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

[Skywalker]

^^ Mental gymnastics.

If Jesus said the Kingdom is at hand, but it wasn't "at hand" then he wasn't correct about what he said.

The kingdom meant the spread of the gospel, not the second coming or the Millennium Kingdom.

 

[dybmh]

That doesn't mean it's not decently and in order that the first Christians were Jewish Christians. They believed in Jesus but kept their old ways and they worked beautifully together.

That was then, this is now. If a person who is not Jewish pretends to be Jewish that's cultural appropriation (theft). Claiming that they are in a binding legal covenant with God when they are not is a lie.

 

[dybmh]

The kingdom meant the spread of the gospel, not the second coming or the Millennium Kingdom.

You're changing the story after the fact.

 

[Skywalker]

You're changing the story after the fact.

It could also be a reference to one day being like a thousand years to God. The Old Testament mentions that in Psalm 90:4,2 and the New Testament reiterates that in Peter 3:8.

 

[Skywalker]

That was then, this is now. If a person who is not Jewish pretends to be Jewish that's cultural appropriation (theft). Claiming that they are in a binding legal covenant with God when they are not is a lie.

Since the issue isn't that what the Jewish Christians did was cultural appropriation because for them it wasn't binding and thus wasn't a covenant, the issue seems to be that the historical division of Christianity and Judaism makes their actions cultural appropriation. I don't agree with that, because that's an appeal to tradition.

 

[dybmh]

It could also be a reference to one day being like a thousand years to God. The Old Testament mentions that in Psalm 90:4,2 and the New Testament reiterates that in Peter 3:8.

If one day is like a thousand, then it's still not "at hand".

 

[Skywalker]

If one day is like a thousand, then it's still not "at hand".

It's similar to how day in Genesis is not literal to old earth creationists.

 

[dybmh]

Since the issue isn't that what the Jewish Christians did was cultural appropriation because for them it wasn't binding and thus wasn't a covenant, the issue seems to be that the historical division of Christianity and Judaism makes their actions cultural appropriation. I don't agree with that, because that's an appeal to tradition.

The issue is pretending.
Pretending to be Jewish and pretending to be included in a legally binding covenant. It's a farse.

 

[Trailblazer]

Sure it does. If the Christian bible were literally true, then it would be more credible. Because it is not literally true, then it's less credible.

That is illogical on its face, because the Bible is credible to 2.4 billion Christians. Using your criteria of credibility, the Tanakh is not credible at all, because it is only credible to 14 million Jews. So I could say that if the Tanakh was literally true it would be credible to more than 14 million people.

Because the story of Moses never includes, "Truly I tell you, you will receive anything you ask for."
As I said, the Tanach is a tiny bit more credible because it doesn't make this sort of claim that anyone can get anything they want if they believe.

After the Tanakh was written, God revealed the New Testament. The NT reads that way because whether you choose to believe it or not, Jesus received a revelation from God and He brought new hope. Every Christian knows that language is figurative because they know that cannot get anything they want just by believing.

"Truly I tell you" is not metaphorical. It shows that the text is not accurate.

Believe whatever you want to believe, just don’t call it logical.
It tells you that the text was written in metaphorical language and that is ALL it tells you.
By your own standards, to say that someone got eaten by a whale and was in its belly shows you that the text of the Tanakh is not accurate

 

[Skywalker]

The issue is pretending.
Pretending to be Jewish and pretending to be included in a legally binding covenant. It's a farse.

The Bible never promotes the ways of Jewish Christians over Gentile Christians.

 

[dybmh]

It's similar to how day in Genesis is not literal to old earth creationists.

Sure. The Genesis story is wrong, Jesus is wrong too.

 

[Trailblazer]

So far there is no credible evidence that Jesus was a Messenger of God. No one really knows what Jesus said or did. The only record of this comes from the Christian bible which is not entirely literal.

So far there is no credible evidence that Moses was a Prophet of God. No one really knows what Moses said or did. The only record of this comes from the Torah which is not entirely literal.

Matthew 5:18

For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.​

I guess you missed that last part that says “until everything is accomplished.” Well, the mission of Jesus was accomplished so the Law was changed.

 

[dybmh]

That is illogical on its face, because the Bible is credible to 2.4 billion Christians. Using your criteria of credibility, the Tanakh is not credible at all, because it is only credible to 14 million Jews. So I could say that if the Tanakh was literally true it would be credible to more than 14 million people.

The number of adherents is irrelevant. The Tanach is a tiny bit more credible based on content not based on how many people deem it credible. Nowhere in Tanach does it say that I could perform a miracle if I believe.

Every Christian knows that language is figurative because they know that cannot get anything they want just by believing.

Not true. Not every Christian. You're claiming that bible literalists don't exist.

