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

adrian009 said:

I am very clear about what I believe and why. The confusion rest with you. I suspect like many Christian fundamentalists, you struggle with worldviews of Faith adherents that you are not familiar with. What you have written here simply exemplifies a common false premise about the Baha'i Faith. It is not a hybrid religion. It is theologically distinct independent religion based on the Teachings of Baha'u'llah. Just as Islam is based on Muhammad, Christianity based on Christ, Judaism on Moses, and Buddhism the Buddha, the Baha'i Faith is based on the Teachings of Baha'u'llah.

Click to expand...

Hybridized beliefs, i.e., mixing beliefs into one, create its own confusion because it contradicts each other and to avoid such confusion they patched things up with human rules and they called this revelation from God, and preach it to their followers like it really came from God, but the fact is, it’s nothing but a man-made rules that one is following and NOT the True God of the Bible.

Your disbelief in the literal resurrection of the Lord Jesus only proves that your belief, Baha’i Faith and the “Teachings of Baha'u'llah”, is in conflict with the resurrection that’s in the bible.

Neb said:

Baha’u’llah, a Shiite, thought he is the Messiah in Judaism, the Christ in Christianity, and the Twelfth Imam in Islam all in one. Baha’u’llah means the glory of God. This is blasphemy.

Click to expand...

What, no Tenth Avatar of Vishnu?

adrian009 said:

Its pleasing to read a thoughtful assessment of Christian theology in the light of history. I like the appreciation of how the message of Christ would have been adapted to a Greco-Roman audience.

Click to expand...

The idea of three (or more) levels is not unique to Greek mythology. Nor is it that clean cut even for the Greeks. The upper level is reserved for gods and some demi-gods granted full divinity, e.g., Hercules. It even has a specific location, Mount Olympus. ‘Heaven’ as a place of reward is not ‘up’ but ‘over’. The Elysian Fields lay across the seas. The place of most of the dead is Hades, much like the Jewish Sheol. It is located underground. He equivalent of Hell, the place of torment of evil-doers is Tartarus, located deep below Hades.

There was no detailed fixed concept of the afterlife In Judaism at that time, nor is there today. Whether there was a concept of a celestial heaven as the final stop for the righteous is not clear. We might cite 2 Kings 2:11 where Elijah is taken up into heaven by a flaming chariot. But this is a unique case. Elijah went alive and was expected to come back as a precursor to the Messiah. Complicating the issues is that the Hebrew word shamayim js used both for Heaven, the abode of God, and the sky, with no way to distinguish except by context.

What exactly Luke’s audience made of the ascent of Jesus in Acts 1 is probably not completely discernible by modern readers. But I think Luke was not concerned with details of theological cosmology. I suspect that the linkage to the Olivet Discourse and to Daniel was sufficient for his purpose, the redirection of focus from the end of days to the current days.

Trailblazer said:

Matthew 16:27-28 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Jesus came in the station of the Son. Baha’u’llah came in station of the Father. The Son of man coming in his kingdom was Baha’u’llah.

From a Tablet that Baha’u’llah wrote to Pope Pius IX:

“Give ear unto that which the Dove of Eternity warbleth upon the twigs of the Divine Lote-Tree: O peoples of the earth! We sent forth him who was named John to baptize you with water, that your bodies might be cleansed for the appearance of the Messiah. He, in turn, purified you with the fire of love and the water of the spirit in anticipation of these Days whereon the All-Merciful hath purposed to cleanse you with the water of life at the hands of His loving providence. This is the Father foretold by Isaiah, and the Comforter concerning Whom the Spirit had covenanted with you. Open your eyes, O concourse of bishops, that ye may behold your Lord seated upon the Throne of might and glory.” The Summons of the Lord of Hosts, p. 63

The idea of the Christ Spirit coming again is definitely in the Bible, but the idea of the same Jesus coming again is nowhere in the Bible.

John 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

• Jesus says He is going to heaven to prepare a place for His disciples and then His Spirit will come again, not His body. This glorification of the flesh of Jesus is the polar opposite of anything Jesus taught.

