Fulfillment of Prophecy in the New Testament

[Samael_Khan]

Didn't Paul say that if Jesus didn't resurrect everything would be vain???

Yes. But whether the resurrection is physical or spiritual doesn't affect that. For instance JW's believe that Jesus resurrected spiritually but the basics of Jesus dying for sins still remains.

That is why I asked you why you care about the physical vs spiritual resurrection. What you should be discussing is whether the resurrection is true. The resurrection is the centre of the religion, not the physical or spiritual aspect of it.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Because a decomposed body cannot become recomposed.
Also because there is no reason to believe stories that can never be verified.
A story is not proof that what is in the story is true.

There is no proof of the bodily resurrection so it makes more sense to believe it never happened.
The only reason one would believe it happened is because they want to believe that, but that is not a good reason.
Imo.

You do understand it is a miracle right? The Book doesn't say that a resurrection happens by natural means.

We aren't talking about the truth of the story but whether the story has value.

But I do agree with you on there being no valid evidence to believe it happened.

 

[syo]

Yes. But whether the resurrection is physical or spiritual doesn't affect that. For instance JW's believe that Jesus resurrected spiritually but the basics of Jesus dying for sins still remains.

That is why I asked you why you care about the physical vs spiritual resurrection. What you should be discussing is whether the resurrection is true. The resurrection is the centre of the religion, not the physical or spiritual aspect of it.

In Christianity, the physical or spiritual has created hundreds of denominations... And one says the other infidel. What should i believe???

 

[Trailblazer]

You do understand it is a miracle right? The Book doesn't say that a resurrection happens by natural means.

As a Baha'i, I do not believe in anything that is contrary to science.

"the clergy have neither understood the meaning of the Gospels nor comprehended the symbols, therefore, it has been said that religion is in contradiction to science, and science in opposition to religion, as, for example, this subject of the ascension of Christ with an elemental body to the visible heaven is contrary to the science of mathematics. But when the truth of this subject becomes clear, and the symbol is explained, science in no way contradicts it; but, on the contrary, science and the intelligence affirm it.” Some Answered Questions, pp. 104-105

We aren't talking about the truth of the story but whether the story has value.

I think the story might have value if it was interpreted to have a spiritual meaning. There can be more than one spiritual meaning but this is the one meaning offered by Abdu'l-Baha:

“Therefore, we say that the meaning of Christ’s resurrection is as follows: the disciples were troubled and agitated after the martyrdom of Christ. The Reality of Christ, which signifies His teachings, His bounties, His perfections and His spiritual power, was hidden and concealed for two or three days after His martyrdom, and was not resplendent and manifest. No, rather it was lost, for the believers were few in number and were troubled and agitated. The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body; and when after three days the disciples became assured and steadfast, and began to serve the Cause of Christ, and resolved to spread the divine teachings, putting His counsels into practice, and arising to serve Him, the Reality of Christ became resplendent and His bounty appeared; His religion found life; His teachings and His admonitions became evident and visible. In other words, the Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body until the life and the bounty of the Holy Spirit surrounded it.”
Some Answered Questions, p. 104

I believe that interpreting the resurrection stories as a literal bodily resurrection has had disastrous consequences. One of those consequences was that Christianity has always considered their religion superior to all the other religions because Jesus rose from the dead, but the most disastrous consequence, Imo, is that it has allowed Christians to believe that the same man Jesus will return from heaven in the same body, and this belief has precluded Christians from recognizing the return of Christ in another human frame. Had the bodily resurrection never been accepted as a central tenet of Christianity, then it would have been impossible to hope for the return of the same man Jesus because a dead man cannot return.

In my opinion, the mission of Jesus ended when He died on the cross, and there was no need to write fictitious stories about Jesus to try to bring Him back to life after that, and this story writing has had disastrous consequences, as noted above.

John 19:28-30 After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst. Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth. When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

What about the word finished do Christians not understand?

 

[Samael_Khan]

In Christianity, the physical or spiritual has created hundreds of denominations... And one says the other infidel. What should i believe???

Wait, wasn't our original discussion regarding the value of the NT?
Also, have you ever played Dungeons and Dragons?

 

[Samael_Khan]

As a Baha'i, I do not believe in anything that is contrary to science.

