-
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 Paul changed the course of Christianity
- Thread starter Trailblazer
- Start date
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Do the following core beliefs of Christianity represent what Jesus taught His disciples?
What are the core beliefs of Christianity?
Biblically speaking, Christians are those who are forgiven of their sins and who have entered a personal relationship with Almighty God through faith in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:8–9; Romans 10:9–10). In order to become a Christian, a person must fully accept as part of his or her own personal worldview the following core beliefs:
• Jesus is the Son of God and is equal with God (John 1:1, 49; Luke 22:70; Mark 3:11; Philippians 2:5–11)
• Jesus was born of a virgin (Matthew 1:18; Luke 1:26–35)
• Jesus lived a perfect, sinless life (Hebrews 4:15; John 8:29)
• Jesus was crucified to pay the penalty for our sins (Matthew 26:28; 1 Corinthians 15:2–4)
• Jesus rose from the dead (Luke 24:46; Mark 16:6)
• We are saved by the grace of God; that is, we cannot add to or take away from Christ’s finished work on the cross as full payment for our sin (Ephesians 2:8–9)
Can a person be saved without holding to the core beliefs of Christianity? No. But along with accepting as true those core beliefs must be a spiritual transformation. Jesus said that in order to inherit eternal life one must be “born again” (John 3:3). To be born again is a work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of a repentant sinner. Just as a mother in labor does all the work in bringing forth a new life, so the Holy Spirit does the work in transforming a sinner into a new creature (2 Corinthians 5:17). This process begins when God draws a heart through conviction of sin and hope of forgiveness (John 6:44). When we surrender to God and repent of our sin (Acts 2:38), God applies the blood of His own Son to our account and cancels the debt we owe Him (Colossians 2:14). By this act of transference, God pronounces us “not guilty”; that is, He justifies us (Romans 4:5). Salvation is a divine exchange: Jesus becomes our sin so that we can become His perfection (2 Corinthians 5:21). This is the gospel at the very core of Christianity.
What are the core beliefs of Christianity?
Biblically speaking, Christians are those who are forgiven of their sins and who have entered a personal relationship with Almighty God through faith in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2:8–9; Romans 10:9–10). In order to become a Christian, a person must fully accept as part of his or her own personal worldview the following core beliefs:
• Jesus is the Son of God and is equal with God (John 1:1, 49; Luke 22:70; Mark 3:11; Philippians 2:5–11)
• Jesus was born of a virgin (Matthew 1:18; Luke 1:26–35)
• Jesus lived a perfect, sinless life (Hebrews 4:15; John 8:29)
• Jesus was crucified to pay the penalty for our sins (Matthew 26:28; 1 Corinthians 15:2–4)
• Jesus rose from the dead (Luke 24:46; Mark 16:6)
• We are saved by the grace of God; that is, we cannot add to or take away from Christ’s finished work on the cross as full payment for our sin (Ephesians 2:8–9)
Can a person be saved without holding to the core beliefs of Christianity? No. But along with accepting as true those core beliefs must be a spiritual transformation. Jesus said that in order to inherit eternal life one must be “born again” (John 3:3). To be born again is a work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of a repentant sinner. Just as a mother in labor does all the work in bringing forth a new life, so the Holy Spirit does the work in transforming a sinner into a new creature (2 Corinthians 5:17). This process begins when God draws a heart through conviction of sin and hope of forgiveness (John 6:44). When we surrender to God and repent of our sin (Acts 2:38), God applies the blood of His own Son to our account and cancels the debt we owe Him (Colossians 2:14). By this act of transference, God pronounces us “not guilty”; that is, He justifies us (Romans 4:5). Salvation is a divine exchange: Jesus becomes our sin so that we can become His perfection (2 Corinthians 5:21). This is the gospel at the very core of Christianity.
What are the core beliefs of Christianity?
Doesn’t it bother you that Christianity teaches that a person cannot be saved without holding to the core beliefs of Christianity? It bothers me a lot. There is no way Christianity can be reconciled with the Baha’i Faith. Christians who know what the Baha’i Faith teaches have told me that. Just because Baha’is believe in the Virgin Birth and that Jesus lived a sinless life and that Jesus sacrificed Himself on the cross does not make us Christians. Baha’u’llah said that the genuine text of the heavenly Gospel has not been lost but its meaning has been misconstrued by the Church and made into false doctrines.
It is nowhere stated in the Baha’i Writings does it say that Peter affirmed Paul. Where did you get this idea?
From: Apostle Paul, a "False Teacher"?
Response of the Universal House of Justice
Concerning the relationship of St. Peter and St. Paul, the Research Department has found nothing in the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, 'Abdu'l-Bahá or the Guardian which states that St. Paul "usurped the station of Peter" or that he "completely changed the basic message of Christ."
Response of the Universal House of Justice
Concerning the relationship of St. Peter and St. Paul, the Research Department has found nothing in the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, 'Abdu'l-Bahá or the Guardian which states that St. Paul "usurped the station of Peter" or that he "completely changed the basic message of Christ."
However, just because something is not stated in the Baha’i Writings does not mean it cannot be true. Everything is not in the Writings.
I never said that Paul corrupted Christianity. I said that he changed the course of Christianity, in the sense that he veered away from what Jesus taught. The Epistles of Paul support the Councils of the Church and they are used by the Church to support the Church doctrines. In other words, many of the Church doctrines are based upon the Epistles of Paul.
I did find a reference to the following quote on that UHJ website you posted about Paul:
“None, I feel, will question the fact that the fundamental reason why the unity of the Church of Christ was irretrievably shattered, and its influence was in the course of time undermined, was that the Edifice which the Fathers of the Church reared after the passing of His First Apostle was an Edifice that rested in nowise upon the explicit directions of Christ Himself. The authority and features of their administration were wholly inferred, and indirectly derived, with more or less justification, from certain vague and fragmentary references which they found scattered amongst His utterances as recorded in the Gospel. Not one of the sacraments of the Church; not one of the rites and ceremonies which the Christian Fathers have elaborately devised and ostentatiously observed; not one of the elements of the severe discipline they rigorously imposed upon the primitive Christians; none of these reposed on the direct authority of Christ, or emanated from His specific utterances. Not one of these did Christ conceive, none did He specifically invest with sufficient authority to either interpret His Word, or to add to what He had not specifically enjoined.
