A Christian believes --------------------------------?

[Sumadji]

and scholarship from those who have studied history and the Bible.

But probably not where it is contrary to Baha'i writings so ...

 

[Trailblazer]

But probably not where it is contrary to Baha'i writings so ...

In most cases scholarship from those who have studied history and the Bible is not contrary to the Baha'i Writings.
However, if scholarship is contrary to the Baha'i Writings I would believe the Baha'i Writings over scholarship.

For example, if scholarship determined that the Virgin Birth never took place, I would not believe that, since the Baha'i Writings say it took place.

 

[Balthazzar]

And this is the issue? Who decides? Does science decide, or scholarship, or history? Does faith decide? Do you decide for yourself? Do you just accept what your messengers and teachers tell you?

Islam, and so also Baha'i doctrine, accepts the virgin birth but not the resurrection though endorsing the ascension. Baha'i accepts the miracle worker Jesus but rejects the miracle of Lazarus raised from death.

What's the yardstick for deciding what's true and what's not?

The yard stick, in my opinion, would be in the presence of evidence. We call a portion of this substantiated hope. Aka faith, the substance of things hoped for and evidence of that not seen. The evidence would be a long-standing history and acceptance, the substance would be in what we understand about life and how it operates. The miracles are debatable, but Mary lived, Joseph lived, Jesus was born and lived and did many great things while on earth. Mary was a maiden, Joseph became her husband, and they hid the incident (pregnancy) from their community. Lazarus was a leper, an outcast, and lived in a cave, and also counted among those who were dead, meaning they had no welcome in society and dead to the community they resided in.

I decided to honor this explanation as opposed to the others floating around that don't seem to jibe well with what we know about life and reality.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Clearly you are motivated to express your thoughts antagonistically.

No, I'm not looking for a fight. But when it comes to people hurting each other, I do tend to be unabashedly frank.

 

[Brian2]

They didn't die, God expelled them from the garden, because he was afraid that they would eat from the Tree of Life and live forever.

Yep God made sure that they did not live forever, that they would die.

This makes no sense, first of all, that is not what the story says.

If they didn't have any idea or concept of what good and evil are, then they can't be introduced to it. We are not talking about a skill like math here.
You could compare it to saying that God introduced a blind person to seeing. If the person is blind they do not see.
Besides that, if we go with the idea that God wanted them to learn, then he should have let them eat from the tree and then explained it to them when they knew what it was.

You seem to be assuming that it was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil which made humans into moral beings.
We are talking about human being who have always been moral creatures, made in the image of God and capable of knowing and doing good and evil. God introduced them to just one thing, eating the fruit or not. That was a good start to learning about good and evil and the consequences of both.

He did change his mind because he saw how corrupt these people had gotten and he killed all of them except Noah and his family as we know. That is what God say in the verses I quoted.

God knows what He will ultimately do but God does not do the ultimate thing first off. If I am a good boy and love God and love my neighbour for 10 years then God does not condemn me while I am being good even if He knows that after that I am going to start murdering and raping and pillaging. God is happy with me when I am good and not happy with me when I am not good. God knew that He would eventually send a flood and that He would kill many people in that flood. God knew that He would eventually exile Israel and Judah. God knows that He will eventually judge all nations and that some people will receive harsh judgements. There is a time for every purpose and when King Saul was doing the right things God was happy with him even though He knew that He would eventually be unhappy with Saul and kick him off the throne of Israel.

I think I got it correct?

The Holy Trinity is the belief that God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one in the same. Each of them has a role and exist as three entities, but they ultimately comprise one main entity.

That looks more like Modalism.

That doesn't change that it is an odd will the father has. That this was supposedly the best solution, we have to assume that.

Yes that is just what Christians do, we believe what the Bible tells us.
Maybe there were other ways but Jesus is the way that was chosen.

If that is the case, then maybe humans haven't been taught well enough by God and that might be the issue, rather than getting Jesus crucified, which didn't seem to have solved anything, people still do bad things, there is nothing to suggest that people were worse than before the crucifixion.
The problem as I see it, is that God wants us to aim for being good, yet doesn't seem to be particularly interested in giving us the tools for doing so. And if the Bible was that tool it clearly doesn't work, because a lot of evil is and has been done by believers.

Jesus crucifixion has not magically changed humans into people who do only good. It also has not changed Christians into people who only do good.
Christians who repent of wrong doing are given the tools to do what is right and to be changed over time to reflect more the character of Jesus however.
There are many things that stand in the way of this happening however.

 

[Sumadji]

However, if scholarship is contrary to the Baha'i Writings I would believe the Baha'i Writings over scholarship.

Ah well, belief in the inerrancy of their scripture is the position taken by fundamentalists of any faith. Where the Baha’i writings appear to conflict with other Abrahamic scriptures, it is the Baha’i writings that are correct. Or the followers of those other faiths just don't understand their own scriptures.

