only one correct religion with the truth?

[Peter_Plato]

So you are saying that when all the saints rose from the dead and roamed the streets that the only record of such an occurrence is found in the Gospels and no other records of such an earth-shattering occasion was kept by “any other person” ??

This is no “carrot exchange” PR!

But the Romans recorded the contents and properties of each and every subject in their Empire because that’s the really good stuff to record historically…



.

The Romans also were motivated to suppress the truth where it concerned a group, like the early Christians, who were a political threat. History does not occur - nor is it recorded - in a benign vaccuum.

 

[Servant19]

The Romans also were motivated to suppress the truth where it concerned a group, like the early Christians, who were a political threat. History does not occur - nor is it recorded - in a benign vaccuum.

Hi Peter,

Yes I understand that my friend, but the saints that were resurrected were not part of any “religious group”. This was undoubtedly the greatest event in recorded history, yet the Romans never even mentioned it as an “event” unrelated to any religion, just purely as an unprecedented event.

Does that not suggest to you that it may not have literally happened and that it’s description in the Bible might relate to a deeper, more spiritual truth that is being conveyed?

Again, with resurrection, I think the understanding related by Paul is much more reliable and related to the deeper meanings found therein. His Letters predate the Gospels after all.



.

 

[PRmerger]

Hi Peter,

Yes I understand that my friend, but the saints that were resurrected were not part of any “religious group”. This was undoubtedly the greatest event in recorded history, yet the Romans never even mentioned it as an “event” unrelated to any religion, just purely as an unprecedented event.

Does that not suggest to you that it may not have literally happened and that it’s description in the Bible might relate to a deeper, more spiritual truth that is being conveyed?

Again, with resurrection, I think the understanding related by Paul is much more reliable and related to the deeper meanings found therein. His Letters predate the Gospels after all.



.

I thought you said you did believe in the Resurrection of Christ, except that it was with a spiritual, not physical body?

 

[Servant19]

I thought you said you did believe in the Resurrection of Christ, except that it was with a spiritual, not physical body?

Yes that is correct, as outlined by Paul…



.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes that is correct, as outlined by Paul…



.

So why the double standard?

Why don’t you demand that you want something from the Romans before you’ll believe in the Resurrection?

 

[Servant19]

So why the double standard?

Why don’t you demand that you want something from the Romans before you’ll believe in the Resurrection?

Because that which is flesh is flesh and that which is spirit is spirit.

A spiritual Resurrection is felt today. I feel Jesus’ presence when I pray.

I don’t need no Roman to tell me that. It’s definitely real, and no one can take that beauty away from me, especially claims that His body is floating around somewhere.



.

 

[PRmerger]

Because that which is flesh is flesh and that which is spirit is spirit.

A spiritual Resurrection is felt today. I feel Jesus’ presence when I pray.

I don’t need no Roman to tell me that. It’s definitely real, and no one can take that beauty away from me, especially claims that His body is floating around somewhere.



.

That makes no sense.

The ONLY way you know about the Resurrection, which you apparently accept, is from the same source which records another event, which you apparently deny.

Why the inconsistency?

Do you get to pick and choose what you believe based on such an inconsistent norm?

It would appear that you are creating a god which conforms to your own sensibilities, rather than giving a discerning eye to all data and applying one’s reason equally.

 

[Servant19]

That makes no sense.

The ONLY way you know about the Resurrection, which you apparently accept, is from the same source which records another event, which you apparently deny.

Why the inconsistency?

Do you get to pick and choose what you believe based on such an inconsistent norm?

It would appear that you are creating a god which conforms to your own sensibilities, rather than giving a discerning eye to all data and applying one’s reason equally.

HOW I know that the resurrection occurred is unrelated to it’s true meaning.

The Words were written down by Paul, I can read them and I understand them as such. It really does not require me to seek counsel from someone who is “more special” than me.

If Mr X is the compiler of a book of poetry, and I like one of the poems, I don’t consult Mr X on the meaning of my favourite poem, I consult the Author.

In this case, the Author has elaborated further in new verses, but also I am blessed that the Author lives within me.



.

 

[PRmerger]

HOW I know that the resurrection occurred is unrelated to it’s true meaning.

The Words were written down by Paul, I can read them and I understand them as such. It really does not require me to seek counsel from someone who is “more special” than me.

If Mr X is the compiler of a book of poetry, and I like one of the poems, I don’t consult Mr X on the meaning of my favourite poem, I consult the Author.

In this case, the Author has elaborated further in new verses, but also I am blessed that the Author lives within me.



