The quandary of Faith indeed.I am not going to argue about this anymore. I know what happened so I don't need to.
Regards Tony
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The quandary of Faith indeed.I am not going to argue about this anymore. I know what happened so I don't need to.
Which means another Annointed One can come, one who is not known as the Son, but will be known as the Father.Yes, the world would see Jesus No more because resurrected Jesus is an invisible spirit person as his God is - Rev. 3:12
So, No more means; No further, Never again in the physical flesh
Please notice it is Not anything physical, but Jesus 'sword-like executional ' words ' from Jesus' mouth' - Isaiah 11:3-4; Rev. 19:14-15
Jesus' ' voice ' will do away with the wicked - 1st Thess. 4:16
Does Baha'u'llah and the Baha'is really claim that he is the "Father" as in God, the Father? It was bad enough that Christians believe Jesus is literally the Son of God.Which means another Annointed One can come, one who is not known as the Son, but will be known as the Father.
Regards Tony
Baha'u'llah came in the 'station' of the Father just as Jesus came in the 'station' of the Son, which denotes their relationship with God.Does Baha'u'llah and the Baha'is really claim that he is the "Father" as in God, the Father? It was bad enough that Christians believe Jesus is literally the Son of God.
And how does that sit with Muslims?
Does Baha'u'llah and the Baha'is really claim that he is the "Father" as in God, the Father? It was bad enough that Christians believe Jesus is literally the Son of God.
And how does that sit with Muslims?
Trailblazer made the effort to give you a detailed reply, I had not made the effort.Baha'u'llah came in the 'station' of the Father just as Jesus came in the 'station' of the Son, which denotes their relationship with God.
But Jesus was not literally the Son of God nor was Baha'u'llah literally God the Father.
Baha'u'llah was called the Father because he came in the station of the Father.
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.
Baha'u'llah claimed to be the Father that Isaiah had foretold.
“Give ear unto that which the Dove of Eternity warbleth upon the twigs of the Divine Lote-Tree: O peoples of the earth! We sent forth him who was named John to baptize you with water, that your bodies might be cleansed for the appearance of the Messiah. He, in turn, purified you with the fire of love and the water of the spirit in anticipation of these Days whereon the All-Merciful hath purposed to cleanse you with the water of life at the hands of His loving providence. This is the Father foretold by Isaiah, and the Comforter concerning Whom the Spirit had covenanted with you. Open your eyes, O concourse of bishops, that ye may behold your Lord seated upon the Throne of might and glory.”
This is interesting because it supports what I have been saying all along, that Baha'u'llah was the Son of man who came in the glory of His Father.
Look carefully at Mark 8:38. Look at how the verse is separated by a semicolon and then the verse says “of him also” indicating that the Son of man is someone other than Jesus, who would come in the glory of his Father.
Mark 8:38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.
Again, in Matthew 16:27, the verse says that the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father.
The verse is not Jesus saying “I will come in the glory of my Father.”
Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
Look carefully at Luke 9:26. The verse separated the Son on man from Jesus (ashamed of me, of him shall), and then the verse says that the Son of man shall come in his own glory and in His Father’s glory indicating that the Son of man who will come is not Jesus.
Luke 9:26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father’s, and of the holy angels.
People are significantly wiser and human society significantly better than what it was 6000 years ago."wiser over time" ? then why aren't things wiser over the past 6.000 years ___________
'Wiser over time' to me would mean things are getting better with people being more peaceable
Even advances in science and medicine has not made the world safer
Trial-and-Error experiences has not made a smooth path to follow
That's okay Tony, I know you are busy....Trailblazer made the effort to give you a detailed reply, I had not made the effort.
Regards Tony
Yes, the world would see Jesus No more because resurrected Jesus is an invisible spirit person as his God is - Rev. 3:12
So, No more means; No further, Never again in the physical flesh
Please notice it is Not anything physical, but Jesus 'sword-like executional ' words ' from Jesus' mouth' - Isaiah 11:3-4; Rev. 19:14-15
Jesus' ' voice ' will do away with the wicked - 1st Thess. 4:16
The 'many earthquakes' are mentioned at Luke 21:11What happend to the "Sun shall be darkened, moon looses its light, stars fall, the sign of son of man appears in heaven, many earthquakes, the Resurrection of the dead"?
Counting forward from 6,000 years ago advances in medicine and science have Not made for a wise and safe human societyPeople are significantly wiser and human society significantly better than what it was 6000 years ago.
I find No other Anointed One but Jesus coming as Messiah in the first century and teaching us about a duel fulfillmentWhich means another Annointed One can come, one who is not known as the Son, but will be known as the Father...........
That major fulfillment is reflected in Isaiah.I find No other Anointed One but Jesus coming as Messiah in the first century and teaching us about a duel fulfillment
Two parts to be fulfilled: One 'minor' fulfillment in the 1st century, and a MAJOR fulfillment for our day or time frame
Jesus as being King of God's Kingdom government for a thousand years - 1st Corinthians 15:24-26
It is also in Daniel 7.That major fulfillment is reflected in Isaiah.
Calling it the "station" of the son and "station" of the father is only meaningful to Baha'is. And in that "unto us a child is given" Are you applying that to both Jesus and Baha'u'llah?Trailblazer made the effort to give you a detailed reply, I had not made the effort.
Regards Tony
The meaningful part of the prophecy has not been fulfilled... increase in peace. So, whether Christians say this is about Jesus or Baha'is say it is about Baha'u'llah, it doesn't mean much until it happens. Plus, to take the title of "Glory of God" doesn't mean much. There's people that took the name Maitreya, even Yahweh.Trailblazer made the effort to give you a detailed reply, I had not made the effort.
Regards Tony
It could be meaningful to other people if they understood what it means.Calling it the "station" of the son and "station" of the father is only meaningful to Baha'is.
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.And in that "unto us a child is given" Are you applying that to both Jesus and Baha'u'llah?
They One and All the Child of God, they are all the Son of God, they are all the Father, the 'Self of God' given to Humanity in every age.Calling it the "station" of the son and "station" of the father is only meaningful to Baha'is. And in that "unto us a child is given" Are you applying that to both Jesus and Baha'u'llah?
No, the Messengers are not all the Son of God. Only Jesus was the Son of God, just as only Baha'u'llah was the Father.They One and All the Child of God, they are all the Son of God, they are all the Father, the 'Self of God' given to Humanity in every age.
Actually, that is not true.There is no difference between the Messengers CG, that is the central theme given by Baha'u'llah.
I was giving that statement in the first instance, in the first stationTrailblazer.No, the Messengers are not all the Son of God. Only Jesus was the Son of God, just as only Baha'u'llah was the Father.
Actually, that is not true.
“These Manifestations of God have each a twofold station. One is the station of pure abstraction and essential unity. In this respect, if thou callest them all by one name, and dost ascribe to them the same attributes, thou hast not erred from the truth. Even as He hath revealed: “No distinction do We make between any of His Messengers.” For they, one and all, summon the people of the earth to acknowledge the unity of God, and herald unto them the Kawthar of an infinite grace and bounty. They are all invested with the robe of prophethood, and are honored with the mantle of glory.....
The other station is the station of distinction, and pertaineth to the world of creation, and to the limitations thereof. In this respect, each Manifestation of God hath a distinct individuality, a definitely prescribed mission, a predestined revelation, and specially designated limitations. Each one of them is known by a different name, is characterized by a special attribute, fulfils a definite mission, and is entrusted with a particular Revelation.”
This part is being a little literal about it, though I like the rest.No, the Messengers are not all the Son of God. Only Jesus was the Son of God, just as only Baha'u'llah was the Father.