Fulfillment of Prophecy in the New Testament

[Nova2216]

Hi there,

As a former Christian, having read the Old Testament and New Testament to completion and numerous books multiple times, it has always occurred to me that a few Old Testament scriptures that the New Testament says was fulfilled by Jesus or in some other way, seem to have been taken out of context.

Sometimes the writers would quote a single verse from a passage to prove a point and then when going back I would find that the context seemed very different.

In some cases I have found that this was a misunderstanding of the context on my part.

Would you guys say that the NT writers definitely take certain quotes out of context from the OT?

@Harel13

Is it possible your understanding of certain verses may be incorrect?

The writers of the NT were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write the word of God (Jn 14:26 ; 16:13) (Mt.10:19,20).


20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2Peter 1:20,21)


To criticize the word of God is to criticize God.

Men do not have the right to criticize the Creator.

The Creator criticizes men.


I hope to speak to you more on this matter if possible.

PM me.

Thanks

 

[CG Didymus]

This best answers tha question.

"Concerning the future life, what Bahá’u’lláh says is that the soul will continue to ascend through many worlds. What those worlds are and what their nature is we cannot know. The same way that the child in the matrix cannot know this world so we cannot know what the other world is going to be." (From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, October 18, 1932)

Now we can also consider this;

"There are no earth-bound souls. When the souls that are not good die they go entirely away from this earth and so cannot influence anyone. They are spiritually dead. Their thoughts can have influence only when they are alive on the earth… But the good souls are given eternal life and sometimes God permits their thoughts to reach the earth to help the people. (Questions answered by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in 'Akká: Daily Lessons, Received at 'Akká, 1979 ed., pp. 35-36)

Added to that this was offered;

"There is no power exercised over the people by those evil souls that have passed away. Good is stronger than evil and even when alive they had very little power. How much less have they after they are dead, and besides they are nowhere near this planet." (Ibid., pp. 43-44)

There is a mountain of information given for us to consider, that the progress of the Soul is eternal through many worlds of God, all under God's bounty and grace, not because of anything we have done to warrent such progress, except being allowed to recognise God's Manifestations.

It appears our choices hold us back.

Quite a few others at this link.

Lights of Guidance/Life after Death; the Soul - Bahaiworks, a library of works about the Bahá’í Faith

Regards Tony

Thanks Tony, This is what I found...

The progress of the soul does not come to an end with death. It rather starts along a new line.
"As to the question regarding the soul of a murderer, and what his punishment would be. The answer given was that the murderer must expiate his crime; that is, if they put the murderer to death, his death is his atonement for his crime, and following the death, God in His justice will impose no second penalty upon him, for Divine Justice would not allow this."​

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Thanks Tony, This is what I found...

The progress of the soul does not come to an end with death. It rather starts along a new line.
"As to the question regarding the soul of a murderer, and what his punishment would be. The answer given was that the murderer must expiate his crime; that is, if they put the murderer to death, his death is his atonement for his crime, and following the death, God in His justice will impose no second penalty upon him, for Divine Justice would not allow this."​

There is a lot of guidance like that CG, basically we are given the chance in this life to progress spiritually of our own choice and get our spiritual limbs needed in the next world.

It is such a large subject and many tangents, there is no hard and fast detail that we can say this or that will be so, or will not be so.

Regards Tony

 

[Samael_Khan]

Is it possible your understanding of certain verses may be incorrect?

The writers of the NT were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write the word of God (Jn 14:26 ; 16:13) (Mt.10:19,20).


20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2Peter 1:20,21)


To criticize the word of God is to criticize God.

Men do not have the right to criticize the Creator.

The Creator criticizes men.


I hope to speak to you more on this matter if possible.

PM me.

Thanks

The 2 Peter verse that you quoted pretty much presents the idea that a person cannot determine the true meaning of the verses if one just reads the text. They need the Holy Spirit. So, they must be a believer first? That pretty much shows that one cannot reason through prophetic interpretation doesn't it? Since one cannot understand the prophecy using their reason.

I would say that if one is not allowed to criticize God then God has an insecurity problem or that his views cannot withstand scrutiny.

And yes, it would be great to chat more on the matter.

 

[Samael_Khan]

The reason that he idea of who Satan is in Islam and Christianity contradict each other. And the reason what Christianity says about Jesus contradicts what Islam says about Jesus is because of the way their scriptures are interpreted by the followers, not necessarily because what is actually written in the scriptures is contradictory.

One possible reason why Polytheistic faiths contradict Monotheistic faiths and could be because of the way Polytheistic faiths were interpreted by the followers. For example, many aspects of one God does not necessarily mean that many gods exist. Then again, another possible reason that Polytheistic faiths were revealed as having many gods could have been because that was according to the capacity people to understand god at that time, and the people were not ready to understand the one God concept when these faiths were revealed.