"the clergy have neither understood the meaning of the Gospels nor comprehended the symbols, therefore, it has been said that religion is in contradiction to science, and science in opposition to religion, as, for example, this subject of the ascension of Christ with an elemental body to the visible heaven is contrary to the science of mathematics. But when the truth of this subject becomes clear, and the symbol is explained, science in no way contradicts it; but, on the contrary, science and the intelligence affirm it.” Some Answered Questions, pp. 104-105

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/SAQ/saq-23.html So what? That is your belief. You still believe that there is a God who sends messengers to various people and claim, contrary to evidence, that the messengers of various different faiths agreed with each other.

I think the story might have value if it was interpreted to have a spiritual meaning. There can be more than one spiritual meaning but this is the one meaning offered by Abdu'l-Baha:

“Therefore, we say that the meaning of Christ’s resurrection is as follows: the disciples were troubled and agitated after the martyrdom of Christ. The Reality of Christ, which signifies His teachings, His bounties, His perfections and His spiritual power, was hidden and concealed for two or three days after His martyrdom, and was not resplendent and manifest. No, rather it was lost, for the believers were few in number and were troubled and agitated. The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body; and when after three days the disciples became assured and steadfast, and began to serve the Cause of Christ, and resolved to spread the divine teachings, putting His counsels into practice, and arising to serve Him, the Reality of Christ became resplendent and His bounty appeared; His religion found life; His teachings and His admonitions became evident and visible. In other words, the Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body until the life and the bounty of the Holy Spirit surrounded it.”
Some Answered Questions, p. 104

I believe that interpreting the resurrection stories as a literal bodily resurrection has had disastrous consequences. One of those consequences was that Christianity has always considered their religion superior to all the other religions because Jesus rose from the dead, but the most disastrous consequence, Imo, is that it has allowed Christians to believe that the same man Jesus will return from heaven in the same body, and this belief has precluded Christians from recognizing the return of Christ in another human frame. Had the bodily resurrection never been accepted as a central tenet of Christianity, then it would have been impossible to hope for the return of the same man Jesus because a dead man cannot return.

In my opinion, the mission of Jesus ended when He died on the cross, and there was no need to write fictitious stories about Jesus to try to bring Him back to life after that, and this story writing has had disastrous consequences, as noted above.

John 19:28-30 After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst. Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth. When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

What about the word finished do Christians not understand?

We have had this discussion before. You haven't even read the Bible. So why are you quoting John 19 and making claims about what it means when you don't even know the context of the books? In John, it says that Jesus healed people, spoke on behalf of God and exorcised demons from people, all of which is equally "ridiculous" and "fictitious".

Your explanation of why Jesus being physically resurrected leading to disastrous consequences does not logically follow. The idea of Jesus resurrecting isn't what makes christians feel superior but the idea that their religion is the only true one, the same as with Islam.

Your religion can equally be seen as "fictitious" and "ridiculous" so why are you, the pot, calling the kettle black?

 

[Samael_Khan]

With the internal evidence there is no one claiming anything. It is just taking the documents, without the assumption that they were written after the Temple destruction and looking to see what the evidence shows about when they were written.
What technology is available these days that was not available last century? All there is is sceptic assumption. It is not as if anything can be carbon dated to see when the original was written. As I said the old methods used no assumption either way, the new methods do.
I am not a textual critic but I could point to Luke as the author of Luke gospel and Acts as a sequel. Luke was a travel companion of Paul. Luke wrote Acts up to the time they went to Rome. The assumption is that both Luke and Paul were killed in the Nero killing of Christians in 64AD. All this internal evidence gives a probably 50s 60s writing date for the Luke gospel and another internal evidence is that Luke claims there were other gospels written before his, so this puts the writing of gospels back even further.
It can be assumed that internal evidence was planted to make it look as if there was an early writing of the gospels just to fool people. But I guess that is begging the question.

Her is one method: We can dig up ancient documents and writing, using the tools and science of archaeology, and learn the ancient languages. Then we can date these languages and styles of writing to certain time periods and see how they change over time. If a document uses a writing style that we know is from 500BC ,yet claims it was written from 1500BC, then we would know that the writer was most likely talking nonsense. That is not skeptic assumption. You should look into why the Apocryphal books are rejected to easily see my point. Some are even rejected because they refer to objects that we know were created centuries after Jesus.

