Fulfillment of Prophecy in the New Testament

[Brian2]

No, this is how Baha'u'llah glorified Jesus:

“Know thou that when the Son of Man yielded up His breath to God, the whole creation wept with a great weeping. By sacrificing Himself, however, a fresh capacity was infused into all created things. Its evidences, as witnessed in all the peoples of the earth, are now manifest before thee. The deepest wisdom which the sages have uttered, the profoundest learning which any mind hath unfolded, the arts which the ablest hands have produced, the influence exerted by the most potent of rulers, are but manifestations of the quickening power released by His transcendent, His all-pervasive, and resplendent Spirit.

We testify that when He came into the world, He shed the splendor of His glory upon all created things. Through Him the leper recovered from the leprosy of perversity and ignorance. Through Him, the unchaste and wayward were healed. Through His power, born of Almighty God, the eyes of the blind were opened, and the soul of the sinner sanctified.

Leprosy may be interpreted as any veil that interveneth between man and the recognition of the Lord, his God. Whoso alloweth himself to be shut out from Him is indeed a leper, who shall not be remembered in the Kingdom of God, the Mighty, the All-Praised. We bear witness that through the power of the Word of God every leper was cleansed, every sickness was healed, every human infirmity was banished. He it is Who purified the world. Blessed is the man who, with a face beaming with light, hath turned towards Him.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 85-86

The first paragraph is probably completely false concerning Jesus and seems to be a corruption of the gospel message. A bit of praise from Baha'u'llah is needed to convince people that he is not really against Jesus and His teachings. However, Baha'u'llah has lowered the status of Jesus and has pushed the real Gospel and Jesus aside so that people will come to Baha'u'llah and not to Jesus. Along with that his teaching, which seem to tell Baha'is to believe the gospels and the Bible, actually force people who are Baha'is to deny large parts of the gospel message and large parts of the rest of the NT and OT.
This is the fruits of Baha'u'llah and his teachings.

 

[Brian2]

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..

Which prophecies did Baha'u'llah fulfil which the Messiah is supposed to fulfil?
But Baha'u'llah has applied OT prophecies to himself which were already applied to Jesus in the NT and which cannot apply to Baha'u'llah since he was not an Israelite . (eg Isa 53, Isa 9, Isa 11 etc)

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.

Jesus being the promised Messiah and having fulfilled the prophesies for the Messiah, coming to judge Israel and to bring forgiveness through His death, and rising from that death is without question the Messiah affirmed by God by His resurrection and so is the one who will come back to fulfil the rest of the prophecies.
Baha'u'llah has come and gone and not fulfilled any of the prophecies of the Messiah.

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.

Yes Jesus finished the work that He was given to do and was saying that He would go home to His Father. There He sits at the right hand of God and all His enemies are put under His feet. (Ps 110:1) as He rules as King.
A more clear statement of Jesus as to what it refers to and who He refers to is John 14:3
" And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am."
And I could show you plenty of places in the NT where it is clearly Jesus who will come back but in the past you have either denied the truth of them or said that the passages refer to Baha'u'llah (even when Jesus name is used) or said that some of them are not statements by Jesus, so they are somehow unreliable.

 

[Brian2]

I can read those same passages and not see that the flesh is required in their understanding. Notice the body will rest because we do not abandon Christ, just because Jesus was laid to rest in the flesh, we will not let 'Christ' (holy one) see decay in Spirit.

Acts 2:31 Seeing what was to come, he spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that he was not abandoned to the realm of the dead, nor did his body see decay. 32 God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it.

Do you still insist that it is the Jesus spirit that did not see decay?
Can spirits decay?

1 Corinthians 15:44 "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body."

Even that passage is saying that what was sown is raised.
And yes it is raised a spiritual body but that does not mean that it is a spirit.
Jesus body was a spiritual body but it is shown in the NT to have been the body that Jesus had in life which was raised from the grave and transformed to a spiritual body even though Jesus said that He was not a spirit (Luke 24) and He showed that He still had the same wounds of crucifixion.
A spiritual body is not what you might imagine according to the evidence in the NT.
You get your information from Baha'u'llah and deny the witness of the Bible.

