Is Yahweh A Liar? Yes, He Is. I Can Prove It.

Trailblazer said:

The Holy Spirit was sent at Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4), but it was sent again in the last days that we are now living in. In that same chapter in which we find the Pentecost account, we have (Acts 2:17-21) showing that God would once again pour out His Spirit upon all flesh:

Acts 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

Acts 2:17-21And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come: And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Click to expand...

You agree that the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, was sent at Pentecost. Why, having sent the Holy Spirit AS A SPIRIT on all believers, would God then send it again, but on ONE MAN [Baha'u'llah] ONLY?

Where is Baha'u'ullah now?

Subduction Zone said:

This is what I like to call the Spiderman fallacy. Comic books quite often have correct names of places or people. That does not make them reliable sources when it comes to the existence of Spiderman. The fact that Pilate existed is not evidence for the Jesus story.

Click to expand...

The historical background must be true for the person Jesus Christ to be true. I have supplied good evidence that Pontius Pilate existed. This is part of the historical background.

Consistency and reliability are necessary if the scriptures are to believed. People often attempt to undermine the authority of scripture on the grounds of historical inaccuracy. So, let's separate matters of fact from matters of faith. And let us also not forget the biblical definition of faith as 'the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen' [Hebrews 11:1]. In other words, there can be evidence even when things are not seen.

Trailblazer said:

Baha'u'llah was the Comforter who brought the Holy Spirit that was sent in Jesus' name.

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.

It makes logical sense that the Comforter must be associated with a man, because a “disembodied” Holy Spirit cannot do any of the following things that it says the Comforter and Spirit of truth will do in these verses: John 14:26; John 15:26; John 16:8,13,14

• 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

John 16:14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it 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:

Just as Jesus promised, Baha’u’llah glorified Jesus and testified of Jesus.

“We testify that when He came into the world, He shed the splendor of His glory upon all created things. Through Him the leper recovered from the leprosy of perversity and ignorance. Through Him, the unchaste and wayward were healed. Through His power, born of Almighty God, the eyes of the blind were opened, and the soul of the sinner sanctified.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 86

Baha'u'llah was the Messiah come again, as can be proven by comparing Bible prophecies with what happened before, during and after Baha'u'llah appeared. For example:

The Holy Spirit was sent at Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4), but it was sent again in the last days that we are now living in. In that same chapter in which we find the Pentecost account, we have (Acts 2:17-21) showing that God would once again pour out His Spirit upon all flesh:

Acts 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

Acts 2:17-21 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and notable day of the Lord come: And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Acts 2:17-21 is a prophecy and it has been fulfilled by the coming of Baha’u’llah.

All these wonders in the heavens and signs on the earth happened before Baha’u’llah appeared, and thus He fulfilled the prophecies for the Return of Christ.

Revelation 6:12-14 I looked when He broke the sixth seal, and there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth made of hair, and the whole moon became like blood; and the stars of the sky fell to the earth, as a fig tree casts its unripe figs when shaken by a great wind. The sky was split apart like a scroll when it is rolled up, and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.…

“As we look, we find the events recorded (in Revelation), following on in the order predicted.” (Our Day in the Light of Prophecy, Spicer, p. 77.) These events which he listed were as follows:

1. The Lisbon earthquake, 1755. 1755 Lisbon earthquake
2. The Dark Day, 1780. New England's Dark Day
3. The Falling Stars, 1833. The Falling of the Stars

It is interesting to note that the great star-fall came on the night of 12 November, which is the birthday of Bahá’u’lláh.

Excerpts from: http://bahai-library.com/pdf/s/sears_thief_night.pdf

There is much more detail regarding the fulfillment of these prophecies and all the other prophecies for the return of Christ in the book Thief in the Night by William Sears

Click to expand...

It seems that the Holy Spirit is God's 'force' used to accomplish His will as shown in Genesis 1:2 and is not associated with any person. People can be baptised with it, anointed with it and it 'filled' 3,000 at the same time at Pentecost. Never has a name and is never 'seen' separate to God and Jesus in heavenly visions.
Many 'things' are personified in scripture, "blood and water" are said to bear witness, wisdom has children, sin and death are kings.