And yes, you are just making claims. You are assuming that the book is written by Luke, even though the author doesn't say so. All the other stuff is fluff. Where is your evidence of it? Are you relying just on traditional hearsay or actual archaeological evidence?

You are the one assuming hear.

I'm not ignoring the immediate context. Young woman for the immediate context and virgin when associated with the Isa 9 child. Part of the immediate context in the book of prophecies. The child, Divine Messiah, who was going to be in the region of Galilee and was going to be a sign that God is with us for the Jews who trusted God.
It's there because I want it to be there. Proof of what I say is not possible.

If it is there because you want it to be there then your conclusions are no more valid than Muslims saying that Muhammed is foretold in the Song of Solomon.

The agenda of seeing Hezekiah as the fulfilment of the Isa 9:6,7 prophecy required a misreading of verse 7 to ignore that it says that he would reign forever on David's throne. The names of the child in verse 6 are translated different ways by the Jews and hide the fact that the child is called Mighty God, Eternal Father, and to do that requires addition of words and phrases which are not in the original text.

Do you have a link to this?

Before the Emmanuel prophecy God seems to have been calming Ahaz. After the prophecy when it became apparent that Ahaz was going to Assyria anyway, the sign seems to have been given of nasty things that would happen, so that Ahaz would see the truth what Isaiah had originally told him and wish that he had just trusted in the Lord.
(This is an example of a prophecy given so that when it happens it is known that God knew all along and it encourages faith after the event even if it did not when the prophecy was first given)

OK. We can still determine the conclusion of the prophecy before the prophecy is fulfilled.

You don't want to forget about the things that are there which were probably not part of the Persian crucifixion (and yes,,"probably" means I have to guess things)
Nails in hands and feet was a Roman method and I read the the usual method was tying in Persia.
But I suppose the piercing of the hands and feet might be all there is in the Psalm to indicate a crucifixion (Roman). The other things are things that may happen at a crucifixion but are pretty vague and could happen in other contexts also. BUT they are things that are said to have happened at Jesus crucifixion along with the piercing of the hands and feet.
Reading the Psalm it is hard to see how it could be a serious description of a crucifixion,,,,,,,,,,,,a cryptic one maybe.

Then I think we are in agreement here.

I suppose I look at things from my pov and that is the pov of a believer who did not need everything proven before I believed. The more I look at things (the same things you are looking at) these days, the more reason I can see for the gospel writers to include them in the gospels because of the context, and I am glad that I hung around long enough in the faith to be able to see these things better.

It seems that as a believer (I was one as well) you are filling in gaps between passages to reach your conclusions. Using this method, anything you wish could be there.

 

[Trailblazer]

So what? That is your belief. You still believe that there is a God who sends messengers to various people and claim, contrary to evidence, that the messengers of various different faiths agreed with each other.

I never claimed I had anything other than a belief.
It is not contrary to the evidence that God sends Messengers, although that can never be proven.
I never said that the Messengers of different faiths agreed with each other, I only ever said that they did not contradict each other.

We have had this discussion before. You haven't even read the Bible. So why are you quoting John 19 and making claims about what it means when you don't even know the context of the books?

I have read John 19. I do not need to read the entire Bible to understand what a clearly written verse means -- finished means finished, and since the mission of Jesus was finished there would be absolutely no reason for the same man Jesus to ever return to earth, and of course Jesus said it was finished and He was no more in the world in other verses. How much clearer does it have to be written?

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

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

In John, it says that Jesus healed people, spoke on behalf of God and exorcised demons from people, all of which is equally "ridiculous" and "fictitious".

I do not know if it is fictitious or not, nobody can ever know that since it cannot be proven true or false. Baha'is believe that Manifestations of God can perform miracles although the miracles are of no real importance.

Your explanation of why Jesus being physically resurrected leading to disastrous consequences does not logically follow. The idea of Jesus resurrecting isn't what makes christians feel superior but the idea that their religion is the only true one, the same as with Islam.

