• 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!

Are Christians actually worshiping the Father of Jesus?

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
Moses permitted it as a civil law for the tribes. Don't know why there'd be a need to think this was dictated by God.

There is a lot in the Bible, not all prophecy. The Christians turned the Bible into God's Word. So now somehow everything in it has to have been said according to God's will?

Well, whether these Books are truly from God or Not, or even God exists is a totally different topic, I would think....but let's say for those who believe there is a God, and both Moses and Jesus were Prophets of the same God and revealed His Will....then the question is, if both were speaking from the same God, why is it then, the God in Old Testament seems different than God in New Testament, and how can we say both are from the same God. If we define the description of the Problem as that, the answer to the problem is the concept of progressive revelation.
 

mystic64

nolonger active
Christians may claim that God(the Father) is the literal Father of Jesus(pbuh). However, Jesus(pbuh) never claimed that, as there are other example of people being called Son of God in the Bible. So my point is Muslims are worshiping the Father(God) of Jesus(pbuh) since Jesus(pbuh) never meant it as a literal Father either.

Lover of Truth :) I do understand your point. And if one uses the Holy Scriptures of your faith, then you are absolutely correct! Lover of Truth you have taken things in directions that I did not anticipate. And these directions add interesting (in my opinion) depth to the general scheme of things. Totally to cool!

So Lover of Truth, if Islam is worshiping Allah the Father, may His name be praised, then the question is, "What do you mean by Father?" Abraham was your father and the God of Abraham was not the father of Abraham. How can the God of Abraham be your Father?
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Well, whether these Books are truly from God or Not, or even God exists is a totally different topic, I would think....but let's say for those who believe there is a God, and both Moses and Jesus were Prophets of the same God and revealed His Will....then the question is, if both were speaking from the same God, why is it then, the God in Old Testament seems different than God in New Testament, and how can we say both are from the same God. If we define the description of the Problem as that, the answer to the problem is the concept of progressive revelation.

You mean come up with some reasoning to justify their belief regardless of it having anything to do with reality?

However I think the idea of the post is that the God Jesus spoke of is not the same as the one the Tribes of Israel or even Judea. Yes Progressive Revelation is the catch phrase used to justify the immorality seen in the OT. If we are questioning the God of the OT we've already thrown out the idea of accepting the Bible in it entirety as the Word of God anyway,.

My personal view. There were some really good prophets in the OT. There is also some tribal legend in the OT. The tribal legend is there to justify the Judean leadership of Israel. That doesn't mean it is necessary to discount the OT prophets as well.

Even prophets aren't always speaking for God. Sometimes they are just speaking for themselves.
 

Call_of_the_Wild

Well-Known Member
Sorry about the delayed reply. I had been sick for a while and then got busy.


No, we don't need to pretend anything. God has knowledge of all those He will create before they are even created, what is so special about that. God has foreknowledge of everything and interestingly we see something similar to the case of Jeremiah.

"Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations" Jeremiah 1: 4
So even Jeremiah existed before his birth. So he is God too ?

So the question is can you honestly convince yourself that Jeremiah had a pre-human existence before his earthly birth?

No I didn't say that. I said 'All the Prophets were sinless and pure'. God is at the highest level of purity, moral perfection and magnificence. No human is at that level. Next comes the Prophets/Messengers of God. So Jesus(pbuh) along with all the other Prophets fall in that category. By definition, since the Prophets are supposed to represent God and teach the highest moral teachings, they should be sinless - so was Jesus(pbuh) AND Mary(pbuh). That still doesn't make him God.

No, not so fast. If they were sinless, and God is sinless, then how is God at the highest level of purity? Unless you are stating that God is at a highest level because it is impossible for God to sin, in contrast to the Prophets who could sin, but didn't sin? That is a fundemental difference. If that is the case then, you are saying that Jesus could sin, but he didn't sin...so my question is, would any one of the other Prophets death be sufficient as a atonement of sins for mankind?

No I am not saying that...here are some quotes from New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman :
"Through his studies, Ehrman determined that the Bible was not free of mistakes:We have only error ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently, in thousands of ways." [1]

"Not only do we not have the originals, we don’t have the first copies of the originals. We don’t even have copies of the copies of the originals, or copies of the copies of the copies of the originals. What we have are copies made later-much later. In most instances, they are copies made many centuries later. And these copies all differ from one another, and many thousands of places . . . Possibly it is easiest to put it in comparative terms: there are more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament." [1]

[1]http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/10/22/who-changed-the-bible-and-why-bart-ehrmans-startling-answers/

Not according to Bruce Metzger, who is a bible scholar and a texual critic. He said in his interview with Lee Stroble in Lee's book "The Case for Christ", regarding this very question is...

