If Jesus could heal blind men, why didn't he just heal blindness?

[1robin]

I think the way you read Bible is too literal.
Are you a literalist?

I do not think the latest claims I made concerning Ezekiel are actually that literal. The Hermeneutics established for thousands of years and which have endured to this day state that things are literal until demonstrated otherwise. A gate is a gate until a sufficiently justifiable case exists that is not a gate. That is not possible IMO in this case. The worst possible methods are what IMO you are employing. Simply assuming literals and allegories based on convenience and in spite of al the scholastic and traditional methods and opinion I have exhaustively stated many times.

Ezekiel had a vision. The Visions are not literal, and the only one who can interpret them perfectly correct is the Promised One Himself. And Baha'u'llah perfectly fulfilled this.

This is not a contentious vision. There exists no well established ambiguity in scholarship concerning it. As I said words mean what they say unless there is compelling reason to think they do not. Even if the vision represents something not specifically literal (and I am not saying it does) the relationship between the things in it are intended to be literal. For instance if I said it is hot as Hell today that would not mean it literally is that hot. However it would literally be something that depends on the literal understanding of heat and Hell. Allegories associated with the Jewish Temple and associated gates may indicate something it represents but that would still require the gate to be a gate and the Temple to be a Temple. Most of our discussions I am not even contending I am right (though I sincerely believe I am) but are more points about the reliability of what we use to support our position. As I have said scholarship, tradition, hermeneutics, exegesis, legal aspects of testimony, principles of embarrassment, historical corroboration, etc are usually on my side and you have basically only Bahaullah's opinion to contend with it. Without being able to prove who is right I only contend my argument is more sound. You have the right to believe what ever you wish based on whatever you wish but the foundations for my claims are much more secure.

From whatever source you got this info, is a lie. Make sure you use the right sources.
This is the right source:
Bahá'í Reference Library - Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, Pages 23-24

I actually got it from the link you gave. The site you provided stated he was offered a professional theological position even before he was imprisoned. That indicates he was anything but ignorant concerning theology. Exactly hat claim is it you think was a lie anyway?

 

[Katzpur]

Because that same God predicted it would happen. He provides the most comprehensive explanation of suffering, remedy, and hope for future restitution. The suffering we see is the exact same as what the Bible predicts and when it's role is complete it will end. Without God we have a big fat zero as it concerns any comprehensive explanations, remedy, or hope. You have stated an optimization fallacy. You have burdened God with something he has no burden for. By the strange logic you state the only thing God is allowed to have produced is other redundant perfect God's.

You clearly didn't recognize the sarcasm, 1robin.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Well there is no evidence for Jesus healing the blind because if he did it would be a great stupendous claim that would have made Jews recognize Jesus as the Messiah despite his blasphemy perhaps. His deeds would have echoed through out history far before any known texts were written about him.

Yet it took violence and subjugation for the message of Jesus to spread.

 

[1robin]

You clearly didn't recognize the sarcasm, 1robin.

It is hard to sarcast people as dim witted as I am.

 

[1robin]

Well there is no evidence for Jesus healing the blind because if he did it would be a great stupendous claim that would have made Jews recognize Jesus as the Messiah despite his blasphemy perhaps. His deeds would have echoed through out history far before any known texts were written about him.

Yet it took violence and subjugation for the message of Jesus to spread.

The latter Christian Church has certainly used violence but there exists no argument to illustrate it can be characterized by it. I will illustrate this by a comparison.

1. During Islam's first dozen or so years it did not sell. It had less than 300 converts and many were relations of Muhammad.
2. Christianity spread like wildfire despite it's leader being killed and it's followers persecuted in it's very early years.
3. When Muhammad acquired soldiers and weapons enough and could offer power, loot, and retribution in addition to it's message during it's next dozen years or so it grew to 100,000. It shortly thereafter forcibly subdued a crumbling Roman empire and much of the med region. It demanded submission or subjugation on a state level.
4. Christianity in the same relative phase was being exterminated by the greatest Empire on Earth yet converted that empire without force for the most part.
5. Our founding authority never harmed a living sole and forgave those that killed him.
6. History records that Muhammad killed personally or ordered the death and torture of thousands.
7. The death of our leader created faith and union within it's ranks. The death of Islam's created chaos, war, and disunion and threatened to end Islam then and there and only the political standardization and control of its documents and the directing of it's destructive energies towards others saved it.
7. I need not point out the obvious difference between the two in modern times.

This is not a suggestion your are a Muslim but a comparison of like with like.

Christianity records the only known record of an entire campaign of conquest being cancelled for theological or moral reasons alone. Christianity seems to flourish equally well when persecuted than when dominant and has sold on merit alone in vast expanses of time and geography. Though it certainly is not without it's violent episodes and I condemn virtually all of them.

 

[Sha'irullah]

The latter Christian Church has certainly used violence but there exists no argument to illustrate it can be characterized by it. I will illustrate this by a comparison.

1. During Islam's first dozen or so years it did not sell. It had less than 300 converts and many were relations of Muhammad.
2. Christianity spread like wildfire despite it's leader being killed and it's followers persecuted in it's very early years.
3. When Muhammad acquired soldiers and weapons enough and could offer power, loot, and retribution in addition to it's message during it's next dozen years or so it grew to 100,000. It shortly thereafter forcibly subdued a crumbling Roman empire and much of the med region. It demanded submission or subjugation on a state level.
4. Christianity in the same relative phase was being exterminated by the greatest Empire on Earth yet converted that empire without force for the most part.
5. Our founding authority never harmed a living sole and forgave those that killed him.
6. History records that Muhammad killed personally or ordered the death and torture of thousands.
7. The death of our leader created faith and union within it's ranks. The death of Islam's created chaos, war, and disunion and threatened to end Islam then and there and only the political standardization and control of its documents and the directing of it's destructive energies towards others saved it.
7. I need not point out the obvious difference between the two in modern times.

