Christians- How do you know Jesus and the Bible are true?

[loverofhumanity]

Okay, you are free to your beliefs. I am not intent on arguing with you. I have my own beliefs and consider Jesus Christ, the only Son of God to be the only Mediator between humanity and God (1 Timothy 2:5) and the Creator of heaven and earth (Colossians 1:16-17).

I too believe in Jesus as you do. He is my life and my Master and my Saviour and my Beloved. I love Him more than any words can describe and believe His Words are the Word of God.

The only difference between you and I my brother is not belief in Jesus. We are one with regard to that and the Bible.

I just believe that He returned as promised but people missed Him because they misread the signs.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Do Baha'is believe the Bible is the literal word of God? That it is infallible and inerrant and literally true? I don't think Baha'is do. So, something is being rejected... and that is the Bible, in all things, is literally true. It changes a lot of things once Baha'is start making some things in the Bible symbolic. One of the most important things it does is make those that do take it literally... wrong.

And speaking of taking things symbolically... I'll never understand how Baha'is can make three "wows" into Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah but none of the other times "wow" is used in the Bible and NT? What was it about those "wows"? And, as usual, does the context fit? Of course, with more "symbolic" Baha'i interpreting.

You get to see it all as you choose to CG.

If you try to understand what Baha'u'llah offered, then you may also choose to see it in that light.

Regards Tony

 

[Valjean]

Well I'm not asking you to accept what I feel. The question asked how does one know if Jesus and Christianity was true and the way the question is worded leaves it open to interpretation - now I could have said because Christianity exist.

I could have said because God has answered some of my prayers.

I could have said because of what I've seen which cannot be explained.

OK, so you "know" because of personal conviction, experiences and feelings. My point stands. This is entirely subjective, and believers in a hundred other, contradictory faiths, could make the same claim, with equal subjective "evidence."

I could have also said the writings of Tacitus who was a Roman senator and historian wrote of Christus and his followers, who were given the name Christians. And his writings of Pilate and the crucifixion...... Pliny the Younger also has letters he wrote to fellow Romans of Christians and the Roman troubles in dealings with the followers of Christus.
Josephus wrote of Jesus and Christians and beliefs.

And none of these ever met Jesus. They'd heard the gossip, and probably met some Christians, but the fact that Christians existed is evidence only that Christians existed, not that there was a god or that their teachings and stories were true.

I could have said a country as powerful as Rome was in those days forsook the gods they serve and became a Christian nation within 3 hundred years of the resurrection of Christ.

Which is evidence only of the social change that accompanied the dissolution of empire, not that Christian folklore was true.

I know nothing that I say is physical/concrete evidence - and considering your reply that is what the question is all about evidence. Not even scientists try to prove or disprove the existence of God or the truth of any religion because they can't.

Yes, religions rise and fall, with the whims of politics.

OK, so you "know" because of personal conviction and feelings. My point stands. Your evidence is entirely subjective, and believers in a hundred other, contradictory faiths, could make the same claim, with equal subjective "evidence."

 

[Valjean]

No one has similar experiences because Jesus Christ alone conquered death and resurrected. All other founders and/or leaders of other faiths remain dead in their graves.

You're preaching.
These are not facts. They're folklore. All religions have folklore.

 

[Madmogwai]

Christians today have never met Jesus physically yet believe in Him. Why?

If you say you believe in Christ because of the Bible then how do you know the Bible is true?

How do you know Christ and the Bible are true?

What makes you so sure?

First came the Word, which is basically a book written by numerous people and named the Bible, not the word of God or is it.
God has the power to create 2 stone tablets with the Ten Commandments but for some reason he needed numerous men to write the Bible.
The God that created all surely has the ability to make a book appear in his words, complete and signed and ready for distribution as he did the commandments.
The word Faith was strategically created to ensure people follow without a shred of evidence.
The word Blasphemy followed to punish those who lacked faith or intelligently question things.

