The Second Coming

[paarsurrey]

The Second Coming

As I understand Jesus did not die on the Cross, therefore:

1. Jesus never resurrected from the dead
2. and he never ascended to heavens some 40 days after the event of Cross from Galilee.

Jesus took refuge , as per Quran:

1. in an elevated land with fountains and died there natural death much after the event of Cross.
2. Jesus is, therefore, not to come physically and literally.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908- the Promised Messiah/Imam Mahdi has come being in likeness of Jesus son of Mary who never was, as Quran mentions:

1. Son of god or god literally and physically
2. but believer of ONENESS of G-d being a follower of Moses.
3. never was part of any Trinity as Paul/Church had Christianity people to believe .

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908- the Promised Messiah/Imam Mahdi, is a Successor of Muhammad and his follower and follower of Quran and Sunnah of Muhammad. He has brought no new religion. Right, please?

Regards
__________
[23:51]وَ جَعَلۡنَا ابۡنَ مَرۡیَمَ وَ اُمَّہٗۤ اٰیَۃً وَّ اٰوَیۡنٰہُمَاۤ اِلٰی رَبۡوَۃٍ ذَاتِ قَرَارٍ وَّ مَعِیۡنٍ ﴿٪۵۱﴾
And We made the son of Mary and his mother a Sign, and gave them refuge on an elevated land of green valleys and springs of running
water.
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 23: Al-Mu'minun
[3:56]اِذۡ قَالَ اللّٰہُ یٰعِیۡسٰۤی اِنِّیۡ مُتَوَفِّیۡکَ وَ رَافِعُکَ اِلَیَّ وَ مُطَہِّرُکَ مِنَ الَّذِیۡنَ کَفَرُوۡا وَ جَاعِلُ الَّذِیۡنَ اتَّبَعُوۡکَ فَوۡقَ الَّذِیۡنَ کَفَرُوۡۤا اِلٰی یَوۡمِ الۡقِیٰمَۃِ ۚ ثُمَّ اِلَیَّ مَرۡجِعُکُمۡ فَاَحۡکُمُ بَیۡنَکُمۡ فِیۡمَا کُنۡتُمۡ فِیۡہِ تَخۡتَلِفُوۡنَ ﴿۵۶﴾
When Allah said, ‘O Jesus, I will cause thee to die a natural death and will exalt thee to Myself, and will clear thee from the charges of those who disbelieve, and will place those who follow thee above those who disbelieve, until the Day of Resurrection; then to Me shall be your return, and I will judge between you concerning that wherein you differ.
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 3: Aal-e-`Imran
[24:56]وَعَدَ اللّٰہُ الَّذِیۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡا مِنۡکُمۡ وَ عَمِلُوا الصّٰلِحٰتِ لَیَسۡتَخۡلِفَنَّہُمۡ فِی الۡاَرۡضِ کَمَا اسۡتَخۡلَفَ الَّذِیۡنَ مِنۡ قَبۡلِہِمۡ ۪ وَ لَیُمَکِّنَنَّ لَہُمۡ دِیۡنَہُمُ الَّذِی ارۡتَضٰی لَہُمۡ وَ لَیُبَدِّلَنَّہُمۡ مِّنۡۢ بَعۡدِ خَوۡفِہِمۡ اَمۡنًا ؕ یَعۡبُدُوۡنَنِیۡ لَا یُشۡرِکُوۡنَ بِیۡ شَیۡئًا ؕ وَ مَنۡ کَفَرَ بَعۡدَ ذٰلِکَ فَاُولٰٓئِکَ ہُمُ الۡفٰسِقُوۡنَ ﴿۵۶﴾
Allah has promised to those among you who believe and do good works that He will surely make them Successors in the earth, as He made Successors from among those who were before them; and that He will surely establish for them their religion which He has chosen for them; and that He will surely give them in exchange security and peace after their fear: They will worship Me, and they will not associate anything with Me. Then whoso is ungrateful after that, they will be the rebellious.
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 24: An-Nur

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Hi

Brother. With all due respect, it is not an acceptable response to me. You may worship or revere Bahaullah, and his sons as infallible or how ever you innterpret them so if they say something that maybe absolute word of God for you, but not for me. I am telling this because you must understand that just telling me they said so is not valid for me, it maybe valid for you.

