How to interprete Scriptures (Bible or Quran)

[InvestigateTruth]

Would you provide the scripture for the first time Jesus was "raised" I've checked 2 versions of the Bible and find only the resurrection after his physical death.

I reply to this later, when I get some time.

 

[Reverend Richard]

Ok, let me make sure I understand you correctly.
Basically you are saying, the Scriptures cannot be a correct representation of God or His Will, because they do not make sense. As how could God be jealous and angry (for example)?

Well, sort of. Scripture might makes sense to the one who wrote it, and to a few others who believe it. A person may be divinely inspired to write scripture, but no one person (not even a prophet) is perfect, so scripture itself will never be perfect.

Thus, the idea that Religions are direct Revelation of God or reliable cannot be True. Thus, the Prophets cannot be a Perfect Image of God, or Holy Spirit, who reflects the Words of God correctly. So, this is like a chain or sequence of your thoughts, which concludes what you believe.

Yes, you are getting close.
I think I understand your premise that God delivers a new message for each age using a new prophet of that era, and the message is designed for the people living at that time. However, the problem I have with that premise is, God's message would be totally consistent from age to age, and from prophet to prophet. If this was true, looking back on each each message, from each and every prophet, there would be no confusion and God's message would alway be the same, regardless of which prophet wrote it, and regardless of who was reading it. However, this never happens. Jews argue that Christians are wrong, Muslims argue that Christians are wrong, and we all end up arguing with each other! Sometimes to the point of war and killing. So, either God keeps getting the message wrong, or the prophets keep getting the message wrong. Which is it?

Now, If I understood you correctly, then let me tell you the Baha'i View, which to me is breaking this chain or sequence of thoughts.

Basically, The Baha'i Scriptures suggests, that if we Think of the whole humanity as One Person,then from the Time of His Life on earth, he started to grow, and will continue to grow. From infancy to teenager, to adulthood, to old age and maturity.

Humanity is not One Person, even in theory or even by analogy. This doesn't work and history proves that it does not work.We are many people, we are many tribes, with many languages, with many different social and political views, with varied and sometimes conflicting traditions and customs.

Now, in this view, suppose a Perfect Teacher, or Father, who from beginning till always, takes care of this child, and teaches him and guides him.

Thus, this Perfect teacher, treats, and teaches this Person according to his age.
So, for example, when this Humanity, is at a very infancy or childhood, for him God is described, as if He is jealous, so this Child Humanity can understand, God Loves him, wants him to Love God or obeys God, otherwise He gets angry. This does not mean God is jealous, but this is how a child Humanity needs to understand, for he is not capable of understanding better. As this Child grows older and become closer to maturity, he is told a more correct Truth.
Thus, if you had read some of my previous posts, I said, the Truth is revealed relatively and gradually, according to the "level of understanding" of people living in an "age"
Thus, it is written, in some religions, that, the Prophets do not speak to people according to their own mind. But they speak according to mind and capabilities of people of their time.
Another example, is like a child that goes to grade one, two, etc. The teacher gives him a Book that he would be able to read and understand. As the child goes to the next grade, a better and more advanced Book is given. And this Process will continue for ever.

This analogy breaks down as well. When I studied math or science in the first grade, all the rules and laws of those subjects remained consistent as I went from grade to grade, from year to year. Even as I began advanced studies in college, I could still look back at my first grade math books and 1+1 was always 2!

This consistency is not maintained in scripture. Otherwise we would not be "inventing" new religions which separate us from each other.

Man keeps trying understand God, and tries to describe or define God, and then men (prophets) attempt to put that description into words. They always fail because consistency is never maintained.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

....the problem I have with that premise is, God's message would be totally consistent from age to age, and from prophet to prophet.

It is consistant. That's the thing, I see them consistant, and I think I have already mentioned that, any contradictions is not in original teachings, but it is due to misinterpretations.

If this was true, looking back on each each message, from each and every prophet, there would be no confusion and God's message would alway be the same, regardless of which prophet wrote it, and regardless of who was reading it.

Again, let's just consider Christianity alone.
Why there are so many denominations, even most of these denominations Use the same Scriptures?
Is it not because each has a different understanding of scriptures (Interpretation)?

Then it is obvious that such differences in interpretations will also exist between two different religions that came for different Ages.
So, that people were confused has to do with their own understanding.
Again, suppose there is a class room. All students use the same Book, and the same teacher. Are not some of these students confused regarding the teachings of their Book?
Are not some of them not understanding the Book, and some are more to different degrees? Are these misunderstandings are the student's issue, or the Book?

Humanity is not One Person, even in theory or even by analogy. This doesn't work and history proves that it does not work.We are many people, we are many tribes, with many languages, with many different social and political views, with varied and sometimes conflicting traditions and customs.

That's how analogies work. It is true that we are different tribes, but speaking generally i think it is a good analogy. For example, 3000 years ago, slavory was precticed and there was no problem about it generally. Now it is not acceptable anywhere (explicitly).
Or the weapons were cold weapons.
Now, the technolgy has advanced. All these are related to the work and level of understanding of people in each age. Which makes the analogy work.

 

[Reverend Richard]

Originally Posted by Reverend Richard

....the problem I have with that premise is, God's message would be totally consistent from age to age, and from prophet to prophet.

It is consistant. That's the thing, I see them consistant, and I think I have already mentioned that, any contradictions is not in original teachings, but it is due to misinterpretations.

Old Testament Jews - According to scripture the Jews are looking for a Messiah to deliver them.

New Testament Christians - According to New Testament scripture, the Messiah is here in the form of Jesus.

However, if what you say is true, and there is no contradiction between the Old and New Testament, then where is the misinterpretation? Are the Jews correct, or are the Christians correct? Which group has "misinterpreted" the scripture?
​

Jews today - Jesus is not the promised Messiah.

