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

[siti]

Who said anyone spent half a lifetime doing that or that they were trying to prove anything with it?
You are attributing motive where it does not exist.

...and yet...

The more they say we are wrong, the more we drag out to prove we are right...

What is most amazing about Baha'iism is this unprecedented talent for blatant double talk - and this example is a classic. I'm convinced you really don't know you're doing it - it is truly fascinating from a (strictly amateur of course) psychological perspective. I'm still taking notes on these observations but there is a clear trend and this couplet of quotes kind of sums it up really...

"no, of course we're not trying to prove [insert point at issue]...but we'll say absolutely anything to prove [insert point at issue]"...

 

[Trailblazer]

...and yet...

I never said we are not trying to prove anything.. I said that we are not using genealogy to prove anything.

What is most amazing about Baha'iism is this unprecedented talent for blatant double talk - and this example is a classic. I'm convinced you really don't know you're doing it - it is truly fascinating from a (strictly amateur of course) psychological perspective. I'm still taking notes on these observations but there is a clear trend and this couplet of quotes kind of sums it up really...

I know what I am doing... Talk is cheap...Show me where it was double and I will explain why it is just something you do not understand.

 

[siti]

Show me where it was double and I will explain why it is just something you do not understand.

OK...I'll go along with this...here are your own words from your last couple of posts:

I said that we are not using genealogy to prove anything.

But in your earlier post you said this:

Christians say that Baha'u'llah cannot be the Messiah because He is not descended from David... So we show them that He was. If Christians do not ask us for proof of things we do not normally drag it out...The more they say we are wrong, the more we drag out to prove we are right...

Are you saying that the information you use to "show" and to "prove" that Baha'u'llah was descended from David is somehow "not using genealogy to prove" it?

And, for my notes, could you indicate clearly whether you believe your two statements that I have quoted above are consistent or mutually exclusive? Would you say that they could both be true?

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: Show me where it was double and I will explain why it is just something you do not understand.
Situ said: OK...I'll go along with this...here are your own words from your last couple of posts:

Trailblazer said: I said that we are not using genealogy to prove anything.​

But in your earlier post you said this:

Trailblazer said: Christians say that Baha'u'llah cannot be the Messiah because He is not descended from David... So we show them that He was. If Christians do not ask us for proof of things we do not normally drag it out...The more they say we are wrong, the more we drag out to prove we are right...​

Are you saying that the information you use to "show" and to "prove" that Baha'u'llah was descended from David is somehow "not using genealogy to prove" it?

Fair enough, we are using the genealogy to prove that Baha’u’llah was descended from David, but that is all we are using it for. We are not using genealogy to prove that Baha’u’llah was actually the Messiah, because that alone would certainly not be enough proof since a lot of people are descended from David, as that website you posted pointed out.

And, for my notes, could you indicate clearly whether you believe your two statements that I have quoted above are consistent or mutually exclusive? Would you say that they could both be true?

They are consistent if add the first sentence back into my first post, and then they can both be true.

Trailblazer said: ↑
I never said we are not trying to prove anything... I said that we are not using genealogy to prove anything. ​

So I conceded that we do try to prove things (we try to prove that Baha’u’llah was the Messiah), but we are not using genealogy to prove anything (meaning we are not using genealogy to prove that Baha’u’llah was the Messiah). That was improperly worded; it should have read: “I never said we are not trying to prove anything... I said that we are not using genealogy to prove that Baha’u’llah was the Messiah.”

Trailblazer said: ↑
Christians say that Baha'u'llah cannot be the Messiah because He is not descended from David... So we show them that He was. If Christians do not ask us for proof of things we do not normally drag it out. The more they say we are wrong, the more we drag out to prove we are right... ​

There are two separate thoughts in that paragraph.

First, when Christians say that Baha’u’llah cannot be the Messiah because He is not descended from David, we use the genealogy to show them that Baha’u’llah was descended from David.

Second, if Christians do not ask us for proof of things (meaning proof that Baha’u’llah was the Messiah) we do not normally drag it (proof that He was the Messiah) out.

So that second thought, that we drag out proof that Baha’u’llah was the Messiah (if Christians ask for proof) is consistent with my first post where I said “I never said we are not trying to prove anything...”

We cartographers can be very detailed. It is an occupational hazard.

 

[Neb]

In Thessalonians 1:9-10 it says, "...you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, 10 and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath."

And in 9:19-20, "19 For what is our hope, our joy, or the crown in which we will glory in the presence of our Lord Jesus when he comes? Is it not you? 20 Indeed, you are our glory and joy."

