• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jesus as Christ

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Revelation 5:13 says, 'And every creature that is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard l saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.'

Christ Jesus is recognised as the Lamb who has power both in heaven and on earth. Moreover, his power is everlasting, not restricted to a season.

If you read all of Revelation 5, there can be no doubt that 'in the midst' of the throne in heaven is the Lamb, and that it's the Lamb who is called 'the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the root of David'.

It is worth considering that Jesus was not the only Lamb, in fact the Bab mirrored the sacrafice that Jesus also gave.

I see every Messenger is the Lamb given by God.

The issue here is, do we choose to worship a name, or do we worship what was the Spirit of Christ, it is that Spirit that is of God. It was Peter that offered Jesus was the Christ and it was that Name that Jesus was to build the Church upon. That name means Annointed One, and Jesus was Annointed with the Holy Spirit that is from God, and in that way Jesus was the Self of God amongst us.

But Jesus said it is finished and I will return with a New Name, and there will be a New Jerusalem, who no one would recognise unless they accepted it was Christ come again.

Regards Tony
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Except that it does.
To be aware of factuality, one requires facts. Not mere beliefs and unsupported claims.
I have facts, lots of facts that surround the Person and the Revelation of Baha'u'llah..
Or otherwise verifiable in whatever way.

In short: there is no evidence.
God is not verifiable because God cannot be observed but I do have evidence that God exists.
The evidence that shows that God exists is the Messenger of God who was observable and knowable as a fact.
Knowledge is demonstrable. And verifiable.
Religious beliefs are neither.
God is not demonstrable or verifiable but we can have knowledge of God through what the Messenger of God reveals about God.
That's not the point.
The point is that anything can be believed on faith.
But not anything can be believed on evidence.
That's true, but there is evidence. Just because the evidence does not prove anything to you that does not make it non-evidence. Evidence is evidence and it will not be evidence regardless of whether people believe it proves God exists.

Case in point: All the evidence that a man committed a murder will be presented to the jury but everyone on the jury will not necessarily look at that evidence and conclude that the man is guilty. Some jurors might believe the evidence is inadequate to pronounce a guilty verdict. But regardless of what the jury concludes the evidence is still the evidence.

The important point is that the man either committed the murder of he did not, regardless of what the jury concludes.

Likewise, all the evidence that shows that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God can be presented, but not everyone will look at that evidence and conclude that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God. But regardless of what people conclude the evidence is still the evidence.

The important point is that Baha'u'llah was either a Messenger of God or not, regardless of what people conclude after looking at the evidence.
You can believe on faith that undetectable graviton pixies are regulating gravity. But you can not believe that on evidence - because there is no evidence.
But there is evidence that God exists.
What this means, is that faith is NOT a pathway to truth.
I agree. There needs to be evidence, not just faith. Anything can be believed on faith.
Sure. Undetectable graviton fairies could be the regulators of gravity. It's not like you can prove otherwise.

But what use does such a statement have? Nothing.
It's entirely meaningless and worthless.

My standard for believing stuff is quite a bit higher then "well, it could be true cause you can't show it to be false".
I said: "Some things that are believed on faith can be true." I was not suggesting that you believe anything on faith. I was just making a logical statement. Do you understand that evidence is not what makes anything true? Something is either true or false. Evidence is just what people want in order to know if something is true or false.

If a man committed a murder and there was no evidence he still committed the murder. If God did not provide any evidence of His existence God would still exist if God exists. Of course God did provide evidence because otherwise God would not have expected anyone to believe that He exists, since that would be unjust to expect people to believe in God with no evidence.
Again, not the point.
The point is that on faith, you can believe anything. True or false.
And that without any way to distinguish true beliefs from false beliefs.

