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

[TransmutingSoul]

No? It is "naught" how an individual Baha'i sees it. What does the Baha'i Faith says about the current beliefs and practices of every other religion? Are they teaching the truth about God or have they added in traditions of men and have misinterpreted things and have developed many doctrines and beliefs that aren't true? Like for Christians... believing that Jesus physically rose from the dead and he, himself and not someone else, is returning? And then there is the doctrine of the Trinity. Do Baha'is reject those beliefs or not?

Then the Kitab-i-iqan... I've quoted this before...

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. None, however, heeded His call. Each day they inflicted on His blessed person such pain and suffering that no one believed He could survive. How frequently they denied Him, how malevolently they hinted their suspicion against Him! Thus it hath been revealed: “And as often as a company of His people passed by Him, they derided Him. To them He said: ‘Though ye scoff at us now, we will scoff at you hereafter even as ye scoff at us. In the end ye shall know.’”3 Long afterward, He several times promised victory to His companions and fixed the hour thereof. But when the hour struck, the divine promise was not fulfilled. This caused a few among the small number of His followers to turn away from Him, and to this testify the records of the best-known books. These you must certainly have perused; if not, undoubtedly you will. Finally, as stated in books and traditions, there remained with Him only forty or seventy-two of His followers.​

Is that the truth about Noah? That for 950 years he exhorted his people? So do Baha'is believe people in Genesis really lived for hundreds of years? I don't think so. So why does Baha'u'llah say that Noah did? Then, this story of Noah is nothing like the Biblical story of Noah and him building a boat and loading it up with animals and that whole thing about the world being flooded. So which story is correct, the Bible or the Kitab-i-Iqan? And what are those "best-known" books? He says that those books can corroborate what he is saying, so could you quote what it says about Noah from those "well-known" books?

Personally I see that is the dispensation of the Message of Noah and personally I see all the Biblical ages talk of a Dispensations of the Message.

It is great that God let's us work it out for our own selves CG. What would life be if all the answers were already known! It may be there would not be this life.

It is all about how you choose to see life CG.

Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

Personally I see that is the dispensation of the Message of Noah and personally I see all the Biblical ages talk of a Dispensations of the Message.

It is great that God let's us work it out for our own selves CG. What would life be if all the answers were already known! It may be there would not be this life.

It is all about how you choose to see life CG.

Regards Tony

This is what I found...

"The years of Noah are not years as we count them, and as our teachings do not state that this reference to years means His dispensation, we cannot interpret it this way."

(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, November 25, 1950; quoted in Lights of Guidance, no. 1659)


"Then the Master asked Esmael: "How old was Moses?"
"One hundred and twenty years," he replied. "But the patriarchs, such as Noah and others lived many hundreds of years."
"The Master said: "The age of those ancient prophets as recorded in the Old Testament is symbolic. It has a spiritual interpretation. Wert thou informed of the science of anatomy thou wouldst realize that this human mechanism and these material organs cannot last more than one hundred and twenty years.""

(Attributed to 'Abdu'l-Baha, Star of the West, volume 13, issue 6, p. 152)
​

So Shoghi Effendi says it doesn't refer to his "dispensation." Then Abdul Baha says that those people lived "many" hundreds of years... but they were "symbolic" years? And what were those "well-known" books Baha'u'llah referred to?

 

[Skywalker]

Well now to take the side of Baha'is, I do believe a lot of that kind of stuff is at best allegorical, or just plain old myth. Why does a story about a fallen angel have to be real? Why would an all knowing God create such a being? And then, supposedly, when he does fall, cast him down to Earth and let him tempt and torment humans? And an all knowing God would of course know that easily tempted humans would fall for the devil's tricks. And with the very first failure, the Adam and Eve thing, God curses them for failing? He put the forbidden fruit there knowing that the serpent would tempt them, and God knew that Adam and Eve would fail.

Great story to get people to understand why the world is so screwed up. But how is it different than all the other myths of all the other people in the world. To me it makes more sense to me to believe that those stories weren't true but just legends and myths. Where I disagree with Baha'is is that they keep saying that it was a mistake and a misinterpretation for people to take those stories literally. I think that those stories were meant to be taken literally. They were meant to get the people to believe in this invisible all powerful God. Then Christians, then Muslims, and now Baha'is build off those stories and create new beliefs.

