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

[InvestigateTruth]

So you have here an account of a man that existed approx. 1900 years after the events. I have the accounts of four men who existed at the time of the events.

Firstly, if you go by this logic, it is not even proven who wrote the Bible.
But more importantly, what you seem not understand, is we are discussing the interpretation of Bible, not its validity.
But instead of actually replying to the topic, and the argument that Adulbaha gives, you give an unrelated reply.
Abdulbaha was divinely inspired. He did not go to school. He was in prison from Age 9 or so. He did not study, and yet He knew about all these as it is evidence in His writings and wisdom. This is clear proof of divine inspiration. But your scholars....only studied and studied, and still got many things wrong. Even many christian do not agree which scholar is the right one.

They include words of men who were there, words of the man in question, not to mention the tying together of OT predictions and narratives. I also have the words of the early Church fathers. Men who existed long long before the son of Bahaullah, who were debating these issues in councils of thousands. Theologians by the thousands and scholars from schools by the hundreds the large majority of which would refute what Abdulbaha has said. Plus another few billions laymen Christians as well. Forget for the second who is right. On what basis could the ignorant inquirer resolve who is more likely to be right? Why are these words any more meaningful than David Careshe's or Buddha's or any of the others who have come along?

1. Contemporary sources are on the side of what I claim including what appears to be statements that look like they were crafted for the sole purpose of refuting what you have claimed here.
2. Earliest sources are on my side of the issue.
3. Weight of scholarship is on my side of the issue.
4. Earliest non eyewitness testimony is on my side.
5. Early church tradition is on my side.

Basically in every category by which claims like what is in the Gospels are determined are all on my side. Being that is perfectly true or at the very least true in general in what way can the words you posted be considered persuasive. If Christ did not rise bodily as I have shown many times in some of the most specific verses and as Paul went out of his way to say the entire religion falls apart. I want to point out something else. This statement is not accurate:
The visible heavens even to a telescope are finite. It is called an event horizon in cosmology. The visible heavens in Biblical times consisted of about 3000 known visible bodies yet the Bible says that stars (not visible stars) are extremely numerous even though they could not be seen nor ever would be. So the Bible 3000 years knew what you state and stated it more accurately for several reasons.

None of the things you are saying here can prove anything.
It seems, when you cannot give an argument you go and hide behind the so called scholars and take them as your gods.
Sorry, no offence though....

My question is: How do we know the scholars you are referring and all those you are referring were lead by Holy Spirit? How do we know their interpretation is divinely inspired?

1. Cosmology suggests that space is not infinite.
2. At no time will even most stars be visible to even telescopes. There is a boundary where things can't be viewed because of the speed of light and the age of the universe.
3. What you claimed was claimed more accurately long before your guy claimed it.

Simply wrong. I don't know how much you know about Cosmology, but there are many scientist who are of the opinion that space is infinite.
"The size of the Universe is unknown; it may be infinite. The region visible from Earth (the observable universe) is a sphere with a radius of about billion light years,[33] based on where the expansion of space has taken the most distant objects observed."
Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Then give info, not links. It would have required less letters to answer the question than the link contains. I am not going to wade through pages of data to find very brief facts.
The page at the link you gave did not say where those originals were. It just said they do exist and that what they said can be accessed in several ways.

What do you mean by 'originals'? Originals of what? I am not sure what you're taking about?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

That gate ceased to exist thousands of years before Bahaullah ever existed.

The Bab was the forerunner of Baha'u'llah who came before Baha'u'llah.
The Bab, that means "Gate" or "Door" in Arabic. His coming, represented the gate through which the Revelation of Baha'u'llah (The Glory of God) came.

I do not know what this means. I do not even have a burden for anything like this.

Read your own post, then my reply. You claimed you can write verses like Baha'u'llah. Do that when you claim....

Bahaullah does not fulfill any prophecy that a better person has not existed for.

Simply wrong.

Baha'i: Prophecy Fulfilled Homepage

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
43:1-27 After Ezekiel had surveyed the temple of God, he had a vision of the glory of God. When Christ crucified, and the things freely given to us of God, through Him, are shown to us by the Holy Ghost, they make us ashamed for our sins. This frame of mind prepares us for fuller discoveries of the mysteries of redeeming love; and the whole of the Scriptures should be opened and applied, that men may see their sins, and repent of them. We are not now to offer any atoning sacrifices, for by one offering Christ has perfected for ever those that are sanctified, Heb 10:14; but the sprinkling of his blood is needful in all our approaches to God the Father. Our best services can be accepted only as sprinkled with the blood which cleanses from all sin.

Matthew Henry didn't know what he was talking about.
The situation is like Prophecies of Jesus in Hebrew Scriptures.
Take for instance 'Immanual'. Before Jesus, none of the scholars knew that could possibly be related to the promised One. It was only known after the Promised One. I think you make the same mistake as people of the past who couldn't recognize Messiah, because they put their trust in Scholars rather than God.