 

[rosends]

The word of God is where we get most of our knowledge about God. The New Covenant then offers knowledge about God and offers a personal knowing of God from our experience of Him and from His Spirit in us. His word also tells us that we will know what He wants and cause us to walk in His ordinances and statutes.

So you make statements that doesn't correlate to the contents of the document I accept, based in faith you have in a document I reject, external to the document which I accept.

Ezek 36:26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will remove your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27And I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes and to carefully observe My ordinances. 28Then you will live in the land that I gave your forefathers; you will be My people, and I will be your God.…
Jer 31:34 No longer will they teach their neighbour, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the Lord. “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”

Yes -- note that it is the spirit internal to the person that will change which will allow us to observe all the ordinances and laws, not avoid them, and that we will no longer have to teach each other because we will know (the verse in Jeremiah before the one you quote explicitly says that God will place the Torah (laws) in our hearts. So the content is the same, but WE change so we can observe it.

Yes, God changes our nature and causes us to follow the Torah, it's laws and ordinances. This new nature is what Jesus and the NT described as being born again or born of God.
I do disagree however that the ordinances and statutes of the Law of Moses are what is spoken of. It is what the whole of God's word tells us about God and what He wants. This is more simple than the 613 Mitzvot of the Mosaic Law.

So God changes us so we can follow the Torah, but you disagree that the Torah is what is spoken of?

The Law of Moses was not around till Moses came along and people still did what God wanted.

They did what they were required to do under previous covenants. But nothing in the Mosaic covenant changed any earlier laws -- it added to them. Now, you want to say that a later covenant removes the Mosaic obligations. That's unprecedented.

The word of God is eternal but the Mosaic Law is till the time that one accepts the New Covenant of God. Olam does not necessarily mean "eternal"

Yes, sometimes it means 49 years. Was this your intent? Claiming that things change means that the laws that the text says will be followed are no longer followed (sort of like Hebrews 8:13). If that's your claim, then fine. It is one that holds no water according to Judaism.

 

[rosends]

God's word is perfect but God says different things at different times even though God does not change.
We know that the word translated "eternal" does not necessarily mean eternal.

So the perfect can change and eternal, when it suits you, doesn't mean eternal, but instead "until someone decides enough is enough." For an interesting discussion on the word "eternal" (though not from a strictly Jewish perspective), try here.

Same country but different era and the constitution may have changed or been amended, as it has 27 times I hear.

Yes. The word of man is changeable. Good point. Of course, the Torah wasn't written by man. And I don't think that any of the constitutional amendments had the content of "there are no more laws to follow so you can ignore the constitution." I could be wrong. No constitutional scholar I.

My point was that the text, explicitly naming the content to be abided by, invokes that content, not any other. If you want to claim that the content has been altered then say "The Torah was changed, but the text requires that we follow the Torah, even in this changed form."

 

[Brian2]

So you make statements that doesn't correlate to the contents of the document I accept, based in faith you have in a document I reject, external to the document which I accept.

Jer 31:34 tells us all will know God and be forgiven.
Ezek 36:27 tells us that God will put His Spirit in you and cause you to walk in His ordinances.
What did I say that is not in your scriptures?
This is a New Covenant and that the ordinances and statutes of a New Covenant may be different to those of an Old Covenant.
Abraham was considered righteous by God even without the Mosaic Law. The Jews have been commanded to keep the Law of Moses to be in that Covenant. Others in a New Covenant maybe do not need to keep those laws to be righteous before God.
Indeed it is true that our righteousness is as filthy rags and so we need forgiveness and God has provided someone to get that forgiveness for us which we receive in the New Covenant (Jer 31:34) and His name will be called The Lord our Righteousness.

Jer 23:5 Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and He will reign wisely as King and administer justice and righteousness in the land. 6In His days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is His name by which He will be called: The LORD Our Righteousness.

