Jesus in the Bahai & Christian faiths, reconciliation or conflict??

[firedragon]

Jesus of course is probably the most discussed person in the world, yet different people discuss him in different ways. This is purely addressing the Bahai belief on Jesus and exploring if its reconciling or conflicting or lying in between.

1. Bahai's say he is the Son of God, but they do not believe he is the biological son of God sired by the Holy Spirit.

2. Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, Monogenis or one son, do the Bahai's have the same belief that he is the one son or do they conflict with the Christian faith and believe that all are sons of God or another derivation of it? To be clear, Christianity preaches that all are sons of God if they accept the righteousness as said in the New Testament clearly as adherents will have the seed of God, but they believe Jesus is not like that but Jesus is the sired son of God, the unique son of God.

3. Bahai's believe the Jesus narration in the Bible is absolutely true but they also proclaim that the resurrection and appearances were dual or Muthasabih. Thus do they really believe the NT accounts are inspired and true accounts of Jesus or not, like or unlike Christians?

4. Bahais seem to believe in the older Bibles without latter scholarship that identified interpolations based on older manuscripts. Thus, what is the clear belief of the Bahai's in the accounts of Jesus? Do they follow the masoretic text, vis a vis the older Bibles like the KJV or/and Tyndale or do they follow the latter critical texts? If Christians are open minded enough to move with scholarship and demarcate the interpolations how come it was not identified by Bab, Bahaullah, Abdul Baha, etc who are as we are told to be manifestations of God himself? If not their fault, is it the adherents fault? Which is the correct view of Jesus's ministry and teachings Bahai's believe in when they make their claims about the New Testament?

There are many other questions, but I would like to ask these and it is not meant as a dismissal but a clarification.

 

[George-ananda]

I would say conciliation is possible with liberal Christians but conflict will occur with conservative Christians.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Jesus of course is probably the most discussed person in the world, yet different people discuss him in different ways. This is purely addressing the Bahai belief on Jesus and exploring if its reconciling or conflicting or lying in between.

.

I make an attempt to answer some:


.

1. Bahai's say he is the Son of God, but they do not believe he is the biological son of God sired by the Holy Spirit.
.

I would say most Chrisitans agree on this.

.

2. Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, Monogenis or one son, do the Bahai's have the same belief that he is the one son or do they conflict with the Christian faith and believe that all are sons of God or another derivation of it? To be clear, Christianity preaches that all are sons of God if they accept the righteousness as said in the New Testament clearly as adherents will have the seed of God, but they believe Jesus is not like that but Jesus is the sired son of God, the unique son of God.
.

Bahais agree on this to some level. It is true that, according to Bible all who are righteous can be called sons of God. However, from the Bahai point of view, just as there is only One Messenger of God, there is only One son of God, albeit Spiritually. In another words, Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab, Moses are just the Same Spirit who appeared everytime, with a different name. Therefore there is only One Son of God. Jesus appeared with that specific name.
From Bahai view, there are lesser prophets as well as Manifestation of God. Aaron, for example, is considered a lesser prophet. Certainly Aaron was righteous and in that sense he was a son of God. But the station of Jesus, as the Manifestation of God, is the Only Son of God.


.

3. Bahai's believe the Jesus narration in the Bible is absolutely true but they also proclaim that the resurrection and appearances were dual or Muthasabih. Thus do they really believe the NT accounts are inspired and true accounts of Jesus or not, like or unlike Christians?

.

Bahais believe, God inspired the Bible. Thus the Author of Bible,, being indirectly God, included some symbolic stories, such as Resurrection. Whatever is in the Gospels is true from God, some of are literal, some of it are symbolic,only God could tell us, which is which. Bahais believe God told us, through revelation of Bahaullah, the true interpretation of Bible.

.

4. Bahais seem to believe in the older Bibles without latter scholarship that identified interpolations based on older manuscripts. Thus, what is the clear belief of the Bahai's in the accounts of Jesus? Do they follow the masoretic text, vis a vis the older Bibles like the KJV or/and Tyndale or do they follow the latter critical texts? If Christians are open minded enough to move with scholarship and demarcate the interpolations how come it was not identified by Bab, Bahaullah, Abdul Baha, etc who are as we are told to be manifestations of God himself? If not their fault, is it the adherents fault? Which is the correct view of Jesus's ministry and teachings Bahai's believe in when they make their claims about the New Testament?