Bringing something new and different according to the needs of the time and the capacity of the hearer is not a contradiction.

Where is the evidence of this? when you read the religious texts themselves, they contradict each other.

But even if you do read the whole book, that does not mean you will; automatically know what the verses mean.

“Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” How do you know that Jesus was referring to His body?

Please note that Jesus did not say 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body. It was assumed that was what Jesus meant.

What it all boils down to us how people choose to interpret the scriptures and thus what they understand them to mean. People hold fast to their interpretations insist they are correct yet there is no reason to think they are any more correct than some other interpretation. Mind you, nobody was given authority by Jesus to interpret the NT so it is anyone’s best guess what the verses mean.

The scripture says:" But the temple he had spoken of was his body." That is the scripture itself. Then the rest of the narrative says that Jesus died on a cross and was resurrected. The scripture itself says this. There isn't a way to interpret that differently unless you want to say that Jesus said something else and the scriptures cannot be trusted. But then if you want to say that Jesus said something else the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that he did.

Nobody can prove a false negative but that is no reason to believe it is true. For example, nobody can prove that God does not exist but that is no reason to believe that God exists. Imo, evidence of God’s existence is the only rational reason to believe that God exists. Likewise, evidence of the bodily resurrection would be a reason to believe it happened.

I do not consider the stories that say that Jesus rose from the dead to be evidence because a story is not evidence that what is in the story ever happened. That would be circular reasoning. That would be like me saying that Baha’u’llah’s claim to be a Messenger of God is evidence that He was a Messenger of God. But a claim is not evidence of anything; the evidence is what can be investigated and verified -- what Baha’u’llah was like as a person, what He did on his mission and what He wrote. We have no such verifiable evidence for the bodily resurrection; all we have are stories men wrote long after Jesus walked the earth.

But if you want to believe it is true that is your right. I consider that a really lame argument to say that just because nobody can prove Jesus did not rise from the grave that means that Jesus rose from the grave. I cannot prove there is no such thing as a pink unicorn, but that does not mean pink unicorns exist.

The bodily resurrection is a faith-based belief, not an evidence-based belief, and to try to make it anything else only makes people look silly since there is no verifiable evidence that it ever took place. A witness that was written into a story is not a real witness.

Yes, we agree on that. Claims alone mean nothing without evidence. We believe things based on evidence. But, to say that something is impossible is a knowledge claim, meaning that you know for sure that something does not exist or cannot happen. It would be like saying that it is impossible for Aliens to exist because we have no evidence for them. Then in the future we eventually discover evidence of aliens and the impossibility claim was wrong.

Or so Christians believe. Do you believe that? You talk as if you do.

You said that to your knowledge no other religion has that belief. And Christianity's teaching about Jesus resurrection for the forgiveness of sins is unique. That isn't a Christian belief that is just what we get from the evidence out there of what people believe. Just because I explain what makes it unique does not mean that I believe it. I could say that Baha'i have many unique teachings but not believe it either.

I do not think that disagreeing with a belief that other religions hold can be equated to criticism. Everyone who is not a Baha’i disagrees with us, but it is the way they disagree that would make it criticism.

criticism

noun
noun: criticism; plural noun: criticisms

1. 1.
   the expression of disapproval of someone or something on the basis of perceived faults or mistakes.

You did the above, therefore you were being critical.

I guess that means you are out of the game since you presently do not have a religion. I normally steer away from these religion threads but sometimes I get sucked in for a while. However, I much prefer posting to atheists and agnostics. I have no interest in discussing the Bible; if I did I would want to be more proficient in it.

But you see, I am not undecided or sitting on the fence, I am a Baha’i and I have been one for almost 50 years. If I was still uncommitted to my beliefs after all these years, that would be a cause for concern.

In the real world, Baha’is do not debate over the Bible and what prophecies mean, they are too busy with their own religion, including their involvement in the Baha’i administration as well as their personal duties and practices.

The Bible is nothing that has to be fought over even though religious adherents fight over it, and the only reason they fight is to try to prove they are right. So as the whole world falls apart, Jews and Christians fight over ancient scriptures and what they mean, as if it matters. Sorry, I am out of the game because it does not matter to me..

Why is it fair that a Baha’i who wants to talk to a Christian has to meet them on their own ground, the Bible or Torah ground, whereas Jews and Christians are unwilling to meet Baha’is on our ground? The implication is that they are superior because their scriptures have been around longer and their religions are well established, but I do not accept that as an excuse. If they are interested in the Baha’i Faith they can meet me on Baha’i ground and if not, why would I bother trying to convince them of anything? I do not have to prove to them how that Baha’i Faith fulfills the prophecies in their scriptures as that is not the job assignment I have been given by Baha’u’llah. If they are really interested in knowing about the prophecies they can read Thief in the Night by William Sears and if not, why debate endlessly about what the prophecies mean and who fulfilled them?

