Fulfillment of Prophecy in the New Testament

[Brian2]

"too blind to see it because of tradition." That, as you know, is exactly what Baha'is say to Christians... Christians are so caught up into their misinterpretations and traditions they could not see "The Christ" when he did return. The Baha'is say that Baha'u'llah fulfilled...

"In that day also he shall come even to thee from Assyria, and from the fortified cities, and from the fortress even to the river, and from sea to sea, and from mountain to mountain ... Feed thy people in the midst of Carmel..." [Micah 7: 10-12]

Bahá'u'lláh was banished first to Assyria (now part of Iraq), then to the city of Constantinople, then again to the fortress within the fortified city of Akka. When finally released from the fortress, he stayed on an island in the Na'mayn river. During His banishments He travelled on the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea, lived as a Holy Man on Mount Gar-lu and pitched His tent on Mount Carmel, the "Mountain of God" where Elijah had dwelt in his cave.​

And...

"And behold, the glory of the God of Israel came from the way of the east." [Ezekiel 43:2]

Bahá'u'lláh, Whose name means "Glory of God", came from Persia which is east of the Holy Land. And again:

"And the glory of the Lord came into the house by way of the gate whose prospect is towards the east." [Ezekiel 43:4]
The Person Who came to prepare the way for Bahá'u'lláh was called the Báb, which means the Gate.​

And they say he is the Comforter...

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth: for he shall not speak from himself; but what things soever he shall hear, these shall he speak: and he shall declare unto you the things that are to come. – John 16:13.
​

Christians, I'm sure have a different interpretation... and it depends a lot on the context. Then, Jews, no doubt, disagree with both Christians and Baha'is on the Micah and Ezekiel verses that Baha'is say are prophecies about Baha'u'llah. Here's another one from Abdul Baha...

In the eighth chapter of the Book of Daniel, verse thirteen, it is said: “Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary 42 and the host to be trodden under foot?” Then he answered (v. 14): “Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed”; (v. 17) “But he said unto me … at the time of the end shall be the vision.” That is to say, how long will this misfortune, this ruin, this abasement and degradation last? meaning, when will be the dawn of the Manifestation? Then he answered, “Two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.” Briefly, the purport of this passage is that he appoints two thousand three hundred years, for in the text of the Bible each day is a year. Then from the date of the issuing of the edict of Artaxerxes to rebuild Jerusalem until the day of the birth of Christ there are 456 years, and from the birth of Christ until the day of the manifestation of the Báb there are 1844 years. When you add 456 years to this number it makes 2300 years. That is to say, the fulfillment of the vision of Daniel took place in the year A.D. 1844, and this is the year of the Báb’s manifestation according to the actual text of the Book of Daniel. Consider how clearly he determines the year of manifestation; there could be no clearer prophecy for a manifestation than this.​

This clearly adds up to the year 1844... but... why start with the year 456? That was the edict to rebuild Jerusalem. In Daniel it says...

“How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled—the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, the surrender of the sanctuary and the trampling underfoot of the LORD’s people?”
14 He said to me, “It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be reconsecrated.”​

So how do Christians and Jews interpret this prophecy? And do either start with 456BC like the Baha'is?

And still... are the basic Jewish prophecies about when the Messiah will come and what he will do fulfilled? Christians say, "Yes, but some of them won't be fulfilled until he comes back." Baha'is say, "Yes, all has been fulfilled... but some are figurative and bringing peace is an ongoing process, not an immediate thing that gets fulfilled." Great, everybody could "prove" they are right.

I wasn't sure whether you wanted answers to these things or not or whether you were just pointing out that Baha'is and Christians seem to be doing the same thing. It certainly can be seen as the same thing on the surface and it can fool many people.

 

[Brian2]

Sorry Iggy, I did not recognize you with your new name.
Good to see you here... Sorry I never caught up with you on Planet Baha'i but I have been super busy.

Thanks, and all is forgiven

Even if that was true, which I do not believe, what about people who are not Christians?

I'm sure you also believe we will all be judged by God.

The 67% of people in the world who are not Christians are not going to convert to Christianity, so that leaves all those people without any guidance from God, according to Christianity. Imo it is an untenable belief system that flagrantly disregards two thirds of the world population just because they did not accept Jesus as Savior.

God does not disregard anyone.

I disagree that the Bible taught the unity of mankind. You trying to take a primary teaching of Baha'u'llah and apply it to the Bible in order to make Baha'u'llah superfluous, but it won't work. The Bible did not teach the unity of mankind because the world was nowhere near ready to be united during the Bible dispensation. You cannot make the Bible apply to the Dispensation of Baha'u'llah, because the Bible was written for the Dispensation of Jesus.

