• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
"Honest and open"? I am as honest and open as my belief is dictating me about the literal resurrection of the Lord Jesus.

I have no doubt that you are sincere in your belief that Jesus was literally resurrected.

This what happened after the resurrection,

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

Matthew 28:12-15 is certainly part of the resurrection narrative created by the authors of the gospels that gives a strong impression that literal events are being discussed and that Jesus was literally resurrected.

A few questions for you.

Who wrote the gospel of Matthew? How do you account for other statements Matthew (Matthew 27:50-53)? Do you take these events literally?

Who wrote the first NT book where the resurrection is mentioned and who wrote the first NT books?

How do you account for the ascension of Christ through the stratosphere and how the early Christian's understanding of these events relies on a cosmology that is now redundant?

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

You sound like you are from the USA....fake news?

The problem is no longer the rumours spreading from the Romans and the Jews. The issue is science and modern Biblical scholarship.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Christians have the bible to prove the literal resurrection of the Lord Jesus, the Son of God.

We agree that Jesus was the Son of God. The Baha'is have the same Bible to prove he wasn't literally resurrected from the dead.

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

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

My ancestors grew up in Northern Ireland where one Christian group (the Protestants) was staunchly opposed to another Christian group (the Catholics). It used to be said there would never be peace in Ireland.

Baha'is are taught to associate with peoples of all Faiths in a spirit of love and fellowship.

The Jesus Baha'is believe in taught Love God, love your neighbour, and love your enemy.

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

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

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

I see no distinction between Moses, Christ, Muhammad, and Baha'u'llah as Manifestations of God. That is my belief and what I know.

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

Its OK to ask questions, even the tough ones. Its OK for peoples of other faiths to share and discuss their beliefs.

I know in my heart my love for God, Jesus, and the Bible. I know in my heart, my love for you, though you may despise and curse me.
 
Last edited:

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Peter was talking about Paul's epistles in 2nd Peter 3:16 "He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

You are "FREE to interpret the Bible however" YOU "want to" for your "own destruction"
I do not normally interpret the Bible at all, unless a Christian brings it up. ;)
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
2nd Timothy 2:15 "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

What is “rightly dividing the word of truth”? “NOT dividing Scripture from Scripture, but teaching Scripture accurately” -Vine

And compare this to your own interpretation of the Bible.
As I just said, I do not interpret the Bible. I just say what I think certain verses mean if they are relevant to a dialogue I am having. I do not divide anything anymore than Christians divide anything.
So, by inserting them in the bible the “things that are true”, according to you, like insisting that baha’u’llah is in the Bible [your own TWISTED interpretation of the bible] BUT “that are not in the Bible”, makes it as part of the Bible, even if it’s not in the Bible, is a false interpretation of the Bible, right? IOW, If it’s NOT in the Bible, like baha’u’llah, then there is only ONE INTERPRETATION for that, i.e., it is NOT in the BIBLE, right?

Is this really hard to understand?
I never said that Baha’u’llah was in the Bible; I only ever said that Baha’u’llah was prophesied in the Bible. In that sense Baha’u’llah was referred to in the Bible.

The Bible prophesied that which was yet to come, so obviously it was referring to events that would occur AFTER the Bible was written... Namely, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha’u’llah.

Jesus never promised to return and Jesus is not the Messiah spoken of in the OT so I consider that a false interpretation of the Bible.

Is this really hard to understand?
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
These are the semi-hybrid Christians and by their teachings or “DOCTRINES” one who truly adheres to the Bible should be able to recognize them just like how I recognized your twisted, adulterated “DOCTRINES”.
All Christians say that they truly adhere to the Bible so that is a meaningless statement, logically speaking. :rolleyes:
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
You use the bible as your reference to support your doctrine but when it contradicts your doctrine you say: "There are a lot of things that are true that are not in the Bible." Your doctrines are full of contradictions.
Wrong. I do not use the Bible to support anything. I became a Baha'i 42 years before I ever read one page of the Bible. Baha'is do not need the Bible to support our beliefs because we have a new revelation from Baha'u'llah. It is only when approached by Christians who insist that I need to prove who Baha'u'llah was by using the Bible that I refer to the Bible. I cannot speak for other Baha'is but that is my position.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Christ the Messiah is in the Bible. Here is your favorite link: Is Jesus the Messiah?

What I don’t see in bible, as the Messiah, is, baha’u’llah. If you can find his name in the Bible, as the Messiah, you will see me here no more.
No, Jesus is not going to return so Jesus cannot possibly be the Messiah that is spoken of in the Bible.

Of course the Christian websites say Jesus is the Messiah. :rolleyes:

However, there is not one verse where Jesus ever said He would return to this world again and there are verses where Jesus says He won't return. The return of Jesus was fabricated by many misinterpretations of verses.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
You are disowning your brother. You are here to support the OP.

Without Christ’s resurrection, Christianity is meaningless.
I am not here to support anyone. I speak for myself.

Christianity is not meaningless without Christ's bodily resurrection. The cross sacrifice was necessary and it was done. The bodily resurrection of Jesus is not necessary for anything. Most but not all Christians believe it so they can cling to the belief that Jesus is coming back and they will rise from physical graves, but those are both false beliefs, perpetrated by the church, derived from misinterpretations of the Bible.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
“Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God.” -Romans 3:2.

