Is Jesus Christianity?

[firedragon]

Irrelevant especially because there are no anti-Christ quotes in the Quran that attempt to undermine Christ.

Thats not the only reason.

It is irrelevant the whole discussion about Christianity. Bringing Islam into the picture is absolutely irrelevant.

Its a dire need some people have to spread hatred towards other religions. Its like a sickness. And this person is obviously, absolutely ignorant. But again, it is irrelevant.

Its like two neighbours arguing over the fence. The argument is about a fence. But one neighbour says "your baby is ugly". It may hurt the other, but that's irrelevant.

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: You are the one who was indoctrinated and thus believes in a fictional character, the fictional character called Jesus that the gospel authors who never even knew Jesus...

How do you know they didn’t know? Why should I believe you?

Admittedly, my statement was a little brusque. I am not saying that the gospel authors did not know anything about Jesus but what the gospel authors knew was through oral tradition, what had been passed down to them, not from knowing Jesus personally. As noted below, the books attributed to Paul were written between 50-60 A.D. That makes them the earliest known evidence for Christianity and that means that the gospels of Jesus were written later than that; so they were even more far removed from the days that Jesus walked the earth. I believe that much of what is in the gospels represents what Jesus taught but myths about Jesus also entered in.

“Over centuries, billions of people have read the Bible. Scholars have spent their lives studying it, while rabbis, ministers and priests have focused on interpreting, teaching and preaching from its pages.

As the sacred text for two of the world’s leading religions, Judaism and Christianity, as well as other faiths, the Bible has also had an unmatched influence on literature—particularly in the Western world. It has been translated into nearly 700 languages, and while exact sales figures are hard to come by, it’s widely considered to be the world’s best-selling book.

But despite the Bible’s undeniable influence, mysteries continue to linger over its origins. Even after nearly 2,000 years of its existence, and centuries of investigation by biblical scholars, we still don’t know with certainty who wrote its various texts, when they were written or under what circumstances.

“Names are attached to the titles of the Gospels (‘the Gospel according to Matthew’),” writes Bible scholar Bart Ehrman in his book Jesus, Interrupted. “But these titles are later additions to the Gospels, provided by editors and scribes to inform readers who the editors thought were the authorities behind the different versions.”

Traditionally, 13 of the 27 books of the New Testament were attributed to Paul the Apostle, who famously converted to Christianity after meeting Jesus on the road to Damascus and wrote a series of letters that helped spread the faith throughout the Mediterranean world. But scholars now agree on the authenticity of only seven of Paul’s epistles: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon. These are believed to have been written between A.D. 50-60, making them the earliest known evidence for Christianity. Authors of the later epistles may have been followers of Paul, who used his name to lend authenticity to the works.”

Who Wrote the Bible?

Trailblazer said: It has long been generally believed that Jesus Christ was a unique incarnation of God...

That is interesting, because Bible don’t teach God has incarnations. Bible tells God lives in Jesus and also in disciples of Jesus, but it is not the same.

Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I tell you, I speak not from myself; but the Father who lives in me does his works.
John 14:10

Don't you know that you are a temple of God, and that God's Spirit lives in you?
1 Corinthians 3:16

No, the Bible does not teach that God has incarnations, so why do most Christians believe that Jesus was God incarnate? It is because that is what was decided at the Council of Nicaea.

I do not believe that God or the Holy Spirit literally lives inside of Jesus. If you will bear with me I will explain what I believe about that.

I believe that Jesus was a clear mirror, and God became visible in the mirror. This is why Jesus said, “The Father is in the Son” (John 14:11, John 17:21) meaning that God is visible and manifest in Jesus.

“I and my Father are one” (John 10:30) means that Jesus, and God are one and the same, so whatever pertains to God, all His acts and doings, as well as whatever He ordains and forbids, is identical with the Will of God Himself.

That is why Jesus said to the Jews:

John 10:25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.

John 10:37-38 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

I do not believe that God or the Holy Spirit literally lived inside the bodies of the disciples. Entrance and exit, descent and ascent, are characteristics of bodies and not of spirits. Intellectual subtleties and mental realities such as the Holy Spirit do not enter, nor come forth, nor descend into the body, but rather they have direct connection to the body through the soul, and they are reflected in the soul.