John 14:18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

John 14:28 We have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

• The Spirit of Jesus would come again, not the body of Jesus.

John 16:16 A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.

John 16:22 And ye now therefore have sorrow: but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man taketh from you.

• They would see the Spirit of Jesus, not the body of Jesus.

All the verses in John about the Comforter and the Spirit of truth refer to Baha’u’llah. Jesus was the first Comforter. Baha’u’llah was another Comforter.

John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

John 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

John 16:12-14 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

John 16:16 A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.

That means that we would not see the man Jesus again on earth because He went to the Father in heaven, but in a little while we would see Him again (His Spirit) in another Comforter that the Father would send.

That verse is congruent with the following verses wherein Jesus said that His work was finished here on earth:

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

Click to expand...

Wow! So all this is about Jesus sending the Holy Spirit "in a little while" - and that refers to the appearance of a Persian prophet about 1840 years later? And it is nothing whatsoever to do with the account in Acts where the Holy Spirit was poured out on the disciples just days (about 50 or so days actually) after he said it? Is 50 days "a little while"? Is 1840 years "a little while"? Given the choice I think I'd go with the 50 days one. There is absolutely nothing in the context to suggest that Jesus meant people should wait almost two millennia - exactly the opposite in fact. So again - you can't have it both ways - you can't list verse after verse after verse that confirm my argument that these "prophecies" were meant to be understood as having been fulfilled in the 1st century and then claim its all about Baha'u'llah. And if "the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom was Baha'u'llah" then another of Jesus' prophecies has certainly failed because nobody in their right mind could possibly claim that any of those "standing here" when Jesus said it had not tasted death by 1800 years later. If Jesus was so badly mistaken about the time of fulfillment, what else did he get wrong?

Neb said:

Listen to yourself. “The Bible is correct in what it offers about the resurrection”, which is TRUE, then “body does not rise”, which is FALSE as far as the resurrection of Christ is concerned. By contradicting your first TRUE statement with your second FALSE statement, do you think there is no failure on your part? You’re bringing in science, like atheism, so you could disprove what the bible is saying about the resurrection and the same time you’re saying the “Bible is correct”.

Click to expand...

Welcome to the world of the Baha'i. And you know it makes perfect sense to them, because they don't believe a literal, physical resurrection took place. When they read it, they see the "spiritual" truth behind the words... the awakened hearts and the coming to life of people that were once dead, spiritually dead. They say that about Lazarus and the others that the gospels say were brought back to life by Jesus.

For Jesus, they say that since the church is the body of Christ, that is what came to life and rose from being dead, again spiritually dead. No matter what I ask, they can spin it to be "true", spiritually, yet "false" literally. I usually ask them if the gospel writers thought that it was true... and if so that would mean they were wrong. Maybe, I should push the other possibility, that the writers knew it was not literal. But, they wrote about people seeing the empty tomb, talking with the risen Jesus, eating with him and touching him, when, all along, they knew what they were writing didn't happen in the real world... but was only something that was meant to be some mystical, symbolic story.

Some of the Baha'i answers insinuate that since the gospels weren't written 'til way later, and not necessarily by eye witnesses, that the story is built on traditions and hearsay and was embellished. But then they say how true and accurate the Bible is? So how do you argue against that? Like you have said, they say it's true and false at the same time.

Trailblazer said:

The Most Great peace did not come only because Baha’u’llah was rejected by the ones who could bring it about... the Kings and Rulers of the earth. As such, they “refused” the Most Great Peace.

“Now that ye have refused the Most Great Peace, hold ye fast unto this, the Lesser Peace, that haply ye may in some degree better your own condition and that of your dependents.

O rulers of the earth! Be reconciled among yourselves, that ye may need no more armaments save in a measure to safeguard your territories and dominions. Beware lest ye disregard the counsel of the All-Knowing, the Faithful.