But each of those religions doesn't make a perfect transition from the old one to the new one. There are always things that don't fit... that don't seem right, and give people in the older religion to doubt and question the validity of the newer one. And so it is with the Jews. I think they have good reasons to reject all those religions that have come after them. Just like Christians have very good reasons to reject both Islam and the Baha'i Faith.

God allows us to be tempted because of free will and building our character and testing us. If Job was blameless, why did God allow Satan to afflict him? | carm.org

If Job was blameless, why did God allow Satan to afflict him?
by Matt Slick | Dec 1, 2008

If Job was blameless, why did God allow Satan to afflict him? Job 1:1 and Job 1:12

1. Job 1:1, “There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job, and that man was blameless, upright, fearing God, and turning away from evil.”
2. Job 1:12, “Then the Lord said to Satan, “Behold, all that he has is in your power, only do not put forth your hand on him.”

When the Bible says that Job was blameless, it does not mean that he was absolutely sinless. It means that he was a God-fearing man who sought to do what was right before the Lord. Job’s awareness of his own sins is acknowledged by the fact that he sacrificed animals to the Lord as atonement for his sins in chapter 1.

As the story goes, the “sons of God”, angels, presented themselves before God. Satan was there and a conversation ensued about Job’s goodness. Satan challenges God by stating that Job will denounce God if afflicted. God gives permission to Satan to afflict Job. Of course, Job doesn’t denounce God. So, the question is why would God allow Satan to do this?

The reason is so that God may be vindicated at His word and so that we might understand that trials and tribulations will come to those who are godly. In the former, we see the righteousness of God. After all, none are righteous before God (Rom. 3:10-12). In the latter, we see the perfection of Job’s faith (James 1:2-4).

 

[Skywalker]

Yes, evil certainly exists. But Baha'is kind of saying it doesn't. I think they use the analogy of a dark room, and as soon as you turn on the light, the evil, or darkness, disappears. And, is that all that much different than what Christians are saying... evil exists and Satan exists, then one day Jesus is going to do away with them. But, either way, God thought it a good idea to create evil and a Satan? Nothing like a little pain and suffering to show how much God loves us.

God allows pain and suffering because of free will. People blame God for our problems, but our problems are related to what we do with our free will. We asked for a lot of our problems. Why does God suffering in the world? Is suffering the result of sin?

Why does God allow suffering in the world?
by Matt Slick | Dec 11, 2008 | Doctrine, Questions

The curious, as well as the critics of Christianity, ask this question. If God is all-powerful and all-loving, then why does He allow evil and suffering in the world? Various answers have been given but permanently settling the issue is impossible (this side of heaven) because so many of our answers raise further questions. Nevertheless, our lack of ability to answer the question completely does not mean that we cannot offer solutions.

First of all, it is possible that God has reasons for allowing evil to exist that we simply cannot understand. In this, the Christian can have confidence in God knowing that His ways are above our ways (Isaiah 55:8-9). As the Bible says, the just shall live by faith (Hab. 2:4).

Second, God may be letting evil run its course in order to prove that evil is malignant and that suffering, which is the unfortunate product of evil, is further proof that anything contrary to God’s will is bad, harmful, painful, and leads to death (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 6:23).

God gave Adam dominion over the world (Gen. 1:28). When he rebelled against God, he set in motion an entire series of events and changed the very nature of man and creation. Both were affected by sin. Creation was no longer a paradise but bore thorns and thistles (Gen. 3:17-18; Rom. 8:22). People became sinful (Rom. 5:12; Eph. 2:3), who were haters of God (Rom. 3:9-12), etc. The only conclusion to such a situation is death. Jesus said, “And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened,” (Matt. 24:22).

 

[Skywalker]

Well now to take the side of Baha'is, I do believe a lot of that kind of stuff is at best allegorical, or just plain old myth. Why does a story about a fallen angel have to be real? Why would an all knowing God create such a being? And then, supposedly, when he does fall, cast him down to Earth and let him tempt and torment humans? And an all knowing God would of course know that easily tempted humans would fall for the devil's tricks. And with the very first failure, the Adam and Eve thing, God curses them for failing? He put the forbidden fruit there knowing that the serpent would tempt them, and God knew that Adam and Eve would fail.

Great story to get people to understand why the world is so screwed up. But how is it different than all the other myths of all the other people in the world. To me it makes more sense to me to believe that those stories weren't true but just legends and myths. Where I disagree with Baha'is is that they keep saying that it was a mistake and a misinterpretation for people to take those stories literally. I think that those stories were meant to be taken literally. They were meant to get the people to believe in this invisible all powerful God. Then Christians, then Muslims, and now Baha'is build off those stories and create new beliefs.