.

Fair enough.

So you** don’t **require Roman verification of events.

Please make up your mind!

Why mention your demand for Roman verification if you don’t even require it to believe in an event?

http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws....s/2014/05/doesnt_make_any_sense_anchorman.gif

 

[Patty23]

I have no problems if one honestly says their religion is the only true religion even if it’s contrary to what I believe in. If all religions were true, why bother choose at all?

 

[tonyfish58]

I, too, want “proof” of your assertion.

I found an article which had a quote in it which is as follows;

“…most people who issue such challenges have already made up their minds as to the correct answer: there is no God (in the case of the atheist), or Bahá’u’lláh is a false prophet (in the case of a follower of another religion). No evidence to the contrary will be considered. The case is closed as soon as it’s opened…”

Link to article that includes this quote - planetbahai.org/cgi-bin/articles.pl?article=202&print=Y

Thus no matter what Proof was shown, there will always be found an avenue to reject it.

Such has been the way of all past peoples that reject Gods Messengers.

God bless all that look to God with Eyes that are just - Regards Tony

 

[PRmerger]

I found an article which had a quote in it which is as follows;

“…most people who issue such challenges have already made up their minds as to the correct answer: there is no God (in the case of the atheist), or Bahá’u’lláh is a false prophet (in the case of a follower of another religion). No evidence to the contrary will be considered. The case is closed as soon as it’s opened…”

Link to article that includes this quote - planetbahai.org/cgi-bin/articles.pl?article=202&print=Y

Thus no matter what Proof was shown, there will always be found an avenue to reject it.

Such has been the way of all past peoples that reject Gods Messengers.

God bless all that look to God with Eyes that are just - Regards Tony

Would this also apply to Bahais who demand proof for the miracles of Christ, such as walking on water and saints rising from their graves and roaming the streets?

 

[Servant19]

Fair enough.

So you** don’t **require Roman verification of events.

Please make up your mind!

Why mention your demand for Roman verification if you don’t even require it to believe in an event?

http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws....s/2014/05/doesnt_make_any_sense_anchorman.gif

Hello sister, trust you and your loved ones had a pleasant weekend

I’m sorry my limited abilities to write my thoughts are not making sense to you.

I guess the crux of it is the separation of spiritual and physical events. Right now, my father, my cousin, and all my and your loved ones who have dead bodies are no longer visible to our eyes. Yet they exist in a spiritual dimension. What happens to them in that spiritual realm is not a historically written down event. I can not, nor can anyone else, “write” down what my father is doing right now in the spiritual realm

In like manner, the Resurrection of Lord Jesus was historically marked by His crucifixion. That is all we can know for sure. What happened after that crucifixion is all down to Faith.

The Resurrection of Jesus, in my humble opinion, is more about the response of the Apostles, and the response of His loved ones here on earth. How we, you and me, respond to the “reality” of Jesus, sitting at the right hand of God (which also is not a historically verifiable event, but I have ABSOLUTE FAITH that He sits there) is where the true Resurrection of the dead occurs.

When we realise that HE is working “through” us, animating us, and we allow Him to infuse our whole being with His love and presence, THAT is truly a Resurrection.

"I was as one dead, though didst revive me"

So, I see no confusion with this. There are physical realities and there are spiritual realities. Only the physical realities can be historically, and objectively verified. Spiritual realities deal with Faith

.

 

[PRmerger]

Hello sister, trust you and your loved ones had a pleasant weekend

I’m sorry my limited abilities to write my thoughts are not making sense to you.

I guess the crux of it is the separation of spiritual and physical events. Right now, my father, my cousin, and all my and your loved ones who have dead bodies are no longer visible to our eyes. Yet they exist in a spiritual dimension. What happens to them in that spiritual realm is not a historically written down event. I can not, nor can anyone else, “write” down what my father is doing right now in the spiritual realm

In like manner, the Resurrection of Lord Jesus was historically marked by His crucifixion. That is all we can know for sure. What happened after that crucifixion is all down to Faith.

The Resurrection of Jesus, in my humble opinion, is more about the response of the Apostles, and the response of His loved ones here on earth. How we, you and me, respond to the “reality” of Jesus, sitting at the right hand of God (which also is not a historically verifiable event, but I have ABSOLUTE FAITH that He sits there) is where the true Resurrection of the dead occurs.

When we realise that HE is working “through” us, animating us, and we allow Him to infuse our whole being with His love and presence, THAT is truly a Resurrection.