Acts 2:17-21 I am unsure of, some theologians suggest that it was the last days of the Jewish system (old covenant) others that that was the beginning of the last days, neither explanation completely satisfies me.

Thief in the Night by William Sears. Now He also spoke a parable to them: “A person who is blind cannot guide another who is blind, can he? Will they not both fall into a pit? Luke 6:36

Jesus said "Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live." John:14-19
Jesus came to Earth in the flesh once only he will not return in the flesh because he has already inherited his kingdom in heaven and flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.

What you speak of was just a meteor shower that happens every 33yrs usually around the 11th to 16th November, it has been recorded since 1833, 1866, 1899, 1933, 1966, and 1999, They come from a comet Earth passes through different parts of the debris trail at different times, thus resulting in more or fewer particles entering Earth’s atmosphere at different times.

Redemptionsong said:

None of these three characters, Bab, Baha'ullah or Muhammad, appear in the prophecies of the Bible. If one studies the scriptures carefully, it becomes abundantly clear that God has set safeguards against such spurious claimants.

The usual scripture for Muhammad being prophesied in the Bible is Deuteronomy 18:15-18: 'I will raise them up a Prophet from amongst their brethren, like unto thee [Moses, see verse 15], and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto all that I shall command him.'

This cannot be a reference to Muhammad, firstly, because he was not 'from amongst their brethren' [Moses was speaking to Israelites, not Ishmaelites]; secondly, because the prophecy is referred to again in reference to Jesus. In Acts 3:19-24, Peter says, 'Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
For Moses truly said unto the Fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.'

Not only is this definitive evidence that the scripture from Deuteronomy was written with reference to the coming Messiah, but that the Messiah was/is Jesus Christ.

Why else would Jesus have said to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, 'These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms concerning me.' ? [Luke 24:44] Jesus himself had no doubt that he was the principal subject of the prophecies of the Tanakh.

Then we come to the question of whether the Holy Spirit is a spirit or a man.
John 14:26 says, '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.'

Conclusion 1. The COMFORTER IS THE HOLY GHOST.

Matthew 1:18. 'Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.'

Conclusion 2. Mary was FOUND WITH CHILD OF THE HOLY GHOST.

So, are you telling me that Baha'ullah was responsible for impregnating Mary?!

IMO, we need to get away from all the garbage that is falsely attributed to the Bible. Jesus said that 'scripture cannot be broken', and you cannot have an unbroken scripture if you allow spurious claimants to add to the words of scripture. God made sure that the scriptures provide us with prophecies and fulfilments, enough at least to convince us that Jesus Christ is the very epicentre of all scripture.

Click to expand...

I agree, perhaps people need to keep in mind this verse-
"For false Christs and false prophets will arise, and will show signs and wonders, in order to lead astray, if possible, the elect. But take heed; behold, I have told you everything in advance,” Mark 13:22-23.

Redemptionsong said:

The historical background must be true for the person Jesus Christ to be true. I have supplied good evidence that Pontius Pilate existed. This is part of the historical background.

Consistency and reliability are necessary if the scriptures are to believed. People often attempt to undermine the authority of scripture on the grounds of historical inaccuracy. So, let's separate matters of fact from matters of faith. And let us also not forget the biblical definition of faith as 'the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen' [Hebrews 11:1]. In other words, there can be evidence even when things are not seen.

Click to expand...

Yes, the historical background must be correct for Jesus to be real. And that is where you run into some very serious problems. For example there is no doubt that the author of Luke made up his Nativity story, or got it from a source that made it up due to the historical errors... And history tells us how the resurrection is probably a failed story as well. You need to be consistent in your application of history and that is one of the failures of Christianity. That is why getting one fact right does not help you. Cherry picking is not allowed. One cannot look at the wins only.