Be united, O kings of the earth, for thereby will the tempest of discord be stilled amongst you, and your peoples find rest, if ye be of them that comprehend. Should any one among you take up arms against another, rise ye all against him, for this is naught but manifest justice.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 254

However, that does not make the prophecy a failed prophecy, since there is no time frame on that prophecy. It is very early in the Messianic Age, only 165 years into a new religious cycle that will last no less than 500,000 years... Peace will come and the rest of the prophecy will be fulfilled during the Baha’i Cycle.

Click to expand...

How long was the previous "cycle" and what was it supposed to achieve?

Trailblazer said:

If humanity does not survive, it won't be because of "the Baha'i Faith." It will be because the Christians are STILL WAITING for Jesus. I will save you the trouble of going to the other thread where I just posted this:

kjw47 said: ↑
this is reality.

Trailblazer said: No, it is a complete fantasy. The body of Jesus never rose from the grave so the body of Jesus never ascended to heaven so the body of Jesus can never come to earth again, ever.

Jesus is never coming back but Christians will keep waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting.... They will only find out that Jesus never planned to return after they die and see Jesus in heaven.

Moreover, it is such a travesty that Christians are continuing to wait and wait and wait and wait for Jesus to come and fix everything that is wrong in the world just so they won't have to do anything about these serious problems... God has entrusted humans to fix the problems in the world; Jesus is not going to come floating down on a cloud and wave a magic wand and poof, all the world's problems are fixed, climate change and the whole bit.

God has entrusted humans to build the Kingdom of God on earth, according to the blueprint instructions laid out by Baha’u’llah. There is no quick fix, no magic wand, just a lot of hard work.

Because Christians misinterpret the Bible they think the same Jesus is coming down from the sky on a physical cloud. All the prophecies for the Return of Jesus had been fulfilled by 1844, but when Christians did not see Jesus come down from the sky on a cloud, they rejected Baha’u’llah when He came. Son of man coming on the clouds means that the return of the Christ Spirit will appear in the form of another human being. The term “clouds” as used in the Bible means those things that are contrary to the ways and desires of men. Just like the physical clouds prevent the eyes of men from beholding the sun, these things hindered men from recognizing the Return of Christ.

Revelation 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

Revelation 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

I do not deny the literal resurrection on the grounds of implausibility, but rather on the grounds of... well, never mind.... I do not care of Jesus resurrected bodily and some Baha'is are undecided on that...

Why mince words? Let's get real... The only reason the resurrection matters so much to Christians is because it is tied in with the Return of Jesus... So if Jesus did not rise from the grave, Jesus could not ascend to heaven and return from heaven... But whether Jesus resurrected bodily or not does not matter because Jesus did not ascend into the clouds bodily and the same body of Jesus is not going to return from the sky on a cloud... I have been discussing this on other forums with a Christian for four years... The Return of the same Jesus has no support from the Bible, none. Jesus never said He was going to return, never. The Return of the same Jesus was fabricated by Christians by gross misinterpretation of OT and NT verses. Jesus said:

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

Can't people read?

So what is implausible about a religious Cycle that lasts 500,000 years?

Click to expand...

Let's pretend that you and the Baha'is are right, did the gospel writers know that Jesus did not literally come back to life?

And about being able to read, this is how Revelation ends...

So who said "Yes, I am coming soon"? If not Jesus, then whoever this John is that got this revelation has got it wrong. He says, "Come, Lord Jesus"? So is John right, and it is Jesus coming back? Or is he wrong and misunderstood or assumed it was going to be Jesus?

Trailblazer said:

That is not funny considering the shape the world is in today. Any God that would take any longer than it did to send a Messenger is not God at all...

“We can well perceive how the whole human race is encompassed with great, with incalculable afflictions. We see it languishing on its bed of sickness, sore-tried and disillusioned. They that are intoxicated by self-conceit have interposed themselves between it and the Divine and infallible Physician. Witness how they have entangled all men, themselves included, in the mesh of their devices. They can neither discover the cause of the disease, nor have they any knowledge of the remedy. They have conceived the straight to be crooked, and have imagined their friend an enemy.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 213

And that was written about 150 years ago.

