’u’lláh

NO! NOT in the bible. Think! Would a man come from two women? The answer is NO.
How many times I have to say this, Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí Núrí, aka, Baha’u’llah, a Persian Shi'ite, came from Ishmael and NOT from Isaac.

Read this verse again.

"And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad/Ishmael, and because of thy handmaid/Hagar. In all that Sarah saith unto thee, hearken unto her voice. For in Isaac shall thy seed be called." -Genesis 21:12

 

[Neb]

"Regarding your question concerning the Jesse from whom Bahá’u’lláh is descended: The Master says in 'Some Answered Questions', referring to Isaiah, chapter 11, verses 1 to 10, that these verses apply 'Word for word to Bahá’u’lláh'. He then identifies this Jesse as the father of David in the following words: '…for Joseph was of the descendants of Jesse the father of David…', thus identifying the Jesse of Isaiah, chapter 11, with being the father of David. Bahá’u’lláh is thus the descendant of Jesse, the father of David.

"The Guardian hopes that this will clarify the matter for you. It is a tremendous and fascinating theme, Bahá’u’lláh's connection with the Faith of Judaism, and one which possesses great interest to Jew and Christian alike." (From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, July 11, 1942)

“And there shall come forth a shoot out of the stock of Jesse, and a branch out of his roots shall bear fruit.” –Isaiah 11:1

This verse is NOT about or it does NOT refer to Baha’u’llah as the Messiah but to Christ as the Messiah and it happened during Christ earthly ministry.

This is not a johnny-come-lately version of Baha’i Faith who uses the bible as a platform to attract Christians to join them.

Read verse 2 of Isaiah 11.

“And the Spirit of Jehovah shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of Jehovah.” –Isaiah 11:2

John the Baptist, the last prophet of God from the OT testified to this in John 1:32-33

“And John bare witness, saying, I have beheld the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven; and it abode upon him.” - “And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize in water, he said unto me, Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding upon him, the same is he that baptizeth in the Holy Spirit.” -John 1:32-33

“the same is he that baptizeth in the Holy Spirit”, John announced that Jesus would impart the Holy Spirit to his followers and this occurred in Acts chapter 2 and this is what the Lord Jesus was saying in John 14:26 about the “COMFORTER”

“But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you.” –John 14:26

Again, there is NO room for Baha’u’llah here.

 

[Neb]

I believe that what we need to know is in the scriptures. I do not believe that God speaks directly to anyone except the Manifestations of God such as Jesus and Baha'u'llah.

You need to understand that in the bible there is only Christ, the Messiah, and NO Baha'u'llah.

“To every discerning and illumined heart it is evident that God, the unknowable Essence, the divine Being, is immensely exalted beyond every human attribute, such as corporeal existence, ascent and descent, egress and regress. Far be it from His glory that human tongue should adequately recount His praise, or that human heart comprehend His fathomless mystery. He is and hath ever been veiled in the ancient eternity of His Essence, and will remain in His Reality everlastingly hidden from the sight of men. “No vision taketh in Him, but He taketh in all vision; He is the Subtile, the All-Perceiving.” 1No tie of direct intercourse can possibly bind Him to His creatures.He standeth exalted beyond and above all separation and union, all proximity and remoteness. No sign can indicate His presence or His absence; inasmuch as by a word of His command all that are in heaven and on earth have come to exist, and by His wish, which is the Primal Will itself, all have stepped out of utter nothingness into the realm of being, the world of the visible.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, p. 98

You can quote all Baha'u'llah's writings and insert then in the bible but it will only complicate things up with contradictions. 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

The rest of us can be inspired by the Holy Spirit through what was released into the world by the Manifestations of God. Only they can know EVERYTHIING because they have the knowledge of God.

Only through Christ, and NOT through baha'u'llah, one "can be inspired by the Holy Spirit"
“But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you.” –John 14:26

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

I have no idea what the writer intended it to mean and I don’t care. I do not want it to mean anything because it does not matter to me what it means. I have my own religion and I know what happened to Jesus.

Who cares about what the writers intended? We can never know the answer to that question. All we have are words on a page and different people interpret them differently.

There is nothing about a body in those verses. The Essence of Jesus was not His body, it was His Spirit (soul). That a physical body ascended into the sky was just assumed because of other false assumptions that been made before that. One false assumption led to another till finally we have an entire religion based false upon assumptions. The Christian understanding of the NT is such a mess it took a new revelation from God to straighten it out.

