Fulfillment of Prophecy in the New Testament

[Samael_Khan]

Yes, there are multiple movements within Judaism. However, your description of the differences within Judaism is simplistic and a mischaracterization.

Definitely over simplistic. I don't know much about the differences in the first place. But the differences must be there for a reason.

 

[Brian2]

You mean denying YOUR interpretation of the Bible.
All people interpret what they read differently...
I do not agree with your interpretation of the Bible and you do not agree with my interpretation of the Bible.
I cannot understand how Christians cannot understand something this simple.

I'm just saying that when "interpretation" ends up denying what is written in the Bible, the it has really lost the definition of being "interpretation".

 

[Brian2]

Who is that Jesus? Peter gives the answer.

Matthew 16They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Notice others offered who Jesus was but Peter got it right, He said you are Christ.

Peter said Jesus is the Christ. Jesus the man, with the physical body, is the Christ, body and all. And Jesus body rose from the dead and was transformed into a glorified body, and immortal and incorruptible body that could live anywhere,,,,,,,,,,including in heaven.

Christ means 'Annointed One', The true part of Jesus is What He was Annointed with and that is the Holy Spirit and not the flesh as all flesh perishes.

If Jesus was anointed with the Holy Spirit, does that mean that the Holy Spirit then becomes part of Jesus?

The Bible is clear that the flesh returns to dust and that it is spirit that lives and that is what it is to be born again, born into the spirit.

One such passage Ecclesiastes 3:19-21

The flesh returns to dust at the death of the body and the soul lives on. Eccles 3:19-21 is about what we can see that happens to both animals and humans. It does not speak of the bodily resurrection, so it should not be assumed from that passage that there is no bodily resurrection.
Even what some say is the oldest book in the Bible, seems to speak of a bodily resurrection.

Job 19…25But I know that my Redeemer lives, and in the end He will stand upon the earth. 26Even after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God. 27I will see Him for myself; my eyes will behold Him, and not as a stranger. How my heart yearns within me!…

 

[Brian2]

No the Jews do not beleive in Jesus at all and have imputed to Jesus what you imputed about Baha'u'llah.

That does not mean that Baha'u'llah is whom he claims however.

 

[Brian2]

In post 673 I have some more information about Isaac and Ishmael.

Yes I know that Muslims say that the Jews corrupted the text of the OT. I guess the Abraham story is one place they say that happened.
Whether Baha'u'llah knew the Genesis account is unknown to me. It had to be the Bible or the Koran and in this case the Koran won out and he denied the Bible.
It is interesting that the children of Ishmael whom God blessed as He said and made them into a great nation, then were used by Satan to bring the ancient grievance of the inheritance of the land of Israel into a religion that carries on the fight for that land. (my interpretation of the whole thing)

Before I knew much of anything about Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christianity, I met and became friends with some Baha'is. Without having read the Bible, I took their word for it that what they told me about what the Bible said was true. Like the Spirit of Truth and from mountain to mountain etc. It didn't take a very deep study of the Bible to learn that what I was told has some problems. I'm still questioning them about those things.

I sort of got stuck on the teachings of the JWs when younger and had to do research to check out what the Bible actually said. It can take time and frustration to realise that presenting the facts to people is not enough usually.

But, if no one cares about the older religions and what they really taught, then the Baha'i Faith isn't all that bad. But, now I'm having trouble thinking what a world run by the teachings of the Baha'i Faith would really look like. There will still be a military to put down any rogue nation? Therefore, there will still be a need for very sophisticated weapons. And what will they do with drugs and alcohol? Prohibition didn't turn out that well. The Christian solution is easy... all evil doers are cast into a lake of fire when Jesus comes. Baha'u'llah comes, dies and the world is still filled with evil doers. I wonder what their "interpretation/belief" is about that? So, yes, I agree with you... What they call an "interpretation" is the belief. That belief they say is from Baha'u'llah... who they say got it from God, therefore, it is the absolute truth and not just an "interpretation".

Yes, when confronting beliefs there is a wall there already and giving up a belief is not an easy thing, esp when your life is entwined in it etc
I don't know that much about the Baha'i but Baha'u'llah has his message for the world and there will be other Messengers to carry on the tradition and I guess Baha'u'llah is not meant to deal with war and peace and drugs etc
Then again peace is something that the return of Jesus is going to bring, so there should be an answer for all the things that the returned Messiah is supposed to do. Maybe Baha'u'llah's teachings will bring peace eventually,,,,,,,,,,,,and who knows, the world has a number of issues and peace and unity and cooperation could be on the card down the track when things get worse,,,,,,,,,,,but I doubt that it will be real unity,,,,,,just a surface thing. But that won't stop Baha'i from claiming credit if it happens.

