So while we could look at the divisions within religions and between religions at the end of the day they have much more in common than not.
Obviously they have things in common, they all use the same source material as their basis. But almost any religion that have ever existed would have things in common with each other. As they all share the common idea of offering comfort, protection and explanations to whoever believes in them.
So if you look at them from a general point of view and goal there are lots of similarities, but the problem is not from a general point of view, its when you go into more details and these starts to conflict with each other. There is a reason why different religions have fought and are still fighting each other. Which is not because they disagree with the idea that God is good. But because they think those of other faith are wrong and therefore ought to be fought. This is obviously not all believers, but one can't deny that this split in religions are there. Do you think that muslims that are blown up by terrorists, think that those that do it are true muslims and live according to the teachings of the Quran and Muhammad? And do you think the terrorists look at them as true muslims either?
So again, if the success of God is simply to get as many people to say that they believe in him and you consider that a huge success, then I see no reason to argue against that. But simply say that I disagree and do not think that its shows the success of God, but rather that it tells something about his nature. Same goes with less violent collisions between religions. Even in the Bahai faith, Baha'u'llah got punished and mistreated his whole live, do you think that count towards showing God success as well? If he apparently doesn't care that his messenger is being treated like that, when he is in his full power to have had been able to prevent it? Again what does that tell us about God?
We need also to acknowledge there being much less conflict in the twenty first century compared to the twentieth. This is fact.
The twenty first century have pretty much just begone 1/5? isn't it slightly early to conclude that? Also there were two world wars the last century and especially the last one opened the eyes for people around the world that its probably not a good idea to have to many of those. We have a nuclear threat constantly hanging over our head, which obviously help prevent major nations from jumping at each other, so thank God for nuclear weapons I guess?
Conflict-related fatalities in the world's 17 deadliest countries 2014 - 2018
List of ongoing armed conflicts - Wikipedia
(This is just 4 years keep that in mind and the 17 most deadliest countries.)
If there’s so little evidence, why so many theists? I think you’re ignoring the historical evidence that becomes stronger with shorter periods of time. So while the historical evidence is weaker for the Hebrew Bible than the New Testament, those who base their faith on the New Testament (Christians) vastly outnumber those who follow the Hebrew scripture (Judaism). The numbers are also better for the relatively newer Islam.
This doesn't have anything to do with evidence and there is a rational explanation for it. Judaism is not especially well spread, because it mainly focuses on the Jewish people, it is not especially attractive to none Jews. When the split happen and early Christianity started to spread it allowed for none Jews to follow Jesus, which made it a lot easier to spread the word of NT than that of the OT. The OT were used to give validity to the NT. Because just as today and maybe even worse back then, you needed credentials for a religion, you needed history or people simply wouldn't buy what you taught. That is one of the reasons why the OT were kept as part of Christianity and why the Christians would claim that the OT was meant for them rather than the Jews. Which obviously ended up in conflicts. The Jews as you know have been pointed out as having killed their God, Messiah and what not. Looking at early Christianity its not difficult to find hate stuff against the Jews, some of it almost made it into the Bible. So the spread of both Christianity and Islam doesn't have anything to do with how much historical evidence there are for them, but how they were spread and what they taught, which made them more accessible for people, then you had C
onstantine the Great helping the Christians as well, the "printing press" (Monks) etc. .
To me, not a lot different than Bahai faith that say its for everyone, compared to if Baha'u'llah had proclaimed that it was only aimed at a specific ethnic group, then the Bahai faith would most likely have been much smaller and little known in other countries.
The Son of God is part of a theological as opposed to historical narrative. It is a Messianic title, not a literal reality. Same deal with the resurrection, Divinity and trinity. The crucifixion is both historic and theological. All these core concepts have helped develop a more profound understanding of the nature of God and the Reality of Jesus.
But this doesn't explain how you make it fit. You basically just claim that Jesus didn't believe this, that his followers didn't either. And that Christians got it wrong.
The term "son(s) of God" is as far as I know only used about Jesus in the NT and the Nephilim in Genesis. Which I don't think anyone is really sure who is suppose to be, it seems to be translated to giants or fallen ones, but they are described as "heroes of old and men of renown", so it might simply be referring to people of huge importance or maybe it could mean some divine beings.
4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
But besides them, Jesus is the only one that is referred to as the son of God. So it was not something that where just thrown around at random it seems.
MATTHEW 27:43
He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’”
And it is not difficult to find verses where Jesus is referred to as this. So if this is a Messianic title, would that mean that all of the Nephilim's were considered Messiahs as well? Yet they are the ones that corrupt humans and causes God to flood the world. So Im not sure how you would explain that?
The typical title used for the Messiah by the Jews were the "Anointed one", which one became by getting oil poured on the head, like the kings did.
But none the less, I don't see how your explanation is satisfying for Christians, especially in light of what you write regarding Islam next?
"Muslims believe in the same Jesus as the Christians but focus on different attributes and theologies."
They might believe in the same person, but there is a huge difference here. One claim that it is literal son of God or God himself and the others claim that he is none of that and that he weren't even crucified. So when you write the following:
"Both Christianity and Islam have at some stage misunderstood their own scriptures and so their views appear in conflict. They are actually considering different aspects of Jesus as with the parable of the blind men and the elephant each convinced of his own narrow truth."
Don't you think that both the muslims and the Christians ought to get an explanation of how exactly they have misunderstood their scriptures and why you know better? Looking at the statistic above there are billions of Christians and muslims and only around 7 million Bahais, so isn't it a bold statement to just say that they misunderstood them, while not supplying any evidence for why this is the case?
The Baha’i Teachings resolves these differences completely and perfectly. That is yet another example of why a new Manifestation is required for this day. Both Islam and Christianity are too far gone and there is too much bad blood between them.
If Christianity and Islam is beyond repair, the Bahai solution is just to add a new Manifestation, which from what I understand, can't explain or proof where things went wrong with the understanding of Jesus, besides that people just have to accept Baha'u'llahs word for it? If I were religious, that would not convince me at all. I mean even as an atheist I don't get it and I have nothing to loose
Ask yourself this, would you change your faith in Baha'u'llah and the Bahai faith, if someone came telling you that he was wrong without explaining why?
It is essential that Baha’is can wisely and intelligently resolve these differences and communicate effectively demonstrating the truth as taught by both Jesus and Muhammad.
But do you think you have demonstrated this? Because I would not agree, again Trailblazer have stated several times, not saying that its like that for all Bahais, but that these old scriptures are not to be trusted, that they are corrupt and basically outdated and that she haven't read them. Yet you say that it is essential for Bahai to effectively demonstrate the truth that was taught by both Jesus and Muhammad, and this can be done without even reading the scriptures? I find that slightly disturbing if that is actually what you mean?
Simply another example of a story in the Tanakh that can’t be historically corroborated. Its importance becomes more theological than historical. Emphasising historicity in this case weakens, not strengthens faith as faith is based on reality not mythology and narratives that have outlived their usefulness.
The story it self might not be historical true. But this is Moabite art for instance:
My point was that we leave it to scientists to more definitively interpret the scientific evidence, not theologians.
But do you accept the evidence that the scientist present? Do you buy the evolution of humans as we know it, because one do not need to be a scientist to have an opinion about it. Scientist do not decide what is true or not, they simply provide the evidence and each of us can either deny them or accept them and try to fit them into our world view.