But each of those religions doesn't make a perfect transition from the old one to the new one. There are always things that don't fit... that don't seem right, and give people in the older religion to doubt and question the validity of the newer one. And so it is with the Jews. I think they have good reasons to reject all those religions that have come after them. Just like Christians have very good reasons to reject both Islam and the Baha'i Faith.

It's naive to say, "I don't believe in a spiritual reality of darkness and evil." And it is especially double minded to say you don't believe in demons if you profess to believe in angels as ministers of love, joy, and peace to God's people. Both good and evil are embodied in the spirit realm by very different entities-evil is embodied by demonic spirits. Now, that doesn't mean a demon is behind every bush or every bad event involves a specific demon. It does mean that spiritual forces of evil are behind every evil act. We need to remember always that our enemy-ultimately-is the devil and his demonic forces, not a human being who mistreats us in some way. The apostle Paul stated this very clearly: "We do not wrestle against flesh and blood" (Ephesians 6:12).

The devil is invisible. Satan doesn't look like a terrible monster or dark cloud and tempt you or make you angry. In fact, he does what he can to disguise himself and make himself invisible so he won't be blamed or fought as the enemy. He'll manipulate circumstances and situations against you. He will use people against you-people who will abuse you, misuse you, and confuse you! The devil is organized. We are arrayed against a vast host of evil. We are in a battle against "principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places" (Ephesians 6:12).

 

[Skywalker]

So what? Beliefs are not proof of anything.

The apostles saw Jesus after he died. Multiple people don't hallucinate the same thing.

He Is Risen: Historical Evidence That Jesus Rose From The Dead | Reasons for Jesus

4. Jesus’ post mortem appearances to believers and unbelievers

Consensus holds that James, Paul and the disciples had resurrection experiences of Jesus. According to atheist historian Gerd Ludemann:

“IT MAY BE TAKEN AS HISTORICALLY CERTAIN THAT PETER AND THE DISCIPLES HAD EXPERIENCES AFTER JESUS’S DEATH IN WHICH JESUS APPEARED TO THEM AS THE RISEN CHRIST” (47).

Agnostic historian James Crossley says it is “the hardest, best evidence we have” (48), and professor Ehrman calls it “a historical fact” (49). Agnostic New Testament scholar Ed Parish Sanders says:

“THAT JESUS’ FOLLOWERS (AND LATER PAUL) HAD RESURRECTION EXPERIENCES IS, IN MY JUDGMENT, A FACT. WHAT THE REALITY WAS THAT GAVE RISE TO THE EXPERIENCES I DO NOT KNOW.” – SANDERS, E. 1995. THE HISTORICAL FIGURE OF JESUS.

For more academic recognition of the resurrection appearances, here is an article containing 38 scholar quotes on these appearances. All four gospels independently attest to the resurrection. The appearance to Peter is independently attested by Luke, and the appearance to the Twelve by Luke and John.

We also have independent witness to Galilean appearances in Mark, Matthew, and John, as well as to the women in Matthew and John (50). It’s further attested in Paul’s early creed (1 Cor. 15:1-11), in Paul’s authentic & disputed epistles, as well as hypothetical source Q and the book of Acts.

The early creed is most significant since it records that Peter, the twelve disciples, 500 witnesses, James, and lastly Paul had experiences of the risen Jesus. Moreover, Clement of Rome provides 1st century and Polycarp early 2nd century supporting evidence of the resurrection appearances. Both Clement and Polycarp knew the disciples which gives their testimonies credibility.

Moreover, the disciples, James and Paul were sincere in the proclamation of the risen Jesus as affirmed by nine early and independent sources. Before his conversion, Paul persecuted the early church until Jesus appeared to him personally (51). James was Jesus’ unbelieving brother who was likewise convinced on the basis of a resurrection appearance (52).

We also know of 11 sources that inform us of the disciples’ early proclamation of the resurrection and their willingness to suffer and die for it (53). Finally, we know that the early Christians Paul, James (Jesus’ brother), James (brother of John), Stephen, and Peter were all martyred for their belief in the risen Jesus.

