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

[TransmutingSoul]

In the Christian scriptures, Jesus is connected to God in a way that no other Baha’I manifestation ever was. Jesus is a divine being who came from heaven, went back to heaven and will return again at the end of days to judge everyone, meting out reward of punishment as appropriate.

This is what we are now facing. It is not a coincidence that the world is on the brink of destruction with its finger on the button.

Prophecy has unfolded, all knowledge was released and mankind has rejected God.

We are reaping the appropriate punishment. At the same time the planting for a new harvest continues.

Far past time to beat swords into plowshares. Many have though.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

If one wishes to avoid there being anything from outside intruding on the material world, what justifies bringing God into the picture at all?

The material world is a projection of the Spiritual Worlds of God. We can not take God out of the picture, God painted it. The Messengers are the canvas, the painting is the attributes.

The resurrection is seeing God in all the painting, not just a small part of it. The Holy Spirit, which is Christ and what we see in Jesus, is this painting. The Canvas contains all the names of God.

Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

Yet people cling to Flesh having to be a core belief. They allow a few passages in the bible to cement in their minds what God Must do to be the right God. That mistake is proved in the history of the Scriptures, I need not argue the fact.

They make of their understandings their God and neglect what is given from God.

Thus when a Christ comes and tries to show them they are mistaken, their views trump and persecute the Christ. This has always been our way, it has not changed in this day.

Regards Tony

Christians cling to believing the NT is the truth. Baha'is don't. Baha'is say things in it aren't authentic and some things reported as actual events aren't true and need to be taken as symbolic only.

 

[Trailblazer]

Precisely, it means we don't know anything at all until we ask God what we want to know by means of calling "unto me, and I will answer thee, and will show thee great things, and difficult, which thou knowest not."Jeremiah 33:3

I believe that what we need to know is in the scriptures. I do not believe that God speaks directly to anyone except the Manifestations of God such as Jesus and Baha'u'llah.

“To every discerning and illumined heart it is evident that God, the unknowable Essence, the divine Being, is immensely exalted beyond every human attribute, such as corporeal existence, ascent and descent, egress and regress. Far be it from His glory that human tongue should adequately recount His praise, or that human heart comprehend His fathomless mystery. He is and hath ever been veiled in the ancient eternity of His Essence, and will remain in His Reality everlastingly hidden from the sight of men. “No vision taketh in Him, but He taketh in all vision; He is the Subtile, the All-Perceiving.” 1No tie of direct intercourse can possibly bind Him to His creatures.He standeth exalted beyond and above all separation and union, all proximity and remoteness. No sign can indicate His presence or His absence; inasmuch as by a word of His command all that are in heaven and on earth have come to exist, and by His wish, which is the Primal Will itself, all have stepped out of utter nothingness into the realm of being, the world of the visible.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, p. 98

The rest of us can be inspired by the Holy Spirit through what was released into the world by the Manifestations of God. Only they can know EVERYTHIING because they have the knowledge of God.

 

[Trailblazer]

Here's Isaiah 11:10-14... 10In that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his resting place will be glorious. 11In that day the Lord will reach out his hand a second time to reclaim the surviving remnant of his people from Assyria, from Lower Egypt, from Upper Egypt, from Cush,b from Elam, from Babylonia,c from Hamath and from the islands of the Mediterranean. 12He will raise a banner for the nations and gather the exiles of Israel; he will assemble the scattered people of Judah from the four quarters of the earth. 13Ephraim’s jealousy will vanish, and Judah’s enemies will be destroyed; Ephraim will not be jealous of Judah, nor Judah hostile toward Ephraim. 14They will swoop down on the slopes of Philistia to the west; together they will plunder the people to the east.

It is easy to take a verse or two and make a claim. For Baha'is, even 10 verses, but Isaiah didn't stop at verse 10. How does the rest apply to Baha'u'llah?

