-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Concerning the Islamic Conception of Jesus
- Thread starter Sundance
- Start date
eik
Active Member
Yes it does, because it promotes a false Jesus, where Mahomet refused to accept the gospel version of Jesus,
You see if you accept Islam, you accept the Islamic version of Jesus by default, for the later always supersedes the earlier where the later is given credibility over the earlier. And Jesus would deny Mahomet as any "manifestation of God" as coming after him. In fact he explicitly commanded people not to credit false Christs who would come after him:
Matt 23:23 "At that time, if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There He is,’ do not believe it. 24For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders that would deceive even the elect, if that were possible.…"
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
This is all about interpretation. Baha'is do not accept the way Muslims interpret the Qur'an in some places. For example, Baha'is believe that Jesus was crucified but Muslims do not believe that Jesus died on the cross. Muslims believe that Jesus and Muhammad were both only human Messengers, but Baha'u'llah wrote that Jesus and Muhammad were more than a human, that they were Manifestations of God with a human and divine nature who were pre-existent in the spiritual world.
What you believe is also all according to how you interpret the Bible. So the gospel version of Jesus will vary according to how people interpret the gospel.
All Christians believe they know how to interpret the Bible correctly, but that is not logically possible that they are all correct because their interpretations contradict each other.
You said that Jesus said: "In fact he explicitly commanded people not to credit false Christs who would come after him:"
There are no verses in the NT that say this, so that is your interpretation. This is what Jesus said:
Matthew 24:5 5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
And that is exactly what has happened. Many men have come claiming to be Christ and they deceived many. But that does not mean that there cannot be one who claimed to be the return of Christ who was the real return.
eik
Active Member
The general Christian view of Mahomet until recently was that he was an imposter and that Mahometans are pagans, as they reject the gospels and the sonship of Christ, which is the line I also take.
So Baha'is do reject the Christian conception of Mahomet, IMO, and therefore reject Christ himself, because it's not enough to believe that Christ was crucified. Even the Pharisees believed that.
All doctrines comes from the apostles and from Christ and are self-explanatory (designed for children). Although there is a lot of disagreement and politics and philosophy at the periphery, such things often serve to obscure that there has often been a good consensus as to the core doctrines of Christianity, although not everyone adheres to them or knows what they are, e.g. where they are taught priestcraft before knowing the bible. In other words we have to be careful about distinguishing disagreements over biblical doctrine (which are not that many except in the case of heretics) from disagreements over associated human philosophies (which tend to spread like wildfire).
That is an untrue statement. All Christians do interpret the Bible but most would concede that their interpretations may not be correct. And their interpretations do not always contradict each other.
So what I said exactly sums up what Christ taught. I do not grasp your point.
Yes it does mean that "there cannot be one who claimed to be the return of Christ who was the real return" because Christ's real return was said to be "as the lightning comes out of the east and shines even to the west, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." Matt 24:27; and equally importantly this shall be followed by the judgement of all men.
Put simply Christianity allows for no other Christ, whereas you have elevated others to being on his level, which in Christian terms is a major heresy. You will find very few "Christians" willing to countenance the teachings of Baháʼí.
Personally I would declassify anyone as a Christian who countenanced Baháʼí. From Wiki:
"Baháʼu'lláh claimed to be a Manifestation of God, which is the Baháʼí term for people like Jesus and Muhammad. William Miller says that the wording of Baháʼu'lláh's Kitáb-i-Aqdas made it difficult to distinguish between the words of the author and the words of God. He further opines that "Baháʼu'lláh felt no such distinction was necessary", as he manifested God as a reflection of a perfect mirror, and that "Baháʼu'lláh claims to be not merely a human Messenger of God, but a Divine Manifestation".[17] This claim of divinity has been criticised by Imran Shaykh who points to this as an example of a discrepancy between faiths.[13]"
Last edited:
Muffled
Jesus in me
Ibelieve with God all things ar possible. However it is strange because it has never happened before.
Muffled
Jesus in me
Everything that "these kinds" of Christians believe is strange to me...
Thank God not all Christians believe the same way.
I believe I can thank God some still have faith in God and do believe them.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe what I believe because I have a strong foundation supporting my beliefs.
I don't believe any of that is true so you will have to show your foundation for each thing otherwise consider yourself corrected.
I believe you are mistaking a higher spirituality for malfeasance. John can see things the other Apostles can't.
I believe this one doesn't fit your view:
Matt 23:27 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Me too......
