Truth: either God exists or He don't.

[Willamena]

Doesn't.

Not don't.

 

[Samael_Khan]

That is another point, if He needs to. G-d does not need to provide it. Right friend, please?

Regards

If he doesn't provide evidence then there is no reason to think that it is evident.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Of course the problem with the Matthew 24 verse is that it is one of the worst failures of prophesy in the Bible. He was supposed to come back while some of the disciples were still alive. Either there are some really old Jews wandering the Earth or the prophesy failed.

Yes. Agreed. That is besides the point though.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Jesus said, "they do not receive the truth, because there is no truth in them. They are the children of the Devil, He was a liar from the beginning".
So according to Jesus, anyone who doesn't believe in Him is a child of the Devil, so they are unable to receive the truth because they were born blind to the truth. The Devil blinds His children to the truth so they can not receive it.

Jesus said, those who don't have the truth are actually prisoners of the Devil, He keeps them in darkness and deception and only Jesus can liberate them and illuminate them with the truth. None of them can ever escape that bondage, unless He rescues them from it.

That doesn't answer my point:

Will you claim that any statement is true as long as the person saying it was the only person to ever say it?

 

[Trailblazer]

Baha'u'llah's writings are not evidence of the intents of the authors who wrote the books. The authors themselves are. Therefore you refer to the context of the authors. This applies to Hindu writings, the Quran, The Jewish writings etc. If you are believing in a person who has to misinterpret other texts to validate himself then it comes to the same.

How do you think you can ever know the intents of the authors? The way I see it, Baha’u’llah either fulfilled what is written in the prophecies or He did not. The way we can know that is if when He came, where He came, where he traveled from and to, and whatever else He did on His mission fulfilled the prophecies

Baha’u’llah did not refer to the Bible to validate Himself, except to claim to be the Spirit of Truth and the Comforter and the Father referred to in Isaiah. He had to identify Himself as such so people would know what He was claiming.

There are figurative books in the Bible and books that contain both literal and figurative language in them. Knowledge of the context of the author is what helps reveal this, such as knowing the culture that the author lived in and the phrases they used in that culture. It is not obvious to people that the bible is figurative except in prophetic or poetic writings. Books like the Pentateuch, the gospels and the epistles are evidently portrayed as true historical events, not figurative ones, hence why they refer to literal places and cultures and peoples.

Okay thanks, that makes sense, but even if they are portrayed as true historical events, I do not understand how that could ever be validated unless there were other sources other than the Bible that validate the events. The Bible is not like a history book since it was not written by a historian.

Prove that Baha'u'llah unsealed the book. I wouldn't consider Christians completely lost when it comes to their biblical interpretation, but certainly selective in many cases. Their scholars on the other hand I trust and especially the church fathers in terms of what the early christians originally believed.

In order to prove that Baha’u’llah unsealed the book one would have to prove that Baha’u’llah was the return of Christ, the Messiah of the end times. One can only prove that to themselves by looking at all the evidence.

Christians aren't all that different than you think, but they can get nitpicky on irrelevent things. From nominal Christianity to Jehovah's Witnesses, the basic tenet of faith is that there is one God and Jesus died for their sins. They agree in the basic story that the Bible lays out, that God chose Abraham's lineage to become the Kingdom of Israel and that the Messiah had to come from that line. In fact, when it comes to what the Bible says, they agree on about 90% of the book. They disagree on certain theological points which aren't explicit in the Bible but inferred and interpretation of certain prophetic interpretations.

Okay thanks, that is another perspective. When I said they don’t all agree I was referring to if or how Jesus would return and what would happen after that, as well as whether they have a soul and go to heaven when they die or rather live forever on earth.

Baha’is believe that Jesus died for our sins in a sense but not for an original sin committed by Adam and Eve. This is where Christianity took liberties because Jesus never said He died for that original sin, and that we had to believe in Him in order to have that sin removed, so that is just a Christian doctrine.

I would point to this as your irrational aspect of your belief. You simply don't believe the Christian interpretation of the Bible because they contradict what your Baha'u'llah says, not because of actual evidence against their belief or textual analysis.

Nowhere did Jesus ever promise to return to earth so the Christians are the ones who have misinterpreted the Bible simply because they want Jesus to return. I already refuted those verses you sent in my previous posts to you, so even if Baha’u’llah was not the return of Christ, Jesus is not coming back to earth, not ever.