Thus I believe that the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles means they were affected by the Christ Spirit. Through the spirit of the love of God they gained a new life, and they were like mirrors facing the sun and some of the light of the Holy Spirit became manifest in them.

24: THE DESCENT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT UPON THE APOSTLES

Question.—What is the manner, and what is the meaning, of the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles, as described in the Gospel?
Answer.—The descent of the Holy Spirit is not like the entrance of air into man; it is an expression and a simile, rather than an exact or a literal image. No, rather it is like the entrance of the image of the sun into the mirror—that is to say, its splendor becomes apparent in it.

After the death of Christ the disciples were troubled, and their ideas and thoughts were discordant and contradictory; later they became firm and united, and at the feast of Pentecost they gathered together and detached themselves from the things of this world. Disregarding themselves, they renounced their comfort and worldly happiness, sacrificing their body and soul to the Beloved, abandoning their houses, and becoming wanderers and homeless, even forgetting their own existence. Then they received the help of God, and the power of the Holy Spirit became manifested; the spirituality of Christ triumphed, and the love of God reigned. They were given help at that time and dispersed in different directions, teaching the Cause of God, and giving forth proofs and evidences.

So the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles means their attraction by the Christ Spirit, whereby they acquired stability and firmness. Through the spirit of the love of God they gained a new life, and they saw Christ living, helping and protecting them. They were like drops, and they became seas; they were like feeble insects, and they became majestic eagles; they were weak and became powerful. They were like mirrors facing the sun; verily, some of the light became manifest in them.”
Some Answered Questions, pp. 106-107

Read more: 24: THE DESCENT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT UPON THE APOSTLES

Christian meant originally a disciple of Jesus. And a disciple of Jesus is a person who remains in the words of Jesus. It is really sad that many call themselves “Christian”, but don’t seem to be loyal to him.

Jesus therefore said to those Jews who had believed him, "If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
John 8:31-32

…in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians.
Acts 11:26

I am not sure what you mean by not being loyal to Jesus, how and why you think they are not loyal, but from my outsiders perspective what I see is that many Christians do not follow the actual teachings of Jesus, that which would set them free, but rather they focus on beliefs such as the bodily resurrection, ascension and return and being saved by grace alone and getting to heaven. The latter is a teaching of Paul, not Jesus.

The following quote explains in a nutshell what Baha’is believe Jesus did for humanity during His short mission and by His cross sacrifice. Jesus gave us His teachings (profusion of His bounties) and then later died on the cross (suffered the greatest martyrdom) so we could be free of sin and attain everlasting life. Christ freed us from the chains of bondage to the material world.

“…those who turned toward the Word of God and received the profusion of His bounties—were saved from this attachment and sin, obtained everlasting life, were delivered from the chains of bondage, and attained to the world of liberty. They were freed from the vices of the human world, and were blessed by the virtues of the Kingdom. This is the meaning of the words of Christ, “I gave My blood for the life of the world” 6 —that is to say, I have chosen all these troubles, these sufferings, calamities, and even the greatest martyrdom, to attain this object, the remission of sins” Some Answered Questions, p. 125

This of course is congruent with what Jesus said about the world.

John 12:24-26 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal. If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour.

Matthew 6:19-21 Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal;but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is,

 

[Spirit of Light]

Its called Christianity because followers believe Jesus to be the Christ, the Son of God who came to earth and achieved final and unquestioned sovereignty of his own creation. Muslims know the Father of Jesus while they may not understand or believe in the identity of the Fathers Creator Son who dwelt anonymously among us up until his public ministry wherein he was still quite diplomatic and guarded concerning his true identity.

I am aware of Christians view of Jesus, as a Muslim Jesus is important but as a prophet

 

[Trailblazer]

"Another comforter", is not referring to a future prophet. It is speaking of the Holy Spirit, which it explicitly says. Bahulla, or some other prophet, is not "in you". The Holy Spirit can however. In order for a prophet to be "in you", well.... that might be problematic for most, not to mention necessarily moral, or even legal, not to even mention how that is accomplished once that prophet is no longer alive and has been dead for many years.