 

[Brian2]

Two Baha'i favorites... "the flesh amounts to nothing." Therefore, Jesus didn't rise from the dead but is dead and stayed dead.

Yes that aspect of Baha'i, it's dualism of flesh and spirit sounds something like what seem to have been the Gnostic teachings around in the first century.
Also they seem to see the Christ as distinct from the persons of the Messengers. But this teaching of the Baha'is is a bit hard for me to follow.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm just saying that when "interpretation" ends up denying what is written in the Bible, the it has really lost the definition of being "interpretation".

You still do not understand do you, after all these years of me trying to explain this to you?

What is written in the Bible can be interpreted in many ways, not just in one way. The proof of that is that even Christians interpret the Bible differently. If Christians all interpreted the Bible the same exact way, then Christians would all agree on every verse meaning, but we all know that they don't agree on verse meanings. Sure, Christians agree on the basic tenets of Christianity but that is because those became doctrines of the Church and most Christians just accepted those unquestionably.

Not all Christians even agree that Jesus actually rose from the dead, because those stories are open to interpretation. You have a different interpretation but that does not mean your interpretation is correct.

What many liberal theologians believe about Jesus' death

Many liberal and some mainline Christian leaders believe that Jesus died during the crucifixion, did not resurrect himself, and was not bodily resurrected by God. At his death, his mind ceased to function and his body started the decomposition process. Returning to life a day and a half later would have been quite impossible. The story of having been wrapped in linen and anointed with myrrh seems to have been copied from the story of the death of Osiris -- the Egyptian God of the earth, vegetation and grain. The legend that he visited the underworld between his death and resurrection was simply copied from common Pagan themes of surrounding cultures. One example again was Osiris. "With his original association to agriculture, his death and resurrection were seen as symbolic of the annual death and re-growth of the crops and the yearly flooding of the Nile." 1

They also believe that Paul regarded the resurrection to be an act of God in which Jesus was a passive recipient of God's power. Paul did not mention the empty tomb, the visit by a woman or women, the stone, the angel/angels/man/men at the tomb, and reunion of Jesus with his followers in his resuscitated body. Rather, he believed that Jesus was taken up into heaven in a spirit body. It was only later, from about 70 to 110 CE when the four canonic Gospels were written, that the Christians believed that Jesus rose from the grave in his original body, and by his own power.

Later, perhaps after Paul's death, there was great disappointment within the Christian communities because Jesus had not returned as expected. They diverted their focus of attention away from Jesus' second coming. They studied his life and death more intensely. Legends without a historical basis were created by the early church; these included the empty tomb and described Jesus returning in his original body to eat and talk with his followers.

In previous centuries, almost all Christians believed in miracles as described in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). These included creation, the story of Adam and Eve, a talking serpent, the great flood of Noah, the drying up of the Red/Reed sea, a prophet riding on a talking ***, the sun stopping in the sky, etc. From the Christian Scriptures (New Testament), they believed in the virgin birth, the Christmas star, angels appearing to the shepherds, Jesus healing the sick, etc. Many, perhaps most, liberal Christians now believe that these stories are not to be interpreted literally as real events. Their faith has not been damaged by losing faith in the reality of these events. A growing number of liberals are now taking the final step by interpreting the stories of Jesus' resurrection and his appearances to his followers and to Paul as other than real events. Retired bishop John Shelby Spong commented:

"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

 

[CG Didymus]

The true part of Jesus is What He was Annointed with and that is the Holy Spirit and not the flesh as all flesh perishes.

The Bible is clear that the flesh returns to dust and that it is spirit that lives and that is what it is to be born again, born into the spirit.

One such passage Ecclesiastes 3:19-21

Peter said Jesus is the Christ. Jesus the man, with the physical body, is the Christ, body and all. And Jesus body rose from the dead and was transformed into a glorified body, and immortal and incorruptible body that could live anywhere,,,,,,,,,,including in heaven.

Acts 2:26... my body also will rest in hope, 27 because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead, you will not let your holy one see decay.

I doubt that Jesus came back to life too. But, I don't doubt that the New Testament teaches that he did. Baha'i have to deny any verse that implies that Jesus did come back to life and any verse that implies that it is him, Jesus, that is coming back. Baha'is need his body dead and gone. His Spirit they can deal with. His flesh and bone body, they can't.