Doesn’t it bother anyone that millions and millions of Christians are waiting for the same man Jesus to return, when Jesus never promised to return? Moreover as I said in my other post to you, Jesus cannot return in the same body unless He still has the same body which is a completely ludicrous belief based upon other beliefs such as the resurrection and the glorified body Jesus purportedly got, but that Jesus got a glorified physical body that is not in the Bible at all. The belief is based upon a misinterpretation of verses.

Your first mistake: don't say plain English as the Bible wasn't written in English. In many cases one has to refer to dictionaries or commentaries of the original languages to get the actual meaning of what is written. In those verses you mention you are referring to one book of the Bible therefore what you are saying is only relevant to that book.

So what? Either the English translation is accurate or it is not and if it is not, how can any pf the other translations of the scriptures be trusted to be accurate.

In Revelation, outside the symbolic part, Jesus says that he is coming soon when speaking to John. (Supposedly the same John who wrote the book you are quoting). Adding Revelations to the context then the Christians view makes sense. But reading John alone, one can come to your conclusion.

Even if that was Jesus speaking to John in Revelations, I do not think it is the same author of John that I quoted. Secondly, we all know that Jesus did not come soon after that was written. Thirdly, Jesus never said He would return in the same body.

Chapters were inserted later. The Bible books aren't meant to be read in chapters. And again, you are only referencing one book. The Christians can reference the rest why paint the idea that Jesus IS coming back.

Yet after eight years of posting to Christians not one Christian has ever been able to find one verse where Jesus says He is coming back to earth. That’s because there are no such verses.

Not all religious people are alike, but they are also very alike on a fundamental level. I make a prediction on those elements an they always prove correct which means the prediction is reliable until I come across a religious person who contradicts that prediction. I would clump many atheists in there with them. Yes, you do have to look at every religion to see which one is true, that is using critical thinking skills, as other religions might be as valid as yours.

Baha’is already believe that all the other religions are true, just not valid for this age because they are outdated. The social teachings and laws of the older religions are outdated because they cannot be applied to modern man. The missions of the Messengers of the past who revealed the older religions been accomplished so they are history. Religious believers insist upon keeping them alive because they are attached to them. The primary message that those Messengers came to reveal does not apply to this age and it is no longer needed. Jesus died for our sins and it was done so there is nothing left for Jesus to do and that is why Jesus said

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

Then men wrote a bunch of stories saying that Jesus rose from the dead and brought Jesus back to life. Jesus did not write those stories, neither did the apostles, they were written by unknown authors who probably had an agenda.

The upshot is that humanity has moved on but the Christians are caught in a time warp and refuse to move on to the new age. The same can be said for the Jews that await their Messiah. From my perspective they are both waiting for something that already happened over 150 years ago.

The religion that accepts all religions as true is being illogical, as many religions contradict one another. You would realise that if you studied other religions. I will comment on emotion and not wanting to be a believer below.

The original scriptures are different but they do not contradict each other. Religions are different because they were revealed in a different ages to different people with different needs. That is logical. The only reason they appear to contradict each other is because of what man has done to misinterpret those scriptures and change their meanings.

You sound a lot like how I used to be at the end of my JW period. Being religious was a burden but I stayed because I thought it was truth because I "knew" I was in it for the logic.. Thing is, once I read the Bible without the lense of the group I realised that I wasn't following truth. I was following men, personalities and indoctrination. I was in the group because I wasn't thinking logically, as I wasn't employing critical thinking methods. The emotional element of your faith might not be to God, but to a man, Baha'u'llah and his writings, as this is what it sounds like you are saying in this post. You trust in a man and not God.

It is not logical to assume that just because I have issues with God and I do not like religion that has anything to do with the religion itself being false, as you finally realized about your previous beliefs. I have been a Baha’i for over 50 years so I have turned over every stone and the more stones I turn over the more I am sure it is the truth.

I trust Baha’u’llah because that is the only way I can ever know anything about God or God’s will for me, so the only way I can trust in God is through Baha’u’llah, since there can be no direct connection to God. I am not attached to the personality of Baha’u’llah at all as Christians are attached to Jesus, I only believe that what He wrote is the truth from God.

If you look at something for too long you get tunnel vision and the blinders become solid. You won't see the broader picture. The Christians and Jews you don't agree with do the same as you in many cases.

It is precisely because I am a Baha’i that I see the broader picture. The difference between me and the Christians and Jews is that I have looked at the other religions even though I do not know them as well as I know the Baha’i Faith. The other difference is that I believe that all those religions are true religions, just not the religions for this day and age.

