Disagreements regarding Chosen Ones of God

[Jane.Doe]

How is it that some of those writings are claimed to be before Christ, and yet ?

@nPeace, the NT chronicles the events of Christ's mortal ministry that happened in the Middle East, as they happened. That's pretty straight forward, no one's arguing there.
Now other scriptures may indeed include things like prophesies of Christ's actions. For example, the Book of Isaiah is full of them. I and other LDS folks also believe that the 2 Nephi chapter and other quotes includes such prophesy as well.

It's a given fact that people have different interpretations of the Bible. For me, I read the Bible and Book of Mormon cover to cover and don't find a single contradiction. I acknowledge that folks with other interpretations of the Bible might have different views, and I'm not going to try to change any of those. If you want me to explain things like background or LDS views, I'm happy to do so.

For example, you asked "Where do you find that the Bible teaches that God came to earth to die?"
LDS do indeed acknowledge the divinity of Christ, that He was/is God, and came to Earth to die for our sins. He was the perfect lamb that was slain.

I'm happy to answer any other question too-- but I do request we focus things down to ~2 questions at a time, cause writing giant novel of posts just kind of sucks, as does reading giant novel of posts.

 

[nPeace]

@nPeace, the NT chronicles the events of Christ's mortal ministry that happened in the Middle East, as they happened. That's pretty straight forward, no one's arguing there.
Now other scriptures may indeed include things like prophesies of Christ's actions. For example, the Book of Isaiah is full of them. I and other LDS folks also believe that the 2 Nephi chapter and other quotes includes such prophesy as well.

It's a given fact that people have different interpretations of the Bible. For me, I read the Bible and Book of Mormon cover to cover and don't find a single contradiction. I acknowledge that folks with other interpretations of the Bible might have different views, and I'm not going to try to change any of those. If you want me to explain things like background or LDS views, I'm happy to do so.

For example, you asked "Where do you find that the Bible teaches that God came to earth to die?"
LDS do indeed acknowledge the divinity of Christ, that He was/is God, and came to Earth to die for our sins. He was the perfect lamb that was slain.

I'm happy to answer any other question too-- but I do request we focus things down to ~2 questions at a time, cause writing giant novel of posts just kind of sucks, as does reading giant novel of posts.

Thanks J.
This is important to me, so I appreciate it.
Okay, one at a time. Most times my post get stretched, only because I quote from sources. I do this so as to highlight particular sentences I don't want persons to miss.
I can't help that, because I feel that would be laziness on my part, and I would be to blame if the person missed the important point... plus I hate having to repeat myself, so bare with me please.

You mentioned prophecy, and I acknowledge that is the claim made, but the text I referenced, even though claiming to have been written about 600 years before Christ's birth, seems to have erred In just a few passages, concerning a few activities of Christ.
It reads....
Nephi tells why Christ was baptized —
Men must follow Christ, be baptized, receive the Holy Ghost, and endure to the end to be saved — Repentance and baptism are the gate to the strait and narrow path — Eternal life comes to those who keep the commandments after baptism. About 559–545 b.c.

5 And now, if the Lamb of God, he being holy, should have need to be  baptized by water, to fulfil all righteousness, O then, how much more need have we, being unholy, to be  baptized, yea, even by water!
6 And now, I would ask of you, my beloved brethren, wherein the Lamb of God did fulfil all righteousness in being baptized by water?
7 Know ye not that he was holy ? But notwithstanding he being holy,
he showeth unto the children of men that, according to the flesh he
humbleth himself before the Father, and witnesseth unto the Father that he would be a obedient unto him in keeping his commandments.
8 Wherefore, after he was baptized with water the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the a form of a  dove. 2 NEPHI CHAPTER 31

Unlike other texts, this seem to have been written in the past tense, as though a mistake was made here.
However, I know mistakes can be made, but it can be questionable regarding the time of its writing.

Not only this text, but others give the indication that they were written - not before, but after the events, and borrowed, or copied from the Christian Greek scriptures.
You said one at a time, so I will hold back out of respect for you, and add them after.

 

[nPeace]

So why aren't you a Baha'i? You said that some people did not want to recieve the message and that is why they don't, so what is different about your refusal to accept the Baha'i faith? The message is clear, is it not? I'm just trying to illustrate how this reason is flawed and shallow.