Even with their belief in evolution, they still have to believe that God made something that was not alive into something that was alive. Why is it so hard for them to think that God could bring something that had died back to life? Why is it so hard for them to think that God could create a different, glorified type of body? Because they don't need nor want any of those things to be true. They believe in other things. Unfortunately, they also pretend to believe in the New Testament. So when their beliefs don't match up with the NT? It is the NT that is wrong... but usually because foolish people have misinterpreted it. That way they can still claim that the NT is true... but only true in how they interpret it.

 

[Unity of Mankind]

I doubt that Jesus came back to life too. But, I don't doubt that the New Testament teaches that he did.

As a youth wanting to believe in Christianity I took instructions from a Catholic Jesuit Priest in La Mesa, California. He declared that before anything was written down everything was passed down through word of mouth after the passing of the disciples which he termed "Oral Tradition."

If that is true, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, what later became the Four Gospels according to Mathew, Mark, Luke and John in written form was subject to error. So logically speaking it is impossible to even know for sure what accurately represented what actually came from the disciples of Jesus. Nevertheless, I think the spiritual principles were so powerful in what Jesus imparted, such as the Beatitudes, and how one was to live their life in relation to others, that part of the New Testament is, in my opinion, is the most meaningful and significant. Going on memory, Jesus declared in the Gospels a divided house cannot stand which, as a principle, was born out in the breaking up and demise of the Roman Empire. Indeed, what we see taking place in the modern world of today is playing out before our eyes in the same way but with more devastating consequences.

 

[Unity of Mankind]

Baha'is need his body dead and gone. His Spirit they can deal with. His flesh and bone body, they can't.

Going on memory, Jesus only glorified the spirit, not the body in the written form of the New Testament. For example He said something along the line that spirit was life whereas flesh profited not at all.

So how do you presume to speak for Baha'is regarding what they can deal with and what they can't? Baha'u'llah glorified Jesus Christ in verifiable written documents so that you can't contest, deny or prove otherwise. Your apparent pitting Baha'is against Christians and vice versa is, in my opinion as a Baha'i, is tantamount to pitting God against God since both religions constitute Revelations from God through a Prophet.

A basic difference between the Christian and the Baha'i Faith is only in regard to God addressing differing needs of humankind at different periods of the Age in which he lives. In other words, the needs of humanity varies according to changing circumstances in his spiritual evolution. In that regard I see no essential difference between the two Faiths.

 

[Brian2]

That depends both on your Christian denomination and which Jewish Halachic view on the status of Christianity you subscribe to.

Nevertheless the God of Jesus, who was a Jew, is the God of the Torah.

 

[Brian2]

The stream going through Paul and Peter is what later evolved into what you term "Christianity", which later developed doctrines like original sin, deity of Jesus and the Trinity.

The forms and doctrines that the Christian Church eventually developed are certainly different to Judaism and no doubt not all of the doctrines are correct in all parts of the Church, nevertheless the Paul, Peter, John etc stream that it developed from is the stream that Jesus authorised to go and preach the gospel to the world.

 

[Brian2]

He declared that before anything was written down everything was passed down through word of mouth after the passing of the disciples which he termed "Oral Tradition."

If that is true, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, what later became the Four Gospels according to Mathew, Mark, Luke and John in written form was subject to error. So logically speaking it is impossible to even know for sure what accurately represented what actually came from the disciples of Jesus.

It is a leap to think that the oral tradition went from, Jesus did not rise from the dead to Jesus rose from the dead.
And really the writers of the gospels either were there or got their knowledge from people who were.

 

[Brian2]

In other words, the needs of humanity varies according to changing circumstances in his spiritual evolution. In that regard I see no essential difference between the two Faiths.

A basic difference is that you follow Baha'u'llah and Christians follow Jesus. The gospel of Jesus has been abrogated according to Baha'i. Baha'u'llah claims to be able to supply maybe similar things to what Jesus does but Baha'u'llah is not the "same Jesus" who will return (Acts 1:9-11) and takes OT prophecies about Jesus and applies them to himself. And these are prophecies which have already been applied to Jesus in the NT.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

A basic difference is that you follow Baha'u'llah and Christians follow Jesus.

Not a Baha'i but your comment is dishonest.
Christians don't just follow Jesus (and the 12 Disciples), they follow all the Old Testament Prophets, Muslims believe in Muhammad (and the 12 Imams) after Jesus and Baha'i's believe in the Bab and Baha'u'llah after Muhammad.