1. This is not a problem that is unique only with the Bible, but also with other ancient writings.

2. The difference between the Bible and other ancient writings in this regards is the fact that the bible has much more copies that has survied.

3. He said "the more copies you have that agree with each other, especially if they emerge from different geographical locations, the more you can cross-check them to figure out what the original document was like. The only way they'd agree would be where they went back genealogically in a family tree that presents the descent of the manuscripts.

When Lee, playing the devils advocate, said asked "What about the age of the documents? Certainly that is important, isn't it?

4. Bruce said that the age of the documents is something that actually favors the NT, because "we have copies commencing within a couple gnerations from the writing of the orignals, whereas in the case of other ancient texts, maybe five, eight, or ten centuries elapsed between the orignal and the earliest surviving copies.

5. In additon to the Greek manuscripts, we have translations of the Gospels into other languages at a early time...from Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and later translations from Armenian and Gothic..and also Georgian and Ethiopic.

So in other words, I will go with what Bruce said.

I'll just give you one example that it is the actual text and not interpretation that is contradictory and inconsistent. Let's look at the story of 'The Triumphal Entry'. Jesus(pbuh) rode into Jerusalem on how many animals?

May be One - a colt (Mark 11:7; cf Luke 19:3 5). And they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their garments on it; and he sat upon it.
Or may be Two - a colt and an donkey (Matthew 21:7). They brought the donkey and the colt and put their garments on them and he sat thereon.

Matthew is focusing on the prophecy that was fulfilled, and in the prophecy (Zech 9:9), it is prophecized that Jesus would "come to you, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey". That is why Matthew mentions verses 4-5. The two Gospels didn't focus on the prophecy, just on the fact that Jesus rode on a donkey.

And I just showed you one example for argument's sake. If you are interested, I can show you a lot more.

I am interested.

First of all, that is not Jesus's(pbuh) statement ... so that doesn't prove that he claimed to be All Powerful - he never did.

My point is, the scripture is comparing what Jesus was before he became a servant, and what Jesus became after he became a servant. Something changed, by context.

On the contrary, Jesus(pbuh) stated :

"Jesus answered, 'My teaching is not my own. It comes from the one who sent me'." John 7:16

"So Jesus said, “When you have lifted up[a] the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me." John 8:28

As Phil 2:5-9 indicates, Jesus completely subjected himself to the Father, as a human. Of course he didn't come to earth as "God", he came to earth as a servant of God and to do a will of God, and we can see throughout the Gospels that Jesus was treading on high waters when he made certain statements, so if he came on earth saying "This is my will, I am God", then that certainly would have created all kinds of controversy...instead of having to defend himself with every single claim that he made, he made sure he let people know that he is doing the will of the Father, and the Father has authority over him, as Phil 2:5-9 indicates.
 

Call_of_the_Wild

Well-Known Member
So if he was all powerful and equal to God, at a minimum (even after taking human form), he wouldn't need to be taught. He clearly says that his teachings come from the One who sent him. So that nullifies Jesus(pbuh) being All Powerful.

I will admit, the "teaching" part is difficult to respond to, since it would appear to contradict John 21:17, HOWEVER, it would seem as if Jesus' knowledge is something that he could temporary place on "hold", and in an effort to fully subject himself to the Father and allow himself to make the claim, he had to place his knowledge on hold so the Father could "teach him".

Yes, and HUMAN is NOT EQUAL to God.

I agree, for the most part.

Again, Jesus(pbuh) didn't say that he knows everything. On the contrary, he claimed he didn't know the hour. Just not knowing one thing is enough to make him not All Knowing. Moreover, as the other scriptures I quoted above shows that all his teachings are from the Father(God) - so no knowledge is his own. Big disqualifying factor for a God.

That verse doesn't explain anything. If anything, it shows another contradiction. First it says, no one knows its name but he and then it says his name is Word of God. Plus, once again this is not Jesus's(pbuh) statement.

Obviously Jesus has more than one name.

Another translation says :
"And with this Word,
God created all things.
Nothing was made
without the Word.
Everything that was created" John 1:3 [1]

Now you see for yourself how things are changed...

John 1:3 CEV - And with this Word, God created all - Bible Gateway


So it remains that Jesus(pbuh) was Created and he was certainly not the Creator.

And in that same translation, the prior verse states

"In the beginning was the one
who is called the Word.
The Word was with God
and was truly God." John 1:1

Do you see that? It states "The Word was WITH God, and was TRULY GOD". So if you grant John 1:3, then you have to grant John 1:1. This is YOUR translation, the one that YOU brought to the table, not mines.

The word used to describe what people did with Jesus (proskuneo) was also used in Rev 3:9 where God says "...Behold, I will cause those of the synagogue of Satan, ...to come and bow down (same word-- proskuneo) at your feet...." Therefore Jesus wasn't being worshipped.