Subduction Zone said:

Yes, the historical background must be correct for Jesus to be real. And that is where you run into some very serious problems. For example there is no doubt that the author of Luke made up his Nativity story, or got it from a source that made it up due to the historical errors... And history tells us how the resurrection is probably a failed story as well. You need to be consistent in your application of history and that is one of the failures of Christianity. That is why getting one fact right does not help you. Cherry picking is not allowed. One cannot look at the wins only.

Click to expand...

I don't believe that Luke's nativity account is 'made up'. In fact, given that Luke wrote his Gospel between 56-60 CE, the gap between the crucifixion of Jesus and his Gospel being written is a mere 25 years or so. Many people contemporary to Luke would have been witnesses to events during Jesus' life and ministry. These people would not have been duped by a false record of events!

Luke is the writer of not just the Gospel of Luke, but also the book of Acts. In the book of Acts he records events that took place after Jesus' resurrection. With Luke's record we have, therefore, a long passage of history to consider, from somewhere around 4 BCE to about 63 CE [when it is believed that the book of Acts was completed].

So, as a sceptic, the onus falls on you to supply the evidence of inaccuracy within Luke's writing.

If you believe the record of the nativity is inaccurate, where do you think the inaccuracy lies? I'd appreciate the specific chapter and verse to be able to respond in detail.

Redemptionsong said:

I don't believe that Luke's nativity account is 'made up'. In fact, given that Luke wrote his Gospel between 56-60 CE, the gap between the crucifixion of Jesus and his Gospel being written is a mere 25 years or so. Many people contemporary to Luke would have been witnesses to events during Jesus' life and ministry. These people would not have been duped by a false record of events!

Luke is the writer of not just the Gospel of Luke, but also the book of Acts. In the book of Acts he records events that took place after Jesus' resurrection. With Luke's record we have, therefore, a long passage of history to consider, from somewhere around 4 BCE to about 63 CE [when it is believed that the book of Acts was completed].

So, as a sceptic, the onus falls on you to supply the evidence of inaccuracy within Luke's writing.

If you believe the record of the nativity is inaccurate, where do you think the inaccuracy lies? I'd appreciate the specific chapter and verse to be able to respond in detail.

Click to expand...

Can you prove Luke was written 56-60 CE? I doubt it. The earliest fragment we have is this and it dates to 175-225 CE;



the earliest complete gospel dates to the 4th century. Your statement tells me you never do ANY critical reading outside Christian propaganda sources for your info--info that heavily slanted to tow the line for keeping the Christian status quo firmly in place regardless of what the actual evidence says. As such, I see that nothing anyone tells you that conflicts with your preconceived notions you will take seriously.

Papyrus 75, the Oldest Surviving Fragment from the Gospel of Luke : History of Information

Redemptionsong said:

I don't believe that Luke's nativity account is 'made up'. In fact, given that Luke wrote his Gospel between 56-60 CE, the gap between the crucifixion of Jesus and his Gospel being written is a mere 25 years or so. Many people contemporary to Luke would have been witnesses to events during Jesus' life and ministry. These people would not have been duped by a false record of events!

Luke is the writer of not just the Gospel of Luke, but also the book of Acts. In the book of Acts he records events that took place after Jesus' resurrection. With Luke's record we have, therefore, a long passage of history to consider, from somewhere around 4 BCE to about 63 CE [when it is believed that the book of Acts was completed].

So, as a sceptic, the onus falls on you to supply the evidence of inaccuracy within Luke's writing.

If you believe the record of the nativity is inaccurate, where do you think the inaccuracy lies? I'd appreciate the specific chapter and verse to be able to respond in detail.

Click to expand...

I did not realize that you were not a scholar of the Bible. His failure is well known. Do you remember in his myth how he used a census as a reason for Joseph and Mary to go to Bethlehem?

And there were very very few "contemporaries" alive when Luke was written. Do you know when it was written? About 70CE at the earliest. That would be at least 70 years after Jesus's birth. And according to the myth there really were not any witness of note. Well perhaps a few shepherds, but 70 years later it would be all but guaranteed that they were dead at the time of Luke being written.