Unless your a Marcionite (which means you reject the Old Testament entirely and think the God of the Old Testament is different from Jesus' and believe that it is evil), then you don't "just follow Jesus", you give centrality to Jesus for whatever reasons you interpret your books to say according to your doctrines, of which are claimed to be a fulfillment of all the old testament Prophets prior that you also believe in but to a less emphasized degree.

 

[rational experiences]

A basic difference is that you follow Baha'u'llah and Christians follow Jesus. The gospel of Jesus has been abrogated according to Baha'i. Baha'u'llah claims to be able to supply maybe similar things to what Jesus does but Baha'u'llah is not the "same Jesus" who will return (Acts 1:9-11) and takes OT prophecies about Jesus and applies them to himself. And these are prophecies which have already been applied to Jesus in the NT.

What happens when a human as just one self, which everyone of us, gets born and then says, you are all wrong in your groups? Yet some of the expressions in those groups are correct?

Would you say a human who believed in none of that information studied self human spiritual concepts their own self wrong? And I bet a lot of you would and claim, but you are not arguing using our previously stated information.

So first of all I would say, okay, when I got told the Jesus story as a story I thought it evil...and said who would want to believe in a Father God who would sacrifice a baby to adult life in early age death and claim it a Holy Act.

Made no common sense. Human reasoning I was suffering physical body pain...compared to my life to many other humans suffering. Their suffering was more acute than my own. Was grateful. Then I thought self ungrateful for making that selfish claim....for since when would I want to suffer like they were?

So then I said be logical and make an assessment of information and ask why any human not suffering would claim suffering was HOLY as an act to save self unless a mental problem in the human psyche was owned by a condition coercion?

Therefore knowing my own human Father, a drunk who knew very little about me...when my sisters and I confronted him for our own healing, he cried. I then felt bad for making him cry so comforted him. And then reassessed my belief of my parents having been some form of higher life situation...when I inherited being an adult human my own self.

So I said, I would try to be a better parent, so began to apply self assessment to my psyche and human bad behaviours towards my family and my extended family to develop spirituality.

I realized that the Trinity teaching said if you were a Holy Father, then your son was holy also a baby. And the spirits/gases in science said all was Holy.

So to believe in sacrifice by your Father an adult as an innocent gained life a baby was fake. For only scientists in actual nuclear occult review own the belief of sacrificing the life to allow their science model to be practiced as a human liar those adults all are.

So One O God in science said I knew how to remove the power of God and wanted to.

The Trinity said Father, son and Holy spirit medical biological teachings said all bodies were holy and equal, never harm life ever again in fake male Adult Father lying Satanic beliefs that life should be sacrificed just because you invented and are the inventor MALE ADULT of the state occult science and cosmological attack.

 

[Trailblazer]

And really the writers of the gospels either were there or got their knowledge from people who were.

And even if they were there and wrote those stories that does not mean the stories are true stories.
Stories are not proof that anything in the stories are true.

Nothing in the resurrection stories is verifiable by any witnesses that are outside the story itself.
Thus the bodily resurrection is a faith-based belief, not a fact-based belief.

Moreover, there are no verifiable facts regarding the life is Jesus, all we have are the gospel stories.
By contrast, we have actual facts surrounding the life of Baha'u'llah.

 

[Trailblazer]

Baha'u'llah is not the "same Jesus" who will return (Acts 1:9-11) and takes OT prophecies about Jesus and applies them to himself. And these are prophecies which have already been applied to Jesus in the NT.

Baha'u'llah did not take any prophecies and apply them to Himself. He did not have to do that since He clearly fulfilled the OT prophecies, thus showing by actual things He did that they apply to Him. Jesus only fulfilled a handful if OT prophecies and not any of the prophecies for the return of Christ who was slated by God to be the Messiah and the Promised One of all ages..

You cannot apply a prophecy until it has been fulfilled by actual events. Jesus has not fulfilled any OT prophecies for the second coming since Jesus never came back. Hoping Jesus will return is not the same as having the real Jesus on earth. That is never going to happen unless (a) Jesus is a liar, or (b) the NT is in error.

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

 

[Brian2]

Not a Baha'i but your comment is dishonest.
Christians don't just follow Jesus (and the 12 Disciples), they follow all the Old Testament Prophets, Muslims believe in Muhammad (and the 12 Imams) after Jesus and Baha'i's believe in the Bab and Baha'u'llah after Muhammad.

Unless your a Marcionite (which means you reject the Old Testament entirely and think the God of the Old Testament is different from Jesus' and believe that it is evil), then you don't "just follow Jesus", you give centrality to Jesus for whatever reasons you interpret your books to say according to your doctrines, of which are claimed to be a fulfillment of all the old testament Prophets prior that you also believe in but to a less emphasized degree.

