Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Okay thanks... I see the similarity between deism and atheism now!
I usually think God is in hiding, so that probably explains why I can relate to deists and atheists.
-
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
- Thread starter Dawnofhope
- Start date
I usually think God is in hiding, so that probably explains why I can relate to deists and atheists.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
No, I cannot think of any positive effects of Christianity per se, but the teachings of Jesus have had a positive effect upon those who follow them.
No, I cannot think of any positive effects of Christianity per se, but the teachings of Jesus have had a positive effect upon those who follow them.
Without the spread of Christianity as per Prophecy, there would be no fulfillment, the Bab and Baha'u'llah would not have come.
They spread the Message to all the Nations, as Christ asked them to do. Many perished doing this.
Good on them.
Regards Tony
kaat
Storm Animal
kaat
Storm Animal
I say again, THIS is the basis for an important religion??
Last edited:
kaat
Storm Animal
kaat
Storm Animal
Good. So what keeps your faith strong, other than blind faith??
kaat
Storm Animal
Probably Ba Ba Ba, Ba Ba Baran would still have been a massive hit, tho.
The Baha'i faith, like Buddhism is very practical and involves the practice of right thought, right action, and right speech. In short, my faith works for me, and appears sensible.
The other aspect is the spiritual practice of prayer, fasting, and reciting the sacred writings, that are a profound source of inspiration and strength.
The most obvious ones are those that refer to the preaching of the gospels to all the nations and the time of the gentiles mentioned in Luke 21 and Revelation 11. Revelation 11 has a time frame (1260) that is similar to Daniel and from Daniel 9:24-27 we can calculate the period from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem to Christ's crucifixion (490 years).
However if you really knew the bible you would understand that Christ fulfilling Messianic expectation of the Jews based on the Tanakh is central. Take the gospel of Matthew for example that has over 60 references to the OT. The gospel writers were fully cognisant that the prophetic books that dated back centuries referred to Christ.
OT Quotations in the Gospel of Matthew
The God of Abraham who is concerned with His creation and reveals Himself to humanity through the likes of Moses, Christ, and Muhammad as well as prophets is the basis of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. This I find much more plausible than the literal resurrection. However, I can see that both look silly to a humanist that doesn't believe in God and prophets. We have different beliefs and i feel no need to belittle or riducule the beliefs of others.
Actually the ground is firm. The Christian cosmology that saw hell below the earth and heaven up in the sky was a plausible narrative until Galileo. It makes little sense to have these traditional locations of heaven and hell, and the whole resurrection narrative depends on it.
Why do you keep saying this?
I'm answering your questions the best I can.
There are verses that simply make no sense if interpreted literally. The stars falling to earth. Jesus appearing on the clouds of heaven that can be seen from four corners of the earth. The lion and the lamb lying down together. The dead rising from their graves. Cloven tongues as of fire sitting on the apostles. A serpent that tempts Eve and made to crawl on its belly as a punishment. At some point the ability to discern when a verse is allegorical, literal, or both becomes easier.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Fair enough........No, I cannot think of any positive effects of Christianity per se, but the teachings of Jesus have had a positive effect upon those who follow them.
I cannot think of pos-effects either.
And because Jesus's teachings have been so differently construed his followers vary from gun-nuts who believe Jesus wanted violence (sell your scrips and buy swords etc) to gentle folks who love. One group of 'Christians' believe that Mecca should be 'glassed' (nuked), and they will justify all from the New Testament.
Amazing.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Absolutely NOT, friend.
And I belong to none.
Deists might have formed into groups but I don't know of any.
I just think that the Baptist and Yeshua were wonderful people who cared for truth, fairness and justice.
Thanks for explaining that... Before I came here about a month ago, for four years daily I had been conversing on a forum with mostly atheists who were formerly Christians or for whom Christianity never took in their childhood, so I know the drill.
I have taken issue with some things Abdu'l-Baha has said, because I do not believe he is infallible, which presents a problem for me. However, I know he is probably right and maybe I am just not understanding what he said or he did not mean what I thought he meant, etc. For example, I know animals do not have an eternal soul, but I do not think that means that their spirit is annihilated when they die, as he says in Some Answered Questions... Since Baha'u'llah did not address that and it is not in the Bible, we really cannot know for sure. It is a big issue for me because a heaven without animals is not a heaven at all.
My understanding is that in heaven or the next world, your happiness, contentment and joy will far exceed any earthly joy you’ve ever had. So you won’t lose anything except the outward body and forms od this earthly life.
True the Writings say we can’t take our pets with us but how do we know there won’t be something similar in that world? You may possibly have other companions in the next world similar to this one except not physical.?
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Good point Tony....
They also prepared the way, as Jesus told them to do....
John, a first generation Christian, was an eyewitness of the resurrection.
1John 1:1 “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”
Luke, a first generation Christian, was not an actual eyewitness of the resurrection but his account of the resurrection came from those who witnessed the resurrection.
The very reason why the NT must be written during the first generation of Christianity is, the “eyewitnesses and ministers of the word” –Luke 1:2 are still alive and could pass on “the exact truth about the things you have been taught” –Luke 1:4 on to the next generation.