This same Jesus does not refer to the body of Jesus. The disciples were staring up into the sky. The two men dressed in white (angels) came along and asked why they were staring up into the sky. The two men then wondered why the disciples were staring up into the sky and said that the same Jesus who was taken up to heaven will return as he went to heaven. It does not say that the disciple saw a body go up. That was just assumed because of previous false assumptions.

It was the Christ Spirit that ascended, not a body, which is why the angels wondered why the disciples were staring into the sky, since there was nothing to look at. That makes perfect sense since angels can see spirits. Descending from heaven upon the clouds means that the spirit of Jesus, the Christ Spirit, will be made manifest from the heaven of the will of God and will appear in the form of the human temple. Though delivered from the womb of Mary, Jesus in reality descended from the heaven of the will of God, so Baha’u’llah descended in like manner, from the heaven of the will of God.

So, is the purpose of the book and what the writer intended more important than what really happened?

What the writer said happened did not mention a body. Christians just assume it refers to a body because they are fixated on bodies when in reality Jesus never said the body was important, He said that the spirit is what matters; does anyone care what Jesus said, or do they just care what some Bible writers said in Acts?

John 3:6-7 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again

Just because appears early that does not mean it is correct. Even if Jesus did resurrect bodily, that would have been a miracle of God but that does not mean that bodies of all Christians are going to rise from graves when Jesus returns.

The assumptions that were made about what Corinthians means are ridiculous. Bodies do not rise from graves en masse. Only Christians believe such nonsense. That is one reason Christianity is no longer believable to many people and people are becoming nonbelievers. This is the age of reason. Science and religion need to be in harmony or religion is mere superstition.

Regarding 1 Corinthians 15 you can read what I just posted to CG Didymus.

To claim that it is impossible to know what the writers meant is simply BS. The three Synoptic Gospels were written in very straightforward easily accessible Greek. They are each telling stories to further a particular point of view. The meanings of these stories are all very plain as is the plain physicality of the episodes.

It is John that sometimes indulged in intentionally dense language. But when one digs into it and is aware of his referents, his meaning also becomes clear. One obstacle to reading John is that he is presenting a Christology that has Jesus be a pre-existent divine entity but also needs to maintain a strict monotheism, that coming with the Jewish backstory. His position on this is stated in the first few verses which are straight out of Philo’s Logos concept. It was Paul who first introduced Philo by equating the messianic title Son of God with Philo’s preexisting, quasi-divine Son of God. In Philo Logos = Son of God. Two names for the same concept. Philo was also a monotheist and the obvious resource for working out this puzzle.

Matthew, Luke and John explicitly state that Jesus was bodily resurrected in a tangible form. Mark implies it but his agenda is about having faith in the absence of proof. In all of them, the tomb is empty. If the resurrection is only spiritual, where is the body? Luke, who in his Gospel stresses the most strongly that the risen Jesus had a body, is the author of Acts, where the disciples watch Jesus ascend into a cloud. Why would it be necessary to state that Jesus rose in bodily form? Since Luke made it plain that Jesus was walking around in a body, for only his spirit to have ascended would necessarily have left a dead body behind. I think that would have been mentioned in the story.

Acts 1:10-11
10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

The angles were saying that Jesus will indeed come back in the clouds at the end of days as promised in the Olivet Discourse. But do not hold your breath. Despite what Paul and the Synoptic Gospels seem to say, the end of days is not just around the corner. Get on with the business of building a church. That process began at Pentecost, not many verses after this. This is a story with a purpose. Jesus did not really ascend into heaven either physically or spiritually. This is a story with a purpose.

As I said earlier, Luke’s reason for writing Acts was to deal with various discrepancies and problems in earlier NT scriptures. The purpose of this particular passage is fourfold.

First, it deals with the question that has been left dangling since the earliest days of Christianity. Paul said that Jesus rose from the dead. He also said that Jesus spoke to him in visions in the third heaven. Where was Jesus in between? The answer: Jesus stayed around for a while then ascended into heaven. Bodily? Had to be since Jesus rose bodily, empty tomb, eating fish and so on. No mention of a body left behind.

Second, it is the beginning of a cover story to deal with Paul saying he got information from Jesus that the Apostles did not have. Since none of the Gospels have Jesus telling the disciples anything about the undoing of Adam’s sin and other Pauline ideas, Luke invents a 40-day timespan in which Jesus ‘speaks of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God’. (Acts 1:3) Ample opportunity for telling them anything from Paul not mentioned earlier.