I dont generally like to state faith statements but if even the prophet Muhammed supposedly said something and if I find that particular statement as fallible and invalid due to a scholarly analysis of the text I will definitely reject it and have done so.

Just saying "we believe" is not a good enough argument. To me it sounds like blind faith. That is not to disrespect you, this is why I am in this forum, to discuss and debate.

Hope you understand.

I understand what you are saying.

I see Faith allows an informed reasonable and logical acceptance of what we can not change.

I see time has erased any greater chance that may be had to find evidence so that the Bible may be fully uthenticated as to what Jesus the Christ and all the Prophets have said.

Then I can consider the Bounty contained within the Quran, it is the Word of God and corrects many misunderstandings made by Jews and Christians about Biblical concepts. To me the Quran shows the Word from Allah given by past Messengers was recorded correctly, but misunderstood by later generations.

Then my acceptance of the Bab and Baha'u'llah from an in depth analysis of what they have offered, allows me to embrace both the Bible and Quran as being reliable source of the Word given by Allah.

With other scriptures, I am also able to embrace all that is good from them, as when we look at all that is recorded, it becomes clearer and clearer, as to what is from Allah and what is from our own selves.

Regards Tony

 

[shmogie]

The verses seem as clear to me as they do to you, yet we see different meanings. Every eye has seen Jesus meaning we are all perceived His presence. It is clear and obvious as the noon day sun. His Message being of Divine Origins spread like lightening through the regions. The clouds upon which Christ appeared denote loftiness and heavenly. They also refer to the obscuring traditions of the peoples of the day, particularly Christ's own peoples and the rigid interpretations they applied to the Hebrew verses as they rejected Him. "How can this man be like King David and deliver us from the oppression of the Romans"? would be the view of the religious leaders who eventually had Him put to death.

In law, one of the rules of evidence is called "the best evidence rule¨. This simply means in the case of a document, the best evidence isn´t what someone thinks the document says, but rather, it is the document itself and what it says.

In Biblical exegesis, symbolism is clearly denoted as such, or is in a context where symbolism is expected, i.e, visions and prophecy. Factual historical narratives are not symbolic unless there is an indication of such.

So, the best evidence is literally what the verses say, since there is absolutely no indication of symbolism.

The best exegesis is that Christ said and the Apostles wrote EXACTLY what would occur.

Every eye means every eye, and the clouds maen the clouds not some esoteric symbol designed to fit the words in to another system trying to hybridize and marginalize the literal truth.

The Bible also say that the devil( a literal, powerful, spirit being) devises cunningly designed fables that are so good, that if they could, they would even fool the elect. The elect are Christians who are in harmony with the Father and the Son, the Bible says so, and it isn´t symbolic.

You are not of the elect. You follow a cunningly designed fable of unholy amalgamations of truth and satanic lies. You have been fooled.

You could change that, it is literally a choice between life or death. You are on the path of eternal death.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

In law, one of the rules of evidence is called "the best evidence rule¨. This simply means in the case of a document, the best evidence isn´t what someone thinks the document says, but rather, it is the document itself and what it says.

In Biblical exegesis, symbolism is clearly denoted as such, or is in a context where symbolism is expected, i.e, visions and prophecy. Factual historical narratives are not symbolic unless there is an indication of such.

So, the best evidence is literally what the verses say, since there is absolutely no indication of symbolism.

The best exegesis is that Christ said and the Apostles wrote EXACTLY what would occur.

Every eye means every eye, and the clouds maen the clouds not some esoteric symbol designed to fit the words in to another system trying to hybridize and marginalize the literal truth.

The Bible also say that the devil( a literal, powerful, spirit being) devises cunningly designed fables that are so good, that if they could, they would even fool the elect. The elect are Christians who are in harmony with the Father and the Son, the Bible says so, and it isn´t symbolic.