We all came from Adam and Eve. Of course we are united in that way. What sort of unity does Baha'i teach? or is it just general unity.

According to Baha'i beliefs, the Revelation identified with Bahá’u’lláh abrogates unconditionally all the Dispensations gone before it, and that would include the new gospel, or Christian, dispensation.

So I can't be saved by faith in Jesus?

, that verse in no way applies to world unity as it was envisioned by Baha'u'llah, for which He devised a concrete plan in His Writings which involves the Baha'i administration. Again, you are trying to make the Bible apply to a dispensation that it does not apply to. You are trying to do what you say Baha'is do; you say Bahais try to make what Baha'u'llah wrote FIT with the Bible, and now you are trying to make the Bible FIT with what Baha'u'llah wrote, but it will not work because old wine cannot be put into new wine sacs.

No Ephesians 1:10 is not the political unity that it sounds like Baha'u'llah taught.

One cannot make a newer religion like the Baha’i Faith FIT into the same mold as the older religions such as Judaism or Christianity because Baha'i is a much more expansive revelation and has many more components that the older religions did not have; so Baha’i cannot be made to fit into the Bible mold.

Sounds like a new improved model to replace the old but everlasting model.

Heb 13:21,21 Now may the God of peace who brought up our Lord Jesus from the dead, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you complete in every good work to do His will, working in you what is well pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.

Baha'is have no need for any older religions because we have a new religion that is not dependent upon the religions of the past, since it is a NEW Revelation from God.

It depends on multiple other religions since it claims to fulfil their prophecies.

However, Baha'is do not deny any older scriptures;we just accept the way 'some' of the Bible has been explained by Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha.

Baha'i (or at least the ones I have spoken to) deny much of the Bible and replace it with the teachings of Baha'u'llah and Abdul-Baha.

 

[rosends]

Genesis 15:13 shows that the seed is not singular by adding theirs to the verse: "stranger in the land is not THEIRS".

I am not focusing on the word seed, but when Genesis 3:15 says about the seed "IT shall bruise your head" which is singular.

You are focusing on the idea that the word "seed' refers to one person because there is a singular pronoun afterwards. What I'm pointing out is that the singular verb (and pronoun form) is a standard construct with the word "seed" even when it refers to a large group. Gen 15 uses a singular pronoun. You say that is mitigated by a later plural pronoun but that isn't useful proof because in many situations there is no pronoun, just a singular verb form which (as is the method in Hebrew) includes the singular pronoun-concept. Look at Gen 16:10 and the verb yisaper - [he] will be counted. Hebrew doesn't require that the pronoun be included explicitly because it is part of how the verbs are formed. Gen 22:17 does the same thing -- it is clearly talking about a plural idea but it uses the singular prefix in the verb ("and HE will inherit") and suffix in the object noun ("enemies of HIS"). Collective nouns in Hebrew are a fascinating topic, sometimes taking singular and sometimes plural constructs, and their value nature can't be judged by that simple metric. It is a mistake to take the plural z-r-ayin here and assume that it is limited to a singular because of its coordinating constructs. This is why translators back 2000 years understood it as a plural.

 

[Samael_Khan]

You are focusing on the idea that the word "seed' refers to one person because there is a singular pronoun afterwards. What I'm pointing out is that the singular verb (and pronoun form) is a standard construct with the word "seed" even when it refers to a large group. Gen 15 uses a singular pronoun. You say that is mitigated by a later plural pronoun but that isn't useful proof because in many situations there is no pronoun, just a singular verb form which (as is the method in Hebrew) includes the singular pronoun-concept. Look at Gen 16:10 and the verb yisaper - [he] will be counted. Hebrew doesn't require that the pronoun be included explicitly because it is part of how the verbs are formed. Gen 22:17 does the same thing -- it is clearly talking about a plural idea but it uses the singular prefix in the verb ("and HE will inherit") and suffix in the object noun ("enemies of HIS"). Collective nouns in Hebrew are a fascinating topic, sometimes taking singular and sometimes plural constructs, and their value nature can't be judged by that simple metric. It is a mistake to take the plural z-r-ayin here and assume that it is limited to a singular because of its coordinating constructs. This is why translators back 2000 years understood it as a plural.

Well.... That explains a lot. Those other scriptures really brought the point home. Thanks.

 

[rosends]

No doubt God knew and decided Isaiah's mission long before the womb but since Isa 49 is not about Isaiah, who was not to bring back Jacob and gather Israel.

