The term Son of Man is a reference to the divinity of Jesus. Grammatical gender is different from a person meaning a man or woman. Does the term “Son of God” mean that Jesus is not God? | CARM.org
-
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!
Biblical prophecies and statements. Are they about Jesus Christ or Bahaullah?
- Thread starter firedragon
- Start date
The term Son of Man is a reference to the divinity of Jesus. Grammatical gender is different from a person meaning a man or woman. Does the term “Son of God” mean that Jesus is not God? | CARM.org
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
No, it is supported by an incorrect interpretation of the Bible made by Christians.
The Quran says that Mary is part of the Trinity. Thats an incorrect interpretation of the Bible. The doubts about the Incarnation are also based on incorrect interpretations of the Bible. An Explanation of the Incarnation and the Biblical View of Allah for Muslims
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I do not think you got anything wrong about Baha'i beliefs.
Thanks for correcting all of that.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Isaiah 9:6-7 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, Counsellor, 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 for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.
Baha’u’llah was the Prince of Peace because world peace will be established during His religious dispensation. Baha’u’llah set up a system of government and it has already been established among the Baha’is. The institutions of that government are fully operational, but still in their infancy. They will be more developed in the future as the prophecy says (increase in government).
Baha'u'llah claimed to bring the Most Great Law and sit upon the throne of David:
“THE Most Great Law is come, and the Ancient Beauty ruleth upon the throne of David. Thus hath My Pen spoken that which the histories of bygone ages have related. At this time, however, David crieth aloud and saith: ‘O my loving Lord! Do Thou number me with such as have stood steadfast in Thy Cause, O Thou through Whom the faces have been illumined, and the footsteps have slipped!’” Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 89-90
Isaiah 9:6-7 cannot refer to Jesus because Jesus disclaimed being the Mighty God when He called Himself “the Son of God” (John 5:18-47) and in those verses Jesus repudiates the charge that He claimed equality with God. Jesus disclaimed being the everlasting Father when He said, “my Father is greater than I” (John 14:28) and Jesus disclaimed being the Prince of Peace when He said, “I came not to send peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34). Jesus disclaimed bearing the government upon His shoulder when He said to “rend onto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's” (Mark 12:17, Matthew 22:21). Jesus disclaimed that He would establish a kingdom where he would rule with judgment and justice forever when He said, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36).
firedragon
Veteran Member
What? Which verse?
firedragon
Veteran Member
Mind my ignorance, which scripture does Bahaullah (or anyone else) state that Isaiah 9:6 prophecy?
firedragon
Veteran Member
Nope. Thats a lie created by pseudo scholars/evangelists. I see that your sources are shallow surfing.
See SW, you should not make such claims about a book you have never read or studied. You should correct yourself.
If you mean the Quran saying "dont call me ilah" means its part of the trinity, then there are other verses in the Quran that says "do not call money God", and children, and also your own ego.
So in that case all of these God, children, ego, money, priests as mentioned in the Quran should all be part of the trinity.
The one who told you this is ignorant.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I do not know that the prophecy is cited but Shoghi Effendi alludes to the various titles of Baha'u'llah contained in the prophecy in God Passes By, pp. 89-103.
The titles start on page 94 and go through page 96. Below is an excerpt that refers to the titles in Isaiah 9:6:
"To Him Isaiah, the greatest of the Jewish prophets, had alluded as the “Glory of the Lord,” the “Everlasting Father,” the “Prince of Peace,” the “Wonderful,” the “Counsellor,” the “Rod come forth out of the stem of Jesse” and the “Branch grown out of His roots,” Who “shall be established upon the throne of David,” Who “will come with strong hand,” Who “shall judge among the nations,” Who “shall smite the earth with the rod of His mouth, and with the breath of His lips slay the wicked,” and Who “shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.”
firedragon
Veteran Member
Okay. Lol, again, I have not read this. I have it, but not read it yet. So you should know old age has made me so lazy I have not read a book lying in by drive though I visit the folder everyday.
But thanks for the exact reference. I will read through. Now I seem to understand how the prophecies have come about and how they are spoken of so I probably will have a better method of doing the research.
Did Mr. Effendi write it in English or is there another original language? Just asking.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Don't feel bad about being lazy.
I hardly ever read books anymore. The only way I get any reading in is when people ask me questions in forums and I have to look up the answers in the Baha'i Reference Library. I have not even read much of God Passes By yet, but then I was a recalcitrant Baha'i for most of my years and since then I have been too busy on forums.Shoghi Effendi wrote in English and he had quite a command of the English language.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Don't feel bad about being lazy.
