What was the intent of the Gospel authors when writing of the resurrection of Christ?

[Deeje]

In some respects our beliefs are polar opposites. What works for you wouldn’t work for me anymore than the Baha’i Faith would not work for you.

I know that. Belief is a strange thing, isn't it?

Many Christians would consider neither of our faiths as being reflective of true Christianity. We’ve both journeyed from mainstream Christianity to arrive at a destination of what makes sense to us personally. Both our faiths claim to understand true Christianity and accepts at least some of the Christianity’s tenants. The disbelief in a literal bodily resurrection is an important difference between the Baha’is and mainstream Christians.

I believe that some will experience a resurrection like Jesus did (died in the flesh, made alive in the spirit) and others will get a resurrection such as the one that Jesus gave to Lazarus....a full, physical resurrection with a body specifically designed to live on earth, after all, this is where God put us in the first place. I don't believe that God ever intended for any human to go to heaven...why would he? He already had a large spiritual family in that realm.

I believe one shouldn’t blindly accept the faith they were raised in or join any new religion without thoroughly investigating it beforehand.

Me either....I studied the Bible for two years before I committed to baptism. I knew exactly what I was doing and for the first time in my life I knew what God's purpose was for humankind here on earth. And the whole picture became clear. I didn't need to incorporate other gods, or prophets, or scripture, or religions, to confuse the issues because the truth was beautifully simple, not complicated at all.

A religion that at least respects science and the scientific community is a non negotiable principle for me. Having a respect for the diversity of humanity’ experience is another essential. A belief in a literal resurrection fundamentally undermines both science and religious diversity.

On the contrary, I have great respect for science...I have no respect for its misuse, or its ridiculous theories, which are as unprovable as the very thing it rails against. Evolution requires as much "belief" as religion. There is no real evidence for any of it. Theories are not facts.

Ironically to emphasise a physical resurrection is to fundamentally misunderstand the purpose Jesus came.

From what I have read about Baha'i beliefs, the reverse is true. Physical resurrections were reported on in the Bible. Jesus raised his friend Lazarus who had been dead for four days. (John 11:11-14) His sister Martha expressed belief in the resurrection. If Jesus was not resurrected, his mission was not finished...and he taught his disciples lies about life and death.

What if I’m right?

If you are right what does that mean for me?
If I am right, what does that mean for you? My God does not tolerate the worship of other gods or the words of false prophets. He does not tolerate immorality either. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

A literal resurrection relies on an outdated and redundant cosmology. It relies on biblical literalism. It make no sense whatsoever to believe the physical body of a man ascended through the stratosphere into outer space.

Not sure that you understand.....Jesus was not raised in a physical body....he was raised in a spirit body. All who are chosen to rule with him will also be given spirit bodies. Those raised with physical bodies will live here on earth, as subjects of God's Kingdom, as Revelation says....

Revelation 21:3-4...
"With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his people. And God himself will be with them. 4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.”

God is "with mankind" here where his Kingdom, (in the hands of his Christ) will bring back to us the paradise that we lost in Eden. There will be no more tears, mourning or pain because the former things that caused all suffering will have passed away....even death will be no more.

So who were the 500 and where is the evidence outside the Bible such a phenomenal event happened?

Who was Baháʼu'lláh and where is the proof that he was ever a genuine prophet of God? What evidence is there that his writings are in any way from the true God, who fulfilled his promise of a Messiah through Abraham, Isaac and Jacob...not Ishmael. You can't have it both ways. Islam did not feature at all in the Bible's narrative.....who told you that it did?

So Paul’s resurrection experience unless it has been omitted in any NT book is a mystical experience.

John's Revelation is also a mystical experience.....so...? I believe both because they are recorded in God's word.
The transfiguration was a mystical experience too...these things occurred in Bible times. They don't anymore.

I’m not sure what you are saying here or how any of it is relevant. I’ve already made clear the Gospel resurrection narratives aren’t parables.

But they may as well be if you call them allegory....They were either real experiences or the Bible writers lied.

The World Wide Web seems to be working remarkably well allowing us to have this discussion.

The WWW also has its very dark side as you may be aware. It feeds the depravity now so common in this world.

My TV, car and planes that flew my family to Wellington and back all work exceptionally well.

TV requires electricity, usually generated by coal fired power stations where I live....do you have green energy in NZ? Carbon neutral power?
Cars and planes are polluters too.....does that work exceptionally well for the planet?

The problem isn’t with science. The problem is the widespread decline of morality.

You are right, but science contributes by allowing itself to be exploited by the greedy commercial interests of this world. Moral decline is seen when spiritual decline takes place. Science has no spirituality so it is easily exploited by those with deep pockets.