Subduction Zone said:

Dodge, you are trying to claim that the Bible is inconsistent and therefore unreliable. You lose either way when you do this.

Click to expand...

the bible is multiple books, each book stands or falls by there own merits...... so can you clarify which book are you talking about?

I did. You ignored it.

Click to expand...

you just made the assertion without providing any evidence.

how do you know that the high priest didn't have any authority against jews in Damascus?

No, just that the Bible is not reliable, as you seem to have admitted yourself.

Click to expand...

sure most of the books in the bible have "probable mistakes" just like any other historical document.

sure i grant that acts has some mistakes so what? all ancient authors made mistakes........... so whats your point?

You should invest a few minutes today.

Click to expand...

ok whats your point and how does the video supports your point?

leroy said:

the bible is multiple books, each book stands or falls by there own merits...... so can you clarify which book are you talking about?

Click to expand...

No, it does not. This has been explained to you. When the books of the Bible were selected they went through a filter of a sort. Books that clearly did not support the agreed upon dogma were rejected. That means that you cannot claim that they are independent. If we had all, or a t least a fair number, of the various different books ever written then you would have a legitimate claim. But part of the process was to often destroy competing works.

you just made the assertion without providing any evidence.

how do you know that the high priest didn't have any authority against jews in Damascus?

Click to expand...

None was needed since it was an observation. You still do not know when claims need to be supported. And I explained this to you. Damascus was part of Syria. A separate country. Judea may have been a theocracy, Syria was not. Any authority that held in Judea would not hold in Syria. This is not that hard of an idea to understand.

sure most of the books in the bible have "probable mistakes" just like any other historical document.

sure i grant that acts has some mistakes so what? all ancient authors made mistakes........... so whats your point?

Click to expand...

That you have a much higher burden of proof to show that an author is reliable than you would if a work did not have obvious errors in it.

ok whats your point and how does the video supports your point?

Click to expand...

It explains what I just said in more depth than my explanation in this post. You have not watched it yet, or if you did you did not let yourself understand it.

Here is a quick analogy for you. If a Mexican said things that his government did not like about him, but he said them from the U.S. how much luck do you think that a group of Mexicans coming into the U.S. would have when they came to arrest him? We would not tolerate that, that is for sure. The Damascans, who had no problem with Christianity, would not allow members of their community to be arrested by a foreign power.

Sandra Jayne said:

It seems that the Holy Spirit is God's 'force' used to accomplish His will as shown in Genesis 1:2 and is not associated with any person. People can be baptised with it, anointed with it and it 'filled' 3,000 at the same time at Pentecost. Never has a name and is never 'seen' separate to God and Jesus in heavenly visions.

Click to expand...

I believe that the Holy Spirit is sent to the Messengers of God such as Jesus and Baha’u’llah and it is then brought to this world by Them. It is not separate to God; it is the Bounty of God.

Question.—What is the Holy Spirit?

Answer.—The Holy Spirit is the Bounty of God and the luminous rays which emanate from the Manifestations; for the focus of the rays of the Sun of Reality was Christ, and from this glorious focus, which is the Reality of Christ, the Bounty of God reflected upon the other mirrors which were the reality of the Apostles. The descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles signifies that the glorious divine bounties reflected and appeared in their reality. Moreover, entrance and exit, descent and ascent, are characteristics of bodies and not of spirits—that is to say, sensible realities enter and come forth, but intellectual subtleties and mental realities, such as intelligence, love, knowledge, imagination and thought, do not enter, nor come forth, nor descend, but rather they have direct connection. Some Answered Questions, p. 108

The Holy Spirit can be thought of as a force used to accomplish God’s will but God’s will through God’s Messengers.
We know it was sent to them because it descended upon them.

Luke 3:22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

“God is My witness, O people! I was asleep on My couch, when lo, the Breeze of God wafting over Me roused Me from My slumber. His quickening Spirit revived Me, and My tongue was unloosed to voice His Call.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 90

Sandra Jayne said:

Thief in the Night by William Sears. Now He also spoke a parable to them: “A person who is blind cannot guide another who is blind, can he? Will they not both fall into a pit? Luke 6:36

Click to expand...