The disastrous consequences it led to was according to my opinion.
In have been told by more than one Christian that their religion is superior because of the bodily resurrection, but what you said is also true. Jews also believe their religion is the only true one.

Your religion can equally be seen as "fictitious" and "ridiculous" so why are you, the pot, calling the kettle black?

I was not talking about the entire religion of Christianity. I was only talking about the bodily resurrection. To my knowledge, no other religion has such a belief.

i do not care how others see my religion, they are welcome to their personal opinions.

*******************************************************************************************
I just thought of another disastrous consequence of believing that Jesus rose from the dead. Based upon the belief that Jesus rose from the grave, many Christians believe they will also rise from their graves when Jesus returns. Such a belief precludes them understanding what will really happen when they die, Imo of course.

 

[syo]

Wait, wasn't our original discussion regarding the value of the NT?
Also, have you ever played Dungeons and Dragons?

Yup.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I see things written in the Bible which are warnings to me about false Christs and which Baha'i manages to skirt around in an unconvincing way imo
eg Acts 1:10,11
10 They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11 “Men of Galilee, they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”

I am happy for you to see it how you choose.

I see there is no reason at all to see Jesus as Christ, born of the Holy Spirit and that the flesh amounts to nothing and what they saw an perceived was a spiritual event.

Thus I embrace this concept, to which I see is a warning to all humanity, myself included;

"Beware, O believers in the Unity of God, lest ye be tempted to make any distinction between any of the Manifestations of His Cause, or to discriminate against the signs that have accompanied and proclaimed their Revelation. This indeed is the true meaning of Divine Unity, if ye be of them that apprehend and believe this truth. Be ye assured, moreover, that the works and acts of each and every one of these Manifestations of God, nay whatever pertaineth unto them, and whatsoever they may manifest in the future, are all ordained by God, and are a reflection of His Will and Purpose. Whoso maketh the slightest possible difference between their persons, their words, their messages, their acts and manners, hath indeed disbelieved in God, hath repudiated His signs, and betrayed the Cause of His Messengers... "

That is the quandary we all face and I wish you well and happy always in your choices.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I certainly have not read all of Baha'u'llah's writings but some of the stuff I have read is taken from what could be gleaned from the Bible and part would be easy to foresee by a spirit that has an overview of the world and knows the sorts of things that humanity was on the verge of doing and the directions it was on the verse of taking.
But that is no help for you if you don't even think that we can be deceived by a spirit like that, a satan. That part of the Bible teaching has been got rid of and so any fulfilled prophecies of Baha'u'llah have to be from God.

I have found the greatest deception is my own self and I thank God that I have been able to see how low man can choose to go by his own thoughts and actions over that of what God wants for us.

When we face God, there will be no excuse no pleading that the Devil made me do it, stand up people, stand up for your own choices and the Satan of self is destroyed.

Regards Tony

 

[Samael_Khan]

I never claimed I had anything other than a belief.
It is not contrary to the evidence that God sends Messengers, although that can never be proven.
I never said that the Messengers of different faiths agreed with each other, I only ever said that they did not contradict each other.

They do actually contradict each other. The idea of who Satan is in Islam and Christianity contradict each other. What Christianity says about Jesus contradicts what Islam says about Jesus. Polytheistic faiths contradict Monotheistic faiths. Big contradictions. Islam and Christianity are exclusive religions and claim a monopoly on truth.

I have read John 19. I do not need to read the entire Bible to understand what a clearly written verse means -- finished means finished, and since the mission of Jesus was finished there would be absolutely no reason for the same man Jesus to ever return to earth, and of course Jesus said it was finished and He was no more in the world in other verses. How much clearer does it have to be written?

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

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

Yes, Jesus mission on earth was finished. AND YOU SHOULDN'T READ ONE CHAPTER OF A BOOK TO DETERMINE WHAT THE STORY IS.

In the same book John, Jesus says earlier:

18 The Jews then responded to him, “What sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?”
19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”
20 They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?”
21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body.
22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.

John 10:17,18:

7 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again.
18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”

What he says earlier in John gives validation to his resurrection later in John. You can't take chapters and verses in isolation and make claims about them. You have to read the whole book to know what things mean.

