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

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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?

Why would you assume that anything in the Tanakh is about Jesus or Baha'u'llah?

 

[firedragon]

Why would you assume that anything in the Tanakh is about Jesus or Baha'u'llah?

Good question.

 

[Skywalker]

Why would you assume that anything in the Tanakh is about Jesus or Baha'u'llah?

Jesus is mentioned in the book of Daniel in the Tanakh. Did Jesus actually say He is God? | CARM.org

Did Jesus actually say He is God?
by Luke Wayne
7/11/17

A common challenge offered by Muslims (and others who deny the deity of Christ) is that Jesus never claimed to be God. While there are numerous places that the Bible explicitly refers to Jesus as "God" and identifies Him as Yahweh, they accuse the biblical writers of forcing these titles on Jesus. Though the Bible is, in fact, the inerrant word of God and everything it says about Jesus can be trusted, it can be helpful in reaching our Muslim friends to be able to show them in Jesus' own words that He did, in fact, claim to be God.

This is further complicated by the fact that many Muslim's today have been taught to distrust the Gospel of John, thus making them less open to accepting Jesus' clear self-identification as the "I AM" of Exodus 3:14 or Jesus' affirmation of Thomas calling Him "my God"1 in that Gospel. While we should in no way acquiesce to their dismissal of John,2 there are several other places we can point to first in the other three Gospels to avoid unnecessary side debates.

It is also important to note up front that Jesus did not say the exact words, "I am God, worship me." First of all, this would be contrary to His purpose (remember, Jesus often told people to keep quiet even about His being the Messiah or working great miracles). Secondly, this also would have misrepresented the nature of Jesus' divinity. For Jesus to simply say, "I am God," could imply to His listeners that Jesus was all that God is to the exclusion of the Father or Spirit. God had not left His throne in heaven or ceased to omnipresently fill the universe. This wasn't at all like a finite, mythological pagan god leaving Olympus (or some such place) and taking a trip to earth in human form. What's more, God is triune in nature, and all of Jesus' references to His own deity are framed carefully so as not to exclude the fact that the one true God is the Father and the Spirit as well as the Son. Jesus is fully God, but Jesus does not exhaust all that God is. Still, this does not take away from the fact that Jesus plainly and directly claimed to be God in ways that anyone familiar with the Old Testament Scriptures can understand.

The Son of Man at the Right Hand of Power
When Jesus was arrested and brought before the Jewish authorities, they asked Him "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" Jesus response was powerful and very telling:

"And Jesus said, 'I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven,'” (Mark 14:62, see also Matthew 26:64, Luke 22:69).

Jesus affirms that He is, indeed, the "Son of the Blessed One," which is already on its face a direct contradiction of Islam. However, His answer explains this in a way that caused the High Priest to find Him guilty of blasphemy and declare that He should be put to death. He was not merely claiming to be a purely human Messiah. He was claiming to be divine and to share the heavenly throne of God the Father. Jesus is pointing to two Old Testament passages. The first is from the Prophet Daniel:3

"I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed," (Daniel 7:13-14).

This "Son of Man" not only possesses eternal dominion and glory, but the passage also says that all the peoples throughout all the world will "serve" Him. The word for "serve" here is a common Hebrew word for "worship" and is translated that way in the Septuagint (the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament) and in modern translations such as the NIV. Indeed, throughout Daniel, this word for "serve" is used only for worship given to God or worship that Daniel and His companions refuse to offer to other gods. The Son of Man rightly receives worship as a glorious and eternal ruler of all men.