Mathew, a first generation Christian, wrote the book of Mathew.
Mark, a first generation Christian, wrote the book of Mark.
What happens if nothing was written during the first generation and all of them died?
Everything from the next generation’s accounts would be nothing but hearsay, but God did not plan it that way, did He?
So, any accounts different or does not harmonize with the NT did not come from the first generation’s accounts on Christianity, i.e., [Christ earthly ministry, His death, burial, and resurrection] and therefore, all of them are nothing but hearsay, right? IOW, anything you were or are saying if it does not agree with the NT, are nothing but hearsay, right?
"as the apostles taught to a predominantly Greco-Roman audience."
The Gentiles, i.e., the “Greco-Romans audience” were not evangelized by the apostles until chapter 10 of Acts by Peter. IOW, Gentiles did not come into the picture before Acts chapter 10.
The letters of Paul show that the resurrection of Jesus was already a widespread belief in the 50's AD. The odd ending of the Gospel of Mark, which seems to incorporate early traditions about Jesus, may very well point to the origin of the resurrection story. The existence of such a story could in part explain the spread of proto-Christianity as far as Rome that early.
Welcome to RF and thanks for your contribution to this thread.
This line of argument assumes that the author of the gospel of John and the letters of John are written by the apostle John. I don't think you can prove that.
Authorship of the Johannine works - Wikipedia
Many modern biblical scholars are moving away from this perspective:
The gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles make up a two-volume work which scholars call Luke–Acts.[12] Together they account for 27.5% of the New Testament, the largest contribution by a single author, providing the framework for both the Church's liturgical calendar and the historical outline into which later generations have fitted their idea of the story of Jesus.[13]
The author is not named in either volume.[5] According to a Church tradition dating from the 2nd century, first attested by Irenaeus, he was the Luke named as a companion of Paul in three of the letters attributed to Paul himself, but "a critical consensus emphasizes the countless contradictions between the account in Acts and the authentic Pauline letters (Theissen and Merz 1998, p.32)."[6] (An example can be seen by comparing Acts' accounts of Paul's conversion (Acts 9:1–31, 22:6–21, and 26:9–23) with Paul's own statement that he remained unknown to Christians in Judea after that event (Galatians 1:17–24).)[14] He admired Paul, but his theology was significantly different from Paul's on key points and he does not (in Acts) represent Paul's views accurately.[15] He was educated, a man of means, probably urban, and someone who respected manual work, although not a worker himself; this is significant, because more high-brow writers of the time looked down on the artisans and small business-people who made up the early church of Paul and were presumably Luke's audience.[16]
The eclipse of the traditional attribution to Luke the companion of Paul has meant that an early date for the gospel is now rarely put forward.[6] Some experts date the composition of the combined work to around 80–90 AD, although some others suggest 90–110,[17] and there is evidence, both textual (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) and from the Marcionite controversy (Marcion was a 2nd-century heretic who produced his own version of Christian scripture based on Luke's gospel and Paul's epistles) that Luke–Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century.
Gospel of Luke - Wikipedia
John 20:31 best sums up the purpose of the gospels.
But 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.
I'm not sure you are aware of the arguments surrounding the synoptic gospels but it appears that the authors of Matthew and Luke used much of the material from Mark, and so the gospel of Mark is the most likely synoptic gospel to have been written first.
Synoptic Gospels - Wikipedia
Regardless of who wrote what first, there was an enormous amount of collaboration between the various authors, so they are not three independant witnesses, and even the conservative Christians believe only Matthew would have been an eye witness to most of the events he wrote. That of course raises the issue about the need to use so much of what Mark (who wasn't an eye witness) wote.
Then we have accounts based on the oral traditions of the early Christians, particularly Paul.
I wouldn't call the preaching of Paul hearsay, would you?
Paul most likely is the author of Corinthians though, and that is thought to be the first NT written that mentions the resurrection.
Compare Biblical Accounts of the Resurrection
Did he see the resurrected Jesus with his own eyes?
1 Corinthians 15:4-9
However all the gospels were written at a time when the main focus shifted to a Greco-Roman audience, rather than a Jewish one, or do you think they were written earlier?
This line of argument assumes that the author of the gospel of John and the letters of John are written by the apostle John. I don't think you can prove that.
