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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Well if we're not going to go by what the Bible says then fine. But what could it mean if there are still wars and rumors of wars other then... it is not yet the end? Since we know the gospel writers wrote this long after, and could easily have put the words into Jesus' mouth... Why don't we just call the gospels a bunch of hooey? Including the supposed "virgin" birth... and the resurrection?
No, the tension is there. It's left over from how people used to be. Theoretically, Baha'is should be moving away from that. But, in the mean time, Baha'is are not perfect. And that includes those that get into positions of power and authority. Maybe they are right or maybe they don't want people coming into the Faith and rocking the boat. And they could have good reasons for that, and they could also have selfish reasons for that. Anyway, I'm going to read the whole article and see if there are places where I think the writer went too far.
But in Acts in also says that Jesus showed himself to be alive. As a religion that believes in Christianity and believes in the New Testament, I would think that Baha'is would be okay with everything it says. But, they aren't. Since I don't have to support any part of it, I'm okay with some of the things not being true. I don't need people coming out of their graves, God speaking from heaven, demons getting cast out of people, Jesus walking on water and rising from the dead. It all makes a great story. But a true, historically accurate story?
You know similar to what James says that he'll show his faith by his works. That is a person says the have faith but doesn't have the works, that faith is dead.
Then why not just say that the Baha'i position on the resurrection of Jesus is that you don't know? Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't That it doesn't matter to Baha'is. But that is not what Abdul Baha says, "The resurrections of the Divine Manifestations are not of the body."
Ah, because they only use on verse and ignore the others. Again, if Jesus "fulfilled" this sign, then when he got old enough to know right from wrong which two kings that were threatening to attack Judah and King Ahaz died? The two kings died back in Isaiah's time. Plus, the problem with the Hebrew word being translated as "virgin". Isn't it important to check the original language sometimes and make sure it was translated correctly?
And how many times have I asked how they can be used as a fulfillment of a prophecy for someone who is going to declare himself the forerunner to the promised one in Persia when they happened thousands of miles away and several years before? The Lisbon earthquake, 1755. The Dark Day, 1780. The Falling Stars, 1833.
Why would I believe an article written by Anonymous? I am sure there are other ways you can check Sears' book yourself if it is important to you. But even if Sears made some errors that does not mean he was wrong about the prophecies that were fulfilled by Baha'u'llah. These nit-picky things are really of little import, they are just a way that some people want to discredit Sears. Sears never claimed to be a Bible scholar, but he did his research and uncovered the truth, as any good investigator does.
The Baha'i position is not "we don't know" because of what Abdu'l-Baha said.
Baha'is do believe some religions have been false don't they? But who's going to follow them if they don't have something that "proves" they are correct?
Christians and Jews have been fighting over the virgin birth for years. On another forum I used to frequent there was a discussion that had over 30,000 posts between a Christian and a Jew and they argued about the virgin birth constantly. Even if it does translate to young woman in Hebrew, that young woman could have been a virgin, so the Jews lost that argument if they want to claim that Jesus was not a Prophet.
So Baha'is don't believe the other religions have it wrong. But then you say that the other religions have some things wrong. And what are those "some" things? Ah, yes, what ever disagrees with what the Baha'i Faith believes.
Why would it matter where these events took place? This is what I mean by nit-picking. The Bible does not say where or when these events would take place, only that they would take place in the last days and BEFORE the coming of the Son of man.
So Isaiah was written several hundred years before Jesus. Do you think they already had an interpretation of those verses? Do you think the "sign" given by Isaiah to King Ahaz was fulfilled? Did you read the Jewish interpretation I posted? What do you disagree with?
I really don't know because there is too much I w-don't know about the Bible, but I do know that Jesus was born of a Virgin and that is why the verse seems to be about Jesus. I cannot say about the rest of that Chapter and all the characters that appear in Jewish history as I don't know biblical history.
Okay, one thing... is Bill Sears infallible? Because he said these events were the very events that fulfilled these prophecies, so that means they are? Or, it's just his opinion?