That one verse does not prove that the Comforter is the Holy Spirit but I have argued this to death with a Christian for six years so I am not going to argue about it again. He had to believe that the Comforter was the Holy Spirit that came at Pentecost in order to reject Baha’u’llah as the Comforter and thereby maintain his Christian beliefs, which were that the same Jesus ascended and will return in the same body.

Using one verse in the Bible which can be interpreted in more than one way to try to prove something and ignoring all the other verses is illogical.

I believe that the Comforter is the Holy Spirit that was sent to Jesus and to Baha’u’llah and they brought the Holy Spirit to humanity. Baha’is believe that the Holy Spirit is the Bounty of God.

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

That Jesus was a Comforter is backed up by this verse and I am sure I could find more verses:

John 14:18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.

No, those versus are referring to the Spirit of God, or God's Spirit. It certainly was a view of early Christians that "Christ in you", the "Spirit in you", "God in you", the Spirit of God", etc, are all the same thing. Not a person, but Spirit. God is not a person. "God is Spirit, "John 4:24

I do not care what Christians believe. Christ does not live inside of the human body and neither does the Holy Spirit of God, as I just explained to 1213: “I do not believe that God or the Holy Spirit literally lived inside the bodies of the disciples. Entrance and exit, descent and ascent, are characteristics of bodies and not of spirits. Intellectual subtleties and mental realities such as the Holy Spirit do not enter, nor come forth, nor descend into the body, but rather they have direct connection to the body through the soul, and they are reflected in the soul.

Thus I believe that the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles means they were affected by the Christ Spirit. Through the spirit of the love of God they gained a new life, and they were like mirrors facing the sun and some of the light of the Holy Spirit became manifest in them.”

Agreed. I don't think most Christians actually believe Jesus will return with the same physical body. I'm sure a few young in their faith, might think that literally though, because they still need to. Obviously, there are shortcomings with that way of thinking about spiritual truths however.

Maybe we should take a poll. That is what all the Christians I have ever known believe. They believe that the resurrected Jesus, the same man Jesus, will return. That is why they rejected Baha’u’llah but they would reject anyone who came and claimed to be the return of Christ unless He was the same man Jesus. They have made that perfectly clear to me, it cannot be another man, it has to be Jesus.

But isn't claiming your prophet is the 2nd coming of Jesus, itself expecting a physical form? Isn't that just the flip side of the same materialist coin, "not his original body, but a different body of with a different earthly parents? Isn't that all the same type of expectation of physical presence? Unless I'm mistaken about your beliefs?

It is not the same kind of expectation because Baha’is do not believe a dead man (Jesus) rose from the dead and came back to life and ascended into the clouds and would later return from heaven in the same physical body He had 2000 years ago. Physical bodies cannot even live in the spiritual world, so we believe that when Jesus ascended He took on a spiritual body.

Yes, the second coming of Christ is a man in physical form, but that is not a materialistic coin. How could the second coming do all of what it says that “He” would do if He was just a spirit?

The Church misled Christians into believing that the Comforter and Spirit of truth are the Holy Spirit that Jesus sent to live inside of them, but any thinking mind can figure out that a spirit living inside of people cannot DO any of the following things that are in John 14, 15 and 16; only a man could do those things:

• Teach you all things
• Call to remembrance what Jesus said
• Testify of Jesus
• Glorify Jesus, receive of Jesus, and shew it unto you
• Guide you into all truth
• Speak what He hears and shew you things to come
• Reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment

Baha’u’llah did all these things and as a result of His revelation the world will be reproved the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment. No spirit living inside of Christians is going to do this.

Expecting it to be fulfilled in some future prophet, is no different in kind than expecting Jesus to come back in a human body.

It is hugely different, for reasons I just explained. Jesus cannot come back from heaven to earth in a physical body because He does not have a physical body in heaven, since it died on the cross.

The only way any Bible prophecies could be fulfilled is by a future Prophet, a man who could do everything that the OT and NT prophecies say He would do. A spirit could do none of those things.