That's an excellent point.
I wouldn't mind taking that up with you, based on my post here, if that's okay with you.
I want to because I think it's important to really explore all faiths with an open mind, and see what we find.

 

[Rival]

That's an excellent point.
I wouldn't mind taking that up with you, based on my post here, if that's okay with you.
I want to because I think it's important to really explore all faiths with an open mind, and see what we find.

It is nearly quarter to eleven at night here (I don't know where you are) so I will make my response tomorrow, as I am sleepy right now. G-d bless.

 

[nPeace]

It is nearly quarter to eleven at night here (I don't know where you are) so I will make my response tomorrow, as I am sleepy right now. G-d bless.

Thanks. Goodnight.

 

[Rival]

It makes sense to me that if I have an enemy that wanted to destroy my work, and success, that enemy can only act upon what I have done, but they can never erase what I have done.
In other words, they can only try to disfigure or hide what I started, or originated, but the original would always remain.

For example, if I did an original painting, and my enemy wanted to prevent my success, he may try to destroy, disfigure, or hide my work.
Depending on what he can succeed with, he will go for it, and in this illustration, he cannot destroy it. Let's give him a bit of advantage, and say he has a little success in slightly disfiguring it - nothing that can't be repaired.
The other thing is to try to hide it. This is done by creating imitations, making it hard to differentiate between the original, and the fakes.

I don't know where you go with this. After having read your post through to the end, it seems as if you may be referencing the Christian Satan? Is it correct for me to understand it this way?

So this is how I look at the situation.
What's the original?
The Torah, the Tanakh - What the Jews believed.

What followed?
The Christian Greek Scriptures - What Christians believed.

What next?
The Qur'an - What Muslim follow.
The Bab - What Bahai's believe.
The book of Mormon - What latter Day Saints follow.

I cannot comment on the Baha'i writings or the Book of Mormon, because I have no interest in these as I discarded them when I came to the conclusion that Christianity is a false religion (therefore also making anything after it false, as they incorporate Jesus somehow). I'm confused at your past tense here, just as an aside. The Torah is what the Jews believe, and the Greek Scriptures are what the Christians believe (though this may just be me nitpicking, I wasn't sure if you were trying to make a point by using the past tense).

What harmonizes?
The Christian Greek Scriptures follow on and seem to harmonize perfectly with the Tanakh.

In my opinion, this is not true on any level. The Christian writings' origin seems to be to retroactively fit Jesus into Tanach prophecies, some of which are not even prophecies at all and others non-Messianich prophecies. There's also the conundrum of 'High Priests' when there was only one High Priest, and the other detail of Paul saying he is a Pharisee who, during his career persecuting Christians, worked for the High Priest, who was a Sadducee. This is straight from the mouth of someone who seems very unfamiliar with the local context, because a Pharisee working for a Sadducee is pretty much the same as a staunch Capitalist parliamentarian taking orders from a Communist leader.

Anyway, these are just a handful of issues I have and why I must disagree with your assertion.

The Qur'an does not claim to be a follow on from the Tanakh, but points to it as the word from God, and claims to be the word of God - better than the Tanakh, because it claims the Tanakh is corrupted, while the Qur'an is uncorrupted.
The Qur'an also in not a follow on from the Christian Greek Scriptures, nor claims to be, but makes similar claims as it does with the Tanakh.

Actually, this is a myth. The Muslim belief is that the Torah and Gospel are corrupted, but as far as I know the Qur'an nowhere actually says this. It, in fact, tells believers in each to judge by their respective scripture:

Surah 5:43
How come they (come) unto thee (Muhammad) for judgment when they have the Torah, wherein Allah hath delivered judgment (for them)?

Surah 5:47
Let the People of the Gospel judge by that which Allah hath revealed therein. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are evil-livers.

The Qur'an's internal logic/belief seems to be that the previous scriptures do align with it, but it's the believers themselves who are off-track with their beliefs. I'm open to correction on this.

As far as I know Bab and the Mormon Bible follows the Qur'an in similar claims.
They are in major conflict with the Christian Greek Scriptures on from the Tanakh which seens innharmony with the Tanakh.
I'm open to disagreements on this.

Certainly from what I know, these books are in serious conflict with both Torah and Gospel.

The problem does not lie with God - the artist of his original master piece. It was a good job.

G-d forbid He would reveal something wrong. It was good indeed.

