No you haven't, you have not cited a single verse of scripture that is unequivocally referring to any event that cannot be interpreted as having happened in the 1st century. In regard to the resurrection (to keep on topic) - you referred to a comment by Paul in his second letter to Timothy where he indicates that "the resurrection" had not yet happened - but we all know that this letter was written before the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD - so even if the preterist interpretation (which really refers to the Book of Revelation, but by extension other Bible "prophecies" that are interpreted as features of the "last days") is true, that statement by Paul would have been true when it was written anyway - and therefore irrelevant to the discussion.
If you actually read my posts properly, you would see that I have used literally dozens of biblical verses on this thread, quite a few in my responses to your questions.
If Paul was referring to a resurrection that had happened, and he referred to a resurrection that was to happen, then they are two seperate resurrections, not one. Most conservative Christains would agree and believe the resurrection of the dead is a future event associated with the Return of Christ.
https://www.gotquestions.org/resurrection-Christ-important.html
Yes but they do not usually interpret the same passage of scripture literally one minute and allegorically the next - as you have done with the Olivet discourse.
Actually, that's incorrect. Most conservative Christians will readily acknowledge the Olivet discourse prophecises the destruction the Herod's temple and The return of Christ.
https://www.gotquestions.org/Herod-third-temple.html
https://www.gotquestions.org/second-coming-Jesus-Christ.html
https://www.gotquestions.org/Olivet-discourse.html
It is entirely relevant because the entire reason the Baha'i faith needs to deny the physical resurrection and subsequent ascension of Jesus with the accompanying outpouring of Holy Spirit and the establishment of the Christian Church as the culmination of the "cause of Christ" is to permit a much later spiritual interpretation with Baha'u'llah as the Messiah returning to complete Christ's mission. So please let's not deflect any more and honestly appraise the whole idea that is being promoted.
The Baha'is don't need to do anything except let the facts speak for themselves. You don't believe that Christ was literally resurrected and nor do I.
No you haven't. You have not, for example, answered the question about how Paul's denial that the resurrection had already happened by the middle of the 1st century proves that it still had not happened some 1800 years later...you have not answered how Jesus' numerous references to "this generation" in passages that are very clearly addressing his 1st century audience specifically can be reconciled with an obviously analogous "this generation" that would not appear for almost 2000 years...and in any case you quoted me out of context because I actually said that you have not answered any of the questions without trying to have it both ways - literal and allegorical, preterist and futurist - at the same time - which is exactly what you are doing.
Paul's conflicting statements are explained above. They are about two resurrections. There is nothing in Paul's statements to indicate that the second resurrection would happen in the first century.
You're main argument centres around the use of the word generation, which I have addressed. As the Olivet discourse is about two seperate but related eschatalogical events, Jesus is referring the the first main event, the destruction of the temple, which set the scene for the second main event, the Return of Christ Himself.
https://www.gotquestions.org/this-generation-not-pass.html
Conservative Christains use both allegory and literalist interpretation of the Olivet Discourse. These are basic conservative Christian beliefs we are talking about, nothing too esoteric.
For example, you insist that the resurrection is symbolic - which means it could be (have been) at any time - and at the same time you insist that the restoration of the Jews to Israel is to have a literal fulfillment - despite heaps of Biblical references to "the Jerusalem above" etc. that make it clear that this was, in the interpretation of many Bible writers at least, definitely symbolic. You surely can't deny that a symbolic, spiritual "resurrection" and the symbolic "restoration" of a spiritual "nation" of true worshipers of God are linked? Isn't the most likely interpretation of all this - if we take the Bible as a "whole" - that they are actually talking about the same thing from two different viewpoints - the "resurrection" if we are looking at the raising of the spirituality of individuals and the "restoration" if we are looking at the spiritual elevation of a collective group of people? And is it not really rather obvious that the Bible writers intended this restoration - this symbolic resurrection to spiritual life - this conversion from Pharisaic legalism to the "glorious liberty of the children of God" (
Romans 8:21) - to be understood to be, at the very least, well under way, before they purportedly finished their writings in the 1st century and to expect its culmination to be something that would "shortly come to pass"? (
Revelation 1:1).
I don't insist anything. I argue that Christ literally being resurrected from the dead and ascending beyond the stratosphere to be with His heavenly Father is not plausible and there's a better way of understanding scripture on this particular topic. In this respect, I agree with Christians like Bart Ehrman. From a Christian perspective he makes compelling arguments against trying to establish a literal resurrection as an historical fact.
The restoration of Jewish Israel and its redemption is simply another part of conservative Christain belief.
https://www.gotquestions.org/support-Israel.html
However I don't deny that the word Jerusalem is used symbolically in revelation.
https://www.gotquestions.org/support-Israel.html
The conservative Christians get a little too carried away with the book of revealtion for my liking. Much of it simply refers to known history, as does the book of Daniel. Unlike the preterists, the Baha'is look over the last two thousand years of history, not just the first century. For the conservatives, most of the book of reveation is too happen. For the Baha'is much of it
has happened.
Romans 8 is all about dying to self and living in Christ, remaning steadfast through tribulations and the birth of the Church.
Revelation 1:1 if read literally without consideration to the rest of the text, and the bible has a whole certainly appears to support a preterist view. Like John 1:1 (not implying the same author), the opening of revelation certainly has been the source of much theological speculation over the centuries.
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/revelation/1-1.htm
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.
Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.
How about '
God gave this Revelation to Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is giving the Revelation to His servant John through an angel. The Revelation is of things that must shortly come to pass. John is recording the Revelation, the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of the things John saw. The angel is a celestial messenger, a purified soul who is sent from heaven. Shortly come to pass means that the events will soon commence. The duration of time may seem long to man but is short to God. The person is blessed who reads the words with spiritual eyes and ears and remembers the words and lives according to their true meaning.' as a Baha'i exegesis
?
Is there any convincing scripture in the entire New Testament that suggests (as "Daniel" had a couple of centuries or so earlier) that "yet the vision is for many days"? In fact is it not rather the case that the writers of the NT had Jesus refer to "Daniel's" prophecies precisely because they were convinced that the "latter days" of "Daniel" had, in fact, already arrived (
Daniel 10:14) and that the promised "Kingdom of God" was, as they had also had Jesus claim, already "at hand" (
Mark 1:15).
Remember that biblical days can be interpreted as years. This isn't just a Baha'i approach to prophecy but a Christian one too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-year_principle