Yes, the “Return of Christ” is a Bible teaching we agree with but the Return of the same man Jesus is a Christian doctrine we do not agree with. Jesus never promised to return so that is not in the Bible.

All the prophecies for the Return of Christ/Messiah have been fulfilled by Baha'u'llah.

The Bible is the Word of God, it is not a Christian doctrine. Christian doctrines are the word of man.

Click to expand...

Who wrote the books in the New Testament, God or men?

Neb said:

Baha’u’llah, a Shiite, thought he is the Messiah in Judaism, the Christ in Christianity, and the Twelfth Imam in Islam all in one. Baha’u’llah means the glory of God. This is blasphemy.

Click to expand...

It is not blasphemy unless Baha’u’llah was not who He claimed to be. If He was then all who turn away from Him are turning away from God.

Christians and Jews try to use the Bible to disprove the claim of Baha’u’llah, but I guess it simply does not occur to them that their personal Bible interpretations could be wrong. Since there is no agreement among either Jews or Christians what the verses mean that alone is proof that there is not one correct meaning, logically speaking. What reason is there to believe that the Christian and Jewish interpretations of the Bible are more accurate than the Baha'i interpretations?

All the evidence shows that Baha’u’llah was who He claimed to be. Not only did He fulfill all the Old Testament prophecies for the coming of the Messiah and all the New Testament prophecies for the return of Christ, but there is much more evidence: who Baha’u’llah was as a Person; what He did during His 30 year mission on earth; the history of His Cause; the scriptures that He wrote; what His authorized interpreters wrote; what others have written about the Baha’i Faith; prophecies of other religions that He fulfilled; predictions He made that have come to pass; the religion that was established, what the followers all over the world have done and are doing now -- All of this constitutes verifiable evidence.

Neb said:

Is there a physical heaven? In a sense, if we look or point up in the sky we objectively say, it’s the heaven, but do we see God? No, we don’t, because our physical eyes cannot see what is spiritual.

Stephen, before he died, saw a spiritual heaven in,
Ac 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
Ac 7:56 and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God.

Click to expand...

So you provide an answer that simply raises questions and doesn't specifically answer what was asked.

Having identified that at issue with the literal resurrection of Christ as a core tenant of Christianity is a glaring conflict between science and religion, you respond by completely ignoring what this thread is about, and go on the offensive, with all manner of criticisms about the Baha'i Faith. Deflection and avoidance, rather than constructive engagement the questions raised by the OP.

What is relevant about the Baha'i Faith is that it teaches the harmony between science and religion:

Science and Religion | What Bahá’ís Believe

There is no contradiction between true religion and science. When a religion is opposed to science it becomes mere superstition: that which is contrary to knowledge is ignorance.
(‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks)

How can a man believe to be a fact that which science has proved to be impossible? If he believes in spite of his reason, it is rather ignorant superstition than faith.
(‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks)

Religion and science are the two wings upon which man’s intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress.
(‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks)

So what is most likely? That God literally created the world in six days as recorded in Genesis 1 and 2 or is it an allegorical story with a deeper meaning? Scientists overwhelmingly reject a literal interpretation including many Christian scientists.

How about the story of Noah and His magnificent Ark as recorded in Genesis 6 to 9? Did that really happen and if so what scientific proof is there to support or reject it? An allegorical story seems much more likely wouldn't you agree?

Fast forward to nearly two thousand years ago and we have the incredible story of Jesus with His rising from the dead and subsequent ascension to heaven. Is this literally true or an allegorical story told by the gospel writers and the apostles of Christ like the allegorical stories in Genesis? The latter seems most likely to me, as the former is scientifically impossible, even accounting for an All-Powerful and Omnipotent God that we both believe in.

Rough Beast Sloucher said:

What exactly Luke’s audience made of the ascent of Jesus in Acts 1 is probably not completely discernible by modern readers. But I think Luke was not concerned with details of theological cosmology. I suspect that the linkage to the Olivet Discourse and to Daniel was sufficient for his purpose, the redirection of focus from the end of days to the current days.