Your whole narrative just reflects your issues with science, the same science that provides a worldview that contradicts long held biblical beliefs including the bodily ascension of Christ through the stratosphere. However if you wish to reject science we have free will.

Actually true and provable science does not contradict anything in the Bible. I see God as the greatest scientist in existence since he created all of what science studies. I have no problem with what science can prove....but I will not accept man's theory over the Bible...that is the difference. I won't sell God out to flawed human evaluations that could well change tomorrow. God does not change and neither does his purpose for this earth. (Isaiah 55:11)

 

[metis]

The only "belief" in science is to try and be objective through the elimination of bias, which includes religious bias. Religion, otoh, is bias not based on objectively-derived evidence, thus pretty much the polar opposite of science.

However, this is not to say they are mutually exclusive in terms of their conclusions, thus many of us tend to use both.

 

[CG Didymus]

Should we take all this as a literal account of events or perhaps the story of Jesus is embellished or allegorised to convey hidden spiritual truths?

I’ve already made clear the Gospel resurrection narratives aren’t parables.

But they may as well be if you call them allegory....They were either real experiences or the Bible writers lied.

I checked and it looks like a synonym for a parable is allegory.
Parable definition, a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson.

I'm good with it being embellished, and not "allegorized", stories. But are Baha'is? I'm not that one that came up with the word "parable". Some Baha'i here used it. But let's go with allegorized. To me that means the story was fictional. The writer was never intending for the story to be taken literally. For me the resurrection story is not like that. To me an "embellished" story makes more sense. But what is an "embellishment"? I'm using it to mean the writers added in things that didn't happen to make the story more powerful. But, if those things didn't happen, how are they not lies?

The empty tomb? Who and how many people went to the tomb? Then all the appearances. Jesus appears and disappears, but he has flesh and bone? Then floats off into the clouds. I doubt very much that 2000 years ago Christians were telling people that these things are just allegory. Even today, those things and more, like the 6 day Creation story and the worldwide flood, are told and believed as true. People are told that Satan is real and that Jesus is coming back soon. And they believe it. They are told that they have inherited a sin nature because of the fall of Adam and that only by believing and turning to Jesus can a person be saved.

All allegory or all lies? Or, if a person is a Christian... is it all literally true? I agree with Baha'is, it probably isn't true. Much better that all people learn to get along and work together. But, I don't believe the intent of the gospel writers was to make an allegorical resurrection story. So, unfortunately, I can't believe the full explanation that Baha'is give to explain the resurrection and other things in the Bible.

Call it lies, a hoax, ancient religious myths (in other words, fictional stories) and I'll be good. And, unless it can be proven to be absolutely and literally true, I'd agree with you. But, Baha'is can't and they won't go that far. They need to act as if they love and respect Jesus and the Bible... then find ways to explain away all the beliefs and doctrines that Christians have made up from how they interpret the Bible. Oh, and doesn't that make those beliefs and doctrines false? Or, could you even go so far as to say that they are lies? No, of course not. For Baha'is, Christianity is a true, God given religion and Jesus is a manifestation of God. It's just everything Christians say and believe about God and Jesus are wrong.... especially about Jesus being God and resurrecting. I know. They aren't lies. They are just wrong interpretations of things said in the gospels that make it sound like Jesus came back to life and is God.

 

[Dawnofhope]

The only "belief" in science is to try and be objective through the elimination of bias, which includes religious bias. Religion, otoh, is bias not based on objectively-derived evidence, thus pretty much the polar opposite of science.

However, this is not to say they are mutually exclusive in terms of their conclusions, thus many of us tend to use both.

I agree with you in regards science. The problem with ‘religion’ isn’t that it is anti-science. Religion can and does actively promote science. The problem is religion often comes as a package of beliefs. If you reject one of the key tenants of religious faith it is as if the whole religion is rejected. I suspect its more of a problem with the Abrahamic Faiths than with Dharmic Faiths. I include Judaism, Christianity, Islam and to a lesser extent the Baha’i Faith too.

A belief in a literal bodily resurrection and ascension is one such belief. It cuts across science. The ascension of Christ through the stratosphere into outer space (heaven) as implied in Acts of the Apostles 1:9-11, relies on an obsolete cosmology. Its an overt clash between science and religion on a parallel with Christianity’s geocentric view of the universe and young earth.

It appears extremely difficult for Christians to openly reject a belief in the resurrection/ascension, especially in Protestant circles. Catholicism appears a little more able to tolerate diversity of beliefs. Is that correct?

 

[Deeje]

I checked and it looks like a synonym for a parable is allegory.
Parable definition, a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson

If one reads the Bible as one story with one author and with one purpose, the difference between the illustrations used by Jesus and factual accounts becomes obvious. Does it require faith to believe that? Of course it does. Without faith, no one can believe anything....even unprovable scientific theories.