I already did........ you see what you want to see.
John turned the Jewish people in to the enemies of Jesus (during his mission) rather than the Temple authorities and Priesthood.
I'll show you that in a minute, using your own quote.
John didn't have a clue about what Jesus did, and he made up stuff to big Jesus up, while ignoring Jesus's miracles like demon cleansing..... he didn't even report Jesus's baptism clearly.
Spiritual? Nah!
So you weren't concentrating after all.
The corrupt, hypocritical, mostly Hellenist, greedy Priesthood is EXACTLY what the Baptist and Jesus were campaigning against.
Why do you think they were cleansing thousands in water and sending them home with their savings? To reduce Temple takings!
Why did Antipas have to arrest John and not Pilate? Any ideas?
......... never mind.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
That's the thing right there. Christians base their beliefs on the NT and the Bible.
I would hope so, but all of them?
I would think that some doctrines are based on interpretations by Church leaders. Then later the Pope and other bishops of the Roman Church. Any other doctrines were declared heretical... Then came Martin Luther.
Now, so many Protestants groups break off based on interpretations. A big one is the Pentecostals. Another might be the Calvinists. But then comes Muhammad.
Since this thread is about the Islamic conception of Jesus, what conclusions have we come up with? Christians... That Muhammad was a false prophet and whatever he said was meaningless? Muslims... That Christians corrupted the teachings of Jesus and made him God? I'm both sides have good explanations why the other is wrong, but then what? Now Baha'i come into the picture and redefine Jesus again.
This Jesus I think fits very well with what Liberal Christians believe. Anything that didn't sound scientifically possible can be questioned and rejected as being literally true. That's a long, long way away from what many Christians believe. And once we get modern science looking at the Bible, why believe any of it?
Gone is Creation, the flood, the resurrection and so on. Conservative Christians argue back with "scientific" evidence that counters the "scientific" evidence of probably mostly atheistic, evolutionary scientists. Both have good points and both have problems... problem for evolutionist to find credible missing links, and for creationists to show how the Earth and the Universe are less than 10,000 years old. Baha'is try to solve that problem too. God did use evolution, but something about, that whatever "man" looked like, whatever that creature appeared to be, he was always destined to be man.
So how far away can we get from a NT based belief about Jesus and still try and say Jesus was special and his teachings important? It seems pretty far, because his "teachings" are all about "love" and anything to do with dying to pay the penalty for sin is part of what gets reinterpreted. People are not born with the taint of sin or with "original" sin or nothing. Jesus didn't die to pay a debt owed to God by sinful people. No other religion believes like "Born-Again" kinds of Christians. Any religion that wants to include Jesus into their beliefs has to redefine who Jesus is or was and make him fit into their beliefs. And it isn't that hard to find verses or reject verses or ignore verses to make it happen.
eik
Active Member
Those that are worthy of the name.
Quarrels about words mostly and also about political authorities. One can differ from another Christian on either matter and still believe in the same fundamental gospel of justification from sin by the death of Christ, resurrection and salavation and eternal life.
I will say so, although it's not actually clear what Mahomet believed since it is likely what he said was distorted by those who came after him. The Hadith are largely unproven fables, the Koran a collection of religious texts, some (or many) of which were translated into Arabic, and badly.
Creationism is not biblical. There is no scientific authority for refuting the resurrection etc. Liberal Christians are not Christians.
Thank you for clarifying that only Christianity can deliver the authentic unrefined Jesus.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
With God all things are possible, but that does not mean they will happen.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I can thank God I still have faith in God and do not believe what traditional Christianity teaches.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Muslims do not reject the Gospels, they just believe they have been corrupted in some instances.
It is enough to believe that Christ was sent by God, that He was a Manifestation of God, a Messenger of God, to believe in His teachings and His cross sacrifice.
The following quote explains what Baha’is believe. Christ, who was the Word of God, gave us His teachings (profusion of His bounties) and then later died on the cross (suffered the greatest martyrdom) so we could be free of sin and attain everlasting life. Christ freed us from the chains of bondage to the material world.
“…those who turned toward the Word of God and received the profusion of His bounties—were saved from this attachment and sin, obtained everlasting life, were delivered from the chains of bondage, and attained to the world of liberty. They were freed from the vices of the human world, and were blessed by the virtues of the Kingdom. This is the meaning of the words of Christ, “I gave My blood for the life of the world” 6 —that is to say, I have chosen all these troubles, these sufferings, calamities, and even the greatest martyrdom, to attain this object, the remission of sins” Some Answered Questions, p. 125
How do you know that has not already happened? I believe it has happened, just as the verse stated and now we are all being judged according to whether we recognized the return of Christ or not.
