• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How can the Jew reject, Jesus, Muhammad, Bab and Baha'u'llah?

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Well then you can't claim it for Jesus. If you look at post #610, that's what you tried to do.

:rolleyes: You'll need to demonstrate that you'll listen. Since you brought up the New Covenant again, I'm more and more confident that there's no reason to share information with you. It seems like a waste of time.

Yup. The point is, the transgression isn't Rabbinic. It isn't based on tradition. It's from God through Moses in the Torah.

Ok. Then they're mutually exclusive. The Old Covenant is for Jewish people, the New Covenant is for Gentiles.

Fine. Glad we cleared that up. Hopefully you won't spread misinformation about it again.

The Old Covenant is relevant to Jewish people because of their personal convictions in following God. It's not mutually exclusive with the New Covenant because the book of Acts mentions believers going to synagogue.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
The Old Covenant is relevant to Jewish people because of their personal convictions in following God. It's not mutually exclusive with the New Covenant because the book of Acts mentions believers going to synagogue.
Sorry. Hebrews 8:13 dissolves the Old Covenant. You can choose to ignore it, but, without 8:13, there is no New Covenant.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Well then you can't claim it for Jesus. If you look at post #610, that's what you tried to do.

:rolleyes: You'll need to demonstrate that you'll listen. Since you brought up the New Covenant again, I'm more and more confident that there's no reason to share information with you. It seems like a waste of time.

Yup. The point is, the transgression isn't Rabbinic. It isn't based on tradition. It's from God through Moses in the Torah.

Ok. Then they're mutually exclusive. The Old Covenant is for Jewish people, the New Covenant is for Gentiles.

Fine. Glad we cleared that up. Hopefully you won't spread misinformation about it again.

The Jewish belief about there being two Messiahs is based off or Scriptures that could also be interpreted to mean that there are two comings of the Messiah.

The New Covenant and Old Covenant are and can be practiced separately but that doesn't mean that they are mutually exclusive.

The first Christians were part of a sect on Judaism that didn't believe in the traditions of the Pharisees and the Talmud.

A person can be Jewish and be a Christian and a Gentile and not be a Christian.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Sorry. Hebrews 8:13 dissolves the Old Covenant. You can choose to ignore it, but, without 8:13, there is no New Covenant.

It doesn't dissolve the Old Covenant, it refers to how following the Old Covenant is not mandatory for Gentile followers of Jesus. The background of that verse is the first Christians were Jewish.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
The Jewish belief about there being two Messiahs is based off or Scriptures that could also be interpreted to mean that there are two comings of the Messiah.
I don't think you have the knowledge to speak accurately about Jewish belief.
The New Covenant and Old Covenant are and can be practiced separately but that doesn't mean that they are mutually exclusive.
Nope. When a contract is dissolved and replaced with a new one, the old and the new are mutually exclusive.

It's just like selling a house, dissolving the contract and claiming the old house is still yours. Or more accuratley in this situation, it's like walking into someone else's house and claiming that their contract includes you. A covenant is a contract.
A person can be Jewish and be a Christian and a Gentile and not be a Christian.
As soon as they pray to or through Jesus, then they are no longer practicing Judaism.
It doesn't dissolve the Old Covenant, it refers to how following the Old Covenant is not mandatory for Gentile followers of Jesus. The background of that verse is the first Christians were Jewish.
A covenant is a contract binding two parties. If it's not mandatory, it's not binding, it's not a covenant.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
What I'm saying is labeling him Glory of God may have influenced his actions and undermines the value of the prophecies that are solely depending on his assignment of this name, Baha'u'llah.
I can see how this labeling might undermine the value of the prophecies, as far as how people interpret them. Again, I am not sure why Baha’u’llah did not remain with His given name, but other Baha’is might know.

However, there is another side to that, as labeling Him as the Glory of God might have been a way to help people determine how to interpret many of the prophecies. Say for example the Messiah is the Glory of God. That would mean we should be looking for a man who reflected God, a man who was a Manifestation of God, rather than an ordinary man. For example, take the following verse:

Micah 7:7 But I will hope in the Lord; I will wait for the God of my salvation; my God shall hearken to me.