Abrahamic Religious teachers say, my son I have a Rock in my fist , the student says show me Father, open your hand, the Father says have Faith, I do have one. The Follower is satisfied.
A Buddhist will not be satisfied, he will wait until the hand opens.
We want truth not faith.

 

[Brian2]

This whole area of Baha'i theology sounds like double talk to me and is usually given in language that is not clear and could be taken in more than one way. This is a manner of deception imo.

Christ indicates that the Messengers are of God, as we Know Christ translated means the "Annointed One". Jesus was Annointed with the Holy Spirit. It is the Messengers that are Annointed, the 'Christ'. No other human has this station but the Messengers.

It sounds like you are defining "Christ" as a station. In the Bible the Christ is a person, Jesus, and the return of Christ is the return of that person.
How do you get the "return of Christ" to be a different person?

The Bible offers how we must find the Holy Spirit, we must be born again from the human condition, from the flesh into the Spirit that was Jesus 'Christ', who came in the Station of the Son.

So yes it is the same Spirit in Jesus's and Baha'u'llah, it is the same Spirit that Annointed Krishna, Zoroaster, Moses, Abraham, Buddha, all the Prophets, Muhammad and the Bab.

This Spirit is the same Spirit that is in those Christians who have been born again. It unites with our spirit and makes us into a new creation. But of course Jesus has that Spirit without measure. This Spirit is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God. It sounds like you think that the different Messengers have different measures of this Spirit.
So anyway, you sound as if you are saying that Jesus was anointed by this Spirit to be the Christ as was Baha'u'llah and etc.
So each of them are Christs after they are anointed by that Spirit.
If it is this Spirit which came to and anointed Baha'u'llah to be the return of Christ, how does that work when that Spirit was/is not Christ, Jesus?
It obviously is the Spirit that is what returned and this Spirit does not come in the flesh/become a man and did not become a man when Jesus was anointed at His baptism by this Spirit.
If you want to say that Jesus was the Christ before being anointed at Baptism then you can say that He came in the flesh/became a man.
But of course the Bible clearly states that Jesus would return, how is this covered by what you say without denying it, if indeed you want to say that you believe the Bible?
If the Spirit returned then that is not Jesus, that is not the return of Jesus and is not the return of Christ since the Spirit is not Christ.
I hope you can see your dilemmas. Or is it just my misunderstandings?

The Messengers are eternal. All of them exist as Spiritual Entities in the Light of the the Holy Spirit. All of them are are given of God, born in the flesh to offer a Message from God and return to rule for all time. All their Names are but of One Holy Spirit, given of One God, All of them are the same light. It is God that commissions the Message and the Intensity of that light to Humanity.

So in this age, Christ is Baha’u’llah (Glory of God), God given, in the Station of the Father, Christ has returned, as promised with a New Name, a name that only a few will receive.

Is Baha'u'llah Christ because he has received this Spirit of Christ? Is this Spirit the return of Christ and so is Christ, who does not ever become a human/come in the flesh?

Baha'u'llah offers we are not able to separate the Messengers, to deny Jesus Christ is to deny all the Messengers, to deny Muhammad is to deny Jesus as the Christ, as Muhammad was also Christ, Annointed by God with the Holy Spirit to give a Message to Humanity.

Was the anointing given to Baha'u'llah and to Muhammad who were already Christs before their anointing, or was the anointing for them to become the Christs? (notice I say multiple Christs, not the same one).

This is how we determine a False Prophet, as Jesus's said only a True Prophet can speak from God.

Deuteronomy 18:22 "If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed."

Deut 18:22 it is that a prediction does not come to pass which is the test of a false prophet, and I don't think that it was talking about the Baha'i definition of prophet, it was talking about all prophets, including Amos, Isaiah, Nathan etc.
I don't see how Baha'i, Baha'u'llah's claim to be speaking from God as determining that he was not a false prophet. False prophets claim that.