Christians today - Yes, Jesus is the promised Messiah

Since scripture does not (or cannot) contradict itself, who has misinterpreted scripture, the Jews or the Christians? To support your point that there are no contradictions in scripture, you must be able to tell me which one (Jews or Christians) has misinterpreted the scripture.
​

Muslims today - the Bible is corrupt and the Quran is the correct scripture. Since scripture does not contradict itself, who has misinterpreted the scripture, the Muslims? Or the Jews and Christians? You say all scripture is consistent, then which of these groups is guilty of misinterpretation?

Mormons today - the Book of Mormon is an addition and an update to Biblical (Old and New Testament) scripture and should be regarded as the latest word from God. If scripture does not contradict itself, then who has misterpreted it? The Jews, the Christians, the Muslims, or the Mormons. Again, which one is guilty of misinterpretation?

Again, let's just consider Christianity alone.
Why there are so many denominations, even most of these denominations Use the same Scriptures?
Is it not because each has a different understanding of scriptures (Interpretation)?

Then it is obvious that such differences in interpretations will also exist between two different religions that came for different Ages.
So, that people were confused has to do with their own understanding.
Again, suppose there is a class room. All students use the same Book, and the same teacher. Are not some of these students confused regarding the teachings of their Book?
Are not some of them not understanding the Book, and some are more to different degrees? Are these misunderstandings are the student's issue, or the Book?

The Book? Which Book are you referring to since we have so many different ones. Although, you say no Book (no scripture) contradicts any other, they are just misinterpreted?

So far, you point is still unproven.

That's how analogies work. It is true that we are different tribes, but speaking generally i think it is a good analogy. For example, 3000 years ago, slavory was precticed and there was no problem about it generally. Now it is not acceptable anywhere (explicitly).

Another bad analogy. You are incorrect. Slavery was an acceptable and legal practice a few as 150 years ago. Today, while slavery is technically illegal, it continues under different names. Today, current estimates are that globally there are some 12 million to 27 million people who live under slavery. That is no small number of people who live under the burden of slavery.

Or the weapons were cold weapons.
Now, the technolgy has advanced. All these are related to the work and level of understanding of people in each age. Which makes the analogy work.

Not sure I follow this analogy.

But more to the point, whether you say that errors creep into scripture due to our misinterpretation, or whether as I believe that human scripture cannot, does not, and will never accurately describe God, the end result is the same. They both point to human failure.

If God really and truly was worried about how he is worshiped and wanted to correct it, He could do so, and He could put an end to all of our arguing, fighting and killing over who is right and who is wrong. But over the last 3000 years, He has not.

Why do you believe God has not corrected our continuing error?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

....the problem I have with that premise is, God's message would be totally consistent from age to age, and from prophet to prophet.



Old Testament Jews - According to scripture the Jews are looking for a Messiah to deliver them.

New Testament Christians - According to New Testament scripture, the Messiah is here in the form of Jesus.

However, if what you say is true, and there is no contradiction between the Old and New Testament, then where is the misinterpretation? Are the Jews correct, or are the Christians correct? Which group has "misinterpreted" the scripture?
​

Jews today - Jesus is not the promised Messiah.

Christians today - Yes, Jesus is the promised Messiah

Since scripture does not (or cannot) contradict itself, who has misinterpreted scripture, the Jews or the Christians? To support your point that there are no contradictions in scripture, you must be able to tell me which one (Jews or Christians) has misinterpreted the scripture.
​

Well, I like to discuss this subject back to the time when Jesus appeared to the Jews at that time (Rather than today's Christians verses today's jews, todays's Muslims)
and, I like to mention again that, I am only discussing "How to interprete Scriptures" rather than if these Scritures are from God or Not, or who is wrong or right.
My intention is to give some info, and then it is upto anybody how to see it.

Now, you are asking me, who did the interpretation correct when Messiah came.
I only give you an example:
In Hebrew Scriptures, Return of Elijah was promised.

"Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD" -Malachi 4:1-5

Now, lets go back to around the time of Jesus.

Those Jews were expecting return of Elijah "Literally". a Physical return.

But when John the Baptist appeared, Jesus said, John was the return of Elijah, in a spiritual sense. (a new person with same spiritual quality and similar mission)

Jesus said:

"In fact, he [Elijah] already has come, but he wasn't recognized, and was badly mistreated by many... Then the disciples realized he was speaking of John the Baptist."-Matthew 17:10-13


So, I am not arguing who was right or wrong. But giving you an idea, what I mean, when I say, these contradictions are due to different interpretations.

Now, as I pointed out my main reason to discuss is to say how interpretation can make a difference.
How to recognize a spiritual/symboli verse, rather than interpreting it literally, when it should not be.

Now, you asked me about Messiah. when Jesus came, He interpreted the verses of OT, in a symbolic and spiritual way, to proclaim He was the Messiah.

The Book? Which Book are you referring to since we have so many different ones. Although, you say no Book (no scripture) contradicts any other, they are just misinterpreted?

consider, a class for Math grade 5, in the same school, in the same class, with the same teacher.

Another bad analogy. You are incorrect. Slavery was an acceptable and legal practice a few as 150 years ago. Today, while slavery is technically illegal, it continues under different names. Today, current estimates are that globally there are some 12 million to 27 million people who live under slavery. That is no small number of people who live under the burden of slavery.

I think, you are looking at things black and white. Our world is not black and white. It is gray, and colors too.
So, it's not like our world is either perfect or not. But percentagewise, there are a lot less people in our time who would "understand", slavery is a wrong thing, than people who lived in 2 or 3000 years ago.

But more to the point, whether you say that errors creep into scripture due to our misinterpretation, or whether as I believe that human scripture cannot, does not, and will never accurately describe God, the end result is the same. They both point to human failure.

Again, I think you are looking at things black and white. It is not either we fail, or we know everything perfectly.
It is like a math class. Everyone learns. some more, some less. Everyone gets enlighted by revelations of God. Some more, and some less.

and I am just saying what the Authors of Bible have said. some get more light, some less.