This is not a suggestion your are a Muslim but a comparison of like with like.

Christianity records the only known record of an entire campaign of conquest being cancelled for theological or moral reasons alone. Christianity seems to flourish equally well when persecuted than when dominant and has sold on merit alone in vast expanses of time and geography. Though it certainly is not without it's violent episodes and I condemn virtually all of them.

:thud: So much drivel in that post yet you left out the slaughter of the Germanic nations which proved quite fruitful. This was not even Catholic if I recall right.

I will be ecstatic when you stop comparing me to a Muslim one day and get over the fact that love of the Qur'an is not entitlement to the label Muslim.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I do not think the latest claims I made concerning Ezekiel are actually that literal

Yes, you did. You said 'the gate' is literally a 'gate'.

The site you provided stated he was offered a professional theological position even before he was imprisoned.

There is no such a thing there in that site.

"When Bahá’u’lláh was twenty-two years old, His father died, and the Government wished Him to succeed to His father’s position in the Ministry, as was customary in Persia, but Bahá’u’lláh did not accept the offer."

Bahá'í Reference Library - Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, Pages 23-24

 

[Ken Brown]

Before I engage in unlimited scriptural battle I have to make sure I understand your position. Is this accurate of your position?

1. We can achieve sinless perfection or have the slightest momentary lapses but quickly overcome them all?
2. That is the threshold of qualification for heaven?
3. We must merit or earn heaven?

As far as Paul goes there is much more to the story.

New Living Translation (©2007)
I don't really understand myself, for I want to do what is right, but I don't do it. Instead, I do what I hate.
New International Version (©2011)
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners--of whom I am the worst.
Romans 7:15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.

I have to establish what the field of contention is to tailor my responses. Once you confirm, deny, or clarify your position specifically I will set in on full responses. The concept of a merit based salvation is so inherently self contradictory and logically absurd that I find those who support it claims become very vague and ambiguous as contention mounts so it is important to establish the exact nature of what you claim.

Hi 1robin, my position is that every sinner that is becoming a saint, must work out their salvation with fear and trembling. This involves a radical change from how our natural self was, to a new self that is fully in obedience to Yeshua. Do you have a different course?

Concerning Paul, yes, he states it well. He no longer desires to do the things he hates. There was a transformation in his mind to where he no longer conformed to his old self, but hated any disobedience. His mind was not on "Jesus" being obedient for him in his stead, as that is a delusional teaching. Elohim wants obedience and those who from the heart remain in disobedience or fall back into disobedience, will suffer wrath.

Yeshua said that if you want to enter life, keep the commandments. Who am I to call Yeshua a liar.

The salvation every sinner has, is given to them as a free gift, and here is what that Grace/Gift is supposed to accomplish:

Tit 2:11-15
(11) For the Grace of Elohim that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
(12) Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;
(13) Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great Elohim and our Saviour Yeshua Messiah;
(14) Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.
(15) These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.

How about you 1robin, has the Grace of Elohim taught you anything? KB

 

[1robin]

Hi 1robin, my position is that every sinner that is becoming a saint, must work out their salvation with fear and trembling. This involves a radical change from how our natural self was, to a new self that is fully in obedience to Yeshua. Do you have a different course?

Concerning Paul, yes, he states it well. He no longer desires to do the things he hates. There was a transformation in his mind to where he no longer conformed to his old self, but hated any disobedience. His mind was not on "Jesus" being obedient for him in his stead, as that is a delusional teaching. Elohim wants obedience and those who from the heart remain in disobedience or fall back into disobedience, will suffer wrath.

Yeshua said that if you want to enter life, keep the commandments. Who am I to call Yeshua a liar.

The salvation every sinner has, is given to them as a free gift, and here is what that Grace/Gift is supposed to accomplish:

Tit 2:11-15
(11) For the Grace of Elohim that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
(12) Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;
(13) Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great Elohim and our Saviour Yeshua Messiah;
(14) Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.
(15) These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.

How about you 1robin, has the Grace of Elohim taught you anything? KB

I can see clearly that you will not be clear and state exactly what your standards are for heaven. I am not insulting you. Your position makes this a necessity. Works based salvation can't be clearly defined because it does not exist. It is like trying to outline in detail the boundary of a fog bank. Before we get into scriptural explanations lets look at the simple theological rational behind salvation.

1. God is perfect. He will not dwell with imperfection forever. The standard to get into heaven is perfection. Unlike your arbitrary amount of merit that lacks even a theoretical line of demarcation, perfection is absolute and easily quantified.
2. Any sin disqualifies us for heaven. Any sin is less than perfection. We al have some level of sin in out lives and therefor NOONE merits heaven by effort or sinless-ness.
3. The distance between imperfection and perfection is infinite and only God can cross the distance. God and God alone must provide the bridge between us and him. My or your arbitrary level of sin or lack there of has no capacity to bridge the gulf. It can't fix the problem.
4. God must provide the entire bridge (or provision) we can't meet him half way we can't do anything to even begin to construct the solution. We have nothing that fixes the problem.
5. Enter Christ. His record is perfect. He merits heaven because he was perfect. We merit Hell because we are not. His sacrificial death provides the entire solution. Legally his perfect status is accredited to us based on faith not merit. Our record of imperfection is applied to him and punished by God at Calvary.
6. I can't add to Christ's record no matter how good I am. Fortunately there is no need to add to a perfect record. Since Christ's record and not mine is now the issue what I do can't add or detract from that.
7. At the moment of faith in Christ the Holy Spirit comes to live in our heart. He has said he will never leave nor forsake us. He is also said to be the earnest or down payment guaranteeing our future salvation.
7. When I arrive in heaven at the judgment. Satan will accuse me and be correct in saying I am a sinful man as he would be correct about anyone. But Christ (my defense council) will say that it is no longer my record but his that is the determining factor and I am legally sinless and can therefor dwell with God because it is he that lives in me and no longer I that am judged.
8. On what basis was Christ's record or actions incomplete? Does he need my help to save me beyond the faith I place in him? If my record was the issue why did he NEED to die? He could have showed up and said I must be sinless and then disappeared in a puff of smoke. His death has no role if my conduct is the standard.
9. If my record is the issue then clearly defined the exact standard I must meet. You can't and have not even though I have asked several times because it is impossible. Whatever line you draw (if you will even dare to do so) is arbitrary and not defined by scripture. You basically have claimed we must be changed and good. The issue is how changed or how good?

