The Atonement of Jesus Christ and Why It Needed to Happen.

[Trailblazer]

In the context of Daniel 7:13, where one "like a son of man" comes to the Ancient of Days (Almighty God) and is given dominion and sovereign power and universal worship of the sort that God alone possesses, the significance of Jesus' "son of man" usage cannot be overstated. It is functionally equivalent to saying that the one like a son of man is rightful heir and successor to the divine throne. "Son of man" is essentially the same as "Son of God" in this context. And if the person in Daniel 7:13-14 is only someone “like” a son of man, then it certainly implies there must be some differences. Otherwise it would say something like, “A son of man” came before the Ancient of Days

You are correct, it is functionally equivalent to saying that the one like a son of man is rightful heir and successor to the divine throne.

You are incorrect in saying that "Son of man" is essentially the same as "Son of God" in this context because there is no reason to think that. The title Son of man is symbolic of the perfect humanity that Jesus represented. The title Son of God defines the relationship of Jesus with His Father. Baha'is recognize the Sonship of Jesus as unique to Jesus but the title Son of man is not unique to Jesus.

Son of God and Son of Man.

In the previously quoted passage Baháu'lláh appears to specifically affirm the title 'Son of Man (or 'Son of Humanity, as some modern Christian theologians prefer to translate it) as referring to Jesus. Baháu'lláh does not say what the term means, and Christian tradition has been fairly vague about the terms meaning. It ultimately comes from the Book of Daniel, where it refers to the Messiah, and is frequently used in the Gospels as a title of Jesus. Presumably the title is symbolic of the perfect humanity that Jesus represented.

Although the Bahá'í writings say nothing about the title 'Son of God (or 'only begotten Son of God, [John 3:16]) there is much that can be said about it from a Bahá'í perspective. 'Son of God is an extremely important title of Jesus for Christians, so much so that in the minds of many Christians 'Son of God' defines the relationship of Jesus with His Father.

Jesus Christ in the Bahá'í Writings

 

[Spartan]

You are correct, it is functionally equivalent to saying that the one like a son of man is rightful heir and successor to the divine throne.

You are incorrect in saying that "Son of man" is essentially the same as "Son of God" in this context because there is no reason to think that. The title Son of man is symbolic of the perfect humanity that Jesus represented.

There's more to it than that.

"The high priest said to him, ‘I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.’ ‘Yes, it is as you say,’ Jesus replied. ‘But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.’ Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, ‘He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?’ ‘He is worthy of death,’ they answered." (Matthew 26:63-66)

Jesus also understood the Son of Man to exist prior to His human birth:

No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. (John 3:13)

So Jesus is no mere "perfect" human. In fact, Jesus is Jehovah God (numerous scriptural examples in the link / article below).

Jesus Must be Jehovah

 

[Trailblazer]

There's more to it than that.

"The high priest said to him, ‘I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.’ ‘Yes, it is as you say,’ Jesus replied. ‘But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.’ Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, ‘He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?’ ‘He is worthy of death,’ they answered." (Matthew 26:63-66)

Please note that Jesus did not answer in the affirmative affirming that He was the Son of God, nor did Jesus say you will see me sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven. Jesus did not say that because He was not planning to return to earth (as per John 17:4 and John 17:11). We would see another perfect man who was the return of the Son of man (the return of the Christ spirit).

So Jesus is no mere "perfect" human. In fact, Jesus is Jehovah God (numerous scriptural examples in the link / article below).

Jesus Must be Jehovah

Jesus is more than a perfect human, and Jesus is more than human, but Jesus is not God.
Jesus is a Manifestation of God.

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

You can't get it any plainer than that. Jesus was a Manifestation of God, which means He was not God incarnate. It means that God manifested Himself in the flesh

Jesus also understood the Son of Man to exist prior to His human birth:

No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. (John 3:13)

As a Manifestation of God, Jesus was pre-existent in the spiritual world; so yes, the spirit of Jesus was in heaven before His body was born from the womb of Mary.

(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)

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Once again, the answer to those objections is simple: Christian theology teaches that Jesus will fulfill the remaining prophecies during his Second Coming. So the objection is premature.

Messiah ben Joseph is a Rabbinical idea. First, he is supposed to be of the tribe of Ephraim, which Jesus made no claim to be. Second, he will help rebuild the Temple, and the Temple was not even destroyed in Jesus' day.

Sorry, but there is nothing in the Tanakh about two comings. You either fulfill all the prophecies when you come and you are the Messiah, or you don't and you are a fraud.

Think about it. I could claim I am the Messiah, and that I will fulfill the prophecies the next time I come. ANYONE could claim they are the Messiah and that they will fulfill the prophecies the next time they come. It's just a ridiculous notion.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

you say ...no

and how do you know that?

you complain the Christians did harm unto the Jews

did they not believe it should be done?

