How can the Jew reject, Jesus, Muhammad, Bab and Baha'u'llah?

[Trailblazer]

Jesus said in Matthew 12:40 and John 2:19 that he would rise from the dead.

Those verses do not say anything about rising from the dead.

 

[Skywalker]

Those verses do not say anything about rising from the dead.

Isaiah mentions the Messiah rising from the dead. He said that the Messiah would prolong his days.

https://probe.org/prophecies-of-the-messiah/?print=pdf

Third is the Servant’s cessation (death) (53:8–9, 12): The Servant of Isaiah 53 is ‘cut off out of the land of the living’ (53:8 NASB). ‘He poured out himself to death’ (53:12 NASB). The Servant is also portrayed as alive from the dead and enjoying fellowship with God and his faithful followers (52:13, 15; 53:10–12). Israel as a nation still exists and always has, even as God promised (cf. Leviticus 26; Deuteronomy 28). The nation has never ceased to exist, let alone been raised from the dead in any literal sense of the word.

 

[Skywalker]

The Temple here is the Word of God.

Baha'u'llah has offered to all that await a 3rd temple, or the rebuild of a temple.

".... Thus have We built the Temple with the hands of power and might, could ye but know it. This is the Temple promised unto you in the Book. Draw ye nigh unto it. This is that which profiteth you, could ye but comprehend it. Be fair, O peoples of the earth! Which is preferable, this, or a temple which is built of clay? Set your faces towards it. Thus have ye been commanded by God, the Help in Peril, the Self-Subsisting. Follow ye His bidding, and praise ye God, your Lord, for that which He hath bestowed upon you. He, verily, is the Truth. No God is there but He. He revealeth what He pleaseth, through His words “Be and it is”.

The 3 day period is a time of turmoil where the Disciples needed Faith to carry on, the body of Jesus had gone and they needed to find Faith in Spirit to carry on with what Jesus the Christ had instructed them to do.

That is a logical explanation, given by Abdul'baha in the Baha'i Writings.

Regards Tony

There is nothing in the context of that verse that is talking about the word of God. Why Did Jesus Say He Would Destroy the Temple and Build it Back in Three Days?

Jesus is not talking about taking over the city by destroying the temple. Jesus is talking about his death and resurrection. Jesus is saying that he is the temple. He will be destroyed. The temple was the place where the presence of God dwelled. In Jesus we have the ultimate temple. The presence of God dwelled fully in him (Col. 2:9). And he would be destroyed. Jesus was foretelling his death. He is going to be destroyed by the Jews and Romans for a crime he didn’t commit. But he is also going to be destroyed by his Father for the sins of his people. Jesus is going to be destroyed by the wrath of his Father in the place of sinners like you and me.

But Jesus isn’t going to be destroyed and left to lie in the rubble of destruction. No, the temple will be “built back.” In other words, Jesus will be raised from the dead. Jesus is saying, “I am the temple, but this temple will be destroyed. Oh, but in three days, this temple will be built back to greater glory and beauty and power than it had before.” After his resurrection, Jesus was given a body that will never grow sick or tired or die again.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Isaiah mentions the Messiah rising from the dead. He said that the Messiah would prolong his days.

Not that I know of. Can you be more specific? None of the quotes you gave back up your assertion.

 

[Skywalker]

Not that I know of. Can you be more specific? None of the quotes you gave back up your assertion.

Isaiah 53:10.

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 hisseed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

 

[Skywalker]

Actually, with all the problems I have with Baha'i beliefs, with this I can see how what the Baha'is say could be true, almost. A person like Moses, God reveals himself to him... Gives him some divine information and some supernatural powers to do some miracles. Where I disagree with Baha'is, I don't see how Moses has to be a "manifestation"... a perfectly polished mirror. The Bible has him with flaws and making some mistakes. But still, God used him and showed his power through him.