For this reason, in later generations, voices were raised in protest against the self-appointed Authority which arrogated to itself privileges and powers which did not emanate from the clear text of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and which constituted a grave departure from the spirit which that Gospel did inculcate.They argued with force and justification that the canons promulgated by the Councils of the Church were not divinely-appointed laws, but were merely human devices which did not even rest upon the actual utterances of Jesus. Their contention centered around the fact that the vague and inconclusive words, addressed by Christ to Peter, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” could never justify the extreme measures, the elaborate ceremonials, the fettering creeds and dogmas, with which His successors have gradually burdened and obscured His Faith. Had it been possible for the Church Fathers, whose unwarranted authority was thus fiercely assailed from every side, to refute the denunciations heaped upon them by quoting specific utterances of Christ regarding the future administration of His Church, or the nature of the authority of His Successors, they would surely have been capable of quenching the flame of controversy, and preserving the unity of Christendom. The Gospel, however, the only repository of the utterances of Christ, afforded no such shelter to these harassed leaders of the Church, who found themselves helpless in the face of the pitiless onslaught of their enemy, and who eventually had to submit to the forces of schism which invaded their ranks.” The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 20-21
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
“Christ became the end of the Law by virtue of what He did on earth through His sinless life and His sacrifice on the cross” was quoted from a Christian website. This is the course that Christianity took but it is not something that is in accordance with Baha’i beliefs about Jesus. Stay tuned to this forum, because in a few days I am going to post another thread entitled “The Jewish, Christian, and Baha’i understanding of the Law.”
The Baha’i Faith does not build upon Christianity. We believe that Christianity got off track from the original teachings of Jesus and we do not uphold the Doctrines of the Church.
“This is the Day when the loved ones of God should keep their eyes directed towards His Manifestation, and fasten them upon whatsoever that Manifestation may be pleased to reveal. Certain traditions of bygone ages rest on no foundations whatever, while the notions entertained by past generations, and which they have recorded in their books, have, for the most part, been influenced by the desires of a corrupt inclination. Thou dost witness how most of the commentaries and interpretations of the words of God, now current amongst men, are devoid of truth. Their falsity hath, in some cases, been exposed when the intervening veils were rent asunder. They themselves have acknowledged their failure in apprehending the meaning of any of the words of God.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 171-172
“It is an indisputable fact that religions have always changed in the course of their long history. Religion, unless it has become a faith of the ‘dead letter’, is a living thing, and to be living means to assimilate, to absorb and incorporate foreign matter. All religions have done this, and the clear source of revelation has become a broad stream made up of many tributaries. In the course of their history all religions have incorporated beliefs and practices alien to them in essence and have thereby departed from their source, the revelation. The religious heritage has been constantly increased, while the revelation has been obscured by human misinterpretations and misunderstandings.”
(Udo Schaefer,The Light Shineth in Darkness: Studies in revelation after Christ, pl. 80)
(Udo Schaefer,The Light Shineth in Darkness: Studies in revelation after Christ, pl. 80)
The following is an excerpt from the book Christ and Baha'u'llah by George Townshend, who was a dignitary of the Anglican Church in Ireland and a Canon of St. Patrick’s Cathedral, Dublin who resigned his Orders after forty years to proclaim his conviction that Christ has come again to an unheeding world in the person of Baha’u’llah. In the early 1900s, he was appointed a Hand of the Cause of God.
Chapter Four: THE FALSE PROPHETS
As Jesus prophesied, the false prophets contrived to change the essential meaning of the Gospel so that it became quite different from that which the Bible recorded or Jesus taught. (Matt. Vii 15-23 and see pp. 11, 12).
It has long been generally believed that Jesus Christ was a unique incarnation of God such as had never before appeared in religious history and would never appear again. This tenet made the acceptance of any later Prophet impossible to a Christian. Yet there is nothing in Christ’s own statements, as recorded in the Gospel, to support this view, and it was not generally held during His lifetime.
Jesus emphatically claimed to reveal God, Whom He called Father, but continually differentiated Himself from the Father. In many such references as “Him that sent me,” “my Father is greater than I,” (John xiv 28). “I go to the Father,” (John xvi 16). “I will pray the Father,” (John xiv 16). “I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me,” (John vii 28). He made this abundantly clear, and even stated specifically that the Father had knowledge which was not possessed by the Son. “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” (Mark xiii 32). He referred to Himself as the Son, and as a Prophet, (Matt. Xiii 57, Luke xiii 33) and was so regarded, (Matt. xxi 11, Luke vii 16) and related His Mission to those of Moses and Abraham before Him, and to others to come after Him, specifically “he, the Spirit of truth, “who would reveal the things which Jesus did not. (John xvi 12,13).
The followers of every world religion have invented for themselves a similar belief in the uniqueness and finality of their own Prophet. The result has been that no religion has acknowledged a Prophet of a later religion. The Hindus do not acknowledge Buddha, the Buddhists to not acknowledge Christ, nor yet do the Zoroastrians. The result of this delusive belief has been that the world religions have not tended to the unifying of mankind but rather to its further division.
Another opinion which Christians universally hold about Christ is that His teaching was absolute and final. They believe that if the Truth were partly withheld from them for a time because they could not bear it, it was divulged at Pentecost in its fullness and that now nothing remains to be revealed. But there is nothing in the account of Pentecost to suggest such an interpretation and there is no one who will believe that Jesus would have named the false prophets as characteristic of His age if this warning was to be followed by an immediate release of all Truth to the Church. What the Bible shows is rather a succession of teachers—Abraham, Moses and Christ, each measuring His Revelation to the needs and maturity of His authors: Jesus, for example, changes the divorce law and says, “Moses gave you this because of the hardness of your hearts but from the beginning it was not so.” Many times He says, Ye have heard it said by them of old time . . . but I say unto you . . .”
Another universal opinion among the Christians is that Christ was the Lord of Hosts of the Old Testament. Yet the Jewish Prophets had foretold that when the Lord of Hosts came He would not find the Jews in the Holy Land, all would have been scattered among the nations and would have been living in misery and degradation for centuries; but when Jesus came Palestine was full of Jews and their expulsion did not begin until the year 70 A.D.; it may be said to have continued till the year 1844.
To confirm orthodox Christian opinion it is customary in all churches to read on Christmas morning, as if it referred to Jesus, the passage which Isaiah wrote about the Lord of Hosts (Isaiah ix 6-7).
“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.”
Yet the descriptive titles given do not belong exclusively to Christ, while some of them He specifically repudiated as if to make such a mistaken reference to Himself impossible. He disclaimed being the Mighty God when He called Himself “the Son of God;” (John v 18-47) where Jesus repudiates the charge that He claimed equality with God, disclaimed being the Father when He said, “my Father is greater than I;” (John xviii 36) and being the Prince of Peace when He said, “I came not to send peace, but a sword.”(Matt. x 34). He disclaimed bearing the government upon His shoulder or that it would be His judgment and justice forever when He said, “My kingdom is not of this world.”(John xviii 36).
Many of these false interpretations involve repudiation of the Word of God in favor of the word of man. This impious act is so craftily performed, with such an air of humility, that it might escape the notice of the most sincere and devout of worshippers. Probably few churchgoers realize today that the Gospel of Christ as known to the few in the pulpit is wholly different from the Gospel which Christ preached in Galilee as recorded in the Bible.
In spite of Christ’s promise of further revelation of Truth, through the Comforter, through His own return, through the Spirit of Truth, the Christian Church regards His revelation as final, and itself as the sole trustee of true religion. There is no room for the Supreme Redeemer of the Bible to bring in great changes for the establishment of the Kingdom of God. In fact this Kingdom is often described as a world-wide Church.