 

[Avoice]

Originally Posted by Avoice
Yet we must not "rely on {our} own understanding" but the leading of holy spirit.

How do we know if we are lead by holy spirit or not?

Not a spiritually safe question to ask.

I mean I have a different interpretation than yours. How do we know my interpretation is not lead by holy spirit, by your interpretation is?

We may both be so led to a point. I cannot believe that Lazarus was so laden with sin that your interpretation would apply. Jesus visited his home and fellowshipped with him and his sisters. However, I believe very strongly that the Scriptures are on many levels, true; spiritually, psychologically and physically. I approach my reading of scripture as a child and let God bring to mind what He will.

Avoice wrote: Jesus used a literal situation to illustrate a spiritual truth.

Sorry, but I think what you are saying cannot be seen in scriptures.

You mean to say it was fine to put a new scrap of hide on an old wineskin and expect it to hold new wine?

Jesus said, the reason for Him to raise Lazarus is to glorify God.
According to Author of Bible, glorifying God is done when a person stops sinning and do good works (Spiritually dead, dead in sin, becomes live, and righteous.)
This is the essence of teachings of Bible, which is fruitful, and thus is lead by Holy Spirit, as the Authors were inspired.
While a physical interpretation, is lead by the desire for a worldly life (in my belief).

I disagree. To believe in the power of Jehovah to do physically miraculous things takes the faith of a little child.

One with clean hands can glorify God with singing and praise also.


Avoice wrote: As I recall the full burial wrapping enclosed the hands and would not allow a person to unwrap themselves. Jesus' burial was hurried and not completed. Shock at a man dead and in the grave for several days and "already smelling", would delay the people from acting. Jesus' words prompted them to do the obvious.

The scriptures says, Lazarus "stinks"
This again an expression, that is used in Bible, which means, if a person appears sinful and hated by others.
an example of this found in Both Old Testament and New. For example:

Gen. 34:30 "And Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, Ye have troubled me to make me to stink among the inhabitants of the land"

Genesis 34:30 "stink" is Strong's definition H887

H887
בּאשׁ
bâ'ash
baw-ash'
A primitive root; to smell bad; figuratively to be offensive morally: - (make to) be abhorred (had in abomination, loathsome, odious), (cause a, make to) stink (-ing savour), X utterly.

Joh 11:39 Jesus said, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh G3605 : for he hath been dead four days.

G3605
ὄζω
ozō
od'-zo
A primary verb (in a strengthened form); to scent (usually an ill “oder”): - stink.

Avoice wrote: followed by: Joh_11:14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.

Here you are suggesting "Plainly" means physically. But plainly dead does not indicate physically dead. It means, Jesus said it very clearly and explicitly that Lazarus was dead in Sin.

I'm saying that he spoke, not in parables or similes, but outright. Strong's supports this conclusion.

plainly,G3954

G3954
παῤῥησία
parrhēsia
par-rhay-see'-ah
From G3956 and a derivative of G4483; all out spokenness, that is, frankness, bluntness, publicity; by implication assurance: - bold (X -ly, -ness, -ness of speech), confidence, X freely, X openly, X plainly (-ness).

Avoice wrote:I think you are intelectualizing the situation way too much. As I've pointed out Lazarus was dead; Physically dead. In addition, any time a person was recruited into the disciples and was a sinner first it was pointed out not leaving it to speculation from the tax collector Matthew and the zealot Judas who later betrayed him to Paul who stood by at the stoning of Stephen.

The message of Bible is essentially spiritual. It teaches that we have a spiritual body. Now these Authors mostly were concerned with the life of Spirit, and not the physical body, which is worldly and selfish. God Himself is a Spirit, and we are in His image. This is our Spiritual Body in His image, not our physical body.
I am not intellectualizing these stories. I am viewing them, based on the essential teachings of Bible. I am trying to view them, with the "eye of Authors" of Bible, rather than my own eye, or others.

If so, how do you explain the following scriptures?

(Genesis 2:7) 7 And Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul.

(Genesis 3:19) 19 In the sweat of your face you will eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are and to dust you will return.”

(Genesis 18:27) 27 But Abraham went on to answer and say: “Please, here I have taken upon myself to speak to Jehovah, whereas I am dust and ashes. . .

(Job 10:9) 9 Remember, please, that out of clay you have made me And to dust you will make me return.

(Psalm 30:9) 9 What profit is there in my blood when I go down to the pit? Will the dust laud you? Will it tell of your trueness?

Quote; Avoice:
The apostles were working from memory and the spirit in writing the Gospel accounts. Luke was trying to work from their experience to divulge the happenings of the life of Jesus. I'll take what it says over what any other book says of Jesus' life.

No, the Apostles did not say they were working from Memory. If so, please quote such a thing from Bible.
They said, all Scriptures are inspired by God. They said they had visions or dreams.

They let the reader know when they are working out of a vision. And, no they do not claim to be getting old, however, my understanding is most of the Apostolic writings were done, lead by God, when the apostles themselves and the eye witnesses of Jesus' life were aging and or already dead.
Quote:
Paul said all scripture was inspired of God. He was primarily talking Hebrew scriptures as the letters of the Apostles were letters to him.

I think He was talking about "ALL" scriptures.

If all these Scriptures were not inspire by God, they would not be worthy to be reliable.

The Spirit through him was speaking of all scripture. Paul did not tend to quote other Apostle's letters, instead he quoted scripture from Torah and Prophets as well as Wisdom Books.

Quote Avoice:
The women who went to the tomb might just disagree with you. The male disciples, including the Apostles, were cowering from the Romans and the Jews. And they did that until the women proved Jesus was no longer in the physical tomb and they met the resurrected Christ Jesus.

Remember the story of Moses and Elijah, appearing to Jesus and Disciples?
“Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.” Matthew 17:3
The above verse likewise is symbolic, even according to some Christians.