Also, similar actions could be found in Genesis 19:1-2

1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning."
"No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square."

So they are God as well ?

So the question becomes, of all the times the word is used, what were the intentions of the individuals that were bowing? In Acts 10:26, Peter told Corneilus "Stand up, I am only a man myself"....once again, same word used. So Peter understood Corneilus act as an act of worship. Jesus never rebuked anyone from offering that kind of reverance to him, so why would Peter do it?

This part of the verse is severely misunderstood and is taken out of context. Even the beginning of the verse clarifies it as it states : "...Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father who gave them me, is greater than all, and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are One." John 10:28-30 It does not at all state that Jesus is God's equal in everything. In fact the words of Jesus, " My Father, who gave them me is Greater than ALL...," in John 10:29 completely negates this claim, otherwise we are left with a contradiction just a sentence apart. All includes everyone even Jesus.

First off, the word "greater" is meant to mean in terms of position. In a school setting, the principal is greater than the teacher, by POSITION..rank. But is the principal any better of a PERSON than any of the teachers? Maybe, maybe not. But it is only in terms of rank that the principal is greater than the teachers. What Jesus is speaking of is rank. But when it comes to both the Father and the Son's NATURE, the nature of their Deity, they are equal. That is why Phil 2:5-9 states that Jesus did not see EQUALITY with God something to be grasped, but made himself NOTHING, taking the form of a servant." If he served the Father from the very moment he was "created", then the scripture wouldn't tell us that he TOOK THE FORM of something that he already was. So what was he before he took the form of a servant? He was the second person in the Trinity...God.

This statement does not suggest either a dual or triune deity. What John's Jesus meant by the word hen ("one") becomes clear from his prayer concerning the apostles: "That they may be one [hen], just as we are one [hen]" (John 17:22), which means that they should be united in agreement with one another as he (Jesus) is always united in agreement with God, as stated: "I [Jesus] always do the things that are pleasing to Him [God]" (John 8:29). Otherwise, if that implies equality, we have a unique case of 13 Gods.There is thus no implication that Jesus and God, or the twelve apostles are to be considered as of one essence.

You are taking the scriptures out of context. In the CONTEXT of John 10:30, he started off saying "No one can snatch them (his sheep) out of his hand ". Then in the following verses he said "No one can snatch them out of my Father's hand". Do you see the parralle? The sheep are in both the Son and the Father's hand, and no one can snatch them out of either hand...therefore, He said "I and the Father are one".

I guess you don't understand the most clear and unambiguous statements of Jesus(pbuh) where he states God is one and you should only Love Him. He didn't even ask people to love the other 2 in the trinity. If they were equally God, I would assume that would be part of the requirements.

Oh cmon now. Jesus said to know the Father is to know him, and to see him is to see the Father (John 14:6), so obviously this would apply to love as well. Second, think about it; Could any other man make such statements?? Can any other person that live ever make the statement "to know the father is to know me; or if you see me, you see the Father?" Jesus could not make these statements if he wasn't equal with God in some way? What was that? Moral perfection. He is that absolute standard for what it means to live a holy life, something that we all fall short of. You cannot be on the same level of God morally, if you are not yourself God.
 

mystic64

nolonger active
This is your judgement that I am planning to speak about Baha'i Faith....But though your question is if Christians worship the Old Testament or New Testament's God, a Christian assuredly would tell you, both revelations are from the same God. Then you are saying, if they are the same, then how come the God in OT sounds so different than the God that Jesus described who is more loving. Then in this point, the concept of progressive revelation comes in to the discussion. We don't really need to get in to Baha'i Faith here. Just from the verses in OT and NT we can see, God has revealed Himself according to the requirements and capacity of people, and since people at the time of Moses were a different people than people at the time Jesus, therefore God spoke to them differently, in another words, God manifested Himself differently in two different Ages.

Investigate Truth, if one accepts the foundation premise of your logic, then the logic line that you are presenting is valid. I accept the foundation premise to line of logic that you are presenting, therefore, "the concept of progressive revelation" as a possibility is a valid discussion direction for this discussion, in my opinion :) .

Because Lover of Truth has set precedence by successfully using the Koran as a source of evidence, then the Holy Scriptures of the other faiths are also valid to use as evidence in this topic should one wish to. Ok :) ?

The concept of progressive revelation is one of the foundation premises that the Baha'i faith is based on and which gives it validity as a faith. To directly dispute the concept of progressive revelation would also be disputing the validity of the Baha'i faith. Which is something that I would rather not do :) .