Third, it deals with the fact that in 1 Corinthians 15:6 over 500 people see the risen Jesus. There is no mention of this in any of the Gospels, nor sufficient time for such a thing to happen. But 40 days is ample time for that to happen.

Fourth, it diverts attention away from the expectation of a quick return of Jesus as seen in Paul and the Synoptic Gospels. That gets effectively replaced by the descent of the Holy Spirit.

There never was an ascension of Jesus of any kind. This is all Luke’s invention for the stated reasons.

None of the supernatural events in the NT really happened. They are stories with a purpose. The most likely ‘real deal’ IMO is that Jesus was a popular figure who preached a return to the spirit of the written Law and heeding the warnings of the Prophets. His talking against the obsession of the Pharisees with rule-making and strict literal adherence to those rules got him in trouble with them. His obvious popularity with the crowds and that business at the Temple got the Sadducees and the Romans ticked off at him too. Ending up crucified was no surprise. What happened next? A stolen body and a shill to say Jesus rose from the dead and went to Galilee? This is now even more speculative. But it could explain a lot.

To claim that the NT writers misrepresented actual events is to miss the point. The supernatural events in the NT never happened at all. This can be seen by how perfectly these events fit in to very visible agendas.


John 3:1-7
There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

What is Jesus talking about here? What does it mean to be born again of water and the Spirit? The answer lies in Paul and in Acts.

Colossians 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Acts 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

Acts 19:1-6
And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

John’s baptism of water was insufficient. They also needed the Holy Ghost.

Being born of water and the Spirit is baptism. Paul uses the metaphor of dying and being resurrected. John uses the metaphor of being born again. They are all talking about baptism.

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Paul repeatedly uses the word ‘flesh’ (Greek sarx) to suggest the sinful nature of man which can be overcome by baptism. Nowhere do we see any hint that those who are baptized with the Spirit suddenly do not have bodies anymore. I fail to see how John 3:6 points to Jesus walking around, talking, eating etc. without a body.

Concerning 1 Corinthians 15, this is Paul’s argument that resurrection is possible. Nobody said you have to believe it. But your disbelief does not affect what Paul intended to be understood.

 

[CG Didymus]

“a rhetorical question is asked when the questioner himself knows the answer already”

To make a new religion be the fulfilment of every prophecy in every religion, some things are going to have to be tweaked a little. Technically, for the Baha's, Muhammad is the second coming of Christ... but only if we start with Jesus the Christ. All the prophet/manifestations are "The Christ" so even Jesus wasn't the first or second... but one of many.

In Trailblazers post 1210 she has some quotes stating how the Bible isn't completely "authentic". But she says the OT is more authentic than the NT. But the OT in Genesis has a glaring error in it according to the more recent and therefore more authentic teachings from God. Ishmael was the one taken to be sacrificed, not Isaac. So for Baha'is not to believe in the resurrection story as told in the gospels is only one of several things they change to make fit their beliefs.

Then in one of Tony's posts, he'll have quote from the Baha'i Writings that tell how great the Bible is? And then he'll deny that Baha'is change anything. They just give the correct interpretation of it. So good luck with the back and forth with them.

 

[CG Didymus]

This is what we are now facing. It is not a coincidence that the world is on the brink of destruction with its finger on the button.

Prophecy has unfolded, all knowledge was released and mankind has rejected God.

We are reaping the appropriate punishment. At the same time the planting for a new harvest continues.

Far past time to beat swords into plowshares. Many have though.

Regards Tony

Prophecy has unfolded, or is still unfolding? In the other thread we went through a lot of the prophecies in Revelation. You have your Baha'i interpretation, but seeing the way things are going, the world could very well be heading for all the woes and tribulations mentioned in the book. In other words, the three "Woes" being Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah didn't make sense to me. The "Two Witnesses" being Muhammad and Ali? That didn't either. But the worst was saying some Islamic ruler in Andalusia hundreds of years ago one of the beasts or something? I think he was supposed to be the mortally wounded head that came back to life of a multi-headed beast.