I asked where Bahaullah was predicted in the Bible. The best you could do was a mistranslation of a single verse about the Lord. Where did you get this promised one stuff anyway? Those terms are English and do not appear in that verse in any language. Here is another version of that verse: New Living Translation (©2007)

Simply false. Some of the old versions of Bible in Arabic, translates that verse as "Baha'u'llah"

No labels or vague terms, (the Bible was very specific about prophet names or exhaustive details in most cases) especially for one anything what you claim.

Simply False. You ignored the calculation of the year of the Promised One. and I put another link with hundreds of fulfilled Prophecies.

 

[1robin]

Firstly, if you go by this logic, it is not even proven who wrote the Bible.

I do not agree with that except for one book in the NT but it makes little difference even if true. If We rubbed out Cesaer's name from the Gallic wars would that make them less or more accurate?

But more importantly, what you seem not understand, is we are discussing the interpretation of Bible, not its validity.

The sources I mentioned were for interpretation as well a historical narrative.

But instead of actually replying to the topic, and the argument that Adulbaha gives, you give an unrelated reply.

What he gave is not an argument it is an opinion. A very very minority opinion.

Abdulbaha was divinely inspired. He did not go to school. He was in prison from Age 9 or so.

You could not know this even if true. He could have written the exact same thing on LSD.

He did not study, and yet He knew about all these as it is evidence in His writings and wisdom. This is clear proof of divine inspiration. But your scholars....only studied and studied, and still got many things wrong. Even many christian do not agree which scholar is the right one.

Nothing he said is impossible or even hard to write without formal knowledge. People in prison with no formal education have written book on physics, theology, philosophy, mathematics. My claims are not based on any specific scholar but on the almost universal consensus of scholars. My argument was also not about knowing which one is right but about which are the better resources. BTW did you not say Bahaullah was not educated in theology. I did some reading and found the opposite to be true.

None of the things you are saying here can prove anything.
It seems, when you cannot give an argument you go and hide behind the so called scholars and take them as your gods.
Sorry, no offence though....

I was not attempting to prove what is right. It was a factual declaration as to what kind of sources are best. I have spent a lifetime researching military history and know how information is weighted. Of course I can't know (nor can you) if anything anyone said similar to what you posted is true or not but we can say which kinds of resources are most reliable.

My question is: How do we know the scholars you are referring and all those you are referring were lead by Holy Spirit? How do we know their interpretation is divinely inspired?

I never claimed they were because that is not what I was claiming. Every scholar on Earth could be wrong and WW1 never occurred because a prisoner said so but that is not an argument. As legal scholars claim in court we look for earliest sources and those with the most access. They are almost all on my side.

Simply wrong. I don't know how much you know about Cosmology, but there are many scientist who are of the opinion that space is infinite.
"The size of the Universe is unknown; it may be infinite. The region visible from Earth (the observable universe) is a sphere with a radius of about billion light years,[33] based on where the expansion of space has taken the most distant objects observed."
Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No one including your or Bahaullah know how big the Universe is? Your guy made a big mistake in saying what is true of the (visible universe). The visible universe is finite even if the whole was infinite. I know this part of cosmology very well. The most accepted current cosmological model is the Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe, and it was designed to be very rigorous and bulletproof. It posits a finite universe. There are other theories but none as accepted. There are many reasons to believe that the universe is not infinite without the theorem. There are no known actual infinite's of any kind. Big bang cosmology posits a universe than began to expand. No mater how long or how big it can't be infinite on that theory. All other theories are far more fantasy than science and much less reliable. Time, matter, space, and energy and all natural actualities all have very good reason why they must be finite but I would not presume to know they are unlike your guy foolishly did. I have a degree in math and studied physics quite a bit and will get as detailed as needed (to a point).

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I do not agree with that except for one book in the NT but it makes little difference even if true. If We rubbed out Cesaer's name from the Gallic wars would that make them less or more accurate?

You tell me. First you wrote, you believe four people wrote it. Now you are saying it doesn't matter who wrote it?

The sources I mentioned were for interpretation as well a historical narrative.

Your point is?

What he gave is not an argument it is an opinion. A very very minority opinion.

.... and of Course He refuted the literal interpretations of Jesus Resurrection.

You could not know this even if true. He could have written the exact same thing on LSD.

again you are claiming something with nothing to back it up.
Show me a person, who wrote these things without studying, while on LSD.

Nothing he said is impossible or even hard to write without formal knowledge.

THen why don't you show me another person in History who without any study wrote these things and millions of people around the globe are His followers.
You just say things, you realize that?

People in prison with no formal education have written book on physics, theology, philosophy, mathematics.

Name one person, that did this.

My claims are not based on any specific scholar but on the almost universal consensus of scholars.

Simply wrong. How can you prove what the universal consensus of scholars believe, on the particular topic you are discussing?
Even if it was, still proves nothing.

It's like you tell me, my view is correct because my mom and dad say so. How could that even be an argument?

My argument was also not about knowing which one is right but about which are the better resources.

If you don't know which one is right, then how do you know which source is better?
How do you determine which source is better?

BTW did you not say Bahaullah was not educated in theology. I did some reading and found the opposite to be true.

It is well-known Baha'u'llah was not educated in anything, including theology. I alread quoted that from Him.