Do you know who William Miller was? He was a wolf in sheep’s clothing. He pretended to write an accurate history in hi book about the Baha’i Faith but his book was full of half-truths, clothed in subterfuge. He was a Christian missionary in Persia and he could not tolerate that more people were becoming Baha’is than were becoming Christians.
It is however true that Baháʼu'lláh claimed to be not merely a human Messenger of God, but rather a Manifestation of God, but to say Baháʼu'lláh claimed divinity is yet another half-truth, because Baha’u’llah never claimed divinity:
“Certain ones among you have said: “He it is Who hath laid claim to be God.” By God! This is a gross calumny. I am but a servant of God Who hath believed in Him and in His signs, and in His Prophets and in His angels. My tongue, and My heart, and My inner and My outer being testify that there is no God but Him, that all others have been created by His behest, and been fashioned through the operation of His Will. There is none other God but Him, the Creator, the Raiser from the dead, the Quickener, the Slayer. I am He that telleth abroad the favors with which God hath, through His bounty, favored Me.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 228
Jesus also manifested God as a reflection of a perfect mirror, but Jesus never claimed to be God either.
I know what Christianity allows for and does not allow for, but I do not believe that is the Gospel message which the Bible recorded or Jesus taught. I rather believe that Christianity has distorted the Gospel Message and changed its essential meaning.
“As Jesus prophesied, the false prophets contrived to change the essential meaning of the Gospel so that it became quite different from that which the Bible recorded or Jesus taught. (Matt. Vii 15-23 and see pp. 11, 12.)
It has long been generally believed that Jesus Christ was a unique incarnation of God such as had never before appeared in religious history and would never appear again. This tenet made the acceptance of any later Prophet impossible to a Christian. Yet there is nothing in Christ’s own statements, as recorded in the Gospel, to support this view, and it was not generally held during His lifetime.
Another opinion which Christians universally hold about Christ is that His teaching was absolute and final. They believe that if the Truth were partly withheld from them for a time because they could not bear it, it was divulged at Pentecost in its fullness and that now nothing remains to be revealed. But there is nothing in the account of Pentecost to suggest such an interpretation and there is no one who will believe that Jesus would have named the false prophets as characteristic of His age if this warning was to be followed by an immediate release of all Truth to the Church. What the Bible shows is rather a succession of teachers—Abraham, Moses and Christ, each measuring His Revelation to the needs and maturity of His authors: Jesus, for example, changes the divorce law and says, “Moses gave you this because of the hardness of your hearts but from the beginning it was not so.” Many times He says, Ye have heard it said by them of old time . . . but I say unto you . . .”
Another universal opinion among the Christians is that Christ was the Lord of Hosts of the Old Testament. Yet the Jewish Prophets had foretold that when the Lord of Hosts came He would not find the Jews in the Holy Land, all would have been scattered among the nations and would have been living in misery and degradation for centuries; but when Jesus came Palestine was full of Jews and their expulsion did not begin until the year 70 A.D.; it may be said to have continued till the year 1844.
To confirm orthodox Christian opinion it is customary in all churches to read on Christmas morning, as if it referred to Jesus, the passage which Isaiah wrote about the Lord of Hosts (Isaiah ix 6-7).
“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.”
Yet the descriptive titles given do not belong exclusively to Christ, while some of them He specifically repudiated as if to make such a mistaken reference to Himself impossible. He disclaimed being the Mighty God when He called Himself “the Son of God;” John v 18-47 where Jesus repudiates the charge that He claimed equality with God, disclaimed being the Father when He said, “my Father is greater than I;” (John xviii 36) and being the Prince of Peace when He said, “I came not to send peace, but a sword.” He disclaimed bearing the government upon His shoulder or that it would be His judgment and justice forever when He said, “My kingdom is not of this world.” (John xviii 36).
Many of these false interpretations involve repudiation of the Word of God in favor of the word of man. This impious act is so craftily performed, with such an air of humility, that it might escape the notice of the most sincere and devout of worshippers. Probably few churchgoers realize today that the Gospel of Christ as known to the few in the pulpit is wholly different from the Gospel which Christ preached in Galilee as recorded in the Bible.
