How can the Jew reject, Jesus, Muhammad, Bab and Baha'u'llah?

[Skywalker]

But I'm asking you. I know what 7th Day Adventist believe. But why do you believe that Daniel's 2300 days should start in 457BC?

I believe that the seven year peace treaty hasn't happened yet.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

But I'm asking you. I know what 7th Day Adventist believe. But why do you believe that Daniel's 2300 days should start in 457BC?

Abdul'baha confirmed what William Miller had found.

The talk he gave has been provided. So is there any reason I should not accept what Abdul'baha said? As Baha'u'llah has said that all Abdul'baha offered is as God intended.

Abdul'baha also said how clear was the prophecy, that it gives the required proof.

Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

Why can't we discuss the English translations of the Hebrew? That would be like me saying that I have to know Persian and Arabic to understand and discuss the Writings of Baha'u'llah.

I do not think the issue here is one of translation, I think it is an issue of interpretation, which is the action of explaining the meaning of something. You believe the text means one thing and I believe it means something else. Who is the final arbiter? I mean why is the meaning you assign any more accurate than the meaning I assign? To say you know Hebrew and I don't really has nothing to do with the meaning, because the Hebrew text has been translated into English for Jews and I would assume that is why it in the Chabad.

I guess you are referring to chapter 7, not to verse 12, because that verse says nothing about a day of invasion by enemies. Of course, Micah 7:12 has to be understood in the context of the whole chapter. Who do you think the "he" is that is referred to in 7:12? If you read the preceding verses, it seems to me that "he" is referring to the Lord.

Chabad

7But I will hope in the Lord; I will wait for the God of my salvation; my God shall hearken to me.

8Rejoice not against me, my enemy; although I have fallen, I will rise; although I will sit in darkness, the Lord is a light to me.

9I will bear the fury of the Lord-for I have sinned against Him-until He pleads my cause and executes justice for me. He shall take me out into the light; I will see His righteousness.

10And my enemy shall see, and shame shall cover her who says to me, "Where is the Lord your God?" My eyes shall gaze upon her: now she shall become trodden as the mire of the streets.

11"The day to build your walls-that day-its time is way off."

12It is a day, and he shall come up to you: those from Assyria and the fortified cities, and from the fortress up to the river and the sea from the west, and the dwellers of the mountain.

And I wonder why some translations have "they"? But anyway, isn't this what we wanted? To hear what a Jew thinks the verse means? What do you and I know of the context? And what does the context have to do with making one verse say something that fits with the exile of Baha'u'llah? Just like the context of Isaiah 7 has nothing to do with a virgin born Messiah. But, one verse, verse 14, can be taken and made into a prophecy about a virgin birth. But is that the right thing to do?

 

[Skywalker]

Yes, that is what she keeps saying. Those verses from John are literally true... Jesus' work is finished and he's not coming back. But verses about walking on water and the resurrection, although told as if true, they were meant to be taken symbolically? I have a much simpler explanation... If those things attributed to Jesus aren't literally true, then they are probably made up embellished stories to make Jesus something special. So special that his followers made him God. But, Baha'is can't go so far as to say such a thing, because they need enough of the Bible to be true to validate their religion. But not so much that it invalidates it. And the easiest way to do that is make some things literal and some things symbolic... and it all depends on what best fits their beliefs. Like the resurrection. They don't need it and they don't want it. All they need and want is the spirit of Jesus still alive. But they don't need a Jesus that still has some kind of physical body.

Believing in a physical ressurection of Jesus is to be consistent with Bahaullah being the Messiah. I don't think it's implied in the Bible.

 

[Skywalker]

Any verse that even suggests that Jesus is coming back you find a way to deny it. So no wonder there are no verses where Jesus said he is coming back. Now the problem with this verse is that is the resurrected Jesus that is speaking. And Baha'is don't believe that he came physically back to life. So how did this conversation with Peter ever take place? I don't see how Baha'is can say that it ever took place. Jesus was already dead and buried.

The conversation with Jesus and Peter supports both the physical ressurection and the second coming of Jesus.

 

[Skywalker]

Yes, and in one or the other it is mentioned that a star moved across the sky and then hovered over the place where Jesus was. And that Herod's men killed all the baby boys. And that Jesus went to Egypt. Who really knows? Christians believe it. Some people research it out and don't find any proof. Like even this thing about Joseph and Mary having to go to Bethlehem because of a census? Did that happen every time a census was taken? What if a person couldn't make the trip? What if a person just blew it off and stayed in the new place he was living? Even back 2000 years ago, after Jesus was already gone, if some guy comes up with a birth story about Jesus, who's going to know and prove it is true or false? Maybe he was born in Bethlehem and maybe the gospel writers just took birth stories about Jesus and added them into their gospels.