I was not attempting to prove what is right. It was a factual declaration as to what kind of sources are best.

Source for what?

I have spent a lifetime researching military history and know how information is weighted.

So?

Of course I can't know (nor can you) if anything anyone said similar to what you posted is true or not but we can say which kinds of resources are most reliable.

Based on what?

I never claimed they were because that is not what I was claiming. Every scholar on Earth could be wrong and WW1 never occurred because a prisoner said so but that is not an argument. As legal scholars claim in court we look for earliest sources and those with the most access. They are almost all on my side.

Which sources you are talking about, and what court specifically? Who is the judge there?

No one including your or Bahaullah know how big the Universe is?

How do you know that?
Even according to theology that you claim you believe in, the world is infinite.
The creation of God has no limit. If you say this universe is finite, you are putting a limit on God, which of course is refuted right here!

Your guy made a big mistake in saying what is true of the (visible universe).

Where did he named 'visible universe'?
Are you Making things up?

The visible universe is finite even if the whole was infinite.

True. and the point is?

I know this part of cosmology very well. The most accepted current cosmological model is the Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe, and it was designed to be very rigorous and bulletproof. It posits a finite universe. There are other theories but none as accepted.

None accepted by who?

There are many reasons to believe that the universe is not infinite without the theorem.

Like?

There are no known actual infinite's of any kind. Big bang cosmology posits a universe than began to expand. No mater how long or how big it can't be infinite on that theory. All other theories are far more fantasy than science and much less reliable.

We are talking about space! what about space?

Time, matter, space, and energy and all natural actualities all have very good reason why they must be finite but I would not presume to know they are unlike your guy foolishly did. I have a degree in math and studied physics quite a bit and will get as detailed as needed (to a point).

You know about this quote from Einstein:

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe"

 

[1robin]

What do you mean by 'originals'? Originals of what? I am not sure what you're taking about?

I do not even remember why I wanted to know but I do remember what. Where are what Bahaullah wrote? I think I remember you saying he wrote thousands of tablets of info in it's original form.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I do not even remember why I wanted to know but I do remember what. Where are what Bahaullah wrote? I think I remember you saying he wrote thousands of tablets of info in it's original form.

The original writings are kept in the International Bahá'í Archives in Haifa, Israel.

 

[1robin]

The Bab was the forerunner of Baha'u'llah who came before Baha'u'llah.
The Bab, that means "Gate" or "Door" in Arabic. His coming, represented the gate through which the Revelation of Baha'u'llah (The Glory of God) came.

I agree. Why was this provided? I think your comments concerning Bahaullah's son, correct? The cosmological and Christ ones.

Read your own post, then my reply. You claimed you can write verses like Baha'u'llah. Do that when you claim....

Is that really necessary? I can provide at least a dozen from others. There are libraries full of them. If I must we must establish what ridiculous goal posts for "like" you will insist on.

Simply wrong.

Baha'i: Prophecy Fulfilled Homepage

There are dozens of claims at that site. Which are you referring to?

Matthew Henry didn't know what he was talking about.
The situation is like Prophecies of Jesus in Hebrew Scriptures.
Take for instance 'Immanual'. Before Jesus, none of the scholars knew that could possibly be related to the promised One. It was only known after the Promised One. I think you make the same mistake as people of the past who couldn't recognize Messiah, because they put their trust in Scholars rather than God.

Good Lord man. Henry is the Newton of commentators. As an analogy on what basis am I to believe you know more about calculus than Newton. Your analogy is irrelevant. The nature of a prophecy means the fulfillment is not known until it occurs unless specified. The issue at hand is who fills it best after it has occurred not predicting who will. Jesus existed when that gate and the temple did Bahaullah did not and so does not fit and that is just one example.

Simply false. Some of the old versions of Bible in Arabic, translates that verse as "Baha'u'llah"

The Bible was not written in Arabic but give links anyway for the heck of it. Those words are English and that is beyond contention.

Simply False. You ignored the calculation of the year of the Promised One. and I put another link with hundreds of fulfilled Prophecies.

You only gave one verse I believe and it had no dates aside from temple period. Are additional verses? Which ones? I can't evaluate hundreds of prophecies at this moment. Give the verses asked for above to start. Ezekiel 43 just is not going to work. I hope they get better than that one. Sounds like your are jamming a bunch of independent verses together again.

 

[1robin]

The original writings are kept in the International Bahá'í Archives in Haifa, Israel.

There is no way you typed this that fast. Are you a computer?

 

[1robin]

You tell me. First you wrote, you believe four people wrote it. Now you are saying it doesn't matter who wrote it? {/quote] Both are true. In my analogy the words in the Gallic wars are exactly the same without Caesars name. They can't possibly be less accurate. The reason I mentioned this is even for many of the scholars who say they can't prove who wrote the gospels they still say they are eyewitness reports regardless. How can you claim that Mathew was more or less honest than who wrote the book (even if it is doubtful he did)? Legal testimony is not weighed by the name of who gave it only the access. BTW no competing claims for Gospels authorship even exist from the time nor are there any claims by the authors that they did not write them and they had every reason to do so. It is less than proven who did but it is fairly certain.