I do not know enough about what the Bible verses mean to answer that question. However, regarding phrases such as swoop down on the slopes I do not think that literally means swoop down as from the sky. That said, it makes no sense that if Baha’u’llah fulfilled some of the prophecies He did not fulfill all of them, or should I say that they will be fulfilled as the result of His Coming, because that is more accurate. There are prophecies that were fulfilled by His Coming and during His lifetime and then there are many prophecies that will be fulfilled during the Messianic Age, as the result of His Revelation.

The ambiguity of mountains is an issue also. Mt. Zion is mentioned an awful lot. As far as I know, Zion refers to Jerusalem. I think prophesies say Jesus will come back to Jerusalem. So how do you tie in Baha'u'llah with all the prophesies that mention Zion or Jerusalem?

It just so happens you are in luck because I have gone over this with my dear Christian friend Iggy who I have been posting to on various forums for 3 ½ years.

I said: Sorry Iggy, it is. Don’t try to pretend that it is some other mountain so you can try to prove Baha’u’llah is not the return of Christ... The verses in the OT Micah 4:1-5 and Isaiah 2:2-4 do not specify any particular mountain name. Maybe you think it is Mount Zion?

Question: "What is Zion? What is Mount Zion? What is the biblical meaning of Zion?"

Answer: Psalm 87:2–3 says, “The Lord loves the gates of Zion / more than all the other dwellings of Jacob. / Glorious things are said of you, / city of God.” According to this verse, Zion is synonymous with city of God, and it is a place that God loves. Zion is Jerusalem. Mount Zion is the high hill on which David built a citadel. It is on the southeast side of the city.......

The word Zion occurs over 150 times in the Bible. It essentially means “fortification” and The word Zion occurs over 150 times in the Bible. It essentially means “fortification” and has the idea of being “raised up” as a “monument.” Zion is described both as the city of David and the city of God. As the Bible progresses, the word Zion expands in scope and takes on an additional, spiritual meaning..... The word Zion is also used in a theological or spiritual sense in Scripture. In the Old Testament Zion refers figuratively to Israel as the people of God (Isaiah 60:14). In the New Testament, Zion refers to God’s spiritual kingdom.

Mount Zion as a geographical area is currently the center of much dispute. What is Zion? What is Mount Zion? What is the biblical meaning of Zion?

After that sentence above, it concluded:

The Bible is clear that, one day, Zion will be the sole possession of the Lord Jesus, and Zion—the nation and the city—will be restored. What is Zion? What is Mount Zion? What is the biblical meaning of Zion?

The Bible is clear that... Show me where the Bible is clear that... All I can say to that is Lol. That day will never come, never.

And I will add what is just so obvious to anyone who is not blinded by their religious traditions:

“The time foreordained unto the peoples and kindreds of the earth is now come. The promises of God, as recorded in the holy Scriptures, have all been fulfilled. Out of Zion hath gone forth the Law of God, and Jerusalem, and the hills and land thereof, are filled with the glory of His Revelation. Happy is the man that pondereth in his heart that which hath been revealed in the Books of God, the Help in Peril, the Self-Subsisting. Meditate upon this, O ye beloved of God, and let your ears be attentive unto His Word, so that ye may, by His grace and mercy, drink your fill from the crystal waters of constancy, and become as steadfast and immovable as the mountain in His Cause.

In the Book of Isaiah it is written: “Enter into the rock, and hide thee in the dust, for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of His majesty.” No man that meditateth upon this verse can fail to recognize the greatness of this Cause, or doubt the exalted character of this Day—the Day of God Himself. This same verse is followed by these words: “And the Lord alone shall be exalted in that Day.” This is the Day which the Pen of the Most High hath glorified in all the holy Scriptures. There is no verse in them that doth not declare the glory of His holy Name, and no Book that doth not testify unto the loftiness of this most exalted theme. Were We to make mention of all that hath been revealed in these heavenly Books and holy Scriptures concerning this Revelation, this Tablet would assume impossible dimensions. It is incumbent in this Day, upon every man to place his whole trust in the manifold bounties of God, and arise to disseminate, with the utmost wisdom, the verities of His Cause. Then, and only then, will the whole earth be enveloped with the morning light of His Revelation.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 12-14

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

Christians cling to believing the NT is the truth. Baha'is don't. Baha'is say things in it aren't authentic and some things reported as actual events aren't true and need to be taken as symbolic only.

