Biblical prophecies and statements. Are they about Jesus Christ or Bahaullah?

[PruePhillip]

Simple answer is no ask the Jews about their own scriptures in Hebrew.

No difference. I often ask them to translate something for me. They
come up with the same meanings as I get. Only once have I had an
issue with Christian translations that where our own bible speaks of
the 'Son of righteousness rising with healings in his wings.' But when
I checked out the KJV in BibleHub it gave the original meaning.

 

[PruePhillip]

Sounds backwards. So improbable that speeches were memorized verbatim and finally written down what 70 later!

This 70 years later business is nuts. Paul wrote of Jesus 20 years after the crucifixion.
Luke died about 66 AD, he wrote first Gospel of Luke and then The Acts. Peter had his
secretary Mark write Gospel of Mark - he died about when Luke died.

 

[shunyadragon]

No difference. I often ask them to translate something for me. They
come up with the same meanings as I get. Only once have I had an
issue with Christian translations that where our own bible speaks of
the 'Son of righteousness rising with healings in his wings.' But when
I checked out the KJV in BibleHub it gave the original meaning.

It is the interpretation that the Jews most definitely do not agree with, which are reflected in some translations that are wrong such as the Hebrew word for 'young woman' versus 'virgin.' The KJV is dated and inaccurate in many points concerning the Tanakh.

Example Son of Man in linen in Job as being Jesus is a Christian claim, and not a factual claim in the text of the Tanakh.

 

[shunyadragon]

This 70 years later business is nuts. Paul wrote of Jesus 20 years after the crucifixion.
Luke died about 66 AD, he wrote first Gospel of Luke and then The Acts. Peter had his
secretary Mark write Gospel of Mark - he died about when Luke died.

There no known texts of the gospels that confirm these claims that date to this claim.

 

[PruePhillip]

There no known texts that confirm these claims that date to this claim.

That's true - we don't have a single instance of the original text.
Simply put: none of the writers knew of the destruction of the Temple.
It hadn't happened when they wrote.
But skeptics date the Gospels to a point after the Temple's destruction
on the basis that the writers could not have known this would happen.
That doesn't make sense as some writers in the OT also mentioned
the destruction of the temple, my favorite being Daniel.

 

[PruePhillip]

It is the interpretation that the Jews most definitely do not agree with, which are reflected in some translations that are wrong such as the Hebrew word for 'young woman' versus 'virgin.' The KJV is dated and inaccurate in many points concerning the Tanakh.

Example Son of Man in linen in Job as being Jesus is a Christian claim, and not a factual claim in the text of the Tanakh.

Never heard about any man in linen. Lots wore linen.
But my favorite Messianic verse in Job is:

"I know that my Redeemer lives, and he shall stand on the earth in the latter day."

I… not someone else, me

Know… not believe, not think, not suppose, but know

My… not someone else's, mine

Redeemer… not a king, not a warrior, not a philosopher

Lives … not did live, not will live, but live as in now

He … coming as a man

Shall… not maybe, not possibly

Stand… not recline, lie down - but stand for something

Earth … here, this place

Latter day… in the future - for Job this about 500 to a thousand years before Jesus. Isn't that marvelous?

 

[firedragon]

That's true - we don't have a single instance of the original text.
Simply put: none of the writers knew of the destruction of the Temple.
It hadn't happened when they wrote.
But skeptics date the Gospels to a point after the Temple's destruction
on the basis that the writers could not have known this would happen.
That doesn't make sense as some writers in the OT also mentioned
the destruction of the temple, my favorite being Daniel.

You mean all the Christian scholars who dated the gospels are all skeptics or just this temple destruction issue?

 

[PruePhillip]

You mean all the Christian scholars who dated the gospels are all skeptics or just this temple destruction issue?

No, they can't 'date the Gospels', all they can do is tell you the approximate age
of the oldest extant manuscripts. And not all scholars are skeptics - you tend to
bring your beliefs to the topic, not the other way around.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

The claim of so called knowledge above others is the egocentric denial that they do not have the same points as everyone else.

The claim of so called knowledge above others is unwise. We all have knowledge.
A wise man still listens very carefully to a so called fool.

You reap what you sow.
Or you rip what you sew.
Its that simple.

True knowledge leads to humility of not knowing.

That seems to make no sense. Knowing is knowledge. So not knowing can't be true knowledge.

But knowing that you dont know would be true knowledge.