.

Good question. The original Jewish and Christian Bibles are written in Hebrew and Greek language respectively. Bahaullah and Abdulbaha writings are in Arabic and Persian. Thus, if in their writings They referred to Biblical text, it was in Arabic or Persian language, meaning a translation of the Bible text. Of course, based on our history, Bahaullah or Abdulbaha did not study Bible, neither there is any evidence They possessed the Bible. It was from Their own mind. Well, Bahais believe Bahaullah and Abdulbaha knowledge were revelations from God. Shoghi Effendi, was mostly writing in English and some Persian, as his mission was to teach the Faith to both westerners and easterners. When Shoghi Effendi referred to Biblical passages or expressions, he used KJV translation.

 

[CG Didymus]

Bahais believe, God inspired the Bible. Thus the Author of Bible,, being indirectly God, included some symbolic stories, such as Resurrection.

That's the big one. Since the gospel don't indicate that the story is symbolic, why does it need to be symbolic? Why do Baha'is need Jesus dead? What difference would it make if God made a "special" "glorified" body for Jesus? Because it isn't "scientific" Because God doesn't go against natural laws and dead things stay dead? He supposedly made Adam out of dust. And even if that is symbolic, still, at some point, God made everything out of nothing. So why not a "special" body for Jesus? That way Christians can have their "risen" Savior and the resurrection question would be over.

 

[danieldemol]

If Christians are open minded enough to move with scholarship and demarcate the interpolations how come it was not identified by Bab, Bahaullah, Abdul Baha, etc who are as we are told to be manifestations of God himself?

Whilst technically only Bab and Baha’u’llah are said to be manifestations of God, your point still stands here, they only seem to be aware of the scholarship of their time.

 

[CG Didymus]

Whilst technically only Bab and Baha’u’llah are said to be manifestations of God, your point still stands here, they only seem to be aware of the scholarship of their time.

Do you have any thoughts on my post to Investigate Truth? Because Baha'is accept the virgin birth, so why not some kind of "glorified" body for the resurrected Jesus? Rather than making the whole post crucifixion part of the gospels symbolic? Actually, if I was going to make one symbolic, I'd make them both symbolic.

 

[danieldemol]

Do you have any thoughts on my post to Investigate Truth? Because Baha'is accept the virgin birth, so why not some kind of "glorified" body for the resurrected Jesus? Rather than making the whole post crucifixion part of the gospels symbolic? Actually, if I was going to make one symbolic, I'd make them both symbolic.

I think the goal was to reconcile to the Quran rather than to scientific probability, so as it was popularly believed that the Quran supported the virgin birth at the time it was included, but there was no way of literally reconciling the resurrection to the Quran so a superficial appeal to scientific reasoning was made.

 

[Brickjectivity]

1. Bahai's say he is the Son of God, but they do not believe he is the biological son of God sired by the Holy Spirit.

This is not I think, in the long run, an objection that would keep Christians from recognizing Bahai's as Christians. Christians probably though would not ever consider ourselves to be Bahai's.

In the long run Baha'is will likely exclude themselves from Christian communion rather than Christians excluding them. It depends upon whether they exclude those who don't accept Abdul Baha'i. You see there is no long term barrier to letting a Bahai take communion, even though a Christian would not probably consider ourselves to be Baha'i as far as I can tell. The one caveat about communoin is if anyone including a Christian, Baha'i, Muslim or other participant begins to insist that we must accept their revelation in order to partake, then they are creating a division in the communion. A divided communion is no longer the communion of Christ but is divided. It is like telling the wind where it may come from.

2. Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, Monogenis or one son, do the Bahai's have the same belief that he is the one son or do they conflict with the Christian faith and believe that all are sons of God or another derivation of it? To be clear, Christianity preaches that all are sons of God if they accept the righteousness as said in the New Testament clearly as adherents will have the seed of God, but they believe Jesus is not like that but Jesus is the sired son of God, the unique son of God.

There is no Koran for Christians, not anything similar. You will find people claiming to be authorities, but I think such claims are dubious. I discount terms like: "Orthodox" "Original" and "Early Church." They seem inaccurate even at the best of times. Over time Christians have believed varying things about Jesus, so the answer to your question about whether Christians can *ever* agree with Baha'is on this point is 'Yes'. Its possible. It seems unlikely anytime soon, and I am not concerned about whether it does ever happen.