That the text implies the "Son of Man" to be divine and worthy of worship is also evidenced in the lofty traditions about Him that are preserved in Jewish apocryphal works like 1 Enoch and 4 Esdras. It is also noteworthy that, earlier in the chapter, Daniel wrote:

"I kept looking until thrones were set up, and the Ancient of Days took His seat; His vesture was like white snow and the hair of His head like pure wool. His throne was ablaze with flames, its wheels were a burning fire," (Daniel 7:9)

Why were multiple thrones set up for the Ancient of Days to take His seat? The Talmud actually raises this question and records that one acclaimed Rabbi answered that the thrones were for the Ancient of Days and for "David" (presumably referring to the Messiah, Son of David). He was rebuked by another Rabbi for blaspheming God by claiming that another could reign beside God as His equal on God's own throne. The first Rabbi recanted, and instead, they concluded that God sits on one throne to pronounce judgment and the other to pronounce mercy.4 This shows us what it meant to sit at the right hand of God, especially in connection to Daniel 7, and what was at stake. The thrones were the thrones of God, and only God could sit on them. No one could sit with Him. Yet Jesus claimed the right as the Son of Man to sit on such a throne at the right hand of God. He emphasized this by blending with Daniel 7 the words of Psalm 110:1:

"The LORD says to my Lord: 'Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.'”

Jesus had already applied this Psalm to Himself not long before this (Mark 12:36, Matthew 22:44, Luke 20:41-44) and used it to say that He was not merely a son of David and was rightly called David's Lord. When Jesus claimed to be the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven and sitting at the right hand of power, He did not leave any room for doubt what He was claiming about Himself. He claimed to share in the throne and heavenly authority of God the Father and to be worthy of universal worship. By identifying Himself as the "Son of Man" in a glorified and lofty sense, Jesus was declaring Himself to be God while still maintaining the proper personal distinction between Himself and the Father. In this way, Jesus explained that He was God in a manner that did not conflate the persons of the Trinity or otherwise misrepresent what He meant.

The Bridegroom
The Old Testament Prophets frequently used the analogy of marriage to represent God's covenantal bond with His people, to rebuke their unfaithfulness to Him, and to promise a new and better covenant between God and man in the future. For example, God through Jeremiah rebukes Israel by saying:

"And I saw that for all the adulteries of faithless Israel, I had sent her away and given her a writ of divorce," (Jeremiah 3:8).

But He later promises:

"'Behold, days are coming,' declares the Lord, 'when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,' declares the Lord. 'But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,' declares the Lord, 'I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people," (Jeremiah 31:31-33).

Just as Israel's sin was compared to adultery and her judgment to divorce, the promise of the New Covenant was also connected to the analogy of God as a husband to Israel. The Prophet Hosea likewise writes:

"Then the Lord said to me, 'Go again, love a woman who is loved by her husband, yet an adulteress, even as the Lord loves the sons of Israel, though they turn to other gods and love raisin cakes,'” (Hosea 3:1).

And continues:

"Afterward the sons of Israel will return and seek the Lord their God and David their king; and they will come trembling to the Lord and to His goodness in the last days," (Hosea 3:5).

In Ezekiel, after an extended analogy of God comparing Israel to a destitute woman whom God raised up and took to Himself as His own, God indicts her:

"You adulteress wife, who takes strangers instead of her husband!" (Ezekiel 16:32).

In the same context, He goes on to promise:

"Nevertheless, I will remember My covenant with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish an

Likewise, the prophet Isaiah foretold this great promise in words like:

"as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, So your God will rejoice over you," (Isaiah 62:5).

And:

"For your husband is your Maker, Whose name is the Lord of hosts; And your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel, Who is called the God of all the earth," (Isaiah 54:5).

The covenantal bridegroom of Israel who would usher in the New Covenant is God Himself.

 

[firedragon]

Jesus is mentioned in the book of Daniel in the Tanakh.

But Bahai's may claim it is about Bahaullah. Their reasoning is explained in this very thread. Thus, how would you counter that?

 

[Skywalker]

But Bahai's may claim it is about Bahaullah. Their reasoning is explained in this very thread. Thus, how would you counter that?

What's Wrong with Baha'i?

What's Wrong with Baha'i?

Hank Hanegraaff
“In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways,
but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things,
and through whom he made the universe.”
Hebrews 1:1-2
First, Baha’is believe that Bahá’u’lláh is a greater manifestation of God than Moses, Muhammad, or the Christian Messiah. Thus the Baha’i thrust toward the unification of all religions is primed for failure. Islam, the mother religion of Baha’i would not and could not consider Bahá’u’lláh as a prophet of God greater than Muhammad. Likewise, Christianity is committed to Christ as “the way and the truth and the life” (John 14:6, emphasis added; cf. Acts 4:12).