Having thus closed God’s Covenant with the Bible, sacred history—God-directed—came to an end, and secular history, having no sense of divine destiny nor unity, began.
Jesus’ revelation was purely spiritual. He taught that “My kingdom is not of this world” and that the “Kingdom of heaven is within you.” His great gift to man was the knowledge of eternal life. He told men that they might be physically in perfect health and yet spiritually sick or even dead. But this was a difficult truth to communicate and Jesus had to help men to realize it. He would say that He was a spiritual physician and that men whom He cured of a spiritual disability were cured of blindness, deafness, lameness, leprosy and so on. This was the real meaning of His remark at the end of a discourse, “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” For a hearer might hear the physical word of Jesus and yet fail to comprehend the spiritual meaning. Jesus, in other words, was forever trying to heal spiritual infirmities. He thus would be understood by His disciples as a healer of spiritual ailments but by others He might be taken as relieving physical ills only.
Doubtless Jesus could, and often did, heal bodily ills by spiritual means, but this was nothing to do with His real work as a Redeemer. On the other hand these spiritual cures which he effected might be misinterpreted as physical miracles, and so were little stressed by Him. (“See that no man know it.” Matt ix 30.
Christ’s spiritual mission was, at an early date, materialized, specifically in regard to such things as the miracles, curing the blind and deaf, raising the dead. Even His own resurrection was made physical, missing the point entirely. Moreover, none of the complex order, of the ceremonies, rituals and litanies of the Church can be attributed to Christ. All are man-made, by inference or invention.
Well might Christ warn His followers that false prophets would arise and misinterpret His teachings so as to delude even the most earnest and intelligent of His believers: from early times Christians have disputed about Christian truth in councils, in sects, in wars.
To sum up, if Christians say “our acts may be wrong,” they say truly. If they say “however our Gospel is right” they are quite wrong. The false prophets have corrupted the Gospel as successfully as they have the deeds and lives of Christian people.
(George Townshend, Christ and Baha'u'llah, pp. 25-30)
Christ and Baha'u'llah
As Jesus prophesied, the false prophets contrived to change the essential meaning of the Gospel so that it became quite different from that which the Bible recorded or Jesus taught. (Matt. Vii 15-23 and see pp. 11, 12).
It has long been generally believed that Jesus Christ was a unique incarnation of God such as had never before appeared in religious history and would never appear again. This tenet made the acceptance of any later Prophet impossible to a Christian. Yet there is nothing in Christ’s own statements, as recorded in the Gospel, to support this view, and it was not generally held during His lifetime.
Jesus emphatically claimed to reveal God, Whom He called Father, but continually differentiated Himself from the Father. In many such references as “Him that sent me,” “my Father is greater than I,” (John xiv 28). “I go to the Father,” (John xvi 16). “I will pray the Father,” (John xiv 16). “I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me,” (John vii 28). He made this abundantly clear, and even stated specifically that the Father had knowledge which was not possessed by the Son. “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” (Mark xiii 32). He referred to Himself as the Son, and as a Prophet, (Matt. Xiii 57, Luke xiii 33) and was so regarded, (Matt. xxi 11, Luke vii 16) and related His Mission to those of Moses and Abraham before Him, and to others to come after Him, specifically “he, the Spirit of truth, “who would reveal the things which Jesus did not. (John xvi 12,13).
The followers of every world religion have invented for themselves a similar belief in the uniqueness and finality of their own Prophet. The result has been that no religion has acknowledged a Prophet of a later religion. The Hindus do not acknowledge Buddha, the Buddhists to not acknowledge Christ, nor yet do the Zoroastrians. The result of this delusive belief has been that the world religions have not tended to the unifying of mankind but rather to its further division.
Another opinion which Christians universally hold about Christ is that His teaching was absolute and final. They believe that if the Truth were partly withheld from them for a time because they could not bear it, it was divulged at Pentecost in its fullness and that now nothing remains to be revealed. But there is nothing in the account of Pentecost to suggest such an interpretation and there is no one who will believe that Jesus would have named the false prophets as characteristic of His age if this warning was to be followed by an immediate release of all Truth to the Church. What the Bible shows is rather a succession of teachers—Abraham, Moses and Christ, each measuring His Revelation to the needs and maturity of His authors: Jesus, for example, changes the divorce law and says, “Moses gave you this because of the hardness of your hearts but from the beginning it was not so.” Many times He says, Ye have heard it said by them of old time . . . but I say unto you . . .”
Another universal opinion among the Christians is that Christ was the Lord of Hosts of the Old Testament. Yet the Jewish Prophets had foretold that when the Lord of Hosts came He would not find the Jews in the Holy Land, all would have been scattered among the nations and would have been living in misery and degradation for centuries; but when Jesus came Palestine was full of Jews and their expulsion did not begin until the year 70 A.D.; it may be said to have continued till the year 1844.
To confirm orthodox Christian opinion it is customary in all churches to read on Christmas morning, as if it referred to Jesus, the passage which Isaiah wrote about the Lord of Hosts (Isaiah ix 6-7).
“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.”
Yet the descriptive titles given do not belong exclusively to Christ, while some of them He specifically repudiated as if to make such a mistaken reference to Himself impossible. He disclaimed being the Mighty God when He called Himself “the Son of God;” (John v 18-47) where Jesus repudiates the charge that He claimed equality with God, disclaimed being the Father when He said, “my Father is greater than I;” (John xviii 36) and being the Prince of Peace when He said, “I came not to send peace, but a sword.”(Matt. x 34). He disclaimed bearing the government upon His shoulder or that it would be His judgment and justice forever when He said, “My kingdom is not of this world.”(John xviii 36).
Many of these false interpretations involve repudiation of the Word of God in favor of the word of man. This impious act is so craftily performed, with such an air of humility, that it might escape the notice of the most sincere and devout of worshippers. Probably few churchgoers realize today that the Gospel of Christ as known to the few in the pulpit is wholly different from the Gospel which Christ preached in Galilee as recorded in the Bible.
In spite of Christ’s promise of further revelation of Truth, through the Comforter, through His own return, through the Spirit of Truth, the Christian Church regards His revelation as final, and itself as the sole trustee of true religion. There is no room for the Supreme Redeemer of the Bible to bring in great changes for the establishment of the Kingdom of God. In fact this Kingdom is often described as a world-wide Church.
Having thus closed God’s Covenant with the Bible, sacred history—God-directed—came to an end, and secular history, having no sense of divine destiny nor unity, began.
Jesus’ revelation was purely spiritual. He taught that “My kingdom is not of this world” and that the “Kingdom of heaven is within you.” His great gift to man was the knowledge of eternal life. He told men that they might be physically in perfect health and yet spiritually sick or even dead. But this was a difficult truth to communicate and Jesus had to help men to realize it. He would say that He was a spiritual physician and that men whom He cured of a spiritual disability were cured of blindness, deafness, lameness, leprosy and so on. This was the real meaning of His remark at the end of a discourse, “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” For a hearer might hear the physical word of Jesus and yet fail to comprehend the spiritual meaning. Jesus, in other words, was forever trying to heal spiritual infirmities. He thus would be understood by His disciples as a healer of spiritual ailments but by others He might be taken as relieving physical ills only.