3. Bahai's believe the Jesus narration in the Bible is absolutely true but they also proclaim that the resurrection and appearances were dual or Muthasabih. Thus do they really believe the NT accounts are inspired and true accounts of Jesus or not, like or unlike Christians?

We have nothing at all like the Koran and nothing like Abdul Baha'i, either. There are many scriptures directly in Christian canon which allow for variances of opinion on matters far and wide including the nature of the gospels themselves. All the following are canon, and they are only a sample and the most obvious...the tip of an iceberg which overthrows any authoritative teaching structure among Christians:

"...Anyone who thinks he knows anything does not yet know as he ought to know..." -- Paul to the Corinthians
"...The wind goes where it wills. You don't know where it comes from or where it is going, so it is with anyone born of the spirit..." -- Jesus in the gospels
"...do not call anyone your rabbi..." Jesus in the gospels
"...let the little children come to me..." Jesus in the gospels
"...let God be true and every man a liar that you may be shown right in your judgements..." Psalms partly quoted in a NT text.
"...if anyone needs wisdom let him ask God who gives generously to all without finding fault..." from the short letter James

How I see things is:
If we take the above as canon, which they are generally considered to be, we can't both consider ourselves to be Christian while we exclude others on the basis of their understanding alone. Whether or not I am telling you the truth, by human nature most Christians reject the above, I think because its difficult. Most people reject it in general, and its forgotten. We just don't strive to accept others and instead want to fix them. The eyes run over the passages without noticing them in the scriptures. Its left unmentioned to the children and ignored in the old hymns, though it be plain as the Sun in them. Its sound is dulled, and we all naked, deaf and blind succumb to the cold. Its uh...sad and sadder still as I explain it to you and others in many posts.

4. Bahais seem to believe in the older Bibles without latter scholarship that identified interpolations based on older manuscripts. Thus, what is the clear belief of the Bahai's in the accounts of Jesus? Do they follow the masoretic text, vis a vis the older Bibles like the KJV or/and Tyndale or do they follow the latter critical texts? If Christians are open minded enough to move with scholarship and demarcate the interpolations how come it was not identified by Bab, Bahaullah, Abdul Baha, etc who are as we are told to be manifestations of God himself? If not their fault, is it the adherents fault? Which is the correct view of Jesus's ministry and teachings Bahai's believe in when they make their claims about the New Testament?

The details of Baha'i belief and scholarship are unknown to me. I admire your efforts to understand so many details.

What I am saying is that there is not one thing which Christians are permitted to believe. Its not like in Islam. That's not what our canon says, so to answer your question: there is no ultimate reason in the canon why a Christian could not believe a lot of the same things as a Baha'i. Only the traditions and the church people really determine constraints. I think though that Bahai's have some constraints which Christians do not: They have to believe Abdul Baha'i for instance.

 

[CG Didymus]

I think the goal was to reconcile to the Quran rather than to scientific probability, so as it was popularly believed that the Quran supported the virgin birth at the time it was included, but there was no way of literally reconciling the resurrection to the Quran so a superficial appeal to scientific reasoning was made.

Thanks

 

[VoidoftheSun]

I think the goal was to reconcile to the Quran rather than to scientific probability, so as it was popularly believed that the Quran supported the virgin birth at the time it was included, but there was no way of literally reconciling the resurrection to the Quran so a superficial appeal to scientific reasoning was made.

I kind of agree with you here but not over where you're trying to pin the tail.
The Qur'an shares a similar Mariology to the Gospel of Luke, similar points addressed in both.

The real issue you have is with the relationship between Mary's womb and the Holy Spirit, and reconciling it with a modern scientific paradigm.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

We have nothing at all like the Koran

Not exactly.

In terms of a book that is solely God speaking, sure I agree.

But really, the Qur'an (spell it correctly please) is akin to the Book of Deuteronomy (with a difference of speaker) and the speeches of Jesus in the four NT gospels.
Like the Book of Deuteronomy it gives law and overall perspective on history, faith, time, law, commandment, warning etc.
Like the speeches of Jesus, it contains discourse with previous tradition (however unlike the NT gospels, doesn't directly quote anything), with communities and their place in the overarching narrative, many analogies of past Prophets being used in the case of Jesus and Muhammad.

In my own experience, when I first read Surah Baqara it felt like I was reading one of the lengthier speeches of Jesus from the Gospel of Matthew (such as 5-7 or even 23-24), there was a distinctly "Christ-like" quality to it's symbols and it's message.