 

[Brian2]

You're preaching.
These are not facts. They're folklore. All religions have folklore.

Stop preaching your skeptic folklore as if it is fact.

 

[Brian2]

OK, so you "know" because of personal conviction, experiences and feelings. My point stands. This is entirely subjective, and believers in a hundred other, contradictory faiths, could make the same claim, with equal subjective "evidence."

Yes and this is some of the subjective stuff that @SDavis uses.

And none of these ever met Jesus. They'd heard the gossip, and probably met some Christians, but the fact that Christians existed is evidence only that Christians existed, not that there was a god or that their teachings and stories were true.

No these historians, like most historians, probably did not meet Jesus. There are writers in the New Testament who met Jesus if you want that. Presumably neither those who met Him nor those who are independent are any use to you.

Which is evidence only of the social change that accompanied the dissolution of empire, not that Christian folklore was true.

And could be subjective evidence of the power of the gospel message and that God was behind it's spread and acceptance.

Yes, religions rise and fall, with the whims of politics.

OK, so you "know" because of personal conviction and feelings. My point stands. Your evidence is entirely subjective, and believers in a hundred other, contradictory faiths, could make the same claim, with equal subjective "evidence."

No they could not make the same claims, they would make different claims about whatever belief they follow and would believe those things just as you believe and preach about stuff you do not know for sure.

 

[Brian2]

I too believe in Jesus as you do. He is my life and my Master and my Saviour and my Beloved. I love Him more than any words can describe and believe His Words are the Word of God.

The only difference between you and I my brother is not belief in Jesus. We are one with regard to that and the Bible.

I just believe that He returned as promised but people missed Him because they misread the signs.

We also must have misread what Jesus would do and how He could return and that it was going to be the same Jesus who returns etc.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

It sounds like you are defining "Christ" as a station. In the Bible the Christ is a person, Jesus, and the return of Christ is the return of that person.
How do you get the "return of Christ" to be a different person?

One needs to understand that Christ is not a person, but an appellation. The Title Christ is from the Greek word meaning “anointed” or “messiah,” and it was only one of several appellations for Jesus that was used in the early years. Christ, used like a surname, increasingly took on other meanings, only by popular use.

One has to understand that the common use of the word Christ, like a surname, only morphed over hundreds of years, at the same time, Jesus was also being further defined by many other associated doctrines.

Most of this is just interpretation and can be considered as a breach of the warning about adding to scriptures.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

It sounds like you think that the different Messengers have different measures of this Spirit.

They are all One in the Holy Spirit. The intensity of their Light is pre-ordained by God.

Regards Tony

 

[Brian2]

One needs to understand that Christ is not a person, but an appellation. The Title Christ is from the Greek word meaning “anointed” or “messiah,” and it was only one of several appellations for Jesus that was used in the early years. Christ, used like a surname, increasingly took on other meanings, only by popular use.

One has to understand that the common use of the word Christ, like a surname, only morphed over hundreds of years, at the same time, Jesus was also being further defined by many other associated doctrines.

Most of this is just interpretation and can be considered as a breach of the warning about adding to scriptures.

Regards Tony

I know that Christ is not a surname and I know what it means.
The return of Christ is not the return of a name, it is the return of a person however, the same person who was there 2000 years ago and so could "return". Unless of course it referred to the Spirit who was also there and was not Jesus and could return (and I suppose this Spirit would have returned with Muhammad and The Bab.)

I think the warning about adding to scripture is about adding to Revelation.

 

[Brian2]

They are all One in the Holy Spirit. The intensity of their Light is pre-ordained by God.

Regards Tony

Does that mean they are all one "something" or one as in all in agreement?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Baha'u'llah's claim to be speaking from God as determining that he was not a false prophet. False prophets claim that.

True Prophets do speak for God.

Such is the quandary for us all.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Does that mean they are all one "something" or one as in all in agreement?