God's enemy is trying to hide the truth, so he created a lot of imitations, and claims that one of them is the original. Or better yet, none of them is original. Either way suits him just fine

Who?

As the almighty, the time is not yet come for him to destroy his enemy - it will come, but in the meantime, God has been restoring the disfigurations done on the original - enough that his sincere "fans" can tell, it's his work. In other words, God has been actively involved in seeing to it that his masterpiece is not destroyed by the enemy.
God's "fans" are also able with determined and continuous study, to detect the differences between the original, and the imitations.
They are diligent, because it's important to them, so they don't give up.

That's right. Apart from I don't know who this 'enemy' is, but I think you talk here of the Christian Satan.

So those who are truth seekers find it.
The key to me though, lies in being interested in identifying what was original, and what harmonizes with the original.
Originals don't follow fakes. It's the other way around.

G-d bless you.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

From Bahai perspective, there is no conflict between Bible, the Quran and Bahai Scriptures.
Also, there has never been any corruption done in Bible.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I cannot comment on the Baha'i writings or the Book of Mormon, because I have no interest in these as I discarded them when I came to the conclusion that Christianity is a false religion (therefore also making anything after it false, as they incorporate Jesus somehow). .

But another possibility is that, the reason you think Christianity is false, it's because its messages got altered from its original, or misinterpretations propagated through centuries. Then, in the subsequent Revelations, God has corrected the misinterpretations, and has renewed the Messages again.

 

[Rival]

But another possibility is that, the reason you think Christianity is false, it's because its messages got altered from its original, or misinterpretations propagated through centuries.

The central claim is that Jesus in the messiah. This is objectively false according to the Tanach, because he has not fulfilled the prophecies therein.

 

[nPeace]

I don't know where you go with this. After having read your post through to the end, it seems as if you may be referencing the Christian Satan? Is it correct for me to understand it this way?

I appreciate your responding to this. Thanks.

As you may know, there are different views, and different "Christians", so I'm not sure there will be one Christian Satan (although there can never be a Christian Satan, but I know what you mean. ), or one view among "Christians" as to who the Satan mentioned in the Bible is.

I use Christian deliberately in quotation marks because I don't believe it is reasonable to accept that everyone who says they believe in Jesus or the Bible is Christian.
I believe the Bible says this, and once people understand it, they would see the truth in that, and agree with me

I assume you mean, am I referring to Satan mentioned by the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures, as the enemy of God? That would be, Yes.

I cannot comment on the Baha'i writings or the Book of Mormon, because I have no interest in these as I discarded them when I came to the conclusion that Christianity is a false religion (therefore also making anything after it false, as they incorporate Jesus somehow). I'm confused at your past tense here, just as an aside. The Torah is what the Jews believe, and the Greek Scriptures are what the Christians believe (though this may just be me nitpicking, I wasn't sure if you were trying to make a point by using the past tense).

I think I understand why you say Christianity is a false religion, but I think that is quite a broad brush, since "Christianity" is made up of perhaps hundreds of different religions.
I believe Christianity, as started by Jesus, and carried on by his followers, is a way of life, rather than a religion.

In my opinion, this is not true on any level. The Christian writings' origin seems to be to retroactively fit Jesus into Tanach prophecies, some of which are not even prophecies at all and others non-Messianich prophecies. There's also the conundrum of 'High Priests' when there was only one High Priest, and the other detail of Paul saying he is a Pharisee who, during his career persecuting Christians, worked for the High Priest, who was a Sadducee. This is straight from the mouth of someone who seems very unfamiliar with the local context, because a Pharisee working for a Sadducee is pretty much the same as a staunch Capitalist parliamentarian taking orders from a Communist leader.

Anyway, these are just a handful of issues I have and why I must disagree with your assertion.

You must have your reason for believing that your opinion is correct, but do you have any proof that the Christian writers of the first century dishonestly tried to fit Jesus into Tanakh?

I'm not following you with the Pharisee, and Sadducee bit.
Where do you find Paul worked for the High Priest, who was a Sadducee? ...and I don't understand the problem you are having with the High Priest.
Can you explain these please.

Actually, this is a myth. The Muslim belief is that the Torah and Gospel are corrupted, but as far as I know the Qur'an nowhere actually says this. It, in fact, tells believers in each to judge by their respective scripture:

Surah 5:43
How come they (come) unto thee (Muhammad) for judgment when they have the Torah, wherein Allah hath delivered judgment (for them)?