Jesus being hid from King Herod doesn't contradict history. There is no historical evidence against the idea that King Herod was afraid of a child king who would overthrow him because of Jewish prophecy.
Is there secular evidence Herod killed babies under the age of two? | NeverThirsty

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Believing in a physical ressurection of Jesus is to be consistent with Bahaullah being the Messiah. I don't think it's implied in the Bible.

If you read the Bible you will find "The Glory of God", or the "Glory of the Lord" as the promise at the end of ages.

That is the English translation of Baha'u'llah.

Are you aware that some Arabic Bibles had the Name Baha'u'llah in them? These bibles dissapeared as of 1882, as Islam became aware of Baha'u'llah and the Claim made.

There is a link on the net somewhere to this bible.

Regards Tony

 

[Skywalker]

Abdul'baha confirmed what William Miller had found.

The talk he gave has been provided. So is there any reason I should not accept what Abdul'baha said? As Baha'u'llah has said that all Abdul'baha offered is as God intended.

Abdul'baha also said how clear was the prophecy, that it gives the required proof.

Regards Tony

I believe that the seven year peace treaty with Israel didn't happen yet.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, for one thing, all of this comes from the gospel of John. Do you have similar verses in the other gospels? Another thing, do you and I really take any of this stuff as being the exact literal words that Jesus spoke? Then, how long after Jesus died, and allegedly came back to life, did this John guy write this stuff down? Anyway, in context, I think all the gospels have Jesus resurrecting and talking to his disciples and telling them that the Holy Spirit is coming to dwell in them and, because there would be no reason to doubt that Jesus isn't the son of man and the Lamb that was slain, that Jesus would be coming back... soon. But that didn't happen. So why trust the NT, and specifically the gospel of John on being accurate and literally true about anything?

Why would the farewell words of Jesus be in the other gospels, that is not what those gospels are about.
John was the last gospel written so it makes sense that it was his farewell words, spoken before He ascended to heaven.

The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70, Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110. Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses.

Gospel - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Gospel

No, I do not believe these are the exact words Jesus spoke but that would not apply only to John, but also to the other gospels. There is no reason to trust the gospel of John any less than the other gospels.

There is reason to believe that Jesus was the Son of man and the Lamb that was slain, but there is nothing in the New Testament that says that Jesus would be coming back, period.

I'll bet born-again Christians have a way to take it that makes perfect sense... to them and those that "believe". And it probably has something to do with his "work" of redemption. That project was about to be finished. He defeated Satan and made a way for people to get saved. But then again, you and me don't believe in a literal Satan and have some issues with this so-called "plan of salvation." As if all people are born tainted with the sin of Adam and need the blood of Jesus to cleanse them.

As far as I am concerned the plan of salvation is made up doctrines of the Church, none of it is actually in the Bible. Jesus said we are sinners, which even Baha'is believe, but Jesus never said that were were tainted with the sin of Adam. Christians simply took a hodgepodge of verses from the OT and the NT and used them to concoct doctrines and then Christians believed them from then on, just like Trump's followers believe him.

Boy am I grateful to be a Baha'i.

 

[Skywalker]

If you read the Bible you will find "The Glory of God", or the "Glory of the Lord" as the promise at the end of ages.

That is the English translation of Baha'u'llah.

Are you aware that some Arabic Bibles had the Name Baha'u'llah in them? These bibles dissapeared as of 1882, as Islam became aware of Baha'u'llah and the Claim made.

There is a link on the net somewhere to this bible.

Regards Tony

Just because there is similar language doesn't mean that the Bahai faith is consistent with the Bible. Arabic Christians and Jews call God Allah but that doesn't mean that the Jewish and Christian views on the Messiah are compatible.

 

[Trailblazer]

So let me get this straight... Baha'u'llah is the promised Messiah. He has fulfilled all the Bible prophecies. With his teachings people can build a peaceful and harmonious world. But... Baha'is shouldn't tell anyone? No, they do tell people. But when they tell them, they shouldn't try and be convincing? No, they do try and be convincing. Plus, many times, Baha'is will tell people how their beliefs are off and need to be re-thought. And, ideally, re-thought in a way to get them to see how what Baha'u'llah has said is the truth from God for today... that he is the divine physician that has the medicine to heal the world. But Baha'is shouldn't try and convince anyone? Then, what exactly are Baha'is doing?
'