Thay are as One Soul in One Body, as they are in complete unity.

We are not talking about flesh, but their Spiritual Reality as the givers of the light of God, the Holy Spirit.

Remember, it is Jesus the Christ that offered the flesh amounts to nothing.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I know that Christ is not a surname and I know what it means.
The return of Christ is not the return of a name, it is the return of a person however, the same person who was there 2000 years ago and so could "return". Unless of course it referred to the Spirit who was also there and was not Jesus and could return (and I suppose this Spirit would have returned with Muhammad and The Bab.)

I think the warning about adding to scripture is about adding to Revelation.

I see we are not special because we were born in the 'Day of God', in fact it brings greater challenges for us, we face the same choices all people in the past have faced, and this is finding Christ in God's chosen Messenger. We have so many paths to reconcile, we have access to instant information, we have the added issue thinking we are more knowledgeable, that we have more ability to accept a Messenger.

I see our pride and materialism has destroyed our spirituality.

Regards Tony

 

[Brian2]

Thay are as One Soul in One Body, as they are in complete unity.

We are not talking about flesh, but their Spiritual Reality as the givers of the light of God, the Holy Spirit.

Remember, it is Jesus the Christ that offered the flesh amounts to nothing.

Regards Tony

They aren't in complete unity from what we know of what they taught.

 

[loverofhumanity]

We also must have misread what Jesus would do and how He could return and that it was going to be the same Jesus who returns etc.

We are human. The Jews still await Christ. My understanding is that they interpret the Torah in a manner which doesn’t identify Jesus as the messiah. If it was an error or misread, and you and I agree because we both accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour, then the Jews have remained deprived of the guidance of Jesus for over 2,000 years due to a misread of the Torah by so called experts.

Us being human too I think we need to take into account what self pride and too much confidence in our own opinions can do to us. Now it’s Christians turn to be tested. Will they fall into the same self made trap that the Jews constructed in their own minds, that Christ was false and their interpretations incorrect?

We, like the early disciples, are joyfully announcing Christ has returned in the Glory of the Father. But like the Jews, Christians laugh at us saying that is impossible and we are deceived by the devil.

So there is nothing we can do or say. Only that I love Jesus and the Bible thousands of times more. But there is this prophecy.

Habakkuk 1:5

Behold ye among the heathen, and regard, and wonder marvellously: for Iwill work a work in your days, which ye will not believe, though it be told you.

Anyone who has accepted Christ is on the true path.

We testify that when He (Jesus) came into the world, He shed the splendor of His glory upon all created things…He it is Who purified the world. Blessed is the man who, with a face beaming with light, hath turned towards Him." — Bahá’u’lláh

 

[TransmutingSoul]

They aren't in complete unity from what we know of what they taught.

I see it in a different light, this is a meditation Abdul'baha has offered, that I see is sound and reasonable.

"The divine Manifestations since the day of Adam have striven to unite humanity so that all may be accounted as one soul. The function and purpose of a shepherd is to gather and not disperse his flock. The prophets of God have been divine shepherds of humanity. They have established a bond of love and unity among mankind, made scattered peoples one nation and wandering tribes a mighty kingdom. They have laid the foundation of the oneness of God and summoned all to universal peace. All these holy, divine Manifestations are one. They have served one God, promulgated the same truth, founded the same institutions and reflected the same light. Their appearances have been successive and correlated; each one has announced and extolled the one who was to follow and all laid the foundation of reality. They summoned and invited the people to love and made the human world a mirror of the Word of God. Therefore the divine religions they established have one foundation; their teachings, proofs and evidences are one; in name and form they differ but in reality they agree and are the same."

Regards Tony

 

[Valjean]

Stop preaching your skeptic folklore as if it is fact.

It's the epistemic default. The burden of proof is on YOU.

Skepticism isn't preaching, it's not promoting an idea, it's questioning one.