The ontic status of the three books (sic) compared are:

• Deuteronomy - A lengthy sermon delivered by Moses, as written by Israelite scribes
• Gospels - Narrative collections of Jesus' biography with his speeches and parables
• Qur'an - God's word delivered through the Angel Gabriel to (and addressing) Prophet Muhammad

 

[firedragon]

I would say conciliation is possible with liberal Christians but conflict will occur with conservative Christians.

Hmm. I have heard this before from another Bahai adherent. Could you explain? What is the specific difference between this "conservative and liberal Christian" and how is liberal Christian specifically similar to the Bahai view?

 

[firedragon]

I would say most Chrisitans agree on this.

Actually that sentence is too vague to respond but if you mean that most Christians agree with the Bahai concept of Jesus I would say that's not right. Christians believe as I said that Jesus was the sired biological child of God unlike any other and sired by the Holy Spirit. Do Bahai's think the same?

Bahais agree on this to some level. It is true that, according to Bible all who are righteous can be called sons of God. However, from the Bahai point of view, just as there is only One Messenger of God, there is only One son of God, albeit Spiritually. In another words, Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab, Moses are just the Same Spirit who appeared everytime, with a different name. Therefore there is only One Son of God. Jesus appeared with that specific name.
From Bahai view, there are lesser prophets as well as Manifestation of God. Aaron, for example, is considered a lesser prophet. Certainly Aaron was righteous and in that sense he was a son of God. But the station of Jesus, as the Manifestation of God, is the Only Son of God.

That does not answer the question sis.

Bahais believe, God inspired the Bible. Thus the Author of Bible,, being indirectly God, included some symbolic stories, such as Resurrection. Whatever is in the Gospels is true from God, some of are literal, some of it are symbolic,only God could tell us, which is which. Bahais believe God told us, through revelation of Bahaullah, the true interpretation of Bible.

You answered a part of it sis but not specific. So bottomline is Bahai's believe everything after Jesus died on the cross or rather "crucified" were symbolic stories? Is that right?

 

[firedragon]

Good question. The original Jewish and Christian Bibles are written in Hebrew and Greek language respectively. Bahaullah and Abdulbaha writings are in Arabic and Persian. Thus, if in their writings They referred to Biblical text, it was in Arabic or Persian language, meaning a translation of the Bible text. Of course, based on our history, Bahaullah or Abdulbaha did not study Bible, neither there is any evidence They possessed the Bible. It was from Their own mind. Well, Bahais believe Bahaullah and Abdulbaha knowledge were revelations from God. Shoghi Effendi, was mostly writing in English and some Persian, as his mission was to teach the Faith to both westerners and easterners. When Shoghi Effendi referred to Biblical passages or expressions, he used KJV translation.

You did not answer the question sis. Not in the least. The question again is below.

4. Bahais seem to believe in the older Bibles without latter scholarship that identified interpolations based on older manuscripts. Thus, what is the clear belief of the Bahai's in the accounts of Jesus? Do they follow the masoretic text, vis a vis the older Bibles like the KJV or/and Tyndale or do they follow the latter critical texts? If Christians are open minded enough to move with scholarship and demarcate the interpolations how come it was not identified by Bab, Bahaullah, Abdul Baha, etc who are as we are told to be manifestations of God himself? If not their fault, is it the adherents fault? Which is the correct view of Jesus's ministry and teachings Bahai's believe in when they make their claims about the New Testament?

 

[George-ananda]

Hmm. I have heard this before from another Bahai adherent. Could you explain? What is the specific difference between this "conservative and liberal Christian" and how is liberal Christian specifically similar to the Bahai view?

A conservative believes that belief in Jesus dying for our sins is needed for salvation.

 

[Deeje]

1. Bahai's say he is the Son of God, but they do not believe he is the biological son of God sired by the Holy Spirit.

2. Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, Monogenis or one son, do the Bahai's have the same belief that he is the one son or do they conflict with the Christian faith and believe that all are sons of God or another derivation of it? To be clear, Christianity preaches that all are sons of God if they accept the righteousness as said in the New Testament clearly as adherents will have the seed of God, but they believe Jesus is not like that but Jesus is the sired son of God, the unique son of God.

Just to flesh out these two points....(because I think they are important...)