So we see that grace and grace alone is the only possible way we will ever get into heaven and grace is defined as receiving what we do not deserve or merit. That is why Paul (the chief of sinners) felt confident he would be in heaven. That is why the man who's entire record of conduct and works was completely burned up by God's refining fire but the man himself was saved. He had not one work left to his name to merit anything yet entered heaven.

So what is at stake. Our conduct might mean more people that are saved. We should therefor strive to be perfect. While our destination is secured by Christ's un breakable promise our journey is not. We may indeed suffer for our sin while here. I also think that the treasure (or rewards) in heaven are determined by our actions but whether we get in was determined by Christ's actions. That is why a second judgment is necessary. Now that I have laid a theological foundation for the context verses should be interpreted in we can examine verses in detail if you wish. James must be viewed in context as I am sure you will use the little he wrote as the foundation for your position.

You keep asking my person path to heaven. Christ and Christ alone is my path. I have been born again and my name written in the book of life. If I am wrong there was never any hope of our meriting heaven so we are all lost anyway.

 

[1robin]

:thud: So much drivel in that post yet you left out the slaughter of the Germanic nations which proved quite fruitful. This was not even Catholic if I recall right.

I will be ecstatic when you stop comparing me to a Muslim one day and get over the fact that love of the Qur'an is not entitlement to the label Muslim.

I stated specifically that I was comparing theology to theology and chose Islam NOT because you are one but because I am familiar with it. I see that was time well spent. Why should I type anything if you cant absorb it? Your opinion concerning drivel does not make the slightest detail I gave incorrect. Commentary is not an argument. I did not compose an exhaustive list of every Christian violent action in history. I have no idea why I would have or why you point out something left out of a non existent list. What are you talking about anyway. There was a Christian war involving Germany but was not strictly between Catholics against protestants. Both were on either side, had nothing to do with conversion by force, but did have to do with political Church hierarchy issues. I have already said Christianity has much violence in it's past. Pointing out an example proves my claim and does not disapprove anything I said. Do you want to discuss this war in detail for some reason. Outside general information it has absolutely no impact on my claims it was a response to.

 

[1robin]

Yes, you did. You said 'the gate' is literally a 'gate'.

My statement was my interpretation was not all that literal. That implies (to the rest of us anyway) that it literal to some extant but not strictly literal. As I have stated the events may in fact represent something else or a future event but the detail of the example is uses must be literal in the first place to represent anything. Saying the gate in connection with the Temple was some city somewhere is nonsense and makes the vision into gibberish. Not that even if it makes sense there is the slightest reason to believe the gate was not a gate to begin with. Literal gates (they are quite famous) are associated with the literal Temple and only in that context would the vision make sense even if the vision represented a non literal event. I explained in many ways with examples why every standard besides (Bahaullah's opinions) suggest the gate is a literal gate. It's like giving medicine to a dead person. Nothing wrong with the medicine but because of the person it has no effect.

There is no such a thing there in that site.

"When Bahá’u’lláh was twenty-two years old, His father died, and the Government wished Him to succeed to His father’s position in the Ministry, as was customary in Persia, but Bahá’u’lláh did not accept the offer."

Bahá'í Reference Library - Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, Pages 23-24

You say it does not exist and then provide it yourself. What is going on? Governments do not offer professional positions to uneducated ignorant men in general. By the way it was not that site it was the other one that I got my claim from and it stated it in more detail although it was only a short point. However none of this matters. Whatever Bahaullah's level of competence or ignorance of theology does not even begin to compare with illiterate men with no training writing far more accepted theological works 4000 years before Bahaullah even existed. No printing press, no colleges, not even books of any kind available to the average Biblical author, no printing press, no prison library's, no already existent and universally read Bible and Koran yet they early OT writers wrote very very respected theology texts of extreme complexity. However I have never used that as proof of anything. Why do you use a claim with even less impact?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

My statement was my interpretation was not all that literal. That implies (to the rest of us anyway) that it literal to some extant but not strictly literal.

You again just say things without bringing any reason.

You say: "it [is] literal to some extant but not strictly literal."

Why is that so?

As I have stated the events may in fact represent something else or a future event but the detail of the example is uses must be literal in the first place to represent anything.

Why it has to be literal in the first place to represent anything?

You realize what you say is worthless?
It is like I tell you, there are many unicorns in your home, have you seen them?



There has been many scientists who confirmed that there are unicorns and doublecorns.

You know? if it is just about saying funny things, let's just say it...

Saying the gate in connection with the Temple was some city somewhere is nonsense and makes the vision into gibberish.

Can you prove from the verses the gate is a gate of a Physical Temple?

Not that even if it makes sense there is the slightest reason to believe the gate was not a gate to begin with. Literal gates (they are quite famous) are associated with the literal Temple and only in that context would the vision make sense even if the vision represented a non literal event.

That's again false. Door or gate can be a symbol. For example Door of Hope.

Also,, in Bible, Hell has a gate, with Keys. Jesus has the Keys. Are they literal too?

Are you a literalists by the way?