My point about the Battle Royale was regarding your statement that Christians preclude where they will be after they die. Different religions have afterlife beliefs and even Christians have disagreements among themselves. I don't make claims about the afterlife so those who believe should fight over their claims that nobody can prove.

The reason why you are meeting a Christian on their grounds is because you are making claims about how their book should be interpreted. They aren't making those claims about yours. So you are actually CHOOSING to meet them on their grounds. The same happens with Christians and Jews. The Christians choose to meet on Jewish grounds because they believe the Jewish Scriptures, and make claims about them regarding interpretation but the Jews do not believe in the NT. So it is your fault.

Don't include claims about their beliefs and scriptures in a conversation and then you will not have to meet them on their ground.

 

[Trailblazer]

Where is the evidence of this? when you read the religious texts themselves, they contradict each other.

Can you give me an example of what you mean by contradict each other?

The scripture says:" But the temple he had spoken of was his body." That is the scripture itself. Then the rest of the narrative says that Jesus died on a cross and was resurrected. The scripture itself says this. There isn't a way to interpret that differently unless you want to say that Jesus said something else and the scriptures cannot be trusted. But then if you want to say that Jesus said something else the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that he did.

I am not trying to prove anything. I don’t care what they Bible says because I do not trust the Bible to be an accurate recording of what Jesus said. That is logically impossible since nobody could memorize everything Jesus said and write it down decades later. Add to that that the gospel authors never even knew Jesus. It is all oral tradition rather than scriptures that Jesus wrote.

Yes, we agree on that. Claims alone mean nothing without evidence. We believe things based on evidence. But, to say that something is impossible is a knowledge claim, meaning that you know for sure that something does not exist or cannot happen. It would be like saying that it is impossible for Aliens to exist because we have no evidence for them. Then in the future we eventually discover evidence of aliens and the impossibility claim was wrong.

No, it s not like aliens. It is very possible that there are aliens but it is impossible for a dead body to come back to life after three days. Only in story books does that happen. The bodily resurrection is a faith based belief and not all Christians believe Jesus rose from the dead.

What many liberal theologians believe about Jesus' death

Many liberal and some mainline Christian leaders believe that Jesus died during the crucifixion, did not resurrect himself, and was not bodily resurrected by God. At his death, his mind ceased to function and his body started the decomposition process. Returning to life a day and a half later would have been quite impossible. The story of having been wrapped in linen and anointed with myrrh seems to have been copied from the story of the death of Osiris -- the Egyptian God of the earth, vegetation and grain. The legend that he visited the underworld between his death and resurrection was simply copied from common Pagan themes of surrounding cultures. One example again was Osiris. "With his original association to agriculture, his death and resurrection were seen as symbolic of the annual death and re-growth of the crops and the yearly flooding of the Nile." 1

They also believe that Paul regarded the resurrection to be an act of God in which Jesus was a passive recipient of God's power. Paul did not mention the empty tomb, the visit by a woman or women, the stone, the angel/angels/man/men at the tomb, and reunion of Jesus with his followers in his resuscitated body. Rather, he believed that Jesus was taken up into heaven in a spirit body. It was only later, from about 70 to 110 CE when the four canonic Gospels were written, that the Christians believed that Jesus rose from the grave in his original body, and by his own power.

Later, perhaps after Paul's death, there was great disappointment within the Christian communities because Jesus had not returned as expected. They diverted their focus of attention away from Jesus' second coming. They studied his life and death more intensely. Legends without a historical basis were created by the early church; these included the empty tomb and described Jesus returning in his original body to eat and talk with his followers.

In previous centuries, almost all Christians believed in miracles as described in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). These included creation, the story of Adam and Eve, a talking serpent, the great flood of Noah, the drying up of the Red/Reed sea, a prophet riding on a talking ***, the sun stopping in the sky, etc. From the Christian Scriptures (New Testament), they believed in the virgin birth, the Christmas star, angels appearing to the shepherds, Jesus healing the sick, etc. Many, perhaps most, liberal Christians now believe that these stories are not to be interpreted literally as real events. Their faith has not been damaged by losing faith in the reality of these events. A growing number of liberals are now taking the final step by interpreting the stories of Jesus' resurrection and his appearances to his followers and to Paul as other than real events. Retired bishop John Shelby Spong commented:

"I do admit that for Christians to enter this subject honestly is to invite great anxiety. It is to walk the razor's edge, to run the risk of cutting the final cord still binding many to the faith of their mothers and fathers. But the price for refusing to enter this consideration is for me even higher. The inability to question reveals that one has no confidence that one's belief system will survive such an inquiry. That is a tacit recognition that on unconscious levels, one's faith has already died. If one seeks to protect God from truth or new insights, then God has surely already died." 3

http://www.religioustolerance.org/resur_lt.htm

You did the above, therefore you were being critical.