You have just gone full circle. You said that it couldn't be about Isaiah because he wasn't determined in the womb. I asked if he was determined in the womb and you now say "yes, but it isn't about Isaiah." OK then.

The if/then statement is an additional argument yes, but really there was no need for it since you cannot show that the passage is appropriate for either Isaiah or Israel.

And yet I already have. Your if/then was based on your simple counter claim which I showed to be in error. You should review posts 458 and 415.

No, but it is interesting that Eve's seed was chosen and not Adam's.

As God was talking to the snake he pointed out that the snake attempted to take advantage of the woman because the snake perceived her to be weaker, and yet it will be precisely her descendants who will take revenge on the snake's descendants.

They did not leave Judaism at the time. They were after all just pointing out that the scriptures pointed to Jesus being the Messiah. But it did not take long for a disliking of the sect to grow amongst the Jews and for persecution to start. These days there are Messianic Jews and Jews for Jesus or whatever the name it and they do not deny the Hebrew scriptures and see that those scriptures can be understood to be about Jesus.
The early Christians did not leave but were kicked out of Judaism.

The fringe that thought it could twist things to be about Jesus was not among those who truly studied the material -- in the same way, messianic groups prey on lesser educated and unaffiliated Jews today in order to persuade them of this belief. There is a wonderful set of medieval stories about the Jewish origin of Christianity and how it had no separate identity except for a belief in Jesus (much like a variant denomination) and it was undercover Jews who innovated all sorts of stuff to distinguish between the groups.

 

[Brian2]

It can indeed be seen that way and there is a sound reasoning as to why. It is in fact true. An example is Matthew 5:17-48

In the passages quoted above Jesus say You have heard this, then Jesus says, but I say unto you. Consider when he said that the Jews accused Jesus, just as you have now accused Baha'u'llah.

Baha'u'llah also explains this. God's Messages in each age abolishes some laws, replaces some, but always upholds the basic virtues common in all Faiths. In that way, it is why the Faiths of the world appear to differ, as laws specific to an age are given and some changed in a subsequent age.

Also religion is progressive, in each age the Message given allows for a greater expansion on man's capacity. We have gone through building families to tribes to nations and now is the age for the Unity of all Humanity.

As such, we need to consider different frames of references in each age. Those that choose not to consider new frames of references, become those that reject God's Messengers.

IMHO

Regards Tony

When I said "By accepting Baha'u'llah one denies many of the teachings of the OT and NT............imo"
That was not accusing Baha'u'llah of anything, that was just stating a fact.

 

[Brian2]

Well, I find JW's, SDA and various other people do the same thing with typology and they validate their beliefs through it. They find many things to match their groups in the Bible. The JW's have written whole books analysing prophecy and how it applies to them. The history of Christian groups is evidence that it is pretty easy to find prophecy anywhere in the Bible, often at the sacrifice of context.

Yes many groups point to themselves.

 

[Brian2]

Calling it "Judaism" does not make it Judaism. Judaism has had a specific meaning for many ages now, and Jews for Jesus, Hebrew Christians and Messianic Jews do not follow Judaism. They follow a very preachy version of Christianity.

They are more Jewish based than most Gentile Christian groups. They celebrate the Jewish feasts but with a knowledge of the meaning of the feasts in the light of Jesus life and death and ongoing work. You see your fellow Jews as outside of Jewishness because they say that Jesus is the Messiah. What is it about Jesus as opposed to other claimants to Messiahship, which puts His followers, even if they are Jews, outside Jewishness?

 

[Harel13]

They are more Jewish based than most Gentile Christian groups. They celebrate the Jewish feasts but with a knowledge of the meaning of the feasts in the light of Jesus life and death and ongoing work.

Again, "Jewish-based" does not make it Judaism.

What is it about Jesus as opposed to other claimants to Messiahship, which puts His followers, even if they are Jews, outside Jewishness?

a. there were other messianic claimants who, along with their disciples and followers, were considered non-Jewish in their ways. The most famous example of this was Shabtai Tzvi and his cult of Shabtaim and subsequently, the Frankists.
b. It all comes down to: is this guy and/or his followers calling for abolishment of Torah? Are their beliefs in line with Torah or not? Christianity isn't. Shabtaism wasn't. Frankism wasn't. Bar-Kochva, on the other hand, was backed up by some of the greatest rabbis of his generation.

 

[Muffled]

the NT writers copied from the OT

Joseph into Egypt

baby avoids death at the hands of the kings

40 years and 40 days in wilderness

jospeh = jesus

I believe it is easy to think that way when the reality is that the author likes to repeat His lessons.