Yes -- note that it is the spirit internal to the person that will change which will allow us to observe all the ordinances and laws, not avoid them, and that we will no longer have to teach each other because we will know (the verse in Jeremiah before the one you quote explicitly says that God will place the Torah (laws) in our hearts. So the content is the same, but WE change so we can observe it.
There will be a time when everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be save. (Joel 2:28-32) And the Spirit of the Lord has already been poured out onto all people when Jesus came.
Nevertheless keep the Law of Moses, it is a good thing to do that.

So God changes us so we can follow the Torah, but you disagree that the Torah is what is spoken of?

]The whole Torah is spoken of, not just the Law of Moses. The whole Torah shows a different way to righteousness than keeping laws,,,,,,,,,,,,which it seems show how unrighteous we really are. That is not a bad thing, it was meant to be so that Jews in particular would know they need the forgiveness that God offers through the Messiah.

[QUOTE="rosends, post: 6724782, member: 55734"They did what they were required to do under previous covenants. But nothing in the Mosaic covenant changed any earlier laws -- it added to them. Now, you want to say that a later covenant removes the Mosaic obligations. That's unprecedented.[/QUOTE]

A New Covenant has a new Law and in it the Mosaic obligations are fulfilled, not by following the letter of the law, which kills us because we can't do it completely, but by following the Spirit in us, which brings life. We cannot prove our righteousness, it is deemed to be ours. Not by our own deeds but by the one we are given knowledge of.

[QUOTE="rosends, post: 6724782, member: 55734"Yes, sometimes it means 49 years. Was this your intent? Claiming that things change means that the laws that the text says will be followed are no longer followed (sort of like Hebrews 8:13). If that's your claim, then fine. It is one that holds no water according to Judaism.[/QUOTE]

And sometimes it means an indefinite period of time, not a never ending period of time.
It is hard for me to say that the law is still in effect but it is not. I certainly understand the dilemma and distrust of a Jew who is told about the New Covenant that Jesus brought. I guess that is why the Jewish Christians at the start took time to realise the fullness of what the New Covenant meant.

 

[Brian2]

So the perfect can change and eternal, when it suits you, doesn't mean eternal, but instead "until someone decides enough is enough." For an interesting discussion on the word "eternal" (though not from a strictly Jewish perspective), try here.

Your link to the discussion did not come through.

 

[rosends]

Jer 31:34 tells us all will know God and be forgiven.
Ezek 36:27 tells us that God will put His Spirit in you and cause you to walk in His ordinances.
What did I say that is not in your scriptures?

right...here:

This is a New Covenant and that the ordinances and statutes of a New Covenant may be different to those of an Old Covenant.

"may be different"? But the text refers to them as the same Torah, and has already said that the covenant is eternal. So why do you suggest "may be different"?

Abraham was considered righteous by God even without the Mosaic Law. The Jews have been commanded to keep the Law of Moses to be in that Covenant. Others in a New Covenant maybe do not need to keep those laws to be righteous before God.

Well, first off, "maybe"? Next -- non-Jews aren't the ones spoken about in the renewed covenant.

Indeed it is true that our righteousness is as filthy rags and so we need forgiveness and God has provided someone to get that forgiveness for us which we receive in the New Covenant (Jer 31:34) and His name will be called The Lord our Righteousness.

Jer 31 explicitly names Israel and Judah (the two nations that split after Solomon's time and are made up of the 13 tribes of the children of Jacob), and God says he will forgive. No person has to get that forgiveness for anyone.

Jer 23:5 Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and He will reign wisely as King and administer justice and righteousness in the land. 6In His days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is His name by which He will be called: The LORD Our Righteousness.

So you want to jump to chapter 23? OK. In that chapter, there is a promise of a future messiah. Nothing about forgiveness. Just a king who will rule (which hasn't happened). So why do you bring this up? To point out more things that Jesus didn't fulfill?

There will be a time when everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be save. (Joel 2:28-32) And the Spirit of the Lord has already been poured out onto all people when Jesus came.
Nevertheless keep the Law of Moses, it is a good thing to do that.

I don't see any mention in those verses of "saving" of any sort - do you mean the promise that those who invoke the name of God won't be killed in the great war? I do see that everyone will be a prophet, and that there will be war and then Jews will rule. Have you seen any of this happen? Of course, 3 verses later, God specifices that he is talking about his people, Israel, but whatever.

