The Messianic verses of Isaiah

oldbadger said:

I perceive a difficulty for Bahai in the above sentence.
If prophecies for Christianity fail, then prophecies for the whole Abrahamic line could be perceived by folks to have failed.

Click to expand...

Not at all. Baha'is recognise the authority and authenticity of Biblical scripture. As such we have great reverence for the gospels including John. Although there is no certainty, I do believe the disciple John probably wrote this Gospel and I do not believe it to have been corrupted. If what you and Wizanda are saying about the extent of the corruption of some of the NT texts is true then the foundation of Christianity as we know it is lost. If that were really true then it makes the work for a Baha'i easier, not harder.

adrianhindes said:

There is an element of black humour in my comment.

Didn't God sacrifice His 'Son'? Or is that exempt from being considered a human sacrifice?

Click to expand...

Did God sacrifice his son or did the son surrender to God?

“Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last.” (Luke 23:46)

“I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” (Galatians 2:20)

The 613 commandments that were given to the Jews serve a purpose. They were not given to the Jews because they had too much free time on their hands. They were given to the Jews to lead them into holiness. These 613 commandments stem from the 10 commandments given to the Jews at Mt. Sinai. These 10 commandments can be summed up by one single commandant. This single commandant is to embrace God. When Jesus said he is the fulfillment of the Law, what he is saying is he is the very holiness the 613 commandments point to. In order to attain this Jesus must surrender or sacrifice his will for the will of God.

roger1440 said:

Did God sacrifice his son or did the son surrender to God?

Click to expand...

It was both of course as the Son can do nothing without the Father, the Father is greater than the Son, and the Father and Son are one. John 5:19 and John 10:29-30

The point of the story of Abraham being prepared to sacrifice His son, was to demonstrate His Obedience to God. None of us will know for certain in this life whether the story was literally true.

We are all tested in this life. Christ Himself and our Christian forefathers were willing to sacrifice their lives to stand up for what they believed in. I'm grateful and humbled by their sacrifice. The example of their lives provides me with great inspiration.

There is a world of difference between their sacrifice and those that fly aeroplanes into buildings committing mass murder.

adrianhindes said:

OK. From the pen of Baha'u'llah:

"He should show kindness to animals, how much more unto his fellow man, to him who is endowed with the power of utterance."
Baha'u'llah, "The Kitb-i-Iqan" (Book of Certitude), p. 194.

"Burden not an animal with more than it can bear. We, truly, have prohibited such treatment through a most binding interdiction in the Book. Be ye the embodiments of justice and fairness amidst all creation."
Baha'u'llah, "The Kitb-i-Aqdas" (Most Holy Book), 187, p. 87

Click to expand...

OK, so Bahauallah repeated 2 of the 613 Jewish laws.
Not a bad list for him to visit (back then).

I don't know if Abdu'l-Baha was a vegetarian and he wouldn't have been required to be:

Click to expand...

Alright..... you don't know. But the best way to support a thing is to do the thing. The 'We were made to munch grain and greens, but you can't beat a well jugged hare' kind of approach obviously doesn't work so well.
Just sayin'.......

roger1440 said:

The 613 commandments that were given to the Jews serve a purpose. They were not given to the Jews because they had too much free time on their hands. They were given to the Jews to lead them into holiness. .........

Click to expand...

Hi.....

No they were not.
Every single one of the 613 was writ large in order to strengthen the whole tribe, to protect from sickness and rampant diseases, to build a better community and to protect the weaker and poorer folks.

For instance, the shellfish ban didn't make Jews who kept it holier, it protected them from Fresh and Salt-water shellfish poison paralysis, still one of the most deadly killers that we know about.

There is not one single law out of the 613 that does not produce a beneficial effect for the tribe. The reason why many 'outsiders' had to be killed out of hand is because they were considered to be a massively high risk with regard to disease transmission.

Sin leads to .......... SICKNESS!
Jesus knew all about this....

adrianhindes said:

Like any verse, we need to understand it in context.

Click to expand...

Hosea 6:6 For I desire mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings...

Hosea 6:9 As gangs of robbers wait to ambush a man, so the company of priests murder on the path toward Shechem, committing shameful crimes.

So the context of both statements asking for 'mercy and not sacrifice' (Matthew 9:13, Matthew 12:7), is saying the priests are a bunch of murderers, who keep killing prophets as atoning sacrifices (Matthew 23:27-36); yet Yeshua is saying it is far better to get the knowledge of God from me, than to murder me.

adrianhindes said:

Perhaps instead of arguing God committed murder you should argue Jesus committed suicide?

Click to expand...