Moreover, the return of Christ is also the Messiah the Jews have long awaited, and there were specific things that needed to be fulfilled in order for Him to qualify. For example:

Isaiah 9:6-7 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

Christians believe those verses are about Jesus but that cannot be about Jesus, because Jesus did none of those things, and Jesus never promised to return and do those things. Baha’u’llah was the Prince of Peace because world peace will be established during His religious dispensation. Baha’u’llah set up a system of government and it has already been established among the Baha’is. The institutions of that government are fully operational, but still in their infancy. They will be more developed in the future as the prophecy says (increase in government).

 

[thomas t]

Thank you for answering.

Jesus vs. Paul - doctrine.org

why should one web page be the last authority? I'm asking myself...
They call themselves "grace churches". Grace Churches - doctrine.org
They are one particular church, as can be seen here: Grace Church Directory
It is one denomination and I don't accept them as my spiritual authority.
They are entitled to tell others of their opinion, of course, however, they are not the ultimate authority in Christianity.

The general consensus among secular Bible scholars is the Paul preached a gospel different from Jesus.

well, I happen to disagree with them. If you are right in that they say so. But you don't proivide a source to back up your assessment.
Let Bible be the last authority for Christian faith... and in the Bible, Paul and Jesus don't contradict with each other.

We must remember: Paul came BEFORE Jesus, not the other way around. The first books in the New Testament to be written were from Paul so Paul had no gospel theology to compete with when he wrote his epistles. He could mold and shape the Christian faith exactly as his disturbed mind wanted without any conflicting doctrine because the gospels hadn't come along yet. As the gospels began to appear over the next 50 years along with James and Peter that's when all sorts of doctrinal conflicts arose which didn't get resolved until the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE when Paul's theology won out over Jesus'. Jesus basically became a mere avatar--a mascot for Christianity but it was Paul's salvation by faith alone that won out over Jesus' works plus faith.

In my opinion, Jesus came before Paul.
Even if the gospels were written down later.
Paul to me doesn't appear to be a "disturbed mind". He wrote very clear.

In my opinion, faith doesn't negate works so Paul and Jesus don't contradict.

 

[Marcion]

In my opinion first came the original (fully tantric or mystic) sayings of the historical Jesus in Q-lite.
Then came the story about the life of Jesus in the first half of gMark.
Shortly after came the kerygma part of gMark written by the same author.
Then came gMatthew and gLuke as embellished versions of gMark including many added (non-original and non-tantric) sayings in the name of Jesus.
Then came the gnostic pseudo-graphical early letters ascribed to Paul but never written by a first century Paul.
Then came the edited (much expanded) version of gLuke and non-gnostic edits and added letters to the pseudo-graphical letters ascribed to Paul as well as Acts.
Then came the rest of the New Testament.

Only the first two are linked to the historical Jesus, the rest comes from the rich Christian imagination and external influences.
It can be compared to the many scriptures about the life of Lord Shiva and his family in which very little goes back to the historical Shiva.

 

[Colt]

Irrelevant especially because there are no anti-Christ quotes in the Quran that attempt to undermine Christ.

Out of touch with reality.

O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion or utter anything concerning Allah but the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, His Word that He sent to Mary, and a Spirit from Him [that He sent]. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and do not say “Three.” Desist, it is better for you! Allah is one God.

 

[Colt]

I am aware of Christians view of Jesus, as a Muslim Jesus is important but as a prophet

Right, Muslims deny Jesus is the Son of God because they are disciples of Mahmoud. So you must then deny fundamental elements of Jesus’ teaching and life in order to reduce him to a mere prophet. It’s not complicated. His own people rejected Jesus as well.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Right, Muslims deny Jesus is the Son of God because they are disciples of Mahmoud. So you must then deny fundamental elements of Jesus’ teaching and life in order to reduce him to a mere prophet. It’s not complicated. His own people rejected Jesus as well.

I have nothing negative to say about Jesus

 

[Colt]

Thats not the only reason.

It is irrelevant the whole discussion about Christianity. Bringing Islam into the picture is absolutely irrelevant.

