• 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!

Christianity vs Baha'i

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Quoted from the site ex Muslim. Is the Bible Corrupted?
From Letters Written on Behalf of the Guardian of the Bahai Faith:

...The Bible is not wholly authentic, and in this respect is not to be compared with the Qur'an, and should be wholly subordinated to the authentic writings of Bahá'u'lláh
. (28 July 1936 to a National Spiritual Assembly)

...we cannot be sure how much or how little of the four Gospels are accurate and include the words of Christ and His undiluted teachings, all we can be sure of, as Bahá'ís, is that what has been quoted by Bahá'u'lláh and the Master must be absolutely authentic. As many times passages in the Gospel of St. John are quoted we may assume that it is his Gospel and much of it accurate.
(23 January 1944 to an individual believer)

When 'Abdu'l-Bahá states we believe what is in the Bible, He means in substance. Not that we believe every word of it to be taken literally or that every word is the authentic saying of the Prophet.
(11 February 1944 to an individual believer)

We cannot be sure of the authenticity of any of the phrases in the Old or the New Testament. What we can be sure of is when such references or words are cited or quoted in either the Quran or the Bahá'í writings.
(4 July 1947 to an individual believer)

We have no way of substantiating the stories of the Old Testament other than references to them in our own teachings, so we cannot say exactly what happened at the battle of Jericho.
(25 November 1950 to an individual believer)

The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
From Letters Written on Behalf of the Guardian of the Bahai Faith:

...The Bible is not wholly authentic, and in this respect is not to be compared with the Qur'an, and should be wholly subordinated to the authentic writings of Bahá'u'lláh
. (28 July 1936 to a National Spiritual Assembly)

...we cannot be sure how much or how little of the four Gospels are accurate and include the words of Christ and His undiluted teachings, all we can be sure of, as Bahá'ís, is that what has been quoted by Bahá'u'lláh and the Master must be absolutely authentic. As many times passages in the Gospel of St. John are quoted we may assume that it is his Gospel and much of it accurate.
(23 January 1944 to an individual believer)

When 'Abdu'l-Bahá states we believe what is in the Bible, He means in substance. Not that we believe every word of it to be taken literally or that every word is the authentic saying of the Prophet.
(11 February 1944 to an individual believer)

We cannot be sure of the authenticity of any of the phrases in the Old or the New Testament. What we can be sure of is when such references or words are cited or quoted in either the Quran or the Bahá'í writings.
(4 July 1947 to an individual believer)

We have no way of substantiating the stories of the Old Testament other than references to them in our own teachings, so we cannot say exactly what happened at the battle of Jericho.
(25 November 1950 to an individual believer)

The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments

Quoted from Frank Turek. https://crossexamined.org/is-the-bible-true/

Frank Turek

Some question why the dead “saints” who were “raised” after Christ’s resurrection are mentioned in Matthew (Mt. 27:52) but not anywhere else. This is a fair question. After all, if this really happened, why didn’t the other gospels mention it?

When addressing this question, we must keep in mind that each saint’s body was not resurrected into a glorified, imperishable state as was Jesus’s body. After Christ’s resurrection (as Matthew puts it),the bodies of the saints were raised. It seems that they were resuscitated into their previous mortal bodies, which would mean they would die again. In other words, the “saints” would have looked like normal people–like Lazarus, so only family members and their closest friends would know about this, if those friends and families were still alive at the time. We don’t know how many, if any, were still alive. If they weren’t still alive, probably few other people would know about this. If some friends and families were still alive, the word would have spread among some in Jerusalem about these saints being raised,but not to the extent of the resurrection of Christ (a public figure who also performed miracles). So perhaps only Matthew of the four writers knew about this.