Furthermore, Baha’i teaches that every few hundred years the spirit and attributes of divinity are mirrored in a new messenger and manifestation of God. Each revelator reveals as much revelation as the faithful are ready to receive. As such, Moses, Buddha, Zoroaster, Confucius, Christ, Muhammad, and Krishna all paved the way toward the ultimate revelations personified in the Báb and Bahá’u’lláh. The fallacy, of course, is that the revelators and their revelations directly conflict with one another. For example, Moses was fiercely monotheistic whereas Zoroaster and Krishna were polytheistic. Likewise, the Qur’an condemns Christ’s claim to be the Son of God as the unforgivable sin of shirk. Logically, the messengers and manifestations can all be wrong but they can’t all be right.

Finally, Baha’i explicitly denies objective truth claims of Christianity such as the Trinity, virgin birth, incarnation, resurrection, and second coming of Christ. Moreover, while the Báb said that Bahá’u’lláh was the quintessential messenger and manifestation of God—the “Best–beloved” and “the Desire of the World”—the Bible states that Christ is “the exact representation of God” (Hebrews 1:3) in whom “all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9).

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Why would you assume that anything in the Tanakh is about Jesus or Baha'u'llah?

Why would one assume they are not.

“I am the One,” He in another connection affirms, “Whom the tongue of Isaiah hath extolled, the One with Whose name both the Torah and the Evangel were adorned.” “The glory of Sinai hath hastened to circle round the Day-Spring of this Revelation, while from the heights of the Kingdom the voice of the Son of God is heard proclaiming: ‘Bestir yourselves, ye proud ones of the earth, and hasten ye towards Him.’ Carmel hath in this day hastened in longing adoration to attain His court, whilst from the heart of Zion there cometh the cry: ‘The promise of all ages is now fulfilled. That which had been announced in the holy writ of God, the Beloved, the Most High, is made manifest.’ ”

Baha'u'llah seems to make it quite clear that He was.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

But Bahai's may claim it is about Bahaullah. Their reasoning is explained in this very thread. Thus, how would you counter that?

What's Wrong with Baha'i?

What is right about one person's opinion, that states what they think about Baha'u'llah is right, and yet they do not yet understand the Message given?

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

Claim 1: Son of man referred in the third person is referring to Bahaullah, not Jesus.

Yes, that is what Baha'is believe.

The title ‘Son of man’ is symbolic of the perfect humanity that Jesus represented, but it does not apply exclusively to Jesus. It ultimately comes from the Book of Daniel, where it refers to the Messiah. It is a Baha’i teaching that the title applies to both Jesus and Baha’u’llah.

It is a Baha'i belief that Baha’u’llah was the Messiah, the one like the Son of man who came in the clouds of heaven.

Daniel 7:13-14 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

To explain in brief, I believe that ‘Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven’ means that the return of the Christ Spirit promised in the Bible will be made manifest from the heaven of the will of God, and will appear in the form of a human being. The term “heaven” means loftiness and exaltation. Although Jesus was delivered from the womb of His mother, in reality He descended from the heaven of the will of God. Though dwelling on this earth, His true habitation was the realms above. While walking among mortals on earth, Jesus soared in the heaven of the divine presence.

Baha’u’llah explained the meaning of clouds in The Kitáb-i-Íqán. The term “clouds” as used in the Bible means those things that cloud our judgment and prevent us from seeing what is really there. Just like the physical clouds prevent the eyes of men from beholding the sun, the desires of men hindered men from recognizing the return of Christ.