The whole Torah is spoken of, not just the Law of Moses. The whole Torah shows a different way to righteousness than keeping laws

No, the whole Torah is the whole Torah. Not a different text or another set of understandings. The whole Torah.

A New Covenant has a new Law and in it the Mosaic obligations are fulfilled,

Obligations are fulfilled by fulfilling them. Nit by claiming they no longer exist.

not by following the letter of the law, which kills us because we can't do it completely,

Says who? I'm currently still alive. People who claim that one cannot follow the laws and live is ignoring that people do follow the laws and live.

And sometimes it means an indefinite period of time, not a never ending period of time.

So you take that meaning and decide that "indefinite" became definite when your text decided so. Got it.

It is hard for me to say that the law is still in effect but it is not.

Sure it is. I can understand the dilemma of Christians who want to deny the authority of the Torah when it suits them and rely on it at other points. I guess that's why so many Jews have refused to change their religion for so long -- they see the foolishness of the pick and choose approach.

 

[CG Didymus]

Which is the equivalent to a Christian asking a Jew if Jesus' teachings contradict Moses'.

Do you have any comments on why Shia Islam rejects the Baha'i Faith?

 

[CG Didymus]

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.

I've yet to hear a sensible Baha'i explanation as to what happened. I ask them... True and historical, Jesus was crucified and died. They agree. But, did people rise up out of their graves and walk around Jerusalem. I don't think any of them have commented on that, but I would guess that they would say that is not true. Then what is it an embellishment based on oral traditions or did the writers make it up.

Next, all four gospel writers have people go to the tomb, but it's empty. All the stories vary. But still, why is the tomb empty? What is the Baha'i answer? I entered it in to the computer... nothing came up. So I don't know what they think, more importantly what did Baha'u'llah or his son think.

Jesus starts appearing. What is the Baha'i explanation? I found this...

At “seeing” the spiritual reality of a risen Christ, Luke says that the disciples were afraid and “supposed they had seen a spirit.” Note, the disciples do not say that they had seen a body. Then, Luke records that Jesus said to his disciples: “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.” Luke had Jesus eat fish and honeycomb with his disciples and then explained to them that all that happened had to happen as it was recorded in the scriptures. Then, Luke says, Jesus “opened their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures.”

Once again, we find mixing of physical and spiritual images. Physical bodies do not just appear. They enter and exit through doors. This image does neither. However, spirits do not have flesh and bones. But what does the comment about spirits mean? It seems to be a statement about an ancient belief in and fear of spirits. If this is true, then the rest of what follows makes sense. The Christ presence they have been made to remember and feel, the one they now begin to “see” not only in the next world but also among them still, is the same one who was among them in this world. He is not a frightful image, but a familiar one. He is the same Jesus they knew, the one with flesh and bones. It was their friend and Lord, the one who had a physical body, the one who could even now offer them the fish and honeycomb – already before them – and allow them to live and celebrate with confidence.

The Baha’i teachings explain:

Concerning the Resurrection of Christ you quote the twenty-fourth chapter of the Gospel of St. Luke, where the account stresses the reality of the appearance of Jesus to His disciples who, the Gospel states, at first took Him to be a ghost. From a Baha’i point of view the belief that the Resurrection was the return to life of a body of flesh and blood, which later rose from the earth into the sky is not reasonable, nor is it necessary to the essential truth of the disciples’ experience, which is that Jesus did not cease to exist when He was crucified (as would have been the belief of many Jews of that period), but that His Spirit, released from the body, ascended to the presence of God and continued to inspire and guide His followers and preside over the destinies of His dispensation. – The Resurrection of Christ, September, 1987, The Universal House of Justice.​

Okay, so Baha'i explain away the appearances, even the one where Jesus says he is not a ghost but has flesh and bone. Still where is the body? A Baha'i here on the forum said that the body was taken and hidden by his followers, and that also there was an "unofficial" pilgrim's notes that said where the body of Jesus got buried. I searched under Pilgrim's notes but couldn't find it yet.