But in the wars and rumors of war prophecy, it also said that the world was going to see tribulation like it had never seen before. What was the tribulation in 1844 that was so great? And, I'm sure things were bad, but were they any worse than what we are facing now with nuclear bombs and chemical weapons? I think there is a good chance we are heading toward the end still. I know you see the bad things as being caused by the world's rejection of Baha'u'llah. But then that means all the prophecies haven't been fulfilled yet... and Baha'u'llah is more than 100 years gone.

 

[Trailblazer]

NO! NOT in the bible. Think! Would a man come from two women? The answer is NO.
How many times I have to say this, Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí Núrí, aka, Baha’u’llah, a Persian Shi'ite, came from Ishmael and NOT from Isaac.

Read this verse again.

"And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad/Ishmael, and because of thy handmaid/Hagar. In all that Sarah saith unto thee, hearken unto her voice. For in Isaac shall thy seed be called." -Genesis 21:12

1559. Bahá’u’lláh was a Descendent of Abraham Through Both Katurah and Sarah—Jesse, Son of Sarah, was the Father of David and Ancestor of Bahá’u’lláh

"Regarding your question concerning the Jesse from whom Bahá’u’lláh is descended: The Master says in 'Some Answered Questions', referring to Isaiah, chapter 11, verses 1 to 10, that these verses apply 'Word for word to Bahá’u’lláh'. He then identifies this Jesse as the father of David in the following words: '…for Joseph was of the descendants of Jesse the father of David…', thus identifying the Jesse of Isaiah, chapter 11, with being the father of David. Bahá’u’lláh is thus the descendant of Jesse, the father of David.

"The Guardian hopes that this will clarify the matter for you. It is a tremendous and fascinating theme, Bahá’u’lláh's connection with the Faith of Judaism, and one which possesses great interest to Jew and Christian alike." (From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, July 11, 1942)

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

No, Baha’u’llah did not come through Ishmael:

“Aside from this, certain families and lineages have been singled out for a special blessing. Thus the descendants of Abraham received the special blessing that all the Prophets of the House of Israel were raised up from among their ranks. This is a blessing that God bestowed upon that lineage. Moses, through both His father and His mother; Christ, through His mother; Muhammad; the Báb; and all the Prophets and Holy Ones of Israel belong to that lineage. Bahá’u’lláh too is a lineal descendant of Abraham, for Abraham had other sons besides Ishmael and Isaac who in those days emigrated to the regions of Persia and Afghanistan, and the Blessed Beauty is one of their descendants.” Some Answered Questions

This passage clearly states that Baha’u’llah descended from Abraham via another son than Ishmael or Isaac. Since Ishmael and Isaac were Abraham’s only children by Hagar and Sarah, this leaves Keturah, the third wife of Abraham, as the mother of his other sons, as can be seen on this genealogy chart: Genealogy of The Báb and Bahá'u'lláh

 

[Trailblazer]

“And there shall come forth a shoot out of the stock of Jesse, and a branch out of his roots shall bear fruit.” –Isaiah 11:1

This verse is NOT about or it does NOT refer to Baha’u’llah as the Messiah but to Christ as the Messiah and it happened during Christ earthly ministry.

"Regarding your question concerning the Jesse from whom Bahá’u’lláh is descended: The Master says in 'Some Answered Questions', referring to Isaiah, chapter 11, verses 1 to 10, that these verses apply 'Word for word to Bahá’u’lláh'. He then identifies this Jesse as the father of David in the following words: '…for Joseph was of the descendants of Jesse the father of David…', thus identifying the Jesse of Isaiah, chapter 11, with being the father of David. Bahá’u’lláh is thus the descendant of Jesse, the father of David." (From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, July 11, 1942)

“And John bare witness, saying, I have beheld the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven; and it abode upon him.” - “And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize in water, he said unto me, Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding upon him, the same is he that baptizeth in the Holy Spirit.” -John 1:32-33

“the same is he that baptizeth in the Holy Spirit”, John announced that Jesus would impart the Holy Spirit to his followers and this occurred in Acts chapter 2 and this is what the Lord Jesus was saying in John 14:26 about the “COMFORTER”

“But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you.” –John 14:26

Again, there is NO room for Baha’u’llah here.

No, what happened with the Holy Spirit in Acts chapter 2 is not connected to what Jesus said in John 14:26, and not connected to what Jesus said about the Comforter and the Spirit of truth in John 15 or 16. All those verses refer to Baha’u’llah and He did everything that Jesus said He would do. Referring to Jesus as the Son of Man, Baha’u’llah testified of Jesus and glorified Jesus in His Writings (see below).