Then Jesus, he was more like the "perfectly polished mirror" and better fits the Baha'is believe of what a manifestation of God should be. He could still be a special creation, perfect and without sin, but not God himself, only a reflection of God... a perfect reflection of God. To us, how would we know the difference. A person like that would be virtually God, able to do miraculous things like healing people, raising the dead and walking on water. But the problem is... Baha'is make Moses, and all the other "manifestations", equal to Jesus. Moses was not a perfect reflection of God. Nobody mistook him for being God. Same with Abraham.

Then the next problem... even though the NT says that Jesus rose from the dead, and that he showed himself to be alive with lots of proofs, Baha'is don't believe it. They say the physical resurrection didn't happen. Well they just took away the greatest miracle of all. Some Baha'is have even taking away some of the healing miracles by saying that Jesus healed the "spiritually" blind and gave the "spiritual" sight. One Baha'i even said that Lazarus was "spiritually" dead and Jesus gave him "spiritual" life.

And that's almost alright with me. But if they are going to deny the things said about Jesus in the NT, I think they should go all the way and say that the gospel writers made most of the Jesus stories up... that those stories are fiction. But Baha'is try to say that no, the stories are true, but in a "symbolic" way. What is that supposed to mean?

But anyway, I'm okay with Jesus being a perfect reflection of God. Which is much easier than believing he is "fully" God and "fully" man... and then that the Holy Spirit is another equal but separate part of God? As I don't see why God, a Spirit, needs to have a separate but equal part of himself that is also Spirit and called the "Holy Spirit". Oh, the other problems with the Baha'i interpretations. I agree with Christians that the Comforter is the Holy Spirit... and that was not a prophecy about the Baha'i prophet. Another problem is that Abdul Baha also makes the "prince of this world" a prophecy about Baha'u'llah? I don't see how anyone cannot see that this is a reference to Satan. But always, the biggest problem is... it sure seems like we are still in or at least heading for the great tribulations that happen before Jesus comes.

The Holy Spirit is of the same essence and being as the Father and Son. He isn't a different God. The Shema and the Shahada

Third, the Shema says that Yahweh is one: “Hear O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one [Heb. echad].” Unlike the Hebrew word yachid, which corresponds to the Islamic notion of an abstract numerical oneness, tawhid from the Arabic, the Bible uses the word echad for God,3 a word that allows for and which often means unity, such as exists between a husband and wife, constituting them “one flesh”, or between morning and evening, constituting them “one day”, or such as Christians profess when they say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are “one being”, “one essence”, or “one God”.

Fourth, the Shema says that Yahweh is God: “Hear O Israel, the LORD our God [i.e. Eloheinu], the LORD is one.” This word is a combination of Elohim, a plural noun for God in Hebrew, and nu, a plural pronoun meaning “our”, showing once again and definitively that God’s oneness does not mean that He is a blank and barren monad, as is the case with Allah;4 rather, Yahweh Elohim [the LORD God] is a unity of rich diversity, and this diversity is personal in nature.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Isaiah 53:10.

But Isaiah 53 is not about the messiah, as we have discussed before. It is about Israel, the suffering servant.

 

[Trailblazer]

Isaiah 53:10.

That verse is about Baha'u'llah, not about Jesus. Jesus' days were not prolonged, they were cut short.
Jesus never saw His seed, as He had no offspring. Baha'u'llah saw His seed, as noted below.

Isaiah 53:10 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.

• Bahá’u’lláh did see his ‘seed’. He wrote a special document called the Book of the Covenant, in which he appointed his eldest son to be the Centre of his Faith after his own passing. This very event was also foretold in the prophecies of the Psalms that proclaim:
• “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
• The ‘first-born’ son of Bahá’u’lláh, was named ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, which means ‘the servant of Bahá’(‘u’lláh). Bahá’u’lláh appointed him as his own successor in his Will and Testament. He called ‘Abdu’l-Bahá the Centre of his Covenant.
• Bahá’u’lláh’s days were prolonged. He was born in 1817 and passed away in the Holy Land in 1892. In the last years of his life, Bahá’u’lláh was released from his prison cell. He came out of the prison-city of ‘Akká and walked on the sides of Mount Carmel. His followers came from afar to be with him, and to surround him with their love, fulfilling the words of the prayer of David spoken within a cave: “Bring my soul out of prison, that I may praise thy name: the righteous shall compass me about; for thou shalt deal bountifully with me.” Psalms 142:7.
• These events in the valley of ‘Akká with its strong fortress prison had been foreshadowed in Ecclesiastes 4:14: “For out of prison he cometh to reign; whereas also he that is born in his kingdom becometh poor.”