I explained in many ways with examples why every standard besides (Bahaullah's opinions) suggest the gate is a literal gate.

You did explain, but it made not sense, when you cannot support is with even the verses of Bible.

It's like giving medicine to a dead person. Nothing wrong with the medicine but because of the person it has no effect.

Since when you became a Dr?

You say it does not exist and then provide it yourself. What is going on?

Obviously you didn't understand that quote I provided. Which part of it says, Baha'u'llah was offered a "theological position" in government?

Governments do not offer professional positions to uneducated ignorant men in general.

Of course they don't. They offer it to someone who they have seen He has knowledge and Wisdom!

By the way it was not that site it was the other one that I got my claim from and it stated it in more detail although it was only a short point.

Which site was it? mind you quote and put the link to support your references?

However none of this matters.

Why not?
(Again you just say things).

It's like I tell you, it does not matter what scientist have discovered about big bang. Million years ago there were many scientist living on the Sun, who knew about big bang, and before big bang.

You know, just saying things here and there.... This is what you say next:

Whatever Bahaullah's level of competence or ignorance of theology does not even begin to compare with illiterate men with no training writing far more accepted theological works 4000 years before Bahaullah even existed.

Accepted by whom? Who were these illiterate men as you say 4000 years ago? How do you even compare when you have neither read 0.001% of 17000 Works of Baha'u'llah, Neither you are saying who are these illiterate men 4000 year ago were?

It is like I tell you, these schools that exist in USA, their facilities are not even comparable with those schools that existed 5000 years ago in USA. The ones 5000 years ago were much much more advanced, because even kids were making atomic Bombs safely.

You know just saying things....That's how you make up things.
You realize how logically worthless and meaningless it is the way you say things?

No printing press, no colleges, not even books of any kind available to the average Biblical author, no printing press, no prison library's, no already existent and universally read Bible and Koran yet they early OT writers wrote very very respected theology texts of extreme complexity.

Is that a Joke? Respected by whom? how do you determine "extreme complexity". Extreme complex according to whose judgement?

There are a lot of garbage books, that to many people are considered excellent works, Simply because it confirms what they already believe.

This is how the Biased People are. If something is in conformity to what they want, they say it is excellent, no matter how junk it is, and if there is a precious work that does not confirm them, to them is worthless.

However I have never used that as proof of anything.

What are you talking about? Prove what?

Bible said, there will rise many false teacher in Christianity. How do you know the ones you trust are not the false teachers?

Why do you use a claim with even less impact?

This is a fallacy. Less impact on you? There are many great books out there that has no impact on people who choose not to read them. Does that mean they have no impact on anyone?

 

[1robin]

You again just say things without bringing any reason.

You say: "it [is] literal to some extant but not strictly literal."

Why is that so?

I did far better than giving my opinion as it concerns reasons. Actually I did give my reasons but I also gave some of the most respected scholars reasons. Why should I go through that trouble if you simply ignore them and pretend they never existed. I will find them and copy them if needed but will have to repeat some of them to answer your other question anyway. If I am going to use an analogy of let's say a tree. My leaves must be literal leaves, my bark must be literal bark, and seeds must be literal seeds for it to make any sense at all. Now I may use it to do something like represent the growth of a human for example but if my leaves actually meant rocks, the bark meant planets, and the seed meant ice then the analogy would fall apart and be incoherent. That whole entire chapter in Ezekiel concerned the temple complex. It had measurements, temple furnishings, and gates that all existed with a literal complex. That complex was used in an analogy. If the gates meant some random city that makes Bahaullah claims work then the analogy breaks down just like one about the tree. I am the only one that gave any reasons.

Why it has to be literal in the first place to represent anything?

See above.

You realize what you say is worthless?
It is like I tell you, there are many unicorns in your home, have you seen them?

It sure seems to be in your case.

There has been many scientists who confirmed that there are unicorns and doublecorns.

You know? if it is just about saying funny things, let's just say it...

I do not get this at all.

Can you prove from the verses the gate is a gate of a Physical Temple?

That is what it says. It says gate. I do not have a burden to prove gate means gate. You have the burden to prove gate means city. That is absurd.

That's again false. Door or gate can be a symbol. For example Door of Hope.

Could be and in fact is. However not in the case where it is part of an exhaustive description of an actual temple complex.

Also,, in Bible, Hell has a gate, with Keys. Jesus has the Keys. Are they literal too?

No, but the Hell complex is not described in exhaustive and detailed verse after verse. No one has ever seen a Hell with gates. However real temples and real gates have been seen by millions.

Are you a literalists by the way?

No, at least as far as I understand the term. As the above proves. It is very easy to see how hell has no actual physical gates. It is a fact that the Hebrew temple complex has physical gates and that is what is described. The burden is your not mine to prove though I am the only one that even attempted to do so.

You did explain, but it made not sense, when you cannot support is with even the verses of Bible.

Every verse of the chapter before that verse and the chapter it's in a true of the actual temple complex as it exists in Jewish history. Not one verse suggests it is anything other than that. Only Bahaullah does that. Every verse there is agrees with me in that story line.

Since when you became a Dr?

It does not require being a Dr to give medicine to a person. Have you not done so your self? Literal medicine.

Obviously you didn't understand that quote I provided. Which part of it says, Baha'u'llah was offered a "theological position" in government?

Is that what you are contending with? That a completely uneducated man was being offered a government position but not a theological one? The other site is where I got what type of position it was. Give me that link again and I will go get the quote.

Of course they don't. They offer it to someone who they have seen He has knowledge and Wisdom!

Knowledge in wisdom do not come in a vacuum. It takes education of some type or another. My point was he was not some illiterate, ignorant, idiot and was capable of writing what he did without divine help.

Which site was it? mind you quote and put the link to support your references?

It was your link. You gave two. It was not the one you gave last.