In spite of Christ’s promise of further revelation of Truth, through the Comforter, through His own return, through the Spirit of Truth, the Christian Church regards His revelation as final, and itself as the sole trustee of true religion. There is no room for the Supreme Redeemer of the Bible to bring in great changes for the establishment of the Kingdom of God. In fact this Kingdom is often described as a world-wide Church.
Having thus closed God’s Covenant with the Bible, sacred history—God-directed—came to an end, and secular history, having no sense of divine destiny nor unity, began.
Jesus’ revelation was purely spiritual. He taught that “My kingdom is not of this world” and that the “Kingdom of heaven is within you.” His great gift to man was the knowledge of eternal life. He told men that they might be physically in perfect health and yet spiritually sick or even dead. But this was a difficult truth to communicate and Jesus had to help men to realize it. He would say that He was a spiritual physician and that men whom He cured of a spiritual disability were cured of blindness, deafness, lameness, leprosy and so on. This was the real meaning of His remark at the end of a discourse, “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” For a hearer might hear the physical word of Jesus and yet fail to comprehend the spiritual meaning. Jesus, in other words, was forever trying to heal spiritual infirmities. He thus would be understood by His disciples as a healer of spiritual ailments but by others He might be taken as relieving physical ills only.
Doubtless Jesus could, and often did, heal bodily ills by spiritual means, but this was nothing to do with His real work as a Redeemer. On the other hand these spiritual cures which he effected might be misinterpreted as physical miracles, and so were little stressed by Him. (“See that no man know it.) Matt ix 30.
Christ’s spiritual mission was, at an early date, materialized, specifically in regard to such things as the miracles, curing the blind and deaf, raising the dead. Even His own resurrection was made physical, missing the point entirely. Moreover, none of the complex order, of the ceremonies, rituals and litanies of the Church can be attributed to Christ. All are man-made, by inference or invention.
Well might Christ warn His followers that false prophets would arise and misinterpret His teachings so as to delude even the most earnest and intelligent of His believers: from early times Christians have disputed about Christian truth in councils, in sects, in wars.
To sum up, if Christians say “our acts may be wrong,” they say truly. If they say “however our Gospel is right” they are quite wrong. The false prophets have corrupted the Gospel as successfully as they have the deeds and lives of Christian people.”
Christ and Baha'u'llah, pp. 25-30
eik
Active Member
Mendacious propaganda IMO. They don't even believe Christ was raised from the dead. As Paul the apostle said, if you don't believe that, Christianity is a fake religion, a fraud. 1 Cor 15:32.
That is as heretical as you can get in Christian terms.
Matt 24: 37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.
One can see why Baháʼu'lláh wouldn't claim divinity as he knew he wasn't going to be resurrected like Christ, which the Islamic heresy also denies, as it unambiguously denies the resurrection. Baháʼí is really an extension of Islam, and a justification for Islam, as it rejects Christ as the final revelation of scripture, which was cemented by his resurrection from the dead. It rejects the divinity of Christ, i.e. that he was of and from God.
There is a high degree of unanimity between all four gospels sufficient to discount any notion of deliberate fabrication. The message of Christianity was unified from the outset: Christ died and was raised from the dead and is seated at the right hand of God for the justification and salvation of sinners by faith,
Christ said be was the fulfillment of the law Matt 5:17. That means, the end of the law, the progenitor of a new covenant by faith, devoted to the law in a spiritual sense. This is rejected by Islam, who have gone back to a law based approach.
Jesus didn't change the divorce law: he made the grounds for divorce far stricter. He spiritualized the law. And you fail to grasp that although the Old Testament did have a succession of prophets, the whole of the Old Testament points to Christ. There are hundreds of prophecies of Christ therein, which cannot be said of any other "teacher." Christ is unique in every aspect, and far superior to your conception of a teacher.
Christ was the "son of God" which is to say, he had a divine existence before and after his human life. On earth he was a man yet retained the identity of God. It is not to say that he was a "God in human form" after the pagan conception of "gods" wandering around the earth.
Congratulations: you know more than some (or many) self-professing Christians. However after his resurrection he went back to being on God's throne and to being one with the "Lord of hosts."
I've told you once and I'll tell you again: Islam utterly repudiates the idea that Christ was resurrected.
Islamic views on Jesus' death - Wikipedia
"The issue of the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus (Isa) is rejected by Muslims."