Your point is?

Sharp.

.... and of Course He refuted the literal interpretations of Jesus Resurrection.

So? Why does anything he said matter? There exists no reason in any category of academics used to resolve these issues to make them relevant.

again you are claiming something with nothing to back it up.
Show me a person, who wrote these things without studying, while on LSD.

Why don't I show up is up or cold is cold if I am to illustrate the obvious. Again what absurd standards will you allow this to be judged by.

THen why don't you show me another person in History who without any study wrote these things and millions of people around the globe are His followers.
You just say things, you realize that?

How many people follow something is not only a different issue it is a fallacy and my religion has vastly more anyway. Muhammad count not even right and he did, many suggest no one could write at the time of Moses and he did. What is it you even disagree with here?

Name one person, that did this.

I can't do this all the time so let this prove I could if I had the time for all these other requests. Here is one Marxism and Form: Twentieth Century Dialectical Theories of Literature - Fredric Jameson - Google Books and here is a link to hundreds Prison literature on philosophy - Google Scholar

Simply wrong. How can you prove what the universal consensus of scholars believe, on the particular topic you are discussing?
Even if it was, still proves nothing.

On what subject. Cosmologists issue such statements. Journals make these claims and have the capacity to know them. Out of time.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

In my analogy the words in the Gallic wars are exactly the same without Caesars name. They can't possibly be less accurate. The reason I mentioned this is even for many of the scholars who say they can't prove who wrote the gospels they still say they are eyewitness reports regardless. How can you claim that Mathew was more or less honest than who wrote the book (even if it is doubtful he did)? Legal testimony is not weighed by the name of who gave it only the access. BTW no competing claims for Gospels authorship even exist from the time nor are there any claims by the authors that they did not write them and they had every reason to do so. It is less than proven who did but it is fairly certain.

You ask a question, then you reply to your own. Do you even realize this?
It seems to me you are too involved in many things, and you do not even concentrate on your discussions.
I wonder if I should even take your sayings serious.

That gate ceased to exist thousands of years before Bahaullah ever existed

City of Akka is that Gate, which is toward East, and Baha'u'llah (Glory of God) entered Israel from this gate:


"Akká, itself, flanked by the “glory of Lebanon,” and lying in full view of the “splendor of Carmel,” at the foot of the hills which enclose the home of Jesus Christ Himself, had been described by David as “the Strong City,” designated by Hosea as “a door of hope,” and alluded to by Ezekiel as “the gate that looketh towards the East,” whereunto “the glory of the God of Israel came from the way of the East"
Bahá'í Reference Library - God Passes By, Pages 183-196

The Prophecy cannot be any more accurate than this:

Bahá

Jesus did not enter Israel from any gate that is toward east. He did not come to Israel from the east, so, he cannot be the one who fulfilled this Prophecy, and the Authors of new testament did not claim this Prophecy, But Baha'i Writings did.

Read the Prophecy again carefully:

"Then the man brought me to the gate facing east, and I saw the glory of the God of Israel coming from the east." Ezekiel 43:1-2

So? Why does anything he said matter? Therze exists no reason in any category of academics used to resolve these issues to make them relevant.

How does your question even related to our discussion?

Why don't I show up is up or cold is cold if I am to illustrate the obvious. Again what absurd standards will you allow this to be judged by.

No Idea what you are talking about dude.

How many people follow something is not only a different issue it is a fallacy and my religion has vastly more anyway.

It's not just about how many people. It is about uniting millions of people together without any sects or division. It is for the first time in human history, that a Prophet created a new worldwide community, virtually from all religious backgrounds, races and nationalities, which is not dividable into sects and denominations, despite the efforts that some did to make sects (which they failed)
No other Prophet, religious leader, non-religious leader, ever have accomplished that. Not to mention to accomplish this, not even one person was forced to believe. If that doesn't count, what counts?

Muhammad count not even right and he did, many suggest no one could write at the time of Moses and he did. What is it you even disagree with here?

What is it you are even talking about?

I can't do this all the time so let this prove I could if I had the time for all these other requests. Here is one Marxism and Form: Twentieth Century Dialectical Theories of Literature - Fredric Jameson - Google Books and here is a link to hundreds Prison literature on philosophy - Google Scholar

Are these your examples, that without studying, and while in prison for tens of years, wrote thousands of pages? You mean they didn't go to school? and they wrote theology while did not have a formal or informal education?

On what subject. Cosmologists issue such statements. Journals make these claims and have the capacity to know them. Out of time.

I think you mix things up. Are you confused 1robin? this one was about Bible. You confused the previous discussion which was about Bible scholars, with the new one, which was about Cosmology.

I am done with this. Good luck.... we will see each other in other threads.

 

[Ken Brown]

If the goal is for us to become like Him then everyone has failed and will fail.