I do not know if it is fictitious or not, nobody can ever know that since it cannot be proven true or false. Baha'is believe that Manifestations of God can perform miracles although the miracles are of no real importance.

Yes, nobody can prove them true or false. The same goes with Jesus physical resurrection, therefore you cannot know whether it is fictitious or not.

The disastrous consequences it led to was according to my opinion.
In have been told by more than one Christian that their religion is superior because of the bodily resurrection, but what you said is also true. Jews also believe their religion is the only true one.

OK.

I was not talking about the entire religion of Christianity. I was only talking about the bodily resurrection. To my knowledge, no other religion has such a belief.

Judaism teaches bodily resurrections, that is where Christianity gets it from. The ancient egyptians also believed in bodily resurrections as Osiris was resurrected bodily. Other Gods from other religions were also bodily resurrected. Most resurrections in other religions are spiritual though. What makes Christianity's unique is that the Messiah was bodily resurrected to free those willing from their sin and they can attain salvation through his resurrection.

i do not care how others see my religion, they are welcome to their personal opinions.

I was pointing out hypocrisy with regard to criticism of a belief.

*******************************************************************************************

I just thought of another disastrous consequence of believing that Jesus rose from the dead. Based upon the belief that Jesus rose from the grave, many Christians believe they will also rise from their graves when Jesus returns. Such a belief precludes them understanding what will really happen when they die, Imo of course.

So that is a battle royale that all the religions can have together.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Yup.

Choosing a christian denomination is like rolling a d20 dice. Most people roll 10's. Quite a few roll Natural 1's. I don't think any have rolled Natural 20's, but almost all delude themselves in believing that they have. And more often than not, the dungeon master called Coincidence rolls the dice for them before they are born.

 

[CG Didymus]

When I said "Baha'i (or at least the ones I have spoken to) deny much of the Bible and replace it with the teachings of Baha'u'llah and Abdul-Baha." I meant that what is written in the Bible in places is denied and replaced with what Baha'u'llah et al said about the Bible teaching..................thus making the Bible wrong in what it tells us.

Examples of parts of the Bible which are denied and replaced by the teachings of Baha'u'llah and Abdul-Baha are written about in this post. Eg John 14:26, John 15:26. You deny that the Spirit of Truth is the Holy Spirit that was given at Pentecost.
Another might be John 14:3 where Jesus promises to return and Acts 1:9-11 where Baha'i denies that the same Jesus will come back in the same way the disciples saw Him go into heaven.
I could go on for a while with examples if you like.
How about Luke 1:32 where it is said that Jesus is the one to sit on the throne of David forever as in Isa 9:6-7?
How about Acts 8:26-40 where Isa 53 is shown to be a prophecy about Jesus? etc etc

Do many Christians believe... That God created Adam and Eve... That He created everything in 6 days... That He was in the Garden and spoke with Adam... Tons of things that Baha'is deny really happened. They wiggle out of it by saying those things were symbolic. Was Noah 500 years old when the Flood came? Was there a worldwide flood? Did Moses' walking cane turn into a snake? Did Jonah get swallowed by a big fish? What do Baha'is really believe about any of these?

The usual ones that I ask them about are that Baha'u'llah says that Ishmael, not Isaac, was taken to be sacrificed. If that is true, then the Bible is wrong and has been for hundreds of years. The other one is all the verses that talk about the resurrection. Baha'is say it didn't happen... that Jesus' body died and stayed dead. So all those verses are wrong? No, they can wiggle out of it by saying they "interpret" it differently. And so do Atheists. They can say that the whole Bible is made up fiction.... nothing but myth... and that's their "interpretation". They are not denying that the stories exist in a Book. Those stories are real. They just interpret them as being fictional. Not much different than what Baha'is do to the Bible.

But, who knows, maybe they are right. Like really a 6 day Creation less than 10,000 years ago? Really, the seas parted and then closed back up and drowned the Egyptian army? And really, Jesus and many other dead people came back to life. And really, Jesus floated off into space? Tough stuff to believe. And I would be surprised if those stories are literal true. And I don't know of one Baha'i that would deny that they don't take many of the things in the Bible as literally true. So what's the debate about? Baha'is deny things that Christians believe are true.