Anyway, after Jesus was crucified nothing in the gospels is taken as literally true by Baha'is.

 

[CG Didymus]

And all this from a Baha'i who is supposed to believe the Bible.
That is the fruit of Baha'u'llah. That is how Baha'u'llah has glorified Jesus. Baha'is deny the gospel and the truth of the gospel.

Exactly, why do they pretend. Then again, to them, they are not pretending they do "believe"... They believe it as defined by the Baha'i Faith, that it is not 100% accurate or authoritative and has been misinterpreted. They are merely bringing us the true and correct meaning... or meanings. They have said that there are several "spiritual" meanings. That way you can't pin them down and say, "Aha, got you on this one." Baha'is... anything can be made true or false. How do you argue against that?

 

[CG Didymus]

I can read those same passages and not see that the flesh is required in their understanding. Notice the body will rest because we do not abandon Christ, just because Jesus was laid to rest in the flesh, we will not let 'Christ' (holy one) see decay in Spirit.

1 Corinthians 15:44 "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body."

Regards Tony

And do you think that is what Peter and the gospel writers were implying? I don't. I think they were trying to convince people that Jesus had come back to life. Maybe true maybe false. But why would Luke make it sound like Peter was saying Jesus was alive? If Jesus' Spirit is all there was, then why not just say so? What would have been the big deal? But, Luke says that Jesus showed himself to be alive by many convincing proofs. A lie? He only meant "spiritually"? He was mistaken and only writing down things that were past down by oral traditions? Sure, explain it away. Who needs Jesus to be the only way to get saved. We can all do our best and let God judge us after we die. Like I'm totally sure God is going to send good people from other religions to hell for not believing in the saving grace of Jesus. That's stupid... right? Or course it is, but that is what is implied in the NT. Why bother trying to explain it away? Just say it was all a big fat lie that the followers of Jesus believed and wrote down and then claimed it was the Word of God. It wasn't. It was their words and there understanding, and there remembering what they think Jesus said and meant. Like we can really trust them? No. Let's dump the NT. What do you say?

You'll now quote me all the good things Baha'is say about Jesus and the NT. You believe it, yet you don't believe it. When you question it, agree with you. I think there is a very good chance it is nothing more than religious myth. Why don't you do that with Greek mythology or Norse mythology? I'm sure you could find some "truth" in them. I'm sure you could find a "spiritual", "figurative" explanation and interpretation? But no, I don't hear Baha'is ever talking about the religions based off of those myths. Why? Because you believe they are man made and false? But a story about a virgin born God/man that rose from the dead is not?

 

[CG Didymus]

One second you say that the gospel has not been abrogated and then the next you seem to deny that the gospel is still in force. Hmmm. I don't get it.
But the gospel of Jesus, the New Covenant, does apply for all time. That is what the OT says and is what is implied by Jesus in calling His gospel a Covenant,,,,,,,,,,,,,ie the New Covenant. It is also stated more explicitly in the other parts of the NT.



Yes that part of John is all you have to claim as prophecy about Baha'u'llah,,,,,,,,,,and I think Muhammad claims that also for himself.
Yet I have shown you frpm the same part of John's gospel that the Spirit of Truth is promised to the disciples of Jesus day and I have shown you that the Spirit of Truth is the Holy Spirit. This means that the coming of the Holy Spirit to the disciples of Jesus day at Pentecost was the coming of the Spirit of Truth to them.

Don't forget The Bab, he was a return of Christ and the Comforter too... I suppose. Although, they don't talk much about his teachings. But they use the hell out of his declaration day back in 1844. That is a major fulfillment to major prophecies and it wasn't Baha'u'llah that fulfilled them.

 

[CG Didymus]

Which prophecies did Baha'u'llah fulfil which the Messiah is supposed to fulfil?
But Baha'u'llah has applied OT prophecies to himself which were already applied to Jesus in the NT and which cannot apply to Baha'u'llah since he was not an Israelite . (eg Isa 53, Isa 9, Isa 11 etc)



Jesus being the promised Messiah and having fulfilled the prophesies for the Messiah, coming to judge Israel and to bring forgiveness through His death, and rising from that death is without question the Messiah affirmed by God by His resurrection and so is the one who will come back to fulfil the rest of the prophecies.
Baha'u'llah has come and gone and not fulfilled any of the prophecies of the Messiah.