"I was as one dead, though didst revive me"

So, I see no confusion with this. There are physical realities and there are spiritual realities. Only the physical realities can be historically, and objectively verified. Spiritual realities deal with Faith

.

I think perhaps your position would make more sense to me if you could answer it step by step?

Let’s start with this very basic question, friend:

Is it necessary for you to believe in a miraculous event detailed in the NT that it be recorded in a Roman medium?

 

[Servant19]

I think perhaps your position would make more sense to me if you could answer it step by step?

Let’s start with this very basic question, friend:

Is it necessary for you to believe in a miraculous event detailed in the NT that it be recorded in a Roman medium?

Not if its a simple healing done on a personal level, or he walked on water in an isolated lake, for example, or even if He floated up in the air for a while in front of the Apostles and no one else saw Him.

If its a world shaping event which is publicly displayed then yes, I expect some historical verification.

If I claimed that Baha’u’llah changed all the men in Iran into frogs for a day, you would assume that this would be witnessed by every woman in Iran and there would be several independent written records made, yes?

.

 

[PRmerger]

Not if its a simple healing done on a personal level, or he walked on water in an isolated lake, for example, or even if He floated up in the air for a while in front of the Apostles and no one else saw Him.

If its a world shaping event which is publicly displayed then yes, I expect some historical verification.

What historical verification is in Roman documents regarding the Resurrection?

Anything about the Apostles’ responses to these events in any Roman documents?

If I claimed that Baha’u’llah changed all the men in Iran into frogs for a day, you would assume that this would be witnessed by every woman in Iran and there would be several independent written records made, yes?

.

I would think that if there were 500 witnesses and 4 different narratives about it by different authors that would be sufficient.

Would that be sufficient for you?

 

[Jon_S_1]

I really don’t think it’s morally right for any one religion to say they are the only true religion and that everyone else is wrong. If any one religion claims to be the only truth, then they must surely be a lie? What do you think?

Why would you think that? To God there is one truth. Reality. He knows it all.

It would seem that the religion he gives is would reflect that one truth.

Christians hold that God have this truth to the Jews and them again through Christ and the Church.

A belief that no religion holds the truth basically is to relegate religion to the apathy of atheism and call religions social clubs.

 

[Servant19]

What historical verification is in Roman documents regarding the Resurrection?

Anything about the Apostles’ responses to these events in any Roman documents?

I would think that if there were 500 witnesses and 4 different narratives about it by different authors that would be sufficient.

Would that be sufficient for you?

No PR, it would not be sufficient. I had a good long soul searching think about this before I type right now. (well 1 minute of silent contemplation anyway )… I would say that for such an extraordinary event, it requires verification from non-Baha’is, soldiers, army chiefs, government officials, historians.

If I saw a man literally turn into a frog in front of me, I would not know that this event was related to Baha’u’llah in any way. I might not ever need to know that, but I sure as heck would make sure that all the authorities in my city knew about it (which they would already) and this would become a historically recorded event.

The resurrection of a whole host of dead people is no different at all.

People who witnessed the resurrected bodies would not need to have become Christians (rendering them biased witnesses), they had no idea this was related to Christ. They simply became part of the swell of objective witnesses to a world changing event.

.

 

[PRmerger]

No PR, it would not be sufficient. I had a good long soul searching think about this before I type right now. (well 1 minute of silent contemplation anyway )… I would say that for such an extraordinary event, it requires verification from non-Baha’is, soldiers, army chiefs, government officials, historians.

If I saw a man literally turn into a frog in front of me, I would not know that this event was related to Baha’u’llah in any way. I might not ever need to know that, but I sure as heck would make sure that all the authorities in my city knew about it (which they would already) and this would become a historically recorded event.

The resurrection of a whole host of dead people is no different at all.

People who witnessed the resurrected bodies would not need to have become Christians (rendering them biased witnesses), they had no idea this was related to Christ. They simply became part of the swell of objective witnesses to a world changing event.

.

So what verification do you have of the Resurrection that meets the above criteria, given the fact that you state you do believe in a Resurrected Christ, just not with a physical body but rather a glorified body.

What Roman verification is there for this?

 

[Servant19]

So what verification do you have of the Resurrection that meets the above criteria, given the fact that you state you do believe in a Resurrected Christ, just not with a physical body but rather a glorified body.

What Roman verification is there for this?

The only Roman verification is that Jesus was crucified, what happened after that is detailed very nicely by Paul. It was a spiritual event PR.

History does not record spiritual events.

Am I muddying things for you with this somehow?

.