Don't need to argue anything, the scriptures explain the Pharisees murdered him in the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen (Matthew 21:33-46, Mark 12:1-12, and Luke 20:9-19), and this is why they made up false texts after to make everyone else believe God did it or Yeshua did it.

adrianhindes said:

However, like Christianity if the religion had died not long after its founder had, then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Click to expand...

Talk about get the wrong end of the stick; suggest you research the Ebionites (Poor Ones), who were the truer followers of Yeshua, who believed the commandments, and giving up wealth were needed for eternal life, like Yeshua taught.

James the Just was said to be their leader, and stood against the Christian idea that jesus was an atoning sacrifice, as it defiles the Law in multiple places.

adrianhindes said:

Jesus at His last supper offered bread as a symbol of His Body and blood as a symbol of the New Covenant.

Click to expand...

Is an abomination... Ezekiel 4 - Ezekiel 5 says i will get the nation of Israel to eat bread made of human dung, and to drink urine, as they've exchanged animal for man; then to desecrate the nation, putting two thirds to the fire, and the sword, and one third to the wind.

So you quote some defiled covenant like a Christian would, having no clue of the Law; you disappoint me, and then say you're waiting for the Messiah to turn up to correct you.

adrianhindes said:

Not at all. Baha'is recognise the authority and authenticity of Biblical scripture. As such we have great reverence for the gospels including John. Although there is no certainty, I do believe the disciple John probably wrote this Gospel and I do not believe it to have been corrupted. If what you and Wizanda are saying about the extent of the corruption of some of the NT texts is true then the foundation of Christianity as we know it is lost. If that were really true then it makes the work for a Baha'i easier, not harder.

Click to expand...

I quick note about John. His report of Jesus's last week, on its own, shows that John knew absolutely nothing about what Jesus did that week. If you believe G-John then you would need to ignore the synopic accounts of the last week and more.

Oh yes, the foundations for Pauline Christianity is not there, Jesus never even knew such a word, he didn't even know the name Jesus!

In which case, the OT prophecies don't hold up for Jesus.

I just don't think that a recently born religion is very wise to lean on ancient prophecy at all. Fifty years ago Bahais did want to talk about Bahai miracles and connecting ancient prophecies, but the miracle thing seems to have quietened over tghe decades, and it might be an idea to distance Bahai from ancient Jewish clairvoyance?

Having said that, I do remember that a Baptist priest in Guildford (UK)circa 1972, gave a nasty slanderous press report about how Bahais held sex parties , took part in the occult and ancient mythical practices and generally lived dreadfully immoral lives, and NOT to go to the lecture about Bahai at the University. That University hall was filled to bursting for that meeting. Filled to bursting.
Previously Bahai talks had been such quiet affairs.

wizanda said:

Hosea 6:6 For I desire mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings...

Hosea 6:9 As gangs of robbers wait to ambush a man, so the company of priests murder on the path toward Shechem, committing shameful crimes.

So the context of both statements asking for 'mercy and not sacrifice' (Matthew 9:13, Matthew 12:7), is saying the priests are a bunch of murderers, who keep killing prophets as atoning sacrifices (Matthew 23:27-36); yet Yeshua is saying it is far better to get the knowledge of God from me, than to murder me.

Don't need to argue anything, the scriptures explain the Pharisees murdered him in the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen (Matthew 21:33-46, Mark 12:1-12, and Luke 20:9-19), and this is why they made up false texts after to make everyone else believe God did it or Yeshua did it.

Talk about get the wrong end of the stick; suggest you research the Ebionites (Poor Ones), who were the truer followers of Yeshua, who believed the commandments, and giving up wealth were needed for eternal life, like Yeshua taught.

James the Just was said to be their leader, and stood against the Christian idea that jesus was an atoning sacrifice, as it defiles the Law in multiple places.

Is an abomination; Ezekiel 4/5 says i will get the nation of Israel to eat bread made of human dung, and to drink urine, as they've exchanged animal for man; then to desecrate the nation, putting two thirds to the fire, and the sword, and one third to the wind.

So you quote some defiled covenant like a Christian would, having no clue of the Law; you disappoint me, and then say you're waiting for the Messiah to turn up to correct you.

Click to expand...

I can only give one credit for the above or you would get a bunch of 'em.

This bread and wine 'thing'. Jesus could have just offered same and asked the disciples to toast his memory annually. Paul and others would have turned that into the pagan practice that it surely is.

oldbadger said:

Jesus could have just offered same and asked the disciples to toast his memory annually.

Click to expand...

Yeshua told his disciples to only drink water (Matthew 10:42, Mark 9:41); at the last supper Yeshua said share bread in remembrance, it was Paul who established the drinking wine (1 Corinthians 11:25)...