Why take them at all? With few exceptions, the writers intended what they wrote to be taken literally. IMO much of it is invented, but not symbolic, which would defeat the purpose of writing. In particular, the Gospel writers went to considerable lengths to stress that the resurrection of Jesus was an actual bodily resurrection, without which the promise of a future resurrection and judgment cannot be relied on. And without that there is no reason not to live just for today. Read 1 Corinthians 15.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

The Greatest Proof is not lacking. The greatest proof is that Christ has returned as promised and explained all this in detail.

The greatest error is man has become a worshiper of the Flesh in neglect of embracing the Spirit of Christ. This Spirit being the First Message and will be the Last Mesage.

This is a full explanation on how God appears to humanity and how God raises up His Messengers - Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Íqán

This is Christ speaking to us in this day, the question is do we have eyes that will see and ears that will hear?

As you have said, there is no harm as a Baha'i is a true lover of Christ, we will turn the other cheek as we learn war no more and do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

With that, the Risen Christ is in my heart and is my very life, I do not wait His return, I embrace it, and ask for strength to live it.

Stay well and happy, regards always Tony.

As I said, you can follow whatever religion you want. But do not claim that the NT supports Baha’i. It does not.

 

[Trailblazer]

For someone who says they don't know much about the Bible, you sure come up with a lot of Bible verses. But this "new name" thing don't work. Baha'u'llah is the third "new name". What happened to Muhammad and the Bab? And that makes Baha'u'llah the "fourth coming of Christ" after Muhammad and the Bab. If all the focus is on the second coming then that should be Muhammad, right?

I know a lot of what I know about the Bible and I know specific verses because of my dear friend Iggy... 3 ½ years is a long time to post to anyone!

It is true that Muhammad and the Bab were also the return of the Christ Spirit, technically speaking, but Baha'u'llah was the one designated to receive the new name. Baha'u'llah was the Comforter but Muhammad is also called the Comforter by Baha'is and Muslims. However, Baha'u'llah is the Spirit of truth because He brought all truth, at least all the truth humanity is capable of understanding for the next 1000 years or so, until another Manifestation of God comes.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

The material world is a projection of the Spiritual Worlds of God. We can not take God out of the picture, God painted it. The Messengers are the canvas, the painting is the attributes.

The resurrection is seeing God in all the painting, not just a small part of it. The Holy Spirit, which is Christ and what we see in Jesus, is this painting. The Canvas contains all the names of God.

Regards Tony

That is a presumption. You want the non-interference of God in the world to 'prove' your religion. How is that different from a plethora of other detailed religions making the same claim or from there not being a God after all?

You can apply the word 'resurrection' as you see fit. but it does not change the fact that the NT authors very clearly intended an actual bodily resurrection to be understood and that the entire religion depended on exactly that.

 

[siti]

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

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

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

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

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

There are two separate thoughts in that paragraph.

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

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

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

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

OK - but since maybe 80% of the population of the 19th century middle east would have been descended from David (assuming that such a person really existed and that his genealogical lines had not all become extinct) why not simply point this out? Why go to the trouble of inventing a genealogy that cannot possibly be confirmed? Why produce a genealogy that skips about half of the generations required to get from David to Baha'u'llah? Or had God simply not figured out how genealogical succession worked at that point?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Christians cling to believing the NT is the truth. Baha'is don't. Baha'is say things in it aren't authentic and some things reported as actual events aren't true and need to be taken as symbolic only.

That is not correct. The Bible contains Gods Word, it us Spiritual Guidance.

The Baha'i view is this;

Inscription in the Old Bible Written by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in Persian;

"THIS book is the Holy Book of God, of celestial Inspiration. It is the Bible of Salvation, the Noble Gospel. It is the mystery of the Kingdom and its light. It is the Divine Bounty, the sign of the guidance of God." ‘Abdu’l-Bahá Abbás

We read the bible as spiritual guidance.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

Why play your "symbolic" game with all this? Baha'is contradict what is claimed in the NT. If it is all phony, say so. If the NT isn't based on fact, then say so. Why continue to claim the resurrection is only symbolic when the NT clearly presents it as a real event? What is weird is Baha'i come so close to saying it is all false by saying it is not as "authentic" as other Scripture. What does that mean? That it is only partially false?