Comments from: Thief in the Night, pp. 155-159

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Isaiah 53:10.

The mission of Christ Lasted 3 years. Those days were not prolonged.

Muhammad Revelation lasted 23 years, those days are much longer.

The Bab's revelation lasted 6 years, but the Bab purposely left it unfinished, to be continued by the "One Whom God would make Manifest"

Baha'u'llah gave revelation for 40 years until 1892, then a covenant through Abdul'baha saw that Revelation last for another 19 years and then the Covenant continued and the Revelation continued up to 1957.

So from 1852 to 1857 we had continued guidance from God. Seems to me that verse from Isaiah is more Applicable to the Baha'i Revelation. Especially when we consider the Bab is also included, as that would mean God gave Revelation and guidance from 1844 to 1957.

Now that is no doubt prolonged days, when we look at the history of God's Messengers.

Regards Tony

 

[Skywalker]

But Isaiah 53 is not about the messiah, as we have discussed before. It is about Israel, the suffering servant.

There are verses in the Tanakh that talk distinctly about the servant and Israel. Who Is The Suffering Servant? Israel Or Jesus?

The servant in prior chapters is distinct from Israel. There are several discourses about the servant in the later chapters of Isaiah, the NASB titling the chapters ‘God Helps His Servant’ (chapter 50), ‘The Exalted Servant’ (chapter 52:13-15) and finally ‘The Suffering Servant,’ (chapter 53). One can hardly blame the rational man for thinking that these are all the same figure. Beginning in Isaiah 49:5, the servant is talking, and he says “The Lord, who formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob back to him, so that Israel might be gathered to him.” This servant seems to be one who is distinct from the nation of Israel.

He goes on to say, (v. 6) “I will also make you a light of the nations…” (v. 8) “I will keep you and give you a covenant of the people…” I do not want to be guilty of reading into the text, but it seems to me that Messiah of the Jews is a light to the nations. Billions of Gentiles have turned to the God of Israel and worshipped him. Has this not been fulfilled? Who is the suffering servant? Israel or Jesus? This text can only be referring to the Messiah, and was plainly fulfilled in the conversion of billions of Gentiles across the world.

 

[Skywalker]

The mission of Christ Lasted 3 years. Those days were not prolonged.

Muhammad Revelation lasted 23 years, those days are much longer.

The Bab's revelation lasted 6 years, but the Bab purposely left it unfinished, to be continued by the "One Whom God would make Manifest"

Baha'u'llah gave revelation for 40 years until 1892, then a covenant through Abdul'baha saw that Revelation last for another 19 years and then the Covenant continued and the Revelation continued up to 1957.

So from 1852 to 1857 we had continued guidance from God. Seems to me that verse from Isaiah is more Applicable to the Baha'i Revelation. Especially when we consider the Bab is also included, as that would mean God gave Revelation and guidance from 1844 to 1957.

Now that is no doubt prolonged days, when we look at the history of God's Messengers.

Regards Tony

The days of Jesus being prolonged is a reference to after Jesus died, not to the amount of years that Jesus preached.

 

[CG Didymus]

That is explained in the Kitab-i-Iqan.