Hi 1robin, the goal of Elohim is for everyone to become LIKE Him, and that can only occur when the knowledge of good and evil is given. Adam and Eve ATE from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil by disobeying a command. Experience is the BEST teacher, and coming INTO the knowledge of good and evil was required for us to become LIKE Elohim, so that mankind could reject the evil and freely choose the good. And Elohim's plan is RIGHT ON TRACK. In His plan, He ALLOWED mankind to dwell in darkness (evil) BEFORE He SENT His LIGHT (The Good). Yeshua is THE LIGHT, He is the Word of Elohim, and ONLY IN and BY the Word can we be made FREE from sin. In the process and plan, an ELECT was first CHOSEN by ELohim to come INTO this LIGHT and learn how to be FREE from sin, and do not let anyone deceive you, he who does what is right, is righteous, just as He is righteous (1 John 2:29, 1 John 3:7). In fact, we are to be CLOTHED in righteousness to cover the shame of our sinful nakedness:

Rev 3:18
(18) I counsel thee to buy of Me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.

What is this white raiment that clothes or covers the shame of thy nakedness?

Rev 19:7-8
(7) Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to Him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and His wife hath made herself ready.
(8) And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

1robin, can't you visualize what cover's nakedness as far as Elohim is concerned? Isn't it DOING what is RIGHT? Doesn't doing what is right ATONE for or COVER the wrong that was done by us in our naked or sinful state? The ELECT or CHOSEN ones realize this and MAKE themselves READY. The time is at hand, and Yeshua is ready to judge according to the WORK of each and everyone of us, and having the RIGHT to the Tree of Life REQUIRES that one be blessed in TURNING from their iniquities (Acts 3:26), to DO His commandments.

Rev 22:10-15
(10) And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.
(11) He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
(12) And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with Me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
(13) I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
(14) Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
(15) For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

1robin, have you entered INTO the Blessing? KB

 

[Monk Of Reason]

To look at things from a cultural perspective it will make more sense if we don't hold Jesus's tales to be 100% true.

Back then and especially into the middle ages it was believed that what made illnesses were caused by Demons. Jesus was casting out their "demons" and "made them clean" or "made them whole". He couldn't just destroy all demons in the world because then the would would be a perfect place by their logic. The world is not therefore demons still exist.

 

[1robin]

You ask a question, then you reply to your own. Do you even realize this?
It seems to me you are too involved in many things, and you do not even concentrate on your discussions.
I wonder if I should even take your sayings serious.

Of course I realize I provided the answer. A rhetorical question is a very common literary device. The rest of what you said is to you. I am responsible for making points to my satisfaction. What is done with them after that point is not my concern.

City of Akka is that Gate, which is toward East, and Baha'u'llah (Glory of God) entered Israel from this gate:


"Akká, itself, flanked by the “glory of Lebanon,” and lying in full view of the “splendor of Carmel,” at the foot of the hills which enclose the home of Jesus Christ Himself, had been described by David as “the Strong City,” designated by Hosea as “a door of hope,” and alluded to by Ezekiel as “the gate that looketh towards the East,” whereunto “the glory of the God of Israel came from the way of the East"
Bahá'í Reference Library - God Passes By, Pages 183-196

Things are not true because you assume them to be. That gate is not a city. It is part of a city. Cities have gates, gates are not city and the most famous gates on earth are in Jerusalem and Babylon (or were). If you back up and get the full context for Ezekiel's claims here it is THE TEMPLE in Jerusalem. It must say so dozens of times. In fact there must be 50 details that only apply to the Temple complex and not some random city used to prop up some strange prophecy idea. Here is the preceding verses:

Now when he had finished measuring the interior of the temple area, he led me out by the gate that faced east, and measured the temple area all around. 16 He measured the east side with the measuring reed, 500 cubits by the measuring reed all around. 17 He measured the north side, 500 cubits by the measuring reed all around. 18 He measured the south side, 500 cubits by the measuring reed. 19 Then he turned to the west side and measured, 500 cubits by the measuring reed. 20 He measured it on the four sides. It had a wall around it, 500 cubits long and 500 cubits broad, to make a separation between the holy and the common. Ezekiel 42 ESV - The Temple's Chambers - Then he led me - Bible Gateway
Actual gates face directions not cities and the East gate is a famous well known actual gate.

The Prophecy cannot be any more accurate than this:

Bahá

Jesus did not enter Israel from any gate that is toward east. He did not come to Israel from the east, so, he cannot be the one who fulfilled this Prophecy, and the Authors of new testament did not claim this Prophecy, But Baha'i Writings did.

Read the Prophecy again carefully:

"Then the man brought me to the gate facing east, and I saw the glory of the God of Israel coming from the east." Ezekiel 43:1-2


How does your question even related to our discussion?

Actually let's read the whole thing:

Then he led me to the gate, the gate facing east. 2 And behold, the glory of the God of Israel was coming from the east. And the sound of his coming was like the sound of many waters, and the earth shone with his glory. 3 And the vision I saw was just like the vision that I had seen when he[a] came to destroy the city, and just like the vision that I had seen by the Chebar canal. And I fell on my face. 4 As the glory of the Lord entered the temple by the gate facing east, 5 the Spirit lifted me up and brought me into the inner court; and behold, the glory of the Lord filled the temple.
Ezekiel 43 ESV - The Glory of the LORD Fills the Temple - Bible Gateway

1. The glory of the God of Israel. It says nothing whatever about Bahaullah (who is not the glory of the God of Israel.
2. Bahaullah's voice was never like the roaring of many waters, and the Earth never shined because he existed.
3. It says the Glory of the Lord (Christ) not the Glory of Bahaullah.
4. When did Bahaullah pick Ezekiel up and set him in the inner court.
5. Lebanon nor Bahaullah are mentioned in these verses.