To further explain the teaming of clouds, Baha’is believe that the term “clouds” as used in the Bible means those things that are contrary to the ways and desires of men. They signify, in one sense, the annulment of laws, the abrogation of former Dispensations, the repeal of rituals and customs current among men. In another sense, they mean the appearance of a Manifestation of God in the image of mortal man, with such human limitations as eating and drinking, poverty and riches, sleeping and waking, and such other things as cast doubt in the minds of men, and cause them to turn away. These “veils” to recognition of a Manifestation of God are symbolically referred to as “clouds.” Just like the physical clouds prevent the eyes of men from beholding the sun, these things hinder the souls of men from recognizing the light of the Manifestation of God.

Thus the meaning of clouds is symbolic, not literal. Their judgment was clouded. Christians were looking for the same man Jesus in the same body that resurrected and ascended to appear in the actual physical clouds in the sky with power and great glory, trumpets and angels, but when that did not happen that way they rejected Baha’u’llah. However, if one looks at what happened before, during and after Baha’u’llah appeared there is not one prophecy that cannot be applied to Him.

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?

I am not sure which prophecies you are referring to. Jesus fulfilled some of the prophecies for the Messiah but not the prophecies that refer to the Messianic Age, and that is one reason why some Jews did not recognize Jesus as their Messiah. Baha'u'llah fulfilled the prophecies for the return of Christ that are in the New Testament and the prophecies for the Messiah that are in the Old Testament (Tanakh). Not all the messianic prophecies have been fulfilled yet because they refer to what will happen during the Messianic Age and we are only at the very beginning of that age. As time goes on the remainder of them will be fulfilled.

The Bible prophecies (NT and OT) that have been fulfilled by Baha'u'llah and exactly how they were fulfilled are in the book entitled Thief in the Night by William Sears.

 

[Trailblazer]

What's Wrong with Baha'i?

From that website:

“First, Baha’is believe that Bahá’u’lláh is a greater manifestation of God than Moses, Muhammad, or the Christian Messiah. Thus the Baha’i thrust toward the unification of all religions is primed for failure. Islam, the mother religion of Baha’i would not and could not consider Bahá’u’lláh as a prophet of God greater than Muhammad. Likewise, Christianity is committed to Christ as “the way and the truth and the life” (John 14:6, emphasis added; cf. Acts 4:12).”
​

That is patently false. Baha’is do not believe that Bahá’u’lláh is a greater manifestation of God than Moses, Muhammad, or the Christian Messiah, as is clearly demonstrated in the following passages:

"Beware, O believers in the Unity of God, lest ye be tempted to make any distinction between any of the Manifestations of His Cause, or to discriminate against the signs that have accompanied and proclaimed their Revelation. This indeed is the true meaning of Divine Unity, if ye be of them that apprehend and believe this truth. Be ye assured, moreover, that the works and acts of each and every one of these Manifestations of God, nay whatever pertaineth unto them, and whatsoever they may manifest in the future, are all ordained by God, and are a reflection of His Will and Purpose. Whoso maketh the slightest possible difference between their persons, their words, their messages, their acts and manners, hath indeed disbelieved in God, hath repudiated His signs, and betrayed the Cause of His Messengers.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 59-60

“These attributes of God are not, and have never been, vouchsafed specially unto certain Prophets, and withheld from others. Nay, all the Prophets of God, His well-favored, His holy and chosen Messengers are, without exception, the bearers of His names, and the embodiments of His attributes. They only differ in the intensity of their revelation, and the comparative potency of their light. Even as He hath revealed: “Some of the Apostles We have caused to excel the others.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 48

Ironically, this Christian website is accusing the Baha’is of what the Christians do, elevating Jesus and stating that Jesus is the Only Way to God for all time. Baha’is do not believe that about Baha’u’llah, we only believe He is the Way to God for this age but that Messengers of God will continue to be sent by God for all of eternity.