One Baha'i says that things were embellished and based on oral traditions before the gospels got written. Sure, I can believe that. So people made up story, embellished them, and by the time it got written down, it was a long way from being accurate. So doesn't that make the NT the product of fallible men and not "God's Word"? In fact Baha'is have said that lots of Scriptures of religions have been changed and have lost the original teachings of the prophet/manifestation. So, essentially, you are saying you don't believe the Scriptures of the other religions, including the NT, are accurate. So what is it? Is the NT the truth? Is it God's Word? Or, just a fantasy story written by men about a legendary character named Jesus? Except of course the prophesies. They obviously are true, because they point right to Baha'u'llah. Everything else is questionable and needs to taken with a little bit of salt and a lot of symbolism.

It is not an either/or, it is all phony or it is all true. It is not all phony; it was all misinterpreted by Christians in order to FIT the return of Jesus... But still no Jesus, and there never will be a return of the same man Jesus.

As I have been telling my dear Christian friend Iggy, nothing is claimed in the NT. The NT does not SAY anything because books do not talk. All reading requires interpretation.

Acts 1:1-2 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen

What does this mean: Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost.

There is nothing in the NT that says a body went up into the clouds, nothing. It is all a matter of interpretation as to what actually happened in Acts 1:10-11.

Acts 2:24 But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.

Nothing about a body in that verse either. It was just assumed, like everything else the Christians assumed.

This book entitled Christ and Baha'u'llah by George Townshend is not online but some time ago my husband typed up the entire book for someone on a forum. You might want to pay special attention to this Chapter:

Chapter Four: THE FALSE PROPHETS

As Jesus prophesied, the false prophets contrived to change the essential meaning of the Gospel so that it became quite different from that which the Bible recorded or Jesus taught. Matt. Vii 15-23 and see pp. 11, 12.

It has long been generally believed that Jesus Christ was a unique incarnation of God such as had never before appeared in religious history and would never appear again. This tenet made the acceptance of any later Prophet impossible to a Christian. Yet there is nothing in Christ’s own statements, as recorded in the Gospel, to support this view, and it was not generally held during His lifetime.

Jesus emphatically claimed to reveal God, Whom He called Father, but continually differentiated Himself from the Father. In many such references as “Him that sent me,” “my Father is greater than I,” John xiv 28. “I go to the Father,” John xvi 16. “I will pray the Father,” John xiv 16. “I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me,” John vii 28. He made this abundantly clear, and even stated specifically that the Father had knowledge which was not possessed by the Son. “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” Mark xiii 32. He referred to Himself as the Son, and as a Prophet, Matt. Xiii 57, Luke xiii 33 and was so regarded, Matt. xxi 11, Luke vii 16 and related His Mission to those of Moses and Abraham before Him, and to others to come after Him, specifically “he, the Spirit of truth, “who would reveal the things which Jesus did not. John xvi 12, 13.

The followers of every world religion have invented for themselves a similar belief in the uniqueness and finality of their own Prophet. The result has been that no religion has acknowledged a Prophet of a later religion. The Hindus do not acknowledge Buddha, the Buddhists fo not acknowledge Christ, nor yet do the Zoroastrians. The result of this delusive belief has been that the world religions have not tended to the unifying of mankind but rather to its further division.

Another opinion which Christians universally hold about Christ is that His teaching was absolute and final. They believe that if the Truth were partly withheld from them for a time because they could not bear it, it was divulged at Pentecost in its fullness and that now nothing remains to be revealed. But there is nothing in the account of Pentecost to suggest such an interpretation and there is no one who will believe that Jesus would have named the false prophets as characteristic of His age if this warning was to be followed by an immediate release of all Truth to the Church. What the Bible shows is rather a succession of teachers—Abraham, Moses and Christ, each measuring His Revelation to the needs and maturity of His auditors: Jesus, for example, changes the divorce law and says, “Moses gave you this because of the hardness of your hearts but from the beginning it was not so.” Many times He says, Ye have heard it said by them of old time . . . but I say unto you . . .”