 

[CG Didymus]

Virtues are our adorning CG, but developing eyes and ears for the spiritual life to come, are the hardest spiritual lessons.

Regards Tony

What happens to the most wicked? Are they rocks in the spiritual world?

 

[CG Didymus]

This is a great and complicated question. The Torah laws, according to Judaism, as eternal not just because of a singular verse that uses a word (or, actually, a phrase) that means "eternal" but because the text says that we are bound to them and in the future, at any point, we will still be bound to them. So as long as people are around, the laws will be in effect.

The Hebrew "l'olam" is often thought of as meaning "forever". It means "to the world" and is understood of as "to the [end of] the world". However, there are specific contexts where it means "for an indeterminate long time" or even "for a specific long, but not eternal time -- up to 50 years." A phrase like "l'olam va'ed" is much closer to "forever." But in the absence of any mitigating factors or interpreted phrases to the contrary, we see that a covenant, or an obligation, marked with the word "olam" means "forever" (so circumcision in Gen 17:13) and the Sabbath (in Ex 31:16-17) are eternal covenants requiring that we follow the actual laws.

One of those bilateral agreements is to be bound to the "Torah" (as in Deut 29:13-14 -- it was given to all those at Sinai and all those not at Sinai which refers to all later generations, and Deut 32:46 which names explicitly that it is the "Torah" which Jews must follow). In Lev 26:44-46 God says that if we sin, our covenant will not be annulled and when we return, we will still be bound by the same Torah (he uses the word to point explicitly to the same canon of law). There is no time limit given. No situation is presented in which those laws suddenly no longer apply. If the Torah is perfect (Psalms 19) then to say that God (who is perfect, Deut 32:4) changes or gets rid of it is to lessen that perfection.

As I said, it is a complex idea and I hope I gave a proper entree into the topic. I saw a lovely explanation which starts with an apparent contradiction in the words of a particular talmudic sage. In one place he says "in Messianci days there will be no mitzvot/commandments." In another, he says "the halachot (laws) are eternal and will be eternally followed." It was explained that in the future, following the laws will be automatic and won't require that we are commanded to do so, so the "command" aspect will disappear, but not the behaviors and law-following.

Yeah, it's a tough question. Christians had a hard time justifying why they don't even follow the Ten Commandments. I'm not going to get into it very deep. As I recall, when I was trying to be a Christian, Paul did a satisfactory job of explaining it to Christians why they aren't bound by the Law.

But then Jesus says to obey his commandments? Which were what? To love everybody as themselves? And I guess there are some moral laws in the NT. Like don't commit adultery... and if a Christian looks at a woman with lust, he has already committed adultery in his heart. And then the remedy? I assume Jesus was just joking, he says to pluck your eye out if it keeps offending you?

But then God does a strange thing, that is, if it's true, God brings in a bunch of Laws with Islam and the Baha'i Faith. Then why did He get rid of the Law with Christianity? Or, for Jews, maybe He didn't?

 

[CG Didymus]

The Messiah or the anointed one in Hebrew is Hamashiach המשיח.
A messiah or an anointed one in Hebrew is mashiach משיח.
The text tells of the death of a messiah, an anointed one.
However, Christians, over the ages, were looking to read in everything in the Tanach as referring to Jesus, and so changed the word from a to the. That's what happened.

So Christians and now Baha'is too find verses that are prophecies about The Messiah. Are these some of them?

Micah 7:12 In that day also he shall come even to thee from Assyria, and from the fortified cities, and from the fortress even to the river, and from sea to sea, and from mountain to mountain.

7:14 Feed thy people with thy rod, the flock of thine heritage, which dwell solitarily in the wood, in the midst of Carmel: let them feed in Bashan and Gilead, as in the days of old.

7:15 According to the days of thy coming out of the land of Egypt will I shew unto him marvellous things.

Would come from the East
Ezekiel 43:2 And, behold, the glory of the God of Israel came from the way of the east: and his voice was like a noise of many waters: and the earth shined with his glory.
43:4 And the glory of the LORD came into the house by the way of the gate whose prospect is toward the east.

Would come from Ancient Babylon
Micah4:1 But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of the LORD shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it.