I was not criticizing a person, but rather a text and a belief that I disagree with and if you bring it up again I will criticize it again because I feel very strongly about it. If you want a critique of Christianity I suggest you read this: The False Prophets

 

[Samael_Khan]

Can you give me an example of what you mean by contradict each other?

The Bible explicitly says that Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected to life, and that Jesus death washes away sins. The Quran says that Jesus was not crucified to death but that it appeared to be that way. It also mentions nothing of Jesus dying for the sins of mankind.

I am not trying to prove anything. I don’t care what they Bible says because I do not trust the Bible to be an accurate recording of what Jesus said. That is logically impossible since nobody could memorize everything Jesus said and write it down decades later. Add to that that the gospel authors never even knew Jesus. It is all oral tradition rather than scriptures that Jesus wrote.

No, it s not like aliens. It is very possible that there are aliens but it is impossible for a dead body to come back to life after three days. Only in story books does that happen. The bodily resurrection is a faith based belief and not all Christians believe Jesus rose from the dead.

What many liberal theologians believe about Jesus' death

Many liberal and some mainline Christian leaders believe that Jesus died during the crucifixion, did not resurrect himself, and was not bodily resurrected by God. At his death, his mind ceased to function and his body started the decomposition process. Returning to life a day and a half later would have been quite impossible. The story of having been wrapped in linen and anointed with myrrh seems to have been copied from the story of the death of Osiris -- the Egyptian God of the earth, vegetation and grain. The legend that he visited the underworld between his death and resurrection was simply copied from common Pagan themes of surrounding cultures. One example again was Osiris. "With his original association to agriculture, his death and resurrection were seen as symbolic of the annual death and re-growth of the crops and the yearly flooding of the Nile." 1

They also believe that Paul regarded the resurrection to be an act of God in which Jesus was a passive recipient of God's power. Paul did not mention the empty tomb, the visit by a woman or women, the stone, the angel/angels/man/men at the tomb, and reunion of Jesus with his followers in his resuscitated body. Rather, he believed that Jesus was taken up into heaven in a spirit body. It was only later, from about 70 to 110 CE when the four canonic Gospels were written, that the Christians believed that Jesus rose from the grave in his original body, and by his own power.

Later, perhaps after Paul's death, there was great disappointment within the Christian communities because Jesus had not returned as expected. They diverted their focus of attention away from Jesus' second coming. They studied his life and death more intensely. Legends without a historical basis were created by the early church; these included the empty tomb and described Jesus returning in his original body to eat and talk with his followers.

In previous centuries, almost all Christians believed in miracles as described in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). These included creation, the story of Adam and Eve, a talking serpent, the great flood of Noah, the drying up of the Red/Reed sea, a prophet riding on a talking ***, the sun stopping in the sky, etc. From the Christian Scriptures (New Testament), they believed in the virgin birth, the Christmas star, angels appearing to the shepherds, Jesus healing the sick, etc. Many, perhaps most, liberal Christians now believe that these stories are not to be interpreted literally as real events. Their faith has not been damaged by losing faith in the reality of these events. A growing number of liberals are now taking the final step by interpreting the stories of Jesus' resurrection and his appearances to his followers and to Paul as other than real events. Retired bishop John Shelby Spong commented:

"I do admit that for Christians to enter this subject honestly is to invite great anxiety. It is to walk the razor's edge, to run the risk of cutting the final cord still binding many to the faith of their mothers and fathers. But the price for refusing to enter this consideration is for me even higher. The inability to question reveals that one has no confidence that one's belief system will survive such an inquiry. That is a tacit recognition that on unconscious levels, one's faith has already died. If one seeks to protect God from truth or new insights, then God has surely already died." 3

http://www.religioustolerance.org/resur_lt.htm

If you don't care what the Bible says then why in the world are you quoting it and referencing it? Just leave it alone. Just say that the beliefs are a load of rubbish. What is happening is that you are making claims about the book and the life of Jesus based off that book. and then get irritated when people call you out on it.

Also, bare in regarding the above is true of your faith. Your beliefs about Jesus appear almost 2000 years after Jesus died, so your claims about him are even more unreliable than the gospel writers. At least there is a chance that they base their info on actual eye witnesses or on narrative chains.