From that website:

“Finally, Baha’i explicitly denies objective truth claims of Christianity such as the Trinity, virgin birth, incarnation, resurrection, and second coming of Christ. Moreover, while the Báb said that Bahá’u’lláh was the quintessential messenger and manifestation of God—the “Best–beloved” and “the Desire of the World”—the Bible states that Christ is “the exact representation of God” (Hebrews 1:3) in whom “all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9).”​

Objective truth claims of Christianity such as the Trinity, virgin birth, incarnation, resurrection, and second coming of Christ? These are not objective at all, they are simply doctrines of the Church, some of which Baha’is believe came about owing to misinterpretation of the Bible. For example, there is no Trinity as Christians believe in the Bible, it is a doctrine of the Church, and Jesus never claimed to be God incarnate. Moreover, Jesus never said He was going to return to earth, he said His work was finished here and he was no more in the world. Finally, there absolutely no proof that Jesus ever rose from the dead, so that is not objective truth, it is simply a belief that Christians hold based upon stories that men told long after Jesus walked the earth.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Jesus is mentioned in the book of Daniel in the Tanakh. Did Jesus actually say He is God? | CARM.org

I know that people - including you, apparently - believe that, but I asked why someone would believe that.

Giving a laundry list of Old Testament verses that you assume are about Jesus tells me nothing about why you think they're about Jesus.

 

[firedragon]

What's Wrong with Baha'i?

I took a read through this source you had provided. I am no Baha’i, but no to absolutely unfair to misrepresent a faith and that’s exactly what your sources has done.

I am no scholar of the Baha’i faith, but even a lay person like me can tell you that your sources doesn’t even have some of the most basic understandings of the Baha’i faith.

If you want to understand a faith, first read their sources. Not the enemies. Cheers.

 

[Skywalker]

I took a read through this source you had provided. I am no Baha’i, but no to absolutely unfair to misrepresent a faith and that’s exactly what your sources has done.

I am no scholar of the Baha’i faith, but even a lay person like me can tell you that your sources doesn’t even have some of the most basic understandings of the Baha’i faith.

If you want to understand a faith, first read their sources. Not the enemies. Cheers.

How did I misrepresent the Bahai faith? What basic understandings of the Bahai faith don't I have?

 

[firedragon]

How did I misrepresent the Bahai faith? What basic understandings of the Bahai faith don't I have?

I did not say "you" Skywalker. I said your source.

 

[firedragon]

Your screename and what you just offerd made me smile, as I had just posted this quote to another in this OP.

Jeremiah 5:14Therefore, thus says the Lord, the God of hosts, “Because you have spoken this word, Behold, I am making My words in your mouth fire And this people wood, and it will consume them.

To me, In that passage, Baha'u'llah is the Lord of Hosts.

Regards Tony

Hmm. Thats interesting. I do apologise that though I promised to read through I had not done so yet. I will do so soon.

Thanks Tony. Really appreciate it.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, that is what Baha'is believe.

The title ‘Son of man’ is symbolic of the perfect humanity that Jesus represented, but it does not apply exclusively to Jesus. It ultimately comes from the Book of Daniel, where it refers to the Messiah. It is a Baha’i teaching that the title applies to both Jesus and Baha’u’llah.

It is a Baha'i belief that Baha’u’llah was the Messiah, the one like the Son of man who came in the clouds of heaven.

Daniel 7:13-14 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

To explain in brief, I believe that ‘Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven’ means that the return of the Christ Spirit promised in the Bible will be made manifest from the heaven of the will of God, and will appear in the form of a human being. The term “heaven” means loftiness and exaltation. Although Jesus was delivered from the womb of His mother, in reality He descended from the heaven of the will of God. Though dwelling on this earth, His true habitation was the realms above. While walking among mortals on earth, Jesus soared in the heaven of the divine presence.

Baha’u’llah explained the meaning of clouds in The Kitáb-i-Íqán. The term “clouds” as used in the Bible means those things that cloud our judgment and prevent us from seeing what is really there. Just like the physical clouds prevent the eyes of men from beholding the sun, the desires of men hindered men from recognizing the return of Christ.