4:9 Now why dost thou cry out aloud? is there no king in thee? is thy counsellor perished? for pangs have taken thee as a woman in travail.

4:10 Be in pain, and labour to bring forth, O daughter of Zion, like a woman in travail: for now shalt thou go forth out of the city, and thou shalt dwell in the field, and thou shalt go even to Babylon; there shalt thou be delivered; there the LORD shall redeem thee from the hand of thine enemies.​

The first one has The Messiah, Baha'u'llah, coming from Assyria. He was from Tehran in Persia/Iran. Was it part of the Assyrian Empire? Next one... he comes from the East. Then he comes from Babylon. Are any of these in context and are they Messianic prophecies?

 

[Vouthon]

I'm not sure what you mean by "originally". I'm sure biblical criticism enjoys claiming it has "definitive proof" that the text was not written by Daniel himself but was invented by later sages, to which I say: Nu, so what?

In any case, a few Jewish approaches, as previously posted here and elsewhere in RF by @rosends:

The L-rd's Anointed - Source Book

The 70 weeks in Daniel 9

Interesting, thank you for the links.

Whomsoever Daniel was referring to, I certainly don't think he had Jesus in view - so we are in agreement on that Your 'a' versus 'the' qualification in relation to Hamashiach / Mashiach is also a very good point, if I may say so.

 

[Trailblazer]

They do actually contradict each other. The idea of who Satan is in Islam and Christianity contradict each other. What Christianity says about Jesus contradicts what Islam says about Jesus. Polytheistic faiths contradict Monotheistic faiths. Big contradictions. Islam and Christianity are exclusive religions and claim a monopoly on truth.

The reason that he idea of who Satan is in Islam and Christianity contradict each other. And the reason what Christianity says about Jesus contradicts what Islam says about Jesus is because of the way their scriptures are interpreted by the followers, not necessarily because what is actually written in the scriptures is contradictory.

One possible reason why Polytheistic faiths contradict Monotheistic faiths and could be because of the way Polytheistic faiths were interpreted by the followers. For example, many aspects of one God does not necessarily mean that many gods exist. Then again, another possible reason that Polytheistic faiths were revealed as having many gods could have been because that was according to the capacity people to understand god at that time, and the people were not ready to understand the one God concept when these faiths were revealed.

Bringing something new and different according to the needs of the time and the capacity of the hearer is not a contradiction.

Yes, Jesus mission on earth was finished. AND YOU SHOULDN'T READ ONE CHAPTER OF A BOOK TO DETERMINE WHAT THE STORY IS.

In the same book John, Jesus says earlier:

18 The Jews then responded to him, “What sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?”
19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”
20 They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?”
21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body.
22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.

John 10:17,18:

7 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again.
18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”

What he says earlier in John gives validation to his resurrection later in John. You can't take chapters and verses in isolation and make claims about them. You have to read the whole book to know what things mean.

But even if you do read the whole book, that does not mean you will; automatically know what the verses mean.

“Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” How do you know that Jesus was referring to His body?

Please note that Jesus did not say 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body. It was assumed that was what Jesus meant.

What it all boils down to us how people choose to interpret the scriptures and thus what they understand them to mean. People hold fast to their interpretations insist they are correct yet there is no reason to think they are any more correct than some other interpretation. Mind you, nobody was given authority by Jesus to interpret the NT so it is anyone’s best guess what the verses mean.

Yes, nobody can prove them true or false. The same goes with Jesus physical resurrection, therefore you cannot know whether it is fictitious or not.

Nobody can prove a false negative but that is no reason to believe it is true. For example, nobody can prove that God does not exist but that is no reason to believe that God exists. Imo, evidence of God’s existence is the only rational reason to believe that God exists. Likewise, evidence of the bodily resurrection would be a reason to believe it happened.

I do not consider the stories that say that Jesus rose from the dead to be evidence because a story is not evidence that what is in the story ever happened. That would be circular reasoning. That would be like me saying that Baha’u’llah’s claim to be a Messenger of God is evidence that He was a Messenger of God. But a claim is not evidence of anything; the evidence is what can be investigated and verified -- what Baha’u’llah was like as a person, what He did on his mission and what He wrote. We have no such verifiable evidence for the bodily resurrection; all we have are stories men wrote long after Jesus walked the earth.