Your criteria for what is impossible is arbitrary. You say that miracles do happen but say it is impossible for someone to be resurrected. You also do not believe that God is all powerful then because it is impossible for him to resurrect someone. You also do not believe in the same God as Jews and Christians because that God could resurrect people and get his followers to do the same. Your personal beliefs seem very contradictory to me.

I was not criticizing a person, but rather a text and a belief that I disagree with and if you bring it up again I will criticize it again because I feel very strongly about it. If you want a critique of Christianity I suggest you read this: The False Prophets

I wasn't talking about you criticising people. You are criticizing a believe system and believers by saying they are misinterpreting a text which you know barely anything about. Also by saying that Christians are misinterpreting texts and saying that their misinterpretation has led to error is to criticize people.

 

[Brian2]

It's still not "plain". Baha'is easily take Isaiah 9 to be about Baha'u'llah, because, they say, the government is on his shoulders. They only way for Christians to take it back from them is if Jesus does indeed return and sets up his throne.

Acts 1:10 And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; 11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

The truth is that all that is needed is the above passage for a Christian to ignore any other claim that Baha'u'llah/Baha'i makes in the Bible. But of course this is not the only passage which does the same thing, and just shows that Baha'u'llah is not whom he claims to be.
Anything else they claim is just sidestepping this stop sign and should be ignored by Christians and anyone else who has not been sucked into a belief in Baha'u'llah. Once that happens it does not seem to matter what the Bible tells us, the blinders are on and they cannot and/or refuse to see the answers that can be given for what they claim.
In Isa 9 they ignore verse 1,2 and what it tells us about Galilee and surrounds. They ignore verse 6 which I would say tells us that the child will be a Jew/Israelite.
They ignore the fact that the NT tells us that it is Jesus who will be sitting on the throne of David forever (Luke 1:32) All they say is that "that refers to Baha'u'llah and means that the Christ will be ruling" or something like that. Which is what they say about all the other places in the NT which refer to Jesus being or doing what they claim Baha'u'llah is or will do.

In Isaiah 7 the "plain" context isn't about a special child. All the kid has to do is get older. By the time he reaches a certain age the two Kings will be dead. What do you think about the "dual" fulfillment interpretation? I don't like it much, because if the first child isn't born of a virgin, then why would the second one?

The less common translation of virgin could be seen to fit when we see Ch 9 and it being about a Divine Messiah (the one who rules forever on the throne of David) and for the writers of the gospels, when they knew that Jesus had been born of a virgin.

But who comes into Christianity knowing all these little details and contradictions. A Christian has already accepted the basic teachings of Christianity. Probably too many are just going to ignore all the difficult things. Maybe they'll hear a preacher/teacher go through some "proofs" that explain them in a good enough way to make sense to other Christians, then they'll leave it at that. At least you're here talking about it. You have something special to you in your beliefs about Jesus, but so Jews have something special in the things they believe God told them. And just like you don't accept the Baha'i or Islamic claims about how their prophets fulfilled things in the NT, Jews have good reasons not accept the Christian claims. For me, none of it seems "plain" as day.

Most people do not come to Jesus knowing all the details about the Bible. I wouldn't recommend all Christians finding out about the Bible through going to forums and fighting battles about so called contradictions and false prophecies etc etc It can take a toll on ones faith at times..............but at least you should have some faith in the beginning to do it or it is enough to kill someone's faith. I guess if people are serious enough to find answers (and we can these days on the internet) it can be a rewarding experience to learn that there are answers to the attacks on the Bible etc.
The real Jewish reason that they do not accept their Messiah and the New Covenant is probably because they just do not believe the witness reports from their own people, that Jesus rose from the dead and so was confirmed by God. They believe what their religious leaders told them 2000 years ago, that the body was stolen. If they did not get this lie told them in the beginning, their eyes would be opened to what the scriptures actually tell us about the Messiah and what would happen to Him. That's how I see it anyway.

 

[rosends]

The real Jewish reason that they do not accept their Messiah and the New Covenant is probably because they just do not believe the witness reports from their own people, that Jesus rose from the dead and so was confirmed by God. They believe what their religious leaders told them 2000 years ago, that the body was stolen. If they did not get this lie told them in the beginning, their eyes would be opened to what the scriptures actually tell us about the Messiah and what would happen to Him. That's how I see it anyway.

No.
The real reason is because
Jesus lacked the necessary genealogical and personal traits and actions required to be the messiah
There is no new covenant, just a renewed one which changes only the transmission method, not the content
The "witness reports " along with any claim to Jesus' existence are recorded in a self-serving text which has no authority

If Christians understood that they believe in lies from "the beginning, their eyes would be opened to what the scriptures actually tell us about the Messiah and what would happen to Him. That's how I see it anyway."