Shoghi Effendi wrote in English and he had quite a command of the English language.
recalcitrant. What a word. I just learned it from you.
The reason I keep saying that I must read is that I feel its absolutely unfair to criticise a theology without reading. When I say criticise I mean it in an academic manner, not to say bad things about a theology or scripture. I mean criticise as analyse, good or bad or whatever outcome may come.
Haha. And I am lazy. Absolutely. Thanks sis. Appreciate it.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
recalcitrant: having an obstinately uncooperative attitude toward authority or discipline.
On second thought, that was not the right word to describe what I was, but at least you learned a new word.
Actually, I have a very cooperative attitude toward authority and discipline.
What really happened is that during all those years, I was going through many trials and busy in college so I lost interest in the faith, but my belief in Baha'u'llah never faltered, and that is why I am still a Baha'i.
I am still going through many trials
but I am trying to be a Baha'i anyway.
As you are now aware, Abdul'baha has described this in detail.
An extract,
"........“And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and three-score days, clothed in sackcloth.”By these two witnesses are intended Muḥammad the Messenger of God and ‘Alí the son of Abú Ṭálib. In the Qur’án it is said that God addressed Muḥammad, saying, “We made Thee a witness, a herald, and a warner”; that is, We have established Thee as one Who bears witness, Who imparts the glad-tidings of that which is to come, and Who warns of the wrath of God. A “witness” means one by whose affirmation matters are ascertained. The commandments of these two witnesses were to be followed for 1,260 days, each day corresponding to a year. Now, Muḥammad was the root and ‘Alí the branch, like Moses and Joshua. It is said they were “clothed in sackcloth”, meaning that they appeared to wear not a new raiment but an old one. In other words, they would initially appear to be of no consequence in the eyes of other peoples and their Cause would not seem new. For the spiritual principles of the religion of Muḥammad correspond to those of Christ in the Gospel, and His material commandments correspond for the most part to those of the Torah. This is the symbolism of the old raiment....."
Regards Tony
Paul saw the risen Christ, and he was a persecutor of Christians.
Wasn't the New Testament written hundreds of years after Christ?
by Matt Slick
11/22/08
Though some say that the New Testament was written 100-300 years after Christ died, the truth is that it was written before the close of the first century by those who either knew Christ personally, had encountered him, or were under the direction of those who were His disciples.
In the article When were the gospels written and by whom?, I demonstrated that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were all written before 70 A.D. Basically, the book of Acts was written by Luke. But Luke fails to mention the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., nor does he mention the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65). Since Acts is a historical document dealing with the church, we would naturally expect such important events to be recorded if Acts was written after the fact. Since Acts 1:1-2 mentions that it is the second writing of Luke, the gospel of Luke was written even earlier. Also, Jesus prophesied the destruction of the temple in the Gospels: "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:6, see also Matt. 24:2; Mark 13:2). Undoubtedly, if Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written after the destruction of the Temple, they would have included the fulfillment of Christ's prophecy in them. Since they don't, it is very strong indication that they were written before 70 A.D.
The gospel of John is supposed to have been written by John the apostle. It is written from the perspective of an eyewitness to the events of Christ's life. The John Rylands papyrus fragment 52 of John's gospel dated in the year 135 contains portions of John 18:31-33, 37-38. This fragment was found in Egypt and a considerable amount of time is needed for the circulation of the gospel before it reached Egypt. It is the last of the gospels and appears to have been written in the 80's to 90's.
Of important note is the lack of mention of the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. But this is understandable since John does not mention Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of the Temple. He was not focusing on historical events. Instead, he focused on the theological aspect of the person of Christ and listed His miracles and words that affirmed Christ's deity. This makes perfect sense since he already knew of the previously written gospels.
Furthermore, 1, 2, and 3 John all contain the same writing style as the gospel of John and the book of Revelation which is supposed to have been written in the late 80's or early 90's.
Paul's Writings ~ Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon
Paul the Apostle was a convert to Christianity. The book of Acts speaks of his conversion in Acts 9. Since Acts was written before 70 A.D. and Paul wrote the Pauline Epistles and we know that Paul died in 64 A.D., the Pauline Epistles were all written before that date. Furthermore, in 1 Cor. 15:3-4 is an early creed of the Christian church where Paul mentions that Jesus had died and risen. "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures," (1 Cor. 15:3-4). Notice that he says he received this information. From whom did he receive it? Most probably the apostles since he had a lot of interaction with them. This means that Paul received the gospel account from the eyewitnesses. They were, of course, contemporaries; they all died before the turn of the century. Therefore, their writings were completed within the lifetime of the apostles of Jesus.