Believe whatever you want to believe, just don’t call it logical.
It tells you that the text was written in metaphorical language and that is ALL it tells you.
By your own standards, to say that someone got eaten by a whale and was in its belly shows you that the text of the Tanakh is not accurate

It is illogical to claim that "Truly I tell you" is a metaphor.

I definitely do not claim that the story of Jonah is literally true. That's a strawman.

 

[dybmh]

So far there is no credible evidence that Moses was a Prophet of God. No one really knows what Moses said or did. The only record of this comes from the Torah which is not entirely literal.

Strawman.

I guess you missed that last part that says “until everything is accomplished.” Well, the mission of Jesus was accomplished so the Law was changed.

How do you know it was accomplished?

 

[dybmh]

@Trailblazer, I'm still waiting on an answer to this question.

I've seen you talk about the significance of the year 1844 as the beginning of the resettlement of the land of Israel by Jewish people.

If we agree that this is a messianic prophecy, how did Baha’u’llah fulfill this prophecy. What was his involvement in the resettlement of the land of Israel?

 

[Trailblazer]

Except, the Kingdom of heaven wasn't at hand.

How do you know it wasn't at hand? Do you know what Jesus meant by "the Kingdom of heaven is at hand?"
Matthew 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Benson Commentary

Matthew 4:17. From that time Jesus began to preach — He had preached before, both to Jews and Samaritans, John 4:41; John 4:45, but from this time he began to preach publicly and statedly, and to insist on the same doctrine that John had done: and with good reason, for the repentance which John taught, still was and ever will be, the necessary preparation for that inward kingdom of heaven, or, of God, which is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. The phrase, however, is not only used with regard to individuals, in whom that kingdom is to be established, but also with regard to the Christian Church, the whole body of believers. In the former sense, it is opposed to repentance, by which it is preceded; in the latter, to the Mosaic dispensation. Our Lord now properly and fully entered upon his prophetic office; which consisted of three things: preaching, or making known the will of God; gathering disciples; and working miracles. The first of these he does here, and more largely chap. 5., 6., 7., and in his many parables and other discourses. The second, Matthew 4:18-22. The third, as being necessary to confirm his doctrine, on all occasions, from time to time, till his departure hence.

Matthew 4:17 Commentaries: From that time Jesus began to preach and say, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

 

[Trailblazer]

@Trailblazer, I'm still waiting on an answer to this question.

dybmh said: ↑
I've seen you talk about the significance of the year 1844 as the beginning of the resettlement of the land of Israel by Jewish people.

If we agree that this is a messianic prophecy, how did Baha’u’llah fulfill this prophecy. What was his involvement in the resettlement of the land of Israel?

If you asked me that in a post from last night, I still have that on my to-do list.
If not I will add it to my to-do list and answer it separately.
I do have an answer at my fingertips since I have answered it before.

 

[Trailblazer]

Strawman.

Why is it a strawman?

How do you know it was accomplished?

Because of what Baha'u'llah and Abdul'-Baha wrote.

 

[Trailblazer]

The number of adherents is irrelevant. The Tanach is a tiny bit more credible based on content not based on how many people deem it credible. Nowhere in Tanach does it say that I could perform a miracle if I believe.

I sure wish you would stop using the word credible because that is what atheists say and it is meaningless, since what people consider believable is highly subjective. For example, atheists say there is no credible evidence for God's existence or for Messengers of God, but that is just their personal opinion.

You are right that the number of adherents is irrelevant. I see the Bahai Faith as a lot more credible than any of the older religions, but that is just my personal opinion. The Tanach is a tiny bit more credible based on content not based on how many people deem it credible. Nowhere in the Baha'i Writings does it say that I could perform a miracle if I believe.

Not true. Not every Christian. You're claiming that bible literalists don't exist.

I was not referring to Bible literalists, I was referring to Christians who believe in the Bible. I does not matter if they interpret everything literally or not. They are stil Christians.

It is illogical to claim that "Truly I tell you" is a metaphor.

I never said it was. I said that the verse in which it was encased is metaphorical.

Mark 11:23 Truly, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and thrown into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says will come to pass, it will be done for him.

I definitely do not claim that the story of Jonah is literally true. That's a strawman.

My point was that there are metaphorical verses i both the Tanakh and the Christian Bible.

 

[dybmh]

Why is it a strawman?

Because whether or not Moses is a prophet of God is irrelevant. When comparing the content of the Tanach vs. the content of the Christian bible, the Christian bible promises that anyone can truly make a miracle if they believe. The Tanach doesn't do that.

Because of what Baha'u'llah and Abdul'-Baha wrote.

Please provide quotes that show that "everything has been accomplished".

If you asked me that in a post from last night, I still have that on my to-do list.
If not I will add it to my to-do list and answer it separately.
I do have an answer at my fingertips since I have answered it before.

Great, the question is: how was Baha'u'llah involved in the resettlement of the land of Israel?

How do you know it wasn't at hand?

OK. I was wrong. Thank you for pointing it out.