Doubtless Jesus could, and often did, heal bodily ills by spiritual means, but this was nothing to do with His real work as a Redeemer. On the other hand these spiritual cures which he effected might be misinterpreted as physical miracles, and so were little stressed by Him. (“See that no man know it.” Matt ix 30.
Christ’s spiritual mission was, at an early date, materialized, specifically in regard to such things as the miracles, curing the blind and deaf, raising the dead. Even His own resurrection was made physical, missing the point entirely. Moreover, none of the complex order, of the ceremonies, rituals and litanies of the Church can be attributed to Christ. All are man-made, by inference or invention.
Well might Christ warn His followers that false prophets would arise and misinterpret His teachings so as to delude even the most earnest and intelligent of His believers: from early times Christians have disputed about Christian truth in councils, in sects, in wars.
To sum up, if Christians say “our acts may be wrong,” they say truly. If they say “however our Gospel is right” they are quite wrong. The false prophets have corrupted the Gospel as successfully as they have the deeds and lives of Christian people.
(George Townshend, Christ and Baha'u'llah, pp. 25-30)
Christ and Baha'u'llah
This is excellent, because you are looking at how modern conservative Christians view their Faith through interpretation of the Bible.
So the next step is to work out what it is they teach that is consistent with a Baha'i perspective and where it deviates, why it deviates.
• Jesus is the Son of God and is equal with God (John 1:1, 49; Luke 22:70; Mark 3:11; Philippians 2:5–11)
1/ Jesus is the 'Son of God'. That is consistent with Baha'i theology.
A Baha'i perspective on Jesus as the 'Son of God'
2/ Jesus is equal with God. We know that a Manifestation of God can say that He is God and that be true from the Kitab-i-Iqan.
We also know that Jesus is not physically God incarnate as many Christians believe. What are some of the Christian writings that correct this belief?
1 John 4:12
"No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us."
Mark 13:32
But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
1 KIng 8:27
But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?
Malachi 3:6
For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
Scripture seems to imply that Jesus can not possibly be God incarnate.
Perhaps it would be better to think of Jesus as being a perfect image or reflection of Gods' divine attributes?
Colossians 1:15 in regards to Jesus
"Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature"
John 5:19
Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
John 8:28
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
• Jesus was born of a virgin (Matthew 1:18; Luke 1:26–35)
Baha'is and Muslims believe this too.
• Jesus lived a perfect, sinless life (Hebrews 4:15; John 8:29)
Jesus was a perfect relection of the attributes of God. He was also a human being who became angry at times, for example over turning the tables of the money lenders at the temple (Matthew 21:12-13). So we would need to clarify what we mean by 'sinless'.
• Jesus was crucified to pay the penalty for our sins (Matthew 26:28; 1 Corinthians 15:2–4)
I believe we need to deconstruct that statement, and see it as part of a narrative that was used to teach the significance of Christ's sacrifice and How His Messeage enables us to draw closer to God. We need to see it in historic context.
• Jesus rose from the dead (Luke 24:46; Mark 16:6)
The resurrection of Christ is probably one of the major barriers to Christians seeing the Baha'i Teachings as compatible with Christianity.
We need to demonstrate from scripture and using reason how the gospel writers created the resurrection narrative based on the Apostles Teachings to the gentiles, why that narrative is important and why it shouldn't be taken literally.
• We are saved by the grace of God; that is, we cannot add to or take away from Christ’s finished work on the cross as full payment for our sin (Ephesians 2:8–9)
The are plenty of biblical writings that make it clear that it is through both Faith and deeds we are saved. This would be consistent with a Baha'i perspective.
No. It used to bother me a great deal but it doesn't at all now.
I agree the meaning has been misconstrued by the Church and they have false doctrines. However we can make an argument from the Bible itself to correct the false doctrines. Those arguments may not be accepted, but the Christian will go away having a much better impression of the Faith, than if we steamrollered both Paul and the Bible itself.
See it as being a challenge. To have a meaningful dialogue with Christians about their own faith using the Bible, reason, and the conclusions of biblical scholars. Don't introduce a single verse from the Baha'i writings unless asked.
Go back and read the letter from the Universal House of Justice. It explicitly refers to the biblical verse where Peter affirms Paul.
That st. Paul on occasion disputed with st. Peter is seen from st. Paul’s own words in the Epistle to the galatians, 2:11–14. it is also
st. Paul who mentions early divisions among the Christians, which he endeavours to heal, in i Corinthians 1:11–13. s t. Peter’s attitude
to st. Paul appears in ii Peter 3:15–18.
Apostle Paul, a "False Teacher"?
Abdu'l-Baha in particular has made extensive commentary on the Bible and there wouldn't be too many of the 27 NT books that he hasn't quoted. He always uses the bible as a basis to explain the correct meaning. He never says, ignore the bible because its no longer relevant.
The Church doctrines are based on ALL books in the New Testament including the gospels and the other apsotles. It is the interpretation of the body of the Bible has a whole that has been misinterpreted, and only in certainly well defined areas.
Some of those key areas are:
The Divinity of Christ
Salvation and the exclusivity of Christ
The resurrection
The sonship of Christ
The fall of man
The necessity of both Faith and deeds
The nature evil and sin
Prophecy
This refers to the papacy. The first Pope of course was Peter and the Baha'i writings affirm the primacy of Pope. However you won't need to dig too deep to see how the Papacy degenerated at times.
The Bad Popes - Wikipedia
Christendom has become irreparably divided and it lacks the means to meet the challenges of the modern world. It relies on a narrative that may have been effective for teaching the gospel in a bygone era but is hopelessly outdated. We come from a position of incredible strength as we have access to Bahá’u’lláh’s Revelation. If our hearts are turned towards His Covenant we can draw on Divine inspiration to unravel all the mysteries of the biblical verses as Abdul-Baha obstructed.
Last edited:
@Trailblazer
It may interest you what the conservative Christians are saying about the Baha'is.
What is the Baha'i faith?
It may interest you what the conservative Christians are saying about the Baha'is.
What is the Baha'i faith?
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Thanks. I have seen some of those websites. That website is kinder to the Baha'i Faith than some Christian websites, but it is typical... I find Christian beliefs highly offensive. I could not even read all of that website but I didn't have to... I already know what they believe.
Those are not conservative Christians. They are Christians. Show me a Christian who does not believe that Jesus is God or a Christian who does not believe that Jesus rose from the dead or a Christian who does not believe that the Holy Spirit is indwelt.
Thanks. I have seen some of those websites. That website is kinder to the Baha'i Faith than some Christian websites, but it is typical... I find Christian beliefs highly offensive. I could not even read all of that website but I didn't have to... I already know what they believe.