Yes Jesus finished the work that He was given to do and was saying that He would go home to His Father. There He sits at the right hand of God and all His enemies are put under His feet. (Ps 110:1) as He rules as King.
A more clear statement of Jesus as to what it refers to and who He refers to is John 14:3
" And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am."
And I could show you plenty of places in the NT where it is clearly Jesus who will come back but in the past you have either denied the truth of them or said that the passages refer to Baha'u'llah (even when Jesus name is used) or said that some of them are not statements by Jesus, so they are somehow unreliable.

Have you looked at their claim to the prophecies in Daniel? One of them has the 2300 days starting with the decree to rebuild the Temple, but in Daniel it is supposed to be when the daily sacrifice is stopped and the abomination set up, then 2300 days later the Temple gets cleansed.

Daniel 8:13 “How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled—the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, the surrender of the sanctuary and the trampling underfoot of the LORD’s people?”
14 He said to me, “It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be reconsecrated.”

Some Answered Questions: In the eighth chapter of the Book of Daniel, verse thirteen, it is said: “Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary 42 and the host to be trodden under foot?” Then he answered (v. 14): “Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed”; (v. 17) “But he said unto me … at the time of the end shall be the vision.” That is to say, how long will this misfortune, this ruin, this abasement and degradation last? meaning, when will be the dawn of the Manifestation? Then he answered, “Two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.” Briefly, the purport of this passage is that he appoints two thousand three hundred years, for in the text of the Bible each day is a year. Then from the date of the issuing of the edict of Artaxerxes to rebuild Jerusalem until the day of the birth of Christ there are 456 years, and from the birth of Christ until the day of the manifestation of the Báb there are 1844 years. When you add 456 years to this number it makes 2300 years. That is to say, the fulfillment of the vision of Daniel took place in the year A.D. 1844, and this is the year of the Báb’s manifestation according to the actual text of the Book of Daniel. Consider how clearly he determines the year of manifestation; there could be no clearer prophecy for a manifestation than this.
​

Little tweaks here and there and you get a prophecy fulfilled. But is it legitimate to change the start of of 2300 days to when the decree went out to rebuild Jerusalem?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Acts 2:31 Seeing what was to come, he spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that he was not abandoned to the realm of the dead, nor did his body see decay. 32 God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it.

Do you still insist that it is the Jesus spirit that did not see decay?
Can spirits decay?

In that passage I see the Body of Christ as the Church, as it is talking of what will unfold in the future. The realisation that Christ lives on after Jesus is crucified, gave power to the disciples to build their faith in Christ which becomes the Rock of the belief Peter had, that Jesus was Christ and as such death can not overtake.

The Church brought the Faith of Jesus Christ through thousands of years to be able to stand in this day and have the choice to see that Jesus Christ promises are fulfilled.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes many Christians deny the truth of parts of the Bible, and I am probably in that lot. It does not always stop us from being Christian. It depends what we deny.

Are you saying that it is okay to deny some things in the Bible and not others?
Are you saying that if they deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus they are not Christians?
But they consider themselves Christians just like you consider yourself a Christian.
A Christian is someone who believes in Jesus and they Jesus was sent by God.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

And do you think that is what Peter and the gospel writers were implying? I don't. I think they were trying to convince people that Jesus had come back to life. Maybe true maybe false. But why would Luke make it sound like Peter was saying Jesus was alive? If Jesus' Spirit is all there was, then why not just say so? What would have been the big deal? But, Luke says that Jesus showed himself to be alive by many convincing proofs. A lie? He only meant "spiritually"? He was mistaken and only writing down things that were past down by oral traditions? Sure, explain it away. Who needs Jesus to be the only way to get saved. We can all do our best and let God judge us after we die. Like I'm totally sure God is going to send good people from other religions to hell for not believing in the saving grace of Jesus. That's stupid... right? Or course it is, but that is what is implied in the NT. Why bother trying to explain it away? Just say it was all a big fat lie that the followers of Jesus believed and wrote down and then claimed it was the Word of God. It wasn't. It was their words and there understanding, and there remembering what they think Jesus said and meant. Like we can really trust them? No. Let's dump the NT. What do you say?

