• 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 can the Jew reject, Jesus, Muhammad, Bab and Baha'u'llah?

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
"The bodily resurrection of Jesus is the best-attested fact of human history."

Fact ??????? :rolleyes:

NOTHING could be further from the truth. The bodily resurrection is fictional stories, nothing that ever happened in reality.

That is why only Christians "believe" it. If it was a FACT, there would be proof and everyone would KNOW it. There would be information about it if it was a fact. Stories men made up are not information.

fact: something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:
fact

"But the evidence for Jesus’ bodily resurrection is overwhelming. The Lord himself declared: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”

Jesus was not referring to His body, that was a misinterpretation of the scripture.

John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

The Temple here is the Word of God.
The 3 day period is a time of turmoil where the Disciples needed Faith to carry on, the body of Jesus had gone and they needed to find Faith in Spirit to carry on with what Jesus the Christ had instructed them to do.

Women were eyewitnesses of Jesus rising from the dead. Skeptics converted to Jesus after he rose from the dead. There was embarrassing testimony. There was also circumstantial evidence and the disciples had no reason to lie that Jesus rose from the dead. They were persecuted by the Romans and Jews They didn't recant when they were being persecuted.. Criterion of embarrassment

The criterion of embarrassment is a type of critical analysis in which an account is likely to be true as the author would have no reason to invent an account which might embarrass them. Certain Biblical scholars have used this as a metric for assessing whether the New Testament's accounts of Jesus' actions and words are historically probable.[1] The criterion of embarrassment is also used as an argument by those who say that the Torah is the word of God; the Jews in the Torah are often described in very critical, very unflattering terms.

The criterion of embarrassment is one point listed in the Criteria of Authenticity used by academics, the others being the criterion of dissimilarity, criterion of language and environment, criterion of coherence, and the criterion of multiple attestation.[2]

10 Reasons To Accept The Resurrection Of Jesus As A Fact | Reasons for Jesus

1) The First Eyewitnesses were Women

The first eyewitnesses of the resurrection were women. All the Gospels note that the first individuals to discover the tomb empty were women. Matthew notes that “After the Sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to view the tomb…The angel told the women, ‘Don’t be afraid, because I know you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. He is not here. For he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the play where he lay” (Matthew 28:1, 5-6).[1]

Women were not held in high esteem. In Greco-Roman culture, a woman’s testimony was not admissible in court. In Jewish circles, it took the testimony of two women to equate that of one man. If one were to invent a story, the last people one would place as the first witnesses would have been women, unless it were otherwise true.

3) Transformation of the Early Disciples

As noted in the minimal facts, James, the brother of Jesus, was changed from a skeptic to a believer because of the resurrection. James along with his brothers did not believe in Jesus during Jesus’s early ministry (see John 7:5). However, Jesus appeared to James (1 Corinthians 15:3-9) and James became a leader in the early Jerusalem church. His death is recorded by Josephus.[3]

Paul is another example of one who was completely transformed by the resurrection of Jesus. Paul, a Jewish Pharisee, had been a persecutor of the church. After witnessing the risen Jesus, Paul became a proclaimer for the church.

4) Embarrassing Details of the Resurrection
Historically speaking, embarrassing details add veracity to a historical claim. The fact that women were the first witnesses, that a member of the Sanhedrin (the same Sanhedrin that executed Jesus) had to give Jesus a proper burial, that Jesus own brothers rejected his claims at one point, that Paul was a persecutor of the church, and that the disciples were fearful and fled all serve as embarrassing factors for the resurrection account.

5) Willingness to Die for What Was Known.
Many people will die for what they believe to be true. But no one will die for something they erroneously invented. The disciples knew if they were telling the truth. Yet, one finds that the disciples were willing to die for what they knew to be true. Stephen died by stoning (Acts 7:54-60), James of Zebedee died by the sword at the hands of Herod (Acts 12:2), James the brother of Jesus died as a martyr,[4]and Peter and Paul died at the hands of Nero.[5]

7) Circumstantial Evidence
Douglas Groothius notes that circumstantial evidence for the historicity of the resurrection is:

NAMELY, THE PRACTICE OF THE EARLY CHURCH IN OBSERVING BAPTISM, THE LORD’S SUPPER, AND SUNDAY WORSHIP.”[7]

Baptism is based upon the analogy of Jesus’s death, burial, and resurrection.