I'm good with it being embellished, and not "allegorized", stories. But are Baha'is?

Why would God allow embellishments in his word? Faith does not need embellishment to make it more believable. Either we accept the Bible as God’s word...or the word of men. If it is from men, then none of it is valid as “scripture”. It’s an “all or nothing” case for me.

What can be impossible for the Creator of everything? If He is not allegory, then his word isn’t either. If he can create the Universe, then he can do whatever his will dictates and he can inspire and preserve his instruction manual for his intelligent creation. Why doubt? Who plants those seeds of doubt? Go back to the beginning of the story and see.....then everything from then on is a continuation of the same story....and the ending is a foregone conclusion.

Doubt destroys faith. (Hebrews 11:6) But only if we allow it to do that.

Jesus gave parables to illustrate real events, (Matthew 13:25; 37-39) and to illustrate principles using ordinary and familiar scenarios that his audience knew well.

But let's go with allegorized. To me that means the story was fictional. The writer was never intending for the story to be taken literally. For me the resurrection story is not like that. To me an "embellished" story makes more sense. But what is an "embellishment"? I'm using it to mean the writers added in things that didn't happen to make the story more powerful. But, if those things didn't happen, how are they not lies?

There is no embellishment necessary.....what is added? And who says? When do we get to make that call, to add or to take away what doesn’t sit well with our reality? Who created our reality?

All allegory or all lies? Or, if a person is a Christian... is it all literally true? I agree with Baha'is, it probably isn't true. Much better that all people learn to get along and work together. But, I don't believe the intent of the gospel writers was to make an allegorical resurrection story. So, unfortunately, I can't believe the full explanation that Baha'is give to explain the resurrection and other things in the Bible.

How does anyone choose what to accept or reject in the Bible? What is the criteria for acceptance or rejection? You have to accept it all...or reject it all, on the same grounds. (1 Thessalonians 2:13) We are not given any other option.

Baha'is can't and they won't go that far. They need to act as if they love and respect Jesus and the Bible... then find ways to explain away all the beliefs and doctrines that Christians have made up from how they interpret the Bible. Oh, and doesn't that make those beliefs and doctrines false? Or, could you even go so far as to say that they are lies? No, of course not. For Baha'is, Christianity is a true, God given religion and Jesus is a manifestation of God. It's just everything Christians say and believe about God and Jesus are wrong.... especially about Jesus being God and resurrecting. I know. They aren't lies. They are just wrong interpretations of things said in the gospels that make it sound like Jesus came back to life and is God.

Baha’i appears to be a religion that dictates to God what they will believe and the basis for it. They will accept the words of a prophet who was self proclaimed, with not a single shred of evidence that he was who he claimed to be, but deny the words of God in the Bible that might reveal the words of their prophet to be untrue. Everything fits because there is a way to interpret it all so that God is in all faiths and with all prophets, and in all scripture, and their worldview means that humans will come together and make the world a better place under their leadership. That is not the way the BibIe tells it, but I understand the appeal.

As I said...belief is a strange thing, and God is giving all of us the exercise of our free will regarding what we will accept as truth and what we will reject. He actually knows what drives those decisions and we are being judged on those very things. We can fool ourselves about the reasons for our decisions, but we cannot hide anything from the one who knows us better than we know ourselves.

That is how I see it.

 

[rational experiences]

One teaching is owned by all humans.

Science satanism the law eating consuming the flesh of God interpreted into ownership cause to holy God body....

human flesh blood bones being destroyed.

As group cult man human brother agreement.

Anything said in science fake.the false prophets scientist high priest.

Blood letting a satanic agreement.

Try being the human victim!

How many of you scientists own spiritual compassion today?

Most place invention and feeding your machines over and above fruit on trees and animals existing as support of human life.

Instead you talk of animal.spirits being a totem. When human parents spirit is your life.

Egypt Moses event bush burnt. Fruit in garden gone. We starved.

Animals died in plagues. The recorded heavenly history says so. Why animals get UFO irradiated satanic advice today.
As it has begun.

What do you brother profer to your satanism?

Human life health he confessed.

Confession heard recorded speaking by a spiritual man. Who wrote what he heard does not make the detail holy.

Why only spiritual holy men were allowed to read and teach and no other self allowed to argue. As you lie in the interpretation of lying already.

Cause after maths fact. Not before. So it has evil predictions.

God O mass says the coercer stone a planet mass never changed. What wisdom said.

God as a maths prediction body did change. Conversion. What you lie about today. As a not changed God mass.

Because man said God O the body still existed science theist used that quote today as if conversion can't change the body mass of earth. Yet he formed new sink holes.

What man AI wisdom self possession means. False word use in theism.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I know that. Belief is a strange thing, isn't it?