Are you saying that William Sears was blind and if so what is the basis for saying that?

Sandra Jayne said:

Jesus said "Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live." John:14-19
Jesus came to Earth in the flesh once only he will not return in the flesh because he has already inherited his kingdom in heaven and flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.

Click to expand...

I fully agree. The same Jesus who walked earth 2000 years ago was never slated by God to return to earth.

Sandra Jayne said:

What you speak of was just a meteor shower that happens every 33yrs usually around the 11th to 16th November, it has been recorded since 1833, 1866, 1899, 1933, 1966, and 1999, They come from a comet Earth passes through different parts of the debris trail at different times, thus resulting in more or fewer particles entering Earth’s atmosphere at different times.

Click to expand...

THE STAR-FALL OF 1833

So exceptional was this event that Clarke in his History of Astronomy in the Nineteenth Century writes: “… a tempest of falling stars broke over the earth.”

According to the millennial scholars of the 1840s, the third sign in the sixth chapter of Revelation came to pass on 12 November 1833, the night of the unique star-fall.

Clarke wrote of that night, saying: “Once and for all, then, as the result of the star-fall of 1833, the study of luminous meteors became an integral part of astronomy.” He goes on to say: “North America bore the brunt of its pelting. From the Gulf of Mexico to Halifax, until daylight with some difficulties put an end to the display, the sky was scored in every direction with shining tracks and illuminated with majestic fireballs.”

Denison Olmsted, Professor of Mathematics at Yale University, wrote the following in the American Journal of Science: “The morning of 13 November 1833, was rendered memorable by an exhibition of the phenomenon called shooting stars, which was probably more extensive and magnificent than any similar one hitherto recorded … Probably no celestial phenomenon has ever occurred in this country, since its first settlement, which was received with so much admiration and delight by one class of spectators, or with so much astonishment and fear by another class. For some time after the occurrence, the ‘meteoric phenomenon’ was the principle topic of conversation.”

Simon Newcomb in Astronomy for Everybody called the display of falling stars “the most remarkable one ever observed”.

The French astronomer, Flammarion, in Popular Astronomy, wrote: “The Boston observer, Olmsted, compared them, at the moment of maximum, to half the number of flakes which are perceived in the air during an ordinary shower of snow.”

The New York Journal of Commerce wrote: “No philosopher or scholar has told or recorded an event like that of yesterday morning. A prophet eighteen hundred years ago foretold it exactly, if we will be at the trouble of understanding stars falling to mean falling stars.” (New York Journal of Commerce, 14 November 1833.)

Astronomers, after careful study, learned that this particular meteoric display occurs every thirty–three years. However, the display of 1833 was unique in its drama. The fall of 1866 did not rival it in any way, and that of 1899 was of even less interest.

From: http://bahai-library.com/pdf/s/sears_thief_night.pdf

Sandra Jayne said:

I agree, perhaps people need to keep in mind this verse-
"For false Christs and false prophets will arise, and will show signs and wonders, in order to lead astray, if possible, the elect. But take heed; behold, I have told you everything in advance,” Mark 13:22-23.

Click to expand...

The verses were given because many false Christs and false prophets have arisen, so that was a warning; but Jesus never said that there would not be any more true Prophets.

If there were never going to be any more true Prophets, why did Jesus say Ye shall know them by their fruits?

Matthew 7:15-20 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Redemptionsong said:

You agree that the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, was sent at Pentecost. Why, having sent the Holy Spirit AS A SPIRIT on all believers, would God then send it again, but on ONE MAN [Baha'u'llah] ONLY?

Click to expand...

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.

The disciples were all with one accord in one place. Where do these verses say that God sent the Holy Spirit AS A SPIRIT on all believers?

Baha'is believe that God sent the Holy Spirit to the disciples.
You can read the whole chapter here: 24: THE DESCENT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT UPON THE APOSTLES

However, God also sent the Holy Spirit directly to Jesus.