Are YOU claiming that God spoke to the Americans about manifest destiny?

Are YOU claiming that God spoke to the Chrisitans to kill the Jews?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I was not implying that the end of the sacrifices ended rituals as that's certainly not the case. But what it did do was to take the emphasis from the Temple observance and put it into Torah. Thus, the 2nd Temple period was really somewhat different than what was done during the 1st Temple period, which turn became more different after 70 c.e. The Pharisees and the Essenes were well equipped for the post-Temple period but not so much the Sadducees.

So, what I'm saying is that it's not an either/or dichotomy, but more of a transition that put increasing emphasis on Torah and Halacha. I hardly think that a person living in the 1st Temple period would feel comfortable in the post-Temple period. He probably would look and exclaim "Say whaaat???", or something like that.

Where some would be uncomfortable with Temple sacrifices today, imo, is a putting of more emphasis on the Temple sacrifices at the potential expense of Torah, plus I know some simply have no desire to have animal sacrifices reintroduced.

Anyhow, how do you see it?

I think you are right about this. There are some in Judaism that are still very much in favor of the building of the third Temple, but there are also those who feel no need. I don't think you could say that in the period of the Babylonian captivity. But then again, I wasn't there.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Just because a view is objective that does not mean it is correct.
Who revealed that chapter of Isaiah?
Who else except Isaiah could really know what that chapter was supposed to refer to?
How could anyone else know for sure?
We all have our beliefs.

An objective view is much, much more valuable than a view with a bias.

 

[Trailblazer]

An objective view is much, much more valuable than a view with a bias.

That's true..... and that is what I keep telling this atheist who read a book about the Baha'i Faith written by a Christian, as if THAT could EVER be objective.

The problem is that there are not a lot of books written about a new religion like the Baha'i Faith that are objective... They are either distorted views based upon ignorance, or outright calumny, or they are books written by Baha'is. Of course, the most accurate source of information about any religion comes from the followers of that religion, not from its enemies.

 

[Spartan]

Sorry, but there is nothing in the Tanakh about two comings. You either fulfill all the prophecies when you come and you are the Messiah, or you don't and you are a fraud.

Sorry, there's nothing in the Tanakh that says the Messiah only comes once. Two places in the Tanakh (Isaiah 53 and Daniel 9 - both of which have rabbis saying they're about the Messiah) have the Messiah killed before he sets up his kingdom. So those demand a 2nd coming. So the problem is your bogus claims.

 

[Spartan]

Jesus is more than a perfect human, and Jesus is more than human, but Jesus is not God.

Yes, Jesus is God. He's prophesied to be God; he claimed to be God; and others called him God.

Jesus Must be Jehovah God - Jesus Must be Jehovah

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Sorry, there's nothing in the Tanakh that says the Messiah only comes once. Two places in the Tanakh (Isaiah 53 and Daniel 9 - both of which have rabbis saying they're about the Messiah) have the Messiah killed before he sets up his kingdom. So those demand a 2nd coming. So the problem is your bogus claims.

which verse in Daniel? Isaiah 53 isn't even about the messiah -- its about Israel.

 

[Spartan]

which verse in Daniel? Isaiah 53 isn't even about the messiah -- its about Israel.

Can't believe those responses. And I've already covered both of those in previous posts. Sorry you missed them.

 

[Thief]

Are YOU claiming that God spoke to the Americans about manifest destiny?

Are YOU claiming that God spoke to the Chrisitans to kill the Jews?

not my claim

but the white men went chasing the savage heathens
and the Jews seem to think they are under the gun

you seem to think so

 

[Thief]

so...back to topic....

anyone think?....the Carpenter of Nazareth has a handle on all of this?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Can't believe those responses. And I've already covered both of those in previous posts. Sorry you missed them.

Then you already have my answer.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

not my claim

but the white men went chasing the savage heathens
and the Jews seem to think they are under the gun

you seem to think so

I'm asking you what your position is, and to defend it.

 

[Spartan]

Then you already have my answer.

OK, thanks for the debate!

 

[Thief]

I'm asking you what your position is, and to defend it.

not required

observation in play

 

[Thief]

I reiterate...

so...back to topic....

anyone think?....the Carpenter of Nazareth has a handle on all of this?

 

[metis]

I don't think you could say that in the period of the Babylonian captivity.

No doubt as making such a drastic transition from the status quo certainly ain't gonna be easy. We gotta remember that back then the canon was centuries away from being compiled and agreed upon. Torah was probably viewed as more being history than scripture at first.

But then again, I wasn't there.

And here I thought you were so much more mature.