Why not?
(Again you just say things).

It's like I tell you, it does not matter what scientist have discovered about big bang. Million years ago there were many scientist living on the Sun, who knew about big bang, and before big bang.

You know, just saying things here and there.... This is what you say next:

That is preposterous. Claiming what the prevailing theory in a field is, where thousands of the greatest minds have worked is anything but simply saying things. What you said is inconsistent with what cosmologists view. However even if that was not the case there are physical laws, mathematics, and philosophical reasons that what you describe is not even possible of which I gave a few examples of which not one has even been addressed by you. This is anything but simply saying random stuff. Infinites can't exist in nature, mathematics breaks down at the infinite in most cases. It is like an asymptotic or boundary condition.

Accepted by whom? Who were these illiterate men as you say 4000 years ago?

Atheists have argued that no-one in Moses time was literate. I do not agree but there certainly was not common knowledge of writing and texts were prohibitively expensive.

How do you even compare when you have neither read 0.001% of 17000 Works of Baha'u'llah, Neither you are saying who are these illiterate men 4000 year ago were?

There exists no argument against the historical fact that illiteracy rates were vastly higher in 1000BC than in 1850AD. Jewish slaves which wrote the earliest books were trying to a few scraps of rat meat to live on, they were not enrolled in college at night. You can find a hundred atheist web sites stating Moses was illiterate. I do not know why I would need to read much of Bahaullah's works for any claim I made. Make no mistake it requires much intelligence to write what he did but it does not require a God.

It is like I tell you, these schools that exist in USA, their facilities are not even comparable with those schools that existed 5000 years ago in USA. The ones 5000 years ago were much much more advanced, because even kids were making atomic Bombs safely.

You know just saying things....That's how you make up things.
You realize how logically worthless and meaningless it is the way you say things?

That tactic is getting old. I will delete it in the future as it has no application or relevance.

Is that a Joke? Respected by whom? how do you determine "extreme complexity". Extreme complex according to whose judgment?

By what standard is the Bible not near the very top of textual complexity when compared with any other book on any level?

There are a lot of garbage books, that to many people are considered excellent works, Simply because it confirms what they already believe.

So, your faith takes the Bible as true so what does what you said apply to?

This is how the Biased People are. If something is in conformity to what they want, they say it is excellent, no matter how junk it is, and if there is a precious work that does not confirm them, to them is worthless.

That exactly describes you in detail. BTW I will add much in this context in a few minutes. Are you suggesting we can only believe that which conflicts with what we believe. I spent 27 years hostile to the Bible and God. I became convinced it was true against my will and received confirmation it was true in that I experienced God. Nothing you said applies to me.

Bible said, there will rise many false teacher in Christianity. How do you know the ones you trust are not the false teachers?

Because what they claim is consistent with Biblical doctrine. The same can't be said for Bahaullah. By the way the Bible's God said only Isaac's line will ever produce prophets. Is Bahaullah descended from Isaac? Not likely but there is a good chance he came from Ishmael's line who were to trouble God's people constantly and most Muslims descend from.

This is a fallacy.

Which fallacy? They have names and criteria you know? Maybe it is the fallacy of not being convenient for the Baha'i. Stay tuned for my post on Baha'i in general.

 

[1robin]

This is intended for Investigate truth:

I was quickly trying to find any general info on Baha'i to read in my spare time. I came across something I want you to read. The reason it is another example of what I have concluded about the Baha'i. It articulates it so well and so accurately I wished to post it. It by no means is the only site like this. There are vast numbers who state the same thing. Pay attention to the fact that others have drawn the exact same conclusions I have.

ALL RELIGIONS ARE THE SAME
They redefine every Christian term, presenting completely unbiblical doctrines on the nature of God, salvation, sin, and the nature of heaven. In fact heaven is presented as a progressive state open to all, thereby eliminating any need for a savior and relegating Jesus to nothing more than a teacher.

Just like so many cults in our ecumenical culture, they claim they are tolerant of other faiths and allow for free investigation of truth. However, the Baha’i beliefs and writings do not bear this out. In Baha’ism only the Baha’i writings and Baha’ulla can interpret the meanings of biblical scriptures and their symbolic interpretation of scripture must be accepted over the individual’s interpretation or the interpretation of other biblical scholars, historians, or Bible-believing Christians. They claim to welcome and accept all religions, but these religions are then re-interpreted to conform to the teachings of the Baha’i faith. In the end they are not the same religions at all. These religions are completely recreated into the image of Baha’i. Baha’i literature claims, “we are not a new religion but a renewal of religion”. They aren’t really presenting a new religion that people must follow, they say, but are correcting the corruption of religions. This literature will also say that all other religions are obsolete and are no longer a representation of the true teachings of God. How can this be tolerance? If all other religions are wrong and only Baha’ulla has corrected the errors, then they are guilty of the same exclusive belief in absolute truth that they ridicule Christians for, and Baha’ism is indeed a separate religion to its own. Baha’is do not read the Bible and interpret it for themselves or find the truth that lies within through their own interpretation. They are to believe that the interpretation given by Baha’ulla is directly from God and authoritative.
In arguing that they are tolerant of all religions they will make the claim that all religions are basically the same and based on the same God. They believe that all religions do appear different on the surface but the basic doctrine of each of them can be reconciled with all the others and in essence they are all leading to the same end. Anyone who has studied the different religions of this world can see that this can’t be true. Core doctrines that are at the heart of these religions do not agree and cannot be forced together. For example, how can Buddha be another messenger pointing to the same God when Buddha didn’t believe in God? Hinduism believes there is no absolute deity while Muslims believe there is only one very specific deity. Christians believe Jesus is the Son of God and a third person of the Trinity. Islam believes God could not have a son. Islam believes that Muhammad was the final Prophet. Baha’i teaches that he was not and Baha’ulla is the new manifestation for this age. Logic must be thrown out the window to believe all religions are serving the same purpose and are all equally valid.
The Bah’is logic is circular and their writings use symbolism to make prophecy and doctrine fit the Baha’i teachings. They argue that the Christians’ mistake is in taking the Bible too literally. When the Bible is taken literally, Baha’i is in no way compatible with Christianity and Baha’ulla could not have been the second coming of Christ. Therefore, they will argue, the problem is not that Baha’ulla is a false prophet, it’s that the reader is not looking at the symbolic meaning of the scriptures. Following this logic anyone could claim to be the return of Christ by reinterpreting scripture to fit the circumstances.
BAHA’ULLA’S CLAIMS