The actual point is that on faith, you can't find out if it's actually true or false.
Again, I was not suggesting that you believe anything on faith. I was just making a logical statement.
There is a way to distinguish true from false, by using your rational mind, your innate intelligence.
And to find out which it is, one requires evidence and a way to test the belief against observable reality.
Which is a thing religious claims completely fail in.
No, beliefs cannot be tested like scientific facts. In order to know if they are true or not you have to independently investigate the religion and verify for yourself if it is true or false. There is no other way. God created everyone with the capacity to recognize the signs of God and believe He exists

“I have perfected in every one of you My creation, so that the excellence of My handiwork may be fully revealed unto men. It follows, therefore, that every man hath been, and will continue to be, able of himself to appreciate the Beauty of God, the Glorified. Had he not been endowed with such a capacity, how could he be called to account for his failure?”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 143

“He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.” Gleanings, pp. 105-106
You require faith, because you have no evidence.
No, I require evidence but I also require faith that God exists and sends Messengers since that cannot be proven.
Undetectable graviton pixies can only be believed on faith. It can't be believed on evidence.
General relativity can be believed on evidence. And thus does not require any "faith".

The point. You keep missing it.

Faith is not a pathway to truth.
Faith is gullibility. It's what you need to believe something which you hope to be true - and have no way to find out if it actually is true.
I am not 'missing' anything because I never said that faith is a pathway to truth, so that is a straw man.

Faith is required for anything that cannot absolutely be proven. This not only applies to religious beliefs.
But we also want evidence because faith alone is not enough to base anything upon.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I have facts, lots of facts that surround the Person and the Revelation of Baha'u'llah..

You have claims.

God is not verifiable because God cannot be observed but I do have evidence that God exists.
The evidence that shows that God exists is the Messenger of God who was observable and knowable as a fact.

That's the belief. Not the evidence. It is in fact the belief that is in need of evidence.

God is not demonstrable or verifiable but we can have knowledge of God through what the Messenger of God reveals about God.

Those are beliefs.

That's true, but there is evidence. Just because the evidence does not prove anything to you that does not make it non-evidence. Evidence is evidence and it will not be evidence regardless of whether people believe it proves God exists.

Case in point: All the evidence that a man committed a murder will be presented to the jury but everyone on the jury will not necessarily look at that evidence and conclude that the man is guilty. Some jurors might believe the evidence is inadequate to pronounce a guilty verdict. But regardless of what the jury concludes the evidence is still the evidence.

The important point is that the man either committed the murder of he did not, regardless of what the jury concludes.

Likewise, all the evidence that shows that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God can be presented, but not everyone will look at that evidence and conclude that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God. But regardless of what people conclude the evidence is still the evidence.

The important point is that Baha'u'llah was either a Messenger of God or not, regardless of what people conclude after looking at the evidence.

Again, these are the claims; the religious beliefs. Those are the things in need of evidence. They are not the evidence.


But there is evidence that God exists.

Are you going to share that evidence any time soon?
So far, all you have given here are mere claims and beliefs.


Do you understand that evidence is not what makes anything true?

Evidence is what allows you to distinguish true beliefs from false beliefs.


If a man committed a murder and there was no evidence he still committed the murder.

But you would never know about it. And thus wouldn't have rational reasons to believe it.

If God did not provide any evidence of His existence God would still exist if God exists. Of course God did provide evidence because otherwise God would not have expected anyone to believe that He exists, since that would be unjust to expect people to believe in God with no evidence.

Will this evidence be forthcoming any time soon?

There is a way to distinguish true from false, by using your rational mind, your innate intelligence.

Having rational mind certainly is a prerequisite. However, that by itself is not enough.
You still need independently verifiable evidence. If you don't, all you have are mere beliefs.

No, beliefs cannot be tested like scientific facts.

That completely depends on the nature of the claim being believed.
Unfalsifiable, unverifiable claims (like religious claims) indeed can't be tested / verified / supported in reality.
This is why it's not rational to accept them as correct.


In order to know if they are true or not you have to independently investigate the religion and verify for yourself if it is true or false.

Which is kind of hard to do when there is no evidence and the very nature of the claims makes them unverifiable.

There is no other way

The "other way", is to reject claims that can't be verified, are unfalsifiable and thus are indistinguishable from pure fantasy.