 

[Trailblazer]

Of course the problem with the Matthew 24 verse is that it is one of the worst failures of prophesy in the Bible. He was supposed to come back while some of the disciples were still alive. Either there are some really old Jews wandering the Earth or the prophesy failed.

Where anywhere in Mathew 24 did Jesus say he was coming back to earth?

As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?” And Jesus answered them, “See that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray.

Look at how Jesus carefully avoided answering the question. Jesus NEVER said He was going to return to earth and that is because Jesus NEVER planned to return to earth. I am not sure how many dozens of times I will have to post the following verses.

John 14:19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

 

[Trailblazer]

You have my complete agreement.

Mine too.... That is one of my favorite Bible verses.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where anywhere in Mathew 24 did Jesus say he was coming back to earth?

As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?” And Jesus answered them, “See that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray.

Look at how Jesus carefully avoided answering the question. Jesus NEVER said He was going to return to earth and that is because Jesus NEVER planned to return to earth. I am not sure how many dozens of times I will have to post the following verses.

John 14:19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

42 “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come.

And:

30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. 31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

Contest matters. Jesus used to refer to himself in more than one way.

 

[Trailblazer]

42 “Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come.

And:

30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. 31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

Contest matters. Jesus used to refer to himself in more than one way.

Sorry but no. Jesus was not referring to Himself when He said "your Lord will come"

And:

Jesus was not referring to Himself as the Son of Man who will come on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.

Who is the Son of man who will come in the clouds of heaven?

There is a reason why Jesus referred to your Lord who will come and the Son of Man who will come in the clouds in the third person. He was not referring to Himself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry but no. Jesus was not referring to Himself when He said "your Lord will come"

And:

Jesus was not referring to Himself as the Son of Man who will come on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.

Who is the Son of man who will come in the clouds of heaven?

There is a reason why Jesus referred to your Lord who will come and the Son of Man who will come in the clouds in the third person. He was not referring to Himself.

Not following another thread as "evidence". He actually referred to himself quite often that way:

The Son of Man: Why Jesus’ Favorite Name for Himself Has Deep Meaning for Us

Now whether he actually did that or if it was a personal embellishment by the author of Matthew it is rather clear that he was referring to himself.

 

[Trailblazer]

Not following another thread as "evidence". He actually referred to himself quite often that way:

The Son of Man: Why Jesus’ Favorite Name for Himself Has Deep Meaning for Us

Now whether he actually did that or if it was a personal embellishment by the author of Matthew it is rather clear that he was referring to himself.

The Son of Man: Why Jesus’ Favorite Name for Himself Has Deep Meaning for Us

From your website:
"But of course, Jesus also was speaking to his identity as the Messiah. He was alluding to Daniel 7, claiming his Messiahship and his role in the redemption of the world."

You consider a Christian website to be evidence? How biased can one get? Of course Christians believe that Jesus was the Messiah, and Jesus was 'a Messiah' but He was not 'the Messiah of the end times.'

Those Christians just shot themselves in the foot by referring to Daniel 7.

But according to the Bible Dan 7:13-14 is not about Jesus, because Jesus was not one "like" the Son of Man, He was the Son of Man. The following verses refer to Baha'u'llah who was one like the Son of man. This all fits together like a hand in glove.

Daniel 7:13-14 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

Yes, I know that Jesus referred to Himself as the Son of Man, but that does not mean that Jesus was "the Son of Man who will come on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory." It was the one like the Son of man who would come that way (see above).

If you read the other thread I posted you will understand why Jesus cannot be the Son of Man who will come on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.

Heck, below is the most salient part of the post that refers to the Son of Man. You have to think like a detective.

Look carefully at Mark 8:38. Look at how the verse is separated by a semicolon and Jesus says “of him also” indicating that the Son of man is someone other than Himself who would come in the glory of his Father with the holy angels

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, Jesus said that the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father. Jesus did not say “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. Look at how Jesus separated Himself from the Son of man (ashamed of me, of him shall), and then Jesus said that the Son of man shall come in his own glory and in His Father’s glory. Jesus did not say that the Son of man will come in my glory.

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.