In the mid nineteenth century Baha’ulla claimed - with power and authority_to the Christians of the world that He fulfills the Bible’s sacred promises concerning the Return of Christ: “Jesus, the Spirit of God hath once more, in my person, been made manifest unto you.”(He Cometh with Clouds: A Baha’i View of Christ’s Return by Matthews) In many of Baha’ulla’s writings he boldly proclaims that he has fulfilled the second coming of Christ, even making these astounding assertions in a letter written to Pope Pius IX.
Not only did Baha’ulla claim to be the second coming of Christ, but also the Mahdi or twelfth Imam of Islam, the ninth Avatar of Vishnu of the Hindus, the Maitraya Buddha of Mahayana Buddhists, Shah Bahram of the Zoroastrians, and “the Prophet” of Moses. In essence, Jesus is reduced to a manifestation or mirror image of God, and only one of many. Even more offensive to believers in Christ as Lord, Baha’is believe that Baha’ulla is the latest and most correct of all the Manifestations in God’s continuing revelation. Most Baha’is, using their circular logic will argue this is not true and all the manifestations are equally God. However, they will claim that Jesus was the manifestation only for that time and Baha’ulla is the messenger for this time. In other words the message of Baha’ulla is more correct for us than the message of Christ. Jesus message has been replaced.
Of course the Baha’i will then claim that they still revere the Bible and read it regularly. However if you get in a discussion with a Baha’i and present biblical supports for your beliefs, they will quote the writings of Baha’ulla and his symbolic interpretation of the promises, prophecies, and message of the Bible. Rather than looking to the Bible for answers they look to the interpretation given by Baha’ulla. Clearly they do not view the Bible as the infallible word of God, nor do they base any of their beliefs solely on the Bible. Therefore, using the Bible to show them the error in their false religion proves to be an endless circle of reinterpretations. If the Bible clearly shows Baha’ulla to be a false prophet, you can be sure he created an interpretation that fits his purposes, usually by using symbolism and tortured rewording.
A SYMBOLIC SECOND COMING

You might be wondering how the Baha’i can claim that a man born to ordinary parents, originally a Muslim, could be the second coming of Christ. The Bible clearly says that Christ will return the same way he left us. We are given several description of Christ returning with the saints on the clouds. The mount of olives will be split in two when he stands on it, the battle of armagedon will unfold, Satan will be bound, and countless other prophecies regarding end time events will be fulfilled. These prophecies definitely weren’t fulfilled in 1844 with the Bab’s arrival. Pick any one of the end-times scriptures however, and the Baha’i will provide from the Baha’i writings a symbolic interpretation that conveniently fits into the Baha’i beliefs. If the scripture you choose has no reinterpretation provided for in their writings, that’s no problem either. They can always fall back on the claim that the Bible has been corrupted.
Reasoning with the Baha'i - Part I

See that link for many examples where Bahaullah was simply wrong. Not just wrong in many but impossible to be right.

Do you see how people who have no connection to each other and who are qualified to evaluate the Bible and Baha'i's claims about it arrive at the EXACT same conclusions independently?

I have always been fascinated by cognitive dissonance and the absolute pinnacles of this IMO are Liberal politics, Baha'i, and atheism. I do not normally debate those that can't be convinced by evidence but I have debated you for two reasons. The entertainment value of seeing how you will deny reliable data and argumentation and because you have been civil (though that has diminished somewhat lately). Basically if Bahaullah has said the sun is made of ice then it is and nothing on Earth or in heaven can make you believe it is hot. Simply fascinating.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

That whole entire chapter in Ezekiel concerned the temple complex. It had measurements, temple furnishings, and gates that all existed with a literal complex. That complex was used in an analogy. If the gates meant some random city that makes Bahaullah claims work then the analogy breaks down just like one about the tree. I am the only one that gave any reasons.

No, the verses in Ezekiel are figurative. This is a vision that has figurative prophecy. Even as He said:

"The vision I saw was like the vision I had seen when he came to destroy the city and like the visions I had seen by the Kebar River, and I fell facedown."



In scriptures, the Temple can be the symbol of the Body of Manifestation of God. (recall Jesus called Himself Temple) Not His physical Body. But in a Spiritual Sense, the Spiritual Body of a Manifestation of God is the True Temple. From this Temple, spiritual Laws and ordinances of God expressed which in Ezekiel symbolically expressed as measurements. If you wanted I give you a link to a Baha'i Site that explains in details what those measurements mean. This is not something the Christian Leaders would figure out. It is prophecy that when it is fulfilled, it is explained through new scriptures from God, for those who through investigation can recognize the Truth of the Promised One.

No, but the Hell complex is not described in exhaustive and detailed verse after verse. No one has ever seen a Hell with gates. However real temples and real gates have been seen by millions.

That is irrelevant. Hell is not even a physical place to start with, let alone have a physical door. Are you even familiar with Biblical Symbolism?

Is that what you are contending with? That a completely uneducated man was being offered a government position but not a theological one? The other site is where I got what type of position it was. Give me that link again and I will go get the quote.