Of course fundamentalist Christians and Muslims and Jews hold basically the same belief about their own writings. And then there are all the other Abrahamic faiths including Mandaeism, Samaritanism, Druzism and others too, even Rastafari. To say nothing of all the non-Abrahamic faiths which the Baha’i claim to include.

However, unlike Baha’i who flip around Bible quotes like playing cards, you do appear to have read the New Testament.

Lazarus was a leper, an outcast, and lived in a cave, and also counted among those who were dead, meaning they had no welcome in society and dead to the community they resided in.

But perhaps we have the wrong Lazarus here? Are you referring to the parable of Lazarus and the rich man rather than Lazarus the friend of Jesus, whom Jesus brought back to life?

 

[Balthazzar]

Ah well, belief in the inerrancy of their scripture is the position taken by fundamentalists of any faith. Where the Baha’i writings appear to conflict with other Abrahamic scriptures, it is the Baha’i writings that are correct. Or the followers of those other faiths just don't understand their own scriptures.

Of course fundamentalist Christians and Muslims and Jews hold basically the same belief about their own writings. And then there are all the other Abrahamic faiths including Mandaeism, Samaritanism, Druzism and others too, even Rastafari. To say nothing of all the non-Abrahamic faiths which the Baha’i claim to include.

However, unlike Baha’i who flip around Bible quotes like playing cards, you do appear to have read the New Testament.

But perhaps we have the wrong Lazarus here? Are you referring to the parable of Lazarus and the rich man rather than Lazarus the friend of Jesus, whom Jesus brought back to life?

John 11

 

[Trailblazer]

Ah well, belief in the inerrancy of their scripture is the position taken by fundamentalists of any faith. Where the Baha’i writings appear to conflict with other Abrahamic scriptures, it is the Baha’i writings that are correct. Or the followers of those other faiths just don't understand their own scriptures.

Of course fundamentalist Christians and Muslims and Jews hold basically the same belief about their own writings. And then there are all the other Abrahamic faiths including Mandaeism, Samaritanism, Druzism and others too, even Rastafari. To say nothing of all the non-Abrahamic faiths which the Baha’i claim to include.

The difference between the Baha'i scriptures and the scriptures of all those other faiths is that they are the original writings, penned in the hands of the Bab and Baha'u'llah. No other religion has those. If I had the original writings of Moses, Jesus, or Muhammad I would put the same confidence in them.

However, unlike Baha’i who flip around Bible quotes like playing cards, you do appear to have read the New Testament.

No, I have never read the New Testament cover to cover. I only know what I have read from having to look up verses in order to converse on religious forums. I know the verses that are related to the return of Christ very well since I discuss that topic often. I also know the verses related to the nature of Jesus, since I often discuss whether He was God or not.

But perhaps we have the wrong Lazarus here? Are you referring to the parable of Lazarus and the rich man rather than Lazarus the friend of Jesus, whom Jesus brought back to life?

I am referring to Lazarus the friend of Jesus, whom Jesus 'allegedly' brought back to life.
I have my own interpretation of those verses if you want to see it.

 

[jimb]

The difference between the Baha'i scriptures and the scriptures of all those other faiths is that they are the original writings, penned in the hands of the Bab and Baha'u'llah. No other religion has those. If I had the original writings of Moses, Jesus, or Muhammad I would put the same confidence in them.

No, I have never read the New Testament cover to cover. I only know what I have read from having to look up verses in order to converse on religious forums. I know the verses that are related to the return of Christ very well since I discuss that topic often. I also know the verses related to the nature of Jesus, since I often discuss whether He was God or not.

I am referring to Lazarus the friend of Jesus, whom Jesus 'allegedly' brought back to life.
I have my own interpretation of those verses if you want to see it.

Well, you should read the entire New Testament or, better yet, the entire Bible. Looking up verses (keeping in mind that they are later additions and not part of the text) leads to taking words out of context, which creates distortion of the full message.

I would never accept the opinion of anyone who writes "I have my own interpretation of those verses". Look up "eisegesis" to understand the problem.

 

[jimb]

No, I'm not looking for a fight. But when it comes to people hurting each other, I do tend to be unabashedly frank.

You're joking!!!

You wrote this (with my emphasis added): "I'm not sure what source you are quoting, but all one has to do is look around to know that it's a crock. Christians absolutely do intentionally sin at times. If a Christian pastor seduces the church secretary, how is that an unintentional sin?"

When you write antagonistic phrases such as the above, you clearly are looking for a fight. Claiming that what a person writes is "a crock" is a lot more than being "unabashedly frank".

 

[jimb]

Ah well, belief in the inerrancy of their scripture is the position taken by fundamentalists of any faith. Where the Baha’i writings appear to conflict with other Abrahamic scriptures, it is the Baha’i writings that are correct. Or the followers of those other faiths just don't understand their own scriptures.

Of course fundamentalist Christians and Muslims and Jews hold basically the same belief about their own writings. And then there are all the other Abrahamic faiths including Mandaeism, Samaritanism, Druzism and others too, even Rastafari. To say nothing of all the non-Abrahamic faiths which the Baha’i claim to include.