They had done their research and most of what they said about the Baha'i Faith was true. There were a few errors but it was reasonably well done.
If they have done their research on us then we must do our research on them to ensure we understand Christianity and present in a fair balanced manner.
My advice would be to take a different approach. Avoid any discussion about how Baha'u'llah meets this or that prophecy in the Bible, unless specifically asked to do so. Instead have some discussions about something a little easier such as the Divinity of Christ or faith versus deeds. Have the discussion with Christians where you can examine two opposing sets of scriptures that appear to contradict each other but on closer examination can be reconciled. If the Christian is insistent on their perspective being correct, thank them for their time in discussing the bible with you. Be appreciative they are helping you learn about the bible and don't argue with them. Soon you will know more about the Bible than they do and know more about Christianity too. You will come to love Jesus, the Bible and the Christian God (which is your God too) but remain eternally grateful to have become a Baha'i!
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
@ adrian009
I think that this sums up the Baha’i view of the Son of God. It is very different from the Christian view.
Here is a longer explanation of the Baha’i view:
Only in the sense that Manifestations of God reveal God’s attributes and names can they be considered God.
Christians believe that Jesus was God incarnate. This is a gross calumny.
Since Baha’is do not believe in original sin, there was no penalty to pay. Therein lies the difference between Christianity and the Baha’i Faith beliefs. Since we all have a higher spiritual nature and a lower material nature (sinful nature) Jesus saved us from our lower material nature by giving us His teachings. The cross sacrifice was a symbol of detachment and self-denial, the example we are to follow:
The bodily resurrection is a big obstacle, but it is not the major one. The major one is that Jesus IS God and Jesus is still alive and that means that there is no need for nor can there be any such thing as a Manifestation of God, be it Muhammad or Baha’u’llah.
You gave it a good go on that thread you started, but you are not going to get Christians to relinquish the bodily resurrection belief.
Grace is not the same thing as faith and deeds.
Faith means recognition of the Manifestation of God.
Christians believe recognition of Jesus is necessary so we have that in common. However, the second of the twin duties we do not have in common with Christians because Christians are not under the law and do not believe deeds are necessary to get to heaven, since they are saved by grace.
I am not into making impressions. I am only interested in presenting correct information about the Baha’i Faith. I do not have to steamroll the Bible or Paul to do that but I will point out the differences between Baha’i beliefs and Christian beliefs rather than trying to gloss them over.
You said: “See it as being a challenge. To have a meaningful dialogue with Christians about their own faith using the Bible, reason, and the conclusions of biblical scholars. Don't introduce a single verse from the Baha'i writings unless asked.”
How much luck have you had with that approach? Has any Christian changed their views of the Bible?
You can do that if you want to. I do not see why we have to meet them on their ground, the Bible, in order to talk about the Baha’i Faith. If they want to know what the Baha’i Faith teaches they can meet us on our ground. Otherwise, that shows that they are not really interested. It does not matter to me because I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. The interest has to come from them. Please note that paarsurrey is willing to read the Kitab-i-Iqan and other tablets of Baha’u’llah. That was his own idea.
All those verses indicate is Peter’s attitude. Nowhere does it say that Peter handed authority over to Paul.
I did not say you have to ignore the Bible. I am not Abdu’l-Baha so I do not know the Bible well enough to discuss it. I do not have time to learn the Bible but that does not mean I cannot discuss the Baha’i view of Christian beliefs that have already been pointed out by the Baha’i Writings.
I think that this sums up the Baha’i view of the Son of God. It is very different from the Christian view.
“We believe in the virgin birth of Christ, but do not believe that is what makes Him the Son of God. His being the Son of God is entirely a spiritual fact. We believe it is blasphemous to say that God conceived a son, though we believe that Christ had no human father.” Son of God, Virgin Birth
Here is a longer explanation of the Baha’i view:
“Although the Bahá'í writings say nothing about the title 'Son of God (or 'only begotten Son of God, [John 3:16]) there is much that can be said about it from a Bahá'í perspective. 'Son of God is an extremely important title of Jesus for Christians, so much so that in the minds of many Christians 'Son of God' defines the relationship of Jesus with His Father. But often Christians do not think about the symbolic meaning of the title; indeed, many seem unaware that the title is symbolic at all.
What does the term 'Son' mean? Normally, the word has a simple biological meaning, but that meaning is the very one that cannot apply to the relationship between God and Jesus, for God does not have genetic material to confer upon Jesus, nor does God have a body with which He could unite with Mary to produce a son. Christian theology never meant the term to be understood literally; as the above quote from Gregory of Nazianzus emphasizes, God begot Christ 'without passion, of course, and without reference to time, and not in a corporeal manner' ('The Third Theological Oration – On the Son' 161). The Qur'án echoes Gregory's recognition of God's transcendence when it says, 'Allah is only one God. Far is it removed from His transcendent majesty that He should have a son' (Qur'án 5:171).
Consequently, the word 'Son' must be understood in a metaphorical or symbolic sense; the same is true of the verb 'begotten' when applied to Jesus. One possible meaning of Son, rejected early by the mainstream of Christian theology, was the 'adoptionist' interpretation; that Jesus was an ordinary man, 'adopted' by God as His Son. The Bahá'í writings would also seem to reject this approach, since they do not see Manifestations of God as ordinary human beings; rather, the Bahá'í writings indicate that the souls of the Manifestations are pre-existent, in contrast to ordinary human beings, whose souls come into existence at the moment of conception. Manifestations are indeed unique creations of God, as the phrase 'only begotten' attempts to convey; it describes Jesus's mode of creation through an analogy with the physical world, an analogy that Gregory of Nazianzus, by qualifying the word in the above passage, admits has its limitations.
Another symbolic interpretation of the term 'Son' would be to argue that Jesus was the 'spiritual' Son of God. Various interpreters have taken this approach. One could say that all humans, including Jesus, are 'sons' of God, in other words, that all were created by God. This is true, but it undercuts the uniqueness of the title's application to Christ, probably unnecessarily, and undercuts the distinction that Bahá'í would make between Jesus Christ and creation.”
Jesus Christ in the Bahá'í Writings
What does the term 'Son' mean? Normally, the word has a simple biological meaning, but that meaning is the very one that cannot apply to the relationship between God and Jesus, for God does not have genetic material to confer upon Jesus, nor does God have a body with which He could unite with Mary to produce a son. Christian theology never meant the term to be understood literally; as the above quote from Gregory of Nazianzus emphasizes, God begot Christ 'without passion, of course, and without reference to time, and not in a corporeal manner' ('The Third Theological Oration – On the Son' 161). The Qur'án echoes Gregory's recognition of God's transcendence when it says, 'Allah is only one God. Far is it removed from His transcendent majesty that He should have a son' (Qur'án 5:171).