Surah 5:47

Let the People of the Gospel judge by that which Allah hath revealed therein. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are evil-livers.

The Qur'an's internal logic/belief seems to be that the previous scriptures do align with it, but it's the believers themselves who are off-track with their beliefs. I'm open to correction on this.

I know what i have been told by Muslims, but the Quran says...

Family of Imran 3
3. He sent down to you the Book with the Truth, confirming what came before it; and He sent down the Torah and the Gospel.
48. And He will teach him the Scripture and wisdom, and the Torah and the Gospel.

The Table of Maidah 5
46 In their footsteps, We sent Jesus son of Mary, fulfilling the Torah that preceded him; and We gave him the Gospel, wherein is guidance and light, and confirming the Torah that preceded him, and guidance and counsel for the righteous.
66 Had they observed the Torah, and the Gospel, and what was revealed to them from their Lord, they would have consumed amply from above them, and from beneath their feet. Among them is a moderate community, but evil is what many of them are doing.
68 Say, "O People of the Scripture! You have no basis until you uphold the Torah, and the Gospel, and what is revealed to you from your Lord." But what is revealed to you from your Lord will increase many of them in rebellion and disbelief, so do not be sorry for the disbelieving people.

Repentance at Tawbah 9
111. God has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties in exchange for Paradise. They fight in God’s way, and they kill and get killed. It is a promise binding on Him in the Torah, and the Gospel, and the Quran. And who is more true to his promise than God? So rejoice in making such an exchange—that is the supreme triumph.

Friday at Jumuah 62
5. The example of those who were entrusted with the Torah, but then failed to uphold it, is like the donkey carrying works of literature. Miserable is the example of the people who denounce God’s revelations. God does not guide the wrongdoing people.

The Quran makes references to persons and events in the Bible - persons such as Adam, Noah, Moses, Jesus, and also the Flood.
I think it would be wise to listen to the book rather than those who might misrepresent it. What do you think?

Certainly from what I know, these books are in serious conflict with both Torah and Gospel.

I'm sure there are contradictions. I'll have to research that, but one I know for sure, is where ithe quran says that God has no son, but the Bible says God has many sons.
Apparently, not only does it contradict the bible, but Muslims themselves say that Muhammad contradicts himself.

Interestingly although the Quran makes mention of God's people, mentioned in the Hebrew texts, not once does it mention the name of God, but simply uses an Arabic expression for God - Allah.
In other words, it has not confirmed the most important name of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton.

That's right. Apart from I don't know who this 'enemy' is, but I think you talk here of the Christian Satan.

G-d bless you.

The enemy of God, I am referring to, is Satan the Devil, as he is described in the Bible.

 

[Rival]

As you may know, there are different views, and different "Christians", so I'm not sure there will be one Christian Satan (although there can never be a Christian Satan, but I know what you mean. ), or one view among "Christians" as to who the Satan mentioned in the Bible is.

In Jewish theology, if Satan is taken to be a physical entity, he is an angel of G-d and he is not evil. He brings souls before G-d and accuses them, hence he is called, sometimes, The Accuser. He is something like G-d's attorney. This is, of course, in-case you were unfamiliar with this aspect of Jewish theology.

You must have your reason for believing that your opinion is correct, but do you have any proof that the Christian writers of the first century dishonestly tried to fit Jesus into Tanakh?

They pick parts of prophecies that are not applicable to the messiah and apply them to Jesus, or turn things into prophecies which are not.

Ones which immediately come to mind are 'Out of Egypt I called my son.' [Matt. 2:15]

The full verse is Hosea 11:1, which says:
"When Israel was a child, I loved him,
And out of Egypt I called my son."

(Both from the NKJV)

And,

'A voice was heard in Ramah,
Lamentation, weeping, and great mourning,
Rachael weeping for her children,
Refusing to be comforted,
Because they are no more.'
[Matt: 2:18]

Here is the full context from Jeremiah 31:15-17

Thus says the L-rd:

“A voice was heard in Ramah,
Lamentation and bitter weeping,
Rachel weeping for her children,
Refusing to be comforted for her children,
Because they are no more.”

Thus says the L-rd:

“Refrain your voice from weeping,
And your eyes from tears;
For your work shall be rewarded, says the L-rd,
And they shall come back from the land of the enemy.
There is hope in your future, says the L-rd,
That your children shall come back to their own border.