It's not like they actually appeared there. That is a symbolic representation.
Likewise, the Story of Jesus, appearing to others after death are all symbolic.
In addition to the above, I give you these reasons:

If they didn't appear to Peter, James and John, how is it that the men wanted to build tabernacles to them and were, later, able to relate the experience?

If we read those paragraphs in Bible regarding the appearance of Christ to the Disciples, we might see some hints that shows, this is not a literal fact.

For example: in John 20:19 it says:

"...when the doors were shut….came Jesus and stood in the midst….”

It does not say, anybody opened the door to let Jesus in, but it says, “when the doors were shut”

If not physically, how did Thomas place his hands in the wounds to prove it?

Likewise in Acts 1:11, it rebukes them for looking in the sky, to expect Jesus return physically from the Sky:

“…they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky?...”

Meaning, the coming of Jesus is not physically from sky, but the same way He left. Which means, He did not leave physically.

They watched Jesus ascend into the clouds and were told he would come as he left, from the clouds. I will investigate the scripture further with Strong's Dictionary.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Would you provide the scripture for the first time Jesus was "raised" I've checked 2 versions of the Bible and find only the resurrection after his physical death.

That I said the scriptures says Jesus was raised twice, can be seen by analyzing the essential teachings from Bible. I know that apparently scriptures seems to be talking after Crucifixion.

Consider that Jesus said "I am Resurrection"
He also said "I am light of the World". He also said "when I am in the World it is Day, when I leave, it is night"

So, Jesus was like the Sun, that appeared in the Morning of Resurrection.
Just like a Sun that is "Raised" to give light of guidance to World.
Just an analogy that Jesus gave about Himself.

Now, it was written, that some ask a question:

"But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?"1. Cori. 15:35
Then if you continue reading, He gives the answer to the question he raises:

"...it is raised a spiritual body" Cori.15:44

So, by resurrection of the Dead is meant a spiritual Resurrection, not a physical Resurrection.

That's why He is calling them fools:

"Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die" 1 Cori 15:36


Now I gave this background, because that is important to understand this verse:

"There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead." 15:42

See that, it is comparing the Resurrection of Dead to appearance of the Sun, Moon and stars.

The Sun, is Manifestation of God. Such as Jesus. The Moon and stars are the Prophets and disciples, like John the Baptist, and apostles.


It is that initial rising of Jesus to proclaim His mission, which is marked symbolically by descending a Dove from Heaven. That was the Moment that Jesus received a Revelation from God, by Which He was raised like the Sun, in the Morning of Resurrection, so, others may also rise, and be quickened:

and the scripture confirms this:

"And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins" Eph. 2:1

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Avoice wrote: Jesus used a literal situation to illustrate a spiritual truth.

You mean to say it was fine to put a new scrap of hide on an old wineskin and expect it to hold new wine?

No, I mean the spiritual Truth according to Bible Authors, is that, the Word of God, is like a food for spiritual body. When those dead in sin eat it, they are made alive. I believe this is the essential meaning of the story of Lazarus.

I disagree. To believe in the power of Jehovah to do physically miraculous things takes the faith of a little child.

One with clean hands can glorify God with singing and praise also.

Then why Jesus refused to do any Miracles for the generation?
Moreover, in old testament it is said, God allows false Prophets to do Miracles, so, God test others. In another word physical Miracles are not the proof for a True Prophet and should not be trusted.

Avoice wrote: As I recall the full burial wrapping enclosed the hands and would not allow a person to unwrap themselves. Jesus' burial was hurried and not completed. Shock at a man dead and in the grave for several days and "already smelling", would delay the people from acting. Jesus' words prompted them to do the obvious.


Genesis 34:30 "stink" is Strong's definition H887

Well, that is a literal interpretation from Strong's. Which I think, "stink" here has a symbolic meaning, not literal.

According to Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible:

"...to stink...to be hated and abhorred by all the people round about, and to be looked upon and treated as a deceitful, treacherous, and perfidious man, that had no regard to his word, to covenants and agreements made by him; as a cruel and bloodthirsty man that spared none, made no difference between the innocent and the guilty; and as a robber and plunderer, that stopped at nothing, committing the greatest outrages to get possession of the substance of others"

This was the symbolic meaning of stink, which I believe should also be used in the case of Lazarus.


Consider Lazarus was such a sinner man, and Jesus guided him and made him alive. Is this a bigger Miracle, or that Jesus physically made him live, and he eventually died anyways.

Avoice wrote: followed by: Joh_11:14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.


I'm saying that he spoke, not in parables or similes, but outright. Strong's supports this conclusion.

How do we know strong's got it right?

They let the reader know when they are working out of a vision. And, no they do not claim to be getting old, however, my understanding is most of the Apostolic writings were done, lead by God, when the apostles themselves and the eye witnesses of Jesus' life were aging and or already dead.

Well, regardless of they were inspired in dreams or visions, the Scriptures can say things in symbolic language, without telling us, that it is a parabol and symbolic.
We just have to analyze the Text to see if the Authors meant it is literal or symbolic.

If they didn't appear to Peter, James and John, how is it that the men wanted to build tabernacles to them and were, later, able to relate the experience?

If you are talking about Moses and Elijah. How is it that only Desciples saw them, and no one else? If they literally appeared, others must have seen them.
Moreover, It is not a Christian belief that Moses remained alive, is it?
And the Desciples had never seen Moses and Elijah before, how could they recognize them?
And if Elijah had come,they must have been very surprised and shocked, don't you think so?
And if Elijah had come literally, and they saw him talking with Jesus, then why is it that afterward they said:

"Why do the teachers of religious law insist that Elijah must return before the Messiah comes?"


Jesus was like a New Moses, and John was like a New Elijah. "Jesus and John" was the spiritual Reality of "Moses and Elijah". And when the Scriptures say, Desciple saw Elijah and Moses talking to Jesus, I don't think this is a literal fact. Since Jesus and John appead with the same words and knowledge of Moses and Elijah, the Reality is like as if Jesus talked to them.