There are complex reasons why one person is attracted or repelled to different religions and cultures. During my adolescence I grew up in a culturally diverse city. My experiences through education and work have exposed me to people from different cultures, religions and ideologies from all around the world.

I believe that some will experience a resurrection like Jesus did (died in the flesh, made alive in the spirit) and others will get a resurrection such as the one that Jesus gave to Lazarus....a full, physical resurrection with a body specifically designed to live on earth, after all, this is where God put us in the first place. I don't believe that God ever intended for any human to go to heaven...why would he? He already had a large spiritual family in that realm.

The resurrection for me is life after death. I see we have part of our being called a soul that progresses through the worlds of God beyond this world. We can not take our physical bodies on that journey once we have left the mortal realm. I don't believe we return to this earth.

Me either....I studied the Bible for two years before I committed to baptism. I knew exactly what I was doing and for the first time in my life I knew what God's purpose was for humankind here on earth. And the whole picture became clear. I didn't need to incorporate other gods, or prophets, or scripture, or religions, to confuse the issues because the truth was beautifully simple, not complicated at all.

That is good you have studied the Bible over many years. I have too but I am familiar with other religious traditions too. There is no confusion or complexity for me. There is One God who has manifested Himself to humanity at different times when the need has arisen.

On the contrary, I have great respect for science...I have no respect for its misuse, or its ridiculous theories, which are as unprovable as the very thing it rails against. Evolution requires as much "belief" as religion. There is no real evidence for any of it. Theories are not facts.

According to Baha'i belief, man was never an animal.

From what I have read about Baha'i beliefs, the reverse is true. Physical resurrections were reported on in the Bible. Jesus raised his friend Lazarus who had been dead for four days. (John 11:11-14) His sister Martha expressed belief in the resurrection. If Jesus was not resurrected, his mission was not finished...and he taught his disciples lies about life and death.

Stories about resurrections and people coming back from the dead are not unique to Judaism or Christianity.

If you are right what does that mean for me?
If I am right, what does that mean for you? My God does not tolerate the worship of other gods or the words of false prophets. He does not tolerate immorality either. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

I believe in the God of Abraham. God requires of us to recognize the truth wherever it manifests itself. To deny One of God's Prophets is to deny them all.

Not sure that you understand.....Jesus was not raised in a physical body....he was raised in a spirit body. All who are chosen to rule with him will also be given spirit bodies.

Jesus certainly wasn't raised in the same physical body He lived in for the short period of His life. Otherwise you're getting off track again.

Who was Baháʼu'lláh and where is the proof that he was ever a genuine prophet of God? What evidence is there that his writings are in any way from the true God, who fulfilled his promise of a Messiah through Abraham, Isaac and Jacob...not Ishmael. You can't have it both ways. Islam did not feature at all in the Bible's narrative.....who told you that it did?

From Ishmael comes a great nation (Genesis 17:20). Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah are all descended from Abraham in regards their genealogy and spiritually.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Call it lies, a hoax, ancient religious myths (in other words, fictional stories) and I'll be good. And, unless it can be proven to be absolutely and literally true, I'd agree with you. But, Baha'is can't and they won't go that far. They need to act as if they love and respect Jesus and the Bible... then find ways to explain away all the beliefs and doctrines that Christians have made up from how they interpret the Bible. Oh, and doesn't that make those beliefs and doctrines false? Or, could you even go so far as to say that they are lies? No, of course not. For Baha'is, Christianity is a true, God given religion and Jesus is a manifestation of God. It's just everything Christians say and believe about God and Jesus are wrong.... especially about Jesus being God and resurrecting. I know. They aren't lies. They are just wrong interpretations of things said in the gospels that make it sound like Jesus came back to life and is God.

Many Baha'is I know have grown up Christian as I have and retain their love for Jesus and the Bible. That is my sincerely held belief. Jesus taught in parables knowing only those with spiritual ears could hear His message. I believe the Gospel writers took the same approach with allegorised and embellished stories that capture something of the essence of Christ that a mere historical account could never capture. I respect you have a different perspective.

 

[metis]

The problem with ‘religion’ isn’t that it is anti-science. Religion can and does actively promote science.

Agreed.

It appears extremely difficult for Christians to openly reject a belief in the resurrection/ascension, especially in Protestant circles. Catholicism appears a little more able to tolerate diversity of beliefs. Is that correct?

At the personal level, yes. However, when teaching within the Church, the "company line" must be given which, to me, is understandable.

As far as my opinion on the resurrection is concerned, I again resort to my oft used response: I don't know.

 

[Aupmanyav]

To make people believe in what they were writing.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I checked and it looks like a synonym for a parable is allegory.
Parable definition, a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson.