 

[Muffled]

Sorry, I don’t see why it would be so, please explain why do you think so?

I believe it is because the son mentioned would be called Immanuel - God with us.

 

[Muffled]

OK. How would they have known?

I believe they wouldn't but if they really wanted to know the truth they could have asked.

 

[CG Didymus]

The history of Christian groups is evidence that it is pretty easy to find prophecy anywhere in the Bible, often at the sacrifice of context.

Maybe the gospel writers applied it to him retroactively? Because we know that the gospel writers weren't quoting Jesus verbatum.

Also, with some of the "prophecies" in Matthew 2 it is possible to create the event that fulfilled the out of context prophecy. Like the killing of the kids by Herod and the trip to Egypt by Jesus and the family.

I wasn't sure whether you wanted answers to these things or not or whether you were just pointing out that Baha'is and Christians seem to be doing the same thing. It certainly can be seen as the same thing on the surface and it can fool many people.

Yes, and any religion that is going to use previous religions to justify itself, I think will do and have to do it. They all need "proof" from things prophesied to be able to say, "See they we are right there as plain as day." But it's never plain as day. Like I've asked Baha'is about that sure, they've got verses to show The Bab and Baha'u'llah were talked about in the Bible, but how about Muhammad? And they had them. As vague and out of context as can be, but they were there.

The huge problem is sorting all of this out is... each religion is very real for millions of people and is working for millions of people, so it's hard to then say, "Well, Jesus was not the Messiah." That would crumble Christianity, Islam, and the Baha'i Faith. They've all built upon the foundation of the previous religions, all going back to Judaism. So each religion has a vested interest in upholding at least some of the prophecies that "prove" that the previous ones are real and true. The former ones have very good reasons to deny the latter ones as false.... because they take verses out of context.... They didn't fulfill the prophecies correctly... They contradict beliefs and teachings of the earlier religions and so on.

The things that I'm always questioning the Baha'is on is... the prophecies in Revelation that make it sound like all the trials and tribulations happen before the Return of Christ. Plus, the one from the gospels that says there will be wars and rumors of wars, but that is not yet the end. And since we still have wars and rumors of wars, how can "The Christ" have already come and gone? Of course they have a perfectly reasonable explanation, for them. Just like Christianity can say to Jews, "Jesus is going to fulfill all those other things later, when he comes back."

 

[Brian2]

You say that. But what does "higher critics" actually say is their method for determining these things?

Is there a method for determining that the concept of prophecy is not true? Maybe it is supposed to be a more scientific method, which means no assumption of the existence and work of God in their methods.
Do you think that the traditional methods of determining the dates and authors are not methods and should be ignored?

That isn't context. That is taking two sections and ignoring what is in between them, therefore invalid. You would have to match the context from chapter 7 through to chapter 9 and everything has to fit.

I'm not a Bible scholar, I just puddle through. I can see a promised child and things happening to show that if Ahaz had done nothing things would have been OK. Then I see Isaiah's child and a similar promise given to Isaiah about what would happen before the child can say mum and dad. Then I see a prophecy more in detail about what would happen to Ahaz and his kingdom because he did not trust in God. Emmanuel is mentioned at Isa 8:8 as if the land belongs to Emmanuel. Verse 10 puts God as the determiner of what happens as opposed to men determining, and there is no use fighting it because Emmanuel (God is with us)

Then God warns Isaiah not to follow the ways of his people . Then Isaiah says here am I an the children God has given me , and he goes on and says that he and his children are signs and symbols from God for Israel.
Then there is a warning from God about consulting God about what to do etc and not spirits and mediums (which I imagine Ahaz and the people would have been doing).
Chapter 9 then seems to be a continuing on of the same prophecy and starts "nevertheless". Then there is a promise of evil times ending and Galilee being being honoured and a great light being seen in that region and people rejoicing and then the promise of another child who seems Divine and with reign of David's throne forever.

Interesting but long section to see the common theme of children promised. It can be hard to pin point exactly what the link is to put it down in words,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but it seems to be there imo.
I'm working on it in faith that it exists,,,,,,,,,,,,,,even if that is begging the question.

And that is the problem. The one problematic premise is that Jesus is the Messiah. You will have to divorce yourself from that premise when engaging in my OP and through contextual understanding arrive at such a conclusion.