If not physically, how did Thomas place his hands in the wounds to prove it?

Here, you are presuming that Jesus literally and physically appeared to them.
The Scripture is describing a symbolic story, that has a spiritual meaning for us to discover.
"The Body of Christ" after His Crucifixtion appeared as His Desciples (accroding to Bible)
So, then those Desciples, which were the Body of Christ, were afflicted with suffering and trouble, they were the ones that their pain was real. So, now this fact is pictured symbolically, as if the Body of Christ appeared with His wounds again.

If Jesus was Physically raised, why His wounds did not heal? I don't think it makes sense, He still had been left with such big and deep wounds, when God could have healed Him perfectly.
And If you, say, so they test His wounds to see it was really Him. That wasn't necessary. All He needed to say was, touch me and see me I am real.

 

[CG Didymus]

Then why Jesus refused to do any Miracles for the generation?

...you are presuming that Jesus literally and physically appeared to them.

You quote over and over again how Jesus refused to do any miracles, but he did do miracles and Christians believe he did those miracles. You quote over and over again that all scriptures are inspired by God as if that means they are in some spirit language. You know this week Christians are celebrating the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, not his teachings coming to life in his followers. Christians believe he died for the sins of the world. Most Christians believe Jesus is God, that there is a real place called hell and an evil spirit called Satan. Baha'i don't believe any of that. Where is the consistency in God's message? Because, it was Jesus that said there is a Satan/devil and a place called hell. That would be great if it's all symbolic, but why did early Christians believe all of this as true? Why did Christians and Jews write books in the Bible that are historical narratives? It's not meant to be symbolic. They are reporting the events as they happened. There are some similarities, but all religions have vast differences. It is not people misinterpreting the one "true" message from the one "true" God. They're describing a totally different type of God or no god, or multiple gods. What is weird is that it seems the Baha'i Faith is put in the position of validating all religions as coming from the same source while at the same time coming up with a way to negate them also.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

You quote over and over again how Jesus refused to do any miracles, but he did do miracles and Christians believe he did those miracles. You quote over and over again that all scriptures are inspired by God as if that means they are in some spirit language. You know this week Christians are celebrating the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, not his teachings coming to life in his followers. Christians believe he died for the sins of the world. Most Christians believe Jesus is God, that there is a real place called hell and an evil spirit called Satan. Baha'i don't believe any of that. Where is the consistency in God's message? Because, it was Jesus that said there is a Satan/devil and a place called hell. That would be great if it's all symbolic, but why did early Christians believe all of this as true? Why did Christians and Jews write books in the Bible that are historical narratives? It's not meant to be symbolic. They are reporting the events as they happened. There are some similarities, but all religions have vast differences. It is not people misinterpreting the one "true" message from the one "true" God. They're describing a totally different type of God or no god, or multiple gods. What is weird is that it seems the Baha'i Faith is put in the position of validating all religions as coming from the same source while at the same time coming up with a way to negate them also.

I think for the most part I have covered these questions in this thread, and would not want to go in a loop unless a new question or topic can come up. In Baha'i view there is no contradiction between religions, and the Baha'i Scriptures reconciled all the differences with a reasonable explaination, which is irrefutable in my experience when I debated for a few years with various people with different believs.
Considering the Founders of the Faith were not learned or clergy and didn't have religious studies (which can be verified historically), and while having the ability to explain all these with hunderdes of Books,which according to many witnesses were revealed with high speed from Their Mouth, that the Scribers had problem keeping up, in my view is quite convincing. Baha'u'llah Hismelf has said: "Is there anymore excuse left in this Revelation?". In my view, No!

In our view a revealtion is a Test. We just need to make an effort to pass this test, to recognize a Revelation. And many of the Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc, have become Baha'is.

 

[Avoice]

That I said the scriptures says Jesus was raised twice, can be seen by analyzing the essential teachings from Bible. I know that apparently scriptures seems to be talking after Crucifixion.

Oh, so it does not say that in the Bible anywhere. Jesus was only raised from the dead once, per the scriptures.

Consider that Jesus said "I am Resurrection"
He also said "I am light of the World". He also said "when I am in the World it is Day, when I leave, it is night"

So, Jesus was like the Sun, that appeared in the Morning of Resurrection.
Just like a Sun that is "Raised" to give light of guidance to World.
Just an analogy that Jesus gave about Himself.

Joh_3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

Joh_8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

Joh_12:46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.


Joh_9:5 As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.
This says it pretty plainly. While in the world, He was light of the world in His own words.

Key words in the last 3 scriptures is "I am" present tense.

Now, it was written, that some ask a question:

"But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?"1. Cori. 15:35
Then if you continue reading, He gives the answer to the question he raises:

"...it is raised a spiritual body" Cori.15:44

1Co 15:34 Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.

Paul is talking the basics of Salvation in our Lord Jesus.
The concept of the resurrection is also in the Gospel.

Joh 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

So, by resurrection of the Dead is meant a spiritual Resurrection, not a physical Resurrection.

God Himself has taken form as a burning bush, and you are saying spirit cannot take on physical form, at will?

That's why He is calling them fools:

"Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die" 1 Cori 15:36

At a guess, since I'm not Paul, I'd say the people he's addressing are ignoring the obvious.

Now I gave this background, because that is important to understand this verse:

Gee I thought you were showing off.:bow:

"There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead." 15:42

He's explaining Jesus' spirit made man become spirit in my view.

See that, it is comparing the Resurrection of Dead to appearance of the Sun, Moon and stars.
The Sun, is Manifestation of God. Such as Jesus. The Moon and stars are the Prophets and disciples, like John the Baptist, and apostles.

No I don't see that. He talks of different sorts of flesh and other comparisons, Without reading the whole chapter as well as preceding chapter and following chapter I cannot make more comment than I have.