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

John 16:13-14 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. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

John 16:8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

“Know thou that when the Son of Man yielded up His breath to God, the whole creation wept with a great weeping. By sacrificing Himself, however, a fresh capacity was infused into all created things. Its evidences, as witnessed in all the peoples of the earth, are now manifest before thee. The deepest wisdom which the sages have uttered, the profoundest learning which any mind hath unfolded, the arts which the ablest hands have produced, the influence exerted by the most potent of rulers, are but manifestations of the quickening power released by His transcendent, His all-pervasive, and resplendent Spirit.

We testify that when He came into the world, He shed the splendor of His glory upon all created things. Through Him the leper recovered from the leprosy of perversity and ignorance. Through Him, the unchaste and wayward were healed. Through His power, born of Almighty God, the eyes of the blind were opened, and the soul of the sinner sanctified.

Leprosy may be interpreted as any veil that interveneth between man and the recognition of the Lord, his God. Whoso alloweth himself to be shut out from Him is indeed a leper, who shall not be remembered in the Kingdom of God, the Mighty, the All-Praised. We bear witness that through the power of the Word of God every leper was cleansed, every sickness was healed, every human infirmity was banished. He it is Who purified the world. Blessed is the man who, with a face beaming with light, hath turned towards Him.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 85-86

 

[Trailblazer]

You need to understand that in the bible there is only Christ, the Messiah, and NO Baha'u'llah.

That is not true since the OT is about Moses, not Jesus. The NT is about Jesus, not Baha’u’llah.
However, Jesus was prophesied in the OT and Baha’u’llah was prophesied in the OT and NT.

You can quote all Baha'u'llah's writings and insert then in the bible but it will only complicate things up with contradictions. 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.

I never inserted anything Baha’u’llah wrote into the Bible.

Only through Christ, and NOT through baha'u'llah, one "can be inspired by the Holy Spirit"
“But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you.” –John 14:26.

I am sorry but that is not true. John 14:26 is about Baha’u’llah, it is not about Jesus, since Baha’u’llah is the Comforter that the Father sent in the name of Jesus.

There is more than one Comforter. Jesus was one Comforter, and Baha’u’llah was another Comforter.

 

[Trailblazer]

To claim that it is impossible to know what the writers meant is simply BS. The three Synoptic Gospels were written in very straightforward easily accessible Greek. They are each telling stories to further a particular point of view. The meanings of these stories are all very plain as is the plain physicality of the episodes.

Okay, so we can know what they meant. That really does not matter since they could easily have been wrong about what they thought they knew happened.

It is John that sometimes indulged in intentionally dense language. But when one digs into it and is aware of his referents, his meaning also becomes clear. One obstacle to reading John is that he is presenting a Christology that has Jesus be a pre-existent divine entity but also needs to maintain a strict monotheism, that coming with the Jewish backstory. His position on this is stated in the first few verses which are straight out of Philo’s Logos concept. It was Paul who first introduced Philo by equating the messianic title Son of God with Philo’s preexisting, quasi-divine Son of God. In Philo Logos = Son of God. Two names for the same concept. Philo was also a monotheist and the obvious resource for working out this puzzle.

Matthew, Luke and John explicitly state that Jesus was bodily resurrected in a tangible form. Mark implies it but his agenda is about having faith in the absence of proof. In all of them, the tomb is empty. If the resurrection is only spiritual, where is the body? Luke, who in his Gospel stresses the most strongly that the risen Jesus had a body, is the author of Acts, where the disciples watch Jesus ascend into a cloud. Why would it be necessary to state that Jesus rose in bodily form? Since Luke made it plain that Jesus was walking around in a body, for only his spirit to have ascended would necessarily have left a dead body behind. I think that would have been mentioned in the story.

I do not care what is in the gospels. I am under no more obligation to believe it is true than are nonbelievers, Hindus, Buddhists, or Muslims. Just because something is written on a page does not make it true. Moreover, it can be explained as spiritual rather than physical, depending upon how one interprets it. Maybe the writers believed that it was physical so that is why they wrote it as they did, but that does not mean it was physical. Maybe God wanted all this to happen; maybe God wanted the Christians to believe it was physical so that when Baha’u’llah came their beliefs would be tested. I am not God so I do not know what the Bible came to be written as it did, and it really does not matter anymore, since we now have a new Revelation from God. If people want to keep talking about the Bible after it has been superseded that is what they will do, since they have free will, but I consider it a waste of time; and time is not something I have a lot of.