Hebrews
It is not known for sure who wrote the book of Hebrews. Authorship has been proposed for Paul, Barnabas (Acts 4:36), Apollos (Acts 18:24), etc. The only geographical area mentioned is Italy (Heb. 13:24). The latest possible date for the writing of Hebrews is A.D. 95 but could have been written as early as A.D. 67. The book of Hebrews speaks of the sacrifice by the High Priest in the present tense (Heb. 5:1-3; Heb. 7:27) possibly signifying that the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 A.D. had not yet happened.
James
This Epistle claims to have been written by James, "James, a bond-servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes who are dispersed abroad, greetings," (James 1:1). The question is, "Which James?" Is it James, the son of Zebedee (Matt. 10:2-3); James, the son of Alphaeus (Matt. 10:2-3), or (the most commonly accepted) James who was the brother of Jesus? "Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?" (Matt. 13:55,56). Notice that the context of the verses suggest immediate family since it mentions Jesus' Mother, brothers, and sisters. Also, see Gal. 1:18,19 which says "Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother." It is probable that James didn't believe in Jesus as the Messiah until Jesus appeared to him after His resurrection as is mentioned in 1 Cor. 15:7, "then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles."
James was martyred by the order of the high priest Ananus after the death of the "procurator Festus in A.D. 61 (Josephus, Ant. 20. 9)." Therefore, the epistle of James was written before A.D. 61.1
1 and 2 Peter
Both epistles clearly state that they were authored by Peter, an eyewitness of Jesus' life and post-resurrection appearances. Though there have been some who have doubted the authorship of these two epistles, the clear opening statements of each epistle tell us Peter was the author. "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus...", (1 Pet. 1:1) and "Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours..." (2 Pet. 1:1). It certainly seems most logical that Peter is indeed the author of the letters that bear his name.
Peter died in Rome during Nero's persecution of Christians around 64 AD, so the epistles were obviously written before that time.
1, 2, 3 John
The writer of 1 John does not identify himself in the letter. The writer of 2 and 3 John refers to himself as "the elder," (2 John 1; 3 John 1). Regarding the first epistle, authorship can reasonably be determined to be that of John the Apostle. The opening of John is written from the perspective of someone who was there with Jesus (John 1:1-4). Also, "Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, 3.39) says of Papias, a hearer of John, and a friend of Polycarp, 'He used testimonies from the First Epistle of John. Irenaeus, according to Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, 5.8), often quoted this Epistle. So in his work Against Heresies (3.15; 5, 8) he quotes from John by name, 1 John 2:18... Clement of Alexandria (Miscellanies, 2.66, p. 464) refers to 1 Jn 5:16, as in John’s larger Epistle.'"2 "In the earliest canonical lists, dating from the end of the second century, 1 John already appears. Indeed, 1 John is quoted as authoritative by Bishop Polycarp of Smyrna [a disciple of John the apostle] before the middle of the second century. The attestation of 2 John is almost as good. There is no second-century reference to 3 John, but that is not surprising since it deals with a specific, local issue."3 Furthermore, the style of the three epistles is very similar to that of the gospel of John. 1 John mentions the "word of life" (1 John 1:1) as does the Gospel of John 1:1, etc.
It appears that the epistles were written after the Gospel of John since the epistles seem to assume a knowledge of the gospel facts.
Date of writing varies from A.D. 60 to the early 90's.4
Jude
Jude identifies himself as the brother of James (Jude 1). It is most likely that Jude, in true Christian humility, does not want to equate himself as the brother of Jesus as he is traditionally held to be and seems to be supported by scripture: "Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?" (Matt. 13:55).
firedragon
Veteran Member
I meant Paul witnessed the ressurected Jesus. The article I posted has to do with the credibility of the Apostle Paul.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Your article is refuting some one who believes Pauls letters or the Bible NT was written 100 to 300 years after Jesus. Well, if there is such uneducated people who believe like that, its not relevant to me mate.
You see brother. This is called a strawman argument. Dont just cut and paste any article that you find on the internet. I have not met anyone who believes the NT was as a whole written 100 to 300 years after Jesus, and to refute something no one says is an absurd strawman attempt.
Maybe the author didnt have another topic so he picked a strawman.
Edit: Mind you Skywalker, you should pick another primary source because whoever wrote that article is not upto date on Biblical scholarship. Not good enough.
The apostles who lived with Jesus wrote the gospels. There were strict laws about writing history with accurate details in those days.
firedragon
Veteran Member
No brother. There is no evidence, internal or external for this.