Luke 3:22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

God did not send the Holy Spirit any differently to Baha'ullah than He sent it to Jesus. This is how it descended:

“God is My witness, O people! I was asleep on My couch, when lo, the Breeze of God wafting over Me roused Me from My slumber. His quickening Spirit revived Me, and My tongue was unloosed to voice His Call.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 90

Both Jesus and Baha'u'llah released the Holy Spirit into the world after they received it from God.

God sent the Holy Spirit to Baha'u'lah because it needed to be refreshed and renewed since it was waning after 1800 years.

Redemptionsong said:

Where is Baha'u'ullah now?

Click to expand...

Baha'u'llah is in the spiritual world (heaven) with Jesus and God and the Concourse on high, beholding us from His realm of glory.

“Let not your hearts be perturbed, O people, when the glory of My Presence is withdrawn, and the ocean of My utterance is stilled. In My presence amongst you there is a wisdom, and in My absence there is yet another, inscrutable to all but God, the Incomparable, the All-Knowing. Verily, We behold you from Our realm of glory, and shall aid whosoever will arise for the triumph of Our Cause with the hosts of the Concourse on high and a company of Our favored angels.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 140

SeekingAllTruth said:

Can you prove Luke was written 56-60 CE? I doubt it. The earliest fragment we have is this and it dates to 175-225 CE;

the earliest complete gospel dates to the 4th century. Your statement tells me you never do ANY critical reading outside Christian propaganda sources for your info--info that heavily slanted to tow the line for keeping the Christian status quo firmly in place regardless of what the actual evidence says. As such, I see that nothing anyone tells you that conflicts with your preconceived notions you will take seriously.

Papyrus 75, the Oldest Surviving Fragment from the Gospel of Luke : History of Information

Click to expand...

Sometimes I have to take a big intake of breath and say to myself 'Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.' [Psalm 19:14]

It was very kind of you to send me a nice picture of a fragment from the Gospel of Luke. I've visited the British Library, the Museum of the Book in Jerusalem, and the Bible Museum in Washington D.C. and they all have some nice displays of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.

The problem is, this ancient fragment is not part of the 'autograph', the original Gospel of Luke. It's a copy. It may even be a copy of a copy.

On this subject, were you aware that, before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1946/7, the oldest manuscripts for the Hebrew Bible (the Tanakh) were dated 920 CE, or the tenth century? The reason for this is simple. Old copies of the Hebrew scriptures were buried, and new copies were written. However, based on your way of thinking, this great gap in time between the supposed originals and the oldest extant manuscript should lead us to be sceptical of the existence of Moses, Isaiah, David and Ezekiel (to name just a few writers of scripture). Thankfully, amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls uncovered in 1947 was a near complete copy of the book of Isaiah, and it demonstrated to the world that the process of copying, according to Jewish tradition, was tight and accurate, so much so that very few differences could be found in the Hebrew text of the book of Isaiah despite a thousand year gap between copies.

But, to be frank, the question that we're discussing is not really a question of documentary evidence; it's a question of Biblical exegesis. Here we encounter a whole range of 'criticism'. There's Textual Criticism, the quest for the original wording; there's Historical Criticism, which concerns the setting in time and space; there's Grammatical Criticism, looking at the language of the text; there's Literary Criticism, that looks at the composition and rhetorical style of the text; Form Criticism, that seeks clarification on the genre and life setting of the text; and, if we want to persist with the different branches of criticism, there is also Tradition Criticism; Redaction Criticism; Structuralist Criticism and Canonical Criticism.

In discussing the use of history by Luke, we're focusing attention on the branch of criticism known as Historical Criticism.

Subduction Zone said:

I did not realize that you were not a scholar of the Bible. His failure is well known. Do you remember in his myth how he used a census as a reason for Joseph and Mary to go to Bethlehem?

And there were very very few "contemporaries" alive when Luke was written. Do you know when it was written? About 70CE at the earliest. That would be at least 70 years after Jesus's birth. And according to the myth there really were not any witness of note. Well perhaps a few shepherds, but 70 years later it would be all but guaranteed that they were dead at the time of Luke being written.