Regards Tony

Does any religion, except the Baha'i Faith, make Moses a manifestation? Christianity and Judaism don't. Does Islam? Does Hinduism make him an Avatar? Is he anything to the Buddhists? In the story he was not a perfectly polished mirror. But then, do Baha'is even believe that the Bible stories about Moses are literally and historically true? If not, and I doubt Baha'is do, then Baha'is are making a man a manifestation of God that all we know about him is mythical, fictional stories. But Baha'is believe it because it says so in the Kitab-i-Iqan. Which was written by a man that Baha'is believe is infallible. Which means, that for a Baha'i, they have to believe it. They have no other choice. What are they going to do? Are they going to doubt it and question it? For Baha'is, that would be like doubting God. Right from the start of the Kitab-i-Iqan I had doubts and questions.

"Among the Prophets was Noah. For nine hundred and fifty years He prayerfully exhorted His people and summoned them to the haven of security and peace."​

Yet, Baha'is don't believe Noah or anyone else in Genesis lived that long. Plus, Baha'u'llah makes no mention of the flood and the ark. He makes up his own version of the story and disregards the Bible version. And Baha'is believe Baha'u'llah's version as being the truth. The what does that make the Bible version? The half-truth? The lie? The myth? No, Baha'is, somehow, and for some reason, still act as if they believe in the Bible. And they get away with it by saying those stories were symbolic.

But this thread is about Jews. And I ask again and again... prior to the Baha'i Faith, which religion should a Jew have followed? In theory, a Baha'is could say they should have accepted Jesus as their Messiah. Then what? Left those beliefs behind for the teachings of Muhammad? But in reality, which Christian Church should they have joined? Which Christian Church had the real truth about God? I don't see how a Baha'i can say that any of them taught the truth. Same thing with Islam. Should that Jew have joined Sunni or Shia? Now, of course, because you believe the Baha'i Faith does have the real truth from God, I'm sure you'd think and expect any spiritual Jew to recognize The Bab as Elijah and Baha'u'llah as the Messiah. So why don't they? Some have told you. What do you think of their reasons? Do they make sense to you? Part of the problem is, like most other religions that seek converts, even though some Baha'is deny they do, Baha'is aren't really listening.
Automatically they go into counterattack mode and throw out reasons why the other person is wrong and has a faulty understanding (of their own Scriptures), and why the Baha'i interpretation is so undeniably right. But by doing this, Baha'i are missing something. They aren't making a connection with the person. They are showing little or no respect for the person and their beliefs. But, that's probably better than pretending to care about them and their beliefs. So Baha'is got that going for them.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Does any religion, except the Baha'i Faith, make Moses a manifestation? Christianity and Judaism don't. Does Islam? Does Hinduism make him an Avatar? Is he anything to the Buddhists? In the story he was not a perfectly polished mirror. But then, do Baha'is even believe that the Bible stories about Moses are literally and historically true? If not, and I doubt Baha'is do, then Baha'is are making a man a manifestation of God that all we know about him is mythical, fictional stories. But Baha'is believe it because it says so in the Kitab-i-Iqan. Which was written by a man that Baha'is believe is infallible. Which means, that for a Baha'i, they have to believe it. They have no other choice. What are they going to do? Are they going to doubt it and question it? For Baha'is, that would be like doubting God. Right from the start of the Kitab-i-Iqan I had doubts and questions.

"Among the Prophets was Noah. For nine hundred and fifty years He prayerfully exhorted His people and summoned them to the haven of security and peace."​

Yet, Baha'is don't believe Noah or anyone else in Genesis lived that long. Plus, Baha'u'llah makes no mention of the flood and the ark. He makes up his own version of the story and disregards the Bible version. And Baha'is believe Baha'u'llah's version as being the truth. The what does that make the Bible version? The half-truth? The lie? The myth? No, Baha'is, somehow, and for some reason, still act as if they believe in the Bible. And they get away with it by saying those stories were symbolic.