This is about Israel returning from their exile in their enemies' lands.

I'm not following you with the Pharisee, and Sadducee bit.
Where do you find Paul worked for the High Priest, who was a Sadducee? ...and I don't understand the problem you are having with the High Priest.
Can you explain these please.

The High Priest was, at this time, a Sadducee. The Sadducees and Pharisees were radically different in their theology. Modern Rabbinic Judaism is the same as Pharisaic Judaism. The Sadducees, however, denied the resurrection, eternal life and so on, and thus were not exactly on great terms with the Pharisees.

Acts 9:1
Then Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, so that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.

Saul/Paul does not need any authority from the High Priest, a Sadducee, because Paul is a Pharisee. He tell us so:

Acts 23:6
But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.

Paul even gives us one of the differences between the two as 'of the hope and resurrection of the dead' to cement his being a Pharisee.

Note, I am not trying to crush your faith by explaining these. I understand that my saying this is not going to make you sit up and go, 'Well I never! I can't be a Christian anymore now!'

The Quran makes references to persons and events in the Bible - persons such as Adam, Noah, Moses, Jesus, and also the Flood.
I think it would be wise to listen to the book rather than those who might misrepresent it. What do you think?

Yes, that's why I quoted the Qur'an to you, so we agree. Muslims are forced to claim that our scriptures are corrupted, however, because of the glaring inconsistencies between the two. What a conundrum!

Apparently, not only does it contradict the bible, but Muslims themselves say that Muhammad contradicts himself.

This is funny. There are many funny ahadith, indeed.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

The central claim is that Jesus in the messiah. This is objectively false according to the Tanach, because he has not fulfilled the prophecies therein.

The thing is that, if One goes with the claim of Tanach, the Prophecies are inspiration from God. The Book teaches in several instances that interpretations of Prophecies are difficult and only a Prophet who receives its knowledge can know it. See, Joseph interpreting dreams.
Conclusion is, Messiah must fulfil the prophecies, but how the prophecies must be interpreted, and how the Messiah would fulfil them are all must be explained by God, through a Prophet who first proves Himself to be a True prophet of God to be trusted. It all means that, maybe, the interpretations of the prophecies of Messiah have been misunderstood by people, and also if Jesus fulfilled them, must be explained by a Prophet how it happened, rather than even the Christians.

 

[Rival]

The thing is that, if One goes with the claim of Tanach, the Prophecies are inspiration from God. The Book teaches in several instances that interpretations of Prophecies are difficult and only a Prophet who receives its knowledge can know it. See, Joseph interpreting dreams.
Conclusion is, Messiah must fulfil the prophecies, but how the prophecies must be interpreted, and how the Messiah would fulfil them are all must be explained by God, through a Prophet who first proves Himself to be a True prophet of God to be trusted. It all means that, maybe, the interpretations of the prophecies of Messiah have been misunderstood by people, and also if Jesus fulfilled them, must be explained by a Prophet how it happened, rather than even the Christians.

I'm sure that the Jewish people know their scriptures, their language and their cultural context better than anyone else. The prophecies were given to them, the messiah is their messiah and the prophecies are for them to interpret.

 

[nPeace]

But another possibility is that, the reason you think Christianity is false, it's because its messages got altered from its original, or misinterpretations propagated through centuries. Then, in the subsequent Revelations, God has corrected the misinterpretations, and has renewed the Messages again.

Hi InvestigateTruth,
I do appreciate that those of your faith speak of peace, but I would say that an interesting paradox has been created.

The Bible is the oldest book by far, and considered by most - including those who follow the Quran, the followers of the book of Mormon, and those of the Bahai faith - to be the word of God.
Yet, all three of these accuse the Bible of being corrupt, and needing to be corrected - not removed, but corrected by one of the three. Each claim coming from those who follow the writing of the founder of their faith.

How does one determine that the Bible is corrupt, which verses exactly are corrupted, and which prophet wrote the correct book to correct/replace/enhance "those corrupted texts in the Bible"?
How would one determine that any of those books are not corrupt/twisted/just plain wrong?

I'm thinking that if an artist did an original piece, and thought something was wrong with it, he would retouch it, or completely redo it - that is, strip it, and repaint it, or replace it entirely.