I notice I already owe you another set of responses.:thud:

It is that initial rising of Jesus to proclaim His mission, which is marked symbolically by descending a Dove from Heaven. That was the Moment that Jesus received a Revelation from God, by Which He was raised like the Sun, in the Morning of Resurrection, so, others may also rise, and be quickened:

and the scripture confirms this:

"And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins" Eph. 2:1

I see this as Jesus' baptism by water and spirit which we are to receive also. I'll look into it further when I get some time. Like I've said, I've been stuck in the Hebrew scriptures for a few years.

 

[Avoice]

No, I mean the spiritual Truth according to Bible Authors, is that, the Word of God, is like a food for spiritual body. When those dead in sin eat it, they are made alive. I believe this is the essential meaning of the story of Lazarus.


Then why Jesus refused to do any Miracles for the generation?
Moreover, in old testament it is said, God allows false Prophets to do Miracles, so, God test others. In another word physical Miracles are not the proof for a True Prophet and should not be trusted.



Well, that is a literal interpretation from Strong's. Which I think, "stink" here has a symbolic meaning, not literal.

According to Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible:

"...to stink...to be hated and abhorred by all the people round about, and to be looked upon and treated as a deceitful, treacherous, and perfidious man, that had no regard to his word, to covenants and agreements made by him; as a cruel and bloodthirsty man that spared none, made no difference between the innocent and the guilty; and as a robber and plunderer, that stopped at nothing, committing the greatest outrages to get possession of the substance of others"

This was the symbolic meaning of stink, which I believe should also be used in the case of Lazarus.


Consider Lazarus was such a sinner man, and Jesus guided him and made him alive. Is this a bigger Miracle, or that Jesus physically made him live, and he eventually died anyways.







How do we know strong's got it right?







Well, regardless of they were inspired in dreams or visions, the Scriptures can say things in symbolic language, without telling us, that it is a parabol and symbolic.
We just have to analyze the Text to see if the Authors meant it is literal or symbolic.





If you are talking about Moses and Elijah. How is it that only Desciples saw them, and no one else? If they literally appeared, others must have seen them.
Moreover, It is not a Christian belief that Moses remained alive, is it?
And the Desciples had never seen Moses and Elijah before, how could they recognize them?
And if Elijah had come,they must have been very surprised and shocked, don't you think so?
And if Elijah had come literally, and they saw him talking with Jesus, then why is it that afterward they said:

"Why do the teachers of religious law insist that Elijah must return before the Messiah comes?"


Jesus was like a New Moses, and John was like a New Elijah. "Jesus and John" was the spiritual Reality of "Moses and Elijah". And when the Scriptures say, Desciple saw Elijah and Moses talking to Jesus, I don't think this is a literal fact. Since Jesus and John appead with the same words and knowledge of Moses and Elijah, the Reality is like as if Jesus talked to them.


Here, you are presuming that Jesus literally and physically appeared to them.
The Scripture is describing a symbolic story, that has a spiritual meaning for us to discover.
"The Body of Christ" after His Crucifixtion appeared as His Desciples (accroding to Bible)
So, then those Desciples, which were the Body of Christ, were afflicted with suffering and trouble, they were the ones that their pain was real. So, now this fact is pictured symbolically, as if the Body of Christ appeared with His wounds again.

If Jesus was Physically raised, why His wounds did not heal? I don't think it makes sense, He still had been left with such big and deep wounds, when God could have healed Him perfectly.
And If you, say, so they test His wounds to see it was really Him. That wasn't necessary. All He needed to say was, touch me and see me I am real.

It will take some time to get back to you. I need to read what you've said when I have more time.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

God Himself has taken form as a burning bush, and you are saying spirit cannot take on physical form, at will?

Well, I am not saying it cannot or it can. I am only saying that's not what the Authors of Bible meant literally.
There are just many evidence that by Resurrection of the Dead, in every instance they meant, a spiritual and symbolic meaning, rather than a physical one. Even return of Elijah as John the Baptist clearly shows, Bible is full of symbolic and spiritual stories and verses.

 

[CG Didymus]

I think for the most part I have covered these questions in this thread, and would not want to go in a loop unless a new question or topic can come up. In Baha'i view there is no contradiction between religions, and the Baha'i Scriptures reconciled all the differences with a reasonable explaination, which is irrefutable in my experience when I debated for a few years with various people with different believs.

No, I don't think so. You don't get off that easy. A basic thing of Hinduism is reincarnation. Does the Baha'i Faith teach that? Does Christianity? Read Leviticus. God told Moses about sacrificing animals as burnt offerings. Were they only symbolic animals? Or did Moses misinterpret God? Christianity says that Jesus died and was raised up after three days. That's their main belief. The apostles claim they witnessed this. Yet, you say it didn't happen? But on top of that Christians believe in heaven and hell and Satan. Do Jews? Do Buddhists? Do Baha'is? Religion and God are changing, evolving. They aren't building off the old. Jews have one God. Hindus hundreds. Zoroastrians had a good God and an evil god didn't they? a dualism? Christianity has three in one. God is defined different in each. Where's the consistency? How about Roman and Greek religions? Were their gods and prophets true? If not, then there are some false, man-made religions based on myths and legends. Sorry, but I don't see how you see a clear and consistent message coming from God through different prophets and religions. To end on a more positive note for you, I agree that the Baha'i Faith might be the answer. It is a very practical religion, when and how is it going to fix the mess we're in? It's been more than 150 years. What's the hold up?

 

[arthra]

Didymus

Hi Didymus! I thought I would add a few responses to your questions and put them in bold print as follows..

No, I don't think so. You don't get off that easy. A basic thing of Hinduism is reincarnation. Does the Baha'i Faith teach that?

Baha'is don't believe in reincarnation...but in the return of attributes or characteristics. The soul ascends to the Worlds of God in Baha'i belief.

Does Christianity? Read Leviticus. God told Moses about sacrificing animals as burnt offerings. Were they only symbolic animals? Or did Moses misinterpret God?

Sacrificing animals was a widespread practise in the ancient world..so some ordinances were allowed... "Sacrifice" as a principle has continued but animals are no longer needed.. Moses as a Prophet responded to Divine Revelation.