But if the others did know about it, why didn’t they include it?Perhaps because each gospel writer appears to have a different audience in mind, and all authors must select what they choose to include and exclude. The main focus of each gospel writer was to report the historical facts about Jesus to their different audiences, not to report on everything significant that may have happened (indeed, it would be impossible to do so as John asserts at the end of his gospel).Amazingly, the gospel writers seem so concerned with sticking to just the historical facts that they hardly even mention the theological implications of Christ’s resurrection; only John briefly notes its impact on individual salvation (John 20:31). So including the saints event (if they knew about it), may not have served their purposes with their intended audiences.

However, it may have helped Matthew accomplish his purpose. How so?

Matthew is the gospel written to the Jews. The theme of Matthew is that Jesus is the true Israel– He does what Israel failed to do. His resurrection is what makes the ultimate resurrection predicted in the Old Testament possible (a resurrection is predicted in Daniel 12:2 and Ezekiel 37:12b-13). Matthew mentioning these saints being raised confirms his main point– that Jesus accomplished what Israel could not.Because of His perfect life, the resurrection is guaranteed and the barrier between God and man due to sin has been torn down signified by the veil in the temple being torn in the verses just preceding it. So while it didn’t fit the purposes of the other gospel writers, Matthew briefly mentioned the saints being raised because of its theological significance to his Jewish audience.

Another possibility is that the resurrection of the saints was not literal, but symbolic. Dr. Michael Licona will be advancing this theory in a forthcoming article called “The Saints Go Marching in” (of which I have a copy). Citing many examples, Licona points out that when writing about the death of an emperor, ancient Jewish and Roman authors frequently used phenomenological language in a symbolic manner. Writing to his Jewish audience, Matthew may have done the same.

But does that mean Christ’s resurrection could also be symbolic? Licona answers no. He writes:

There is no indication that the early Christians interpreted Jesus’ resurrection in a metaphorical or poetic sense to the exclusion of it being a literal event that had occurred to his corpse. Indeed, that a literal bodily resurrection was the primary intended interpretation seems clear. Paul asserted that Christian faith is worthless if Jesus had not been raised (1 Cor. 15:17). It is difficult to imagine Paul informing Caiaphas that, although he had believed it had been God’s will for him to hunt down Christians and destroy the Church, he was now more strongly compelled by their metaphor of Jesus’ resurrection and would jeopardize his eternal soul by abandoning the Judaism to which he had clung in order to become a Christian. Moreover, if Jesus’ resurrection was meant to be interpreted as a poetic metaphor, why is it that no known Christian opponent criticized the early Christians or their opponents for misunderstanding poetry as history? Why was there no known correction from any of the early Christian leaders to this effect? The early opponents proposed that Jesus survived death, his body was stolen, the witnesses were unreliable, and that the disciples hallucinated. These are all answers to claims of a literal bodily resurrection.

It also seems unlikely that the early Christian martyrs would die for a metaphor. Moreover, John’s gospel talks of feeling literal wounds(John 20:27), and Luke states explicitly that the body of Jesus was made of “flesh and bones” (Luke 24:39).

What about the skeptical view that Matthew meant it to be literal,but it never really happened? That would certainly defeat biblical inerrancy, but it would not defeat the evidence for the resurrection of Christ. There are too many early, eyewitness sources that testify of it, and too much converging circumstantial evidence (prophecy,embarrassing details, martyrs, establishment of the church, etc.) that confirm it.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
@ CG Didymus

Skywalker said:
The Bible has not been corrupted. Has the Bible been corrupted, altered, edited, revised, or tampered with? | GotQuestions.org

Question: "Has the Bible been corrupted, altered, edited, revised, or tampered with?"

Answer:
The books of the Old Testament were written from approximately 1400 BC to 400 BC. The books of the New Testament were written from approximately AD 40 to AD 90. So, anywhere between 3,400 and 1,900 years have passed since a book of the Bible was written. In this time, the original manuscripts have been lost. They very likely no longer exist. Since the time the books of the Bible were originally written, they have been copied again and again by scribes. Copies of copies of copies have been made. In view of this, can we still trust the Bible?

Given what that Christian website above says, there is no reason to think that the Bible/Torah was accurate regarding Isaac being the one who was sacrificed.