Acts 1:10-11
10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

The angles were saying that Jesus will indeed come back in the clouds at the end of days as promised in the Olivet Discourse. But do not hold your breath. Despite what Paul and the Synoptic Gospels seem to say, the end of days is not just around the corner. Get on with the business of building a church. That process began at Pentecost, not many verses after this. This is a story with a purpose. Jesus did not really ascend into heaven either physically or spiritually. This is a story with a purpose.

As I said earlier, Luke’s reason for writing Acts was to deal with various discrepancies and problems in earlier NT scriptures. The purpose of this particular passage is fourfold.

First, it deals with the question that has been left dangling since the earliest days of Christianity. Paul said that Jesus rose from the dead. He also said that Jesus spoke to him in visions in the third heaven. Where was Jesus in between? The answer: Jesus stayed around for a while then ascended into heaven. Bodily? Had to be since Jesus rose bodily, empty tomb, eating fish and so on. No mention of a body left behind.

Second, it is the beginning of a cover story to deal with Paul saying he got information from Jesus that the Apostles did not have. Since none of the Gospels have Jesus telling the disciples anything about the undoing of Adam’s sin and other Pauline ideas, Luke invents a 40-day timespan in which Jesus ‘speaks of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God’. (Acts 1:3) Ample opportunity for telling them anything from Paul not mentioned earlier.

Third, it deals with the fact that in 1 Corinthians 15:6 over 500 people see the risen Jesus. There is no mention of this in any of the Gospels, nor sufficient time for such a thing to happen. But 40 days is ample time for that to happen.

Fourth, it diverts attention away from the expectation of a quick return of Jesus as seen in Paul and the Synoptic Gospels. That gets effectively replaced by the descent of the Holy Spirit.

There never was an ascension of Jesus of any kind. This is all Luke’s invention for the stated reasons.

None of the supernatural events in the NT really happened. They are stories with a purpose. The most likely ‘real deal’ IMO is that Jesus was a popular figure who preached a return to the spirit of the written Law and heeding the warnings of the Prophets. His talking against the obsession of the Pharisees with rule-making and strict literal adherence to those rules got him in trouble with them. His obvious popularity with the crowds and that business at the Temple got the Sadducees and the Romans ticked off at him too. Ending up crucified was no surprise. What happened next? A stolen body and a shill to say Jesus rose from the dead and went to Galilee? This is now even more speculative. But it could explain a lot.

To claim that the NT writers misrepresented actual events is to miss the point. The supernatural events in the NT never happened at all. This can be seen by how perfectly these events fit in to very visible agendas.

John 3:1-7
There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

What is Jesus talking about here? What does it mean to be born again of water and the Spirit? The answer lies in Paul and in Acts.

Colossians 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Acts 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

Acts 19:1-6
And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

John’s baptism of water was insufficient. They also needed the Holy Ghost.

Being born of water and the Spirit is baptism. Paul uses the metaphor of dying and being resurrected. John uses the metaphor of being born again. They are all talking about baptism.

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Paul repeatedly uses the word ‘flesh’ (Greek sarx) to suggest the sinful nature of man which can be overcome by baptism. Nowhere do we see any hint that those who are baptized with the Spirit suddenly do not have bodies anymore. I fail to see how John 3:6 points to Jesus walking around, talking, eating etc. without a body.

Concerning 1 Corinthians 15, this is Paul’s argument that resurrection is possible. Nobody said you have to believe it. But your disbelief does not affect what Paul intended to be understood.

Wow. Thanks for explaining all of that. You are way over my head, since I am not familiar with much of the Bible, just certain verses. However, I am saving that in a Word document for future reference because I post to many Christians both here and on another forum.

You said: “This is a story with a purpose.

I would be interested to know what you believe that purpose was. I am always interested in what Christians and others believe.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well we could start with the Baha'i founders' woeful ignorance of heredity and genealogy...for a start they seemed completely ignorant of the fact that any genealogical connection they might have had with the family lines of David and Abraham (for example) were, even if true, entirely unremarkable...

Where did Baha’u’llah say anything about His genealogy? The fact that Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi wrote some things about who Baha’u’llah was descended from does not imply that they thought it was remarkable or that it was proof of Baha’u’llah... Baha’u’llah clearly spelled out what the best proof was.