The Lord’s Supper is a symbol of Christ’s sacrificial death. In addition, it is quite odd that faithful Jews would move their worship from a Friday evening into Saturday to a Sunday morning unless something major had occurred on a Sunday morning. The major Sunday morning event was Jesus’s resurrection.

8) The Missing Motive

J. Warner Wallace has noted in his lectures and books that when a conspiracy is formed, three motivating factors are behinds such a move—power, greed, and/or lust.[8] The disciples would hold no power behind claiming the resurrection as history. They were running around while often being threatened by the Jewish and Roman authorities.

As far as greed, they taught that one should not desire earthly possessions, but spiritual ones. Lust was not a factor, either. They taught celibacy before marriage and marital fidelity after marriage.

In fact, historian N. T. Wright notes in his classic book, The Resurrection of the Son of God, that the disciples had no theological motivation behind claiming that Jesus had risen from the dead as they were anticipating a military hero and a final resurrection at the end of time.

What motivating factors existed for these disciples to invent such a story? None! The only reason the disciples taught the resurrection of Jesus was because Jesus’s resurrection had occurred.

9) Enemy Attestation of the Resurrection
Historically speaking, if one holds enemy attestation to an event, then the event is strengthened. When one considers the claims of the authorities that the disciples had stolen the body of Jesus (Matthew 28:11-15), the testimony of the resurrection is strengthened.

The early belief that the disciples had stolen the body of Jesus is strengthened by the discovery of the Nazareth Inscription that orders capital punishment for anyone who steals a body from a tomb.[9] In addition, several references to Jesus and his resurrection include citations from Josephus,[10] Tacitus,[11] and Suetonius[12]among others (including the Babylonian Talmud).

10) Multiple Post-Resurrection Eyewitnesses

Finally, there is multiple eyewitness testimony pertaining to the resurrection of Jesus. Several people had seen Jesus alive for a period of 40 days. The eyewitnesses include Mary Magdalene (John 20:10-18), the women at the tomb accompanying Mary (Matthew 28:1-10), the Roman guards (Matthew 28:4), the Eleven disciples (John 21), the two men on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35), an indeterminate number of disciples (Matthew 28:16-20); over five-hundred disciples (1 Corinthains 15:6), to James (1 Corinthians 15:7) and to Paul (1 Corinthians 15:8-9).

I am certain that there were many other witnesses that are unnamed.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Yes, evil certainly exists. But Baha'is kind of saying it doesn't. I think they use the analogy of a dark room, and as soon as you turn on the light, the evil, or darkness, disappears. And, is that all that much different than what Christians are saying... evil exists and Satan exists, then one day Jesus is going to do away with them. But, either way, God thought it a good idea to create evil and a Satan? Nothing like a little pain and suffering to show how much God loves us.

When someone asks why God allows evil, it's essential to define what they mean by evil. Are they confining evil to Nazi Germany, the Mafia, mass murder, and the atrocities of war? And what do they suggest God should do to those who are evil? Are they saying there should be a place of punishment? As we have seen, there must be societal retribution for evil acts, or those who govern become evil themselves. If a man commits murder or rape and is not punished by society, that society is complicit and therefore corrupt.

By calling for God to punish evil, the world paints itself into a tight corner. This happens because, whether they realize it, God is perfectly good and therefore must punish all evil. When the apostle Paul stood up in Athens and preached the gospel, he said that God had appointed a day in which He would judge the world in righteousness (Acts 17:30-31). And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: For He has set a day when He will judge the world with justice by the Man He has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising Him from the dead. But Paul added something wonderful. He said that God "winked" at his hearers' "times of ignorance." In other words, the kindly judge overlooked the evil humanity had done, because He is rich in mercy. He delayed sentencing so that the criminal could think about his crimes and reconsider his plea.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
As all I have to do is read sripture given by Jesus.

John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him"

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."

Exodus 33:20 "But He said, “You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!”

Such is the quandary we face.

Now we know we do not see God but the Messenger, who is the Representitive, or Self of God amongst us and we can listen to what Jesus offered

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."

So the Father will be another Messenger, who we will see His Form and Hear His voice, which is not seeing or hearing God in Essence.

God does not have a mouth.

I this verse Exodus 3:6 we can now consider a lot more, the verse says; "He said also, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” Then Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God..." Baha'u'llah has offered that it was He that was talking to Moses through the burning Bush.