I believe that this verse refers to the Messiah who came as a Manifestation of God, and He was a God of salvation.
See how this verse ties in with Micah 7:12 below.
If Baha'u'llah fulfilled the prophecies, then the fact that his name means Glory of God is of lesser importance.
I fully agree.
I don't know. I'm just focusing on the prophecies in Tanach that are claimed to have been fulfilled by Baha'u'llah. Are the verses messianic? Do they clearly identify Baha'u'llah and no one else? Were they actually fulfiled by Baha'u'llah or was it just a coincidence?
I do not know what you mean by “messianic” because Jews have a different idea as to what that means. Bahais believe that all the Old Testament (Tanakh) prophecies were fulfilled by Baha'u'llah during His lifetime, or they will be fulfilled during the Messianic Age as the result of His Coming, what he did and what He wrote. Prophecies that will be fulfilled during the Messianic Age, include prophecies that will be fulfilled during the Dispensation of Baha'u'llah but could extend beyond that. The Dispensation of Baha'u'llah will last no less than 1000 years (1863-2863 AD), but it could last longer. It will last until another Messenger of God appears, and that could happen any time after 2863 AD but not any sooner.

I would not say that the prophecies clearly identify Baha’u’llah because they were not intended to do so, since prophecies are not written that way, such that it would be really easy to know to whom they refer. Also, we have no way of knowing if the prophets who wrote those prophecies knew the actual identity of the Messiah. Obviously they knew there would be a Messiah, and what would happen when he came, but that does not mean they knew who he would be, the given name that would be assigned to him in the future.

However, after the Messiah came, it would be easy to tie him back to the prophecies because then we can compare what the prophecies say with what the Messiah actually did as well as what happened as the result of His coming. For one example Baha’is believe that the following verse refers to Baha’u’llah, who was the Messiah, so “he” in this verse refers to the Messiah. How could it be a coincidence that all these things happened to Baha’u’llah during His mission on earth? Please bear in mind that He had no control over His own destiny as he was banished from place to place by the government, so He was a prisoner and an exile for 40 years.

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.

He shall come from Assyria: At that time Assyria was a large area. Baha’u’llah and His family lived in the part that was Persia, now Iran, in the city of Tihran.

and from the fortified cities: Baha’u’llah was banished from city to city: After being released from the Black Pit dungeon in Tihran in 1852, His family and companions had only a short time before being sent to the fortified city of Baghdad. While living in Baghdad, He gained such a large following that the enemies where shocked. Right away He was banished again, this time to the fortified city of Istanbul.

The Governor of the city refused many times to fulfill the orders that he received to banish Him again. Finally forced to follow orders, Baha’u’llah was banished again to the fortified city of Adrianople. He was honored and praised, and shown respect everywhere, until He was finally sent to the most horrific of all places, the fortress of Akka, where it was expected that He would succumb to the terrible conditions.

and from the fortress even to the river: It was while in Baghdad that the Tigris river became a special place, as Baha’u’llah crossed it to the Ridvan Garden. April 21, 1863 was the fulfilment of prophecy, as that was when Baha’u’llah declared to those around Him His Station as the Manifestation of God.

and from sea to sea: After His banishment in Baghdad, His exile was by way of the Black Sea. Still a prisoner He crossed the Black Sea from Sinope on His way to Constantinople. After the banishment in Adrianople, He crossed the Mediterranean Sea from Gallipolis in Turkey, embarking at Alexandria, Egypt, then on to the fortress of 'Akka, the most desolate of cities.

and from mountain to mountain: The time in Baghdad was turbulent with opposition. To protect His family and companions Baha’u’llah went to the Kurdistan mountains. There He lived in poverty, but the area was magnetized by His presence. After two years, He was persuaded to return to Baghdad.

The other mountain was in Israel, Mount Carmel, where He had docked before His final journey to Akka. Later He had a chance to return to Mount Carmel, to pitch His tent. Here He wrote the Tablet Of Carmel, surrounded by pilgrims looking for the return of Christ to descend from heaven. Mount Carmel is the headquarters of the Baha’i Faith.

