What if these Christian beliefs are not true?

[YoursTrue]

When Jesus referred to eternal life, He was not referring to physical life of the body. He was referring a quality of life, spiritual life, loving God and being close to God.

Are you sure of that? If so, upon what basis do you assert that Jesus was not referring to physical life of the body? Just as you are not alive before you were conceived, death is the situation of being dead. No one is dead before they're born. They are simply not alive. Because they are not there. That is why there is needed a resurrection of the dead.

 

[Trailblazer]

its really weird how you can post 4 scriptures that speak of life ,living on and on . then contradict them . we know you don't want to believe that someday you will die. yet at that point the only hope for you is what Jesus said at John 11:25-26 . you have yet to realize that Jesus was speaking of a time, (yet in the future), when the things that he said would come to be. will you be there to welcome back the dead ? be there to tell them the things that happen . I am thinking not . perhaps for a short time ,not my call. after the resurrection the people will have to be taught about the new way so that judgment would not take them . to die again would be the second death ,there is no coming back from that.

There will be no resurrection of dead bodies from their graves.

What is the resurrection? It is the passing of the spirit of man from one world into another and continuing to live after the physical body dies..

421. When the body is no longer able to perform the bodily functions in the natural world that correspond to the spirit’s thoughts and affections, which the spirit has from the spiritual world, man is said to die. This takes place when the respiration of the lungs and the beatings of the heart cease. But the man does not die; he is merely separated from the bodily part that was of use to him in the world, while the man himself continues to live. It is said that the man himself continues to live since man is not a man because of his body but because of his spirit, for it is the spirit that thinks in man, and thought with affection is what constitutes man. Evidently, then, the death of man is merely his passing from one world into another. And this is why in the Word in its internal sense “death” signifies resurrection and continuation of life. Heaven and Hell, p. 351

What the Christian above wrote above is congruent with the Bible.
The physical body returns to the earth and the spirit returns to God, who resides in the spiritual world.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.


You said: we know you don't want to believe that someday you will die. yet at that point the only hope for you is what Jesus said at John 11:25-26 .

John 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

The only hope for me and everyone else is eternal life, which means we are close to God when we die and go to Heaven.
Though we will be dead physically our spirit will live on in Heaven.

 

[Trailblazer]

Are you sure of that?

I am absolutely sure of that.

If so, upon what basis do you assert that Jesus was not referring to physical life of the body?

On the basis of what Jesus said about spiritual life in the NT.
Upon what basis do you assert that Jesus was referring to physical life of the body?

Just as you are not alive before you were conceived, death is the situation of being dead. No one is dead before they're born. They are simply not alive. Because they are not there. That is why there is needed a resurrection of the dead.

There is no need for a resurrection of dead bodies from their graves because when people die God gives them a spiritual body.

1 Corinthians 15
New Living Translation

40 There are also bodies in the heavens and bodies on the earth. The glory of the heavenly bodies is different from the glory of the earthly bodies.
42 It is the same way with the resurrection of the dead. Our earthly bodies are planted in the ground when we die, but they will be raised to live forever. 43 Our bodies are buried in brokenness, but they will be raised in glory. They are buried in weakness, but they will be raised in strength. 44 They are buried as natural human bodies, but they will be raised as spiritual bodies. For just as there are natural bodies, there are also spiritual bodies.

 

[cataway]

"the first of these were known to be the apostles of Jesus. they are a special group set with the task of governing the peoples of the earth. they were told about it"

Please show me anywhere in the Bible that says that.

are you aware that Jesus referred to the 12 as a flock ? even a small flock ? he even spoke of another flock .
John 10:16 “And I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; those too I must bring in, and they will listen to my voice, and they will become one flock, one shepherd.

this other flock would be much bigger eventually numbering into the millions. so he has two flocks . a heaven destined flock and a earthly remaining flock . all would live out there lives .then those invited, to be with Jesus in heaven would be taken there.
(knowing that jesus presents has begun) its likely the intended number is close to being filled

 

[Trailblazer]

are you aware that Jesus referred to the 12 as a flock ? even a small flock ? he even spoke of another flock .
John 10:16 “And I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; those too I must bring in, and they will listen to my voice, and they will become one flock, one shepherd.