Consequently, the word 'Son' must be understood in a metaphorical or symbolic sense; the same is true of the verb 'begotten' when applied to Jesus. One possible meaning of Son, rejected early by the mainstream of Christian theology, was the 'adoptionist' interpretation; that Jesus was an ordinary man, 'adopted' by God as His Son. The Bahá'í writings would also seem to reject this approach, since they do not see Manifestations of God as ordinary human beings; rather, the Bahá'í writings indicate that the souls of the Manifestations are pre-existent, in contrast to ordinary human beings, whose souls come into existence at the moment of conception. Manifestations are indeed unique creations of God, as the phrase 'only begotten' attempts to convey; it describes Jesus's mode of creation through an analogy with the physical world, an analogy that Gregory of Nazianzus, by qualifying the word in the above passage, admits has its limitations.
Another symbolic interpretation of the term 'Son' would be to argue that Jesus was the 'spiritual' Son of God. Various interpreters have taken this approach. One could say that all humans, including Jesus, are 'sons' of God, in other words, that all were created by God. This is true, but it undercuts the uniqueness of the title's application to Christ, probably unnecessarily, and undercuts the distinction that Bahá'í would make between Jesus Christ and creation.”
Jesus Christ in the Bahá'í Writings
Only in the sense that Manifestations of God reveal God’s attributes and names can they be considered God.
“Were any of the all-embracing Manifestations of God to declare: “I am God,” He, verily, speaketh the truth, and no doubt attacheth thereto. For it hath been repeatedly demonstrated that through their Revelation, their attributes and names, the Revelation of God, His names and His attributes, are made manifest in the world.......”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 54
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 54
Christians believe that Jesus was God incarnate. This is a gross calumny.
“Certain ones among you have said: “He it is Who hath laid claim to be God.” By God! This is a gross calumny. I am but a servant of God Who hath believed in Him and in His signs, and in His Prophets and in His angels. My tongue, and My heart, and My inner and My outer being testify that there is no God but Him, that all others have been created by His behest, and been fashioned through the operation of His Will. There is none other God but Him, the Creator, the Raiser from the dead, the Quickener, the Slayer. I am He that telleth abroad the favors with which God hath, through His bounty, favored Me.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 228
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 228
Since Baha’is do not believe in original sin, there was no penalty to pay. Therein lies the difference between Christianity and the Baha’i Faith beliefs. Since we all have a higher spiritual nature and a lower material nature (sinful nature) Jesus saved us from our lower material nature by giving us His teachings. The cross sacrifice was a symbol of detachment and self-denial, the example we are to follow:
“…those who turned toward the Word of God and received the profusion of His bounties—were saved from this attachment and sin, obtained everlasting life, were delivered from the chains of bondage, and attained to the world of liberty. They were freed from the vices of the human world, and were blessed by the virtues of the Kingdom. This is the meaning of the words of Christ, “I gave My blood for the life of the world” 6 —that is to say, I have chosen all these troubles, these sufferings, calamities, and even the greatest martyrdom, to attain this object, the remission of sins” Some Answered Questions, p. 125
The bodily resurrection is a big obstacle, but it is not the major one. The major one is that Jesus IS God and Jesus is still alive and that means that there is no need for nor can there be any such thing as a Manifestation of God, be it Muhammad or Baha’u’llah.
You gave it a good go on that thread you started, but you are not going to get Christians to relinquish the bodily resurrection belief.
Grace is not the same thing as faith and deeds.
In Western Christian theology, grace has been defined, not as a created substance of any kind, but as "the love and mercy given to us by God because God desires us to have it, not necessarily because of anything we have done to earn it",[1] "Grace is favour, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life."[2] It is understood by Christians to be a spontaneous gift from God to people "generous, free and totally unexpected and undeserved"[3] – that takes the form of divine favor, love, clemency, and a share in the divine life of God.[4]
Grace in Christianity - Wikipedia
Grace in Christianity - Wikipedia
Faith means recognition of the Manifestation of God.
“The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is the recognition of Him Who is the Day Spring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His laws, Who representeth the Godhead in both the Kingdom of His Cause and the world of creation. Whoso achieveth this duty hath attained unto all good; and whoso is deprived thereof, hath gone astray, though he be the author of every righteous deed. It behoveth every one who reacheth this most sublime station, this summit of transcendent glory, to observe every ordinance of Him Who is the Desire of the world. These twin duties are inseparable. Neither is acceptable without the other. Thus hath it been decreed by Him Who is the Source of Divine inspiration.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 330-331
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 330-331
Christians believe recognition of Jesus is necessary so we have that in common. However, the second of the twin duties we do not have in common with Christians because Christians are not under the law and do not believe deeds are necessary to get to heaven, since they are saved by grace.
“Christ became the end of the Law by virtue of what He did on earth through His sinless life and His sacrifice on the cross. So, the Law no longer has any bearing over us because its demands have been fully met in the Lord Jesus Christ. Faith in Christ who satisfied the righteous demands of the Law restores us into a pleasing relationship with God and keeps us there. No longer under the penalty of the Law, we now live under the law of grace in the love of God.”
What does it mean that Christians are not under the law?
What does it mean that Christians are not under the law?
I am not into making impressions. I am only interested in presenting correct information about the Baha’i Faith. I do not have to steamroll the Bible or Paul to do that but I will point out the differences between Baha’i beliefs and Christian beliefs rather than trying to gloss them over.
You said: “See it as being a challenge. To have a meaningful dialogue with Christians about their own faith using the Bible, reason, and the conclusions of biblical scholars. Don't introduce a single verse from the Baha'i writings unless asked.”
How much luck have you had with that approach? Has any Christian changed their views of the Bible?
You can do that if you want to. I do not see why we have to meet them on their ground, the Bible, in order to talk about the Baha’i Faith. If they want to know what the Baha’i Faith teaches they can meet us on our ground. Otherwise, that shows that they are not really interested. It does not matter to me because I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. The interest has to come from them. Please note that paarsurrey is willing to read the Kitab-i-Iqan and other tablets of Baha’u’llah. That was his own idea.
That St. Paul on occasion disputed with St. Peter is seen from St. Paul's own words in the Epistle to the Galatians, 2:11-14. It is also St. Paul who mentions early divisions among the Christians, which he endeavours to heal, in I Corinthians 1:11-13. St. Peter's attitude to St. Paul appears in II Peter 3:15-18.
Apostle Paul, a "False Teacher"?
Apostle Paul, a "False Teacher"?
All those verses indicate is Peter’s attitude. Nowhere does it say that Peter handed authority over to Paul.
I did not say you have to ignore the Bible. I am not Abdu’l-Baha so I do not know the Bible well enough to discuss it. I do not have time to learn the Bible but that does not mean I cannot discuss the Baha’i view of Christian beliefs that have already been pointed out by the Baha’i Writings.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
They did not have to do a lot of research to get that information about the Baha'i Faith, certainly nothing like us reading the whole Bible.