But this thread is about Jews. And I ask again and again... prior to the Baha'i Faith, which religion should a Jew have followed? In theory, a Baha'is could say they should have accepted Jesus as their Messiah. Then what? Left those beliefs behind for the teachings of Muhammad? But in reality, which Christian Church should they have joined? Which Christian Church had the real truth about God? I don't see how a Baha'i can say that any of them taught the truth. Same thing with Islam. Should that Jew have joined Sunni or Shia? Now, of course, because you believe the Baha'i Faith does have the real truth from God, I'm sure you'd think and expect any spiritual Jew to recognize The Bab as Elijah and Baha'u'llah as the Messiah. So why don't they? Some have told you. What do you think of their reasons? Do they make sense to you? Part of the problem is, like most other religions that seek converts, even though some Baha'is deny they do, Baha'is aren't really listening.
Automatically they go into counterattack mode and throw out reasons why the other person is wrong and has a faulty understanding (of their own Scriptures), and why the Baha'i interpretation is so undeniably right. But by doing this, Baha'i are missing something. They aren't making a connection with the person. They are showing little or no respect for the person and their beliefs. But, that's probably better than pretending to care about them and their beliefs. So Baha'is got that going for them.

I personally see the Jew should have embraced Jesus, Muhammed the Bab and Baha'u'llah.

It is their choice though.

Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

the NT makes it sound like there was a flesh and bone physical body that his followers were seeing and talking to.

The NT says that Jesus showed himself to be alive with many proofs. If Baha'is want to doubt that... join the crowd. But most of them don't then turn around and say they believe in Jesus and the Bible.

I have read and see that Abdul'baha has given a sound logical reply.

If you are talking about SAQ that is far from being a "sound" "logical" reply.

Therefore, we say that the meaning of Christ’s resurrection is as follows: the disciples were troubled and agitated after the martyrdom of Christ. The Reality of Christ, which signifies His teachings, His bounties, His perfections and His spiritual power, was hidden and concealed for two or three days after His martyrdom, and was not resplendent and manifest. No, rather it was lost, for the believers were few in number and were troubled and agitated. The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body; and when after three days the disciples became assured and steadfast, and began to serve the Cause of Christ, and resolved to spread the divine teachings, putting His counsels into practice, and arising to serve Him, the Reality of Christ became resplendent and His bounty appeared; His religion found life; His teachings and His admonitions became evident and visible. In other words, the Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body until the life and the bounty of the Holy Spirit surrounded it.​

After 3 days the gospels say they went to the tomb. Way later, after, supposedly, seeing the resurrected Jesus, they were filled with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, and then started teaching the things that Jesus said. Who you going to believe that, supposed, eye witness reports of the gospel writers or Abdul Baha'? Obviously, for you, Abdul Baha'. But that makes the gospels a fairy tale... and they might be. But again, most Baha'is believe them to be the Word of God... just not literally true. Which, to me, makes them "literally" not necessarily true. Then there is this Baha'i...

Who cares what it says? Any novel can make it sound like what is written really happened. Why should anyone believe it just because it says Jesus rose from the dead and people saw Him?

Sure, I can believe that. And I hope it is nothing but a fictional myth.

Isaiah mentions the Messiah rising from the dead. He said that the Messiah would prolong his days.

But Christians believe it and Baha'is, supposedly, believe that Christianity is a true God given religion. Yeah, right. Except that little thing about Jesus coming back to life? Baha'i deny that.

Not that I know of. Can you be more specific? None of the quotes you gave back up your assertion.

And it sounds like Jews do too. So are there "prophecies" that say the Jewish Messiah would die and rise again? It sounds like only Christians think so. Could they have faked the resurrection? The stories sure sound like embellished made up stories? So why would a Jew believe and accept that Jesus was their Messiah when dying and rising wasn't supposed to be what happens to the Messiah? But then it gets confusing, because then, even though the Baha'is don't believe Jesus rose from the dead, they still say he was the Jewish Messiah. But not The Messiah. That, of course, is their guy, Baha'u'llah. Hmmm, my head hurts. I'm going back to watch the Impeachment Trial. I need something to cheer me up.

 

[Skywalker]

The NT says that Jesus showed himself to be alive with many proofs. If Baha'is want to doubt that... join the crowd. But most of them don't then turn around and say they believe in Jesus and the Bible.