So with that said, "Was Jesus participating in "progressive revelation?" Was Muhammad participating in "progressive revelation?" Most Christian folk and most Islamic folk would say that neither of these holy men were participating in progressive revelation. So the concept of progressive revelation does not apply to those two holy men.

Anybody?
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
You mean come up with some reasoning to justify their belief regardless of it having anything to do with reality?

However I think the idea of the post is that the God Jesus spoke of is not the same as the one the Tribes of Israel or even Judea. Yes Progressive Revelation is the catch phrase used to justify the immorality seen in the OT. If we are questioning the God of the OT we've already thrown out the idea of accepting the Bible in it entirety as the Word of God anyway,.

My personal view. There were some really good prophets in the OT. There is also some tribal legend in the OT. The tribal legend is there to justify the Judean leadership of Israel. That doesn't mean it is necessary to discount the OT prophets as well.

Even prophets aren't always speaking for God. Sometimes they are just speaking for themselves.

A revelation does not appear in 'vacuum'. What this means is that God's Religion is manifested according to the culture and practices it is revealed in. Moreover, it is not possible to make humanity perfect at once with only one revelation, because humanity cannot accept a sudden perfection and change greater than it can. Therefore successive revelations are required to make gradual improvement each time. Thus a revelation is a relative truth, not absolute.... Considering the ways of the people living at the time of Moses, the revelation that came through Moses was an improvement for them in that Age, and was a maximum improvement they could achieve, even though some of those laws are a degradation with respect to our time or they are not practical anymore. We know that, As the result of the institutions that Moses gave them, they attained a position which caused them to be more advanced among all nations, and their fame spread to all nations. Moses established laws and ordinances that caused the ignorant Israelite to become righteous and spiritual and better. Their advancement got to the point that the philosophers of Greece such as Socrates would come and acquire knowledge from the learned men of Israel.....So, while it is true that certain laws in OT appears to be "immoral", but in reality, this immorality existed in the ways of the people of that time. For example they were practicing slavery, and in those days, this was part of their economic system....Moses revealed laws to protect the slaves, but He did not abolish slavery, because it was not possible to make a people perfect at once. It was only possible to make improvement...then later when Jesus came, He brought another step in the ever progressive revelations of God.
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
Investigate Truth, if one accepts the foundation premise of your logic, then the logic line that you are presenting is valid. I accept the foundation premise to line of logic that you are presenting, therefore, "the concept of progressive revelation" as a possibility is a valid discussion direction for this discussion, in my opinion :) .

Because Lover of Truth has set precedence by successfully using the Koran as a source of evidence, then the Holy Scriptures of the other faiths are also valid to use as evidence in this topic should one wish to. Ok :) ?

The concept of progressive revelation is one of the foundation premises that the Baha'i faith is based on and which gives it validity as a faith. To directly dispute the concept of progressive revelation would also be disputing the validity of the Baha'i faith. Which is something that I would rather not do :) .

So with that said, "Was Jesus participating in "progressive revelation?" Was Muhammad participating in "progressive revelation?" Most Christian folk and most Islamic folk would say that neither of these holy men were participating in progressive revelation. So the concept of progressive revelation does not apply to those two holy men.

Anybody?

Well, the concept of Progressive Revelation as you say is logical and yes, it is one of the basic teachings of Baha'i Faith. But in this thread, bringing the scriptures from Quran or Baha'i Scriptures would be off-topic in my opinion and would derail the thread.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
So with that said, "Was Jesus participating in "progressive revelation?" Was Muhammad participating in "progressive revelation?" Most Christian folk and most Islamic folk would say that neither of these holy men were participating in progressive revelation. So the concept of progressive revelation does not apply to those two holy men.

Anybody?

Actually a lot of Christians I've run into do use the idea of Progressive Revelation to justify their belief.
 

mystic64

nolonger active
Well, the concept of Progressive Revelation as you say is logical and yes, it is one of the basic teachings of Baha'i Faith. But in this thread, bringing the scriptures from Quran or Baha'i Scriptures would be off-topic in my opinion and would derail the thread.

The thread has taken some productive side rails that allow Holy Scriptures from all faiths to be introduced, after all this is the "General Religious Debate" forum and not the "Christian Only" forum :) .

So my question to you is, "What evidence do you have that there is such a thing as "progressive revelation?" or Is progressive revelation a speclative reality?" Which is ok from a logical standpoint. It is just that, up to this point, quoting scripture has been the requested proof of evidence for the line of logic that one is presenting. Lover of Truth also set precedence for that one also. Otherwise things just turn into philosophical debate. Which then sets precedence that makes those of the Atheist and Agnostic persuasion more than welcome into this topic even if their ability to quote "somebodies" Holy Scripture is more or less limited :) .
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
So with that said, "Was Jesus participating in "progressive revelation?" Was Muhammad participating in "progressive revelation?" Most Christian folk and most Islamic folk would say that neither of these holy men were participating in progressive revelation. So the concept of progressive revelation does not apply to those two holy men.