Christianity says that Jesus died and was raised up after three days. That's their main belief. The apostles claim they witnessed this. Yet, you say it didn't happen?

In the Baha'i belief Christ was spiritually resurrected and committed His Spirit to God. What happened is that the disciples took heart and carried the Gospel to the far reaches..

But on top of that Christians believe in heaven and hell and Satan. Do Jews? Do Buddhists? Do Baha'is?

Baha'is believe heaven is nearness to God and hell is alienation from God.

Religion and God are changing, evolving. They aren't building off the old.

We would say religion is progressive over time.. They do build on each other... that is on the spiritual values. You can see this in the Bible, the Qur'an and the Baha'i Writings.

Jews have one God. Hindus hundreds. Zoroastrians had a good God and an evil god didn't they? a dualism? Christianity has three in one. God is defined different in each.

God is one and the same we believe..and there is monotheism in ancient religions but it is in different cultural contexts..


Where's the consistency? How about Roman and Greek religions? Were their gods and prophets true? If not, then there are some false, man-made religions based on myths and legends.

Myths and legends are not necessarily "false"..they were devices to instruct people in ancient times...

Sorry, but I don't see how you see a clear and consistent message coming from God through different prophets and religions.

The Message is in our view pretty consistent... I'd suggest attending some inter-faith gatherings where people can discover how much we all have in common...!


To end on a more positive note for you, I agree that the Baha'i Faith might be the answer. It is a very practical religion, when and how is it going to fix the mess we're in? It's been more than 150 years. What's the hold up?

Baha'u'llah revealed to the rulers of the earth back in 1868 a program for a representative world parliament and an international court of arbitration... It's taken humanity a long time to accept this message but we have made progress and our world is becoming more united thatn it's ever been in the past...!

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Christianity says that Jesus died and was raised up after three days. That's their main belief. The apostles claim they witnessed this. Yet, you say it didn't happen?

In Baha'i View the Bible is veiled "intentionally". This point can also be established from Bible alone too:

"And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing" 2 cori. 4:3

The idea is, to look at the Bible with the eye of spirit to see reality of things.
The apostles did claim they saw Him, but did they say they meant literally they saw Him?

How is it veiled? The answer is, the Bible intentionally speaks in Parabols so its hidden meaning is veild.


"The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?"

He replied, "Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.

Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand." Matthew 13: 10-13


So, what Jesus meant when He said "while seeing they do not see"?

He was saying their spiritual eye was blind.

The old Testament said Elijah went up to Heaven, and will return. The New testament said, Elijah returned in the form of John the Baptist, but they couldn't recognize Him. Then New Testament says Jesus went up to Heaven, but will return. Baha'i Scriptures says, he returend in the form of Baha'u'llah. But in my view, the Bible teaches a good lesson. The lesson is to see things with the eye of spirit, not literally and judging with appearence, otherwise the Bible is veiled for us, because how is that when we don't want to learn the lesson from our previous mistake, still see the Truth?

 

[Avoice]

"There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead." 15:42

He's explaining Jesus' spirit made man become spirit in my view.

See that, it is comparing the Resurrection of Dead to appearance of the Sun, Moon and stars.
The Sun, is Manifestation of God. Such as Jesus. The Moon and stars are the Prophets and disciples, like John the Baptist, and apostles.

No I don't see that. He talks of different sorts of flesh and other comparisons, Without reading the whole chapter as well as preceding chapter and following chapter I cannot make more comment than I have.

I find that my latter comment is far more accurate and in accord with the chapter than my former comment in the post.

In the early part of the letter, Paul is talking of the divisiveness of the congregation and the jealousy.

He spends a good part of Chapters 12 -15 trying to smooth over the factions in the congregation. He tries to explain that all belong to Jesus; not himself or any other who may have baptized congregation members.

The Sun I take to be God the Father, the Moon - Jesus, and the stars all those who believe including the Apostles and Prophets and those with tongues and healers and everybody else as each star has a glory all its(sp) own.

 

[Avoice]

No, I mean the spiritual Truth according to Bible Authors, is that, the Word of God, is like a food for spiritual body. When those dead in sin eat it, they are made alive. I believe this is the essential meaning of the story of Lazarus.

I agree until we get to Lazarus. I firmly believe this to be a literal event.

Then why Jesus refused to do any Miracles for the generation?

Would you please provide the scripture on this. I know Jesus said he would not provide a sign for the hypocritical in the Jewish hierarchy who were asking for one.

Moreover, in old testament it is said, God allows false Prophets to do Miracles, so, God test others. In another word physical Miracles are not the proof for a True Prophet and should not be trusted.

I agree with the above.

Well, that is a literal interpretation from Strong's. Which I think, "stink" here has a symbolic meaning, not literal.

According to Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible:

"...to stink...to be hated and abhorred by all the people round about, and to be looked upon and treated as a deceitful, treacherous, and perfidious man, that had no regard to his word, to covenants and agreements made by him; as a cruel and bloodthirsty man that spared none, made no difference between the innocent and the guilty; and as a robber and plunderer, that stopped at nothing, committing the greatest outrages to get possession of the substance of others"

This was the symbolic meaning of stink, which I believe should also be used in the case of Lazarus.

I've more research to do on the above.

Consider Lazarus was such a sinner man, and Jesus guided him and made him alive. Is this a bigger Miracle, or that Jesus physically made him live, and he eventually died anyways.

Why then did the Priests of the Jewish faith want to kill Lazarus?

How do we know strong's got it right?

How do we know Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible got it right?

Well, regardless of they were inspired in dreams or visions, the Scriptures can say things in symbolic language, without telling us, that it is a parabol and symbolic.
We just have to analyze the Text to see if the Authors meant it is literal or symbolic.

How many times have you read through the Bible? I've been reading through it for over 20 years of my life i.e. once a year a complete read through. I feel I have a good understanding of where it is literal and where not.