On the other hand...
If an enemy wanted to hide the original, they would create pieces of their own that might be taken as a replacer to the original, or an imitation.

Creating confusion would be a sure way to lead ones away from God, and who better to do that than the Devil himself. After all, The most high is a God of order, not confusion. Would you agree?

What if after creating the confusion, the enemy then tries to make as if these are all just different paintings belonging to the same artist - all various paths leading to the same God?
Some believe this.
The Bible evidently paints a different picture.
Matthew 7: 2 Corinthians 6:14-18; 2 Timothy 4:3, 4

I'll like to ask though...
If Bahais accept that Jesus was the Messiah, and prophet sent by God, where did the belief that another prophet would succeed him come from? Especially in view of Hebrews 7?

 

[1213]

So why aren't you a Baha'i?

Because there is no good reason for that.

You said that some people did not want to recieve the message and that is why they don't, so what is different about your refusal to accept the Baha'i faith? The message is clear, is it not? I'm just trying to illustrate how this reason is flawed and shallow.

Actually, my point was about why there is disagreement and Bible message is not clear for all.

“There is probably always people wo don’t want to receive the message that is why disagreement will remain, even if the message would be absolutely clear”.

I meant with that, People who don’t like the truth, invent all kind of explanations why they don’t need to accept it and then they twist the message and it becomes unclear.

For me, Bible is clear. And it is clear for me that I have no reason to accept Baha’i faith, all though I don’t think there is anything unclear in its message.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

The central claim is that Jesus in the messiah. This is objectively false according to the Tanach, because he has not fulfilled the prophecies therein.

Baha'ullah has explained why the advent of Christ and Muhammad did not fulfil the popular expectations of how these returns would occur. The explanation is the Kitab-i-iqan

Bahá'u'lláh claims that the return that is spoken of in prophecy is not a literal physical return but a recurrence of certain archetypal patterns. Thus, in this sense each of the prophet-founders of the world religions (the Manifestations of God in Bahá'í terminology) is the return of all the previous prophet-founders.

:....It is clear and evident to thee that all the Prophets are the Temples of the Cause of God, Who have appeared clothed in divers attire. If thou wilt observe with discriminating eyes, thou wilt behold them all abiding in the same tabernacle, soaring in the same heaven, seated upon the same throne, uttering the same speech, and proclaiming the same Faith. Such is the unity of those Essences of being, those Luminaries of infinite and immeasurable splendour. Wherefore, should one of these Manifestations of Holiness proclaim saying: "I am the return of all the Prophets," He verily speaketh the truth. In like manner, in every subsequent Revelation, the return of the former Revelation is a fact, the truth of which is firmly established. Inasmuch as the return of the Prophets of God, as attested by verses and traditions, hath been conclusively demonstrated, the return of their chosen ones also is therefore definitely proven...."

There is a lot to discuss this on this topic.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

So why aren't you a Baha'i?

Because there is no good reason for that.

What are the Good Reasons to be a Christian?

Regards Tony

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Hi InvestigateTruth,
I do appreciate that those of your faith speak of peace, but I would say that an interesting paradox has been created.

The Bible is the oldest book by far, and considered by most - including those who follow the Quran, the followers of the book of Mormon, and those of the Bahai faith - to be the word of God.
Yet, all three of these accuse the Bible of being corrupt, and needing to be corrected - not removed, but corrected by one of the three. Each claim coming from those who follow the writing of the founder of their faith.

How does one determine that the Bible is corrupt, which verses exactly are corrupted, and which prophet wrote the correct book to correct/replace/enhance "those corrupted texts in the Bible"?
How would one determine that any of those books are not corrupt/twisted/just plain wrong?

I'm thinking that if an artist did an original piece, and thought something was wrong with it, he would retouch it, or completely redo it - that is, strip it, and repaint it, or replace it entirely.

On the other hand...
If an enemy wanted to hide the original, they would create pieces of their own that might be taken as a replacer to the original, or an imitation.

Creating confusion would be a sure way to lead ones away from God, and who better to do that than the Devil himself. After all, The most high is a God of order, not confusion. Would you agree?

What if after creating the confusion, the enemy then tries to make as if these are all just different paintings belonging to the same artist - all various paths leading to the same God?
Some believe this.
The Bible evidently paints a different picture.
Matthew 7: 2 Corinthians 6:14-18; 2 Timothy 4:3, 4

I'll like to ask though...
If Bahais accept that Jesus was the Messiah, and prophet sent by God, where did the belief that another prophet would succeed him come from? Especially in view of Hebrews 7?