Moreover, these appearances cannot be explained away as hallucinations since Paul believed in Jesus’ physical resurrection (54), the risen Jesus ate fish (Luke 24:42), offered his disciples an opportunity to touch his resurrection body (Luke 24:39, John 20:27), had some grab hold of his feet in worship (Matt. 28:9), and the disciple Thomas allegedly put his finger and hand into the place where the nails had been in Jesus’ body (John 20:27). According to exegete Craig William Craig explains, “we have a completely unanimous testimony in the Gospels that all of them were physical” (55).

“NONE OF THESE FEATURES [HALLUCINATIONS] ADEQUATELY DESCRIBE THE NEW TESTAMENT EXPERIENCES.” – J.P MORELAND (56)

“Although at least a few if not all of Jesus’ disciples may have been in an emotional state that rendered them candidates for a hallucination, the nature of some of the experiences of the risen Jesus, specifically those that occurred in group settings and to Jesus’ enemy Paul, and the empty tomb strongly suggest that these experiences were not hallucinations.” – New Testament historian Mike Licona (57)

What is the best explanation of these facts?
“JESUS’ RESURRECTION IS UNPARALLELED IN TERMS OF STRONG EVIDENCE.” – MICHAEL LICONA (58)

Jesus appeared to believers and unbelievers, indoors and outdoors, to crowds and individuals, not once but many times. It is recognized by even the most critical scholars that such appearances really did happen. The real question is, why did skeptics in the first century all of a sudden come to believe that they saw Jesus standing right in front of them in the flesh after he had already been crucified?

Here is a man seen working miracles, controlling the forces of nature, healing the sick, proclaiming to be divine with authority from Heaven, and predicting his own death and resurrection. His tomb was found empty on the morning of the third day after his crucifixion, and then he was seen risen appearing to people (including 500 at once) causing them to believe (to the point of death) that Jesus had really appeared to them.

“Typical encounters with the recently deceased do not issue in claims about an empty tomb, nor do they lead to the founding of a new religion. And they certainly do not typically eat and drink, and they are not seen by crowds of up to five hundred people.” – New Testament scholar Dale Allison (59)

 

[Skywalker]

The Christian scripture can be interpretted in many ways.

The teaching that the Messiah isn't a Savior but a political figure is based off of an interpretation of the Old Testament, not the Old Testament itself. I believe that Jesus is the Messiah, because wouldn't it make sense that the God who gave us blessings also gave us the gift of salvation?

 

[Skywalker]

So what? Beliefs are not proof of anything.

When the apostle Thomas saw Jesus, he had no more doubts that Christ resurrected. Do you think the story of the apostle Thomas mentioned in the Bible was a fabrication?

 

[dybmh]

The teaching that the Messiah isn't a Savior but a political figure is based off of an interpretation of the Old Testament, not the Old Testament itself.

The only text from the OT that describes what the Messiah isn't (that I'm aware of) is in Deuteronomy 13 where a false prophet is described as a "test" for Jewish people.

Other than that, it's all interpretation. Even the word "Messiah" is interpretation.

I believe that Jesus is the Messiah, because wouldn't it make sense that the God who gave us blessings also gave us the gift of salvation?

"Making sense" is not, imho, the best metric for determining validity in religious matters. That said, for me, it doesn't make sense that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. The most objective reasons come from world history. Jesus did not herald the messianic era 2000 years ago per Isaiah's standards. (Isaiah 2:4 / Isaiah 11:6-9). Without that, it doesn't make sense to label anyone the Jewish Messiah.

 

[Skywalker]

The only text from the OT that describes what the Messiah isn't (that I'm aware of) is in Deuteronomy 13 where a false prophet is described as a "test" for Jewish people.

Other than that, it's all interpretation. Even the word "Messiah" is interpretation.

"Making sense" is not, imho, the best metric for determining validity in religious matters. That said, for me, it doesn't make sense that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. The most objective reasons come from world history. Jesus did not herald the messianic era 2000 years ago per Isaiah's standards. (Isaiah 2:4 / Isaiah 11:6-9). Without that, it doesn't make sense to label anyone the Jewish Messiah.

Isn't it consistent with the character of the same God who gave us taste buds for food, that he would also give us the gift of salvation? We don't need thousands of taste buds to eat food but God gave them to us. God is a god of blessings.

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you think the story of the apostle Thomas mentioned in the Bible was a fabrication?

I believe the story of Thomas is fictional story so I do not believe Thomas ever saw Jesus after Jesus died.