You are not of the elect. You follow a cunningly designed fable of unholy amalgamations of truth and satanic lies. You have been fooled.

You could change that, it is literally a choice between life or death. You are on the path of eternal death.

I am happy for you to be the elect.

I am ever so happy to choose eternal death, over that perceived version of elect.

Regards Tony

 

[shmogie]

I am happy for you to be the elect.

I am ever so happy to choose eternal death, over that perceived version of elect.

Regards Tony

I didn´t say I was of the elect, did I ? What perceived version is that ? That Christ was exactly who He said He was, and those who by faith accept Him as such, and through the power of the Holy Spirit manifest a life following Christś teachings, are of the elect ?? That is the only version.

You would rather be eternally dead than accept that ?

 

[shmogie]

The Second Coming

As I understand Jesus did not die on the Cross, therefore:

1. Jesus never resurrected from the dead
2. and he never ascended to heavens some 40 days after the event of Cross from Galilee.

Jesus took refuge , as per Quran:

1. in an elevated land with fountains and died there natural death much after the event of Cross.
2. Jesus is, therefore, not to come physically and literally.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908- the Promised Messiah/Imam Mahdi has come being in likeness of Jesus son of Mary who never was, as Quran mentions:

1. Son of god or god literally and physically
2. but believer of ONENESS of G-d being a follower of Moses.
3. never was part of any Trinity as Paul/Church had Christianity people to believe .

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908- the Promised Messiah/Imam Mahdi, is a Successor of Muhammad and his follower and follower of Quran and Sunnah of Muhammad. He has brought no new religion. Right, please?

Regards
__________
[23:51]وَ جَعَلۡنَا ابۡنَ مَرۡیَمَ وَ اُمَّہٗۤ اٰیَۃً وَّ اٰوَیۡنٰہُمَاۤ اِلٰی رَبۡوَۃٍ ذَاتِ قَرَارٍ وَّ مَعِیۡنٍ ﴿٪۵۱﴾
And We made the son of Mary and his mother a Sign, and gave them refuge on an elevated land of green valleys and springs of running
water.
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 23: Al-Mu'minun
[3:56]اِذۡ قَالَ اللّٰہُ یٰعِیۡسٰۤی اِنِّیۡ مُتَوَفِّیۡکَ وَ رَافِعُکَ اِلَیَّ وَ مُطَہِّرُکَ مِنَ الَّذِیۡنَ کَفَرُوۡا وَ جَاعِلُ الَّذِیۡنَ اتَّبَعُوۡکَ فَوۡقَ الَّذِیۡنَ کَفَرُوۡۤا اِلٰی یَوۡمِ الۡقِیٰمَۃِ ۚ ثُمَّ اِلَیَّ مَرۡجِعُکُمۡ فَاَحۡکُمُ بَیۡنَکُمۡ فِیۡمَا کُنۡتُمۡ فِیۡہِ تَخۡتَلِفُوۡنَ ﴿۵۶﴾
When Allah said, ‘O Jesus, I will cause thee to die a natural death and will exalt thee to Myself, and will clear thee from the charges of those who disbelieve, and will place those who follow thee above those who disbelieve, until the Day of Resurrection; then to Me shall be your return, and I will judge between you concerning that wherein you differ.
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 3: Aal-e-`Imran
[24:56]وَعَدَ اللّٰہُ الَّذِیۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡا مِنۡکُمۡ وَ عَمِلُوا الصّٰلِحٰتِ لَیَسۡتَخۡلِفَنَّہُمۡ فِی الۡاَرۡضِ کَمَا اسۡتَخۡلَفَ الَّذِیۡنَ مِنۡ قَبۡلِہِمۡ ۪ وَ لَیُمَکِّنَنَّ لَہُمۡ دِیۡنَہُمُ الَّذِی ارۡتَضٰی لَہُمۡ وَ لَیُبَدِّلَنَّہُمۡ مِّنۡۢ بَعۡدِ خَوۡفِہِمۡ اَمۡنًا ؕ یَعۡبُدُوۡنَنِیۡ لَا یُشۡرِکُوۡنَ بِیۡ شَیۡئًا ؕ وَ مَنۡ کَفَرَ بَعۡدَ ذٰلِکَ فَاُولٰٓئِکَ ہُمُ الۡفٰسِقُوۡنَ ﴿۵۶﴾
Allah has promised to those among you who believe and do good works that He will surely make them Successors in the earth, as He made Successors from among those who were before them; and that He will surely establish for them their religion which He has chosen for them; and that He will surely give them in exchange security and peace after their fear: They will worship Me, and they will not associate anything with Me. Then whoso is ungrateful after that, they will be the rebellious.
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 24: An-Nur