You cannot believe in the biblical Christ and in Mahomet. They are opposed in every fundamental aspect of faith, theology and even their interpretations of the Old Testament are completely different.
Yeah, I'll agree that after centuries of false teachings creeping into the churches, largely on account of politics, the churches devloped some very antibiblical teachings, such as Mary being the Theokotos, etc. However all this was prophecized to happen and does not denigrate or detract from the gospel message. False prophets in the guise of politicians (often political appointees) corrupted the church, and Manichaean theologians like Augustine likewise. But one thing they would all have agreed on is that Mahomet, Mani (why doesn't he warrant a mention in Baha'i?) and Baháʼu'lláh and his son were all false prophets antithetical to Christ.
Last edited:
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
There is no reason to believe that Paul believed that Jesus was physically raised from the dead.
Here is what I believe that Paul believed about the resurrection of bodies:
Won’t the Dead Rise Again?
The real heretics are those who fell away from what Jesus taught. The real Christians were extinct by the fourth century.
I believe that the bodily resurrection is a complete fabrication, fictional stories told by men decades after Jesus lived, told my men who never even knew Jesus. The disciples did not write the NT.
What many liberal theologians believe about Jesus' death
Christians do not worship God; they worship a physical body, a resurrected Jesus. Given what Jesus had to say about the unimportance of the flesh, I cannot even imagine what Jesus is thinking about people who worship his flesh.
John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
1 John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
Jesus never claimed to be God, never. Jesus denied any such allegations:
Did the Jews Accuse Jesus of Claiming to Be “God” or “a God”?
That is yet another false doctrine of the Church.
Jesus was resurrected and went to heaven and His d=soul took on another form, so He is alive in heaven in a spiritual body. Physical bodies do not exist in heaven because heaven is a purely spiritual world comprised of spiritual elements.
The message of Christianity was not unified from the outset:
How Paul changed the course of Christianity
Islam superseded Christianity and the law-based approach is what God willed for that age.
I know that Christians believe that Christ was superior, and I consider that a false belief, and that belief certainly did not come from Jesus, it came from Christianity. Christ was not superior to any of the other Manifestations of God, according to my beliefs.
"Beware, O believers in the Unity of God, lest ye be tempted to make any distinction between any of the Manifestations of His Cause, or to discriminate against the signs that have accompanied and proclaimed their Revelation. This indeed is the true meaning of Divine Unity, if ye be of them that apprehend and believe this truth. Be ye assured, moreover, that the works and acts of each and every one of these Manifestations of God, nay whatever pertaineth unto them, and whatsoever they may manifest in the future, are all ordained by God, and are a reflection of His Will and Purpose. Whoso maketh the slightest possible difference between their persons, their words, their messages, their acts and manners, hath indeed disbelieved in God, hath repudiated His signs, and betrayed the Cause of His Messengers.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 59-60
Surely, the intensity of the Revelation of Jesus and Baha’u’llah and the potency of their light was greater than that of others, but that does not make them better, they just had a more vital mission.
“Know that the attributes of perfection, the splendor of the divine bounties, and the lights of inspiration are visible and evident in all the Holy Manifestations; but the glorious Word of God, Christ, and the Greatest Name, Bahá’u’lláh, are manifestations and evidences which are beyond imagination, for They possess all the perfections of the former Manifestations; and more than that, They possess some perfections which make the other Manifestations dependent upon Them. So all the Prophets of Israel were centers of inspiration; Christ also was a receiver of inspiration, but what a difference between the inspiration of the Word of God and the revelations of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Elijah!” Some Answered Questions, pp. 149-150
I can at least agree that Jesus was pre-existent in the spiritual world before He was born into this world:
(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)
And the Baha’i Faith also completely repudiates the idea that Christ was physically resurrected.
23: THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST
Question.—What is the meaning of Christ’s resurrection after three days?
Answer.—The resurrections of the Divine Manifestations are not of the body. All Their states, Their conditions, Their acts, the things They have established, Their teachings, Their expressions, Their parables and Their instructions have a spiritual and divine signification, and have no connection with material things. For example, there is the subject of Christ’s coming from heaven: it is clearly stated in many places in the Gospel that the Son of man came from heaven, He is in heaven, and He will go to heaven. So in chapter 6, verse 38, of the Gospel of John it is written: “For I came down from heaven”; and also in verse 42 we find: “And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?” Also in John, chapter 3, verse 13: “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.” ......