A basic difference between Baha'is and Christians is that Christians follow Jesus teachings and Baha'is follow Baha'u'llah's teaching, which contradict the teachings of Jesus.

 

[CG Didymus]

So how do you presume to speak for Baha'is regarding what they can deal with and what they can't?

Even if not stated, take everything as being my opinion. An opinion based on having studied with Baha'is and to have gone on several of their "Mass Teaching" projects... by the things I've learned from Baha'is here. Baha'is, in my opinion, want nothing to do with a living Savior. They don't want him to be the one coming back. Baha'is are most closely like a liberal form of Shia Islam... obligatory prayers, a pilgrimage, a 19 day fast and a whole bunch of laws. Laws Baha'is believe are meant for this day and age but maybe are already outdated, IMO.

He declared that before anything was written down everything was passed down through word of mouth after the passing of the disciples which he termed "Oral Tradition." If that is true, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, what later became the Four Gospels according to Mathew, Mark, Luke and John in written form was subject to error.

Have you read the NT and the Bible for yourself? To me it would be very hard to believe all those stories. To me, it sounds like religious myth. Myth that was meant to get people to obey rules. And if they didn't obey the rules? God was going to get them.

I think the spiritual principles were so powerful in what Jesus imparted, such as the Beatitudes, and how one was to live their life in relation to others, that part of the New Testament is, in my opinion, is the most meaningful and significant.

So you believe the gospels were subject to error, yet you like the spiritual principles? Do you live by them?

In Matthew Jesus allegedly says, 'Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven."
In Luke he says, "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God."
Then later says, "But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort.
Then says, "Woe to you who are well fed now, for you will go hungry."​

Eight Beatitudes in Matthew then four in Luke along with four "Woes". I didn't see any listed in the other two gospels, but I read on in Matthew. This is still the Sermon on the Mount. Do you or anyone take Jesus' advice on this...

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.​

What else do you like about what Jesus taught?

A basic difference between the Christian and the Baha'i Faith is only in regard to God addressing differing needs of humankind at different periods of the Age in which he lives. In other words, the needs of humanity varies according to changing circumstances in his spiritual evolution. In that regard I see no essential difference between the two Faiths.

Why play this game? You don't believe the NT as believed by "Bible believing/Evangelical/Fundamentalist/Born Again Christians. And that would be fine, if Baha'is didn't pretend that there is a "progression" from one "manifestation" to the next.

The "differing" needs? Did people in India need the next level of teaching brought by Moses? Or did what Krishna and other spiritual teachers bring them in Hinduism better fit their culture and their needs? Or, maybe Moses came before Krishna... should the Jews have "seen" the light and accepted Krishna as their Messiah? Or maybe Buddha? Same with Jesus... What did his teachings have to do with anything that Hindus and Buddhists believed? These spiritual teachings were worlds away and worlds apart.

But you were comparing Christianity and the Baha'i Faith... What "social" laws did Jesus bring? So whatever those were was supposed to be what God thought that people needed at the time to get to the next level of an ever advancing civilization? But those laws, whatever they were, only lasted 600 years, and then Muhammad "abrogated" those laws and brought some new ones. These lasted until The Bab came and "abrogated" them. Yet, some of the greatest cultures and empires believed in what many would consider "false" religions and beliefs. And, besides, by the time Christianity caught on, it was teaching what Baha'i say was a false belief... that Jesus was part of a Trinitarian God. The Baha'is do, kind of like what you did, make a small part of the NT, true, in your case the Beatitudes, and dump the rest.

IMO, that's just for you, Baha'is should be honest and say, "No, we don't believe the Bible or the NT. They are based on myth and legend. They embellished the stories so much, who knows what the truth really is. They are filled with miraculous stories that no intelligent person should take as being literally true. Dead people don't come back to life after three days. God didn't audibly speak from heaven. He didn't create an evil spirit being and cast him to Earth. People are not born sinful and in need of a "savior". There is no fiery abyss where God is going to throw people that don't believe in Jesus... and so on?

Just say it plainly. What do you believe is true in the Bible and the NT? And don't pull the old... "Well it's all true... just not literally true.? Jesus didn't come back to life? Great, we can scratch all those verses about the "risen" Christ appearing to people. No literal creation or flood? Great, scratch that off. What else? You know what, don't put down what you don't believe is literally true, it might be faster to just list what you do believe about the Bible and the NT.