Click to expand...

Let's look at the dating of Luke's Gospel. You say that 70 CE is the earliest date that can be ascribed to Luke's Gospel, but you seem to be overlooking one of the most significant historical events of the first century - the Jewish Revolt (66 CE - 73 CE) and the siege of Jerusalem. The Jewish historian, Josephus, gives us a pretty graphic account of this siege. He says, 'we may sum it up by saying that no city has ever endured such horrors'. In Rome today stands the arch of Titus, built to commemorate the sacking of the temple and the victory won by the Romans.

My point is simple. Had this event occurred prior to the writing of the Gospel of Luke, and the book of Acts, then it would have been recorded by Luke. It was not recorded.

Dr. W. Graham Scroggie says the following; 'As Luke was with Paul during his two years of detention in Caesarea, he would have ample opportunity to make the investigations to which he makes reference in his Prologue (1:1-4). We may believe, therefore, that this Gospel was written in Caesarea.
If the above be the right inference, it helps us with the date, for Paul was in Caesarea in 58-60 AD. It is believed that Luke's Gospel is the latest of the three, so that, if Mark wrote between 50-55 AD, and Matthew between 55-57 AD, Luke may well have followed before 60 AD, having Mark's Gospel and the 'Logia' to draw upon. Later dates are claimed for all the Synoptic Records, but these are quite as likely, perhaps more likely than those.'

Taking this information into account, we are left with a period of about twenty years, from about 50 CE to 70 CE, when the Synoptic Gospels are most likely to have been written. At most, this is 40 years after the crucifixion, leaving open the possibility that many witnesses were still alive and much contemporary evidence was still available.

Trailblazer said:

God did not send the Holy Spirit any differently to Baha'ullah than He sent it to Jesus. This is how it descended:

“God is My witness, O people! I was asleep on My couch, when lo, the Breeze of God wafting over Me roused Me from My slumber. His quickening Spirit revived Me, and My tongue was unloosed to voice His Call.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 90

Both Jesus and Baha'u'llah released the Holy Spirit into the world after they received it from God.

God sent the Holy Spirit to Baha'u'lah because it needed to be refreshed and renewed since it was waning after 1800 years.

Click to expand...

Jesus did not send the Holy Spirit until after he had ascended to heaven. Jesus could only send the Holy Spirit because he was the Son of God. Jesus is given authority over heaven and earth [Philippians 2:10].

Are you suggesting that Baha'u'llah 'released the Holy Spirit' into the world whilst he was on earth? Has he now ascended to heaven to steal the authority given to Jesus Christ?

Does the Holy Spirit ever 'wane'?

Redemptionsong said:

Sometimes I have to take a big intake of breath and say to myself 'Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer.' [Psalm 19:14]

It was very kind of you to send me a nice picture of a fragment from the Gospel of Luke. I've visited the British Library, the Museum of the Book in Jerusalem, and the Bible Museum in Washington D.C. and they all have some nice displays of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.

The problem is, this ancient fragment is not part of the 'autograph', the original Gospel of Luke. It's a copy. It may even be a copy of a copy.

On this subject, were you aware that, before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1946/7, the oldest manuscripts for the Hebrew Bible (the Tanakh) were dated 920 CE, or the tenth century? The reason for this is simple. Old copies of the Hebrew scriptures were buried, and new copies were written. However, based on your way of thinking, this great gap in time between the supposed originals and the oldest extant manuscript should lead us to be sceptical of the existence of Moses, Isaiah, David and Ezekiel (to name just a few writers of scripture). Thankfully, amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls uncovered in 1947 was a near complete copy of the book of Isaiah, and it demonstrated to the world that the process of copying, according to Jewish tradition, was tight and accurate, so much so that very few differences could be found in the Hebrew text of the book of Isaiah despite a thousand year gap between copies.