Anybody?

My suggestion is to know if Jesus and Muhammad were participating in "progressive revelation", let's look at their own Books or Words.

Here are some verses from Quran showing that Muhammad's Revelation was part of progressive revelation:

"...To each age its Book. for with Him is the source of all revelation." 13:38-39

The above verse means in each age God reveals a Book.


"And if all the trees on earth were pens and the ocean (were ink), with seven oceans behind it to add to its (supply), yet would not the words of Allah be exhausted (in the writing): for Allah is Exalted in Power, full of Wisdom." Quran 31:27

The above verse says the revelations of God in writing (Books) is never ending (progressive).

"We (the Prophets) speak to people in the measure of their intelligences"
Science and Religion in Islam: The Link.: August 2010

The above Hadith from Muhammad states Prophet speak in accordence with capacity of people of their time.
Conclusion: As in each Age God reveals a New Book, He reveals it according to the measure of intelligence of People (Progressive Revelation).


As regards to Jesus being part of Progressive revelations, I have already made references to some verses of Christian Bible.
 

mystic64

nolonger active
Actually a lot of Christians I've run into do use the idea of Progressive Revelation to justify their belief.

really :) ! Nakosis, Are we talking about the same "progressive revelation" that Investgate Truth is talking about? Now correct me if I am wrong InvesigateTruth, but one can not be a Christian and be a Baha'i at the same time because the Baha'i do not believe that Jesus was literally the Son of God. Just as you can not be a follower of the Islamic faith and a Christian at the same time because they also do not believe that Jesus was literally the Son of God. Jesus was not "progressive revelation", He was fullfilment of the law and He can not be superseded by any other individual. Others can prophesies in His name, but they can not supersede or replace Him according to the Christian faith. At least to my knowledge. So there may be a possibility that we are talking about two different meanings of "progressive revelation." Maybe :) ?
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
really :) ! Nakosis, Are we talking about the same "progressive revelation" that Investgate Truth is talking about? Now correct me if I am wrong InvesigateTruth, but one can not be a Christian and be a Baha'i at the same time because the Baha'i do not believe that Jesus was literally the Son of God. Just as you can not be a follower of the Islamic faith and a Christian at the same time because they also do not believe that Jesus was literally the Son of God. Jesus was not "progressive revelation", He was fullfilment of the law and He can not be superseded by any other individual. Others can prophesies in His name, but they can not supersede or replace Him according to the Christian faith. At least to my knowledge. So there may be a possibility that we are talking about two different meanings of "progressive revelation." Maybe :) ?
Well, I suppose not all Christians believe Jesus is literally the Son of God. Many believe this shows a close relationship. The verses of Bible is subject to interpretations. As regards to New Testament being the Last Revelation of God, this is the mainstream Christian belief. I do know some of the theologians among mainstream Christians became Baha'i. Likewise Jews do not believe any Prophet, even the Messiah would change or bring a new Law, and Jesus is false Messiah.
But depending on interpretations, Jesus prophesied greater revelations than His own revelation, and Muhammad likewise did prophesied of future Messengers.
 

mystic64

nolonger active
My suggestion is to know if Jesus and Muhammad were participating in "progressive revelation", let's look at their own Books or Words.

Here are some verses from Quran showing that Muhammad's Revelation was part of progressive revelation:

"...To each age its Book. for with Him is the source of all revelation." 13:38-39

The above verse means in each age God reveals a Book.


"And if all the trees on earth were pens and the ocean (were ink), with seven oceans behind it to add to its (supply), yet would not the words of Allah be exhausted (in the writing): for Allah is Exalted in Power, full of Wisdom." Quran 31:27

The above verse says the revelations of God in writing (Books) is never ending (progressive).

"We (the Prophets) speak to people in the measure of their intelligences"
Science and Religion in Islam: The Link.: August 2010

The above Hadith from Muhammad states Prophet speak in accordence with capacity of people of their time.
Conclusion: As in each Age God reveals a New Book, He reveals it according to the measure of intelligence of People (Progressive Revelation).


As regards to Jesus being part of Progressive revelations, I have already made references to some verses of Christian Bible.

I appologize for my ineptness Investegate Truth, but I can not find where you have quoted Christian Holy Scripture in this topic. So I have no idea what Christian scripture that you are refurring to.

John 14:26, "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your rememberance all that I said to you."

John 15:4-7," 4. Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless is abides in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in Me. 5. I am the vine, you are the branches, he who abides in Me and I am Him, he bears much fruit; for apart from Me you can do nothing. 6. If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away as a branch, and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. 7. If you abide in Me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it shall be done."