If you are talking about Moses and Elijah. How is it that only Desciples saw them, and no one else? If they literally appeared, others must have seen them.

Only James and John saw Jesus with them. No one else went with him. These were Apostles and had the closeness to Jesus and God the Father to see them speaking with Jesus.

Moreover, It is not a Christian belief that Moses remained alive, is it?

Elijah yes as he was taken up in the chariot. Moses? You'd have to ask a church taught Christian. My learning is strictly Biblical and the appearance with Elijah is the only indication that Moses was taken up alive also in all the pages of the Bible.

And the Desciples had never seen Moses and Elijah before, how could they recognize them?

Who else would they be?

And if Elijah had come,they must have been very surprised and shocked, don't you think so?

Flabberghasted, I'd say from my reading of the Scriptures.

And if Elijah had come literally, and they saw him talking with Jesus, then why is it that afterward they said:

"Why do the teachers of religious law insist that Elijah must return before the Messiah comes?"

(Matthew 17:9-12) .*.*.And as they were descending from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying: “Tell the vision to no one until the Son of man is raised up from the dead.” 10*However, the disciples put the question to him: “Why, then, do the scribes say that E·li′jah must come first?” 11*In reply he said: “E·li′jah, indeed, is coming and will restore all things. 12*However, I say to YOU that E·li′jah has already come and they did not recognize him but did with him the things they wanted. In this way also the Son of man is destined to suffer at their hands.”

Because the disciples believed Jesus to be Messiah and this appearance of Elijah did not come before Jesus position was revealed to them.

Jesus was like a New Moses, and John was like a New Elijah. "Jesus and John" was the spiritual Reality of "Moses and Elijah". And when the Scriptures say, Desciple saw Elijah and Moses talking to Jesus, I don't think this is a literal fact. Since Jesus and John appead with the same words and knowledge of Moses and Elijah, the Reality is like as if Jesus talked to them.


Here, you are presuming that Jesus literally and physically appeared to them.
The Scripture is describing a symbolic story, that has a spiritual meaning for us to discover.

I'm going to take some time on this as I'm not fully understanding what you wrote.

"The Body of Christ" after His Crucifixtion appeared as His Desciples (accroding to Bible)
So, then those Desciples, which were the Body of Christ, were afflicted with suffering and trouble, they were the ones that their pain was real. So, now this fact is pictured symbolically, as if the Body of Christ appeared with His wounds again.

If you are talking of the appearance of Jesus to Thomas and the other Apostles, I'm back to: spirit is energy, energy can take physical form. God can do that with the spirits that are His servants.

If Jesus was Physically raised, why His wounds did not heal? I don't think it makes sense, He still had been left with such big and deep wounds, when God could have healed Him perfectly.
And If you, say, so they test His wounds to see it was really Him. That wasn't necessary. All He needed to say was, touch me and see me I am real.

For Thomas that would not have sufficed. Obviously the wounds did not bleed but, were open for Thomas to satisfy his doubts. The others had not needed such. I see Jesus whole as the Apostles indicate we will be at the resurrection of us from the dead.

 

[Avoice]

Now I understand:

Jesus was like a New Moses, and John was like a New Elijah. "Jesus and John" was the spiritual Reality of "Moses and Elijah". And when the Scriptures say, Desciple saw Elijah and Moses talking to Jesus, I don't think this is a literal fact. Since Jesus and John appead with the same words and knowledge of Moses and Elijah, the Reality is like as if Jesus talked to them.


Here, you are presuming that Jesus literally and physically appeared to them.
The Scripture is describing a symbolic story, that has a spiritual meaning for us to discover.

However, I got a couple of questions: Was Jesus talking to himself and John? If the Apostles knew John was "Elijah", why, did they ask about the scribe's claim.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Now I understand:



However, I got a couple of questions: Was Jesus talking to himself and John? If the Apostles knew John was "Elijah", why, did they ask about the scribe's claim.

In my understanding, this was not a physical appearance of them talking to Jesus.
The way I see scriptures is that, the disciples wrote certain spiritual realities using "Figurative" language.
So, for example, they wanted to say, that, Elijah and Moses had returned in a spiritual sense, as John and Jesus, to renew the Faith. Then they described this with a Figurative Story. So, the Scriptures instead of simply saying, Jesus and John were like Moses and Elijah, it comes up with a inspiring story, that should be interpreted spiritually.
And I believe it does that intentionally, so people make an effort to use their spiritual eye to understand what the Author of Bible wants to say.

According to Authors of Bible, the Scriptures are veiled, and sealed with seven seals.
This point can be established from Bible alone:

"And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing" 2 cori. 4:3

Those who are perishing means, those who are spiritually dead.

The idea is, to look at the Bible with the eye of spirit to see reality of things.

How is it veiled? The answer is, the Bible intentionally speaks in Parables so its hidden meaning is veiled for those who do not have a spiritual eye.


"The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?"

He replied, ....Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand." Matthew 13: 10-13


So, what Jesus meant when He said "while seeing they do not see"?

He was saying their spiritual eye was blind.

In many other places in OT and NT it is said the Book is sealed and ordinary and learned men cannot understand it.


The story of Return of Elijah wants to teach that the Pharisees did not recognize Him, because they were after the physical body of Elijah, however Jesus and disciples had recognized that John the Baptist was the Spiritual Return of Elijah. All these stories, point to the fact that the Authors of Hebrew Scriptures, and New Testament, had intentionally wrote Figurative verses to veil. Otherwise, if John the Baptist was to come before Messiah, why should the Hebrew Scriptures say, Elijah comes? It could have made it easy so, The Pharisees could recognize John and not kill Him. Or why should Jesus talked in parables so they could not understand? The idea is, if a person uses spiritual eye, then he may discover these things in scriptures, but if they do not use their spiritual eye, and only sees the apparent meaning, then it is veiled to those who are spiritually dead and perishing (according to Authors of Bible, Not ME!)