Its a dire need some people have to spread hatred towards other religions. Its like a sickness. And this person is obviously, absolutely ignorant. But again, it is irrelevant.

Its like two neighbours arguing over the fence. The argument is about a fence. But one neighbour says "your baby is ugly". It may hurt the other, but that's irrelevant.

Its absolutely relevant to the need for followers of other Gurus to discredit parts of the Jesus story. Baháʼu'lláh followers are doing it on this thread begining with the OP. I simply used Islam as an example. Islam does what so many others do, they like parts of the Jesus story but reject others. They claim that the parts they don't like were made up later. How convenient.

In truth its you who have the secret hatred in your heart which you knee-jerk project onto others.

 

[capumetu]

This post in a continuation of a discussion I was having with @ Pilgrim Soldier on another thread. I moved it because a discussion of this kind did not belong on that thread. Quite honestly, I did not want to start a new thread because I don’t have much time to respond to a lot of posts right now, but there as no way I was going to let this one slide.


Present-day Christianity is not about the Jesus who walked the earth, it is about what was added and written about Jesus after that and it is about the doctrines (tenets) of the Church and it is about what Paul added.

How Paul changed the course of Christianity

If you actually believe that Christianity is about what Jesus actually taught, you have been duped. Jesus taught none of these tenets listed below and they would all be foreign to Him.

The Basic Tenets of Christian Faith By: Michael Bradley

Table of Contents:

1. An Introduction to the “Basic Tenets of Christian Faith”
2. Jesus Christ is the Only Way To Eternal Salvation With God the Father
3. We Are Saved by Grace Through Faith – Not by Works
4. Jesus Christ is the Son of God
5. The Incarnation of Jesus Christ
6. Resurrection of Jesus Christ
7. The Ascension of Jesus Christ
8. The Doctrine of the Trinity
9. The Holy Bible is the Inspired and Infallible Word of God
10. Baptized With the Holy Spirit at Salvation
11. Renewed – Regenerated By Holy Spirit
12. The Doctrine of Hell
13. The Return of Jesus

The Basic Tenets of Christian Faith - Bible Knowledge

You are the one who was indoctrinated and thus believes in a fictional character, the fictional character called Jesus that the gospel authors who never even knew Jesus made up and the Church capitalized upon, in order to make Jesus the only way to God and thereby make Christianity the only true religion from God.

The following excerpt from the book entitled Christ and Baha'u'llah explains how Christianity changed what the Bible recorded and what Jesus taught.

“As Jesus prophesied, the false prophets contrived to change the essential meaning of the Gospel so that it became quite different from that which the Bible recorded or Jesus taught. (Matt. Vii 15-23 and see pp. 11, 12.)

It has long been generally believed that Jesus Christ was a unique incarnation of God such as had never before appeared in religious history and would never appear again. This tenet made the acceptance of any later Prophet impossible to a Christian. Yet there is nothing in Christ’s own statements, as recorded in the Gospel, to support this view, and it was not generally held during His lifetime…...

Another opinion which Christians universally hold about Christ is that His teaching was absolute and final. They believe that if the Truth were partly withheld from them for a time because they could not bear it, it was divulged at Pentecost in its fullness and that now nothing remains to be revealed. But there is nothing in the account of Pentecost to suggest such an interpretation and there is no one who will believe that Jesus would have named the false prophets as characteristic of His age if this warning was to be followed by an immediate release of all Truth to the Church. What the Bible shows is rather a succession of teachers—Abraham, Moses and Christ, each measuring His Revelation to the needs and maturity of His authors: Jesus, for example, changes the divorce law and says, “Moses gave you this because of the hardness of your hearts but from the beginning it was not so.” Many times He says, Ye have heard it said by them of old time . . . but I say unto you . . .”

Another universal opinion among the Christians is that Christ was the Lord of Hosts of the Old Testament. Yet the Jewish Prophets had foretold that when the Lord of Hosts came He would not find the Jews in the Holy Land, all would have been scattered among the nations and would have been living in misery and degradation for centuries; but when Jesus came Palestine was full of Jews and their expulsion did not begin until the year 70 A.D.; it may be said to have continued till the year 1844.