These are just two of the many many Christian holy scriptures that negate your version of progressive revelation. And if one does abide in Jesus their teacher is the Holy spirit, not some other religion's prophet. Now I am not saying that the Christian faith is more valid that any other faith. But I am saying that according to conventional Christian faith and it's holy scripture your version of progressive revelation is not supported in any way. Prove me wrong?
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Well, I suppose not all Christians believe Jesus is literally the Son of God. Many believe this shows a close relationship. The verses of Bible is subject to interpretations. As regards to New Testament being the Last Revelation of God, this is the mainstream Christian belief. I do know some of the theologians among mainstream Christians became Baha'i. Likewise Jews do not believe any Prophet, even the Messiah would change or bring a new Law, and Jesus is false Messiah.
But depending on interpretations, Jesus prophesied greater revelations than His own revelation, and Muhammad likewise did prophesied of future Messengers.

Thanks for answering that, saves some typing.

But ok so why not add the Bible, Quran, Kitáb-i-Aqdas & the Book of Mormon? If we are going to accept progressive revelation?

Seems kind of arbitrary. For Christians, Jesus has to have the final say, well except for Paul. For Mormons it's Joseph Smith. I always thought religions a little funny in that way. Collect all of the religious scripture in one authorized collection of books, like the Vedas.

Personally I don't think Jesus was really the comic book super-hero some Christians try to make him out to be.

Not that that invalidate the story of Jesus at all. Just that Christianity turned Jesus from a real into a fictional character to fit the image they thought God ought to be.

FYI, not all Christians take the Bible as the Word of God.

So here is a question, once a New Revelation is revealed... Wouldn't that necessarily obsolete the older revelation? Assuming the newer revelation is the better one?

Though I suppose I see the problem here. As far as revelations go for Christians the laws of the OT are obsolete. To accept a newer revelation that'd mean the laws of the NT are obsolete.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Just to add...
Hebrews 8:13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
I appologize for my ineptness Investegate Truth, but I can not find where you have quoted Christian Holy Scripture in this topic. So I have no idea what Christian scripture that you are refurring to.

John 14:26, "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your rememberance all that I said to you."

John 15:4-7," 4. Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless is abides in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in Me. 5. I am the vine, you are the branches, he who abides in Me and I am Him, he bears much fruit; for apart from Me you can do nothing. 6. If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away as a branch, and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. 7. If you abide in Me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it shall be done."

These are just two of the many many Christian holy scriptures that negate your version of progressive revelation. And if one does abide in Jesus their teacher is the Holy spirit, not some other religion's prophet. Now I am not saying that the Christian faith is more valid that any other faith. But I am saying that according to conventional Christian faith and it's holy scripture your version of progressive revelation is not supported in any way. Prove me wrong?



During the Christian dispensation all drew grace from Christ. But Bible prophesied of future Manifestation of God, who would be independent of Christ.

chapter 14, verse 30 of the Gospel of John, where the Lord Christ saith, ‘Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the Prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in Me.’ The Prince of this world is Baha'u'llah, the Prophet Founder of Baha'i Faith; and ‘hath nothing in Me’ signifieth: after Me all will draw grace from Me, but He is independent of Me, and will draw no grace from Me. That is, He is rich beyond any grace of Mine.

The Christian Leaders owing to belief that no other Manifestations of God would appear after Christ, have interpreted 'the Prince of this World' as Satan, though there is no verse in Bible that ever calls Satan the Prince of this World. (prince of the power of the air is different)

One of the main teachings of Bible is that "interpretations belong to God" (Genesis 40:8). Meaning that no one other than God Himself can know and explain the meaning of the Prophecies and their fulfillment. Once a Manifestation of God comes, He explains the interpretations of Prophecies related to Him. Just as when Jesus came, He revealed the interpretations of verses in OT regarding Messiah, though the Jews had a different traditional interpretations then Jesus.



Here are some more I quote from Baha'i Scriptures:

"O kings of Christendom! Heard ye not the saying of Jesus, the Spirit of God, “I go away, and come again unto you”? Wherefore, then, did ye fail, when He did come again unto you in the clouds of heaven, to draw nigh unto Him, that ye might behold His face, and be of them that attained His Presence? In another passage He saith: “When He, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth.” And yet, behold how, when He did bring the truth, ye refused to turn your faces towards Him, and persisted in disporting yourselves with your pastimes and fancies."
Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 246-249


"Announce thou unto the priests: Lo! He Who is the Ruler is come. Step out from behind the veil in the name of thy Lord, He Who layeth low the necks of all men. Proclaim then unto all mankind the glad-tidings of this mighty, this glorious Revelation. Verily, He Who is the Spirit of Truth is come to guide you unto all truth. He speaketh not as prompted by His own self, but as bidden by Him Who is the All-Knowing, the All-Wise."
Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 246-249
 

loverOfTruth

Well-Known Member
Lover of Truth :) I do understand your point. And if one uses the Holy Scriptures of your faith, then you are absolutely correct! Lover of Truth you have taken things in directions that I did not anticipate. And these directions add interesting (in my opinion) depth to the general scheme of things. Totally to cool!