God created everyone with the capacity to recognize the signs of God and believe He exists

“I have perfected in every one of you My creation, so that the excellence of My handiwork may be fully revealed unto men. It follows, therefore, that every man hath been, and will continue to be, able of himself to appreciate the Beauty of God, the Glorified. Had he not been endowed with such a capacity, how could he be called to account for his failure?”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 143

“He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.” Gleanings, pp. 105-106

This is just preaching. This is just you stating your religious beliefs again.

No, I require evidence but I also require faith that God exists and sends Messengers since that cannot be proven.

Either you have evidence or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

I am not 'missing' anything because I never said that faith is a pathway to truth, so that is a straw man.

You don't need to say it. It's implied.
You just said it again: you have faith that god exists and sends messengers and you can't support those beliefs. You just believe them. On faith. So clearly, you think this faith thing is good enough for you to accept those claims.

But it isn't, off course. Because faith is not a pathway to truth.

Faith is required for anything that cannot absolutely be proven.

Give me break. "absolutely proven". Come on now................................
"proof" is for mathematics. I'm just talking about evidential support.
Faith is what you need when you got nothing.

This not only applies to religious beliefs.

False.
It can't be "absolutely proven" that I'll die from jumping down the Eiffel Tower, unless I actually take the jump.
But I don't need "faith" to believe that I won't live to tell the story if I'ld take that jump.

But we also want evidence because faith alone is not enough to base anything upon.

Then why do you believe a god exists and sends messengers?
 

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
2. John 5:31. 'If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true'. Jesus intentionally chose a close group of apostles, who were to be his primary witnesses. It is their witness that is recorded in the New Testament, and I can see no contradictory statements. Maybe you could be specific in pointing some out.
Jesus also believed that they didn’t understand him. Do you want a tutor who failed the class?
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
It is worth considering that Jesus was not the only Lamb, in fact the Bab mirrored the sacrafice that Jesus also gave.

I see every Messenger is the Lamb given by God.

The issue here is, do we choose to worship a name, or do we worship what was the Spirit of Christ, it is that Spirit that is of God. It was Peter that offered Jesus was the Christ and it was that Name that Jesus was to build the Church upon. That name means Annointed One, and Jesus was Annointed with the Holy Spirit that is from God, and in that way Jesus was the Self of God amongst us.

But Jesus said it is finished and I will return with a New Name, and there will be a New Jerusalem, who no one would recognise unless they accepted it was Christ come again.

Regards Tony
Hi Tony, l think it's worth looking carefully at the use of the word 'rock' (Gk 'petra') in the scriptures. The word is used of God and of Christ, but never of a man. The word used of Peter means 'a stone'. It's important to understand the Christ is the true foundation of the Church.

I believe that the Bible contains a complete message or revelation. In Genesis 1:1 we read about the creation of the (first) heaven and earth. In Revelation 21 we are told of a 'new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away;'. Between the covers of the Christian Bible are both the prophecies of Christ, and their fulfilment. There is no space given for false claimants to the throne reserved for Jesus Christ.

What l see Baha'ullah doing is making a claim to be the return of Christ to judge. But, as Jesus made plain, the return of the Lord to judge must be a return from heaven. This is not a claim Muhammad, Bab or Baha'ullah can make, given they each have a birthplace on earth.

The only prophecy to a birthplace on earth is reserved for Bethlehem, a small town in Judea, the birthplace of king David. The birth of Jesus, the Messiah of God, takes place here, and it is not the birthplace of Muhammad, Bab or Baha'ullah.
 
Last edited:

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Doesn’t seem necessary for an omnipresent being.
That's overlooking the problem of sin, which requires a just punishment.
Jesus also believed that they didn’t understand him. Do you want a tutor who failed the class?
The disciples understood enough to receive the promise - the Holy Spirit.
Is God forced to accept reality?
God is reality. God is truth.
Then how did the magi know about Jesus?
We don't know enough to be sure of the identity or learning of the magi. They clearly associated astronomical signs with Jewish predictions. It is possible that they drew learning from Jews who remained in Babylon after the exile. Either way, such learning is not the same as prophecy.
This is often contradicted in the Bible, like when God can walk around with Adam and Eve.
God walked with Adam before the fall, and afterwards asked, 'Where art thou?'. Clearly, the relationship had changed as the result of sin.
Asking for dew on a blanket worked for Gideon IIRC.
But it wouldn't be convincing proof to the sceptics on RF!
Then Jesus fails because he sins all throughout the story, both sins per Judaism of the first century and sins now, such as racism and sexism.
IMO, no such racism or sexism exists. More importantly, his Father in heaven saw no such sin, and God reads the heart.
Lots of sinful people wake up from death, especially in the modern world.
In the modern world people wake up to continue a mortal existence, not eternal life with Christ!
And then Abe’s people were constantly enslaved and tortured and killed and run out of the country. Abe didn’t read the fine print.
Abe's people are a people of faith, and God's promises apply on earth as they do in heaven.
Indeed. God told me that the Bible isn’t true.
Who is your god that he should contradict the Creator?
But if man lies, then scriptures written by men can’t be trusted.
But the scriptures are not, lMO, the word of man but the word of God.
You don’t believe in the second coming?
The second coming is different from the first coming, so it's not a repeat. The first coming was by birth on earth; the second is from heaven to judge.
If you are unhappy with the finite life God gave you, what makes you think that you will enjoy an eternity?
I accept that in this life there is an opportunity to find salvation. There is the possibility of peace now, and for eternity. IMO.
 
Last edited:

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
What l see Baha'ullah doing to making a claim to be the return of Christ to judge. But, as Jesus made plain, the return of the Lord to judge must be a return from heaven. This is not a claim Muhammad, Bab or Baha'ullah can make, given they each have a birthplace on earth.

Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah all had a birthplace on earth yet all of their souls were pre-existent in the spiritual world (heaven).

(96) PRE-EXISTENCE - of Prophets

The Prophets, unlike us, are pre-existent. The soul of Christ existed in the spiritual world before His birth in this world. We cannot imagine what that world is like, so words are inadequate to picture His state of being.

(Shoghi Effendi: High Endeavors, Page: 71)


Therefore, there is no difference between how Jesus came to earth and how Baha'u'llah came to earth, as they were both born on earth yet both of their souls pre-existed in heaven before they were born on earth. When they were born, their soul united with their body. That is how they were different from ordinary humans, as the souls of ordinary humans are not pre-existent but rather they come into being at the time of conception.

I do not know what verses you are referring to where you believe Jesus said that the return of the Lord to judge must be a 'return' from heaven. The soul of Baha'u'llah was sent by God from heaven. and His soul united with His body at the time of conception. The same exact thing happened to Jesus.

As I think I said before, Jesus said that His work was finished on earth and He would no longer be in the world, so that tells us that the return of Christ cannot be referring to the same man Jesus who walked the earth 2000 years ago.
(John 14:19, John 17:11, John 17:4, John 19:30, John 18:36, John 18:37)

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

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Hi Tony, l think it's worth looking carefully at the use of the word 'rock' (Gk 'petra') in the scriptures. The word is used of God and of Christ, but never of a man. The word used of Peter means 'a stone'. It's important to understand the Christ is the true foundation of the Church.

That is exactly what Jesus offerd to Peter and what I was also offering to you. "Christ" is the rock that is the foundation of the Church.

"Christ" is the "Name" we come to God through. 2000 years ago Christ was given from the person known as Jesus.

Christ means 'Annointed One'. So are you now seeing what is offered, that Jesus is Anointed of the Holy Spirit. It is the part of them that is not born from the womb, they are pre-existing. Humans are given a soul at birth. Maybe that will also give you thoughts as to why we have the story of the virgin birth.

The station of Chirst is how God gives the Mesengers and that is how Christ is the first and the last.

The flesh perishes, but Christ, the Holy Spirit lives before and lives on, the Alpha and the Omega.

So we have all the Messengers who are born of the Holy Spirit. We have all humanity who are born of the Human Spirit. Man has to embrace the Spirit of Faith to be born again into the Holy Spirit.

This explanation opens up many other meanings in the Bible and all the Holy Books.

Regards Tony
 
Last edited:
Top