I do not know or care what other Bahai's do, as I am only responsible for myself. I do tell people but I am not trying to convince them because that is not the job Baha'u'llah gave me to do. He only said to share, and I do that only if it is related to a conversation I am having or if people ask me about the Faith. The instructions are as follows:

“Consort with all men, O people of Bahá, in a spirit of friendliness and fellowship. If ye be aware of a certain truth, if ye possess a jewel, of which others are deprived, share it with them in a language of utmost kindliness and good-will. If it be accepted, if it fulfil its purpose, your object is attained. If anyone should refuse it, leave him unto himself, and beseech God to guide him. Beware lest ye deal unkindly with him. A kindly tongue is the lodestone of the hearts of men. It is the bread of the spirit, it clotheth the words with meaning, it is the fountain of the light of wisdom and understanding….” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 289

 

[Skywalker]

Why would the farewell words of Jesus be in the other gospels, that is not what those gospels are about.
John was the last gospel written so it makes sense that it was his farewell words, spoken before He ascended to heaven.

The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70, Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110. Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses.

Gospel - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Gospel

No, I do not believe these are the exact words Jesus spoke but that would not apply only to John, but also to the other gospels. There is no reason to trust the gospel of John any less than the other gospels.

There is reason to believe that Jesus was the Son of man and the Lamb that was slain, but there is nothing in the New Testament that says that Jesus would be coming back, period.

As far as I am concerned the plan of salvation is made up doctrines of the Church, none of it is actually in the Bible. Jesus said we are sinners, which even Baha'is believe, but Jesus never said that were were tainted with the sin of Adam. Christians simply took a hodgepodge of verses from the OT and the NT and used them to concoct doctrines and then Christians believed them from then on, just like Trump's followers believe him.

Boy am I grateful to be a Baha'i.

Why would Jesus ascend to heaven but have his spirit return in a different body? Jesus ascended to heaven, land beyond the universe, and will return, like he told Peter and the other apostles. Jesus saying he was coming back wasn't in the context of a farewell, it was a literal reference to his second coming.

Eastern Christians don't believe in original sin. It's not important whether original sin is true.

 

[Trailblazer]

Any verse that even suggests that Jesus is coming back you find a way to deny it. So no wonder there are no verses where Jesus said he is coming back.

Show me one verse where Jesus says He is coming back to earth.

Now the problem with this verse is that is the resurrected Jesus that is speaking. And Baha'is don't believe that he came physically back to life. So how did this conversation with Peter ever take place? I don't see how Baha'is can say that it ever took place. Jesus was already dead and buried.

You get all messed up when you start believing the resurrection stories are true. I don't know if this conversation ever took place. In fact, i don't know is any of the conversations Jesus purportedly had with people ever took place, or even if these people actually existed. I will remind you of the Bahai view of the Bible:

The Bahá'í viewpoint proposed by this essay has been established as follows: The Bible is a reliable source of Divine guidance and salvation, and rightly regarded as a sacred and holy book. However, as a collection of the writings of independent and human authors, it is not necessarily historically accurate. Nor can the words of its writers, although inspired, be strictly defined as 'The Word of God' in the way the original words of Moses and Jesus could have been. Instead there is an area of continuing interest for Bahá'í scholars, possibly involving the creation of new categories for defining authoritative religious literature.

A Baháí View of the Bible
(Rosebery, Australia: Association for Baha'i Studies Australia, 1996)

In studying the Bible Bahá'ís must bear two principles in mind. The first is that many passages in Sacred Scriptures are intended to be taken metaphorically, not literally, and some of the paradoxes and apparent contradictions which appear are intended to indicate this. The second is the fact that the text of the early Scriptures, such as the Bible, is not wholly authentic.
(28 May 1984 to an individual believer)

The Bahá'ís believe what is in the Bible to be true in substance. This does not mean that every word recorded in that Book is to be taken literally and treated as the authentic saying of a Prophet....

The Bahá'ís believe that God's Revelation is under His care and protection and that the essence, or essential elements, of what His Manifestations intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in Their Holy Books. However, as the sayings of the ancient Prophets were written down some time later, we cannot categorically state, as we do in the case of the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, that the words and phrases attributed to Them are Their exact words
(9 August 1984 to an individual believer)

The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments
(From letters written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice)

 

[Skywalker]

I do not know or care what other Bahai's do, as I am only responsible for myself. I do tell people but I am not trying to convince them because that is not the job Baha'u'llah gave me to do. He only said to share, and I do that only if it is related to a conversation I am having or if people ask me about the Faith. The instructions are as follows:

“Consort with all men, O people of Bahá, in a spirit of friendliness and fellowship. If ye be aware of a certain truth, if ye possess a jewel, of which others are deprived, share it with them in a language of utmost kindliness and good-will. If it be accepted, if it fulfil its purpose, your object is attained. If anyone should refuse it, leave him unto himself, and beseech God to guide him. Beware lest ye deal unkindly with him. A kindly tongue is the lodestone of the hearts of men. It is the bread of the spirit, it clotheth the words with meaning, it is the fountain of the light of wisdom and understanding….” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 289

Do you think the bread of spirit and the bread of life in John 6:35 have different meanings?