Sorry, but what you understand is dead wrong. Those who documented the events were there, they observed them. What they wrote is literally true, Christ died, and arose from the dead after three days.

Mohammed wandered on to the scene 600 years after the events. His narrative is based upon what occurred in his brain, absolutely nothing more.

He borrowed from the Jews from their 2500 years of being Gods primary people, and the revelation and truth of the Messiah from those who knew him, and wrote of him and his teachings.

A voice in Mohammeds head was the icing on the cake. a dry, bitter, faux cake in place of the true glorious one. Enjoy.

 

[Link]

Jesus appeared to die like he was in the grave 3 days, what Quran means, is it appeared like he was dead but in fact, his spirit stated in this world and God healed his body, so he didn't die in this sense. To die is to leave this world and leave it! Jesus appeared to be crucified, but 3 days later, he is alive.

 

[Link]

The Gospels are over all protected from God like Quran, that is why Quran says "and believe in the book that was revealed before you".

 

[Link]

Sorry, but what you understand is dead wrong. Those who documented the events were there, they observed them. What they wrote is literally true, Christ died, and arose from the dead after three days.

Mohammed wandered on to the scene 600 years after the events. His narrative is based upon what occurred in his brain, absolutely nothing more.

He borrowed from the Jews from their 2500 years of being Gods primary people, and the revelation and truth of the Messiah from those who knew him, and wrote of him and his teachings.

A voice in Mohammeds head was the icing on the cake. a dry, bitter, faux cake in place of the true glorious one. Enjoy.

One rule per Quran is only take God and his books and his chosen ones as reliable ways to know the truth about God and his religion and authorities regarding it.

Everyone else, is suspect including myself!

 

[TransmutingSoul]

In Biblical exegesis, symbolism is clearly denoted as such, or is in a context where symbolism is expected, i.e, visions and prophecy. Factual historical narratives are not symbolic unless there is an indication of such.

So, the best evidence is literally what the verses say, since there is absolutely no indication of symbolism.

That version Biblical exegesis speaks for itself, a literal interpretation, of a spiritual Message.

Regards Tony

 

[Dawnofhope]

the analogy was not about your belief and smoking, the example was to explain to you what a Tu Quoque fallacy is.

You want me to give another example of what a tu quoque fallacy is?

Q: You believe in a prophecy in a book you dont know who wrote?
A: You believe in one too.

Brother. Thats another example of a Tu Quoque fallacy. If you try a bit, maybe you will understand.

Cheers.

I understand what a Tu Quoque fallacy is. It has its place but can easily be used to defend hypocrisy as well as both moral and logical inconsistency. What I understand is you want to criticise the views of Christians, Baha’is and anyone else yet claim the right to have your own position undeclared. In fact if someone rightly calls you out you label their views irrelevant. As far as I’m concerned no one on this forum is afforded the luxury of being able to criticise others while remaining immune from criticism themselves. No one.

 

[CG Didymus]

The proofs however are clear for Christ and Muhammad. A text that provides an account of Their Life and Teachings as well as the community upon which those teachings are founded.

Except where the text says things that Baha'i don't believe in like Satan, walking on water and rising from the dead.

Having accepted the Gospels, the text is clear enough about Jesus the Christ being a Messiah that fulfils prophecy from the Hebrew Bible

Have you read the arguments given by Jews as to why they don't believe Jesus fulfilled the prophecies?

Who wrote the Olivet discourse?

The authors of the synoptic Gospels.

But you believe in its prophecies, though you dont know who authored them?