Therefore, we say that the meaning of Christ’s resurrection is as follows: the disciples were troubled and agitated after the martyrdom of Christ. The Reality of Christ, which signifies His teachings, His bounties, His perfections and His spiritual power, was hidden and concealed for two or three days after His martyrdom, and was not resplendent and manifest. No, rather it was lost, for the believers were few in number and were troubled and agitated. The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body; and when after three days the disciples became assured and steadfast, and began to serve the Cause of Christ, and resolved to spread the divine teachings, putting His counsels into practice, and arising to serve Him, the Reality of Christ became resplendent and His bounty appeared; His religion found life; His teachings and His admonitions became evident and visible. In other words, the Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body until the life and the bounty of the Holy Spirit surrounded it.
Such is the meaning of the resurrection of Christ, and this was a true resurrection. But as the clergy have neither understood the meaning of the Gospels nor comprehended the symbols, therefore, it has been said that religion is in contradiction to science, and science in opposition to religion, as, for example, this subject of the ascension of Christ with an elemental body to the visible heaven is contrary to the science of mathematics. But when the truth of this subject becomes clear, and the symbol is explained, science in no way contradicts it; but, on the contrary, science and the intelligence affirm it. Some Answered Questions, pp. 103-105
23: THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST
And it could just be that the Christian interpretation of the Bible is incorrect, which is what I believe..
A religion is 1.9 billion people is not a false religion. And what are you going to do about the 1.2 billion Hindus?
Christians are fighting a losing battle trying to denigrate Islam because Islam will soon overtake Christianity and eventually when everyone recognizes Baha’u’llah, neither religion will exist because there will only be one religion, the religion of God.
Adherents in 2020
Religion Adherents Percentage
Christianity 2.3 billion 29%
Islam 1.9 billion 24%
Hinduism 1.2 billion 15.4%
Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist 1.1 billion 14.1%
List of religious populations - Wikipedia
Last edited:
VoidoftheSun
Necessary Heretical, Fundamentally Orthodox
eik
Active Member
Don't be absurd.
I said "[Islam doesn't] even believe Christ was raised from the dead. As Paul the apostle said, if you don't believe that, Christianity is a fake religion, a fraud."
Nazarenes were pre-eminently believers in Christ. Paul the apostle was one too (at least of that "sect" which was the early term for Christian). As for "gnostics:" all depends which variety you're alluded to. There were many different sects.
eik
Active Member
You're confusing two completely different things: the resurrection of believers at the last judgement, and the resurrection of Christ himself, who was subject to a specific OT prophecy in Pslam 16:10.
Nonsense. They were everywhere, although they might not have been visible politically
So if you're going to align Baha'i with "liberal Christianity" which is no Christianity at all but unbelief, then you admit Baha'i is antithetical to Christianity.
You're wrong as Christ ascended after his physical ressurection and was subsumed into heaven and ceased to be flesh.
Jesus asserted parity with God on earth, i.e. as to revelation, but not parity in heaven. John 6:38, 10:30, 14:9. I fully agree he never tried to usurp the Father.
I don't accept Paul changed the course of Christianity, which was never about salvation by law, but about salvation by faith. John 11:25.26.
You are badly mistaken.
Rubbish. Islam was permitted to chastize heretical Christians who were engaging in myths and fables and perverse Trinitarian dogma that was in danger of turning Christianity back into paganism.
Rubbish. Christ said he alone of all men came down from heaven and lived in heaven.
As with Sodom, so with the world. Just one family (that of Lot) was saved from Sodom. All the rest perished. Have you never read the prophecies of Gog and Magog?
“And when the thousand years are finished, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, and shall come forth to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to the war: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
"And they went up over the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down out of heaven, and devoured them” (Revelation 20:7-9 — ASV).
"And they went up over the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down out of heaven, and devoured them” (Revelation 20:7-9 — ASV).
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
That is not what Paul said, it is how you interpret what Paul said, what you believe Paul meant.
Won’t the Dead Rise Again?
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Psalm 16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
That verse has nothing to do with a resurrection of the physical body of Christ and in fact that is not how Jews interpret the verse; so as usual, Christians are trying to pilfer Jewish scripture for their own benefit.
I am not confusing the resurrection of Jesus with the resurrection of believers at the last judgment because the ONLY reason the believers believe they will be resurrected in their physical bodies is because they believe that Jesus was resurrected in a physical body, both of which are impossible.
Maybe they were around after that, but they were not members of the orthodox Christian Church.