 

[Skywalker]

Show me one verse where Jesus says He is coming back to earth.

You get all messed up when you start believing the resurrection stories are true. I don't know if this conversation ever took place. In fact, i don't know is any of the conversations Jesus purportedly had with people ever took place, or even if these people actually existed. I will remind you of the Bahai view of the Bible:

The Bahá'í viewpoint proposed by this essay has been established as follows: The Bible is a reliable source of Divine guidance and salvation, and rightly regarded as a sacred and holy book. However, as a collection of the writings of independent and human authors, it is not necessarily historically accurate. Nor can the words of its writers, although inspired, be strictly defined as 'The Word of God' in the way the original words of Moses and Jesus could have been. Instead there is an area of continuing interest for Bahá'í scholars, possibly involving the creation of new categories for defining authoritative religious literature.

A Baháí View of the Bible
(Rosebery, Australia: Association for Baha'i Studies Australia, 1996)

In studying the Bible Bahá'ís must bear two principles in mind. The first is that many passages in Sacred Scriptures are intended to be taken metaphorically, not literally, and some of the paradoxes and apparent contradictions which appear are intended to indicate this. The second is the fact that the text of the early Scriptures, such as the Bible, is not wholly authentic.
(28 May 1984 to an individual believer)

The Bahá'ís believe what is in the Bible to be true in substance. This does not mean that every word recorded in that Book is to be taken literally and treated as the authentic saying of a Prophet....

The Bahá'ís believe that God's Revelation is under His care and protection and that the essence, or essential elements, of what His Manifestations intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in Their Holy Books. However, as the sayings of the ancient Prophets were written down some time later, we cannot categorically state, as we do in the case of the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, that the words and phrases attributed to Them are Their exact words
(9 August 1984 to an individual believer)

The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments
(From letters written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice)

In John 21:22 Jesus told Peter if I want John to live until I come what is that to you.

 

[Trailblazer]

And I wonder why some translations have "they"? But anyway, isn't this what we wanted? To hear what a Jew thinks the verse means? What do you and I know of the context? And what does the context have to do with making one verse say something that fits with the exile of Baha'u'llah? Just like the context of Isaiah 7 has nothing to do with a virgin born Messiah. But, one verse, verse 14, can be taken and made into a prophecy about a virgin birth. But is that the right thing to do?

That is an interesting and useful point you make. Sometimes verses in a chapter do not fit in with the context so a chapter does not always read like a chronological story.

Because Baha'is know what happened to Baha'u'llah when he was banished from place to place.we know that Micah 7:12 is about Him, just like because we know Jesus was born of a virgin we know Isiah 7:14 is about Jesus; but the does not mean all of those chapters were all about Baha'u'llah or Jesus.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why would Jesus ascend to heaven but have his spirit return in a different body? Jesus ascended to heaven, land beyond the universe, and will return, like he told Peter and the other apostles. Jesus saying he was coming back wasn't in the context of a farewell, it was a literal reference to his second coming.

Jesus never told Peter and the other apostles He would return.
Jesus said He was not coming back to earth and He said He was sending the Comforter and the Spirit of Truth, which was the Christ Spirit returning in the Person of Baha'u'llah.

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you think the bread of spirit and the bread of life in John 6:35 have different meanings?

No, I think the bread of the spirit is the bread of life.

 

[Trailblazer]

In John 21:22 Jesus told Peter if I want John to live until I come what is that to you.

I don't know what Jesus was referring to but He was not referring to coming back to earth.

 

[Skywalker]

That is an interesting and useful point you make. Sometimes verses in a chapter do not fit in with the context so a chapter does not always read like a chronological story.

Because Baha'is know what happened to Baha'u'llah when he was banished from place to place.we know that Micah 7:12 is about Him, just like because we know Jesus was born of a virgin we know Isiah 7:14 is about Jesus; but the does not mean all of those chapters were all about Baha'u'llah or Jesus.

Micah 7:2 mentions Assyria which I remember reading that that's where the Bahulllah is from but there's nothing in the context of those verses that mentions Bahulllah.