If you are talking about SAQ that is far from being a "sound" "logical" reply.

Therefore, we say that the meaning of Christ’s resurrection is as follows: the disciples were troubled and agitated after the martyrdom of Christ. The Reality of Christ, which signifies His teachings, His bounties, His perfections and His spiritual power, was hidden and concealed for two or three days after His martyrdom, and was not resplendent and manifest. No, rather it was lost, for the believers were few in number and were troubled and agitated. The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body; and when after three days the disciples became assured and steadfast, and began to serve the Cause of Christ, and resolved to spread the divine teachings, putting His counsels into practice, and arising to serve Him, the Reality of Christ became resplendent and His bounty appeared; His religion found life; His teachings and His admonitions became evident and visible. In other words, the Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body until the life and the bounty of the Holy Spirit surrounded it.​

After 3 days the gospels say they went to the tomb. Way later, after, supposedly, seeing the resurrected Jesus, they were filled with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, and then started teaching the things that Jesus said. Who you going to believe that, supposed, eye witness reports of the gospel writers or Abdul Baha'? Obviously, for you, Abdul Baha'. But that makes the gospels a fairy tale... and they might be. But again, most Baha'is believe them to be the Word of God... just not literally true. Which, to me, makes them "literally" not necessarily true. Then there is this Baha'i...

Sure, I can believe that. And I hope it is nothing but a fictional myth.

But Christians believe it and Baha'is, supposedly, believe that Christianity is a true God given religion. Yeah, right. Except that little thing about Jesus coming back to life? Baha'i deny that.

And it sounds like Jews do too. So are there "prophecies" that say the Jewish Messiah would die and rise again? It sounds like only Christians think so. Could they have faked the resurrection? The stories sure sound like embellished made up stories? So why would a Jew believe and accept that Jesus was their Messiah when dying and rising wasn't supposed to be what happens to the Messiah? But then it gets confusing, because then, even though the Baha'is don't believe Jesus rose from the dead, they still say he was the Jewish Messiah. But not The Messiah. That, of course, is their guy, Baha'u'llah. Hmmm, my head hurts. I'm going back to watch the Impeachment Trial. I need something to cheer me up.

Jesus prolonging his days is a reference to Jesus resurrecting because how could Jesus die and prolong his days?

 

[CG Didymus]

Jesus prolonging his days is a reference to Jesus resurrecting because how could Jesus die and prolong his days?

Well, for Christians it is clearly prophesied that Jesus would be resurrected from the dead. And I have no doubt that the gospels say that Jesus did come back to life. But then, what do we do with the Baha'is? They say all the major/revealed religions are true, then they turn around and point all the things that aren't true about them. What did you think of Abdul Baha's explanation of the "true" meaning of the resurrection?

If you are talking about SAQ (Abdul Baha's "Some Answered Questions) that is far from being a "sound" "logical" reply.
Therefore, we say that the meaning of Christ’s resurrection is as follows: the disciples were troubled and agitated after the martyrdom of Christ. The Reality of Christ, which signifies His teachings, His bounties, His perfections and His spiritual power, was hidden and concealed for two or three days after His martyrdom, and was not resplendent and manifest. No, rather it was lost, for the believers were few in number and were troubled and agitated. The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body; and when after three days the disciples became assured and steadfast, and began to serve the Cause of Christ, and resolved to spread the divine teachings, putting His counsels into practice, and arising to serve Him, the Reality of Christ became resplendent and His bounty appeared; His religion found life; His teachings and His admonitions became evident and visible. In other words, the Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body until the life and the bounty of the Holy Spirit surrounded it.

Now if that's the "truth" then what the gospel writers wrote is a fantasy. And Baha'is really don't go into those post resurrection verses much, if at all, accept to say they never happened. So I really don't understand how or why they would then be able to say that Christianity is a true religion?