Drinking the blood (Genesis 9:4-6), of an offering, is a condemnable offense (Leviticus 17:10-14), where the person is then to be cut off from God.

Revelation 16:6 For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and you have given them blood to drink; for they are held accountable.

oldbadger said:

I just don't think that a recently born religion is very wise to lean on ancient prophecy at all.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the advice. I'll pass it on to the world Centre. There is the rather inconvenient problem that of our sacred texts do refer to these ancient texts so lets see how that affects our progress in the years to come.

oldbadger said:

Having said that, I do remember that a Baptist priest in Guildford (UK)circa 1972, gave a nasty slanderous press report about how Bahais held sex parties , took part in the occult and ancient mythical practices and generally lived dreadfully immoral lives, and NOT to go to the lecture about Bahai at the University. That University hall was filled to bursting for that meeting. Filled to bursting.
Previously Bahai talks had been such quiet affairs.

Click to expand...

Maybe a few more of these kind of talks in my neighbourhood will boost the numbers. I have been working at a Christian medical centre run by Baptists and conservative Christians so it will have to be the ultra hard line fundamentalists instead.

wizanda said:

Yeshua told his disciples to only drink water (Matthew 10:42, Mark 9:41); at the last supper Yeshua said share bread in remembrance, it was Paul who established the drinking wine (1 Corinthians 11:25)...

Drinking the blood (Genesis 9:4-6), of an offering, is a condemnable offense (Leviticus 17:10-14), where the person is then to be cut off from God.

Revelation 16:6 For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and you have given them blood to drink; for they are held accountable.

Click to expand...

OK........ Matthew's 'water only' differs from Mark's original. I need to read this as 'Even if they only give you water....' because I do love a glass of vin ordinare..... I do!'

adrianhindes said:

Thank you for the advice. I'll pass it on to the world Centre.

Click to expand...

You tell'em...... oldbadger said......

There is the rather inconvenient problem that of our sacred texts do refer to these ancient texts so lets see how that affects our progress in the years to come.

Click to expand...

Yeah.... but HOW does Bahauallah refer to them? (Only Bahauallah) It's fine to refer to ancient writings, but I'll bet that he never used them in a 'See? Here I am!' context.

Maybe a few more of these kind of talks in my neighbourhood will boost the numbers. I have been working at a Christian medical centre run by Baptists and conservative Christians so it will have to be the ultra hard line fundamentalists instead.

Click to expand...

Well, you know, if some source, hard to identify later, just happens to create some fake news about how naughty Bahais can be, giving you suitably large audiences to put right, maybe Bahauallah would laugh out loud.
I once read that he was incarcerated in a dungeon with other followers, which filled at high tides. They used to have a laughter hour, telling jokes etc. I don't know whether it's true. But the sentence 'God Loves Laughter' was often used by Bahais fifty years ago.

oldbadger said:

I once read that he was incarcerated in a dungeon with other followers, which filled at high tides. They used to have a laughter hour, telling jokes etc. I don't know whether it's true. But the sentence 'God Loves Laughter' was often used by Bahais fifty years ago.

Click to expand...

That's how I understand it. In the black pit of Tehran, a most foul smelling place with many hardened criminals the Baha'u'llah and the Babis joked amongst themselves and chanted writings with joy and vigour. Then with each new day as one of their group was selected for execution, there would be great enthusiasm and cheering all round including the one selected. After all he was going to meet his Lord.

Siyah-Chal

adrian009 said:

Some commonly understood references to Jesus fulfilling prophecies in the OT include:

Prophetic praise of Jesus, His character and ministry to the Gentiles. Mt 12:18-21, Isa 42:1-4

Click to expand...

Thanks for posting this. The reference to Matthew 12 was helpful, because it suggests to me that Isaiah 42:3-4 is talking about sending forth couriers ("runners") to deliver Messiah's message. The Hebrew meaning of isaiah 42:4 is in dispute. You can see this in the thread here: Why should one believe that something the TaNaKh predicts would actually literally occur?

adrian009 said:

The book of Isaiah is an outstanding work in the Old Testament that would distinguish Isaiah as one of the greatest prophets of his time. It contains numerous messianic verses and some of these would be recognised by both Jews and Christians in regards to the signs of the coming of their Messiah. Using Christian language we have Jesus the Christ fulfilling some of these prophecies and then the second coming of Christ fulfilling others.

The question I have is how can we know which verses refer to his first or second coming?

Do some verses relate to both?

Are there other meanings? For example the Jews would consider Isaiah 9:6-7 as referring to King Hezekiah.

Here are some examples to get us started:

"For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine." Isaiah 13:10

"Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain:
And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it." Isaiah 40:4-5

There are many more.

Click to expand...