Great back and forth. But Adrian, you have used the argument that the writers were not eyewitnesses before. Now you're talking as if the gospels are accurate, but Baha'is don't believe they are necessarily accurate I thought? Oh, and who is the "Son of Man" because that is who is said to be coming back in the Olivet discourse? Christians seem to think that is Jesus. So how do Baha'is make Baha'u'llah or The Bab into not only the "Glory of God" and "The Lamb that was Slain", but now Baha'u'llah has to be shown to be the "Son of Man" too. Or, did those gospel writers get it wrong?

What is the definition of "authentic"? Jesus did not write it down, so it's the perfect blend of "hearsay" + "indoctrination" + ....

That is the best definition I've ever heard.

To me the Quran shows the Word from Allah given by past Messengers was recorded correctly, but misunderstood by later generations.

Recorded correctly? Like the resurrection story. It was recorded correctly but foolish Christians misunderstood it to be literal.

In Biblical exegesis, symbolism is clearly denoted as such, or is in a context where symbolism is expected, i.e, visions and prophecy. Factual historical narratives are not symbolic unless there is an indication of such.

I've heard Baha'is claim that because Jesus spoke in parables that all of the gospel stories are parables. They don't and can't see it as literal, because then Jesus is the one coming back. But... with a symbolic interpretation, they can make a reasonable case for their guy, Baha'u'llah. And, in their defense, it sure seems like Christians have done the same thing to Judaism.

 

[firedragon]

I understand what a Tu Quoque fallacy is. It has its place but can easily be used to defend hypocrisy as well as both moral and logical inconsistency. What I understand is you want to criticise the views of Christians, Baha’is and anyone else yet claim the right to have your own position undeclared. In fact if someone rightly calls you out you label their views irrelevant. As far as I’m concerned no one on this forum is afforded the luxury of being able to criticise others while remaining immune from criticism themselves. No one.

You are doing your best to avoid answering questions by discrediting the questioner with what ever logical fallacy or anything you could do. Great going. Thanks for the response.

 

[Dawnofhope]

In law, one of the rules of evidence is called "the best evidence rule¨. This simply means in the case of a document, the best evidence isn´t what someone thinks the document says, but rather, it is the document itself and what it says.

In Biblical exegesis, symbolism is clearly denoted as such, or is in a context where symbolism is expected, i.e, visions and prophecy. Factual historical narratives are not symbolic unless there is an indication of such.

So, the best evidence is literally what the verses say, since there is absolutely no indication of symbolism.

The best exegesis is that Christ said and the Apostles wrote EXACTLY what would occur.

In my experience some Christians struggle to understand their own sacred scriptures attributing fanciful literal meanings whereas the symbolism is clear. This is particularly true with a style of writing known as apocalyptic. Here’s a couple of verses where the literal meanings will be impossible. How do you understand them?

Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
Matthew 24:29

The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.
They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.
Isaiah 11:6-9

Unless you want to believe stars can literally fall to earth or animals that have inherent aversion to each other can reside in harmony alternative explanations are necessary.

Every eye means every eye, and the clouds maen the clouds not some esoteric symbol designed to fit the words in to another system trying to hybridize and marginalize the literal truth.

However, every eye in the context of Luke 3:4-6 clearly refers to Christ after John the Baptist, not the second coming. You also have clear allusion and allegory that refers to John the Baptist and the consequences of following Jesus, unless you want to believe every road is literally straightened and all earth is made level.

As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough ways shall be made smooth;
And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.
Luke 3:4-6

The Bible also say that the devil( a literal, powerful, spirit being) devises cunningly designed fables that are so good, that if they could, they would even fool the elect. The elect are Christians who are in harmony with the Father and the Son, the Bible says so, and it isn´t symbolic.

You have already admitted you are not of the elect in another post. So unless you want to claim special status or knowledge of the Bible just because you are a Christian, let’s have a reasoned discussion about scriptures we both believe in yet in some instances will interpret differently.

You are not of the elect. You follow a cunningly designed fable of unholy amalgamations of truth and satanic lies. You have been fooled.