What Paul meant is the Old Testament.

“First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God”. Baha’u’llah was a Persian Shi’ite descended from Ishmael, NOT from the patriarchs, i.e., Isaac, Jacob, and Judah, then to King David, and to the Lord Jesus and according to the words of God, the Messiah will come from the line of Judah. So far we see NO Persians in the picture here, right? Meaning NO Baha'u'llah, right?

IOW, Baha’u’llah was NOT a Jew and based on the Bible, God would NOT ”ENTRUST” His words to any other nations, like Persia or any Muslim nations, but to the Jews only, right? You cannot argue from this, i.e., if we are talking about the Bible. It’s either you are a Jew or a Gentile and there is no one in between or any third option here. If you are a Gentile you will see yourself in Acts 10 and Acts 15 as the beginning of the salvation of the Gentiles. Before this Jews and Gentiles proselytes only meaning adhering to the Law of Moses.
I am not going to argue about what the Bible means. Jesus was a Messiah but Jesus was not the Messiah of the latter days.

Baha'u'llah was not descended from Ishmael, as I said before. Baha'u'llah was descended from Abraham through both Sarah and Keturah, and that the line from Sarah included David as well though I don't know at what point before Jesus it then split off. Baha'u'llah was a descendant of David.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Your twisted interpretation of Baha'u'llah as a descendant of David has "nothing to do with the Baha’i Faith". Really?
There is nothing twisted about it.

“THE Most Great Law is come, and the Ancient Beauty ruleth upon the throne of David. Thus hath My Pen spoken that which the histories of bygone ages have related. At this time, however, David crieth aloud and saith: ‘O my loving Lord! Do Thou number me with such as have stood steadfast in Thy Cause, O Thou through Whom the faces have been illumined, and the footsteps have slipped!’” Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 89-90
 

oldbadger

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

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

Two comments:

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

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



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



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

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

If you think that there is in fact some indication of demonstration and picketing and speaking against the priesthood, quote specific chapter and verse and explain how you come to your conclusion.
I am on a mobile and so cannot split your post up.
Just answer this. How many times did Jesus visit the temple in that last week, in gMark?
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Thanks Tony. I already posted that same link to the genealogy of the Báb and Bahá'u'lláh but Neb could not understand how Baha'u'llah could be a descendant of David from what I posted. Below is what I posted:

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

As you may know, Abraham had three wives: Sarah, Hagar, and Keturah.

It's my understanding that Baha'u'llah was descended from Abraham through both Sarah and Keturah, and that the line from Sarah included David as well (though I don't know at what point before Jesus it then split off).

So anyway, the short answer is that yes, Baha'u'llah was a descendant of David.

Is Baha'u'llah related to King David? | Interfaith forums
 

Neb

Active Member
No, a genealogy would be evidence but I do not do genealogy.

Someone else might have done it though.
There is NO genealogy that connects Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí Núrí to the line of David and you know that. “Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God.” -Romans 3:2. That is the Old Testament and from the OT Christ was prophesied to be the Messiah and NOT Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí Núrí a Persian Shiite from the line of Ishmael.

You are a Gentile and so as Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí Núrí, AKA Baha’u’llah, therefore, you are included in the saving grace of God by faith in the Lord Jesus and not to anyone else or to any name.

"Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name;" - Philippians 2:9

Only in the name of the Lord Jesus, God will hear you.

"And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.” John 14:13

“If ye shall ask anything in my name, that will I do.” - John 14:14

“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

“Ye did not choose me, but I chose you, and appointed you, that ye should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should abide: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.” - John 15:16
 

Neb

Active Member
I am not going to argue about what the Bible means.
Because you hit a solid wall and it really stopped you from twisting the word of God.
Jesus was a Messiah but Jesus was not the Messiah of the latter days.
There is only one Messiah and that is the Lord Jesus. I gave you the link for that. Is Jesus the Messiah?
Baha'u'llah was not descended from Ishmael, as I said before. Baha'u'llah was descended from Abraham through both Sarah and Keturah, and that the line from Sarah included David as well though I don't know at what point before Jesus it then split off. Baha'u'llah was a descendant of David.
From Sarah and Keturah? Really? Would a person come out from two women? Think about that.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Often the word doctrine can mean a religious teaching or belief that is made up by men and then given the same status as the teachings of the prophet or messenger of God.
It is often used as a slam against other faiths, such is like saying "Your church has doctrines, mine has truths". :emojconfused:

Generally speaking, "doctrine" is neutral as it generally deals with teachings put within the element of other related teachings. It intrinsically doesn't include where those teachings may have originated from.
 

Neb

Active Member
I have no doubt that you are sincere in your belief that Jesus was literally resurrected.
Like I said before, you take Christ’s resurrection from Christianity then it becomes meaningless.

If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus with no more than human hopes, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised,

“Let us eat and drink,
for tomorrow we die.” 1 Corinthians 15:32


Matthew 28:12-15 is certainly part of the resurrection narrative created by the authors of the gospels that gives a strong impression that literal events are being discussed and that Jesus was literally resurrected.


A few questions for you.


Who wrote the gospel of Matthew? How do you account for other statements Matthew (Matthew 27:50-53)? Do you take these events literally?

Who wrote the first NT book where the resurrection is mentioned and who wrote the first NT books?
Do you believe in the virgin birth in the gospel of Matthew?
 
Top