You can either make sense or not make sense. It depends on the point of view.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I believe Jesus is the Lord of Hosts not Baha'u'llah, because Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecies by dying on the cross and offering salvation to all people. Why does God give Jesus a new name and take away his old name? Why not accept another new name, Bahaullah? How did Jesus fulfill the prophecy that all mankind will see God's salvation? – Evidence for Christianity

I see you are 100% free to see it how you choose to.

I see that the Bab has the same story to tell as Jesus, except the Bab was persecuted 6 years instead of 3 and shot by a firing squad before he ascended.

As for Jesus and the New Name, it is a record that we can not change, we can only come to understand what it is saying.

Revelation 2:17 "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, to him I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, and a new name written on the stone which no one knows but he who receives it."

So it appears we must overcome our misunderstanding and the only ones that will know the new name, are those that receive it.

Also,

Revelation 3:12 "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name."

Also a new city, which is the new Jerusalem, which is now Haifa. Both the Bab, the Gate and Baha'u'llah are now forever part of the Ho;ly Land and are the New Name for this age.

Regards Tony

Regards Tony

 

[firedragon]

No, they can't 'date the Gospels', all they can do is tell you the approximate age
of the oldest extant manuscripts. And not all scholars are skeptics - you tend to
bring your beliefs to the topic, not the other way around.

Errm. I was not referring to manuscripts. I was referring to Gospel writers and time periods they are dated to.

Are you claiming Christian scholars don’t date them?

 

[shunyadragon]

The claim of so called knowledge above others is unwise. We all have knowledge.
A wise man still listens very carefully to a so called fool.

You reap what you sow.
Or you rip what you sew.
Its that simple.




That seems to make no sense. Knowing is knowledge. So not knowing can't be true knowledge.

But knowing that you don't know would be true knowledge.

You can either make sense or not make sense. It depends on the point of view.

Yes, claims of egocentric knowing as 'true' knowledge is not true knowledge from the fallible human subjective perspective, Science with objective evidence does not even make this egocentric claim.

The problem is the egocentric claim of 'true' knowledge in terms of the subjective claims of religion. You have no more claim to 'true' knowledge than anyone else who makes such claims as you do in many diverse conflicting beliefs.

The question becomes the claim of a wise man. You are puting yourself above others with egocentric claims as having few points as others, but nonetheless you like most others are subject are subject a chain of generations clinging to the sense of belonging and identity in your culture.

 

[shunyadragon]

Never heard about any man in linen. Lots wore linen.
But my favorite Messianic verse in Job is:

"I know that my Redeemer lives, and he shall stand on the earth in the latter day."

I… not someone else, me

Know… not believe, not think, not suppose, but know

My… not someone else's, mine

Redeemer… not a king, not a warrior, not a philosopher

Lives … not did live, not will live, but live as in now

He … coming as a man

Shall… not maybe, not possibly

Stand… not recline, lie down - but stand for something

Earth … here, this place

Latter day… in the future - for Job this about 500 to a thousand years before Jesus. Isn't that marvelous?

No mention of Jesus Christ, and not accepted by Jews who know their own scripture.

 

[shunyadragon]

That's true - we don't have a single instance of the original text.
Simply put: none of the writers knew of the destruction of the Temple.
It hadn't happened when they wrote.

This is unknown, because absolutely nothing exists of the gospels before the destruction of the Temple.

But skeptics date the Gospels to a point after the Temple's destruction
on the basis that the writers could not have known this would happen.
That doesn't make sense as some writers in the OT also mentioned
the destruction of the temple, my favorite being Daniel.

No the skeptics date the gospels after the destruction of the Temple, because there is absolutely no evidence of the gospels before the destruction of the Temple.

Your scriptures lack the provenance and known authorship to make the claims you do.

 

[Audie]

This 70 years later business is nuts. Paul wrote of Jesus 20 years after the crucifixion.
Luke died about 66 AD, he wrote first Gospel of Luke and then The Acts. Peter had his
secretary Mark write Gospel of Mark - he died about when Luke died.

An, that makes all the difference!
Word for word from memory after 20 years.

By whose standard is 70 years nuts? Its the first
number you will find on ye googlenet.

Of course nobody even knows where or when "Jesus" actually died, or how long after that these feats of memory occurred.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Taking a scriptural approach to the Bahai theology which a new theology to me I have come to understand that the Bahai's believe in certain things which I would like to clarify and get some insights from everyone who could participate. This concerns Christians, Jews, Bahai's and anyone who follows these scripture.