No Idea what you are talking about dude.

You are demanding I prove everything I claim even the most obvious fact. I can't meet that much demand. So I was pointing out that only the more contentious be asked for.

It's not just about how many people. It is about uniting millions of people together without any sects or division. It is for the first time in human history, that a Prophet created a new worldwide community, virtually from all religious backgrounds, races and nationalities, which is not dividable into sects and denominations, despite the efforts that some did to make sects (which they failed)
No other Prophet, religious leader, non-religious leader, ever have accomplished that. Not to mention to accomplish this, not even one person was forced to believe. If that doesn't count, what counts?

Not that it proves anything but how in the world did you measure any of these claims? No concept regardless of certainty even in science is without dissention. You may not believe it but there are people who believe the Earth is flat, people live inside it, and aliens built the pyramids. Are you suggesting everyone is in agreement about Baha'i.

What is it you are even talking about?

I can understand this objection. I typed right instead of write. You said (for some reason) that Bahaullah was devoid of spiritual training and so what he wrote was miraculous or divine. Well Muhammad could not even write and there is argument that writing was virtually unknown in Moses's time at all. None of this is proof of anything even if true.

Are these your examples, that without studying, and while in prison for tens of years, wrote thousands of pages? You mean they didn't go to school? and they wrote theology while did not have a formal or informal education?

There was and is no requirement for how many pages they wrote. I can't know if they studied anything but as I pointed out Bahaullah was anything but uneducated in theology. He was offered a theological position with a nations government even before he wen to prison and was considered a theological authority of some sorts. However none of this matters as none of it is proof of anything divine. That requires the authority over nature than Biblical prophets had and Bahaullah did not and just about the first requirement virtually anyone thinks of for divine source claims.

I think you mix things up. Are you confused 1robin? this one was about Bible. You confused the previous discussion which was about Bible scholars, with the new one, which was about Cosmology.

I do not believe this is the case. I said cosmologists claim X and you said how would I know so I listed several ways. I will restate all three claims to resolve who ever is confused.

1. I believe you provided the quotes from a son of Bahaullah on Christ and cosmology.
2. His cosmology suggested the VISIBLE heavens were infinite or something similar and what he said was infinite is not the crucial issue.
3. What the Bible claims is not that space, time, or matter are eternal or infinite though the language is a little ambiguous.
4. However as I said there are many reasons in physics, math, and philosophy to think actual natural infinites can't exist. I gave a few. The eternal or infinite nature of either time, matter, or energy causes conflicts with the fact nothing infinite can be traversed. Modern cosmology makes almost certain that space is not even infinite. The big bang and Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe theorems I gave do not even allow that possibility and they are the currently most accepted cosmology theories.
5. I can't prove them right but based on the best information currently available even space is not infinite and was created a finite time ago just as the first verse of Genesis suggests. Big bangs never expand to infinity. I think that covered everything.

I am done with this. Good luck.... we will see each other in other threads.

Your views have inherent conflicts built within them versus reality and scholarship. To assume those inconsistencies will not cause constant conflict in debate is not a reasonable expectation. I am really doubtful if you believe your Ezekiel claims above. That interpretation of those versus is so grossly inaccurate I do not see how anyone as intelligent as you are can possibly buy them.

 

[1robin]

Hi 1robin, the goal of Elohim is for everyone to become LIKE Him, and that can only occur when the knowledge of good and evil is given. Adam and Eve ATE from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil by disobeying a command. Experience is the BEST teacher, and coming INTO the knowledge of good and evil was required for us to become LIKE Elohim, so that mankind could reject the evil and freely choose the good. And Elohim's plan is RIGHT ON TRACK. In His plan, He ALLOWED mankind to dwell in darkness (evil) BEFORE He SENT His LIGHT (The Good). Yeshua is THE LIGHT, He is the Word of Elohim, and ONLY IN and BY the Word can we be made FREE from sin. In the process and plan, an ELECT was first CHOSEN by ELohim to come INTO this LIGHT and learn how to be FREE from sin, and do not let anyone deceive you, he who does what is right, is righteous, just as He is righteous (1 John 2:29, 1 John 3:7). In fact, we are to be CLOTHED in righteousness to cover the shame of our sinful nakedness:

Rev 3:18
(18) I counsel thee to buy of Me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.

What is this white raiment that clothes or covers the shame of thy nakedness?

Rev 19:7-8
(7) Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to Him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and His wife hath made herself ready.
(8) And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.

1robin, can't you visualize what cover's nakedness as far as Elohim is concerned? Isn't it DOING what is RIGHT? Doesn't doing what is right ATONE for or COVER the wrong that was done by us in our naked or sinful state? The ELECT or CHOSEN ones realize this and MAKE themselves READY. The time is at hand, and Yeshua is ready to judge according to the WORK of each and everyone of us, and having the RIGHT to the Tree of Life REQUIRES that one be blessed in TURNING from their iniquities (Acts 3:26), to DO His commandments.