The Gospel accounts are complex long stories that take about 2-3 hours to read aloud depending on what Gospel is read. Parables are much shorter and will generally be no more than a few verses or paragraphs.

I'm good with it being embellished, and not "allegorized", stories. But are Baha'is? I'm not that one that came up with the word "parable". Some Baha'i here used it. But let's go with allegorized. To me that means the story was fictional. The writer was never intending for the story to be taken literally. For me the resurrection story is not like that. To me an "embellished" story makes more sense. But what is an "embellishment"? I'm using it to mean the writers added in things that didn't happen to make the story more powerful. But, if those things didn't happen, how are they not lies?

An embellishment is something you add to a story to make it more attractive or interesting. In the context of a religious biography or narrative, its usually not literal history.

A story is allegorised if the intent is to convey a meaning beyond the details of the story itself. Its an extremely common literary device or part of telling a story to another with speech. Jesus used allegory with the many parables He spoke in. Most of the Biblical authors use allegory throughout some of their works.

The resurrection aspect of the Gospel accounts are heavily embellished and allegorised. From a literary perspective it blends well with the rest of the text and conveys an important message upon initial reading. The experience the disciples had of Jesus post crucifixion was as real to them as if Jesus had physically rose from the dead.

The Gospel writers were not idiots. They knew how to write and communicate. The bodily resurrection of Christ did not literally happen but there was a clear purpose in writing as if it had. They were not liars, anymore than novelists are liars. Had the Gospel writers claimed to writing solely history as is understood today, then sure call them liars. However they were writing religious narratives nearly two thousand years ago.

The empty tomb? Who and how many people went to the tomb? Then all the appearances. Jesus appears and disappears, but he has flesh and bone? Then floats off into the clouds. I doubt very much that 2000 years ago Christians were telling people that these things are just allegory. Even today, those things and more, like the 6 day Creation story and the worldwide flood, are told and believed as true. People are told that Satan is real and that Jesus is coming back soon. And they believe it. They are told that they have inherited a sin nature because of the fall of Adam and that only by believing and turning to Jesus can a person be saved.

The problem with all religion is when spiritual and physical reality are confused. In my view, with Christianity many of those who pride themselves on being called Christian fundamentally misunderstand the Gospel accounts. They confuse a religious narrative with literal history. That’s why so many Christians believe in not just the resurrection, but a young earth, literal creationism, Satan and his band of demons. They literally believe humanity inherited sin from Adam because Eve accepted an apple from a talking snake and that’s why Jesus needed to be crucified.

All allegory or all lies? Or, if a person is a Christian... is it all literally true? I agree with Baha'is, it probably isn't true. Much better that all people learn to get along and work together. But, I don't believe the intent of the gospel writers was to make an allegorical resurrection story. So, unfortunately, I can't believe the full explanation that Baha'is give to explain the resurrection and other things in the Bible.

I’m good with you disbelieving the Baha’is explanation of the resurrection and finding an explanation that makes sense for you. At least you try to have a constructive conversation with Baha’is, Christians and atheists alike.

 

[Clear]

Hi @adrian009

Adrian009 said : " I personally see insurmountable problems with a literal bodily resurrection but it begs the question, if Jesus didn't literally and bodily come back to life after death, what was the intent of the author's of each of the four Gospels in writing the resurrection narrative?” (Opening Post)


Hi Adrian009,

Your threads are often such good topics of discussion.

I voted that the authors of the Gospels were attempting to add their witness to an actual, historical event due to the Historical context of the central importance of the promise of an actual, material, bodily, resurrection inside early Judeo-Christianity.


The resurrection relates to multiple profound concepts central to early Judeo-Christian theology.

For examples :

The resurrection relates to the nature of matter itself and its role in the framework of the physical universe.

The concept of different types of matter and the relationship of intelligent, self-willed matter (i.e. intelligent spirit) and unintelligent, passive matter (i.e. the body, a brick, a piece of metal…etc).

The relationship of the spirit within man to the mortal body and to an eternal, glorified body.

The promise to Adam and other historical figures such as prophets that mankind would, ultimately be resurrected and receive eternal life as part of Gods ultimate plan for mankind.

The union of a spirit to a body at birth. Its dissolution at death. Its reunion at resurrection.

The type of bodies that are involved in the resurrection of the various individuals who are resurrected.

The role of resurrection as proof that Jesus was the promised Messiah.

And a few other points related to resurrection….



I think, that for the authors of the gospels, the fact that Jesus was resurrected was proof that he was the Messiah and that the gospel concepts he taught and that surrounded the concept of resurrection were true.