Claim 1: Son of man referred in the third person is referring to Bahaullah, not Jesus. For example, the second coming of Jesus Christians believe prophecies and spoken of in the book of revelations where both Son of Man and Word of God are referred to (Revelations 19:11 onwards).

It was said that since in other places of the New Testament like the prophecy of the coming of the Son of Man on the clouds, since it is said in the third person and Jesus speaks there, it cannot refer to himself. If Jesus referred to himself, he would say "would be coming", not "the son of man will come" in the third party tense.

Now if one examines the New Testament, the son of man is predominantly referred to in the third party. The Son of Man is drinking, and eating, a glutton, and a frind of the tax collectors, the Son of Man is the lord of the Sabbath, etc etc. Predominantly in the third party tense.

Also, it is in the present tense. Thus I would like a clarification of this.

Claim 2: Tanakh prophecies about Jesus are referred to Bahaullah. Is it possible to clearly state the prophecies from the Tanakh and why they refer to Bahaullah?

Thank you.

I believe that the title "Son of Man" used by Jesus denotes aspects of His nature/personality/mission such as, lowliness, humility, and suffering; honor and dignity, as head and founder of the kingdom of God, and judge of all men; the thought of Him as the representative or ideal Man, chosen by the Father as an expressive of His headship over the whole human family.

Besides Stephen - who used the title as he gazed into Heaven before his death - Jesus was the only one recorded to use that title and I believe that was because He was the only one who understood its significance.

I would need to know the specific Old Testament prophecies in order to comment on them but I do not personally believe that any of them - or the title of Son of Man - are references to Bahaullah.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

Yes, claims of egocentric knowing as 'true' knowledge is not true knowledge from the fallible human subjective perspective, Science with objective evidence does not even make this egocentric claim.

The problem is the egocentric claim of 'true' knowledge in terms of the subjective claims of religion. You have no more claim to 'true' knowledge than anyone else who makes such claims as you do in many diverse conflicting beliefs.

The question becomes the claim of a wise man. You are puting yourself above others with egocentric claims as having few points as others, but nonetheless you like most others are subject are subject a chain of generations clinging to the sense of belonging and identity in your culture.

Yeah. Like how does a vegetarian that is against animal cruelty feel about skinning a potato while it is still alive?

We are all egocentric. Even a so called wise man who tries to always gain more points of view in an attempt to get a better overview to draw from.

We can only make a decision based on our own limited understanding at that moment.

 

[PruePhillip]

An, that makes all the difference!
Word for word from memory after 20 years.

By whose standard is 70 years nuts? Its the first
number you will find on ye googlenet.

Of course nobody even knows where or when "Jesus" actually died, or how long after that these feats of memory occurred.

We have an idea when Jesus was born and died due to the practice, still in use until WWI
of calling times by their monarchs.
In AD70 the Temple was destroyed. This event was unknown to the writers of the Gospels,
clearly, but some date the Gospels to after this time because Jesus spoke of the destruction
of this temple. Of course, 'how could he have known.'
Well writers in the Old Testament also 'knew' of the destruction of the Temple - and both
Daniel and Jacob connected this destruction with the Messiah.

 

[PruePhillip]

This is unknown, because absolutely nothing exists of the gospels before the destruction of the Temple.



No the skeptics date the gospels after the destruction of the Temple, because there is absolutely no evidence of the gospels before the destruction of the Temple.

Your scriptures lack the provenance and known authorship to make the claims you do.

Paul wrote
1 Thessalonians 52 A.D.
2 Thessalonians 53 A.D.
Galatians 54 A.D.
1 Corinthians 57 A.D.
2 Corinthians 57 A.D.
Romans 57 A.D.
Colossians 62 A.D.
Ephesians 62 A.D.
Philippians 62 A.D.
Philemon 63 A.D.
1 Timothy 64 A.D.
Titus 64 A.D.
2 Timothy 67 A.D.

Pauline+Epistles.pdf (squarespace.com)

 

[PruePhillip]

No mention of Jesus Christ, and not accepted by Jews who know their own scripture.

The Hebrew translation is no different.
SOME Jews did not recognize a Redeemer in their Tanakh,
only a Messianic king.
Zechariah showed that when this King does arrive the Jews
will mourn because it's the same lowly man they crucified.
And this is why the Jews suffered for those 40 years in the
wilderness, lost their nation over and over again during the
Judges, lost ten of the tribes, were taken into captivity, ruled
over by the Greeks, utterly destroyed by the Romans and
driven out of 100 nations under persecution until the modern
period - they did not, as Jesus put it, know the time of their
visitation.