 

[Brian2]

Yes, that "lower" nature thing is kind of saying the same thing... without believing and following God's teachings, a person is going to be sinful. With some Christians, they do believe that a person doesn't earn salvation, that is a free gift. But, the believer is then supposed to do good works. That's a little different than everybody is moving on into a spiritual place, and, depending on how good you were, you get to be closer to God. Other than contradicting the Christian belief, which I think is what is being taught in the NT, it sounds pretty good. It is fair to those that committed themselves to living for God. But, is there punishment and torment for the evil doers? Again, it would contradict the NT. Baha'is have said that it would be like being born crippled into this world. The evil doer is spiritually crippled in the next? But then, I wonder, how is it fair and just that the crippled person in this world was born that way?

I just believe that we all sin and are worthy of whatever judgement God gives, in a justice sense. But also God is a God of mercy and He has given people a way to avoid that justice through Jesus. Anyone else has to face the judge for the justice, and hope that God is merciful to them, because most of us know we have done a lot that is not good.

Yes, I've have heard some Baha'is say that a "true" believer would have recognized that Baha'u'llah was from God. So that must mean that anyone in another religion that hasn't become a Baha'i is blind to the truth?

In some people this can become a source of spiritual pride I'm sure.

Yes, that weird middle ground where the "original" teachings of the prophet were true and from God. But then they got lost, corrupted and misinterpreted.

Could they all have been lost, corrupted and misinterpreted to the extent claimed by Baha'i?
With the Bible Baha'i wants to change not only the details but also the overall story of the book. The Bible has Adam as the first created man who sinned and Baha'i says he was a Messenger and Messengers cannot sin. (the same with Moses, the Bible clearly says that he sinned and Baha'i explains it away somehow). The story of the Bible is of men whom God has chosen to give His messages along the way and point to the coming of One Messiah whose return is the culmination of history.
The Baha'i view of the Bible story is so profoundly different that it is ridiculous and it is even more ridiculous that they have allowed a claimant to the title of the return of Jesus actually tell them what the warning signs in the Bible of a false Christ actually mean, especially when that means that what is said in the Bible is turned around to mean the exact opposite, as in Acts 1: 9-11.

 

[Brian2]

If it was a fiction story, still the climax of the story is the physical resurrection... since he lives, all people can live through him. Great mythical story. And if he didn't really rise from the dead... that's all it is... and Christians should not be pitied for believing Jesus rose from the dead when he really didn't, they should be called out as liars and frauds. And some people do that.

Well it would be the gospel writers and beginners of the story that has been passed down in the Church who would be the liars and the frauds. The rest of the Christians should be pitied for being scammed.

No, but a story that Christians believe is the truth and is the very Word of God can... at least in the minds of the believers. And that is what all us non-believers, and Baha'is, are saying... What Christians believe is the truth is all in their heads. It's all what people have invented.

Yes and maybe all believers have thought that also at times and wondered. imo the attacks of Satan on Christians are really attacks on their faith in different ways.
I guess we all have to try to take a step back at times and reconsider if we still believe or more importantly if we still want to believe.

But then which religion cannot be looked at that way? And yet they all work to some degree in making people better and to get them to follow some laws and moral codes. And is that what religion is all about? In some ways, it seems so. And then, what difference does it make which "myth" people believe in?

So many possible myths to believe in and I include materialistic humanism amongst them,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and of course they also can be ethical. Maybe religious myths aren't even needed for people to want to be good, maybe only a Government with a big stick. But I guess that would just help keep a minimum of ethics in society and no doubt for the wrong reasons. But of course there are no wrong reasons with no God really, and there really is no right and wrong except in our own head and feelings.

 

[Brian2]

Brian2, Tony says that "all" scriptures talk about that day. Do they? I ask Baha'is all the time... Jesus returns after all the bad things happen. He doesn't return, die, and then the bad things continue to happen. What are some of the end time interpretations that you've heard that tell of what has to happen before Jesus returns? And do any have the tribulations continuing after Jesus has returned? Because, to me, things seem to be heading for the worst of the bad stuff. I don't see how they were fulfilled a hundred plus years ago.

It certainly is true that the things that the Bible tells us the Messiah will do when He returns have not been done by Baha'u'llah.
Jesus rose from the dead and so is still living and ruling and even if it does not look like it, He is in control and in theory will return and actually do what it says He will do. The Baha'i view is of life going on as usual indefinitely and another indefinite number of Messengers coming eventually, each with a different message for what we need to know for whatever age it is.
I expect resurrection of all people when Jesus returns and judgement to take place and peace to come to the earth and the Kingdom of God and everyone to see Jesus and etc. It's another of those things that have to be somehow ignored by Baha'is even if they do say they believe the Bible.