From: William Sears, Thief in the Night

Map of Baháʼu'lláh's banishments

Map_iran_ottoman_empire_banishment.png
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
I don't think you have the knowledge to speak accurately about Jewish belief.

Nope. When a contract is dissolved and replaced with a new one, the old and the new are mutually exclusive.

It's just like selling a house, dissolving the contract and claiming the old house is still yours. Or more accuratley in this situation, it's like walking into someone else's house and claiming that their contract includes you. A covenant is a contract.

As soon as they pray to or through Jesus, then they are no longer practicing Judaism.

A covenant is a contract binding two parties. If it's not mandatory, it's not binding, it's not a covenant.

Jesus and the apostles practiced Judaism and Christianity at the same time because the first Christians were Jewish Christians.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Sorry. The conclusion: "Yeshua is not advocating the abrogation of even the minutest detail of the Law" Is completely, 100% false. Whoever wrote this does not know Torah.

Edit to add: or they're lying.
I am just what you might call a dumbo when it comes to the Torah and the Bible, but one thing I have is a good memory and I have Google, which is my friend.... Didn't Jesus say the following?

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Then what did Paul do? He came along and abolished the Law and replaced it with grace. ;)
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
I am just what you might call a dumbo when it comes to the Torah and the Bible, but one thing I have is a good memory and I have Google, which is my friend.... Didn't Jesus say the following?

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Then what did Paul do? He came along and abolished the Law and replaced it with grace. ;)

Paul didn't say that it was wrong for Jewish people who believed in Jesus to follow the Law.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Why do you think the Christian interpretation is less likely?
Trailblazer like to use those verses in John about his work being finished. I found this...
Of the last sayings of Christ on the cross, none is more important or more poignant than, “It is finished.” Found only in the Gospel of John, the Greek word translated “it is finished” is tetelestai, an accounting term that means “paid in full.” When Jesus uttered those words, He was declaring the debt owed to His Father was wiped away completely and forever. Not that Jesus wiped away any debt that He owed to the Father; rather, Jesus eliminated the debt owed by mankind—the debt of sin.​
Do you know the words being used in those other verses about his work being finished?
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
The New Covenant and the Old Covenant contradict each other. They are mutually exclusive.

Hebrews 8:13 contradicts Jeremiah 31:36.
I see you are discussing covenants.... May I throw my name in the hat? :) I might add more later if I have time.

Baha’is believe that there is an everlasting covenant which remains in force today.

The overall covenant God made with His followers in Judaism, known to Jews as the Mosaic Covenant, and to Christians as the Old Covenant, put forth the stipulation of the oneness of God – “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20:2) – as the primary law of the Ten Commandments. In exchange for following those principles, God promised that he would never leave His followers without guidance:

Be strong and of a good courage, fear not, nor be afraid … for the Lord thy God, he it is that doth go with thee; he will not fail thee, nor forsake thee. – Deuteronomy 31:6.

This eternal covenant between God and humanity, the Baha’i teachings say, remains in force today. The Creator has bestowed bounties on us all, and in return asks us to recognize His prophets and messengers and abide by their laws and spiritual principles. The Baha’i teachings joyously celebrate that covenant:

How to Understand the Baha’i Covenant
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
But Paul dis say that Christians were no longer "under the Law" which meant that they do not have to follow the Law if they don't want to.

That doesn't mean that the Old and New Covenant are mutually exclusive. The truth is somewhere in the middle. One can be a Christian and follow the Old Covenant, but one doesn't have to. Messianic Judaism is not the same teaching as the Judaizers.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Trailblazer like to use those verses in John about his work being finished. I found this...
Of the last sayings of Christ on the cross, none is more important or more poignant than, “It is finished.” Found only in the Gospel of John, the Greek word translated “it is finished” is tetelestai, an accounting term that means “paid in full.” When Jesus uttered those words, He was declaring the debt owed to His Father was wiped away completely and forever. Not that Jesus wiped away any debt that He owed to the Father; rather, Jesus eliminated the debt owed by mankind—the debt of sin.​
Do you know the words being used in those other verses about his work being finished?