Only God knows our hearts and who is of the elect. It is not for us to judge each other. Matthew 7:1-4

You could change that, it is literally a choice between life or death. You are on the path of eternal death.

Once again, its for Christ to judge my soul, not you. Matthew 25:31-46

 

[Dawnofhope]

I certainly share the view "Divinely inspired"
So, you see, "stvdv inspired post" easily leads to doubts about what stvdv meant

The word "inspired" in "Divinely inspired" implies errors can be there. "written down by the Divine" would not have these human errors; unless human translated.

I accept the Gospels as Divinely inspired. Common Sense tells that "Human `non-Divine-inspired` editing/adding can still be done IMO

Thanks for sharing how you understand the Gospels.

I thought Bahaullah came, because some update was urgently needed. Some major errors were addressed, if I remember well. That is what I meant.

That is correct.

What is the definition of "authentic"? Jesus did not write it down, so it's the perfect blend of "hearsay" + "indoctrination" + ....

The words I’d use are similar to biblical scholars where the Teachings of Jesus was passed down through oral traditions before eventually being written down. As the Gospels were most likely written between 66 and 100 AD it would have been a fair reflection of the words used by Jesus though unlikely His exact words. I agree there was some embellished story telling and the resurrection narrative (an allegorical story) most likely has its origins with the apostle Paul. Indoctrination occurs when individuals such as you and I are prevented from considering the Bible and independently investigating the truth for ourselves.

My Master made it very clear, how important it is to live in the "present moment", not dwell in the past of fantasize about the future
These Christians fantasize about the future a lot. Even Sai Baba said that He will come again. But also warning us "don't wait for that, live NOW"

I agree with living in the present moment. However the narrative about Jesus coming again is there for a reason. So while I agree that imagination can run rampant when considering a future apocalypse, we also need to better understand and be able to explain the Christian scriptures to our Christian brothers.

 

[Dawnofhope]

You are doing your best to avoid answering questions by discrediting the questioner with what ever logical fallacy or anything you could do. Great going. Thanks for the response.

Not at all. I’m happy to explain my beliefs to others and examine the Baha’i position. In regards the authors of the synoptic Gospels, I look towards modern biblical scholarship. There is no agreement about who authored these books. Traditional explanations still held by the evangelicals are most likely incorrect.

 

[firedragon]

Not at all. I’m happy to explain my beliefs to others and examine the Baha’i position. In regards the authors of the synoptic Gospels, I look towards modern biblical scholarship. There is no agreement about who authored these books. Traditional explanations still held by the evangelicals are most likely incorrect.

Alright, in that case, how do you authenticate your belief in the Olivet Prophecies? How do you make a thesis that it is definitely the prophecies laid out by Jesus Christ himself?

 

[wizanda]

With other scriptures, I am also able to embrace all that is good from them

This summarizes where I find the Baha'i eisegetical, as they're only looking for what is good in the text, and they don't realize the Bible says it is an evil book to catch out the demons...

Thus reading it as a good book shows a lack of moral compass... Which again is what is prophesied (Isaiah 8, Zechariah 5, Isaiah 29:9-14), to see who sees their own wickedness in a time of ungodliness.

In my opinion.

 

[sooda]

Sorry, but what you understand is dead wrong. Those who documented the events were there, they observed them. What they wrote is literally true, Christ died, and arose from the dead after three days.

Mohammed wandered on to the scene 600 years after the events. His narrative is based upon what occurred in his brain, absolutely nothing more.

He borrowed from the Jews from their 2500 years of being Gods primary people, and the revelation and truth of the Messiah from those who knew him, and wrote of him and his teachings.

A voice in Mohammeds head was the icing on the cake. a dry, bitter, faux cake in place of the true glorious one. Enjoy.

Lots of characters in the Bible had visions and voices in their heads.

 

[sooda]

Alright, in that case, how do you authenticate your belief in the Olivet Prophecies? How do you make a thesis that it is definitely the prophecies laid out by Jesus Christ himself?

The proper context of the Olivet Discourse is the desolation of the temple, not the end times.