So Lover of Truth, if Islam is worshiping Allah the Father, may His name be praised, then the question is, "What do you mean by Father?" Abraham was your father and the God of Abraham was not the father of Abraham. How can the God of Abraham be your Father?

God is the Father in the sense that we are all Children of God, as in we all ultimately came from God, our Creator. So in that sense God is the Father of all humans including Adam, Abraham, Jesus, us etc. And that's why many other were called Sons of God as in they are closer to God in obedience.

By the way, Allah is the same God that Jesus worshiped. See it for yourself : [youtube]yBTnwFq0Lf4[/youtube]
,in aramaic JESUS CALLED GOD: ALLAH - YouTube
(even wikipedia definition of Allah would confirm that)

Now the question would be if Jesus(pbuh) was a literal son of God(the Father)...how could he also be God(which = the Father) ? One gave birth to himself from one's own self ? God forbid.

"Indeed, the example of Jesus to Allah(God) is like that of Adam. He created Him from dust; then He said to him, "Be," and he was. " (Al Qur'an 3:59)
Jesus(pbuh) was a created being just like Adam(pbuh) with God's command 'BE' - nothing more or less.

Peace.
 
Last edited:

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
So here is a question, once a New Revelation is revealed... Wouldn't that necessarily obsolete the older revelation? Assuming the newer revelation is the better one?

Though I suppose I see the problem here. As far as revelations go for Christians the laws of the OT are obsolete. To accept a newer revelation that'd mean the laws of the NT are obsolete.

Religion can be said to have two parts. One part of it are the teachings related to the spiritual virtues and divine qualities; this does not change nor alter, but every time a new revelation comes, it is emphasized again and even expended. It includes teaching such as faith, knowledge, certitude, justice, piety, righteousness, trustworthiness, love of God, benevolence, purity, detachment, humility, meekness, patience and constancy, to shows mercy to the poor, to defend the oppressed, and etc.

The other parts are related to the material world and social laws, which comprises fasting, prayer, forms of worship, marriage and divorce, the abolition of slavery, legal processes, punishments for murder, violence, theft and injuries—this part of the Law of God, which refers to material things, is modified and altered in each prophetic cycle in accordance with the necessities of the times.
 

loverOfTruth

Well-Known Member
So the question is can you honestly convince yourself that Jeremiah had a pre-human existence before his earthly birth?
It is not about what I can convince myself - I am convinced by what the Qur'an says. Since you believe in the Bible and the Bible says that both pre-existed, you gotta accept that. And then neither is so special to be God. Additionally, according to Job 38:4 and 21, God addresses Prophet Job as follows: “4 Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding... 21 You Know, for you were born then, and the number of your days is great!” ... So there's one more example that nullifies any special deity status to Jesus(pbuh).

Similarly in the Qur‘an, Chapter al-A‘raaf(7:172), God informed that man existed in the spiritual form before the creation of the physical world.“When your Lord gathered all of Adam’s descendants [before creation] and made them bear witness for themselves, saying: ‘Am I not your Lord?’ They all replied: Yes indeed, we bear witness. [That was] so you could not say on the Day of Judgement: ‘We were unaware of this.’ ” So does that make everyone of us that Special Son of God or God ?


No, not so fast. If they were sinless, and God is sinless, then how is God at the highest level of purity? Unless you are stating that God is at a highest level because it is impossible for God to sin, in contrast to the Prophets who could sin, but didn't sin? That is a fundemental difference. If that is the case then, you are saying that Jesus could sin, but he didn't sin...so my question is, would any one of the other Prophets death be sufficient as a atonement of sins for mankind?

God is the most Holy, the most Pure and all sin is done against Him - so God does not sin, human beings sin. Similarly all Prophets could sin but they didn't since they are the representative of God and best examples for mankind. That includes Prophet Muhammad(pbuh), Prophet Jesus(pbuh) etc.

So now to answer your question about 'would any one of the other Prophets death be sufficient as a atonement of sins for mankind? '

God doesn't need anyone's atonement to Forgive sin. No one shall bear the burden of others.

[Ezekiel 18:20] “The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son.”

And ...

[Deuteronomy 24:16] “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.”

Not according to Bruce Metzger, who is a bible scholar and a texual critic. He said in his interview with Lee Stroble in Lee's book "The Case for Christ", regarding this very question is...