"The Bahá'ís believe what is in the Bible to be true in substance. This does not mean that every word recorded in that Book is to be taken literally and treated as the authentic saying of a Prophet. A striking example is given in the account of the sacrifice which Abraham was called upon to make. The Guardian of the Faith confirms that the record in the Qur'an and the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, namely that it was Ishmael, and not Isaac as stated in the Old Testament, whom Abraham was to sacrifice, is to be upheld. In one of His Tablets 'Abdu'l-Bahá refers to this discrepancy, and explains that, from a spiritual point of view, it is irrelevant which son was involved. The essential part of the story is that Abraham was willing to obey God's command to sacrifice His son. Thus, although the account in the Torah is inaccurate in detail, it is true in substance...."

The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments
From letters written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice

Quoted from a certain article. No God but One: Allah or Jesus? A Former Muslim Investigates the Evidence for Islam and Christianity | Reformed Faith & Practice

No God but One: Allah or Jesus? A Former Muslim Investigates the Evidence for Islam and Christianity
51VMRDx0zhL._SX324_BO1204203200_-230x350.jpg


Nabeel Qureshi, No God but One: Allah or Jesus? A Former Muslim Investigates the Evidence for Islam and Christianity. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016. 320 pp. $17.99, paper.

Stories of converts from Islam to Christianity are plentiful. Indeed, according to some reports unprecedented numbers of Muslims are coming to Christ across the world. Notably less common, however, are testimonies of former Muslims that ascribe a significant role to Christian apologetics. Nabeel Qureshi represents one such case—perhaps the best-known case given the success of his first book, Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus, in which he recounted his personal journey from Islam (specifically the Ahmadi tradition) to Christianity. His conversion was driven not only by increasing unease with traditional Islamic teachings but also by historical arguments against major Islamic claims. A significant component of Qureshi’s story involves his friendship with David Wood and his encounters with Christian apologists Gary Habermas and Michael Licona, whose arguments eventually persuaded him that Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection were historical events.

Qureshi’s first book served as an apologetic as well as a testimony, but it didn’t directly and systematically address the historical and theological issues at stake between Christianity and Islam. Qureshi’s most recent book, No God but One, does precisely that. As Qureshi puts it, his first book reflects “the heart” of his story, while this one represents “the mind” of his story. His stated goal is to defend two basic theses: “that the differences between Islam and Christianity have great implications, and that the evidence of history strongly supports the Christian claims” (13). The wording of his second thesis already hints at the methodology he adopts for establishing the truth of Christianity.

The book is thus structured into two halves addressing two crucial questions: (1) What are the differences between Islam and Christianity? (2) Can we know whether Islam or Christianity is true? The second question somewhat understates Qureshi’s goal, which is not merely to argue that we can know whether one of the two religions is true, but that examining the historical evidence shows us precisely which one is true. Each half of the book is further divided into five parts, and each of these into four short chapters, resulting in a book with 40 easily digestible chapters. In the remainder of this review, I will briefly summarize the main issues addressed in the book before offering an assessment of its content and approach to those issues.

Part 1 (“Sharia or the Gospel?”) contrasts the Islamic and Christian views of salvation: law-keeping versus grace-receiving. The two faiths present very different diagnoses of the human condition, and thus offer very different solutions. To put matters bluntly: Islam teaches that we can (and must) save ourselves, whereas Christianity teaches that only God can save us.

Part 2 (“Tawhid or the Trinity?”) examines the different views of God represented by each faith. While both are monotheistic—each can affirm the biblical shema—the God of the Quran is “a monad” with no internal interpersonal relations (the Quran states emphatically that Allah has no son) but the God of the New Testament is triune. The last of these four chapters raises the vexed question of whether Muslims and Christians “worship the same God.” Readers in search of an unambiguous answer to the question will not find one here (although to be fair, that’s partly because the question itself is ambiguous and thus susceptible to different answers depending on how it is interpreted). Nevertheless, we are left in no doubt that the Islamic and Christian views of God are diametrically opposed at significant points. The two religions cannot be reconciled.