I'm not a Christian, and like a lot a things about the Baha'is, but I don't like how they re-interpret the Bible to suit their beliefs. For me this clearly says implies that is Jesus that is returning and that God raised him from the dead. Only problem is... it uses that darn word "Glory". So I assume the Baha'is could say that is says "we will Baha in the presence" and "you are our Baha and joy." But at least it says when Jesus comes.

They could name Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí Núrí, a Persian Shi'ite, as "MERCY" or “rahmah” in Arabic, and then argue that whenever one sees the word "Mercy/rahmah" in the bible then that's Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí Núrí in the bible or God was talking about Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí Núrí, a Persian Shi'ite, as "MERCY"/rahmah/allah’s messenger or one of God’s attributes.

Acts 20:28, in Greek it says, “EKKLESIA TOU THEOU”, or “church of God” in English. Now, a cult in the Philippines changed this to “church of Christ” and teach people that Paul was talking about their church in the bible and whenever one sees the “church of Christ” in the bible Paul was talking about their church. Their Leader also teaches that it was him, the “angel coming up from the east”, in Revelation 7:2.

You should read this link,
THE IGLESIA NI CRISTO: Revelation 7:2-3 The Angel Ascending from the East

And see it yourself how these leaders all have one thing in common, and that is, they all claimed to be the ultimate messenger of God.

“In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.” [cf. John 1:3]. –Hebrews 1:1-2”.

Here the author was talking about the NT or the LAST revelation of God to mankind.

 

[Neb]

Christ the Son is Also the Father.

That’s Sabellianism. It did NOT say “And the Word was the God” because if it did then it would contradict “And the Word was with the God”. Do you understand this?

Christ The Son resurected

So you agree Christ resurrected?

so He could come back and be the Father in His New Name, Baha'u'llah.

That’s Sabellianism slash Baha'i Faith in one. NOT in the Bible. Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí Núrí, a Persian Shi'ite AKA Baha'u'llah not in the bible.

This is the Holy Spirit we speak of and It is the same Holy Spirit that comes with each of Gods Prophets or Mesengers. Each time seen in a different way through the person that God chose to give the Message.

The last prophet of God was John the Baptist. "For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John." -Matthew 11:13. Then God "has spoken to us by his Son"
“In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.” [cf. John 1:3]. –Hebrews 1:1-2”.

This is how Christ can say the Father and I are One and then say the Father is greater than I.

contraditing your own statement

Christ the Son is Also the Father.

It is Christ as the Father Baha'u'llah that has brought us unto all Truth, this Message is of Christ, it is the Fist and it is the Last, the Alpha and Omega, Beginning and End.

That’s Sabellianism slash Baha'i Faith in one. NOT in the Bible.

There is only One God and God's Covernant is God will never leave us alone, he will always guide us. It is obvious when we look at the history of scriptures, that, that guidance has been in Many Names and given by Many Prophets and Messengers.

The last prophet of God was John the Baptist. "For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John." -Matthew 11:13. Then God "has spoken to us by his Son"
“In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.” [cf. John 1:3]. –Hebrews 1:1-2”.

It is when man gets attached to the Flesh and Names of the flesh, that they neglect that which is the Spirit. They without knowing it worship idols of their own making.

Mixing beliefs is idolatry and you are mixing too many beliefs in one.

 

[Neb]

Christians believe that only they or their church has the correct understanding of the Bible, but the fact that Christians do not agree means that either one of them is correct and the others are all wrong, or all of them are wrong, or all of them have part of the truth. I believe it is the latter.

It's just another way of saying you don't have any understanding of what the bible is saying, right?

 

[Neb]

Christians believe that only they or their church has the correct understanding of the Bible, but the fact that Christians do not agree means that either one of them is correct and the others are all wrong, or all of them are wrong, or all of them have part of the truth. I believe it is the latter.

It's just another way of saying you don't have any understanding of what the bible is saying, right?

The reason for all these different beliefs is that the same verses can have many different meanings and the Bible is not at all easy to understand in many of its verses.

Remember this verse? "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." -2nd Peter 3:16

The role of the Holy Spirit is to guide and teach Christians “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

To sanctify them, “Sanctify them in the truth: thy word is truth.” –John 17:17


First, there was a Christ ministry and after that it’s the Holy Spirit ministry and on the 2nd coming of Christ the Holy Spirit ministry together with Christians will be “be caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air”. -1Thessalonians 4:17

 

[TransmutingSoul]

That’s Sabellianism. It did NOT say “And the Word was the God” because if it did then it would contradict “And the Word was with the God”. Do you understand this?