1. This is not a problem that is unique only with the Bible, but also with other ancient writings.

2. The difference between the Bible and other ancient writings in this regards is the fact that the bible has much more copies that has survied.

3. He said "the more copies you have that agree with each other, especially if they emerge from different geographical locations, the more you can cross-check them to figure out what the original document was like. The only way they'd agree would be where they went back genealogically in a family tree that presents the descent of the manuscripts.

When Lee, playing the devils advocate, said asked "What about the age of the documents? Certainly that is important, isn't it?

4. Bruce said that the age of the documents is something that actually favors the NT, because "we have copies commencing within a couple gnerations from the writing of the orignals, whereas in the case of other ancient texts, maybe five, eight, or ten centuries elapsed between the orignal and the earliest surviving copies.

5. In additon to the Greek manuscripts, we have translations of the Gospels into other languages at a early time...from Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and later translations from Armenian and Gothic..and also Georgian and Ethiopic.

So in other words, I will go with what Bruce said.
You cannot compare Bible with other ancient writings. If it is from God, one mistake/contradiction is one too many. And as Bart Ehrman said, we don't even have copies of copies of copies. Moreover, it is widely accepted that all the Gospels are written by unknown authors.

If it is from God, it shouldn't have any contradiction or inconsistencies let alone attempts to hide some facts. There are inconsistencies related to some of the major doctrinal concept. I will give you one example here. This is related to how the translations have been manipulated and how they are inconsistent in different versions. The scenario(Matthew 27) occurs before the crucifixion and most of the Bible translations read as follows :

17 So when they had gathered, Pilate said to them, “Whom do you want me to release for you: Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?”
...
20 Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus. 21 The governor again said to them, “Which of the two do you want me to release for you?” And they said, “Barabbas.” 22 Pilate said to them, “Then what shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?” They all said, “Let him be crucified!”

However, in NIV translation, it reads as follows :
17 So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, “Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?”
...
20 But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed. 21 “Which of the two do you want me to release to you?” asked the governor. “Barabbas,” they answered. 22 “What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called the Messiah?” Pilate asked.They all answered, “Crucify him!”

From : From Jesus to Muhammad: A History of Early Christianity - YouTube (min 19)

Points to note:
1. 'Barabbas' in the first translation and 'Jesus Barabbas' in 2nd translation
2. Jesus who is called 'the Christ' in the first translation and the Jesus who is called 'the Messiah' in the 2nd translation.

So what's the difference ? Huge difference. See the NIV translation : “Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?” So there were actually two people named Jesus ?

Jesus Barabbas means - Jesus "son of the father". Barabbas in hebrew is not a name but means 'son of father'. On the other hand, Jesus the Messiah simply means ' Jesus' the anointed one and that word is used for others in the Bible (notice it didn't say Christ) also.
So read the verses from the 2nd translation again and you'll find out that they released 'Jesus the son of the Father' and crucified 'Jesus the anointed one'.

If you don't believe me, take it to one of your Christian Scholars who knows the language and familiar with earlier manuscripts. And the reason, NIV at least uses Jesus Barabbas because it goes to a earlier manuscript for translation.

Just listen to Dr. Jerald Dirks [youtube]phvGGeoPOPg[/youtube]
From Jesus to Muhammad: A History of Early Christianity - YouTube
and you'll know how divided even the early christians were on major doctrinal concepts and how inaccurate the translations are. Dr. Dirks has a Master of Divinity from Harvard Divinity School.


Matthew is focusing on the prophecy that was fulfilled, and in the prophecy (Zech 9:9), it is prophecized that Jesus would "come to you, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey". That is why Matthew mentions verses 4-5. The two Gospels didn't focus on the prophecy, just on the fact that Jesus rode on a donkey.

Mark, Matthew and Luke are all telling the story of Jesus's(pbuh) coming to Jerusalem. And if you take the prophecy of Zech 9:9 to be true, then it means that Matthew got it right and Mark and Luke has mistakes and didn't even mention anything about the Donkey (just the Colt). So that makes it even more clear the inconsistencies and contradictions in the Bible.


I am interested.

One major one I have noted above (related to Crucifixion). Here's a few more ...

Did Jesus bear his own cross?
Yes (John 19:17)
No (Matthew 27:31-32)

Where was Jesus at the sixth hour on the day of the crucifixion?
On the cross (Mark 15:33)
In Pilates court (John 19:14)

Did Jesus pray to The Father to prevent the crucifixion?
Yes. (Mark 15:34-36)
No. (John 19:28-29)

Is Jesus's(pbuh) testimony valid ?
No - If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true.(John 5:31)
Yes - Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid (John 8:14)

To be continued...
 
Last edited:
Top