Part 3 (“Muhammad or Jesus?”) contrasts the two founders of Islam and Christianity, although much of the material focuses on Muhammad’s view of Jesus (a merely human prophet) versus Jesus’s own view of himself (the incarnate Son of God). Along the way, Qureshi seeks to defuse some of the common objections Muslims have raised against the doctrine of the Incarnation.

Part 4 (“The Quran or the Bible?”) compares the two holy books of Islam and Christianity, laying out not only the major differences between the Islamic and Christian understandings of divine inspiration but also traditional Muslim views on the corruption of the Bible. Qureshi closes this section of the book with a personal testimony of how the Bible penetrated his heart in a way that the Quran never did, speaking words of deep comfort in a time of sorrow.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Baha'is do not believe that the Bible has been corrupted, because Baha'u'llah wrote that the Bible has not been corrupted. Addressing the Muslims, Baha’u’llah wrote:

“We have also heard a number of the foolish of the earth assert that the genuine text of the heavenly Gospel doth not exist amongst the Christians, that it hath ascended unto heaven. How grievously they have erred! How oblivious of the fact that such a statement imputeth the gravest injustice and tyranny to a gracious and loving Providence! How could God, when once the Day-star of the beauty of Jesus had disappeared from the sight of His people, and ascended unto the fourth heaven, cause His holy Book, His most great testimony amongst His creatures, to disappear also?” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, p. 89

“Our purpose in relating these things is to warn you that were they to maintain that those verses wherein the signs referred to in the Gospel are mentioned have been perverted, were they to reject them, and cling instead to other verses and traditions, you should know that their words were utter falsehood and sheer calumny. Yea “corruption” of the text, in the sense We have referred to, hath been actually effected in particular instances. A few of these We have mentioned, that it may become manifest to every discerning observer that unto a few untutored holy Men hath been given the mastery of human learning, so that the malevolent opposer may cease to contend that a certain verse doth indicate “corruption” of the text, and insinuate that We, through lack of knowledge, have made mention of such things. Moreover, most of the verses that indicate “corruption” of the text have been revealed with reference to the Jewish people, were ye to explore the isles of Qur’ánic Revelation.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, pp. 88-89

There is no proof that Jesus was ever resurrected from the dead. Anyone can write a story about multiple witnesses but since there was nobody outside of the story itself to confirm it, it may as well be fiction.

What many liberal theologians believe about Jesus' death:

Many liberal and some mainline Christian leaders believe that Jesus died during the crucifixion, did not resurrect himself, and was not bodily resurrected by God. At his death, his mind ceased to function and his body started the decomposition process. Returning to life a day and a half later would have been quite impossible. The story of having been wrapped in linen and anointed with myrrh seems to have been copied from the story of the death of Osiris -- the Egyptian God of the earth, vegetation and grain. The legend that he visited the underworld between his death and resurrection was simply copied from common Pagan themes of surrounding cultures. One example again was Osiris. "With his original association to agriculture, his death and resurrection were seen as symbolic of the annual death and re-growth of the crops and the yearly flooding of the Nile." 1

They also believe that Paul regarded the resurrection to be an act of God in which Jesus was a passive recipient of God's power. Paul did not mention the empty tomb, the visit by a woman or women, the stone, the angel/angels/man/men at the tomb, and reunion of Jesus with his followers in his resuscitated body. Rather, he believed that Jesus was taken up into heaven in a spirit body. It was only later, from about 70 to 110 CE when the four canonic Gospels were written, that the Christians believed that Jesus rose from the grave in his original body, and by his own power.

Later, perhaps after Paul's death, there was great disappointment within the Christian communities because Jesus had not returned as expected. They diverted their focus of attention away from Jesus' second coming. They studied his life and death more intensely. Legends without a historical basis were created by the early church; these included the empty tomb and described Jesus returning in his original body to eat and talk with his followers.