Click to expand...

I agree. So taking a literal ascension out of the equation, isn't it more likely there wasn't a literal resurrection to begin with? If Jesus really did rise from the dead and appear before the disciples over 40 days, where did He go afterwards?

adrian009 said:

So what is most likely? That God literally created the world in six days as recorded in Genesis 1 and 2 or is it an allegorical story with a deeper meaning? Scientists overwhelmingly reject a literal interpretation including many Christian scientists.

How about the story of Noah and His magnificent Ark as recorded in Genesis 6 to 9? Did that really happen and if so what scientific proof is there to support or reject it? An allegorical story seems much more likely wouldn't you agree?

Fast forward to nearly two thousand years ago and we have the incredible story of Jesus with His rising from the dead and subsequent ascension to heaven. Is this literally true or an allegorical story told by the gospel writers and the apostles of Christ like the allegorical stories in Genesis? The latter seems most likely to me, as the former is scientifically impossible, even accounting for an All-Powerful and Omnipotent God that we both believe in.

Click to expand...

There is a third option of course - that the ancient people of the pre-scientific world really believed that these were perfectly logical accounts of what really happened and recorded them as such. Literal accounts but wrong. That makes by far the most sense to me.

siti said:

There is a third option of course - that the ancient people of the pre-scientific world really believed that these were perfectly logical accounts of what really happened and recorded them as such. Literal accounts but wrong. That makes by far the most sense to me.

Click to expand...

Makes sense. As with the resurrection that Christians came to believe early on to be literally true, so to with the accounts of the beginning of the world. However, the stories needed to originate with someone who either knew they weren't literally true or was mistaken (deluded).

adrian009 said:

I agree. So taking a literal ascension out of the equation, isn't it more likely there wasn't a literal resurrection to begin with? If Jesus really did rise from the dead and appear before the disciples over 40 days, where did He go afterwards?

Click to expand...

Even if I were inclined to believe in a physical resurrection from the dead, the strong and even irreconcilable differences between the accounts, the clear motive for writing those accounts as they were written, and the obvious solution to the ending of Mark, and very importantly the absence of any witnesses to the resurrection itself, all would combine to convince me otherwise. Truth to tell, I was so inclined until I actually read the Gospels. The most important event in the whole story, without which as Paul tells us it all falls apart, and this is how poorly it is presented?

No for real bodily resurrection, but definitely an early belief in one, as I have previously argued.

Rough Beast Sloucher said:

Even if I were inclined to believe in a physical resurrection from the dead, the strong and even irreconcilable differences between the accounts, the clear motive for writing those accounts as they were written, and the obvious solution to the ending of Mark, and very importantly the absence of any witnesses to the resurrection itself, all would combine to convince me otherwise. Truth to tell, I was so inclined until I actually read the Gospels. The most important event in the whole story, without which as Paul tells us it all falls apart, and this is how poorly it is presented?

No for real bodily resurrection, but definitely an early belief in one, as I have previously argued.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your honesty. I know there are plenty of Christians around with a similar belief.

A couple of questions I'd appreciate answers to:

Is it hard for you to be part of a Christian Faith community and be open about your beliefs?

Do you feel at greater risk of losing your Christian Faith? Bart Ehrman seems to have lost his.

adrian009 said:

Thanks for your honesty. I know there are plenty of Christians around with a similar belief.

A couple of questions I'd appreciate answers to:

Is it hard for you to be part of a Christian Faith community and be open about your beliefs?
Do you feel at greater risk of losing your Christian Faith? Bart Ehrman seems to have lost his.

Click to expand...

I am not a part of any community. My 'faith' consists of believing that a real historical Jesus really said some things that managed to survive more or less intact embedded in the Gospels, things that make good sense concerning a reasonable way to live. None of these things were really new, often being straight out of Jewish scripture. It is the stress placed on living the spirit of righteousness in our hearts and in our actions rather than 'believing' or following a script of explicit do's and dont's that impressed me.