Another universal opinion among the Christians is that Christ was the Lord of Hosts of the old Testament. Yet the Jewish Prophets had foretold that when the Lord of Hosts came He would not find the Jews in the Holy Land, all would have been scattered among the nations and would have been living in misery and degradation for centuries; but when Jesus came Palestine was full of Jews and their expulsion did not begin until the year 70 A.D.; it may be said to have continued till the year 1844.

To confirm orthodox Christian opinion it is customary in all churches to read on Christmas morning, as if it referred to Jesus, the passage which Isaiah wrote about the Lord of Hosts (Isaiah ix 6-7).

“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.”

Yet the descriptive titles given do not belong exclusively to Christ, while some of them He specifically repudiated as if to make such a mistaken reference to Himself impossible. He disclaimed being the Mighty God when He called Himself “the Son of God;” John v 18-47 where Jesus repudiates the charge that He claimed equality with God, disclaimed being the Father when He said, “my Father is greater than I;” (John xviii 36) and being the Prince of Peace when He said, “I came not to send peace, but a sword.” He disclaimed bearing the government upon His shoulder or that it would be His judgment and justice forever when He said, “My kingdom is not of this world.” (John xviii 36).

Many of these false interpretations involve repudiation of the Word of God in favor of the word of man. This impious act is so craftily performed, with such an air of humility, that it might escape the notice of the most sincere and devout of worshippers. Probably few churchgoers realize today that the Gospel of Christ as known to the few in the pulpit is wholly different from the Gospel which Christ preached in Galilee as recorded in the Bible.

In spite of Christ’s promise of further revelation of Truth, through the Comforter, through His own return, through the Spirit of Truth, the Christian Church regards His revelation as final, and itself as the sole trustee of true religion. There is no room for the Supreme Redeemer of the Bible to bring in great changes for the establishment of the Kingdom of God. In fact this Kingdom is often described as a world-wide Church.

Having thus closed God’s Covenant with the Bible, sacred history—God-directed—came to an end, and secular history, having no sense of divine destiny nor unity, began.

Jesus’ revelation was purely spiritual. He taught that “My kingdom is not of this world” and that the “Kingdom of heaven is within you.” His great gift to man was the knowledge of eternal life. He told men that they might be physically in perfect health and yet spiritually sick or even dead. But this was a difficult truth to communicate and Jesus had to help men to realize it. He would say that He was a spiritual physician and that men whom He cured of a spiritual disability were cured of blindness, deafness, lameness, leprosy and so on. This was the real meaning of His remark at the end of a discourse, “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” For a hearer might hear the physical word of Jesus and yet fail to comprehend the spiritual meaning. Jesus, in other words, was forever trying to heal spiritual infirmities. He thus would be understood by His disciples as a healer of spiritual ailments but by others He might be taken as relieving physical ills only.

Doubtless Jesus could, and often did, heal bodily ills by spiritual means, but this was nothing to do with His real work as a Redeemer. On the other handthese spiritual cures which he effected might be misinterpreted as physical miracles, and so were little stressed by Him. (“See that no man know it.) Matt ix 30.

Christ’s spiritual mission was, at an early date, materialized, specifically in regard to such things as the miracles, curing the blind and deaf, raising the dead. Even His own resurrection was made physical, missing the point entirely. Moreover, none of the complex order, of the ceremonies, rituals and litanies of the Church can be attributed to Christ. All are man-made, by inference or invention.

Well might Christ warn His followers that false prophets would arise and misinterpret His teachings so as to delude even the most earnest and intelligent of His believers: from early times Christians have disputed about Christian truth in councils, in sects, in wars.

To sum up, if Christians say “our acts may be wrong,” they say truly. If they say “however our Gospel is right” they are quite wrong. The false prophets have corrupted the Gospel as successfully as they have the deeds and lives of Christian people.