But, to be frank, the question that we're discussing is not really a question of documentary evidence; it's a question of Biblical exegesis. Here we encounter a whole range of 'criticism'. There's Textual Criticism, the quest for the original wording; there's Historical Criticism, which concerns the setting in time and space; there's Grammatical Criticism, looking at the language of the text; there's Literary Criticism, that looks at the composition and rhetorical style of the text; Form Criticism, that seeks clarification on the genre and life setting of the text; and, if we want to persist with the different branches of criticism, there is also Tradition Criticism; Redaction Criticism; Structuralist Criticism and Canonical Criticism.

In discussing the use of history by Luke, we're focusing attention on the branch of criticism known as Historical Criticism.

Click to expand...

We're not discussing the OT. We're discussing Luke. Quick question: do you have a source to the discovered autograph of Luke and has it been dated to 55 CE? if so kindly produce. If you don't, then I go back to my original question: can you prove Luke was written 55-60 CE? Take your time because I already know the answer. No, you can't.

Redemptionsong said:

Not having the autograph is not a problem. We have evidence of the autograph's existence from the exant manuscripts and fragments.

So let's see if we can move on to the question of the census and the nativity.

You have made out that such a census could not have taken place. Having heard this argument before, l also know the grounds on which the argument is based, notably an absence of evidence in Roman historical records.

Click to expand...

Well, hang on a sec. I know evidence of an autograph is found in the copies because they had to be copying from something. My problem is how you get to 55 CE for the dating. How do you accomplish that? Where exactly did you get that particular date of 55 CE?

SeekingAllTruth said:

Well, hang on a sec. I know evidence of an autograph is found in the copies because they had to be copying from something. My problem is how you get to 55 CE for the dating. How do you accomplish that? Where exactly did you get that particular date of 55 CE?

Click to expand...

Did you read the evidence supplied by Scroggie? It doesn't matter whether it's a few years either way, only that the Gospel of Luke was probably written before 60 CE and most definitely before 70 CE!

P.S. My apologies, I supplied this information in the post to Subduction Zone.

Redemptionsong said:

Let's look at the dating of Luke's Gospel. You say that 70 CE is the earliest date that can be ascribed to Luke's Gospel, but you seem to be overlooking one of the most significant historical events of the first century - the Jewish Revolt (66 CE - 73 CE) and the siege of Jerusalem. The Jewish historian, Josephus, gives us a pretty graphic account of this siege. He says, 'we may sum it up by saying that no city has ever endured such horrors'. In Rome today stands the arch of Titus, built to commemorate the sacking of the temple and the victory won by the Romans.

My point is simple. Had this event occurred prior to the writing of the Gospel of Luke, and the book of Acts, then it would have been recorded by Luke. It was not recorded.

Dr. W. Graham Scroggie says the following; 'As Luke was with Paul during his two years of detention in Caesarea, he would have ample opportunity to make the investigations to which he makes reference in his Prologue (1:1-4). We may believe, therefore, that this Gospel was written in Caesarea.
If the above be the right inference, it helps us with the date, for Paul was in Caesarea in 58-60 AD. It is believed that Luke's Gospel is the latest of the three, so that, if Mark wrote between 50-55 AD, and Matthew between 55-57 AD, Luke may well have followed before 60 AD, having Mark's Gospel and the 'Logia' to draw upon. Later dates are claimed for all the Synoptic Records, but these are quite as likely, perhaps more likely than those.'

Taking this information into account, we are left with a period of about twenty years, from about 50 CE to 70 CE, when the Synoptic Gospels are most likely to have been written. At most, this is 40 years after the crucifixion, leaving open the possibility that many witnesses were still alive and much contemporary evidence was still available.

Click to expand...

Since Jesus died long before the fall of the temple why would a story about him mention the temple?

One of the reasons Luke is thought to have be written then is due to the dating of Mark. And since Luke copied large swathes of Mark he obviously was a younger source . For various reasons an early date is rejected by most Bible scholars. It is mainly the fundamentalists that demand an early date:

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.[7] Most scholars date the composition of the combined work to around 80–90 AD, although some others suggest 90–110,[16] and there is textual evidence (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) that Luke–Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century.[9]

Gospel of Luke