To further explain the teaming of clouds, Baha’is believe that the term “clouds” as used in the Bible means those things that are contrary to the ways and desires of men. They signify, in one sense, the annulment of laws, the abrogation of former Dispensations, the repeal of rituals and customs current among men. In another sense, they mean the appearance of a Manifestation of God in the image of mortal man, with such human limitations as eating and drinking, poverty and riches, sleeping and waking, and such other things as cast doubt in the minds of men, and cause them to turn away. These “veils” to recognition of a Manifestation of God are symbolically referred to as “clouds.” Just like the physical clouds prevent the eyes of men from beholding the sun, these things hinder the souls of men from recognizing the light of the Manifestation of God.

Thus the meaning of clouds is symbolic, not literal. Their judgment was clouded. Christians were looking for the same man Jesus in the same body that resurrected and ascended to appear in the actual physical clouds in the sky with power and great glory, trumpets and angels, but when that did not happen that way they rejected Baha’u’llah. However, if one looks at what happened before, during and after Baha’u’llah appeared there is not one prophecy that cannot be applied to Him.

I am not sure which prophecies you are referring to. Jesus fulfilled some of the prophecies for the Messiah but not the prophecies that refer to the Messianic Age, and that is one reason why some Jews did not recognize Jesus as their Messiah. Baha'u'llah fulfilled the prophecies for the return of Christ that are in the New Testament and the prophecies for the Messiah that are in the Old Testament (Tanakh). Not all the messianic prophecies have been fulfilled yet because they refer to what will happen during the Messianic Age and we are only at the very beginning of that age. As time goes on the remainder of them will be fulfilled.

The Bible prophecies (NT and OT) that have been fulfilled by Baha'u'llah and exactly how they were fulfilled are in the book entitled Thief in the Night by William Sears.

Sis. I do agree that the logic of the son of man is agreeable. I understand the Bahai idea that the Son of Man does not have to necessarily mean Jesus himself all the time. Especially the Son of Man coming down in the clouds etc have been debated by Bible scholars and some of them who are not evangelical have argued that it could mean someone else, other than Jesus himself. Son of man or ben adam simply means Human Beings as a collective term in the Tanakh in pralms, Isaiah as well as the book of numbers, but of course, not always. Though the meaning is such, it is referred to some prophets as a direct reference for himself. Thus, one could actually argue this "son of man" in Daniel, and the Gospels which refers to that particular son of man can be Bahaullah. I dont have a problem with that argument.

What I would argue is that since in many places of the Takakh it is also referred to Israel itself, upon the son of man you strengthened for your tn Heb “upon the son of man you strengthened for yourself” In its only other use in the Book of Psalms, the phrase “son of man” refers to the human race in general (see Psalms 8:4) Here the phrase may refer to the nation collectively as a man and even as the branch of the vine that refers to Israel. Thus, why would the Daniel prophecy not refer to Israel itself? The phrase son of man occurs ninety three times in the book of EzekielIt simply means “human one,” and dis
tinguishes the prophet from the rest of humanity. But since it means "the human one" why would it refer to a manifestation of God himself? If it is meant to address a manifestation of God, why would not use another phraseology?

Okay. Let me pinpoint one prophecy that Christians believe referred to Jesus himself. How about the Suffering Servant in the Isaiah passage in chapter 53? Who is that referring to?

BTW, I just attached Kithab I Iqan. Its a pleasure to see this.

 

[Skywalker]

Sis. I do agree that the logic of the son of man is agreeable. I understand the Bahai idea that the Son of Man does not have to necessarily mean Jesus himself all the time. Especially the Son of Man coming down in the clouds etc have been debated by Bible scholars and some of them who are not evangelical have argued that it could mean someone else, other than Jesus himself. Son of man or ben adam simply means Human Beings as a collective term in the Tanakh in pralms, Isaiah as well as the book of numbers, but of course, not always. Though the meaning is such, it is referred to some prophets as a direct reference for himself. Thus, one could actually argue this "son of man" in Daniel, and the Gospels which refers to that particular son of man can be Bahaullah. I dont have a problem with that argument.