However, unlike Baha’i who flip around Bible quotes like playing cards, you do appear to have read the New Testament.

But perhaps we have the wrong Lazarus here? Are you referring to the parable of Lazarus and the rich man rather than Lazarus the friend of Jesus, whom Jesus brought back to life?

@Trailblazer, by his own admission, has not read the entire New Testament. He admits to taking verses out of context to prove a point.

 

[Trailblazer]

I would never accept the opinion of anyone who writes "I have my own interpretation of those verses". Look up "eisegesis" to understand the problem.

Tell me why I should accept someone else's interpretation of verses. If Jesus has appointed anyone to interpret the NT I would accept that interpretation, but Jesus did not appoint anyone, which is why Christianity split into so many churches with different beliefs.

Eisegesis means the interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one's own ideas. Everyone who interprets that Bible does that.
Why would one person's interpretation be 'better' than any other?

 

[Kathryn]

Here's the beauty of Christianity.

We've done nothing to earn or warrant God's forgiveness, but He offers it through his Son anyway. We have accepted His Son but only because God drew us to Him. I don't know why, you don't know why, but that's the way it works.

 

[Trailblazer]

@Trailblazer, by his own admission, has not read the entire New Testament. He admits to taking verses out of context to prove a point.

I am a she, and I never take verses out of context. I always read them in context in order to understand what they mean.

 

[Trailblazer]

Here's the beauty of Christianity.

We've done nothing to earn or warrant God's forgiveness, but He offers it through his Son anyway. We have accepted His Son but only because God drew us to Him. I don't know why, you don't know why, but that's the way it works.

It is not only Christianity that accepts His son. The Guardian of the Baha'i Faith wrote:

“As to the position of Christianity, let it be stated without any hesitation or equivocation that its divine origin is unconditionally acknowledged, that the Sonship and Divinity of Jesus Christ are fearlessly asserted, that the divine inspiration of the Gospel is fully recognized, that the reality of the mystery of the Immaculacy of the Virgin Mary is confessed, and the primacy of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, is upheld and defended. The Founder of the Christian Faith is designated by Bahá’u’lláh as the “Spirit of God,” is proclaimed as the One Who “appeared out of the breath of the Holy Ghost,” and is even extolled as the “Essence of the Spirit.” His mother is described as “that veiled and immortal, that most beauteous, countenance,” and the station of her Son eulogized as a “station which hath been exalted above the imaginings of all that dwell on earth,” whilst Peter is recognized as one whom God has caused “the mysteries of wisdom and of utterance to flow out of his mouth.”

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Promised Day Is Come, Pages 108-113

 

[Kathryn]

It is not only Christianity that accepts His son. The Guardian of the Baha'i Faith wrote:

“As to the position of Christianity, let it be stated without any hesitation or equivocation that its divine origin is unconditionally acknowledged, that the Sonship and Divinity of Jesus Christ are fearlessly asserted, that the divine inspiration of the Gospel is fully recognized, that the reality of the mystery of the Immaculacy of the Virgin Mary is confessed, and the primacy of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, is upheld and defended. The Founder of the Christian Faith is designated by Bahá’u’lláh as the “Spirit of God,” is proclaimed as the One Who “appeared out of the breath of the Holy Ghost,” and is even extolled as the “Essence of the Spirit.” His mother is described as “that veiled and immortal, that most beauteous, countenance,” and the station of her Son eulogized as a “station which hath been exalted above the imaginings of all that dwell on earth,” whilst Peter is recognized as one whom God has caused “the mysteries of wisdom and of utterance to flow out of his mouth.”

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Promised Day Is Come, Pages 108-113

All I know is that the post was directed toward Christians so I answered. Being a Christian, you know, and all that.

 

[Trailblazer]

All I know is that the post was directed toward Christians so I answered. Being a Christian, you know, and all that.

I am not sure what post you are referring to, but it's all good.

 

[Kathryn]

I am not sure what post you are referring to, but it's all good.

The title of the thread.

 

[jimb]

I am a she, and I never take verses out of context. I always read them in context in order to understand what they mean.

You can't just select the verses that you want in order to bolster your personal doctrine. You wrote this: "I have never read the New Testament cover to cover. I only know what I have read from having to look up verses in order to converse on religious forums."

The last sentence is particularly troubling. You look up verses in order to converse on religious forums. So, by definition, you do take verses out of context -- with the purpose of stating your (predetermined) belief.

 

[Trailblazer]

You can't just select the verses that you want in order to bolster your personal doctrine.

Then neither can you. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Yet you cite the verse John 10:30 I and the Father are one as proof that Jesus is God.

The last sentence is particularly troubling. You look up verses in order to converse on religious forums. So, by definition, you do take verses out of context -- with the purpose of stating your (predetermined) belief.

I look up verses and I read them in context, in order to understand what they mean.
Did you read John 10:30 in context? If you did, you would know that Jesus is not God.