 

[Skywalker]

Well, for Christians it is clearly prophesied that Jesus would be resurrected from the dead. And I have no doubt that the gospels say that Jesus did come back to life. But then, what do we do with the Baha'is? They say all the major/revealed religions are true, then they turn around and point all the things that aren't true about them. What did you think of Abdul Baha's explanation of the "true" meaning of the resurrection?
Now if that's the "truth" then what the gospel writers wrote is a fantasy. And Baha'is really don't go into those post resurrection verses much, if at all, accept to say they never happened. So I really don't understand how or why they would then be able to say that Christianity is a true religion?

I think to confirm and deny the Bible is a self contradiction.

 

[Skywalker]

The NT says that Jesus showed himself to be alive with many proofs. If Baha'is want to doubt that... join the crowd. But most of them don't then turn around and say they believe in Jesus and the Bible.

If you are talking about SAQ that is far from being a "sound" "logical" reply.

Therefore, we say that the meaning of Christ’s resurrection is as follows: the disciples were troubled and agitated after the martyrdom of Christ. The Reality of Christ, which signifies His teachings, His bounties, His perfections and His spiritual power, was hidden and concealed for two or three days after His martyrdom, and was not resplendent and manifest. No, rather it was lost, for the believers were few in number and were troubled and agitated. The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body; and when after three days the disciples became assured and steadfast, and began to serve the Cause of Christ, and resolved to spread the divine teachings, putting His counsels into practice, and arising to serve Him, the Reality of Christ became resplendent and His bounty appeared; His religion found life; His teachings and His admonitions became evident and visible. In other words, the Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body until the life and the bounty of the Holy Spirit surrounded it.​

After 3 days the gospels say they went to the tomb. Way later, after, supposedly, seeing the resurrected Jesus, they were filled with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, and then started teaching the things that Jesus said. Who you going to believe that, supposed, eye witness reports of the gospel writers or Abdul Baha'? Obviously, for you, Abdul Baha'. But that makes the gospels a fairy tale... and they might be. But again, most Baha'is believe them to be the Word of God... just not literally true. Which, to me, makes them "literally" not necessarily true. Then there is this Baha'i...

Sure, I can believe that. And I hope it is nothing but a fictional myth.

But Christians believe it and Baha'is, supposedly, believe that Christianity is a true God given religion. Yeah, right. Except that little thing about Jesus coming back to life? Baha'i deny that.

And it sounds like Jews do too. So are there "prophecies" that say the Jewish Messiah would die and rise again? It sounds like only Christians think so. Could they have faked the resurrection? The stories sure sound like embellished made up stories? So why would a Jew believe and accept that Jesus was their Messiah when dying and rising wasn't supposed to be what happens to the Messiah? But then it gets confusing, because then, even though the Baha'is don't believe Jesus rose from the dead, they still say he was the Jewish Messiah. But not The Messiah. That, of course, is their guy, Baha'u'llah. Hmmm, my head hurts. I'm going back to watch the Impeachment Trial. I need something to cheer me up.

I believe that accepting the Bible but picking and choosing what one believes from it is self defeating.

 

[Trailblazer]

Sure, I can believe that. And I hope it is nothing but a fictional myth.

Are you still on the fence?
Do you mean you hope because if it is true then you are sol because that means Christianity is actually the truth?

Fat chance, I mean there is not a snowball's chance in hell that Christianity is the only true religion even if Jesus did rise from the grave. Logic alone would tell you that, because if Christianity was the one true religion that would mean that God has completely abandoned 71% of people in the world who are not Christians. Were that actually the case, who would want to believe in that kind of God? Only the Christians, who could not give a thinker's damn about anyone except themselves and being saved.

Let's face reality, the Baha'i Faith is the only religion that makes any logical sense since we believe all the religions came from the one true God and we believe they are all true. The fact that the followers of those religions messed those religions up and changed what the Messengers revealed over time also makes logical sense because that is what people do when there is no written Covenant thus no way to prevent it. It is really a slam dunk, but if you want to keep playing the game for the rest of your life hoping to find a "better religion" nobody is going to stop you because you have free will.