No, I am not aligning the Baha’i Faith with liberal Christianity; I am only saying we agree that Jesus did not rise from the dead. You have a nerve to say that liberal Christians are unbelievers just because they do not believe in the superstitious beliefs of mainstream Christianity like the bodily resurrection.
"I do admit that for Christians to enter this subject honestly is to invite great anxiety. It is to walk the razor's edge, to run the risk of cutting the final cord still binding many to the faith of their mothers and fathers. But the price for refusing to enter this consideration is for me even higher. The inability to question reveals that one has no confidence that one's belief system will survive such an inquiry. That is a tacit recognition that on unconscious levels, one's faith has already died. If one seeks to protect God from truth or new insights, then God has surely already died." 3
http://www.religioustolerance.org/resur_lt.htm
That’s a new one on me, I never heard a Christian say that. If Jesus ceased to be flesh in heaven, how could the same physical body of Jesus return to earth from heaven?
That depends upon what you mean by parity. Baha’is believe Jesus was a perfect mirror image of God, but an image of God is not God.
Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.
John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
Here is something I posted to a Trinitarian Christian friend of mine a while ago:
He said: No man has see God as His is (in fact God is an invisible Spirit) and when Jesus was born as a man nobody could see the divine side of Jesus, all they could see was a man. But Jesus was still God, or should I say, The Son of God who is equal to God His Father in every way. The 2 are one. The Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father.
I said: Jesus was the Son of God, but the Son is not the Father, even though the Father is in the Son.
Jesus was a clear mirror, and God became visible in the mirror. This is why Jesus said, “The Father is in the Son” (John 14:11, John 17:21) meaning that God is visible and manifest in Jesus.
“I and my Father are one” (John 10:30) means that the Manifestation of God, in this case Jesus, and God are one and the same, so whatever pertains to the Manifestation of God, all His acts and doings, as well as whatever He ordains and forbids, is identical with the Will of God Himself.
That is why Jesus said to the Jews:
John 10:25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
John 10:37-38 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
Please note that Jesus differentiated Himself from the Father in those verses above. That alone should tell you that Jesus is not God, if you had not been fed the Trinity doctrine and bought it lock, stock, and barrel.
I do not know anything about that but what Islam did in no way represents what Muhammad revealed in the Qur’an, just as what Christians did on no way represents what was revealed by Jesus in the NT. It is unjust to blame the Messenger of God for what his followers do.
I know that verse but it does not mean what you believe it means..
What does John 3:13 mean? Did no one go to heaven before Jesus?
In John 3:13 Jesus said, "No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man." Some have understood these words to mean no one went to heaven before Jesus. Is this true?
A look at the larger discussion of Jesus in this chapter demonstrates this is not true. Jesus was speaking with Nicodemus, a Jewish teacher who had come to Him at night with questions about the kingdom of God. The emphasis was on Jesus having the authority to teach on eternal life because He alone had come down from heaven to earth. The NLT translates the verse, "No one has ever gone to heaven and returned. But the Son of Man has come down from heaven."
Verse 17 further illustrates this point. Jesus stated, "For God did not sent his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him." Again, the emphasis is on Jesus coming to earth from heaven.
Other passages also illustrate the fact that some people went to heaven (or paradise) before Jesus came to earth. For example, in His response to the religious leaders in Mark 12:26-27, Jesus answered, "And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God spoke to him, saying, 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not God of the dead, but of the living."
In addition, two men in the Bible were taken up to heaven without dying. Genesis 5:24 marks the event of Enoch entering directly into heaven (also Hebrews 11:5). Second Kings 2:11 records Elijah being taken to heaven by a whirlwind with chariots of fire separating him from Elisha. In Luke 16:19-30, Jesus shares an account of Lazarus in heaven at Abraham's side. This would indicate Abraham being in heaven before Jesus came to earth.
Hebrews 11 furthers includes a lengthy list of Old Testament saints who followed the Lord by faith. Though not explicitly stated, these individuals were noted as God's people who lived for Him and dwell with Him beyond earthly life.
Further, to make the claim no one went to heaven before Jesus provides many inconsistencies with other biblical passages that speak of God's people in eternity with Him. It is much more consistent with the context of John 3 as well as the rest of Scripture to understand Jesus referring to Himself as the one who came from heaven, giving Him authority to speak to Nicodemus regarding eternal life.
What does John 3:13 mean? Did no one go to heaven before Jesus?