In previous centuries, almost all Christians believed in miracles as described in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). These included creation, the story of Adam and Eve, a talking serpent, the great flood of Noah, the drying up of the Red/Reed sea, a prophet riding on a talking ***, the sun stopping in the sky, etc. From the Christian Scriptures (New Testament), they believed in the virgin birth, the Christmas star, angels appearing to the shepherds, Jesus healing the sick, etc. Many, perhaps most, liberal Christians now believe that these stories are not to be interpreted literally as real events. Their faith has not been damaged by losing faith in the reality of these events. A growing number of liberals are now taking the final step by interpreting the stories of Jesus' resurrection and his appearances to his followers and to Paul as other than real events. Retired bishop John Shelby Spong commented:

"I do admit that for Christians to enter this subject honestly is to invite great anxiety. It is to walk the razor's edge, to run the risk of cutting the final cord still binding many to the faith of their mothers and fathers. But the price for refusing to enter this consideration is for me even higher. The inability to question reveals that one has no confidence that one's belief system will survive such an inquiry. That is a tacit recognition that on unconscious levels, one's faith has already died. If one seeks to protect God from truth or new insights, then God has surely already died." 3

Quoted from Reasons for Jesus. How Polycarp Gives Us Evidence For The Early Use Of The New Testament

How Polycarp Gives Us Evidence For The Early Use Of The New Testament
By
Erik Manning
-
October 19, 2020
1429


By Erik Manning| How we know the books that we have in the New Testament are the right books? Why isn’t the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Mary included with the other four gospels? And didn’t the teachings of the disciples and apostles get corrupted over the centuries?

Christians often get tested with these questions. While I hate to admit it, this is also the quiz that most believers flunk. We need to be better prepared and that requires a little understanding of early church history.

So let me introduce you to a guy who went by the funny name of Polycarp. I guess if you’re Greek it’s not that strange, his name simply means much fruit. And his life and martyrdom are a big part of the answer to these inquiries.

WHO WAS POLYCARP?
Polycarp was born in 69 AD. While we don’t know a whole lot about his personal life, we do know that he was the bishop of the church in Smyrna, which is now Izmir, Turkey. He was martyred at the age of 86. He wrote a letter to the church at Phillipi, which is dated between 110-140 AD. He was carrying the letters of his fellow church father Ignatius to the church at Phillipi, and decided to attach a letter of his own.

We can learn a lot about what Polycarp thought about the Scriptures we possess today from this brief epistle.

POLYCARP KNEW JOHN AND OTHER APOSTLES
The reason why Polycarp is important as he’s a bridge to the original apostles themselves. According to his student Irenaeus (try spelling that name without looking it up), Polycarp was a student of the apostle John, and he knew other apostles, although they go unnamed.

Here’s Irenaeus: “But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true.”Against Heresies (Book III, 3.4)
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Why do you believe Jesus is a messenger?

Jesus brought a Message from God, if we look at the Old Testament it says this

In Malachi 3:1 "I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come," says the LORD Almighty.” - NIV

I personally see that refers to the Bab and Baha'u'llah. A christian would have to see that it either it is applicable to Jesus or not. If it is applicable we know that Jesus was that Messenger that John prepared the way for. But I see Jesus was not the Messenger of the Covenant spoken about in this verse, though I see it can be seen as such.

In the time of Jesus, he was seen as a Messenger and Jesus was attempting to explain the relationship of the Messenger with God.

John 5:37 And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form.

Regards Tony
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Scripture does not say that Jesus was fully man and fully God, that is a Christian doctrine.
Scripture says that Jesus was a Manifestation of God.

1 Timothy 3:16 King James Version (KJV)

16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.


God is Spirit and holy, and this Spirit was also upon Jesus since Jesus was One with the Father.

Jesus was the Son of God, and although the Son is not the Father, the Father is in the Son.