In any case, I hope your own spiritual journey in life is wonderful Adrian009


Clear
ειακφισεω

 

[Deeje]

There are complex reasons why one person is attracted or repelled to different religions and cultures. During my adolescence I grew up in a culturally diverse city. My experiences through education and work have exposed me to people from different cultures, religions and ideologies from all around the world.

Australia is also multi-cultural.....I too have had interactions with people from many cultures. But there is something about our spirituality that regulates what we will accept and what we will reject. But it also depends on God, who sees the heart and will "draw" us if he sees a right hearted person, as opposed to a closed minded one. (John 6:44; 65)

1 Samuel 16:7.....
"....For the way man sees is not the way God sees, because mere man sees what appears to the eyes, but Jehovah sees into the heart.”

Jesus said we had to be like "young children" or we would never "enter the Kingdom of God" (Matthew 18:3) Young children are meek and teachable, with no pre-conceived ideas to get in the way.

The resurrection for me is life after death. I see we have part of our being called a soul that progresses through the worlds of God beyond this world. We can not take our physical bodies on that journey once we have left the mortal realm. I don't believe we return to this earth.

You know this is where I could never accept that our lives continued after death. It was not originally a Jewish belief because death was the end of life. They were to rest in "sheol" where there is no consciousness or activity.
"There is hope for whoever is among the living, because a live dog is better off than a dead lion. 5 For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing at all, nor do they have any more reward, because all memory of them is forgotten. . . . .Whatever your hand finds to do, do with all your might, for there is no work nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom in sheol, where you are going." (Ecclesiastes 9:4, 5; 10)

God did not tell Adam about any afterlife, nor did he tell him that he had a soul that lived inside his body that was a separate entity that could exit his body and go somewhere else when he died.....
"And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." (Genesis 2:7)

Adam was not "given" a soul but "became" a soul when God started him breathing. Adam did not exist before his creation and ceased to exist when he died. That is what death is......the opposite of life, not a continuation of it.

God simply told Adam...
"In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return.” (Genesis 3:19)
That's it. Adam was not ever offered a return to life because his sin is not covered by Jesus' sacrifice. Only Adam's children are redeemed by Christ's blood, born in sin through no fault on their part....but we still need to stay within the boundaries that Jesus set for Christians.

That is good you have studied the Bible over many years. I have too but I am familiar with other religious traditions too. There is no confusion or complexity for me. There is One God who has manifested Himself to humanity at different times when the need has arisen.

If that is the case, then Jehovah speaks with a forked tongue. He punished his ancient people for excursions into false worship and false religious practices. He also punished them for adopting the idolatry of those religions. I cannot reconcile the God of Abraham with false worship. God punished his own people for worshipping a golden calf...a god that they called "Jehovah".

According to Baha'i belief, man was never an animal.

So science has its limits for you too?

Stories about resurrections and people coming back from the dead are not unique to Judaism or Christianity.

I know, but the resurrections in the Bible were specific. Do you doubt that Jesus could raise Lazarus with the power of God's spirit? How did his resurrection benefit Lazarus and his two sisters? It actually changed his destiny because no one who died before Jesus went to heaven. So by resurrecting him, he gave him a heavenly hope instead of being separated from his sisters who would have received a heavenly anointing at Pentecost, after Jesus' death and resurrection.

There was also Jairus' daughter and the widow's son, both of whom were the only child of their parents, so demonstrating his loving concern for those whose children were their only joy and without the prospect of more children, Jesus showed us what will take place in the "new earth" (2 Peter 3:13) only on a grand scale....bringing loved ones back together by reversing death.

I believe in the God of Abraham. God requires of us to recognize the truth wherever it manifests itself. To deny One of God's Prophets is to deny them all.

But to acknowledge a false prophet and to be misled by him was worse. If God did not send the prophet then anything he said was his own work or worse still, from God's adversary....the sower of the deceitful weeds.

Jesus certainly wasn't raised in the same physical body He lived in for the short period of His life. Otherwise you're getting off track again.

Jesus was raised in a spiritual body....one that would survive in the spirit realm. But this kind of death and resurrection was only promised for those "elect" or "chosen" for rulership in heaven with Jesus. (Revelation 20:6)

From Ishmael comes a great nation (Genesis 17:20). Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah are all descended from Abraham in regards their genealogy and spiritually.

But the promises were to come through Isaac and Jacob, not Ishmael. When Ishmael taunted his younger brother, Sarah asked that the boy and his Egyptian mother be sent away. God told Abraham to listen to his wife. (Genesis 21:8-14) Ishmael was the son of Abraham but he was not the one through whom the promises were to be fulfilled. Islam does not feature in any way in that scenario.

As Jesus said to the Samaritan woman...."You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, because salvation begins with the Jews." (John 4:22)

What is "salvation" to Baha'i's?