Yes, I am very well aware of that verse.

this other flock would be much bigger eventually numbering into the millions. so he has two flocks . a heaven destined flock and a earthly remaining flock . all would live out there lives .then those invited, to be with Jesus in heaven would be taken there.
(knowing that jesus presents has begun) its likely the intended number is close to being filled

John 10:16 “And I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; those too I must bring in, and they will listen to my voice, and they will become one flock, one shepherd."

You said: "he has two flocks . a heaven destined flock and a earthly remaining flock."

The Bible does not say that ANYWHERE. That is a doctrine of the JW church. JWs are famous for adding to the Bible what is not there.

You are adding to the Bible what the Bible does not say.

• Deuteronomy 4:2-5
  You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. Your eyes have seen what the LORD did at Baal Peor; for the LORD your God has destroyed from among you all the men who followed Baal of Peor. But you who held fast to the LORD your God are alive today, every one of you. "Surely I have taught you statutes and judgments, just as the LORD my God commanded me, that you should act according to them in the land which you go to possess.
  
• Revelation 22:18-19
  For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
  
• Deuteronomy 12:32
  "Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it.
  
• Proverbs 30:5-6
  Every word of God is pure;
  He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.
  Do not add to His words,
  Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.

John 10:16 “And I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; those too I must bring in, and they will listen to my voice, and they will become one flock, one shepherd."

Even as an interpretation what you said cannot be justified, because the verse says : "they will become one flock, one shepherd."
It does not say that some people will remain on Earth and other people will go to Heaven. It says everyone will be together.

According to Baha'i beliefs Jesus was referring to the future on Earth when mankind will be one people.

The one flock and one shepherd is consistent with the following verses:

Isaiah 11:6-9 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.

What this means to a Baha’i is that In the future diverse religions and races will become comrades, friends and companions. The contentions of races, the differences of religions, and the barriers between nations will be completely removed, and all will attain perfect union and reconciliation. Humanity will become one people (one flock). Eventually, there will be only one religion, the religion of God.

 

[YoursTrue]

What this means to a Baha’i is that In the future diverse religions and races will become comrades, friends and companions. The contentions of races, the differences of religions, and the barriers between nations will be completely removed, and all will attain perfect union and reconciliation. Humanity will become one people (one flock). Eventually, there will be only one religion, the religion of God.

When people first started -- oh wait, let me ask you -- do you believe that the first man and woman were Adam and Eve? Because everything really moves from that point on.

 

[CG Didymus]

Yes, it would be a valid inquiry to ask where where that is stated in the Baha'i Writings. Or ask about about his reasoning that this is so. I do know that in the Kitab-i-Iqan Baha'u'llah clarifies the understanding of Muslims on certain words and doctrines, and Abdu'l-Baha does that for Christians. In the New Testament Jesus in a few places clarifies what was said in the past. The Qur'an asserts that certain understandings by the Jews and Christians are wrong, though I don't think it gives an explanation of how to arrive at the correct explanation. It seems like a reasonable assumption that They all do that. I don't know exactly where it would say that explicitly at the moment. But if there is, would you believe that as a result? Not without believing in the Baha'i authoritative sources in the first place. So where would that get you as someone who doesn't buy them as authoritative sources. There seems to be no point to asking if you are seeking the truth of the matter. What are you seeking by asking? You may not believe in any of these clarifications, though I imagine you can buy some.

Since Jesus is supposedly the Jewish Messiah, I would expect him to critique and clarify any misunderstandings the the Jews had. But right away we have the problem of the NT being written by his followers. Did they understand the things Jesus was saying correctly?