To confirm orthodox Christian opinion it is customary in all churches to read on Christmas morning, as if it referred to Jesus, the passage which Isaiah wrote about the Lord of Hosts (Isaiah ix 6-7).

“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.”

Yet the descriptive titles given do not belong exclusively to Christ, while some of them He specifically repudiated as if to make such a mistaken reference to Himself impossible. He disclaimed being the Mighty God when He called Himself “the Son of God;” John v 18-47 where Jesus repudiates the charge that He claimed equality with God, disclaimed being the Father when He said, “my Father is greater than I;” (John xviii 36) and being the Prince of Peace when He said, “I came not to send peace, but a sword.” He disclaimed bearing the government upon His shoulder or that it would be His judgment and justice forever when He said, “My kingdom is not of this world.” (John xviii 36).

Many of these false interpretations involve repudiation of the Word of God in favor of the word of man. This impious act is so craftily performed, with such an air of humility, that it might escape the notice of the most sincere and devout of worshippers. Probably few churchgoers realize today that the Gospel of Christ as known to the few in the pulpit is wholly different from the Gospel which Christ preached in Galilee as recorded in the Bible.

In spite of Christ’s promise of further revelation of Truth, through the Comforter, through His own return, through the Spirit of Truth, the Christian Church regards His revelation as final, and itself as the sole trustee of true religion. There is no room for the Supreme Redeemer of the Bible to bring in great changes for the establishment of the Kingdom of God. In fact this Kingdom is often described as a world-wide Church.

Having thus closed God’s Covenant with the Bible, sacred history—God-directed—came to an end, and secular history, having no sense of divine destiny nor unity, began.

Jesus’ revelation was purely spiritual. He taught that “My kingdom is not of this world” and that the “Kingdom of heaven is within you.” His great gift to man was the knowledge of eternal life. He told men that they might be physically in perfect health and yet spiritually sick or even dead. But this was a difficult truth to communicate and Jesus had to help men to realize it. He would say that He was a spiritual physician and that men whom He cured of a spiritual disability were cured of blindness, deafness, lameness, leprosy and so on. This was the real meaning of His remark at the end of a discourse, “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” For a hearer might hear the physical word of Jesus and yet fail to comprehend the spiritual meaning. Jesus, in other words, was forever trying to heal spiritual infirmities. He thus would be understood by His disciples as a healer of spiritual ailments but by others He might be taken as relieving physical ills only.

Doubtless Jesus could, and often did, heal bodily ills by spiritual means, but this was nothing to do with His real work as a Redeemer. On the other hand these spiritual cures which he effected might be misinterpreted as physical miracles, and so were little stressed by Him. (“See that no man know it.) Matt ix 30.

Christ’s spiritual mission was, at an early date, materialized, specifically in regard to such things as the miracles, curing the blind and deaf, raising the dead. Even His own resurrection was made physical, missing the point entirely. Moreover, none of the complex order, of the ceremonies, rituals and litanies of the Church can be attributed to Christ. All are man-made, by inference or invention.

Well might Christ warn His followers that false prophets would arise and misinterpret His teachings so as to delude even the most earnest and intelligent of His believers: from early times Christians have disputed about Christian truth in councils, in sects, in wars.

To sum up, if Christians say “our acts may be wrong,” they say truly. If they say “however our Gospel is right” they are quite wrong. The false prophets have corrupted the Gospel as successfully as they have the deeds and lives of Christian people.”

George Townshend, Christ and Baha'u'llah, The False Prophets, pp. 25-30

The Bible is the only way to identify Christians. To help in identifying them, here are a few scriptures to narrow it down:
They worship the God Jehovah exclusively Mat 4:10

They do not war 2 Cor 10:3,4; 2 Tim 2:24

They preach the good news of the Kingdom of God Luke 4:43; Mat 28:19,20

They make God's name known Jn 17:26; 1 Pet 2:21

They live the faith 1 Jn 5:3; Mat 6:33

That should help in identifying true Christians.