What I would argue is that since in many places of the Takakh it is also referred to Israel itself, upon the son of man you strengthened for your tn Heb “upon the son of man you strengthened for yourself” In its only other use in the Book of Psalms, the phrase “son of man” refers to the human race in general (see Psalms 8:4) Here the phrase may refer to the nation collectively as a man and even as the branch of the vine that refers to Israel. Thus, why would the Daniel prophecy not refer to Israel itself? The phrase son of man occurs ninety three times in the book of EzekielIt simply means “human one,” and dis
tinguishes the prophet from the rest of humanity. But since it means "the human one" why would it refer to a manifestation of God himself? If it is meant to address a manifestation of God, why would not use another phraseology?

Okay. Let me pinpoint one prophecy that Christians believe referred to Jesus himself. How about the Suffering Servant in the Isaiah passage in chapter 53? Who is that referring to?

BTW, I just attached Kithab I Iqan. Its a pleasure to see this.


View attachment 45664

The Son of Man is a reference to Jesus being God. Jesus had the roles of Prophet, Priest, and King. The book of Isaiah says that the Messiah will be God in the flesh. Jesus referred to himself as the son of man multiple times. Daniel saw a theophany of Jesus in the Old Testament. DANIEL 3:25 KJV "He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt;..."

What is meant by the term "Son of Man"? | CARM.org

What is meant by the term "Son of Man"?
"Son of Man" is a title that Jesus often applied to Himself, though it is rarely used elsewhere in the New Testament or early Christian literature. The title is a reference to the prophecy of Daniel Chapter 7:

"I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. “And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed," (Daniel 7:13-14).

The description of this figure as "one like a Son of Man," is probably to contrast Him with the beastly figures that represented the pagan kings and kingdoms of the world earlier in the vision. Many Rabbinic Jewish sources identify this figure as the Messiah, Son of David.1 Jewish Apocryphal works from the period even identify the Son of Man as an ancient, heavenly figure hidden before God who descends to deliver the people and is even worthy of worship.2 When Jesus called Himself the "Son of Man," it was no humble appeal to His humanity. It was a declaration of His Messianic authority and even to His divinity. Note the reaction Jesus receives when He applies this prophecy to Himself before the Jewish authorities:

"But He kept silent and did not answer. Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” And Jesus said, “I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” Tearing his clothes, the high priest said, “What further need do we have of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy; how does it seem to you?” And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death," (Mark 14:61-64).

They considered this claim to be blasphemy because they understood Jesus divine intention in applying this passage to Himself. They knew He was claiming to be much more than just a human savior. A similar incident occurred at the trial of Steven in the Book of Acts. Note what finally provokes the crowd to kill him:

"But filled with the Holy Spirit, he gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. “Look,” he said, “I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!” But they covered their ears, and with a loud shout all rushed together against him. Then they dragged him out of the city and began to stone him; and the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul," (Acts 7:55-58).

Jesus appealed to this idea of a heavenly Son of Man elsewhere. too. For example, when He said to Nicodemus:

"If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man. As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life," (John 3:14-15)

Jesus thus identifies Himself as the Son of Man who descended from heaven, and further as the one whom must be believed in to receive eternal life.

Daniel 7 specifically says of the Son of Man that, "to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away." The word for "serve" here can also mean worship. The NIV, for example, reads that "all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him." This may well be connected to Revelation 7, where people of every nation, tribe, and tongue sing praises to the Lamb before the throne of God in heaven. It even speaks of "the Lamb in the center of the throne," meaning that Jesus sits on the very throne of God!

At any rate, it is clear that the title of Son of Man is a Messianic title that carried with it divine identity so that for a mere man to claim this title for himself would constitute not only falsehood but blasphemy. Jesus could rightly call Himself the Son of Man because He is indeed both the promised Messiah and God in flesh.

 

[firedragon]

The Son of Man is a reference to Jesus being God. Jesus had the roles of Prophet, Priest, and King. The book of Isaiah says that the Messiah will be God in the flesh. Jesus referred to himself as the son of man multiple times. Daniel saw a theophany of Jesus in the Old Testament. DANIEL 3:25 KJV "He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt;..."

What is meant by the term "Son of Man"? | CARM.org

Sorry Skywalker. You have not understood my post. Pls read again. If you wish to see references, ask and I shall provide.