Regards Tony

Jesus was the angel of the Lord in the Old Testament. A Brief Study of the Angel of Jehovah

One of the most intriguing inquiries into the literature of the Old Testament has to do with that mysterious being that is referred to as “the angel of Jehovah” (KJV; Gen. 16:7-14) or “the angel of God” (Gen. 21:17-19). The two expressions have to do with the same entity (cf. Judg. 6:20, 21).

Exactly who was this person?

What Is an Angel?
One of the first issues that must be addressed is the significance of the term “angel.” The Hebrew word is malak and it “simply signifies a messenger” (Girdlestone 1973, 41). The nature of the messenger must be determined by the context.

It could be a messenger of a heavenly order — an angel as we ordinarily think of that term (Gen. 32:1). Or it may denote a human messenger operating on behalf of someone else, as in the case of Jacob’s emissaries (Gen. 32:3).

On the other hand, the “angel [better rendered ‘messenger’] of Jehovah” stands in a class by himself.

A consideration of the relevant Old Testament data, we believe, will lead to the following conclusion:

  1. The “messenger of Jehovah” himself possessed characteristics that can only be ascribed to deity.
  2. Yet this being is distinguished from another person who is also designated as Jehovah.
  3. The messenger of Jehovah is to be identified with the pre-incarnate Word, Jesus Christ.
Let us address each of these propositions.

The Messenger of Jehovah: A Divine Being
A careful consideration of various texts relating to the messenger of Jehovah will reveal that he is not of the common angelic class. For example:

  1. He promises to multiply Hagar’s seed, and she confesses, “You are a God who sees” (Gen. 16:10, 13).
  2. The messenger called unto Abraham, saying, “By myself I have sworn, says Jehovah” (Gen. 22:15, 16).
  3. He said to Jacob, “I am the God of Bethel” (Gen. 31:11, 13).
  4. It was this messenger who wrestled with Jacob (cf. “angel” in Hos. 12:4) at Peniel, and yet the sacred text identifies this person as God (Gen. 32:28-30; Hos. 12:3-5).
  5. This messenger spoke to Moses from the burning bush, referring to himself as God (Ex. 3:2ff).
  6. The messenger attributed to himself the divine oath (Judg. 2:1-3).
  7. This “prince of Jehovah” accepted worship and spoke as God (Josh. 5:13-6:2; cf. Judg. 6:19-27).
  8. Ordinary angels refuse worship (Rev. 22:8, 9), but a number of Old Testament worthies called this person “God” and the designation was never repudiated (cf. Gen. 16:7ff; 22:11, 14; 48:15ff; Judg. 13:21, 22; Zech. 3:1ff).
There is, therefore, a vast amount of evidence leading to the conclusion that the messenger of Jehovah was a divine being.

The Messenger of Jehovah: Distinct from Jehovah
In spite of the fact that the holy messenger is endowed with the traits of deity, he is also distinguished from Jehovah. Repeatedly, he is designated as the “messenger of Jehovah.” He is Jehovah himself and he is acting on behalf of another who is also Jehovah.

In Exodus 23:20ff, Jehovah promised the children of Israel that he would send an angel (i.e. messenger) before them as they sojourned in the wilderness of Sinai. This messenger would keep them safe and bring them finally to Canaan. The Hebrews were warned to listen to his voice and not provoke him. Otherwise, he would not forgive their transgressions.

Jehovah said, “for my name is in him” (v. 21), which suggests the messenger is a supernatural being (cf. Cole 1973, 181). Yet, note the distinction between “my” and “him.”

It would be appropriate at this point to anticipate a question that many sincere students doubtless have. Namely, how can this being be both Jehovah and yet be a messenger from Jehovah?

Is the designation “Jehovah” applied to more than one divine person? The answer is yes.

The name Jehovah (Yahweh) is derived from a root form, havah, which means “to be” or “being.” It suggests that deity is absolutely self-existent(Stone 1944, 15). It thus is a fitting appellation for each of the persons within the holy trinity since each of these is characterized by uninitiated existence.

We are not surprised, therefore, to see references to more than one person who is designated as Jehovah, sometimes in the same passage. Isaiah declared: “Thus saith Jehovah, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, Jehovah of hosts” (Isa. 44:6).
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
:rolleyes:

Here's the thing. I told you the answer in previous threads in previous conversations. What I notice is that you don't listen or value what I've said or what other Jewish people have said. So, until you can demonstrate that my words have value, I'm not going to give away the answer.