Jesus saying it is finished is a reference to his work of redemption on the cross being finished, not a reference to whether he would come again.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
That's why I don't believe that Bahullah returned in 1868, even if I give the benefit of the doubt to the Messiah's kingdom wouldn't be established right away when he arrives. Bible Gateway passage: Revelation 19 - King James Version

Bible Gateway passage: Revelation 20 - King James Version
"Satan... bound him a thousand years..."
They don't believe there is an evil spirit being called Satan, and, for them to be consistent, they should change the years into to days and then into "prophetic" years. But they don't. It's hard to make sense of these verses interpreting "Satan" the way Baha'is interpret him... as being symbolic of our lower nature.

"I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years."
This creates a problem for the Baha'i interpretation of the number or mark of the beast, 666. They say it is a prophecy about the Umayyad dynasty of Islam.

"But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection."
Baha'is don't even believe Jesus came back to life, so no chance that they'd believe that ordinary people would come back to life. But they do believe that the spirits of all people live on. So what do these verses mean? A person's spirit doesn't die. Anyway, it's hard to make sense of the details about the claims of the Baha'i Faith.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
I don't think you have the knowledge to speak accurately about Jewish belief.

Nope. When a contract is dissolved and replaced with a new one, the old and the new are mutually exclusive.

It's just like selling a house, dissolving the contract and claiming the old house is still yours. Or more accuratley in this situation, it's like walking into someone else's house and claiming that their contract includes you. A covenant is a contract.

As soon as they pray to or through Jesus, then they are no longer practicing Judaism.

A covenant is a contract binding two parties. If it's not mandatory, it's not binding, it's not a covenant.

That doesn't mean that a Jew who follows Jesus doesn't also follow Jesus, because the covenants in the Scriptures are different situations from the law.

The split of Christianity and Judaism took place during the first centuries CE.[1][2] While the First Jewish–Roman War and the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE were main events, the separation was a long-term process, in which the boundaries were not clear-cut.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Jesus saying it is finished is a reference to his work of redemption on the cross being finished, not a reference to whether he would come again.
We do not need those verses in order to know that Jesus was not going to come back to earth again.

John 14:19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

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.

What about the words "no more" do you not understand?

no more
phrase of more

  1. nothing further.
    "there was no more to be said about it"

  2. no further.
    "you must have some soup, but no more wine"

  3. exist no longer.
    "the patch of ground was overgrown and the hut was no more"

  4. never again.
    "mention his name no more to me"

  5. neither.
    "I had no complaints and no more did Tom"
Translate no more to
Definitions from Oxford Languages
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
We do not need those verses in order to know that Jesus was not going to come back to earth again.

John 14:19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

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.

What about the words "no more" do you not understand?

no more
phrase of more

  1. nothing further.
    "there was no more to be said about it"

  2. no further.
    "you must have some soup, but no more wine"

  3. exist no longer.
    "the patch of ground was overgrown and the hut was no more"

  4. never again.
    "mention his name no more to me"

  5. neither.
    "I had no complaints and no more did Tom"
Translate no more to
Definitions from Oxford Languages

The context of those verses was not about whether Jesus would have a second advent. Jesus was talking about going to the cross. One could say that Jesus didn't say he was going to have a second advent or that it goes against the Bahai faith, but that doesn't mean that those verses refute Jesus will come again.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
The context of those verses was not about whether Jesus would have a second advent. Jesus was talking about going to the cross. One could say that Jesus didn't say he was going to have a second advent or that it goes against the Bahai faith, but that doesn't mean that those verses refute Jesus will come again.
The context might have been that He was leaving the world because He was going to the cross, but He would not have said I am no more in the world and the world seeth me no more if He was planning to come back to the world.

There is not one verse in the New Testament where Jesus says He is coming back to the world.
You can wait till hell freezes over and there will be no Jesus returning to earth. The prophecies have all been fulfilled so it is impossible for Jesus to come and re-fulfill them.