I know a lot more about Christianity than those Christians know about the Baha'i Faith. I can guarantee that. Thanks for the advice but I do not really have an approach. I just follow the yellow brick road wherever it leads. I have never been a planner, I just use my intuition to respond to the person I am posting to.My advice would be to take a different approach. Avoid any discussion about how Baha'u'llah meets this or that prophecy in the Bible, unless specifically asked to do so. Instead have some discussions about something a little easier such as the Divinity of Christ or faith versus deeds. Have the discussion with Christians where you can examine two opposing sets of scriptures that appear to contradict each other but on closer examination can be reconciled. If the Christian is insistent on their perspective being correct, thank them for their time in discussing the bible with you. Be appreciative they are helping you learn about the bible and don't argue with them. Soon you will know more about the Bible than they do and know more about Christianity too. You will come to love Jesus, the Bible and the Christian God (which is your God too) but remain eternally grateful to have become a Baha'i!
I spent over three years posting to one fundamentalist Christian almost daily on several Delphi forums. We became very good friends and we still are. Mostly we discussed the Bible but he was willing to read what I posted from Gleanings and the Iqan and he learned many things. He also went to Planet Baha'i and posted to Baha'is there.
I also listen to Christian radio for three hours a day during my bike commute to work and back. All that has happened is that I have come to resent Christianity, the Bible, the Christian God and even Jesus. I resent them because they make it impossible for anyone in to ever recognize Baha'u'llah because of their attachment to Jesus. Jesus loves me... me, me, me. It is all about me. Why then do I still listen to that radio station?
Yes, I am eternally grateful I am a Baha'i. 
When we dissect the text, and differentiate what is going on from each perspective, this is clearer...
Paul taught that Yeshua was the Lord, and we have one God...
Yet since Paul was a Pharisee, he assumes both father and son are YHVH; as they no longer knew Yeshua's father (Matthew 11:27)
John does the same and has Yeshua as son and father.
Yet then Gabriel (Luke 1:32), Demons, Yeshua, say he is a Son of the God Most High; which is the ancient understanding that the Elohim (Divine Beings) are Sons of the God Most High (El Elyon).
This is a problem with Judaism's comprehension of theology, that they dropped the concepts of the Divine Council with One Source of Reality above it after the Babylonian Exile.
This is not right in the slightest, it sounds like a Christianized sermon on it...
Yeshua fulfilled Isaiah 53 to divorce Israel/Judah, nullify the Abrahamic Covenant (Zechariah 11), set a Snare (Isaiah 8) to catch out all the ravenous hypocritical mockers (Isaiah 28), who don't pay attention to the things of God, yet claim they do....
Plus to put the Curse on the Jews (Deuteronomy 28-30), which then shall catch out the rest of the demons in the Snare/Lake of Fire (Isaiah 34).
He already was a Divine Being (Elohim Isaiah 52:10) before coming here, so there wasn't anything needed to be earned by Yeshua's dedication, it was to test mankind to see if they actually check details.
In my opinion.
Last edited:
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Thanks for pointing that out, I never noticed that it sounds like a Christianized version. Abdu'l-Baha tends to be quite a diplomat. I would have stated it differently, then again I have no authority to speak for the Baha'i Faith.
They did not have to do a lot of research to get that information about the Baha'i Faith, certainly nothing like us reading the whole Bible.
Thanks for the advice but I do not really have an approach. I just follow the yellow brick road wherever it leads. I have never been a planner, I just use my intuition to respond to the person I am posting to.
I spent over three years posting to one fundamentalist Christian almost daily on several Delphi forums. We became very good friends and we still are. Mostly we discussed the Bible but he was willing to read what I posted from Gleanings and the Iqan and he learned many things. He also went to Planet Baha'i and posted to Baha'is there.
I also listen to Christian radio for three hours a day during my bike commute to work and back. All that has happened is that I have come to resent Christianity, the Bible, the Christian God and even Jesus. I resent them because they make it impossible for anyone in to ever recognize Baha'u'llah because of their attachment to Jesus. Jesus loves me... me, me, me. It is all about me. Why then do I still listen to that radio station?
I'm not great teacher of Christians or anyone for that matter. I strive to have positive relations with peoples of all faiths. I find it easier when both parties understand and trust the other.
Redemptionsong
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry to butt in, but I'm one of those radical, evangelical, charismatic, born-again sorts that believe in the truth and perfection of God's Word! Alleluia!
Consider this for a minute;
Not one commentator on this discussion forum has said that Jesus was a liar or an untrustworthy person.
So what did Jesus say about the inspiration of the Scriptures - Old Testament (Tanakh), and New Testament (including the epistles of Paul)?
Firstly, the Torah. In Mark 7:13, Jesus calls the Torah the 'Word of God'. He even says in Matthew 5:18 that 'one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished.' [That's every little detail!]
Secondly, the Tanakh in its three parts (Torah, Nevi'im, Ketuvim).
Luke 24:27, 'And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.' Then in verse 44 he adds, 'All things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me.'
Jesus is therefore stating, beyond any doubt, that the Scriptures of the Old Testament are all God's inspired Word. Who else is able to provide faultless prophecy?
But, you might say, what about the New Testament? How can Jesus declare the New Testament to be inspired when these Scriptures were still future?
Here's how; Jesus said the following to his apostles (those who had been chosen to disseminate the Good News). John 14:26. 'The Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to remembrance all that I said unto you.'
John 16:12,13. ' I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit, when he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth.' [Note - the Spirit of Truth is the Holy Spirit, not Muhammad!)
So the New Testament Scriptures are a true remembrance of Jesus' words and an inspired truth from God. Don't forget, Paul was an apostle chosen by Jesus himself. Acts 9:5 , 'I am Jesus'. Paul was also given the complete backing of the Church to continue his work amongst Jews and Gentiles, as it says in Acts 15:22: 'Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas;' And Paul himself knew his calling was as an apostle because he says, as regarding the resurrected Lord, 'By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:'
But, you think, this is just your personal interpretation!
No, because the scriptures are not to be privately interpreted (in isolation from others) 2 Peter 1:20. They must be supported by other scriptures to be validated. This is the method traditionally adopted by rabbis discussing the scriptures. Only God knows the whole truth, so we listen to Him, and Him alone. As Jesus says, 'the scripture cannot be broken.'(John 10:35) It all fits together into a perfect weave!
Consider this for a minute;
Not one commentator on this discussion forum has said that Jesus was a liar or an untrustworthy person.
So what did Jesus say about the inspiration of the Scriptures - Old Testament (Tanakh), and New Testament (including the epistles of Paul)?
Firstly, the Torah. In Mark 7:13, Jesus calls the Torah the 'Word of God'. He even says in Matthew 5:18 that 'one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished.' [That's every little detail!]
Secondly, the Tanakh in its three parts (Torah, Nevi'im, Ketuvim).
Luke 24:27, 'And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.' Then in verse 44 he adds, 'All things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me.'
Jesus is therefore stating, beyond any doubt, that the Scriptures of the Old Testament are all God's inspired Word. Who else is able to provide faultless prophecy?
But, you might say, what about the New Testament? How can Jesus declare the New Testament to be inspired when these Scriptures were still future?