 

[Nova2216]

The 2 Peter verse that you quoted pretty much presents the idea that a person cannot determine the true meaning of the verses if one just reads the text. They need the Holy Spirit. So, they must be a believer first? That pretty much shows that one cannot reason through prophetic interpretation doesn't it? Since one cannot understand the prophecy using their reason.

I would say that if one is not allowed to criticize God then God has an insecurity problem or that his views cannot withstand scrutiny.

And yes, it would be great to chat more on the matter.

You seem to misunderstand (2Peter 1:20,21).

Men can understand the word of God simply by reading the Bible according to (Eph.3:3,4).

when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

 

[Samael_Khan]

You seem to misunderstand (2Peter 1:20,21).

Men can understand the word of God simply by reading the Bible according to (Eph.3:3,4).

when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

I understand. 2 Peter is talking about prophetic interpretation coming through prophets as not being their own interpretation but they were given the interpretation from God. Like Daniel and Joseph in the OT.

In the same way, Paul claims that understanding was given to him by revelation, that is, from God.

That would mean that he saw an interpretation of the text that most normal people did not see. The implication is that there is no way for a person to determine whether his interpretation of the OT text is true, because if we say "we don't see what you see" then he could just say that God did not reveal it to us.

 

[Nova2216]

I understand. 2 Peter is talking about prophetic interpretation coming through prophets as not being their own interpretation but they were given the interpretation from God. Like Daniel and Joseph in the OT.

In the same way, Paul claims that understanding was given to him by revelation, that is, from God.

That would mean that he saw an interpretation of the text that most normal people did not see. The implication is that there is no way for a person to determine whether his interpretation of the OT text is true, because if we say "we don't see what you see" then he could just say that God did not reveal it to us.

(Eph.3:2-5).

If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;


Today men just read and study the word of God to learn of spiritual matters (2Tim.2:15). The Holy Spirit does not DIRECTLY help people to know about the word of God, That would contradict what (2Cor.4:7) teaches. Men are to teach men the gospel (Mark 16:15,16) (2Tim.2:2) (Mt.28:18-20).

2Ti 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.



Thanks

 

[Brian2]

Now, it is clear that Isaiah is being called because he is the one writing the book and referring to himself in 1st person. To add in the outside and unnamed character because of what you think his role is and what you think the text is speaking about is a whole lot of interpretation.

It is interpretation that the passage is Messianic because of what it tells us about the person in the passage.

It is Isaiah speaking at the beginning of Is. 61, yes. This has been a standard way of understanding the verse for a long, long time. Finding something else there is a recent innovation driven by need. In Is. 63, there are 2 first person's -- the opening quotes God speaking of himself in 1st person, and starting in verse 7, the prophet Isaiah speaks in first person as one who will recount the actions of God. Again, this is not a new understanding, but an old and standard one.

Not such a recent innovation. Jesus read the passage in the synagogue at the start of His ministry and said that this day the scripture was fulfilled in the peoples' hearing. Isaiah wrote it, but that does not mean it was about him or what he did. I don't think Isaiah could bestow on anyone a crown of beauty instead of ashes. (verse 3) and I don't think that Isaiah could proclaim the year of God's favour (see Lev 25 the year of Jubilee). It could be a Messianic passage and was read as such by Jesus and seen as such in what Jesus is said to have done in setting people free from their sins. It was indeed a proclamation of good news. But I guess the people did not really know what He was talking about unless the passage was seen as Messianic then.

Luke 4:17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, 18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, 19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

the Torah is eternal, its covenants are eternal (verses available upon request) and it is the blueprint of our laws. Actual, real laws. Not a spirit of law, but law. We are forbidden to add to it or take away from it but we are also taught how to derive it in all its iterations, apply it and protect it. You are confusing the application and protection with any change in the terms of the underlying law. The rabbi applies and understands the variables. He does not interpret the law, itself but the situation which informs which law he applies and how. That law is unchanging. And don't worry, I don't have to ask anyone to confirm that. I can just look at the rabbi in the mirror.

I know God's word is eternal but I don't see that all it's covenant's are eternal. (Yes verses saying that would be handy)
But anyway I am not under the Mosaic Covenant, which was for the Jews. I am a gentile and I am under the promised New Covenant.
Some say that at the change of Covenant there is a change of Law. That is not really the case because all the Law of Moses is based on the commandments to love God with out whole being and to love our neighbour as ourselves.
I guess the first Jewish Christians obeyed the Law of Moses in it's detail however.

 

[Samael_Khan]

(Eph.3:2-5).

If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;


Today men just read and study the word of God to learn of spiritual matters (2Tim.2:15). The Holy Spirit does not DIRECTLY help people to know about the word of God, That would contradict what (2Cor.4:7) teaches. Men are to teach men the gospel (Mark 16:15,16) (2Tim.2:2) (Mt.28:18-20).