But then the NT doesn't correct things that the Baha'i Faith says were errors. Like Ishmael vs. Isaac... Satan and hell being real.... The creation story and the flood are treated as being literal. And then, there are those that say that Greek beliefs influenced some of the Christian beliefs. So, I think there is a good chance that most of the NT is in error. So, where do you start clarifying?

Not until Baha'u'llah does Satan and hell get clarified... Along with creation and the flood and several other Biblical stories. Did Muhammad say anything about those things not being literally true?

And then the Jesus story. Is it a clarification Muhammad says in the Quran that Mary gave birth to Jesus under a date palm, rather than a manger in a barn in Bethlehem? And does he clarify the stories about Jesus walking on water, or casting out demons, or having been tempted by Satan, or the resurrection of Lazarus? Pretty much all of those are clarified by Baha'is as being symbolic aren't they?

Then who knows what was really meant by Jesus not dying on the cross, but that there was a body double.

But now let's go back to these other manifestations, Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Krishna, Buddha, and Zoroaster. That's where I have a problem with Tony's statement. But I actually have a problem calling any of the people from the Bible manifestations. In fact, I think there's a chance that all those stories were just legend and myth and used to build a story about a people and their God.

So, the real problem then is how do you tie in Buddha and Zoroaster as having clarified or corrected any of the misunderstood beliefs of Israelites? Then Krishna is a bigger problem. He's a character in a book. Did he write anything? But let's say is was a manifestation, then what about all the other people that those Hindus say were also "incarnations" of Vishnu just like Krishna. Why exclude them?

For me, I think that each people and culture made up their own beliefs. Made up many Gods, good Gods and evil Gods. And some had Goddesses and the Gods and Goddesses had children. Some of those stories we call myth and others we call the "Word of God."

So, I don't think it's worth even trying to tie in the Dharmic religions with the Abrahamic religions. Different people, different culture, with very different beliefs. How does any manifestation clarify those differences? Many Gods, incarnations of Gods, and reincarnation? And in the Bible all other religions weren't even considered true... But were considered false, including their Gods. I think that is how the Bible would have dealt with Hindu beliefs.

Anyway, thanks for taking up the discussion. I think Tony was just over generalizing. And if so, that's all he had to say.

 

[Trailblazer]

When people first started -- oh wait, let me ask you -- do you believe that the first man and woman were Adam and Eve? Because everything really moves from that point on.

No, I do not believe that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman.
I believe that the story of Adam and Eve is allegorical, not literally true.
Aside from that, humans existed long before Adam and Eve allegedly existed.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, I do not believe that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman.
I believe that the story of Adam and Eve is allegorical, not literally true.
Aside from that, humans existed long before Adam and Eve allegedly existed.

OK, is that what the Bab taught?

 

[Trailblazer]

OK, is that what the Bab taught?

No, that the story of Adam and Eve is allegorical, not literally true, is what Abdu'l-Baha taught.
That Adam and Eve were not the first man and woman is a scientific fact.

 

[Truthseeker]

Not until Baha'u'llah does Satan and hell get clarified...

Actually Baha'u'llah didn't clarify the Satan part, it was Abdu'l-Baha that did that as far as I can tell.

Not until Baha'u'llah does Satan and hell get clarified... Along with creation and the flood and several other Biblical stories. Did Muhammad say anything about those things not being literally true?

Usually not. Not in a clear way. Muhammad did say that God didn't have sons.

And then the Jesus story. Is it a clarification Muhammad says in the Quran that Mary gave birth to Jesus under a date palm, rather than a manger in a barn in Bethlehem? And does he clarify the stories about Jesus walking on water, or casting out demons, or having been tempted by Satan, or the resurrection of Lazarus? Pretty much all of those are clarified by Baha'is as being symbolic aren't they?