Authorship of the Johannine works - Wikipedia
Many modern biblical scholars are moving away from this perspective:
The gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles make up a two-volume work which scholars call Luke–Acts.[12] Together they account for 27.5% of the New Testament, the largest contribution by a single author, providing the framework for both the Church's liturgical calendar and the historical outline into which later generations have fitted their idea of the story of Jesus.[13]
The author is not named in either volume.[5] According to a Church tradition dating from the 2nd century, first attested by Irenaeus, he was the Luke named as a companion of Paul in three of the letters attributed to Paul himself, but "a critical consensus emphasizes the countless contradictions between the account in Acts and the authentic Pauline letters (Theissen and Merz 1998, p.32)."[6] (An example can be seen by comparing Acts' accounts of Paul's conversion (Acts 9:1–31, 22:6–21, and 26:9–23) with Paul's own statement that he remained unknown to Christians in Judea after that event (Galatians 1:17–24).)[14] He admired Paul, but his theology was significantly different from Paul's on key points and he does not (in Acts) represent Paul's views accurately.[15] He was educated, a man of means, probably urban, and someone who respected manual work, although not a worker himself; this is significant, because more high-brow writers of the time looked down on the artisans and small business-people who made up the early church of Paul and were presumably Luke's audience.[16]
The eclipse of the traditional attribution to Luke the companion of Paul has meant that an early date for the gospel is now rarely put forward.[6] Some experts date the composition of the combined work to around 80–90 AD, although some others suggest 90–110,[17] and there is evidence, both textual (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) and from the Marcionite controversy (Marcion was a 2nd-century heretic who produced his own version of Christian scripture based on Luke's gospel and Paul's epistles) that Luke–Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century.
Gospel of Luke - Wikipedia
John 20:31 best sums up the purpose of the gospels.
But 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.
I'm not sure you are aware of the arguments surrounding the synoptic gospels but it appears that the authors of Matthew and Luke used much of the material from Mark, and so the gospel of Mark is the most likely synoptic gospel to have been written first.
Synoptic Gospels - Wikipedia
Regardless of who wrote what first, there was an enormous amount of collaboration between the various authors, so they are not three independant witnesses, and even the conservative Christians believe only Matthew would have been an eye witness to most of the events he wrote. That of course raises the issue about the need to use so much of what Mark (who wasn't an eye witness) wote.
Then we have accounts based on the oral traditions of the early Christians, particularly Paul.
I wouldn't call the preaching of Paul hearsay, would you?
Paul most likely is the author of Corinthians though, and that is thought to be the first NT written that mentions the resurrection.
Compare Biblical Accounts of the Resurrection
Did he see the resurrected Jesus with his own eyes?
1 Corinthians 15:4-9
However all the gospels were written at a time when the main focus shifted to a Greco-Roman audience, rather than a Jewish one, or do you think they were written earlier?
Welcome to RF and thanks for your contribution to this thread.
This line of argument assumes that the author of the gospel of John and the letters of John are written by the apostle John. I don't think you can prove that.
Authorship of the Johannine works - Wikipedia
Many modern biblical scholars are moving away from this perspective:
The gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles make up a two-volume work which scholars call Luke–Acts.[12] Together they account for 27.5% of the New Testament, the largest contribution by a single author, providing the framework for both the Church's liturgical calendar and the historical outline into which later generations have fitted their idea of the story of Jesus.[13]
The author is not named in either volume.[5] According to a Church tradition dating from the 2nd century, first attested by Irenaeus, he was the Luke named as a companion of Paul in three of the letters attributed to Paul himself, but "a critical consensus emphasizes the countless contradictions between the account in Acts and the authentic Pauline letters (Theissen and Merz 1998, p.32)."[6] (An example can be seen by comparing Acts' accounts of Paul's conversion (Acts 9:1–31, 22:6–21, and 26:9–23) with Paul's own statement that he remained unknown to Christians in Judea after that event (Galatians 1:17–24).)[14] He admired Paul, but his theology was significantly different from Paul's on key points and he does not (in Acts) represent Paul's views accurately.[15] He was educated, a man of means, probably urban, and someone who respected manual work, although not a worker himself; this is significant, because more high-brow writers of the time looked down on the artisans and small business-people who made up the early church of Paul and were presumably Luke's audience.[16]
The eclipse of the traditional attribution to Luke the companion of Paul has meant that an early date for the gospel is now rarely put forward.[6] Some experts date the composition of the combined work to around 80–90 AD, although some others suggest 90–110,[17] and there is evidence, both textual (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) and from the Marcionite controversy (Marcion was a 2nd-century heretic who produced his own version of Christian scripture based on Luke's gospel and Paul's epistles) that Luke–Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century.
Gospel of Luke - Wikipedia
John 20:31 best sums up the purpose of the gospels.
But 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.
I'm not sure you are aware of the arguments surrounding the synoptic gospels but it appears that the authors of Matthew and Luke used much of the material from Mark, and so the gospel of Mark is the most likely synoptic gospel to have been written first.
Synoptic Gospels - Wikipedia
Regardless of who wrote what first, there was an enormous amount of collaboration between the various authors, so they are not three independant witnesses, and even the conservative Christians believe only Matthew would have been an eye witness to most of the events he wrote. That of course raises the issue about the need to use so much of what Mark (who wasn't an eye witness) wote.
Then we have accounts based on the oral traditions of the early Christians, particularly Paul.
I wouldn't call the preaching of Paul hearsay, would you?
Paul most likely is the author of Corinthians though, and that is thought to be the first NT written that mentions the resurrection.
Compare Biblical Accounts of the Resurrection
Did he see the resurrected Jesus with his own eyes?
1 Corinthians 15:4-9
However all the gospels were written at a time when the main focus shifted to a Greco-Roman audience, rather than a Jewish one, or do you think they were written earlier?