I can certainly see Isa 9:6-7 as Messianic and showing a divine Messiah if taken literally. I can see the Isa 7:14 prophecy as potentially pointing to a divine person and as having links to the child of Isa 9 (from Isa 7 to Isa 9) Easy to see but hard to put into words.
But really it is not my way of doing things to be all scholarly and divorcing myself from the premise that Jesus is the Messiah.
However it is interesting to me that the Jews want reject Jesus precisely because of his claim to Divinity and being the Son of God. They also seem to reject any literal divine messiah in Isa 9. Talk about being stuck in tradition and human doctrine that stops eyes being open to seeing what is written.

Actually to me chapter 8 is saying in verse 4, 6 and 7 that the two Kings are being destroyed. Verse 18 proves my point that children were given to Isaiah as signs. I don't see where you get the reference to Ahaz not trusting God?

The reference to Ahaz not trusting God is Isa 7:6-9 and Isa 8:6. (and maybe knowing a bit of the history and that Ahaz actually went to the King of Assyria to ask for help and he got the help but ended up under the thumb of Assyria.

Was it? Maybe the gospel writers applied it to him retroactively? Because we know that the gospel writers weren't quoting Jesus verbatum.

Psalm 22 gives a stack of thing that happened to Jesus on the cross, including the piercing of hands and feet, not just the quote about God forsaking Him, and crucifixion was not known at the time the Psalm was written. The Psalm is about someone who is despised by the people again (as was Isa 49 and Isa 53). It could be Messianic if the servant in Isa 49 and 53 are. But yes the writers of the gospels could have just plucked the Psalm out because it seemed to be about crucifixion in places.

Thing is, there must be a solid critical basis from which to examine everything. So for instance if we assumer premises as true, such as "our religious figure is true" that is a rocky basis because then everybody determines what is true based on what they wish. And that doesn't lead to truth. This also influences when people wish to say that one verse is literal and another is symbolic, as we can see on this very thread.

True.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Is there a method for determining that the concept of prophecy is not true? Maybe it is supposed to be a more scientific method, which means no assumption of the existence and work of God in their methods.
Do you think that the traditional methods of determining the dates and authors are not methods and should be ignored?

The documents should be examined the same way all other documents are examined. It should stick to the standard we currently use unless the method can be improved with better technology. The assumption that a God influenced the methods is just an assumption so should be disregarded.

It should work like this:
-The examiners examine the texts using current methods without assumptions besides the evidence we have regarding previous archaeological discoveries.
- Those methods will determine when the books were written.
- If the are discovered to have existed before the prophecy was said to be fulfilled then accept it.

I'm not a Bible scholar, I just puddle through. I can see a promised child and things happening to show that if Ahaz had done nothing things would have been OK. Then I see Isaiah's child and a similar promise given to Isaiah about what would happen before the child can say mum and dad. Then I see a prophecy more in detail about what would happen to Ahaz and his kingdom because he did not trust in God. Emmanuel is mentioned at Isa 8:8 as if the land belongs to Emmanuel. Verse 10 puts God as the determiner of what happens as opposed to men determining, and there is no use fighting it because Emmanuel (God is with us)

Then God warns Isaiah not to follow the ways of his people . Then Isaiah says here am I an the children God has given me , and he goes on and says that he and his children are signs and symbols from God for Israel.
Then there is a warning from God about consulting God about what to do etc and not spirits and mediums (which I imagine Ahaz and the people would have been doing).
Chapter 9 then seems to be a continuing on of the same prophecy and starts "nevertheless". Then there is a promise of evil times ending and Galilee being being honoured and a great light being seen in that region and people rejoicing and then the promise of another child who seems Divine and with reign of David's throne forever.

Interesting but long section to see the common theme of children promised. It can be hard to pin point exactly what the link is to put it down in words,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but it seems to be there imo.
I'm working on it in faith that it exists,,,,,,,,,,,,,,even if that is begging the question.

I do believe that the link between the whole context is there as it seems absurd to me that the writer would not be able to stick to the context. And yes, the common theme is children promised as signs for the time. Like with my study of Romans, I think that one might only be able to understand the context once one really understand the intro chapters. And maybe also studying Kings and Chronicles to pinpoint what was happening at the time Isaiah was talking about.

I can certainly see Isa 9:6-7 as Messianic and showing a divine Messiah if taken literally. I can see the Isa 7:14 prophecy as potentially pointing to a divine person and as having links to the child of Isa 9 (from Isa 7 to Isa 9) Easy to see but hard to put into words.
But really it is not my way of doing things to be all scholarly and divorcing myself from the premise that Jesus is the Messiah.
However it is interesting to me that the Jews want reject Jesus precisely because of his claim to Divinity and being the Son of God. They also seem to reject any literal divine messiah in Isa 9. Talk about being stuck in tradition and human doctrine that stops eyes being open to seeing what is written.