I'll give you a hint: There are two transgressions Matthew 5. You're on the right track by quoting verse 18. The trangressions violate words of Torah from Moses, not from Mishnah, Talmud, or Midrash.


Nope, that's not it.

"Jesus as described in the NT does not encourage Torah observance."

"Jesus as described in the NT encourages Jewish people to transgress."

Jesus came to save us and to teach us how to live. The covenant between God and Israel already existed at the time.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
As all I have to do is read sripture given by Jesus.

John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him"

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."

Exodus 33:20 "But He said, “You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!”

Such is the quandary we face.

Now we know we do not see God but the Messenger, who is the Representitive, or Self of God amongst us and we can listen to what Jesus offered

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."

So the Father will be another Messenger, who we will see His Form and Hear His voice, which is not seeing or hearing God in Essence.

God does not have a mouth.

I this verse Exodus 3:6 we can now consider a lot more, the verse says; "He said also, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” Then Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God..." Baha'u'llah has offered that it was He that was talking to Moses through the burning Bush.

Regards Tony

Jesus said this is the Father that you haven't known, you've read the scriptures and haven't seen him, and he made explicit identification of himself with Yahweh, in John 8:58.

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Jewish scholar Benjamin Sommer, professor at Jewish theological seminary says the plain reading of Genesis 18 is quite clear, about Yahweh appearing in bodily form, and that any Jew faithful to scripture and Jewish tradition should have no problem with the Trinity. The Talmudic discussion of Genesis 18 points in this very direction of an identification, physical identification of Yahweh with the one who is there.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Psalms 146:3

Per King David: "Do not trust the son of man for your salvation"

The terms son of God and so of man have different meanings, depending on the context. Jesus as the Son of God

Biblical Meaning of "Son"

To understand the Biblical meaning of Jesus as "the Son of God", first we must examine the Biblical use of the word "son". In the Bible, "son" is a term expressing an intimate relationship with someone or something; basically, it indicates origin, but it is also used to express close association or identification with persons or things. Even when indicating origin, this term does not limit oneself to one's father and mother. One may be called the "son" of the following: his father and mother, his family, his tribe, his people, his place of birth (city or country), and the time or circumstance of his birth. The if "father-son" terminology is also used in connection with kings and their vassals or subjects, masters and servants, teachers and disciples, and almost any situation in which someone is subordinate to or dependent on someone else. The basic requirement of the "son" is to honour and obey his "father", but he should also love him and emulate him.

The term "son" is used in many other ways in the Bible, some of which are connected with origin but others of which mainly express some sort of association with or resemblance to persons or things. A large, somehow homogeneous group may be called "sons" (occupational and ethnic groups especially). Sometimes characteristics or qualities themselves are personified and regarded as having "sons" - those who possess that same characteristic or quality. Still also other uses of the term "son" in the Bible reflect the versatile and imaginative use of this term especially in the Hebrew language.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
The terms son of God and so of man have different meanings, depending on the context. Jesus as the Son of God
It doesn't matter which meaning is chosen:

Don't trust a mortal (someone who can die) for salvation.

So if a someone comes along and says: "so and so died to save you", my response is "No thank you, Psalms 146:3"
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
It doesn't matter which meaning is chosen:

Don't trust a mortal (someone who can die) for salvation.

So if a someone comes along and says: "so and so died to save you", my response is "No thank you, Psalms 146:3"

That doesn't change the messianic implications of the title Son of Man.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
It doesn't matter which meaning is chosen:

Don't trust a mortal (someone who can die) for salvation.

So if a someone comes along and says: "so and so died to save you", my response is "No thank you, Psalms 146:3"

Why do you think God couldn't become a man? If God didn't become a man then him dying on the cross for our sins wouldn't have significance.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
again, Psalms 146:3.

also Numbers 23:19.



I don't think dying on the cross has an effect on my sins.

Isaiah 9:6

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, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
When people commit a crime don't they go to jail? That's why the wages of sin is eternal separation from God.
It's a matter of scope.

Are finite creatures with limited intellectual capacity deserving of eternal seperation or punishment? Hence: Jubilee.
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Psalms 146:3

Per King David: "Do not trust the son of man for your salvation"

That is a very interesting passage. If one reads on, to me it is saying all that is not God returns to Dust. In that Passage, I see the son of man is humanity, not that of Jesus, yet to come.

I think son of man is used to describe humanity in many instances?

What have you found about that topic?

Regards Tony
 
Top