 

[siti]

It is not an either/or, it is all phony or it is all true. It is not all phony; it was all misinterpreted by Christians in order to FIT the return of Jesus... But still no Jesus, and there never will be a return of the same man Jesus.

But couldn't the Christians (now) simply be mistaken about the manner of Jesus' return? Could it not be (and make much more sense of scripture) that Jesus returned in the 1st century and established 'spiritual Israel' and the 'New Jerusalem' just as the Bible says? Could it not be that what was prophesied was the establishment of a spiritual kingdom into which individuals have access ever since Pentecost of the year in which Jesus was "put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit" - and not a conversion of some earth-bound religious cycle of human Messiah after human Messiah? I agree that Jesus seems not to have his promised reappearance as expected (by most Christians) - but I don't see how inserting another couple of human Messiahs and another 1000 years for the next to wait helps at all.

 

[Trailblazer]

OK - but since maybe 80% of the population of the 19th century middle east would have been descended from David (assuming that such a person really existed and that his genealogical lines had not all become extinct) why not simply point this out? Why go to the trouble of inventing a genealogy that cannot possibly be confirmed? Why produce a genealogy that skips about half of the generations required to get from David to Baha'u'llah? Or had God simply not figured out how genealogical succession worked at that point?

I like how you think. We sure do need some more rational people around these parts.

Don't ask me why they made them, I am not the one who made those genealogy charts. I just drag them out and post them when Christians say that Baha'u'llah cannot be the Messiah. It proves that He can be even though it does not prove that He was. Of course Christians have no genealogical evidence to prove that Jesus was the Messiah either, they just believe they do.

And the beat goes on, and on and on and on and on....

 

[siti]

Of course Christians have no genealogical evidence to prove that Jesus was the Messiah either, they just believe they do.

Of course they don't - they have two inconsistent and incomplete made up genealogies (one in Matthew and one in Luke) that prove nothing that would not have been obvious to anyone who had knowledge of how genealogical succession works - so what? So if they made it all up for Jesus, its OK for Baha'is to make it all up for Baha'u'llah? How is that 'rational'?

 

[Trailblazer]

But couldn't the Christians (now) simply be mistaken about the manner of Jesus' return? Could it not be (and make much more sense of scripture) that Jesus returned in the 1st century and established 'spiritual Israel' and the 'New Jerusalem' just as the Bible says? Could it not be that what was prophesied was the establishment of a spiritual kingdom into which individuals have access ever since Pentecost of the year in which Jesus was "put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit" - and not a conversion of some earth-bound religious cycle of human Messiah after human Messiah?

That sounds about right to me, but the Christians cannot accept that because it means they will not SEE the same man Jesus again in His physical body... It is not good enough for them to see Jesus after they die and go to heaven; no, they have to maintain the fantasy that the same body of Jesus is coming down from the sky on a cloud and rule the world like a King.

I agree that Jesus seems not to have his promised reappearance as expected (by most Christians) - but I don't see how inserting another couple of human Messiahs and another 1000 years for the next to wait helps at all.

If you read the Old Testament and all the scriptures of other religions, it is clear that there will be a Messiah, a Promised One... it just won't be Jesus. The Jews know that because they have not distorted the meaning of their scriptures.

“Each of the world's major religions contains Messianic prophecies.

Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, the Zoroastrian religion and even the Native American religions all foretell the coming of a Promised One. Each of the Founders of these great religions either promised to personally return himself, to send another like himself or in some instances.... the Founder promised to do both.

Christians await the return of Christ and the coming of "another comforter." The Jewish scriptures foretell the coming of "another Prophet" like Moses and the return of Elijah from heaven. Many Moslems await the appearance of Mahdi and Meseeh. Krishna promised to personally return from age to age. Buddha said that he was not the first Buddha ever to appear and that another "supremely enlightened" Buddha was still yet to come. Zoroastrian prophecies foretell the coming of a "World-renovator." Native American prophecies foretell the coming of a bearded white man from the east who will bring teachings which will restore the hoop of unity.