 

[Skywalker]

Does any religion, except the Baha'i Faith, make Moses a manifestation? Christianity and Judaism don't. Does Islam? Does Hinduism make him an Avatar? Is he anything to the Buddhists? In the story he was not a perfectly polished mirror. But then, do Baha'is even believe that the Bible stories about Moses are literally and historically true? If not, and I doubt Baha'is do, then Baha'is are making a man a manifestation of God that all we know about him is mythical, fictional stories. But Baha'is believe it because it says so in the Kitab-i-Iqan. Which was written by a man that Baha'is believe is infallible. Which means, that for a Baha'i, they have to believe it. They have no other choice. What are they going to do? Are they going to doubt it and question it? For Baha'is, that would be like doubting God. Right from the start of the Kitab-i-Iqan I had doubts and questions.

"Among the Prophets was Noah. For nine hundred and fifty years He prayerfully exhorted His people and summoned them to the haven of security and peace."​

Yet, Baha'is don't believe Noah or anyone else in Genesis lived that long. Plus, Baha'u'llah makes no mention of the flood and the ark. He makes up his own version of the story and disregards the Bible version. And Baha'is believe Baha'u'llah's version as being the truth. The what does that make the Bible version? The half-truth? The lie? The myth? No, Baha'is, somehow, and for some reason, still act as if they believe in the Bible. And they get away with it by saying those stories were symbolic.

But this thread is about Jews. And I ask again and again... prior to the Baha'i Faith, which religion should a Jew have followed? In theory, a Baha'is could say they should have accepted Jesus as their Messiah. Then what? Left those beliefs behind for the teachings of Muhammad? But in reality, which Christian Church should they have joined? Which Christian Church had the real truth about God? I don't see how a Baha'i can say that any of them taught the truth. Same thing with Islam. Should that Jew have joined Sunni or Shia? Now, of course, because you believe the Baha'i Faith does have the real truth from God, I'm sure you'd think and expect any spiritual Jew to recognize The Bab as Elijah and Baha'u'llah as the Messiah. So why don't they? Some have told you. What do you think of their reasons? Do they make sense to you? Part of the problem is, like most other religions that seek converts, even though some Baha'is deny they do, Baha'is aren't really listening.
Automatically they go into counterattack mode and throw out reasons why the other person is wrong and has a faulty understanding (of their own Scriptures), and why the Baha'i interpretation is so undeniably right. But by doing this, Baha'i are missing something. They aren't making a connection with the person. They are showing little or no respect for the person and their beliefs. But, that's probably better than pretending to care about them and their beliefs. So Baha'is got that going for them.

Jesus could not have been a manifestation of God, because being the firstborn of all creation means that Jesus created everything. False Ideas About Jesus Christ

Christ, The First-Created Being
Those affiliated with the Watchtower Society allege that the second Person of the Godhead, Jesus Christ, was not an eternal being. Instead, it is claimed, he was “the first of God’s creations ... he had a beginning” (Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985, 409).

There is no basis for this fanatical theory, as the following facts reveal.

• A number of passages assert the eternality of the Word who became flesh (John 1:14). Isaiah denominates him as “everlasting” (9:6), and Micah declares that his goings forth have been “from everlasting” (5:2).
• When John affirms: “In the beginning was the Word” (1:1), he employs an imperfect tense form, which suggests “continuous timeless existence” (Bernard, 1928, 2).
• Christ is designated as “the Alpha and the Omega” (Revelation 21:6; 22:13), which expression is applied to God earlier in the same document (1:8). The phrase constitutes a “strong assertion of the true and eternal deity of Jesus Christ” (Vos, 1975, 111).

But the “Jehovah’s Witnesses” argue that since Jesus is called “the firstborn of all creation” (Colossians 1:15), and “the beginning of the creation” (Revelation 3:14), he must have had an origin in time, hence, was not eternal. The arguments are invalid.