 

[dybmh]

Isn't it consistent with the character of the same God who gave us taste buds for food, that he would also give us the gift of salvation?

sure...

 

[Skywalker]

I believe the story of Thomas is fictional story so I do not believe Thomas ever saw Jesus after Jesus died.

All of the apostles but the apostle John were executed for their faith in Jesus. What did they have to gain by following Jesus?

 

[Trailblazer]

All of the apostles but the apostle John were executed for their faith in Jesus. What did they have to gain by following Jesus?

They gained eternal life.

 

[Skywalker]

They gained eternal life.

Why would they have followed Jesus and be persecuted for their faith in Jesus if they didn't see him ressurect and they lied about it?

 

[Trailblazer]

Why would they have followed Jesus and be persecuted for their faith in Jesus if they didn't see him ressurect and they lied about it?

The disciples of Jesus did not write the NT so they did not lie.

 

[Skywalker]

The only text from the OT that describes what the Messiah isn't (that I'm aware of) is in Deuteronomy 13 where a false prophet is described as a "test" for Jewish people.

Other than that, it's all interpretation. Even the word "Messiah" is interpretation.

"Making sense" is not, imho, the best metric for determining validity in religious matters. That said, for me, it doesn't make sense that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. The most objective reasons come from world history. Jesus did not herald the messianic era 2000 years ago per Isaiah's standards. (Isaiah 2:4 / Isaiah 11:6-9). Without that, it doesn't make sense to label anyone the Jewish Messiah.

Of course there's even the question in reformed Judaism what is belief in a messiah is it a messianic era or a messianic people or a specific messiah. The Scriptures mention the Messiah being the Savior who died for our sins. There are two aspects of the Messiah's work. There was one where he would come in our midst in a very real way, God identifying with us and would suffer and die for us and rise from the dead before the second temple was destroyed. The message would then spread through the entire world and then at the end of the age he would return and establish his kingdom on the earth and do many of the things that traditional Jews expect him to do.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

When the apostle Thomas saw Jesus, he had no more doubts that Christ resurrected. Do you think the story of the apostle Thomas mentioned in the Bible was a fabrication?

Yes.

 

[Skywalker]

Yes.

There is no evidence within the text or the language or nuances used, that it was a fabrication. The Disciples Believed That Jesus Was God | Reasons for Jesus

The Apostle Thomas
Let us now move onto Thomas. Following the death of our saviour, Thomas is recorded to have called Jesus his Lord and his God. (John 20:28) A late great Islamic scholar known as Ahmad Deedat, in his debate with Annish Shorosh stated that the words of Thomas served as nothing but an expression of shock or embarrassment, rather than a clear statement intended exclusively for the Messiah.

This is false because when we circumspectly read the passage in question, it distinctly says that Thomas directed this to Jesus, “ipen efton” . In other words, this proclamation was fixed towards the Messiah and not a private self-expression. An expression of shock is on no account levelled towards the individual to whom you are communing with.

Furthermore, If Ahmad Deedat were right, then Thomas would be taking the Lord’s name in vain, which Jesus would have amended or rebuked…. But he didn’t. Rather, he blessed him. Contrast that when John falls at the feet of an angel in Revelation 19:10, and the angel tells him to worship God only.

 

[Skywalker]

The disciples of Jesus did not write the NT so they did not lie.

Philosophers said that the disciples wrote the New Testament. They had nothing to gain by saying that the disciples wrote the scriptures. They weren't Christians. Who Wrote The Gospels? These 6 Ancient Sources Tell Us | Reasons for Jesus

2. Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150–215; Adumbrationes in Epistolas Canonicas on 1 Peter 5:13):
“Mark, the follower of Peter, while Peter was publicly preaching the gospel at Rome in the presence of some of Caesar’s knights and uttering many testimonies about Christ, on their asking him to let them have a record of the things that had been said, wrote the Gospel that is called the Gospel of Mark from the things said by Peter, just as Luke is recognized as the pen that wrote the Acts of the Apostles and as the translator of the Letter of Paul to the Hebrews.”

So who was Clement?

Clement was a philosopher who traveled abroad, including Greece, Italy, Syria, Palestine, and finally to Alexandria, Egypt. Alexandria was a melting pot of all sorts of religious and philosophical ideas. There he came heard the gospel from Pantaenus, the teacher of the Alexandria Catechetical School. Clement would become a believer and in time, Clement became the head of the school in Alexandria.