Here's how; Jesus said the following to his apostles (those who had been chosen to disseminate the Good News). John 14:26. 'The Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to remembrance all that I said unto you.'
John 16:12,13. ' I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit, when he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth.' [Note - the Spirit of Truth is the Holy Spirit, not Muhammad!)
So the New Testament Scriptures are a true remembrance of Jesus' words and an inspired truth from God. Don't forget, Paul was an apostle chosen by Jesus himself. Acts 9:5 , 'I am Jesus'. Paul was also given the complete backing of the Church to continue his work amongst Jews and Gentiles, as it says in Acts 15:22: 'Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas;' And Paul himself knew his calling was as an apostle because he says, as regarding the resurrected Lord, 'By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:'
But, you think, this is just your personal interpretation!
No, because the scriptures are not to be privately interpreted (in isolation from others) 2 Peter 1:20. They must be supported by other scriptures to be validated. This is the method traditionally adopted by rabbis discussing the scriptures. Only God knows the whole truth, so we listen to Him, and Him alone. As Jesus says, 'the scripture cannot be broken.'(John 10:35) It all fits together into a perfect weave!
Muffled
Jesus in me
Part of the problem is we're not addressing Bible authenticity; we shouldn't remove theologically accepted textual evidence, just understand them as contradictory, and not use them in a house of religious theological cards.
What Paul does is purposely prophesied to be upside down, thus turning light into dark (Isaiah 5:20)... So to not recognize the contradictions, is part of the problem.
Paul & Simon the stone (peter) established Christianity in Antioch (Acts 11:25-26); it is their Gospel about Christ's death, not life.
It never was the Law that had the power of Salvation, in Hebrew the word Yeshua has always been Salvation from God.... With many events taking place using that specific word to imply God separated the red sea (Exodus 14:13), physically won battles against other nations, and scared them (2 Chronicles 20:17), etc.
The covenants were nullified by the prophetic coming of Yeshua, where the Leaders rejected him, then paid 30 pieces of silver, and put it into the Potter's field in the House of Israel (Zechariah 11). - Paul is writing to cover up this divorce decree taking place; he does a great job.
Isaiah 5:3 “Now, inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, please judge between me and my vineyard.
Yeshua was their Lord (YHVH); they chose badly, and still continue to do so, as none are advanced enough in exegesis.... Yet we do not put faith in Yeshua the being; yet the God Most High (El Elyon) his father, which is the manifestor of reality like a CPU.
Paul's whole ideas on gaining atonement from Yeshua's death, is what Yeshua cut them all off for (Matthew 23:27-38). - So establishing a religion about Yeshua on what Yeshua stood against, is a great test for finding hypocrites.
Moses's Laws stand according to Yeshua as a testimony against all the hypocrites (Matthew 5:17-20), so we can educate them with it, and Salvation (Yeshua) is still found prophesied within it.
In my opinion.
I believe you are always bashing Paul. He did not turn the Gospel upside down. He explained it in theological terms.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe Paul kept the law for the purposes of evangelization not because He deemed it necessaary.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
So Paul was essentially a manipulative deceiver?
And what of James and the rest of the thousands of Jewish believers in Jesus who were "zealous for Torah" but who were not missionaries?
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Muhammad was a Comforter because He was the return of the Holy Spirit.
Baha’u’llah was the Comforter and the Spirit of Truth because He was the return of the Holy Spirit.
The “disembodied” Holy Spirit cannot teach things and bring them to remembrance. The disembodied Holy Spirit cannot guide you to all truth.
It makes no sense that a Holy Spirit living inside of people could do the following things that are in John 14, 15 and 16; only a man could do those things:
- Teach you all things
- Call to remembrance what Jesus said
- Testify of Jesus
- Glorify Jesus, receive of Jesus, and shew it unto you
- Guide you into all truth
- Speak what He hears and shew you things to come
- Reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgmen
However, all those things Baha’u’llah has already done or will happen as the result of His coming.
Why not look at what Jesus said in John 14, which flows from one verse to the next verse.
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; -- Jesus says that the Father (God) will give us another Comforter. Jesus was the first Comforter and Baha’u’llah was another Comforter.
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for hedwelleth with you, and shall be in you. – Jesus says that the world cannot see or receive the Spirit of truth (Baha’u’llah) because we do not know him yet, since he has not come yet; but the disciples know the Spirit of truth because it is the same Holy Spirit that resides in them as a result of Jesus. Iows, the Holy Spirit Baha’u’llah will bring is the same Holy Spirit that Jesus brought, since it is the Bounty of God which never changes.
18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. – Jesus said He would come but if you tie that together to the two verses above, we can see Jesus did not mean He would come in the same body, but rather the same Spirit would come (another Comforter). Moreover, he could not have addressing only the disciples, because neither Jesus nor Baha’u’llah came during their lifetimes.
19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.– Finally, Jesus made it perfectly clear that the world would not see Him again after He left; but we will see Him because His spirit lives on forever. As a result of believing in Jesus we will gain eternal life.
18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. – Jesus said He would come but if you tie that together to the two verses above, we can see Jesus did not mean He would come in the same body, but rather the same Spirit would come (another Comforter). Moreover, he could not have addressing only the disciples, because neither Jesus nor Baha’u’llah came during their lifetimes.
19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.– Finally, Jesus made it perfectly clear that the world would not see Him again after He left; but we will see Him because His spirit lives on forever. As a result of believing in Jesus we will gain eternal life.
If the Gospel of John is made up & there are loads of contradictions between it and the Synoptic Gospels; then there is no such thing as "the comforter", and both people claiming it after are citing a false book as their truth claim.
In my opinion.
Redemptionsong
Well-Known Member
Trailblazer,
You must consider carefully what you are claiming here. You are saying that Muhammad, and Baha'u'llah, are God! When one speaks about the gift of the Holy Spirit one is still talking about the spirit that proceeds from the Father and from the Son (Jesus Christ). This is God's spirit, and it cannot proceed from anyone other than God Himself. God is Truth.
Consequently, Muhammad and Baha'u'llah must be false prophets because they do not recognise Jesus Christ as the Son of God.
Of course, a spirit can dwell in a man. 1 Thessalonians 5:23, 'And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.'
The spirit is the connection that man has with God, and when this dies a man is in a state of sin. That is why Adam's transgression of God's law resulted in an immediate spiritual death and led God to ask, 'Where art thou?' (Genesis 3:9)
When the gift of Holy Spirit does dwell in a man, then he is a 'new creation'. All the things you listed, except final judgment, are part of the responsibility of the body of Christ, the true Church. Remember, it is not one individual member, but the whole body that ministers in the power and fruit of the Holy Spirit. And side-by-side with the true Church is a false religion that does its best to undermine the work of Christ.
It is also misguided to suggest that eternal life is gained by believing in an eternal Jesus. Even the Devil believes in Jesus and his eternal nature!
To abide in Christ Jesus you must trust Him completely with your life, and act in obedience to his will. He promises to send the Holy Spirit to make this obedience possible.