Jesus was the 'seed of Eve' that fulfilled all things to do with the bruise to the heel from Ge:3:15 and the 4 Gospels were the witness of how that came about. For events to unfold there has to be a prophecy about it first.
The parts the NT covers in Acts and past that is associated with the bruise to Satan's head. Re:16 is how the sinners see that day and Re:10 is how the survivors see that day arrive.
That difference should help and another aspect about the OT is even more helpful. All 12 books listed after Daniel have prophecies that only deal with the bruise to the head which comes at the end of the iron/clay kingdom of Daniel. That study does a lot to show the basics of what happens and it is quite different from what the Gospels cover. The brass kingdom in Da:8 and 9 is also different from the iron/clay kingdom of Da:11 and they cover both bruises with the heel bruise coming in the brass kingdom of Da:2 and the iron from that chapter is in Da:11 and the first few verses of Da:12.

That would make spotting the differences much easier. Babylon in the OT is even harder to spot the differences as the 2nd Babylon is not made known until the last few pages of the Bible. That was the information that was kept from Daniel so the whole meaning of the 4 metal kingdoms came with some mysteries. The basic difference is if anything good is being said about Babylon it is referencing Neb's Babylon and if it is noting but utter and total destruction it is referencing Satan's Babylon from Re:11.

MHz said:

Jesus was the 'seed of Eve' that fulfilled all things to do with the bruise to the heel from Ge:3:15 and the 4 Gospels were the witness of how that came about. For events to unfold there has to be a prophecy about it first.
The parts the NT covers in Acts and past that is associated with the bruise to Satan's head. Re:16 is how the sinners see that day and Re:10 is how the survivors see that day arrive.
That difference should help and another aspect about the OT is even more helpful. All 12 books listed after Daniel have prophecies that only deal with the bruise to the head which comes at the end of the iron/clay kingdom of Daniel. That study does a lot to show the basics of what happens and it is quite different from what the Gospels cover. The brass kingdom in Da:8 and 9 is also different from the iron/clay kingdom of Da:11 and they cover both bruises with the heel bruise coming in the brass kingdom of Da:2 and the iron from that chapter is in Da:11 and the first few verses of Da:12.

That would make spotting the differences much easier. Babylon in the OT is even harder to spot the differences as the 2nd Babylon is not made known until the last few pages of the Bible. That was the information that was kept from Daniel so the whole meaning of the 4 metal kingdoms came with some mysteries. The basic difference is if anything good is being said about Babylon it is referencing Neb's Babylon and if it is noting but utter and total destruction it is referencing Satan's Babylon from Re:11.

Click to expand...

Interesting outlook. Would you dumb it down a little by demonstrating from the verses of Isaiah what you mean?

Rakovsky said:

Thanks for posting this. The reference to Matthew 12 was helpful, because it suggests to me that Isaiah 42:3-4 is talking about sending forth couriers ("runners") to deliver Messiah's message. The Hebrew meaning of isaiah 42:4 is in dispute. You can see this in the thread here: Why should one believe that something the TaNaKh predicts would actually literally occur?

Click to expand...

Thank you for posting too. I can see you have had some respectful discussions with our learned Jewish brothers so that is great. What an amazing book Isaiah is.

adrian009 said:

The book of Isaiah is an outstanding work in the Old Testament that would distinguish Isaiah as one of the greatest prophets of his time. It contains numerous messianic verses and some of these would be recognised by both Jews and Christians in regards to the signs of the coming of their Messiah. Using Christian language we have Jesus the Christ fulfilling some of these prophecies and then the second coming of Christ fulfilling others.

The question I have is how can we know which verses refer to his first or second coming?

Do some verses relate to both?

Are there other meanings? For example the Jews would consider Isaiah 9:6-7 as referring to King Hezekiah.

Here are some examples to get us started:

"For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine." Isaiah 13:10

"Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain:
And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it." Isaiah 40:4-5

There are many more.

Click to expand...

I believe that is tantamount to saying that Hezekiah is God but I see no evidence to support that view.

I tend to think of Isa 9:6-7 as giving us a if then. If He is born then Israel will be rescued. However that does not preclude the Messiah being born at one time and rescuing Israel in another time.

adrian009 said:

Of course. No second coming because no first coming. So how do you account for the facts above?

Click to expand...

I believe the Jews will be looking for the great pumpkin to show up until the day they are tossed into Hell.

The great pumpkin

lol

Muffled said:

I believe that is tantamount to saying that Hezekiah is God but I see no evidence to support that view.

I tend to think of Isa 9:6-7 as giving us a if then. If He is born then Israel will be rescued. However that does not preclude the Messiah being born at one time and rescuing Israel in another time.

Click to expand...

At last we agree about something.