Do you understand all your rejections just parrot all those that rejected Jesus the Christ and all Gods Messengers of the past?

I will leave you with this link, it is why the Jews reject Jesus, see if any of it sounds familiar - Why Jews Don't Believe In Jesus

May Christ light you soul always.

Regards Tony

 

[metis]

I will leave you with this link, it is why the Jews reject Jesus, see if any of it sounds familiar - Why Jews Don't Believe In Jesus

Let me just add to this that Aquinas believed that if one took the OT literally, then Jesus simply could not be the Messiah. Therefore, he taught that one should take it as generally going in the right direction but not at the literal level.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Let me just add to this that Aquinas believed that if one took the OT literally, then Jesus simply could not be the Messiah. Therefore, he taught that one should take it as generally going in the right direction but not at the literal level.

Thank you metis, it is Jesus the Christ that has shown us we must be alive in the Spirit.

This is what the Jews await;

1. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
2. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
3. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)
4. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world – on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).

Some years ago I came across a Tablet by Baha'u'llah. To me and if I am correct it is Baha'u'llah saying that it is His Person that is the 3rd temple that people await, it starts with this;

"This is the Súrih of the Temple which God hath ordained to be the Mirror of His Names between the heavens and the earth, and the Sign of His Remembrance amidst the peoples of the world."

It concludes in the letter to Násiri’d-Dín Sháh with this statement;

"Thus have We built the Temple with the hands of power and might, could ye but know it. This is the Temple promised unto you in the Book. Draw ye nigh unto it. This is that which profiteth you, could ye but comprehend it. Be fair, O peoples of the earth! Which is preferable, this, or a temple which is built of clay? Set your faces towards it. Thus have ye been commanded by God, the Help in Peril, the Self-Subsisting. Follow ye His bidding, and praise ye God, your Lord, for that which He hath bestowed upon you. He, verily, is the Truth. No God is there but He. He revealeth what He pleaseth, through His words "Be and it is".

Link to this Tablet - Bahá'í Reference Library - The Summons of the Lord of Hosts, Pages 3-54

Currently I am reading this book over an over, it contains many amazing spiritual insights.

Stay well and happy, regards Tony

 

[metis]

Stay well and happy, regards Tony

Thanks, and much the same to you.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

It may be a healthy option to explore what it is for us to be 'Born Again'. This in turn, this may give us insights into what it is that Christ was explaining to be Resurrected, a new way to look at what this is.

John 5:24-25 gives us a fascinating possibility with this passage; "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

So if we Truly believe in Christ then we have "passed out of death into life". We Live in flesh, but here we are told flesh is death, spirit is life and within this we also get the meaning of Resurrection, which obviously must be seen as that of the Spirit. Note that we also have passed out of Judgement, there is great wisdom in that statement, to all that consider the implications.

Revelation 2:11 "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death."

So we have been told that in this existence, Belief is life, unbelief is Death. So we live this life in the Flesh without the knowledge of the Spirit of Christ, then it is accounted as death, It is worth nothing. It is in this life of the flesh, where we can say, we will all face the first death of the flesh. We have been given the answer and that is to be born again, thus not to suffer a second death. Life is found in that of the Spirit and in that belief, the gift of eternal life .

Resurrection now takes on a whole new avenue of meaning. We know that Jesus the Christ kept telling us that it is the Spirit that is Life.

The question we can now ask ourselves is; "Why would we want to make of Jesus the Christ, Flesh and not Spirit?

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

They could name Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí Núrí, a Persian Shi'ite, as "MERCY" or “rahmah” in Arabic, and then argue that whenever one sees the word "Mercy/rahmah" in the bible then that's Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí Núrí in the bible or God was talking about Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí Núrí, a Persian Shi'ite, as "MERCY"/rahmah/allah’s messenger or one of God’s attributes.

Why do you think that it needs to be spelled out in the Bible? The prophecies are there and they were fulfilled. Only God knew who the Messiah would be and the name had not been assigned at the time the Bible was written; but that is besides the point, that God does not make it that easy because God wants to differentiate between the sincere seeker and those who are not willing to look that hard.

Acts 20:28, in Greek it says, “EKKLESIA TOU THEOU”, or “church of God” in English. Now, a cult in the Philippines changed this to “church of Christ” and teach people that Paul was talking about their church in the bible and whenever one sees the “church of Christ” in the bible Paul was talking about their church. Their Leader also teaches that it was him, the “angel coming up from the east”, in Revelation 7:2.

You should read this link,
THE IGLESIA NI CRISTO: Revelation 7:2-3 The Angel Ascending from the East

And see it yourself how these leaders all have one thing in common, and that is, they all claimed to be the ultimate messenger of God.