Isaiah 9:6-7 can be seen as messianic if taken out of context. We have to sort out the context first. We are also not taking Jewish prejudice into account although they have good insight into what the context is as they examine the OT more thoroughly than anybody else from what I have seen. Also to say that they are stuck in tradition is to disregard their religious beliefs. They believe that there was an oral law as well as a written one which was passed down. They see the OT different to how you do.

The reference to Ahaz not trusting God is Isa 7:6-9 and Isa 8:6. (and maybe knowing a bit of the history and that Ahaz actually went to the King of Assyria to ask for help and he got the help but ended up under the thumb of Assyria.

These verses say nothing about Ahaz not trusting God. God is telling Isaiah what he must say to Ahaz : "4 Say to him, ‘Be careful, keep calm and don’t be afraid. Do not lose heart because of these two smoldering stubs of firewood—because of the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram and of the son of Remaliah." In verse 5 Isaiah is told to say: " Aram, Ephraim and Remaliah’s son have plotted your ruin, saying". The verse where Ahaz does trust God is verses 11 and 12:
11 “Ask the Lord your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights.”
12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask; I will not put the Lord to the test.”
Then, because Ahaz won't ask for a sign, God says he will give him one anyway, which is Immanuel, which will be a sign that the land Ahaz hates will forsake both their Kings.

Psalm 22 gives a stack of thing that happened to Jesus on the cross, including the piercing of hands and feet, not just the quote about God forsaking Him, and crucifixion was not known at the time the Psalm was written. The Psalm is about someone who is despised by the people again (as was Isa 49 and Isa 53). It could be Messianic if the servant in Isa 49 and 53 are. But yes the writers of the gospels could have just plucked the Psalm out because it seemed to be about crucifixion in places.

Depends when one dates Psalm 22. According to tradition it is dated to 1000BC. According to secular scholarship, the first part is dated to before 587 BC and the second part to 4th C BC. If secular scholarship is correct then crucifixion would have been known to people of the time, as the oldest known reference to crucifixion dates to 522 BC when the Persians crucified Polycrates. I dunno how they come to the dating conclusion so that is as far as I will go with that.

Reading Psalms 22 though doesn't give the reader the idea of someone being crucified unless one reads into it, as it mentions nothing about wooden cross being erected and a person being placed on one, which is a vital element.

 

[syo]

the NT writers definitely take certain quotes out of context from the OT?

in my opinion, the evangelists wrote whatever they liked. in my opinion, the nt is totally worthless.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

That was not accusing Baha'u'llah of anything, that was just stating a fact.

It is not a fact. That is your opinion.

A fact is founded upon Truth and as such Baha'u'llah does or does not fulfill prophecy.

Your opinion is that He does not.

My opinion is that He does so, 100%

One of us logically then does not base their opinion in Truth and I can say I would give my life for my choice at any moment.

Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

Baha'u'llah also explains this. God's Messages in each age abolishes some laws, replaces some, but always upholds the basic virtues common in all Faiths. In that way, it is why the Faiths of the world appear to differ, as laws specific to an age are given and some changed in a subsequent age.

So some of the laws, what Baha'is call the "social laws", change or get abolished.

It all comes down to: is this guy and/or his followers calling for abolishment of Torah? Are their beliefs in line with Torah or not?

Since Baha'is say that all the subsequent religions do change or abolish some things in the earlier religions, then it is okay and part of God's plan for Christianity to change or abolish some Jewish laws. So there goes the Torah. But then Islam does it to Christianity and Baha'is do it to Islam.

"By accepting Baha'u'llah one denies many of the teachings of the OT and NT............imo"
That was not accusing Baha'u'llah of anything, that was just stating a fact.

Does the Baha'i Faith change some of the teachings in the Bible? Is there anyone here that would not say, "Yes"?

It is not a fact. That is your opinion.

A fact is founded upon Truth and as such Baha'u'llah does or does not fulfill prophecy.

Yes, there is one person that says that Baha'is do not change teachings in the Bible? No. "Baha'u'llah also explains this. God's Messages in each age abolishes some laws, replaces some..." Tony, you changed it to fulfilling prophecies?

Your opinion is that He does not.

My opinion is that He does so, 100%

One of us logically then does not base their opinion in Truth and I can say I would give my life for my choice at any moment.

How many people here know for a fact that their prophet fulfilled prophecy? Yes, in their opinion. And that's what we've been talking about. Some prophecies are very questionable. And talking about giving their lives... How many Jews have given their lives rather than convert... like in the Inquistition? So, to a Baha'is, was that smart? Baha'is believe that some of their laws have been changed and abolished, and that Jesus was their Messiah.