 

[Samael_Khan]

How do you think you can ever know the intents of the authors? The way I see it, Baha’u’llah either fulfilled what is written in the prophecies or He did not. The way we can know that is if when He came, where He came, where he traveled from and to, and whatever else He did on His mission fulfilled the prophecies

Baha’u’llah did not refer to the Bible to validate Himself, except to claim to be the Spirit of Truth and the Comforter and the Father referred to in Isaiah. He had to identify Himself as such so people would know what He was claiming.

Okay thanks, that makes sense, but even if they are portrayed as true historical events, I do not understand how that could ever be validated unless there were other sources other than the Bible that validate the events. The Bible is not like a history book since it was not written by a historian.

In order to prove that Baha’u’llah unsealed the book one would have to prove that Baha’u’llah was the return of Christ, the Messiah of the end times. One can only prove that to themselves by looking at all the evidence.

Okay thanks, that is another perspective. When I said they don’t all agree I was referring to if or how Jesus would return and what would happen after that, as well as whether they have a soul and go to heaven when they die or rather live forever on earth.

Baha’is believe that Jesus died for our sins in a sense but not for an original sin committed by Adam and Eve. This is where Christianity took liberties because Jesus never said He died for that original sin, and that we had to believe in Him in order to have that sin removed, so that is just a Christian doctrine.

Nowhere did Jesus ever promise to return to earth so the Christians are the ones who have misinterpreted the Bible simply because they want Jesus to return. I already refuted those verses you sent in my previous posts to you, so even if Baha’u’llah was not the return of Christ, Jesus is not coming back to earth, not ever.

Doesn’t it bother anyone that millions and millions of Christians are waiting for the same man Jesus to return, when Jesus never promised to return? Moreover as I said in my other post to you, Jesus cannot return in the same body unless He still has the same body which is a completely ludicrous belief based upon other beliefs such as the resurrection and the glorified body Jesus purportedly got, but that Jesus got a glorified physical body that is not in the Bible at all. The belief is based upon a misinterpretation of verses.

So what? Either the English translation is accurate or it is not and if it is not, how can any pf the other translations of the scriptures be trusted to be accurate.

Even if that was Jesus speaking to John in Revelations, I do not think it is the same author of John that I quoted. Secondly, we all know that Jesus did not come soon after that was written. Thirdly, Jesus never said He would return in the same body.

Yet after eight years of posting to Christians not one Christian has ever been able to find one verse where Jesus says He is coming back to earth. That’s because there are no such verses.

Baha’is already believe that all the other religions are true, just not valid for this age because they are outdated. The social teachings and laws of the older religions are outdated because they cannot be applied to modern man. The missions of the Messengers of the past who revealed the older religions been accomplished so they are history. Religious believers insist upon keeping them alive because they are attached to them. The primary message that those Messengers came to reveal does not apply to this age and it is no longer needed. Jesus died for our sins and it was done so there is nothing left for Jesus to do and that is why Jesus said

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

Then men wrote a bunch of stories saying that Jesus rose from the dead and brought Jesus back to life. Jesus did not write those stories, neither did the apostles, they were written by unknown authors who probably had an agenda.

The upshot is that humanity has moved on but the Christians are caught in a time warp and refuse to move on to the new age. The same can be said for the Jews that await their Messiah. From my perspective they are both waiting for something that already happened over 150 years ago.

The original scriptures are different but they do not contradict each other. Religions are different because they were revealed in a different ages to different people with different needs. That is logical. The only reason they appear to contradict each other is because of what man has done to misinterpret those scriptures and change their meanings.

It is not logical to assume that just because I have issues with God and I do not like religion that has anything to do with the religion itself being false, as you finally realized about your previous beliefs. I have been a Baha’i for over 50 years so I have turned over every stone and the more stones I turn over the more I am sure it is the truth.

I trust Baha’u’llah because that is the only way I can ever know anything about God or God’s will for me, so the only way I can trust in God is through Baha’u’llah, since there can be no direct connection to God. I am not attached to the personality of Baha’u’llah at all as Christians are attached to Jesus, I only believe that what He wrote is the truth from God.

It is precisely because I am a Baha’i that I see the broader picture. The difference between me and the Christians and Jews is that I have looked at the other religions even though I do not know them as well as I know the Baha’i Faith. The other difference is that I believe that all those religions are true religions, just not the religions for this day and age.

OK. There is loads of information to go through on your recent posts as well as the other thread you linked me to. Will get back to you on the weekend.

Edit: I see that you dont believe that Jesus will return but you do believe that the christ spirit has returned in Baha'u'llah, am i correct?