Each religion, in its own way, has foretold the coming of a great 'religion restoring', 'world uniting', 'peace bringing' Messiah.

For centuries, people from all over the world have been hoping and praying that they will be the generation which will witness the appearance of their Promised One. Not many have considered the possibility that these prophecies from the various religions might actually all be foretelling the exact same event.

Members of the Baha'i Faith believe that in the middle of the last century these prophecies actually were fulfilled and that the Promised One truly did appear.

Baha'u'llah, the Prophet founder of the Baha'i Faith, claims to be the Promised One whose coming was explicitly foretold, not only in the Old and the New Testaments.... but also in the prophecies of the Hindu, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Islamic and other religions.

If Baha'u'llah truly is the Promised One then His appearance is one of the greatest events of human history. Are Baha'u'llah's claim true? How can we know for certain? Just take a look at some of the proofs and prophecies... and then decide for yourself.”

Prophecy Fulfilled Webpage

 

[siti]

Christians await the return of Christ and the coming of "another comforter." The Jewish scriptures foretell the coming of "another Prophet" like Moses and the return of Elijah from heaven. Many Moslems await the appearance of Mahdi and Meseeh. Krishna promised to personally return from age to age. Buddha said that he was not the first Buddha ever to appear and that another "supremely enlightened" Buddha was still yet to come. Zoroastrian prophecies foretell the coming of a "World-renovator." Native American prophecies foretell the coming of a bearded white man from the east who will bring teachings which will restore the hoop of unity.

And so far, after what - 3 or 4 thousand years - not one of these preposterous expectations has panned out...

If Baha'u'llah truly is the Promised One then His appearance is one of the greatest events of human history. Are Baha'u'llah's claim true? How can we know for certain? Just take a look at some of the proofs and prophecies... and then decide for yourself.”

Yep - done that - and on the balance of the evidence, Baha'u'llah is no more the Messiah than our cat is.

 

[Trailblazer]

Of course they don't - they have two inconsistent and incomplete made up genealogies (one in Matthew and one in Luke) that prove nothing that would not have been obvious to anyone who had knowledge of how genealogical succession works - so what? So if they made it all up for Jesus, its OK for Baha'is to make it all up for Baha'u'llah? How is that 'rational'?

Thanks for that tidbit of information about Matthew and Luke.

Like I said, I do not know who made the genealogy chart that is posted on Baha'i Library online, and it says the author is unknown. I also do not know the reason it was made. It could well be correct as far as it goes, even though it does not have every single descendant on it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yep - done that - and on the balance of the evidence, Baha'u'llah is no more the Messiah than our cat is.

Of course you are free to believe that, since we all have free will.

What evidence is that?

 

[siti]

Of course you are free to believe that, since we all have free will.

What evidence is that?

Well we could start with the Baha'i founders' woeful ignorance of heredity and genealogy...for a start they seemed completely ignorant of the fact that any genealogical connection they might have had with the family lines of David and Abraham (for example) were, even if true, entirely unremarkable...

Then there's the whole thing about heirship to the leadership of the Baha'i faith...Baha'u'llah had Abdu'l Baha as his first successor and then Mirza Muhhamad Ali - but he turned out to be a right rotter so Abdu'l Baha chose Shoghi Effendi - his grandson - to be Guardian on Abdu'l Baha's death and indicated that he (Shoghi) should be succeeded by his own eldest son or at least another male descendant of Baha'u'llah to be named by the Guardian before his passing. Unfortunately, Shoghi went and popped his clogs both childless and intestate...

...seems not only did Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l Baha fail to recognize the complete lack of significance of their own supposed genetic heritage but they also had zero knowledge of the future of their genetic lines either.

How could anyone with such a clear lack of insight concerning their own heredity and their families immediate future be any more than humans struggling to make sense of the inexplicable vagaries and transience of human existence? Smart guys one and all - and with some eminently sensible religious ideas (if we must have religion at all) - but divinely inspired Messiahs - direct mouthpieces of an effulgent and ineffably glorious God - no - I don't think so.