 

[Clear]

Hi @adrian009

I just saw a quote attributed to you that said : "To deny One of God's Prophets is to deny them all."

While I did not see the original post, I do like the idea of revelation coming from many sources over the eons and that prophets existed among more nations than the Jews. For example, the Jewish Talmudic traditions tell us that God offered Torah to all nations, not just Israel and one assumes part of the process of offering gospel principles to all nations was done through prophets among them.

The Jewish quote from Beresh*t 27 is as follows :
"Lest the nations of the World complain that Hashem was unfair in not offering the Torah to the rest of the world, Hashem did in fact offer it to all the other nations of the world, and was turned down by all."

The talmudic text describes the other nations turning down the offer of religious revelation (Torah) though this account seems embellished in the sense of self congratulation that that the Jewish nation was the one that had the potential to live the laws of the Torah. It seems just a bit too self-efflating. I suspect other nations accepted some of these principles as well.

However, the principle involved in teaching other nations inspired teachings would necessarily mean teaching it in the language and custom and culture of the nation it is being offered to. The Muslims have a similar principle where revelation is offered bit by bit, in steps.

If the early Judeo-Christian traditions are correct where Adam was a prophet who taught the gospel to his descendants, then it would make perfect sense to find similar doctrines and traditions of prophets, and "doctrinal debris" of similar religious principles among many nations.

I would have no problem believing there were prophets among many nations that taught their people correct religious principles that mirror the principles taught in Judeo-Christianity.

At any rate, I think the principle underlying your comment is insightful.

Clear
εινεφυτωω

 

[CG Didymus]

They confuse a religious narrative with literal history.

Early Church leaders were some of those that were confused?

An embellishment is something you add to a story to make it more attractive or interesting. In the context of a religious biography or narrative, its usually not literal history.

A story is allegorised if the intent is to convey a meaning beyond the details of the story itself. Its an extremely common literary device or part of telling a story to another with speech. Jesus used allegory with the many parables He spoke in. Most of the Biblical authors use allegory throughout some of their works.

The resurrection aspect of the Gospel accounts are heavily embellished and allegorised. From a literary perspective it blends well with the rest of the text and conveys an important message upon initial reading.

So things like walking on water or rising from the dead are embellishments or allegory? Seems like Baha'is try to make them allegory.

The bodily resurrection of Christ did not literally happen but there was a clear purpose in writing as if it had.

And what do Baha'is see as that "clear" purpose? Because it is far different than Early Church beliefs and Catholic and Protestant beliefs. Their purpose is clear too.

Do you doubt that Jesus could raise Lazarus with the power of God's spirit?

So Adrian, how do you see the raising up of Lazarus from being dead. Most Baha'is have tried to say that it was an allegorical/symbolic story? If so, what was the purpose and intention you see with that story?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Early Church leaders were some of those that were confused?

Clearly the resurrection story as presented in the Gospels came to be understood as literal fact early in Christianity’s history. That was their clear belief just as Christians for centuries believed the earth was the centre of the universe, before overwhelmingly scientific fact resulted in Christendom revising its former world view. Beforehand, what did it matter if Christians believed in a geocentric universe? Were they confused? No. Could these beliefs be considered superstition? Probably as they place too much emphasis on the erroneous interpretation of the Bible.

People of a bygone era weren’t educated in the arts and sciences as so many are today. Most were involved in farming and subsistence living. Most were illiterate and had limited if any educational opportunities. So superstition was rife in all cultures including those where Christianity was the predominant religion.

So Church leaders weren’t confused, they were superstitious.

So things like walking on water or rising from the dead are embellishments or allegory? Seems like Baha'is try to make them allegory.

Did Jesus walk on water as recorded in the Gospels? Probably not. God and His Manifestations can and will on rare instances transcend the laws of nature. Miracles are possible with the God of Abraham. However just because God can perform miracles doesn’t mean we should believe every claim attributed to Him. So while Jesus may have walked on water He may not have. From a Baha’i perspective the importance of the story is how the Teachings of Christ can enable us to rise above our lower nature. So probably an embellishment to the historical Jesus and definitely an allegory whether an embellishment or literally true.

And what do Baha'is see as that "clear" purpose? Because it is far different than Early Church beliefs and Catholic and Protestant beliefs. Their purpose is clear too.

The stories are written that we may believe in Jesus.

...these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
John 20:31

So Adrian, how do you see the raising up of Lazarus from being dead. Most Baha'is have tried to say that it was an allegorical/symbolic story? If so, what was the purpose and intention you see with that story?

Through Jesus we will have Eternal life for He has conquered death.

 

[Dawnofhope]

To make people believe in what they were writing.

That is correct. According to John 20:31

“these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.”