 

[firedragon]

Its absolutely relevant to the need for followers of other Gurus to discredit parts of the Jesus story. Baháʼu'lláh followers are doing it on this thread begining with the OP. I simply used Islam as an example. Islam does what so many others do, they like parts of the Jesus story but reject others. They claim that the parts they don't like were made up later. How convenient.

In truth its you who have the secret hatred in your heart which you knee-jerk project onto others.

Nah. Its not.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Thank you for answering.

why should one web page be the last authority? I'm asking myself...
They call themselves "grace churches". Grace Churches - doctrine.org
They are one particular church, as can be seen here: Grace Church Directory
It is one denomination and I don't accept them as my spiritual authority.
They are entitled to tell others of their opinion, of course, however, they are not the ultimate authority in Christianity.


well, I happen to disagree with them. If you are right in that they say so. But you don't proivide a source to back up your assessment.
Let Bible be the last authority for Christian faith... and in the Bible, Paul and Jesus don't contradict with each other.


In my opinion, Jesus came before Paul.
Even if the gospels were written down later.
Paul to me doesn't appear to be a "disturbed mind". He wrote very clear.

In my opinion, faith doesn't negate works so Paul and Jesus don't contradict.

Well, Thomas you said the magic words, "In my opinion...." That's the beauty of religion--one is free to have all the opinions they want and nobody is going to sue them for it; one can agree and disagree all they want and nobody is going to do a thing about it except offer their own opinion. In the end it doesn't boil down to anything except, "This is what I believe, you are free to believe whatever you want."

This is one page; I can offer several pages if you want, but the consensus among secular Biblical scholars is that Paul and Jesus taught differently.

"There is little doubt Paul thought the true 12 were the "false apostles," and that they preached an "imposter" Jesus..."

Paul Knew The 12 Taught Another Jesus

The beauty of it all is that there is no ultimate authority on what one believes except oneself.

 

[thomas t]

Ok, now I know your views.

one is free to have all the opinions they want and nobody is going to sue them for it;

In my opinion, if you lead people astray from faith, you will have to answer to God though.
It would constitute a damage for God if people stray away from him because of false teaching, of course.

one can agree and disagree all they want

Let Bible decide, I suggest.

Paul Knew The 12 Taught Another Jesus

The beauty of it all is that there is no ultimate authority on what one believes except oneself.

The author of the linked site had this opinion, indeed.
However, he couldn't prove his point that Paul warned against any of the 12 apostles.
It's mere presumption.

Let Bible be the authority for questions of biblical faith. If you have an opinion about faith but you can't back it up by scripture it's worthless, I think.

 

[filthyrottendirty]

Jesus did not write the Book of Revelation and there is no reason to believe that those are the words of Jesus, or that they refer to the same man Jesus..
John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
You are free to believe that if you want to because you have free will, even though that belief is not supported by the Bible in any way. Jesus never promised to return in the same body and Jesus never promised that He would set up a Kingdom of God on earth.

Just disregard the book of revelation because it doesn't support your beliefs?

Daniel 2:44 ESV
And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever.

Luke 11:2
And he said to them, “When you pray, say: “Father, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done on earth as it is in Heaven..."

Zechariah 14:9
And the Lord will be king over all the earth. On that day the Lord will be one and his name one.

Revelation 5:10
And you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.”

 

[Colt]

Well, Thomas you said the magic words, "In my opinion...." That's the beauty of religion--one is free to have all the opinions they want and nobody is going to sue them for it; one can agree and disagree all they want and nobody is going to do a thing about it except offer their own opinion. In the end it doesn't boil down to anything except, "This is what I believe, you are free to believe whatever you want."

This is one page; I can offer several pages if you want, but the consensus among secular Biblical scholars is that Paul and Jesus taught differently.

"There is little doubt Paul thought the true 12 were the "false apostles," and that they preached an "imposter" Jesus..."

Paul Knew The 12 Taught Another Jesus

The beauty of it all is that there is no ultimate authority on what one believes except oneself.