Rev 22:10-15
(10) And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.
(11) He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
(12) And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with Me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
(13) I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
(14) Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
(15) For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

1robin, have you entered INTO the Blessing? KB

Hello Ken. I can agree with much of what you have said here but will summarize where I either disagree or think clarity is needed. I am not even clear what you are contending specifically.

1. The Bible makes it absolutely clear no-one besides Christ this side of the dirt is sinless. Those born again are MADER perfect but only after death. If his goal is our being like him in this life no one in history has ever achieved this. Are you perfect? I sure am not.
2. I am not saying that we should not strive to be sinless or like him but if that is the threshold for salvation not one single human has ever achieved it. We have two choices for salvation works and grace or actually some cough up parts of both which is even more ridiculous than works alone.
3. Since no one yet has ever been able to even hint or attempt at suggesting any actual standards for a merit based salvation and because even if they did it would be perfection no one would ever get there by this method we are left with grace.
4. Grace is defined as and separated from mercy and works by it meaning to receive that which is not deserved. On what basis is this gained? On the merits of Christ?
5. Christ's record and my record and the corresponding rewards and punishments are swapped or substituted in what is known as substitutionary atonement. How does this apply? Glad you asked.
6. By the merits of faith and faith alone (not my sinlessness) his perfect sinless status with God is applied legally to my account, my sins are forgiven, and I am born again.
7. My forgiveness is not some intellectual concept. It is an actual experience that can't be mistaken. In addition the Holy Spirit comes to live in our hearts and promises to never leave us nor forsake us from that point on.
8. You asked my about my status and my answer is that I have experienced God and had him come to live in my heart. I am not sinless, I never will be, and if I must merit heaven I give it up as impossible.

I have of course radically generalized but need to know what it is you wish to debate. We have three choices. 1. Merit alone (absurd, impossible, and very human in it's make up and not in need of Calvary. 2. Grace and merit (rationally worse than merit alone) self refuting. 3. Grace alone (everything works and has it's proper place and justifies the radical nature of Christ's crucifixion). If we agree that it is 3 then we can debate finer points or if you do not agree with 3 we can debate that. Once known I can put my comments in context, evaluate your scripture usage, and supply my own.

 

[Katzpur]

I am asking this question in order to figure it out, trying to make sense of it and it seems like most Christians just attack me right away as soon as I raise a question. So please help me understand the reason, and please give me a good reason, not something under the lines of because God wants millions of blind children suffering out there so we appreciate our eyes.
Thank you

Yeah, I think He should have cured blindness, deafness, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, swine flu, the common cold, acne, obesity and all allergies. Life should have been perfect. We should never age, never get sick, never get hurt and never die. What a raw deal we got.

Why not just ask the real question: How can anybody believe in a God who would create a world where suffering exists?

 

[Ken Brown]

Hello Ken. I can agree with much of what you have said here but will summarize where I either disagree or think clarity is needed. I am not even clear what you are contending specifically.

1. The Bible makes it absolutely clear no-one besides Christ this side of the dirt is sinless. Those born again are MADER perfect but only after death. If his goal is our being like him in this life no one in history has ever achieved this. Are you perfect? I sure am not.
2. I am not saying that we should not strive to be sinless or like him but if that is the threshold for salvation not one single human has ever achieved it. We have two choices for salvation works and grace or actually some cough up parts of both which is even more ridiculous than works alone.
3. Since no one yet has ever been able to even hint or attempt at suggesting any actual standards for a merit based salvation and because even if they did it would be perfection no one would ever get there by this method we are left with grace.
4. Grace is defined as and separated from mercy and works by it meaning to receive that which is not deserved. On what basis is this gained? On the merits of Christ?
5. Christ's record and my record and the corresponding rewards and punishments are swapped or substituted in what is known as substitutionary atonement. How does this apply? Glad you asked.
6. By the merits of faith and faith alone (not my sinlessness) his perfect sinless status with God is applied legally to my account, my sins are forgiven, and I am born again.
7. My forgiveness is not some intellectual concept. It is an actual experience that can't be mistaken. In addition the Holy Spirit comes to live in our hearts and promises to never leave us nor forsake us from that point on.
8. You asked my about my status and my answer is that I have experienced God and had him come to live in my heart. I am not sinless, I never will be, and if I must merit heaven I give it up as impossible.

I have of course radically generalized but need to know what it is you wish to debate. We have three choices. 1. Merit alone (absurd, impossible, and very human in it's make up and not in need of Calvary. 2. Grace and merit (rationally worse than merit alone) self refuting. 3. Grace alone (everything works and has it's proper place and justifies the radical nature of Christ's crucifixion). If we agree that it is 3 then we can debate finer points or if you do not agree with 3 we can debate that. Once known I can put my comments in context, evaluate your scripture usage, and supply my own.