1) Jesus identified himself as "the son of God".....so calling himself "the" son of God rather than "a" son of God (a term relating to the angelic 'sons of God') is significant, I believe.
Just as Michael is described as "the" Archangel, rather than "an" Archangel" signifies a uniqueness about them in God's arrangement.

Jesus as God's "only begotten" also points to this uniqueness. No other son of God is said to be "begotten" by the Father. He is God's "firstborn" metaphorically speaking. (Colossians 1:15)

2) Christianity actually teaches that there are only two ways to become a "son of God"...that is by creation....or by adoption.
Initially, the only "sons of God" were angels...these being individually created.

The first human, Adam was also "a son of God" because he was also created, not born of a woman. (Luke 3:38) But Israel were God's children too by adoption. God chose the whole nation as his special possession. (Deuteronomy 14:1-2)

And those Christians chosen by God to rule with Christ in heaven are also called Christ's "brothers" by virtue of their adoption as sons. (Romans 8:14-17; Matthew 25:37-40) Those who do good deeds to these "brothers" of Christ are promised everlasting life. So not all Christians are "sons of God".....these adopted sons of God will rule with Christ in his Kingdom over redeemed humankind. (Revelation 21:2-4) Christ's sacrifice will mean that everything will then return to the conditions that God first purposed in Eden. Everlasting life in paradise on earth. What we lost in the beginning...is returned to us at the end. (Isaiah 55:11)

 

[Brickjectivity]

Not exactly.

In terms of a book that is solely God speaking, sure I agree.

But really, the Qur'an (spell it correctly please) is akin to the Book of Deuteronomy (with a difference of speaker) and the speeches of Jesus in the four NT gospels.
Like the Book of Deuteronomy it gives law and overall perspective on history, faith, time, law, commandment, warning etc.
Like the speeches of Jesus, it contains discourse with previous tradition (however unlike the NT gospels, doesn't directly quote anything), with communities and their place in the overarching narrative, many analogies of past Prophets being used in the case of Jesus and Muhammad.

In my own experience, when I first read Surah Baqara it felt like I was reading one of the lengthier speeches of Jesus from the Gospel of Matthew (such as 5-7 or even 23-24), there was a distinctly "Christ-like" quality to it's symbols and it's message.


The ontic status of the three books (sic) compared are:

• Deuteronomy - A lengthy sermon delivered by Moses, as written by Israelite scribes
• Gospels - Narrative collections of Jesus' biography with his speeches and parables
• Qur'an - God's word delivered through the Angel Gabriel to (and addressing) Prophet Muhammad

I'm a little familiar with an English translation of Deuteronomy. I'm not so familiar with a Qur'an. I think that the Qur'an calls itself a message from Allah...if I recall correctly. Deuteronomy does not say this about itself, nor do the gospels.

 

[Dawnofhope]

This is not I think, in the long run, an objection that would keep Christians from recognizing Bahai's as Christians. Christians probably though would not ever consider ourselves to be Bahai's.

Agreed. The Christian and Baha’i concepts of Jesus being the ‘Son of God’ are based on a mutual recognition of the NT being Divinely Inspired. Obviously there is considerable variation from both Baha’is and Christians as to how to interpret and understand the Christian Bible, particularly with references to Jesus being the Son of God. However we immediately have a shared foundation in the Bible for dialogue and finding agreement.

In the long run Baha'is will likely exclude themselves from Christian communion rather than Christians excluding them. It depends upon whether they exclude those who don't accept Abdul Baha'i. You see there is no long term barrier to letting a Bahai take communion, even though a Christian would not probably consider ourselves to be Baha'i as far as I can tell. The one caveat about communoin is if anyone including a Christian, Baha'i, Muslim or other participant begins to insist that we must accept their revelation in order to partake, then they are creating a division in the communion. A divided communion is no longer the communion of Christ but is divided. It is like telling the wind where it may come from.

A Baha’i by definition is one who recognises Bahá’u’lláh has being a Prophet of God and follows His Teachings. Baha’is are enjoined to associate with peoples of all faiths in a spirit of love and fellowship. Anyone can attend Baha’i meetings and worship in our temples. Likewise Baha’is would be comfortable attending a church service.