To me, Jesus was not divine, or a miracle worker or the Messiah etc.He was a guy who said some things that really resonate with me in a powerful way. I am not saying anyone else has to feel or believe that way. But I do.

adrian009 said:

So you provide an answer that simply raises questions and doesn't specifically answer what was asked.

Having identified that at issue with the literal resurrection of Christ as a core tenant of Christianity is a glaring conflict between science and religion, you respond by completely ignoring what this thread is about, and go on the offensive, with all manner of criticisms about the Baha'i Faith. Deflection and avoidance, rather than constructive engagement the questions raised by the OP.

What is relevant about the Baha'i Faith is that it teaches the harmony between science and religion:

Science and Religion | What Bahá’ís Believe

There is no contradiction between true religion and science. When a religion is opposed to science it becomes mere superstition: that which is contrary to knowledge is ignorance.
(‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks)

How can a man believe to be a fact that which science has proved to be impossible? If he believes in spite of his reason, it is rather ignorant superstition than faith.
(‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks)

Religion and science are the two wings upon which man’s intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress.
(‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Paris Talks)

So what is most likely? That God literally created the world in six days as recorded in Genesis 1 and 2 or is it an allegorical story with a deeper meaning? Scientists overwhelmingly reject a literal interpretation including many Christian scientists.

How about the story of Noah and His magnificent Ark as recorded in Genesis 6 to 9? Did that really happen and if so what scientific proof is there to support or reject it? An allegorical story seems much more likely wouldn't you agree?

Fast forward to nearly two thousand years ago and we have the incredible story of Jesus with His rising from the dead and subsequent ascension to heaven. Is this literally true or an allegorical story told by the gospel writers and the apostles of Christ like the allegorical stories in Genesis? The latter seems most likely to me, as the former is scientifically impossible, even accounting for an All-Powerful and Omnipotent God that we both believe in.

Click to expand...

But don't Baha'is believe in the virgin birth? How does that work?

adrian009 said:

Makes sense. As with the resurrection that Christians came to believe early on to be literally true, so to with the accounts of the beginning of the world. However, the stories needed to originate with someone who either knew they weren't literally true or was mistaken (deluded).

Click to expand...

So did the gospel writers know that they weren't literally true or were they deluded?

siti said:

Wow! So all this is about Jesus sending the Holy Spirit "in a little while" - and that refers to the appearance of a Persian prophet about 1840 years later? And it is nothing whatsoever to do with the account in Acts where the Holy Spirit was poured out on the disciples just days (about 50 or so days actually) after he said it?

Click to expand...

I know that the Holy Spirit was poured out on the disciples as per Acts:

Acts 2 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

What does this have to do with what is in John 14, 15, and 16? The Holy Spirit of an Almighty God is not limited to being poured out only once and for all time... God can pour it out whenever He so pleases.

siti said:

Is 50 days "a little while"? Is 1840 years "a little while"? Given the choice I think I'd go with the 50 days one.

Click to expand...

Go right on ahead and choose whatever you want. If you think Christianity makes more sense than the Baha’i Faith go for it. You can keep waiting for Jesus to return along with the Christians. It won’t matter to God because God is fully self-sufficient:

“Your Lord, the God of mercy, can well dispense with all creatures. Nothing whatever can either increase or diminish the things He doth possess. If ye believe, to your own behoof will ye believe; and if ye believe not, ye yourselves will suffer.” Gleanings, p. 148

Sure, all these Writings of Baha’u’llah, all 15,000 Tablets, are just made up by a man who chose to suffer and sacrifice 40 years of His life just to fool people into thinking He was the Return of Christ. Mind you, Baha’u’llah could have been a prominent minister in the government and lived an easy life... Are there any other men who have done what He did, not to mention fulfilling all the OT and NT prophecies for the Return of Christ? Do they have a world religion that has been founded on their teachings which closely trails Islam in its growth rate? I rely more on logic and reason than ancient scriptures that have too many problems to even be listed... Why are we even talking about them thousands of years later? Well, because so many people are attached to what they believe, that’s why...