I will focus on that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well it’s not fear tactics so your smell is off, also since you mentioned your views on origin of life I stick to my original comment.

So you're just going to double down on the strawman then.

Owkay.

Good job arguing yourself into irrelevancy.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Don’t have any experience with those people of other religions

So you acknowledge that your statement was a statement rooted in ignorance then....
Maybe this is your problem... You seem quite oblivious to things that happen outside of your little bubble of beliefs.

but I have been at a lot of baptisms and the testimonies are different but consistent with believers is what I’m saying.

Yes, sure.
Within a single religion (and perhaps denomination) it is quite easy to find consistency in beliefs.

Just like I said: you count the hits and ignore the misses. In fact, it's even worse... you count the hits and are willfully ignorant about the misses........

I think it's funny. People like you are the ones that "blame" us atheists for "ignoring" or "rejecting" your religious experiences. Yet, you do the exact same concerning every other religion.

Pot, meet kettle.

Being born again, passing from death to life is consistent with believers in Jesus Christ.

So how does someone like Tom Cruise fit into that?
Answer: not at all.

Ignoring it, doesn't make it go away.

Conclusion: no... the collective of claimed "religious experiences" are NOT AT ALL consistent across the board. Not even remotely. Not even a little bit.

All you are doing is pointing at people who believe the same things as you do and saying "they agree with me". Uhu. Duh.

The vast majority of humans on this planet, do not agree with you and believe very differently then you do.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Wouldn’t use a quote from Biden saying he is an embarrassment or use Twitter as a source. Pew research wasn’t a pro Trump article and I thought it was a balanced view.

Typical ostrich defense.

It's a clip demonstrating what happens at every single high level summit where Trump was present. World leaders mocking him, laughing at him, considering him a clown. And he was the president of the USA - supposedly the "leader" of the free world.

As an American patriot, this should worry you.


Apparently it doesn't. You seem even proud of it. Baffling.

 

[Samael_Khan]

B

Those verses are not Jesus saying he will come back to earth again. I have already analyzed and responded to Christians regarding these verses so I already have an explanation saved in a Word document.

John 14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

John 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

When Jesus said “I will come again” He was not referring to His physical body coming again. Jesus said that His work was finished here and He was no more in the world: (John 14:19, John 17:4, John 17:11).

Since Jesus said He was no more in the world and the world would see Him no more we know that when He said "and receive you unto myself" He was not talking about His physical body, but rather He was referring to His spirit.

I believe that the spirit of Jesus did come again, in the Person of Baha'u'llah who was the return of Christ that Jesus promised. So when Jesus said I will come again, He meant He would send His Spirit, and we see that in the verses that follow in John 14. Jesus promised not to leave us comfortless and then He said He would send the Comforter. The Comforter refers to the person who would be the return of Christ. So when Jesus said I will come again, He meant He would send His spirit in the person of the Comforter who would do what it says in John 14:26.

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

19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.

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.

27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

29 And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe.

"and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also” is referring to heaven, not earth, because Jesus was going to heaven to prepare a place in heaven, not on earth. Jesus was preparing a place in heaven so they could be with him in heaven.

John 14:3 is one of the most misunderstood verses in the New Testament so it is no wonder the Bible commentaries do not agree on what it means.

Jesus was the Son of Man but He is not the Son of Man in the clouds referred to in the verses.

I already addressed this, but it fell on deaf ears because Christians want ONLY Jesus, and they believe that just because they want Him to return to earth that will make him return to earth. Just think about how it would even be possible for the same Jesus who walked the earth 2,000 years ago to return to earth. That would require that Jesus actually rose from the dead and got a glorified body as Christians believe, and then that body defied gravity and rose up to heaven in the clouds and will return in the clouds. Christians cannot understand how absurd that is because they were completely brainwashed by the Church. At least JWs do not have such a belief and I credit them for that.

Please read what I posted on this thread.

Who is the Son of man who will come in the clouds of heaven?

Maybe since you do not have confirmation bias you will understand why Jesus cannot be the Son of Man that is going to come in the clouds.

That is a valid point and a good one. Why should they believe Jesus’ followers?

No, we do not have that in Revelation since Jesus did not write the Book of Revelation.

No, there are no scriptures that say that the same man Jesus will return in the same body and that is the only thing I am disputing. That is a Christian belief but it is not based upon the scriptures. It is based upon what Christians want.