Jesus was a clear mirror, and God became visible in the mirror. This is why Jesus said, “The Father is in the Son” (John 14:11, John 17:21) meaning that God is visible and manifest in Jesus.

“I and my Father are one” (John 10:30) means that the Manifestation of God, in this case Jesus, and God are one and the same, so whatever pertains to the Manifestation of God, all His acts and doings, as well as whatever He ordains and forbids, is identical with the Will of God Himself.

In denying that Jesus Christ was fully man and fully God, you make him less than a Saviour.

Using your quotations from John simply proves the point that Jesus must have been fully God. If the Father was upon the Son, then Jesus was fully God.

The presence of Christ was only known to those who were able to recognise the Spirit of the Father in his Son, Jesus.

Matthew 16:16,17. 'And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.'
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Then why is there still so much sin in the world?

The extension of God's kingdom on earth is ever on-going. Each new generation needs to hear the Gospel preached, and they need to be baptised in the Holy Spirit. Eventually, Christ will return and judge the world.

1 Peter 3:9. 'The Lord is not slack concerning his promise [to judge], as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.'
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
" return of Jesus, was the same way, as return of Elijah as another person "
I agree with one here.
A person who dies never comes back in this world. Right, please?

Regards
Yes, I agree. A person who dies is not reincarnated.

However, it is possible for a person to be raised from the dead and live out the rest of their mortal lives, as with Lazarus.

The other exception is Jesus Christ, whose resurrection was necessary to demonstrate that he had, indeed, been raised from the dead in a new incorruptible body. He is considered to be the first-fruit of the harvest, showing what will happen at resurrection.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Baha'is believe those verses refer to Baha'u'llah, who was one like the Son of man.

That's right, there is no need for any other mediator except Baha'u'llah, not until God sends another mediator.

What kingdom was established?
Show me any scripture that you believe says that.

If Daniel 7:14,15 refers to Baha'u'llah, it's odd that he isn't mentioned in Philippians 2:9,10:

'Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
That at the name of Jesus
[not Baha'u'llah] every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.'

It's mighty strange that Baha'u'llah should suddenly claim the position of Christ when scripture clearly designates Jesus as the one and only Christ.

Of course, you may believe, as some do, that Jesus was totally misguided when he made the claim that the Hebrew scriptures all pointed to him as the Messiah.

Luke 24:25-27.
'Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scripture the things concerning himself.'
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Did Jesus claim to be sinless, please?
Did Jesus say Adam was sinful, please?
If yes, please quote first person claim from Jesus, not a third person claim from any other narrator, please. Right, please?

Regards
Jesus intentionally avoids 'blowing his own trumpet'. A true prophet, and the true Messiah, is known by the authority of their words and actions. Did Jesus fulfil the prophecies of the 'suffering servant' found in scripture?