2Ti 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.



Thanks

OK. So that does make sense, considering that men preached to others. Then I definitely misunderstood what you were saying in your previous posts.

So what role then does a the Holy Spirit have in people understanding the Bible?
And can one understand the book if they are a non believer?

 

[rosends]

It is interpretation that the passage is Messianic because of what it tells us about the person in the passage.

So you interpret because of what you need to find.

Not such a recent innovation. Jesus read the passage in the synagogue at the start of His ministry and said that this day the scripture was fulfilled in the peoples' hearing.

So he read it and decided it was about him. Got it.

Isaiah wrote it, but that does not mean it was about him or what he did. I don't think Isaiah could bestow on anyone a crown of beauty instead of ashes. (verse 3)

I do. Isaiah says he does as per the instructions and charge of God in verse 2.

and I don't think that Isaiah could proclaim the year of God's favour (see Lev 25 the year of Jubilee).

Sure he could proclaim a year of success. This has nothing to do with the jubilee. Isaiah is speaking of the time of favor that God mentioned in Chapt 49.

It could be a Messianic passage and was read as such by Jesus and seen as such in what Jesus is said to have done in setting people free from their sins. It was indeed a proclamation of good news. But I guess the people did not really know what He was talking about unless the passage was seen as Messianic then.

And there is no reason to think it was.

I know God's word is eternal but I don't see that all it's covenant's are eternal. (Yes verses saying that would be handy)

As mentioned in another post, the sabbath and circumcision are eternal, and the laws of the Torah (the content of that mosaic covenant) is eternal and to be fulfilled eternally, without change, as it is perfect and God is perfect.

But anyway I am not under the Mosaic Covenant, which was for the Jews. I am a gentile and I am under the promised New Covenant.

Well, you aren't under the Mosaic covenant, but the renewed covenant was for the Jews also (it invokes the Torah laws explicitly).

 

[Rival]

I am a gentile and I am under the promised New Covenant.

I just want to point out that you do know there is room in the Jewish view for non-Jews, yes? It's not exclusive to Jews and you need not convert to mean anything; just that those non-Jews are not under the Torah Covenant.

 

[Brian2]

I hope you mean spiritual death because we cannot he saved from physical death.

All sort of death in the long run, and as Paul tells us, when Jesus returns some people in Christ who are still alive won't even need to die physically.

I do not believe that Jesus was the only Manifestation of God who was sinless. All of them were sinless, according to God.

You must have a different God because my God says plainly that Adam sinned and that Moses sinned.

I do not believe that Jesus’ sacrifice makes any other sacrifice not necessary. All the Manifestations of God made sacrifices; for example, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha’u’llah also made sacrifices that were very necessary for accomplishing God’s Purpose for humanity.

The covenant Jesus made with His blood was eternal and so means that no other sacrifice was needed for the forgiveness of sin and for entry into the Kingdom of God and Eternal life and receiving the promises Holy Spirit/Spirit of Truth etc

I do not believe that Isaiah 53:10 applies to Jesus:

“Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.”

That cannot apply to Jesus because Jesus did not see His seed or prolong His days. I believe that applies to Baha’u’llah, as does the rest of Isaiah 53:

To be an offering for sin relates to the Mosaic Law and the animals that were killed as sin offerings. Jesus was killed and God accepted it as a sin offering and then after He was killed He was resurrected and lives on to give His eternal life to others who then become His children,,,,,,,,,,,,and He lives in us and can see us.
It applies to Jesus and not to Baha'u'llah if understood correctly.
Also the servant on Isa 53 is an Israelite.

:“Also I will make him my first-born higher than the kings of the earth … and my covenant shall stand fast with him.” Psalms 89:27, 28

This is about God speaking, and says that the man He appoints as His firstborn will call Him My Father, My God, the Rock my Saviour.
Neither Abdul nor Baha'u'llah died young but Ps 89 says that the days of his youth would be cut short by his people. (Ps 89:45)

Bahá’u’lláh’s days were prolonged.

Baha'u'llah needed to be killed as a sin offering first and then have his life prolonged.

I thought you knew that Baha’is do not believe there is anything to be saved from since we do not believe in original sin. So the only thing we need to be saved from is our lower material nature. I probably never posted this to you, but it is very important because it explains the significance of Jesus’ sacrifice:

I wonder what Baha'u'llah saved Abdul from.
Our actions have consequences that we need to be saved from.
In Christianity our carnal mind is changed gradually over time so that we may reflect Jesus in thought and actions (Rom 12:2, 2Cor 3:18) and our bodies are redeemed at our resurrection. (Romans 8:23)