For your information, Bahais do not believe the Bible became corrupted, but rather its true interpretations got corrupted, and that is even what Quran says as well.
The belief of another prophet after Jesus is described in the Bible in several verses. However most Christians would disagree, just as the Jews would disagree with Christians regarding Messiah being a Prophet or son of God. Muhammad is believed to have been prophesied in Chapter of Revelation as one of the Two Witness who shall Prophecy for 1260 days. Likewise the Bab is prophesied as return of Elijah. Bahaullah as Lord of Host, Glory of the God of Israel, the Father, and Return of Christ in the glory of the Father.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I'm sure that the Jewish people know their scriptures, their language and their cultural context better than anyone else. The prophecies were given to them, the messiah is their messiah and the prophecies are for them to interpret.

That is actually one of the reasons I have noticed Christians say about their Bible and Muslims about their Quran, That we know our own Book.
Although it is understandable, but it is difficult to prove this claim, because if one considers that for instance the Bible is the Book of God, it is not very reasonable for any adherent of the Bible to claim they know their own Book better than God. So, if God wants to raise a Prophet and talks to them, through Him, they say, we know our own Book better than Him. Another reason that it makes it difficult to prove this claim, is that, usually the followers of a particular Book have become divided in sects. For instance in Christianity, each sect or denomination have a different interpretation of the Bible. Obviously we cannot say all of them are right, just because they are Christians, when they have conflicting interpretations. Perhaps, each have some parts of the true interpretations, which makes it for each sect difficult to see the whole truth...then when God comes with a new Prophet to explain the original true interpretations, most would disagree, saying, this is not how our denomination have been teaching.

 

[nPeace]

For your information, Bahais do not believe the Bible became corrupted, but rather its true interpretations got corrupted, and that is even what Quran says as well.

Thanks. I appreciate your input.
That's nice to know, that Bahais

do not believe the Bible became corrupted, but rather its true interpretations got corrupted,

However, I have spoken to Muslims personally, and they told me that the Bible has been corrupted through the constant copying and recopying through the years.
They believe the original was as the Quran says, "Handed down by Allah". They say that the Quran is more pure, because, they say, it was memorized, and passed orally.
...but... don't we also make mistakes in calling things to mind, and relaying it by speech?

I think though it may be a matter of opinion, where some feel that way while others feel differently, and in some cases it may be how we convey our thoughts - sort of like our thoughts coming out before consciously expressing them perhaps.
For example, I really thought you and some of your brothers in faith were suggesting that the Bible was corrupt, but perhaps you were referring to the translations, or perhaps the interpreting of the word meanings as they were translated.

While I could understand that, I would agree that does not corrupt the message. We live with mistakes everyday, and we manage.
The word of God is alive - Hebrews 4:12

What we have to be concerned about are those who misinterpret various parts of it, and teach these, but that is not the Bible's message.

The belief of another prophet after Jesus is described in the Bible in several verses. However most Christians would disagree, just as the Jews would disagree with Christians regarding Messiah being a Prophet or son of God. Muhammad is believed to have been prophesied in Chapter of Revelation with Two Witness who shall Prophecy for 1260 days. Likewise the Bab is prophesied as return of Elijah. Bahaullah as Lord of Host, Glory of the God of Israel, the Father, and Return of Christ in the glory of the Father.

Several verses?
Would you mind giving me those verses for my education, please - just the verses, thanks.

Aren't you equating those Christians that don't agree, with those who may not believe for personal reasons?
I am one of those Christians that don't agree, but does that mean I don't agree for personal reasons, or could I not disagree for scriptural reasons?
For example, I supplied a scriptural reason for not agreeing.
What do you say to that?

The two witnesses in Revelation can be interpreted in countless ways, by countless people. What evidence shows that it applies to Bahaullah?
Of course, you know that it would be impossible for anyone to prove that prophecy would apply to any so-called prophet. So how could anyone be expected to believe?
That's different to Jesus, where hundreds of prophecies were fulfilled by him... that was very clear. No guesswork was required.

Didn't Jesus say, Elijah came, and are the scriptures not clear about that one? Could you post those scriptures you have in mind, please.
I really would like to see those.