I do not need the Bible to prove who Baha’u’llah was. I never read one page of the Bible before I became a Baha’i. Nobody needs the Bible to prove who Baha’u’llah was unless they are a Christian or a Jew. However, the Bible proves who Baha’u’llah was if interpreted correctly. But Jews and Christians are blinded by their own personal interpretations of the Torah and the Bible, so they will never see the Truth, none but a few.

The Bible is a Pandora’s Box of contradictions and nobody can possibly know what meanings to ascribe to so many of the verses... Moreover, the Bible is not the only “Holy Book” ever revealed by God to humanity. There are many other scriptures, Buddhist, Hindu, Zoroastrian, etc, as well as the Qur’an... It is so arrogant of Christians and Jews to think that the Bible is the only Word of God.

I knew the Baha’i Faith was the truth after two weeks of reading about it and this was based upon logic and reason, not ancient scriptures; but then again I had no confirmation bias because I never had a religion before I became a Baha’i, and I thank God and my parents for that. Everyone in my family became Baha’is because we were not blinded by Christianity.

Now, 47 years later I have never changed my mind about Baha’u’llah. The more I learn, the more I know He was who He claimed to be. I have been angry at God for a number of years, but I see that as my own weakness and I will work it out, because I have the Writings of Baha’u’llah to turn to, clear unmistakable Writings about God and His will for me and all of humanity. One can’t get much better than that.

siti said:

There is absolutely nothing in the context to suggest that Jesus meant people should wait almost two millennia - exactly the opposite in fact.

Click to expand...

And there is nothing to suggest that it would not be two millennia either. Actually Jesus gave three promises so we know that until those promises were fulfilled He (His Spirit) would not return. I have those (and many other prophecies) posted on my forum: The 3 Promises of Jesus.

siti said:

So again - you can't have it both ways - you can't list verse after verse after verse that confirm my argument that these "prophecies" were meant to be understood as having been fulfilled in the 1st century and then claim its all about Baha'u'llah.

Click to expand...

If all we had was what Jesus said in John 14, 15 and 16 you might have a point, but I do not even consider those to be prophecies. There are so many prophecies that demonstrate that Baha’u’llah was the Return of Christ and they are in this book: William Sears, Thief in the Night.

How was John 14, 15 and 16 fulfilled in the first century? Meant to be understood by whom, Christians who already have their minds made up what they mean so as to support their beliefs that Jesus is going to return? Christians believe that the Advocate/Comforter/Spirit of truth is the Holy Spirit that was sent at Pentecost and which lives inside their bodies, but they have yet to explain to me how a Holy Spirit could do all of what it says the Advocate/Comforter/Spirit of truth will do in John 14, 15 and16. Only a man could do these things and Baha’u’llah did all these things:

• Teach you all things
• Call to remembrance what Jesus said
• Testify of Jesus
• Glorify Jesus, receive of Jesus, and shew it unto you
• Guide you into all truth
• Speak what He hears and shew you things to come
• Reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment

That’s fine, they can keep their beliefs, and I will keep mine. I have no interest in going backwards and living according to an ancient book that was revealed for another age in history when I have the Writings of Baha’u’llah.

siti said:

And if "the Son of Man coming in his Kingdom was Baha'u'llah" then another of Jesus' prophecies has certainly failed because nobody in their right mind could possibly claim that any of those "standing here" when Jesus said it had not tasted death by 1800 years later. If Jesus was so badly mistaken about the time of fulfillment, what else did he get wrong?

Click to expand...

Everyone knows that there is something wrong with those verses (Matthew 16:27-28), even Christians know, because if we translate them literally that would make Jesus a liar. So what do they mean? It is anyone’s best guess, but Bible errors certainly do not disprove Baha’u’llah. Actually, the Jews I post to on another use these verses as proof that Jesus could not even be a Prophet, let alone the Messiah, because prophets do not lie. However, it was no doubt just one of the many transcription errors we see in the Bible. Jesus was a Manifestation of God. I know that because Baha’u’llah confirmed it.

adrian009 said:

(deluded)

Click to expand...

This.