But you know the answer. I've asked this of you many times. The religion and teachings that they were being asked to convert to or die believed Jesus is God. Baha'is say that is false. So, then they should have held onto their old beliefs? I don't know. Baha'is say that some of the laws in the Torah have been changed. So what should have that Jew done? Die for laws that God has changed with the coming of Jesus? Convert to a religion that Baha'is say has false beliefs? Or, should both of them converted to Islam? Then which sect of Islam? Now the answer is easy. Any smart person would base their opinions on Truth and not opinions. And in your opinion... the Baha'i Faith is the Truth. And everyone else's opinion of the Truth is wrong and just their "opinion"?

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm sure you also believe we will all be judged by God.

Yes, Baha’is believe we will all be judged by God, kind of scary!

“Know ye that the world and its vanities and its embellishments shall pass away. Nothing will endure except God’s Kingdom which pertaineth to none but Him, the Sovereign Lord of all, the Help in Peril, the All-Glorious, the Almighty. The days of your life shall roll away, and all the things with which ye are occupied and of which ye boast yourselves shall perish, and ye shall, most certainly, be summoned by a company of His angels to appear at the spot where the limbs of the entire creation shall be made to tremble, and the flesh of every oppressor to creep. Ye shall be asked of the things your hands have wrought in this, your vain life, and shall be repaid for your doings. This is the day that shall inevitably come upon you, the hour that none can put back. To this the Tongue of Him that speaketh the truth and is the Knower of all things hath testified.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 125

God does not disregard anyone.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot believe in a religion that teaches that 67% of people are not saved and then say God does not disregard them. It just doesn’t comport with logic.

So what is God going to DO with all those people on Judgment Day?

We all came from Adam and Eve. Of course we are united in that way. What sort of unity does Baha'i teach? or is it just general unity.

There are many websites on the internet that describe what Baha'is believe about the unity of mankind, but I like what this BBC website says because it is so succinct:

Unity of humanity

The central theme of Bahá'u'lláh's teachings is that humanity is a single race which should now be united in one global society.

He taught that as humanity evolved physically and adapted socially, so world unity is the final stage in the evolution of humanity.

Human beings originally lived in isolated family groups, then became tribal, moving into city states and then nations.

Bahá'ís believe that humanity must now move forward to global maturity, recreating itself as a single human family:

BBC - Religions - Bahai: Unity and equality

So I can't be saved by faith in Jesus?

Baha’is do not have a concept of salvation they way Christians do because we do not believe in original sin. However, we have what we all our “twin duties” towards God, and if we fulfill these duties we will have done what God wants us to do and that will put us in the best position to “get to heaven” as it is termed.

“The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is the recognition of Him Who is the Day Spring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His laws, Who representeth the Godhead in both the Kingdom of His Cause and the world of creation. Whoso achieveth this duty hath attained unto all good; and whoso is deprived thereof, hath gone astray, though he be the author of every righteous deed. It behoveth every one who reacheth this most sublime station, this summit of transcendent glory, to observe every ordinance of Him Who is the Desire of the world. These twin duties are inseparable. Neither is acceptable without the other. Thus hath it been decreed by Him Who is the Source of Divine inspiration.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 330-331

The Twin Duties

Of course, Baha’is believe that “Him Who is the Day Spring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His laws” for this age (dispensation) is Baha’u’llah.

Mind you, Baha’is do not believe that heaven is a geographical location, but a Baha’i once asked the Guardian of the Baha’i Faith (Shoghi Effendi) how to get to heaven, and here was his answer...

"To 'get to heaven' as you say is dependent on two things--faith in the Manifestation of God in His Day, in other words in this age in Bahá'u'lláh; and good deeds, in other words living to the best of our ability a noble life and doing unto others as we would be done by. But we must always remember that our existence and everything we have or ever will have is dependent upon the mercy of God and His bounty, and therefore He can accept into His heaven, which is really nearness to Him, even the lowliest if He pleases. We always have the hope of receiving His mercy if we reach out for it."
(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, January 12, 1957)
Lights of Guidance (second part): A Bahá'í Reference File

To get the guarantee, you need both faith in Baha’u’llah and good deeds, but I do not think that means that only Baha’is will be in heaven... That would not be justice and it would not make sense, since there was a time before Baha’u’llah came when people who were near to God died, so I think they will be in heaven.

Of course, it is a requirement that Baha’is believe in Jesus, so we have our bases covered.