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.” Gleanings, pp. 105-106

People can take it or leave it. Baha’u’llah did not care. What he did was wholly for the sake of God, not for Himself.

“Who can ever believe that this Servant of God hath at any time cherished in His heart a desire for any earthly honor or benefit? The Cause associated with His Name is far above the transitory things of this world. Behold Him, an exile, a victim of tyranny, in this Most Great Prison. His enemies have assailed Him on every side, and will continue to do so till the end of His life. Whatever, therefore, He saith unto you is wholly for the sake of God, that haply the peoples of the earth may cleanse their hearts from the stain of evil desire, may rend its veil asunder, and attain unto the knowledge of the one true God—the most exalted station to which any man can aspire. Their belief or disbelief in My Cause can neither profit nor harm Me. We summon them wholly for the sake of God. He, verily, can afford to dispense with all creatures.” Gleanings, p. 85

Then there's the whole thing about heirship to the leadership of the Baha'i faith...Baha'u'llah had Abdu'l Baha as his first successor and then Mirza Muhhamad Ali - but he turned out to be a right rotter so Abdu'l Baha chose Shoghi Effendi - his grandson - to be Guardian on Abdu'l Baha's death and indicated that he (Shoghi) should be succeeded by his own eldest son or at least another male descendant of Baha'u'llah to be named by the Guardian before his passing. Unfortunately, Shoghi went and popped his clogs both childless and intestate...

The fact that Shoghi Effendi died suddenly before he could appoint a successor was not his fault. That in no way negates the Baha’i Faith. The UHJ was already provided for in the Writings of Baha’u’llah so we will always have guidance and a head of the Faith. Moreover, through the Writings of Shoghi Effendi we have a Guardianship, just not a living Guardian.

...seems not only did Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l Baha fail to recognize the complete lack of significance of their own supposed genetic heritage but they also had zero knowledge of the future of their genetic lines either.

Mírzá Muhammad `Alí - Wikipedia

How could anyone with such a clear lack of insight concerning their own heredity and their families immediate future be any more than humans struggling to make sense of the inexplicable vagaries and transience of human existence? Smart guys one and all - and with some eminently sensible religious ideas (if we must have religion at all) - but divinely inspired Messiahs - direct mouthpieces of an effulgent and ineffably glorious God - no - I don't think so.

What is your evidence that Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l Baha did not know the significance of their own genetic heritage or the knowledge of their genetic lines?

 

[CG Didymus]

Acts 1:2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:

What does this mean? It means that Jesus will be taken up in the clouds and that on Pentecost, the Holy Spirit will descend of the disciples. Why is this even a question?

Acts 1:9-11
And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

So what is to interpret here? What you are saying is that you do not want it to mean what the writer clearly intended to be understood. You want it to mean something else.

Whether it really happened or could happen is irrelevant. It is what the writer said happened, not some symbolic mishmash to be interpreted as one desires. Acts is all about resolving discrepancies and problems in earlier scriptures. To say that its many events are not to be taken as what the writer clearly says defeats the purpose of the book. Whether they really happened or not does not matter. The writer plainly intended them to be taken at face value.

The idea of the bodily resurrection of Jesus appears unambiguously in 1 Corinthians 15, written about 53-54 AD. The idea of a general resurrection when Jesus returns appears in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 written about 50 AD. No justification or explanation for this is provided. It is assumed to be part of general beliefs already. The several Gospels incorporate these and other ideas from Paul. All of the Gospels use the empty tomb theme, pointing directly to a bodily resurrection understanding. This idea was not invented later on. It appears very early in Christianity.

"Whether it really happened or could happen is irrelevant. It is what the writer said happened, not some symbolic mishmash..." ​

That's what this is all about. The writers said it happened. For the Baha'is, they have to show where and when the intent and truth about those words in the gospels became symbolic? If the question is if there is any proof of the resurrection, then yes... the gospels. For the Baha'is to believe the resurrection didn't happened, that it is "unscientific", doesn't matter. Baha'is reject the only proof... the words of the gospel writers. But who other than Christians would believe it, anyway? The problem with the Baha'is is they say they do believe the words in the gospels. But, to do that, they make the resurrection verses mean something else... And that's a lot different than believing. But what they do believe in... is the words of their "infallible" prophets. That is the only proof they need. Just like Christians with the Bible, it says it, it is the Word of God, so that's that. It's settled.