I have already given the link. It is still there. Why don't you spend a few min to find it and make your point?

Knowledge in wisdom do not come in a vacuum. It takes education of some type or another. My point was he was not some illiterate, ignorant, idiot and was capable of writing what he did without divine help.

To say, knowledge comes from education in case of Baha'u'llah, contradicts with the well researched historical accounts about the life of Baha'u'llah.
Note that, I am not insisting to believe in Baha'u'llah. What I am doing is giving the facts.

It is a fact, not just mere supposition that, there are several volumes of History about the Life and biography of Baha'u'llah, which are written by many of His companions and later was researched and verified by several Scholars. From all these Historical accounts, it is well established that the knowledge that Baha'u'llah had, could not have come from 'learning'. For He neither had a teacher, nor went to school, neither there is any evidence He spent time to learn things on His own.
I don't care what you believe. I just told you, the Historical Facts!.

By what standard is the Bible not near the very top of textual complexity when compared with any other book on any level?

When did I say Bible is not complex? Quote my post and you made your point.

So, your faith takes the Bible as true so what does what you said apply to?

I did not apply it to Bible. I applied it to the interpretation of Bible from Christian religious leaders.

Because what they claim is consistent with Biblical doctrine. The same can't be said for Bahaullah. By the way the Bible's God said only Isaac's line will ever produce prophets. Is Bahaullah descended from Isaac? Not likely but there is a good chance he came from Ishmael's line who were to trouble God's people constantly and most Muslims descend from.

1Robin, I don't mind to reply to your questions. But note that these questions are not related to the topic of the thread.

The whole reason that a discussion about Baha'u'llah started was in no wise to say you must believe what I believe. The reason was, you and most mainstream Christians rely on Christian Leaders Interpretation of Bible, without even questioning their interpration. While they do agree that these leaders are not infalible, and many of these leaders caused disunity and even war between Christians, and created too many denominations. Which is the Fruit of False teachers! However, I choose Baha'u'llah, for His fruit is unity. He established a faith that from all religious backgrounds and races had entered, and became united, and never a division could occur. This is the fruit of unity. Therefore of course I go with Baha'u'llah.

And Finally I would like to quote again from Baha'u'llah:

"Inasmuch as the Christian divines have failed to apprehend the meaning of these words, and did not recognize their object and purpose, and have clung to the literal interpretation of the words of Jesus, they therefore became deprived of the streaming grace of the Muḥammadan Revelation and its showering bounties. The ignorant among the Christian community, following the example of the leaders of their faith, were likewise prevented from beholding the beauty of the King of glory, inasmuch as those signs which were to accompany the dawn of the sun of the Muḥammadan Dispensation did not actually come to pass. Thus, ages have passed and centuries rolled away, and that most pure Spirit hath repaired unto the retreats of its ancient sovereignty. Once more hath the eternal Spirit breathed into the mystic trumpet, and caused the dead to speed out of their sepulchres of heedlessness and error unto the realm of guidance and grace. And yet, that expectant community still crieth out: When shall these things be? When shall the promised One, the object of our expectation, be made manifest, that we may arise for the triumph of His Cause, that we may sacrifice our substance for His sake, that we may offer up our lives in His path? In like manner, have such false imaginings caused other communities to stray from the Kawthar of the infinite mercy of Providence, and to be busied with their own idle thoughts."
Book of Certitude, p.9

 

[InvestigateTruth]

This is intended for Investigate truth:

This has nothing to do with the topic of the Thread. So, I am not going through replying. Though the things you copied from the website are all misunderstandings of the Author of that Website, which shows His ignorance with regards to Baha'i Scriptures.

 

[Ken Brown]

I can see clearly that you will not be clear and state exactly what your standards are for heaven. I am not insulting you. Your position makes this a necessity. Works based salvation can't be clearly defined because it does not exist. It is like trying to outline in detail the boundary of a fog bank. Before we get into scriptural explanations lets look at the simple theological rational behind salvation.

1. God is perfect. He will not dwell with imperfection forever. The standard to get into heaven is perfection. Unlike your arbitrary amount of merit that lacks even a theoretical line of demarcation, perfection is absolute and easily quantified.
2. Any sin disqualifies us for heaven. Any sin is less than perfection. We al have some level of sin in out lives and therefor NOONE merits heaven by effort or sinless-ness.
3. The distance between imperfection and perfection is infinite and only God can cross the distance. God and God alone must provide the bridge between us and him. My or your arbitrary level of sin or lack there of has no capacity to bridge the gulf. It can't fix the problem.
4. God must provide the entire bridge (or provision) we can't meet him half way we can't do anything to even begin to construct the solution. We have nothing that fixes the problem.
5. Enter Christ. His record is perfect. He merits heaven because he was perfect. We merit Hell because we are not. His sacrificial death provides the entire solution. Legally his perfect status is accredited to us based on faith not merit. Our record of imperfection is applied to him and punished by God at Calvary.
6. I can't add to Christ's record no matter how good I am. Fortunately there is no need to add to a perfect record. Since Christ's record and not mine is now the issue what I do can't add or detract from that.
7. At the moment of faith in Christ the Holy Spirit comes to live in our heart. He has said he will never leave nor forsake us. He is also said to be the earnest or down payment guaranteeing our future salvation.
7. When I arrive in heaven at the judgment. Satan will accuse me and be correct in saying I am a sinful man as he would be correct about anyone. But Christ (my defense council) will say that it is no longer my record but his that is the determining factor and I am legally sinless and can therefor dwell with God because it is he that lives in me and no longer I that am judged.
8. On what basis was Christ's record or actions incomplete? Does he need my help to save me beyond the faith I place in him? If my record was the issue why did he NEED to die? He could have showed up and said I must be sinless and then disappeared in a puff of smoke. His death has no role if my conduct is the standard.
9. If my record is the issue then clearly defined the exact standard I must meet. You can't and have not even though I have asked several times because it is impossible. Whatever line you draw (if you will even dare to do so) is arbitrary and not defined by scripture. You basically have claimed we must be changed and good. The issue is how changed or how good?