 

[Skywalker]

I did not say "you" Skywalker. I said your source.

How did my source misrepresent the Bahai faith? What don't I understand about the Bahai faith?

 

[Skywalker]

I know that people - including you, apparently - believe that, but I asked why someone would believe that.

Giving a laundry list of Old Testament verses that you assume are about Jesus tells me nothing about why you think they're about Jesus.

The iniquity of us all was laid upon Him verse is talking about Jesus dying on the cross for our sins. Jesus was the Suffering Servant. Almah is a reference to Jesus being born of a virgin. Daniel was seen with a being who looked like the Son of God. The Old Testament mentions the Trinity in Daniel 9:24-27. The Messiah in the Old Testament isn't the political figure man who Jewish theology believes in, he's an Advocater Redeemer Messiah.

 

[Skywalker]

From that website:

“First, Baha’is believe that Bahá’u’lláh is a greater manifestation of God than Moses, Muhammad, or the Christian Messiah. Thus the Baha’i thrust toward the unification of all religions is primed for failure. Islam, the mother religion of Baha’i would not and could not consider Bahá’u’lláh as a prophet of God greater than Muhammad. Likewise, Christianity is committed to Christ as “the way and the truth and the life” (John 14:6, emphasis added; cf. Acts 4:12).”
​

That is patently false. Baha’is do not believe that Bahá’u’lláh is a greater manifestation of God than Moses, Muhammad, or the Christian Messiah, as is clearly demonstrated in the following passages:

"Beware, O believers in the Unity of God, lest ye be tempted to make any distinction between any of the Manifestations of His Cause, or to discriminate against the signs that have accompanied and proclaimed their Revelation. This indeed is the true meaning of Divine Unity, if ye be of them that apprehend and believe this truth. Be ye assured, moreover, that the works and acts of each and every one of these Manifestations of God, nay whatever pertaineth unto them, and whatsoever they may manifest in the future, are all ordained by God, and are a reflection of His Will and Purpose. Whoso maketh the slightest possible difference between their persons, their words, their messages, their acts and manners, hath indeed disbelieved in God, hath repudiated His signs, and betrayed the Cause of His Messengers.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 59-60

“These attributes of God are not, and have never been, vouchsafed specially unto certain Prophets, and withheld from others. Nay, all the Prophets of God, His well-favored, His holy and chosen Messengers are, without exception, the bearers of His names, and the embodiments of His attributes. They only differ in the intensity of their revelation, and the comparative potency of their light. Even as He hath revealed: “Some of the Apostles We have caused to excel the others.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 48’

Ironically, this Christian website is accusing the Baha’is of what the Christians do, elevating Jesus and stating that Jesus is the Only Way to God for all time. Baha’is do not believe that about Baha’u’llah, we only believe He is the Way to God for this age but that Messengers of God will continue to be sent by God for all of eternity.

From that website:

“Finally, Baha’i explicitly denies objective truth claims of Christianity such as the Trinity, virgin birth, incarnation, resurrection, and second coming of Christ. Moreover, while the Báb said that Bahá’u’lláh was the quintessential messenger and manifestation of God—the “Best–beloved” and “the Desire of the World”—the Bible states that Christ is “the exact representation of God” (Hebrews 1:3) in whom “all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9).”​

Objective truth claims of Christianity such as the Trinity, virgin birth, incarnation, resurrection, and second coming of Christ? These are not objective at all, they are simply doctrines of the Church, some of which Baha’is believe came about owing to misinterpretation of the Bible. For example, there is no Trinity as Christians believe in the Bible, it is a doctrine of the Church, and Jesus never claimed to be God incarnate. Moreover, Jesus never said He was going to return to earth, he said His work was finished here and he was no more in the world. Finally, there absolutely no proof that Jesus ever rose from the dead, so that is not objective truth, it is simply a belief that Christians hold based upon stories that men told long after Jesus walked the earth.

Bahá’u’lláh didn't agree with the Bible's concept of the Messiah as an Advocate and a Redeemer.