Before I respond to the Son of Man interpretation (I wont since I seem to have misunderstood your point) , you do realise that all four gospels are not written by Jesus right? If we have no reason to trust what Christians wrote them there are no reason to trust the gospels therefore there is no reason to think that what they wrote actually happened.

I do think that you have some good points but I think that this is a matter of each authors differing theology. Such as the kingdom being in heaven as opposed to earth. Revelations and Daniel say it will be the earth. Others say it will be heaven. Many Christians say it is both.

I also dont understand you criteria for what is illogical and what is not. I dont see how a person can see resurrection and floating in the sky as illogical when they believe in prophets, manifestations of God, prophecy and Baha'u'llah being the return of the Christ spirit which is just a bazarre.

[Edit] But before I go ahead with my response, we have to set certain premises straight. The whole NT is written by followers of Christ, Christians. Is it OK to quote followers and if not, does that not mean that we cannot quote anything in the book?

Secondly, Christians do not follow just the words of Jesus, so in order to accurately evaluate their beliefs we have to take all their scriptures into account. So it isn't good enough to say that Jesus didn't say such and such. If someone like Paul said something, and he is authoritative in Christianity, then his writings should also be taken into account. Just using Jesus words, which weren't written down by Jesus anyway, is an arbitrary criteria and a criteria that Christians do not hold therefore to exclude the other writings such as the epistles is an invalid way of determining what doctrines the Bible actually teaches. Agreed?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Son of Man: Why Jesus’ Favorite Name for Himself Has Deep Meaning for Us

From your website:
"But of course, Jesus also was speaking to his identity as the Messiah. He was alluding to Daniel 7, claiming his Messiahship and his role in the redemption of the world."

You consider a Christian website to be evidence? How biased can one get? Of course Christians believe that Jesus was the Messiah, and Jesus was 'a Messiah' but He was not 'the Messiah of the end times.'

Those Christians just shot themselves in the foot by referring to Daniel 7.

But according to the Bible Dan 7:13-14 is not about Jesus, because Jesus was not one "like" the Son of Man, He was the Son of Man. The following verses refer to Baha'u'llah who was one like the Son of man. This all fits together like a hand in glove.

Daniel 7:13-14 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

Yes, I know that Jesus referred to Himself as the Son of Man, but that does not mean that Jesus was "the Son of Man who will come on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory." It was the one like the Son of man who would come that way (see above).

If you read the other thread I posted you will understand why Jesus cannot be the Son of Man who will come on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.

Heck, below is the most salient part of the post that refers to the Son of Man. You have to think like a detective.

Look carefully at Mark 8:38. Look at how the verse is separated by a semicolon and Jesus says “of him also” indicating that the Son of man is someone other than Himself who would come in the glory of his Father with the holy angels

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, Jesus said that the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father. Jesus did not say “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. Look at how Jesus separated Himself from the Son of man (ashamed of me, of him shall), and then Jesus said that the Son of man shall come in his own glory and in His Father’s glory. Jesus did not say that the Son of man will come in my glory.

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.

The Christians are the best at understanding their myth. Actually Daniel does not refer to either Jesus or the Bahai founder. It js merely useful to both religions.

 

[Martin]

Page 91. Have you decided yet?

 

[paarsurrey]

B

Before I respond to the Son of Man interpretation (I wont since I seem to have misunderstood your point) , you do realise that all four gospels are not written by Jesus right? If we have no reason to trust what Christians wrote them there are no reason to trust the gospels therefore there is no reason to think that what they wrote actually happened.

I do think that you have some good points but I think that this is a matter of each authors differing theology. Such as the kingdom being in heaven as opposed to earth. Revelations and Daniel say it will be the earth. Others say it will be heaven. Many Christians say it is both.

I also dont understand you criteria for what is illogical and what is not. I dont see how a person can see resurrection and floating in the sky as illogical when they believe in prophets, manifestations of God, prophecy and Baha'u'llah being the return of the Christ spirit which is just a bazarre.

Magenta ^.
I agree on what I have highlighted in magenta, please.
Regards

 

[Pilgrim Soldier]

Actually, you do. You based your views on your understanding of the Bible to make decisions regarding what is true or false.

Not true, I'm a prisoner of the Lord Jesus Christ. As such I've been commanded to obey and believe every Word He ever spoke. I don't have the luxury or the right to question anything the Lord does or says.

Jesus purchased me at a very high price, so I'm 100% His property. I was hell bound, dead in my sins and trespasses when He saved me so He has full ownership and He reserves all rights to my body and soul. .