You'll now quote me all the good things Baha'is say about Jesus and the NT. You believe it, yet you don't believe it. When you question it, agree with you. I think there is a very good chance it is nothing more than religious myth. Why don't you do that with Greek mythology or Norse mythology? I'm sure you could find some "truth" in them. I'm sure you could find a "spiritual", "figurative" explanation and interpretation? But no, I don't hear Baha'is ever talking about the religions based off of those myths. Why? Because you believe they are man made and false? But a story about a virgin born God/man that rose from the dead is not?

CG, that is a book of questions and answers. I thought why reading your reply that you are in the 'Valley of Search', it is a wonderful place to be, you may wish to read about this valley and see why you have this turmoil of conflicting questions.

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Seven Valleys And the Four Valleys

The seven valleys is a wonderful mystic meditation and like the Kitab-i-Iqan, it contains many thoughts that can help with the questions you asked.

Stay well and happy CG. I am doing study, so limited time on net.

Let me know if you read the valley of search and what you think.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Yes many Christians deny the truth of parts of the Bible, and I am probably in that lot. It does not always stop us from being Christian. It depends what we deny.

This is really what faith is all about. It is grasping Truths one can see and having faith others aspect we are yet to understand, will become clearer in the practice of that faith.

It is a journey that brings us to the narrow gate.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

God speaks today but does not deny what He has said in the past.

That is true.

With the law of Moses God said it was olam, a word that could be translated as everlasting or eternal or could be translated as lasting for an indefinite period of time or something else that is not necessarily eternal. The Jews want an eternal Mosaic law even though they know that laws change for different circumstances and times. What does not change is God and how He wants us to act, in love.

Likewise, the Christians want an eternal Christian law even though they know that laws change for different circumstances and times.

God has said in the OT that there is a New Covenant that He would give to the Jews which is eternal and which covers all changed circumstances and times and which involves complete forgiveness but it seems they like the old Covenant and the time specific Laws that go along with it instead of the New one.

God has said in the Writings of Baha'u'llah that He would give to the Baha'is a New Covenant which covers all changed circumstances and times, but it seems the Jews and Christians like their old Covenants and the time specific Laws that go along with it instead of the New one given to us by Baha'u'llah.

And yes the New Covenant that Jesus brought in, the gospel, is eternal and will not be replaced by any other covenant from someone who pretends to be the return of Jesus.

The New Covenant that Baha'u'llah brought is not eternal. It will be replaced by another Covenant when God sends another Messenger in the future, since that Messenger will make another Covenant with His followers.

 

[Trailblazer]

One second you say that the gospel has not been abrogated and then the next you seem to deny that the gospel is still in force. Hmmm. I don't get it.

When I said that the gospel of Jesus has not been abrogated I meant that the gospel message will always be God’s truth (Matthew 24:35 “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”) but the gospel is not in force anymore because by an arrangement of God the divine ordering of the affairs of the world is now according to the Revelation of Baha'u'llah, not according to the gospel of Jesus.

But the gospel of Jesus, the New Covenant, does apply for all time. That is what the OT says and is what is implied by Jesus in calling His gospel a Covenant,,,,,,,,,,,,,ie the New Covenant. It is also stated more explicitly in the other parts of the NT.

Nowhere in the NT does it say that the New Covenant applies for all time.

Nowhere in the NT does it say that the gospel message applies for all time.

Yet I have shown you from the same part of John's gospel that the Spirit of Truth is promised to the disciples of Jesus day and I have shown you that the Spirit of Truth is the Holy Spirit. This means that the coming of the Holy Spirit to the disciples of Jesus day at Pentecost was the coming of the Spirit of Truth to them.

No, you have not shown me that; you have given me your interpretation of certain verses and I disagree with that interpretation because I have a different interpretation.