1. Genesis 3:15 > Galatians 4:4; 1 John 3:8. The seed of the woman.
2. Genesis 12:3 > Matthew 1:1; Acts 3:25; 18:18; 22:18; Galatians 3:16. The seed of Abraham.
3. Genesis 17:19; 21:12 > Matthew 1:2; Luke 3:34; Hebrews 11:17-19. The seed of Isaac.
4. Genesis 28:14; Numbers 24:17,19 > Matthew 1:2; Luke 3:34; Revelation 22:16. The star out of Jacob who will have dominion.
5. Genesis 49:10 > Matthew 1:2-3; Luke 3:33; Hebrews 7:14. A descendant of Judah.
6. 2 Samuel 7:12-13; Isaiah 9:6 (7); Jeremiah 23:5 > Matthew 1:1,6; Acts 11:23; Romans 1:4. A descendant of David and heir to his throne.
7. Micah 5:1 (2) > John 11, 14; 8:58; Ephesians 1:3-14; Colossians 1:15-19; Revelation 5:11. The Messiah’s eternal existence.
8. Psalm 2:7; Proverbs 30:4 > Matthew 3:17; Luke 1:32. The Messiah is the Son of God.
9. Isaiah 9:5-6 (6-7); Jeremiah 23:5-6 > Romans 10:9; Philippians 2:9-11. The Messiah bears God’s own name.
10. Daniel 9:24-26 > Matthew 2:1, 16,19; Luke 3:1,23. Coming 483 years after the rebuilding of the wall in Jerusalem.
11. Micah 5:1(2) > Matthew 2:1; Luke 2:4-7. Messiah will be born in Bethlehem, Judea.
13. Psalm 72:10-11 > Matthew 2:1-11. Adored by great persons.
14. Isaiah 40: 3-5; Malachi 3:1 > Matthew 3:1-3; Luke 1:17; 3:2-6. Announced by prophet.
15. Isaiah 11:2; 61:1; Psalm 45:8 (7) > Matthew 3:16; John 3:34; Acts 10:38. Anointed with the Spirit of God.
16. Deuteronomy 18:15,18 > Acts 3:20-22. A prophet like Moses.
17. Isaiah 61:1-2 > Luke 4:18-19. Proclaims liberty and the acceptable year of the Lord.
18. Isaiah 35:5-6; 42:18 > Matthew 11:5 and throughout the Gospels. Ministry of healing.
19. Isaiah 8:23 – 9:1 (9:1-2) > Matthew 4:12-16. A ministry in Galilee.
20. Isaiah 40:11; 42:3 > Matthew 12:15,20; Hebrews 4:15. Be tender and compassionate.
21. Isaiah 42:2 > Matthew 12:15-16,19. Be meek and unostentatious.
22. Isaiah 53:9 > 1 Peter 2:22. Be sinless and without guile.
23. Isaiah 53:12; Psalm 69:10 > Romans 15:13. Bear the reproaches due to others.
24. Psalm 110:4 > Hebrews 5:5-6. Be a priest.
25. Zechariah 9:9 > Matthew 21:1-11; Mark 11:1-11. Enter Jerusalem on the foal of an ***.
26. Haggai 2:7-9; Malachi 3:1 > Matthew 21:12-24; Luke 2:27-38, 45-50: John 2:13-22. Enter the Temple with authority.
27. Isaiah 49:7; Psalm 69:5 (4) > John 7:48; 15:24-25. Be hated without cause.
28. Isaiah 53:2; 63:3; Psalm 69:9 (8) > Mark 6:3: Luke 9:58; John1:11, 7:3-5. Rejected by his own people.
29. Psalm 118:22 > Matthew 21:42; John 7:48. Rejected by the Jewish leadership.
30. Psalm 2:1-2 > Acts 4:27. Plotted against by both Jews and Gentiles.
31. Psalm 41:9; 55:13-15 (12-14) >Matthew 26:21-25, 47-50; John 13:18-21; Acts 1:16-18. Betrayed by a friend.
32. Zechariah 11:12 > Matthew 26:15. Sold for 30 pieces of silver.
33. Zechariah 11:13 > Matthew 27:7. Have his price given for a potter’s field.
34. Zechariah 13:7 > Matthew 26:31,56. Forsaken by his disciples.
35. Micah 4:14 (5:1) > Matthew 27:30. Struck on the cheek.
36. Isaiah 50:6 > Matthew 26:67; 27:30. Spat on.
37. Psalm 22:8-9 (7-8) > Matthew 27:31, 39-44, 67-68. Mocked.
38. Isaiah 50:6 > Matthew 26:67; 27:26,30. Beaten.
39. Psalm 22:17; Zechariah 12:10 (16) > Matthew 27:35; Luke 24:39; John 19:18, 34-37; 20:35; Revelation 1:7. Crucifixion.
40. Psalm 22:16 (15) > John 19:28. Thirsty during crucifixion.
41. Psalm 69:22 (21) > Matthew 27:34. Given vinegar to quench thirst.
42. Exodus 12:46; Psalm 34:21 (20) >John 19:33-36. Executed without a bone broken.
43. Isaiah 53:12 > Matthew 27:38. Considered a transgressor.
44. Daniel 9:24-26 > Matthew 2:1; Luke 3:1,23. ‘Cut off, but not for himself’.
45. Isaiah 53:5-7, 12 > Mark 10:45; John 1:29; 3:16; Acts 8:30-35. Atone for the sins of mankind.
46. Isaiah 53:9 > Matthew 27:57-60. Buried with the rich when dead.
47. Isaiah 53:9-10; Psalm 2:7; 16:10 > Matthew 28:1-20; Acts 2:23-36; 13:33-37; 1 Corinthians 11:4-6. Raised from the dead.
48. Psalm 16:11; 68:19 (18); 110:1 > Luke 24:51; Acts 1:9-11; 7:55; Hebrews 1:3. Ascend to the right hand of God.
49. Zechariah 6:13 > Romans 8:34; Hebrews 7:25-8:2. Exercise his priestly office in heaven.
50. Isaiah 28:16; Psalm 118:22-23 > Matthew 21:42; Ephesians 2:20; 1 Peter 2:5-7. The cornerstone of God’s spiritual temple.
51. Isaiah 11:10; 42:1 > Acts 10:45. Sought after by Gentiles as well as Jews.
52. Isaiah 11:10; 42:1-4; 49:1-2 > Matthew 12:21; Romans 15:10. Accepted by the Gentiles.