The fact that many people have made the claim to be a Messenger of God or the return of Christ does not prove that the claim of Baha’u’llah was false, logically speaking. It is the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization to say that because most were false all were false.

So the fact that there have been many false prophets says nothing about Baha’u’llah... Logically speaking that is completely irrelevant... Did any of those false prophets do what Baha’u’llah did, write what He wrote, fulfill all the prophecies that He did? No, they did not. That is because they were false. It does not matter how many false prophets there have been. Unless you can prove that Baha’u’llah was a false prophet you cannot say He was false.

“In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.” [cf. John 1:3]. –Hebrews 1:1-2”.

Here the author was talking about the NT or the LAST revelation of God to mankind.

That verse does not say anything about a last revelation from God to mankind.

 

[CG Didymus]

The answer that I just told your sidekick is rather simple... Christians say that Baha'u'llah cannot be the Messiah because He is not descended from David... So we show them that He was. If Christians do not ask us for proof of things we do not normally drag it out... The more they say we are wrong, the more we drag out to prove we are right... They are just throwing fuel on the fire that is already ablaze. They will never put it out because the Baha'i Faith is the Truth from God... I almost feel sorry for them but they have free will so it is not my fault.

I think the answer that Christians would give is even simpler... Baha'u'llah can't be the Messiah because he is not Jesus.

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: ↑
Christians believe that only they or their church has the correct understanding of the Bible, but the fact that Christians do not agree means that either one of them is correct and the others are all wrong, or all of them are wrong, or all of them have part of the truth. I believe it is the latter.

Neb said: It's just another way of saying you don't have any understanding of what the bible is saying, right?

No, it is a way of saying that people do not understand the Bible.
They have part of the truth but not all of the truth.

I do not think anyone fully understands the Bible and to say so is a bit arrogant.

 

[CG Didymus]

It may be a healthy option to explore what it is for us to be 'Born Again'. This in turn, this may give us insights into what it is that Christ was explaining to be Resurrected, a new way to look at what this is.

John 5:24-25 gives us a fascinating possibility with this passage; "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

So if we Truly believe in Christ then we have "passed out of death into life". We Live in flesh, but here we are told flesh is death, spirit is life and within this we also get the meaning of Resurrection, which obviously must be seen as that of the Spirit. Note that we also have passed out of Judgement, there is great wisdom in that statement, to all that consider the implications.

Revelation 2:11 "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death."

So we have been told that in this existence, Belief is life, unbelief is Death. So we live this life in the Flesh without the knowledge of the Spirit of Christ, then it is accounted as death, It is worth nothing. It is in this life of the flesh, where we can say, we will all face the first death of the flesh. We have been given the answer and that is to be born again, thus not to suffer a second death. Life is found in that of the Spirit and in that belief, the gift of eternal life .

Resurrection now takes on a whole new avenue of meaning. We know that Jesus the Christ kept telling us that it is the Spirit that is Life.

The question we can now ask ourselves is; "Why would we want to make of Jesus the Christ, Flesh and not Spirit?

Regards Tony

That's just great, except Jesus allegedly said that he had flesh and bone... And walked through a wall and floated off into the sky.

 

[Katzpur]

I know I'm very late to this discussion, but I have a question. What other kind of resurrection is there besides a literal one?

A figurative one? A symbolic one? A theoretical one? A hypothetical one? What conceivable point would there be to anything other than a literal resurrection?

 

[Trailblazer]

It's just another way of saying you don't have any understanding of what the bible is saying, right?

No, it is a way of saying that people do not understand the Bible.
They have part of the truth but not all of the truth.

I do not think anyone fully understands the Bible and to say so is a bit arrogant.

Remember this verse? "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." -2nd Peter 3:16

The role of the Holy Spirit is to guide and teach Christians “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

To sanctify them, “Sanctify them in the truth: thy word is truth.” –John 17:17

First, there was a Christ ministry and after that it’s the Holy Spirit ministry and on the 2nd coming of Christ the Holy Spirit ministry together with Christians will be “be caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air”. -1Thessalonians 4:17

There is no reason to believe that the Holy Spirit had guided Christians and every reason to believe it hasn't.
Anyone filled to the brim with the Holy Spirit cannot deny a Manifestation of God such as Baha'u'llah.

 

[Katzpur]

That's just great, except Jesus allegedly said that he had flesh and bone... And walked through a wall and floated off into the sky.

So if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that a divine being could not do this (since, obviously, a mortal being couldn't)?