Hi 1robin, I'm just curious, how do you explain:

1Jn 3:5-9
(5) And ye know that He was manifested to take away our sins; and in Him is no sin.
(6) Whosoever abideth in Him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen Him, neither known Him.
(7) Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as He is righteous.
(8) He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of Elohim was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil.
(9) Whosoever is born of Elohim doth not commit sin; for His seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of Elohim.

Are you not aware that you can cease from sin, and that your sin can be taken away from you? Those who claim they cannot cease from sin are not partakers of the truth, but rather deceivers who entice with vain babblings:

2Pe 2:14
(14) Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:

2Pe 2:18-19
(18) For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.
(19) While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.

Yeshua came to destroy the work of Satan, which is sin. He wants those who are called to have their sin go into remission, and this means that sin is no longer actively or willfully followed by the saint. Paul explains it quite well, his heart and mind was now a slave to obedience and he no longer "from the heart" followed his flesh. If some sin reared it's ugly head in Paul's life, he would do battle with it and overcome with the help of the Messiah, but it was no longer him who desired to do that sin, but the principle of sin that was within him. And if he no longer desired to do the sin, then it was no longer him that did it, he was without sin from his heart.

And those who come to the knowledge of the truth concerning what their sin did, and remain in their sin, or fall back into deliberate sin, will suffer the wrath of Elohim.

Concerning Elohim's Grace, traditional christianity has absolutely no understanding. The Grace of Elohim IS the Free Gift of Righteousness, which is given to all sinners by and through the sinners action of placing Yeshua up on the cross, by sinning. Sin is what killed Yeshua, and that sin is turned into RIGHTEOUSNESS (doing what the Law required in justifying the sinner, which is sacrifice). The Jew of Paul's day stumbled over how a man could be THEIR sacrifice, and they were not justified by Yeshua's suffering and death. Acknowledging that Yeshua was sacrificed by a sinner sinning, fulfills the just requirement of the Torah, making the acknowlegder RIGHTEOUS. It has nothing to do with a transference of "Jesus'" righteousness in a sinners stead, and that teaching is all part of the Strong Delusion.

1robin, I know these things are not easily followed, but do try to understand what i am saying. KB

 

[InvestigateTruth]

1. The glory of the God of Israel. It says nothing whatever about Bahaullah (who is not the glory of the God of Israel.
2. Bahaullah's voice was never like the roaring of many waters, and the Earth never shined because he existed.
3. It says the Glory of the Lord (Christ) not the Glory of Bahaullah.
4. When did Bahaullah pick Ezekiel up and set him in the inner court.
5. Lebanon nor Bahaullah are mentioned in these verses.

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

but as I pointed out Bahaullah was anything but uneducated in theology. He was offered a theological position with a nations government...

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

 

[1robin]

Yeah, I think He should have cured blindness, deafness, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, swine flu, the common cold, acne, obesity and all allergies. Life should have been perfect. We should never age, never get sick, never get hurt and never die. What a raw deal we got.

Why not just ask the real question: How can anybody believe in a God who would create a world where suffering exists?

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.

 

[1robin]

Hi 1robin, I'm just curious, how do you explain:

1Jn 3:5-9
(5) And ye know that He was manifested to take away our sins; and in Him is no sin.
(6) Whosoever abideth in Him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen Him, neither known Him.
(7) Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as He is righteous.
(8) He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of Elohim was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil.
(9) Whosoever is born of Elohim doth not commit sin; for His seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of Elohim.

Are you not aware that you can cease from sin, and that your sin can be taken away from you? Those who claim they cannot cease from sin are not partakers of the truth, but rather deceivers who entice with vain babblings:

2Pe 2:14
(14) Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:

2Pe 2:18-19
(18) For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.
(19) While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.

Yeshua came to destroy the work of Satan, which is sin. He wants those who are called to have their sin go into remission, and this means that sin is no longer actively or willfully followed by the saint. Paul explains it quite well, his heart and mind was now a slave to obedience and he no longer "from the heart" followed his flesh. If some sin reared it's ugly head in Paul's life, he would do battle with it and overcome with the help of the Messiah, but it was no longer him who desired to do that sin, but the principle of sin that was within him. And if he no longer desired to do the sin, then it was no longer him that did it, he was without sin from his heart.

And those who come to the knowledge of the truth concerning what their sin did, and remain in their sin, or fall back into deliberate sin, will suffer the wrath of Elohim.

Concerning Elohim's Grace, traditional christianity has absolutely no understanding. The Grace of Elohim IS the Free Gift of Righteousness, which is given to all sinners by and through the sinners action of placing Yeshua up on the cross, by sinning. Sin is what killed Yeshua, and that sin is turned into RIGHTEOUSNESS (doing what the Law required in justifying the sinner, which is sacrifice). The Jew of Paul's day stumbled over how a man could be THEIR sacrifice, and they were not justified by Yeshua's suffering and death. Acknowledging that Yeshua was sacrificed by a sinner sinning, fulfills the just requirement of the Torah, making the acknowlegder RIGHTEOUS. It has nothing to do with a transference of "Jesus'" righteousness in a sinners stead, and that teaching is all part of the Strong Delusion.

1robin, I know these things are not easily followed, but do try to understand what i am saying. KB

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.