“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.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 12-13
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
I sent you a link to an article written by a Baha'i who is knowledgeable about the Daniel 8 prophecies. Did you ever read it?
Oh, I get it. I'm supposed to read your stuff, but you can't even read Daniel 8 for yourself to see if all this "stuff" makes sense. In context, I see no reason to start the 2300 day prophecy in 456 or 457BC, which ever one is right.
“In Daniel 8:13 it is said: … And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.” … That is to say, how long shall this misfortune, this ruin, this abasement and degradation endure? Or, when will the morn of Revelation dawn? … Briefly, the point is that he fixes a period of 2,300 years, for according to the text of the Torah each day is one year. Therefore, from the date of the edict of Artaxerxes to rebuild Jerusalem until the day of the birth of Christ there are 456 years, and from the birth of Christ until the day of the advent of the Bab there are 1,844 years, and if 456 years are added to this number it makes 2,300 years. That is to say, the fulfilment of the vision of Daniel took place in A.D. 1844, and this is the year of the advent of the Bab. Examine the text of the Book of Daniel and observe how clearly he fixes the year of His advent! There could indeed be no clearer prophecy for a Manifestation than this.” – Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, pp. 48-49.​

He neglects to mention the stopping of the daily sacrifice. And did the "misfortune" of the Jews start in 456BBC? No. In fact that was a good day. They were allowed to start rebuilding Jerusalem. So very, very sorry, but Abdul Baha misquotes and takes things out of context. Yes, you are better off not investigating the truth of his words for yourself. Next...

In other verses, Daniel also offered the number 1,290 to ponder:

“And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.” – Daniel 12:11-12.

There are 1,290 lunar years in the Islamic calendar from the date of Muhammad’s declaration of his station as a prophet of God in the year 613, to Baha’u’llah’s declaration of his station as a prophet of God in 1863.

Reverting to solar years, Daniel gives his final numerical prophecy and is then told that his mission on Earth is finished:

“But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.” – Daniel 12:13.

Prophetically, the 1,290 and the 1,335 days/years go together, the first logically following the second. The 1,335 solar years begin with the year 628, the year Muhammad signed a treaty with his enemies in Mecca that signified that recognized the Muslim community in Medina not only as a legitimate force, but also one to be respected and accorded contractual or diplomatic status.

The 1,335 solar years added to 628 equals 1,963 years, or the calendar year 1963, a momentous period in Baha’i history. That was the year when members of the world’s National Spiritual Assemblies cast their ballots to elect the first Universal House of Justice – the global administrative body of the Baha’i Faith. The declaration of Baha’u’llah in 1863 (the 1,290 years) was followed in 1963 (the 1,335 years) by completion of the three-tiered Baha’i administrative order at the local, national and international levels, devised by Baha’u’llah for the internal governance of the Baha’i Faith.
Here's Daniel 8:13 Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to him, “How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled—the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, the surrender of the sanctuary and the trampling underfoot of the Lord’s people?”

14 He said to me, “It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be reconsecrated.”

So we have the "daily sacrifice" and the rest of those things then in 2300 days the sanctuary gets reconsecrated.

Here's Daniel 12:11 “From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days. 12 Blessed is the one who waits for and reaches the end of the 1,335 days.

So from the daily sacrifice being stopped we count 1290 days and 1335 days. If Baha'is have the first one starting in 456BC, why not these? But really, why any of them? We know when the daily sacrifice was stopped. You found it. What was it? 167BC or something? And it was done by Antiochus Epiphanes?

But anyway, the Baha'is start the 1290 days in 613AD? Where in the &^$% did they get that date? And, like the 1260 days in Revelation, which they start conveniently in 621AD with the Hegira, they make these "lunar" years? Then the 1335 days they start in 628AD? Because that is when Muhammad signed a treaty? What does that have to do with the stopping of the daily sacrifice? Then, this time, it is "solar" years? What happened to using "lunar" years? Why change it accept to arrive at the desired year that fits with something in the Baha'i Faith?

Well, all I can say is Baha'is have very creative ways of interpreting and fulfilling prophecies. No wonder you don't want to deal with them. Yet, you and other Baha'is keep saying that Baha'u'llah has fulfilled all the prophecies of all the major religions. Why say that when you can't and won't back up your "proofs".
 
Top