Its such an outrageous statement to put thoughts into Paul's mind that he thought the apostles were "false apostles". Paul was a disciple of Peter who's gospel message began to change on that day of Pentecost when they were all inspired to boldly proclaim their new post-cross message about Jesus. Paul had a psychic change, a spiritual rebirth and preached about Jesus as he understood the Jesus story and to a Gentile world. Paul was sincere.

We aren't Jesus who was God on earth, therefore all of us have a relative message according to our own understanding.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Its such an outrageous statement to put thoughts into Paul's mind that he thought the apostles were "false apostles". Paul was a disciple of Peter who's gospel message began to change on that day of Pentecost when they were all inspired to boldly proclaim their new post-cross message about Jesus. Paul had a psychic change, a spiritual rebirth and preached about Jesus as he understood the Jesus story and to a Gentile world. Paul was sincere.

We aren't Jesus who was God on earth, therefore all of us have a relative message according to our own understanding.

Who told you Paul was Peter's disciple, cOLTER? You'd better research that, my friend.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Ok, now I know your views.

In my opinion, if you lead people astray from faith, you will have to answer to God though.
It would constitute a damage for God if people stray away from him because of false teaching, of course.

Let Bible decide, I suggest.

The author of the linked site had this opinion, indeed.
However, he couldn't prove his point that Paul warned against any of the 12 apostles.
It's mere presumption.

Let Bible be the authority for questions of biblical faith. If you have an opinion about faith but you can't back it up by scripture it's worthless, I think.

But again this is all your opinion, right Thomas? For example, Matthew says

"And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.” Matthew 2:15.

So your opinion is that the Bible is right and and God did call Jesus out of Egypt. But Matthew pulls a sleight of hand. He doesn't give you the context of the whole verse which is from Hosea 11:1

"When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son."

So we see that God wasn't referring to Jesus at all. He was referring to Israel. He calls Israel His son in this verse, not Jesus and called Israel out of Egypt when Moses led the Jews out of Egypt and into Canaan, right?

 

[thomas t]

But again this is all your opinion, right Thomas?

The onus was on them to substanciate the "contradiction" as they call it.
They don't say "I believe there are contradictions in the Bible", they usually go one step further and say "there are contradictions". So the onus is on them.

When Matthew says a prophecy was fulfilled, it is right, I guess.
There is nothing wrong with interpreting prophecy in a metaphorical way.
Jesus also says he is the door. However, he is not a literal door.
He says he is a lamb. But he isn't a literal sheep.
Prophecy is to be interpreted in a metaphorical manner mostly. Even for people, such as myself, who say that Bible must be taken literally if it's not prophecy.

 

[1213]

...Jesus but what the gospel authors knew was through oral tradition, what had been passed down to them, not from knowing Jesus personally. As noted below, the books attributed to Paul were written between 50-60 A.D. That makes them the earliest known evidence for Christianity and that means that the gospels of Jesus were written later than that; ...

I think earliest found is not necessary the same as earliest written. And I believe Gospel of John is really from the disciple of Jesus, as told in John 21:24. But, that is obviously a matter of belief. However, if we would know surely who wrote them, would it really make any meaningful difference to you?

...I do not believe that God or the Holy Spirit literally lives inside of Jesus. If you will bear with me I will explain what I believe about that.

I believe that Jesus was a clear mirror, and God became visible in the mirror. This is why Jesus said, “The Father is in the Son” (John 14:11, John 17:21) meaning that God is visible and manifest in Jesus.

“I and my Father are one” (John 10:30) means that Jesus, and God are one and the same, so whatever pertains to God, all His acts and doings, as well as whatever He ordains and forbids, is identical with the Will of God Himself...

Even if Jesus would be like a mirror, I think it could still be said that God lives in him, because God can be seen in him. However, I think God is more than a reflection, because He can have influence to the person.

Bible tells God is spirit and love. I think He could be compared to team spirit that affects on team members certain way.

God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.
John 4:24

He who doesn't love doesn't know God, for God is love.
1 John 4:8

...I am not sure what you mean by not being loyal to Jesus, how and why you think they are not loyal,...

They don’t remain in words of Jesus. they have replaced the teachings of Jesus by their own doctrines.

Jesus therefore said to those Jews who had believed him, "If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
John 8:31-32