So we see that grace and grace alone is the only possible way we will ever get into heaven and grace is defined as receiving what we do not deserve or merit. That is why Paul (the chief of sinners) felt confident he would be in heaven. That is why the man who's entire record of conduct and works was completely burned up by God's refining fire but the man himself was saved. He had not one work left to his name to merit anything yet entered heaven.

So what is at stake. Our conduct might mean more people that are saved. We should therefor strive to be perfect. While our destination is secured by Christ's un breakable promise our journey is not. We may indeed suffer for our sin while here. I also think that the treasure (or rewards) in heaven are determined by our actions but whether we get in was determined by Christ's actions. That is why a second judgment is necessary. Now that I have laid a theological foundation for the context verses should be interpreted in we can examine verses in detail if you wish. James must be viewed in context as I am sure you will use the little he wrote as the foundation for your position.

You keep asking my person path to heaven. Christ and Christ alone is my path. I have been born again and my name written in the book of life. If I am wrong there was never any hope of our meriting heaven so we are all lost anyway.

Hi 1robin, let's cut to the chase. When you get to heaven by the substitutional merit of "Christ," how do you plan on not sinning throughout all of eternity? Are you going to learn how not to sin once you get to heaven, or will you still rely on his merit once you get there? The Gospel I believe in TEACHES us here and now to obey Elohim, and this is ONLY by or through the suffering and death of Yeshua that a sinner can be redeemed FROM their sin. Again, has your sin gone INTO remission, or will it only go into remission once you enter heaven? KB

 

[1robin]

Hi 1robin, let's cut to the chase. When you get to heaven by the substitutional merit of "Christ," how do you plan on not sinning throughout all of eternity? Are you going to learn how not to sin once you get to heaven, or will you still rely on his merit once you get there? The Gospel I believe in TEACHES us here and now to obey Elohim, and this is ONLY by or through the suffering and death of Yeshua that a sinner can be redeemed FROM their sin. Again, has your sin gone INTO remission, or will it only go into remission once you enter heaven? KB

Very well. As the Bible so simply states we will be changed at the moment we enter heaven (twinkling of a eye). We:

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

And all those robes or righteousness verses and dipped in blood verses. The sinful nature that we were born with and could not ever completely shake is destroyed so we may dwell with God forever. There are even verses that specifically say sin and rebellion will cease. God will do what I never could. In this life is the prospect of singing hymns for eternity an appealing one. I think our new natures will find that perfect bliss when changed. Can men judge angels at this point? They will be equipped to do so then.

You seem to be saying That I can learn to be perfect in this life but can't in the after life. Why? It is far more reasonable to think we never could as you, I, nor anyone has ceased sinning at any point in this life. We will be made so as not to sin in the after life. Being born again has instituted remission in my case, but the NECESSARY eradication will take place when I die and will done by the only one capable of doing so, God and God alone. This makes all scripture harmonize. Your vies make them conflict. I expected a much greater challenge to what I said than this. Most merit based salvation people are very prolific. You say remission. How much remission? ON what did you base the arbitrary line you drew? Are you there? My views exalt Christ and diminish myself. Your include Christ but diminish his role and exalt ours. No man may boast any work or any sinless attainment got him to heaven. This is my favorite subject and maybe the most important in human history so I hope a more involved discussion occurs. Good to hear from you Ken.

 

[1robin]

This has nothing to do with the topic of the Thread. So, I am not going through replying. Though the things you copied from the website are all misunderstandings of the Author of that Website, which shows His ignorance with regards to Baha'i Scriptures.

You do not have to reply if you do not wish to. However you should not have at all because your last statement is a profound confirmation of everything he, I, and countless others (Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc...) say about the Baha'i. In any disagreement the non-Baha'i is wrong whether or not any reason beyond Bahaullah said so exists, and in complete disregard of the mountains of evidence on our side. That kind of process does not justify a debate and makes the basis for your claims cognitive dissonance not reason. However as I said I like you, so bring it on. I have little time currently but will get to your previous post soon.

 

[Ken Brown]

Very well. As the Bible so simply states we will be changed at the moment we enter heaven (twinkling of a eye). We:

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

And all those robes or righteousness verses and dipped in blood verses. The sinful nature that we were born with and could not ever completely shake is destroyed so we may dwell with God forever. There are even verses that specifically say sin and rebellion will cease. God will do what I never could. In this life is the prospect of singing hymns for eternity an appealing one. I think our new natures will find that perfect bliss when changed. Can men judge angels at this point? They will be equipped to do so then.

You seem to be saying That I can learn to be perfect in this life but can't in the after life. Why? It is far more reasonable to think we never could as you, I, nor anyone has ceased sinning at any point in this life. We will be made so as not to sin in the after life. Being born again has instituted remission in my case, but the NECESSARY eradication will take place when I die and will done by the only one capable of doing so, God and God alone. This makes all scripture harmonize. Your vies make them conflict. I expected a much greater challenge to what I said than this. Most merit based salvation people are very prolific. You say remission. How much remission? ON what did you base the arbitrary line you drew? Are you there? My views exalt Christ and diminish myself. Your include Christ but diminish his role and exalt ours. No man may boast any work or any sinless attainment got him to heaven. This is my favorite subject and maybe the most important in human history so I hope a more involved discussion occurs. Good to hear from you Ken.

Hi 1robin, thank you for the response. Now, if I am hearing you correctly, you are expecting a better nature than the one you were created with, and this new nature will insure your obedience? My question to you is, why didn't Elohim create Adam and Eve with the same nature you are expecting to get? KB