 

[Dawnofhope]

Australia is also multi-cultural.....I too have had interactions with people from many cultures. But there is something about our spirituality that regulates what we will accept and what we will reject. But it also depends on God, who sees the heart and will "draw" us if he sees a right hearted person, as opposed to a closed minded one. (John 6:44; 65)

The Christians I encounter having nothing to distinguish them from anyone else, apart from believing their religion is superior. I’ve met wonderful people from many different cultures and faiths and developed enduring friendships.

You know this is where I could never accept that our lives continued after death. It was not originally a Jewish belief because death was the end of life. They were to rest in "sheol" where there is no consciousness or activity.

I agree the concept of life after death is not portrayed clearly in either the Hebrew Bible nor NT. Baha’is and JWs clearly have different views.

If that is the case, then Jehovah speaks with a forked tongue. He punished his ancient people for excursions into false worship and false religious practices. He also punished them for adopting the idolatry of those religions. I cannot reconcile the God of Abraham with false worship. God punished his own people for worshipping a golden calf...a god that they called "Jehovah".

I do not equate Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism with worshipping the golden calf in the Hebrew Bible.

So science has its limits for you too?

Yes.

I know, but the resurrections in the Bible were specific. Do you doubt that Jesus could raise Lazarus with the power of God's spirit? How did his resurrection benefit Lazarus and his two sisters? It actually changed his destiny because no one who died before Jesus went to heaven. So by resurrecting him, he gave him a heavenly hope instead of being separated from his sisters who would have received a heavenly anointing at Pentecost, after Jesus' death and resurrection.

I don’t doubt God has the power to bring the dead back to life. Whether or not He literally brought Lazarus back from the dead, I don’t know. I wasn’t present when it happened.

But to acknowledge a false prophet and to be misled by him was worse. If God did not send the prophet then anything he said was his own work or worse still, from God's adversary....the sower of the deceitful weeds.

When the Jews failed to recognise Jesus as their Messiah they later followed Simon Bar Kokhba whom they believed would led to victory over the Romans. The attempt failed.

Simon bar Kokhba

I see Jesus as the Promised Christ, but I recognise Muhammad, the Bab and Bahá’u’lláh in a similar light. That is my faith and belief. The topic of the OP is the intent of the Gospel writers.

But the promises were to come through Isaac and Jacob, not Ishmael. When Ishmael taunted his younger brother, Sarah asked that the boy and his Egyptian mother be sent away. God told Abraham to listen to his wife. (Genesis 21:8-14) Ishmael was the son of Abraham but he was not the one through whom the promises were to be fulfilled. Islam does not feature in any way in that scenario.

That is your belief and I disagree. It is off topic.

As Jesus said to the Samaritan woman...."You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, because salvation begins with the Jews." (John 4:22)

..and the Jews rejected Christ.

What is "salvation" to Baha'i's?

Recognising the Manifestation of God for this day and following His Teachings.

 

[Aupmanyav]

That is correct. According to John 20:31
“these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.”

And why did Bahaollah write his Aqdas and Iqan, etc.?
To make people believe what he was saying, so that people put him in line and before Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Krishna, Zoroaster, Buddha and Mohammad, since he was the latest. Because other than his assertion, he had no proof of what he was saying.
But as he was saying this Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Quadiani, the Mahdi, appeared in Punjab, India.
Allah alone knows his ways, Bahaollah does not. You have to agree, Allah is great.

 

[Dawnofhope]

And why did Bahaollah write his Aqdas and Iqan, etc.?
To make people believe what he was saying, so that people put him in line and before Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Krishna, Zoroaster, Buddha and Mohammad, since he was the latest. Because other than his assertion, he had no proof of what he was saying.
But as he was saying this Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Quadiani, the Mahdi, appeared in Punjab, India.
Allah alone knows his ways, Bahaollah does not. You have to agree, Allah is great.

The Kitab-i-Iqan was written to one the Uncles of the Bab to explain to him the nature and necessity of the Babi Revelation. This Uncle eventually became a Babi. The book highlights the essential unity of religion with references to the Abrahamic Faiths. Bahá’u’lláh had not made public any religious claims for Himself at the time the book was penned.

The Kitab-I-Aqdas is written for Baha’is or followers of Bahá’u’lláh. It lays out a charter for a future civilisation as well as the laws that would constitute life as a Baha’i including prayer and fasting. Its main aim has little to do with establishing proofs Bahá’u’lláh is the Manifestation of God for this age. However the work certainly assumes Bahá’u’lláh’s claims to be true and specifies at the outset the necessity for accepting those claims and following the laws and ordinances in the Aqdas.

Whether or not there is any proof of Bahá’u’lláh’s claims is outside the scope of the OP. The nature and validity of Mirza Ghalum Ahmadi’s competing claims though interesting to us both, are also off topic.