Do you believe the law of Moses? If you do, you will know that the sacrificial lamb at Passover had to be without blemish [Exodus 12:5,6]. Well, the prophet John [the Baptist] was given a prophetic word about Jesus when at the river Jordan. He said, 'Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world' [John 1:29].

1 Peter 1:18,19.' Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:'

Can you be 'the Holy One of God' and be sinful? Well, even an unclean devil recognised Jesus Christ [see Luke 4:33,34]

Was Adam sinful? Yes. He died aged 930.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
I believe a person needs to have Jesus as Lord and Savior to be saved. Not every person called Christian fits into that.

I believe a Christian could belong to a Baha'i church or whatever they call it as long as He takes everything the B man says with a grain of salt and believes solidly in the Bible.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
The Baha'i faith will give you a broader definition of God.

While the Christian faith tends to have really good theology.

But going from Christian to Baha'i is kind of like saying "The Bible isn't the final word, but it had its merit, as does..." and going on from there.

I believe there is a question of whether that definition comes from God or from a man postulating what God is like. I have seen some posters on RF categorize God as a terrorist but that is from man's point of view not God's.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I believe a person needs to have Jesus as Lord and Savior to be saved. Not every person called Christian fits into that.

I believe a Christian could belong to a Baha'i church or whatever they call it as long as He takes everything the B man says with a grain of salt and believes solidly in the Bible.

Ever wonder about the deal where he sets up human nature, all these rules and pitfalls, and then offers to save yiu from hims3lf?
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
I never really got that from Christianity, or maybe I did.

What I got was that Christians should not be concerned with earthly governments. Christians should concern themselves with the Kingdom of Heaven.

I believe the saying was be as wise as serpents but as harmless as doves. Another saying is that we are in the word but not of it.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I believe there is a question of whether that definition comes from God or from a man postulating what God is like. I have seen some posters on RF categorize God as a terrorist but that is from man's point of view not God's.himself?
.

Terrorists never do see themselves as Terrorists

The bible-chsracter called "god" is a psycho monster.
 
Last edited:

Muffled

Jesus in me
Ever wonder about the deal where he sets up human nature, all these rules and pitfalls, and then offers to save yiu from hims3lf?

I believe He did not set up pitfalls and if by human nature you mean fallen ,sinful nature then God didn't set that up either.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I believe He did not set up pitfalls and if by human nature you mean fallen ,sinful nature then God didn't set that up either.

And you even deny that he is offering to save you from his rules, from himself?

I don't of course see how a realistic case could be made the " he " is not responsible for " his"
Creation, knowing the while exactly what would happen.
 
Top