There is no Koran for Christians, not anything similar. You will find people claiming to be authorities, but I think such claims are dubious. I discount terms like: "Orthodox" "Original" and "Early Church." They seem inaccurate even at the best of times. Over time Christians have believed varying things about Jesus, so the answer to your question about whether Christians can *ever* agree with Baha'is on this point is 'Yes'. Its possible. It seems unlikely anytime soon, and I am not concerned about whether it does ever happen.

Interfaith dialogue, fellowship, working and worshiping together can be easy or difficult depending on your perspective. I’m pretty chilled about it all and for the most part won’t see barriers between myself and Christians unless its a fundamentalist Christian trying to argue what is and isn’t a Christian based on narrow criteria.

We have nothing at all like the Koran and nothing like Abdul Baha'i, either. There are many scriptures directly in Christian canon which allow for variances of opinion on matters far and wide including the nature of the gospels themselves. All the following are canon, and they are only a sample and the most obvious...the tip of an iceberg which overthrows any authoritative teaching structure among Christians:

"...Anyone who thinks he knows anything does not yet know as he ought to know..." -- Paul to the Corinthians
"...The wind goes where it wills. You don't know where it comes from or where it is going, so it is with anyone born of the spirit..." -- Jesus in the gospels
"...do not call anyone your rabbi..." Jesus in the gospels
"...let the little children come to me..." Jesus in the gospels
"...let God be true and every man a liar that you may be shown right in your judgements..." Psalms partly quoted in a NT text.
"...if anyone needs wisdom let him ask God who gives generously to all without finding fault..." from the short letter James

How I see things is:
If we take the above as canon, which they are generally considered to be, we can't both consider ourselves to be Christian while we exclude others on the basis of their understanding alone. Whether or not I am telling you the truth, by human nature most Christians reject the above, I think because its difficult. Most people reject it in general, and its forgotten. We just don't strive to accept others and instead want to fix them. The eyes run over the passages without noticing them in the scriptures. Its left unmentioned to the children and ignored in the old hymns, though it be plain as the Sun in them. Its sound is dulled, and we all naked, deaf and blind succumb to the cold. Its uh...sad and sadder still as I explain it to you and others in many posts.

What Christians, Muslims and Baha’is have in common are their beliefs in the God of Abraham, their faith founded on a Revelation from that God as recorded in scriptures, and succession of leadership whether based on Apostolic Succession, the twelve Imams, the Caliphate, Hadiths or ‘Abdu’l-Baha.

The details of Baha'i belief and scholarship are unknown to me. I admire your efforts to understand so many details.

What I am saying is that there is not one thing which Christians are permitted to believe. Its not like in Islam. That's not what our canon says, so to answer your question: there is no ultimate reason in the canon why a Christian could not believe a lot of the same things as a Baha'i. Only the traditions and the church people really determine constraints. I think though that Bahai's have some constraints which Christians do not: They have to believe Abdul Baha'i for instance.

Agreed

 

[firedragon]

A conservative believes that belief in Jesus dying for our sins is needed for salvation.

Okay, then what's the "liberal" in your statement?

 

[firedragon]

Just to flesh out these two points....(because I think they are important...)

1) Jesus identified himself as "the son of God".....so calling himself "the" son of God rather than "a" son of God (a term relating to the angelic 'sons of God') is significant, I believe.
Just as Michael is described as "the" Archangel, rather than "an" Archangel" signifies a uniqueness about them in God's arrangement.

Jesus as God's "only begotten" also points to this uniqueness. No other son of God is said to be "begotten" by the Father. He is God's "firstborn" metaphorically speaking. (Colossians 1:15)

2) Christianity actually teaches that there are only two ways to become a "son of God"...that is by creation....or by adoption.
Initially, the only "sons of God" were angels...these being individually created.

The first human, Adam was also "a son of God" because he was also created, not born of a woman. (Luke 3:38) But Israel were God's children too by adoption. God chose the whole nation as his special possession. (Deuteronomy 14:1-2)

And those Christians chosen by God to rule with Christ in heaven are also called Christ's "brothers" by virtue of their adoption as sons. (Romans 8:14-17; Matthew 25:37-40) Those who do good deeds to these "brothers" of Christ are promised everlasting life. So not all Christians are "sons of God".....these adopted sons of God will rule with Christ in his Kingdom over redeemed humankind. (Revelation 21:2-4) Christ's sacrifice will mean that everything will then return to the conditions that God first purposed in Eden. Everlasting life in paradise on earth. What we lost in the beginning...is returned to us at the end. (Isaiah 55:11)

Yep.