But if you want to believe it is true that is your right. I consider that a really lame argument to say that just because nobody can prove Jesus did not rise from the grave that means that Jesus rose from the grave. I cannot prove there is no such thing as a pink unicorn, but that does not mean pink unicorns exist.

The bodily resurrection is a faith-based belief, not an evidence-based belief, and to try to make it anything else only makes people look silly since there is no verifiable evidence that it ever took place. A witness that was written into a story is not a real witness.

Judaism teaches bodily resurrections, that is where Christianity gets it from. The ancient egyptians also believed in bodily resurrections as Osiris was resurrected bodily. Other Gods from other religions were also bodily resurrected. Most resurrections in other religions are spiritual though. What makes Christianity's unique is that the Messiah was bodily resurrected to free those willing from their sin and they can attain salvation through his resurrection.

Or so Christians believe. Do you believe that? You talk as if you do.

I was pointing out hypocrisy with regard to criticism of a belief.

I do not think that disagreeing with a belief that other religions hold can be equated to criticism. Everyone who is not a Baha’i disagrees with us, but it is the way they disagree that would make it criticism.

So that is a battle royale that all the religions can have together. [/quote]
I guess that means you are out of the game since you presently do not have a religion. I normally steer away from these religion threads but sometimes I get sucked in for a while. However, I much prefer posting to atheists and agnostics. I have no interest in discussing the Bible; if I did I would want to be more proficient in it.

But you see, I am not undecided or sitting on the fence, I am a Baha’i and I have been one for almost 50 years. If I was still uncommitted to my beliefs after all these years, that would be a cause for concern.

In the real world, Baha’is do not debate over the Bible and what prophecies mean, they are too busy with their own religion, including their involvement in the Baha’i administration as well as their personal duties and practices.

The Bible is nothing that has to be fought over even though religious adherents fight over it, and the only reason they fight is to try to prove they are right. So as the whole world falls apart, Jews and Christians fight over ancient scriptures and what they mean, as if it matters. Sorry, I am out of the game because it does not matter to me..

Why is it fair that a Baha’i who wants to talk to a Christian has to meet them on their own ground, the Bible or Torah ground, whereas Jews and Christians are unwilling to meet Baha’is on our ground? The implication is that they are superior because their scriptures have been around longer and their religions are well established, but I do not accept that as an excuse. If they are interested in the Baha’i Faith they can meet me on Baha’i ground and if not, why would I bother trying to convince them of anything? I do not have to prove to them how that Baha’i Faith fulfills the prophecies in their scriptures as that is not the job assignment I have been given by Baha’u’llah. If they are really interested in knowing about the prophecies they can read Thief in the Night by William Sears and if not, why debate endlessly about what the prophecies mean and who fulfilled them?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

What happens to the most wicked? Are they rocks in the spiritual world?

This best answers tha question.

"Concerning the future life, what Bahá’u’lláh says is that the soul will continue to ascend through many worlds. What those worlds are and what their nature is we cannot know. The same way that the child in the matrix cannot know this world so we cannot know what the other world is going to be." (From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, October 18, 1932)

Now we can also consider this;

"There are no earth-bound souls. When the souls that are not good die they go entirely away from this earth and so cannot influence anyone. They are spiritually dead. Their thoughts can have influence only when they are alive on the earth… But the good souls are given eternal life and sometimes God permits their thoughts to reach the earth to help the people. (Questions answered by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in 'Akká: Daily Lessons, Received at 'Akká, 1979 ed., pp. 35-36)

Added to that this was offered;

"There is no power exercised over the people by those evil souls that have passed away. Good is stronger than evil and even when alive they had very little power. How much less have they after they are dead, and besides they are nowhere near this planet." (Ibid., pp. 43-44)

There is a mountain of information given for us to consider, that the progress of the Soul is eternal through many worlds of God, all under God's bounty and grace, not because of anything we have done to warrent such progress, except being allowed to recognise God's Manifestations.

It appears our choices hold us back.

Quite a few others at this link.

Lights of Guidance/Life after Death; the Soul - Bahaiworks, a library of works about the Bahá’í Faith

Regards Tony