Sounds like a new improved model to replace the old but everlasting model.

That is because some parts on the old model wore out because they were not everlasting.
All religions wear out eventually, and then they need to be renewed.

“All that lives, and this includes the religions, have springtime, a time of maturity, of harvest and wintertime. Then religion becomes barren, a lifeless adherence to the letter uninformed by the spirit, and man’s spiritual life declines. When we look at religious history, we see that God has spoken to men precisely at times when they have reached the nadir of their degradation and cultural decadence. Moses came to Israel when it was languishing under the Pharaoh’s yoke, Christ appeared at a time when the Jewish Faith had lost its power and culture of antiquity was in its death those. Muhammad came to a people who lived in barbaric ignorance at the lowest level of culture and into a world in which the former religions had strayed far away from their origins and nearly lost their identity. The Bab addressed Himself to a people who had irretrievably lost their former grandeur and who found themselves in a state of hopeless decadence. Baha’u’llah came to a humanity which was approaching the most critical phase of its history.” (Udo Schaefer, The Light Shineth in Darkness, p. 24)

Heb 13:21,21 Now may the God of peace who brought up our Lord Jesus from the dead, that great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you complete in every good work to do His will, working in you what is well pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.

The fact that Baha’u’llah came to fulfill and complete the work Jesus left unfinished does not take any glory away from Jesus.

John 16:12-14 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

John 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

That verse above is about the unity of mankind but it is also about the eventual unity of all the religions into one common faith, which God has ordained as the remedy for healing mankind:

“That which the Lord hath ordained as the sovereign remedy and mightiest instrument for the healing of all the world is the union of all its peoples in one universal Cause, one common Faith. This can in no wise be achieved except through the power of a skilled, an all-powerful and inspired Physician. This, verily, is the truth, and all else naught but error.”
The Summons of the Lord of Hosts, p. 91

It depends on multiple other religions since it claims to fulfil their prophecies.

No, just because the Baha’i Faith fulfils the prophecies of the past religions, that does not mean it depends upon them.

Baha'i (or at least the ones I have spoken to) deny much of the Bible and replace it with the teachings of Baha'u'llah and Abdul-Baha.

We do not deny the Bible, we just interpret it differently than Christians, but since Christians interpret it differently that means that logically speaking, there is no one correct interpretation. But we have already covered all this before.

Yes, Baha’is believe that the Bible dispensation has been abrogated so we believe that the Bible teachings have been replaced by the teachings of Baha’u’llah. That applies to the social teachings and laws and the message of the unity of mankind, but it does not apply to the spiritual teachings. The spiritual teachings in the Bible are eternal will always be pertinent.

Matthew 24:35 “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”

 

[Brian2]

You have just gone full circle. You said that it couldn't be about Isaiah because he wasn't determined in the womb. I asked if he was determined in the womb and you now say "yes, but it isn't about Isaiah." OK then.

No turn around. God knew that Isaiah would be a prophet while he was in the womb but he was not called then, he was called as it says in Isa 6. The one in Isa 49 was called in the womb.

And yet I already have. Your if/then was based on your simple counter claim which I showed to be in error. You should review posts 458 and 415.

As I said Isaiah is not mentioned in the text and neither Isaiah nor the nation are supposed to restore Israel or save anyone, it is the Messiah who does this. To change the text to read something you want it to say just because you have an idea (as Ebn Ezra does in post 458) is not a good thing to do.

As God was talking to the snake he pointed out that the snake attempted to take advantage of the woman because the snake perceived her to be weaker, and yet it will be precisely her descendants who will take revenge on the snake's descendants.

Yes it is her descendants if you insist on a plural even though there is a singular pronoun. Sounds like it could be singular or plural. But who has crushed satan's head or even bruised it? Who is without sin? Who took away the power satan had to kill by being disobedient to what God had forbidden?

The fringe that thought it could twist things to be about Jesus was not among those who truly studied the material -- in the same way, messianic groups prey on lesser educated and unaffiliated Jews today in order to persuade them of this belief. There is a wonderful set of medieval stories about the Jewish origin of Christianity and how it had no separate identity except for a belief in Jesus (much like a variant denomination) and it was undercover Jews who innovated all sorts of stuff to distinguish between the groups.

The early Jewish Christians were probably less different to the other Jews than today's gentile Christians. They also seem to have had the idea of a divine Messiah but it had not developed as far as it has today. The Son of God was anathema to the Jews of Jesus day also. The New Covenant replaced following a set of rules with being guided by the Spirit and the Word of God and loving God and others as something, that if you did it meant that you fulfilled the requirements of the Law.