The above answer was a little out of order. I referred to God not having sons above. I don't think any of the central figures clarified Jesus walking on water, they did not clarify everything. It wasn't that important, the sweeping statement that miracles are not important is enough. Where Mary gave birth is completely unimportant. It is left to us to sort out the seeming casting out of demons. My theory is that they may have have been made-up stories, but I leave room for further growth of understanding. At least the part where the "demons" recognize Him as the Messiah seems very much made up. It seems to be there to prove to future readers that He was the Messiah. I suppose there may have been mental disorders healed, who knows, or people who were raised from a "sinful" state to a "spiritual" state. Not that important really to resolve that, at least to me.

Tempted by Satan is firmly in my mind a symbol, said to his disciples probably at some point as a kind of parable. How else would we know that story if Jesus hadn't told someone? After all, He was alone at the time. It's possible that Lazarus was raised from the dead physically, but then he would die later, as Abdu'l-Baha said.

Then who knows what was really meant by Jesus not dying on the cross, but that there was a body double.

That is understood by us as saying the Jews did not cause his Spirit to cease to exist.

"Regarding your question relative to Surih 4, 156 of the 'Qur'án' in which Muhammad says that the Jews did not crucify Jesus, the Christ but one like Him; what is meant by this passage is that although the Jews succeeded in destroying the physical body of Jesus, yet they were impotent to destroy the Divine reality in Him."
(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, March 19, 1938)
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 497)

Then Krishna is a bigger problem. He's a character in a book. Did he write anything? But let's say is was a manifestation, then what about all the other people that those Hindus say were also "incarnations" of Vishnu just like Krishna. Why exclude them?

That is odd the Bhagavad-Gita appeared in what appears to be a mythological story. Perhaps you could say that Krishna was remembered from sometime in his past before this story, and a person writing this story wrote a version of what He taught. I've got to leave for now. Need to take a walk before sunset.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, that the story of Adam and Eve is allegorical, not literally true, is what Abdu'l-Baha taught.
That Adam and Eve were not the first man and woman is a scientific fact.

I do not believe that. Did the Bab talk about evolution, by the way?

 

[YoursTrue]

No, that the story of Adam and Eve is allegorical, not literally true, is what Abdu'l-Baha taught.
That Adam and Eve were not the first man and woman is a scientific fact.

OK, who are the leaders or receiver of messages in your religion? I mean how did it work out re who came first with messages from God? and within the past 200 years, let's say, which messengers do you believe were truthful messengers?

 

[CG Didymus]

I don't think any of the central figures clarified Jesus walking on water, they did not clarify everything. It wasn't that important, the sweeping statement that miracles are not important is enough. Where Mary gave birth is completely unimportant. It is left to us to sort out the seeming casting out of demons. My theory is that they may have have been made-up stories, but I leave room for further growth of understanding. At least the part where the "demons" recognize Him as the Messiah seems very much made up.

I'd imagine people 2000 years ago would have no problem believing in demons and Satan. And no problem believing in a virgin born God/man. And since he was a God/man, he would be able to walk on water, cast out demons, bring the dead back to life and all the rest.

Those are powerful stories if believed to be true. And when the Christian Church got enough power, they made sure every believed those stories were true. And to question it could get a person killed. So, It's my feeling that they were made up stories, but I completely understand why some Christians today believe it is the exact truth. Because there still is power in believing those things as true. And I'm sure it's same or similar to the power a Baha'i feels when they commit themselves to believing in Baha'u'llah.

And although I enjoy these arguments/discussions, I think believers in most any religion today should be more like you and not debate. Just give opinions and comments and maybe give reasons why you believe that way based on your religions, and then leave it at that. And I think that is especially true of Baha'is. Baha'is have to be like the Switzerland of religions and stay neutral. Saying things like, "We all have different beliefs and different interpretations, but are they worth arguing over?"

But, because some people believe that their religion is The Truth, part of what they believe is to argue for their beliefs and show how everyone else is wrong. For a Baha'i to do that, though, I think would be counterproductive. Unfortunately, it seems like some Baha'is are doing that... even though they don't believe that everyone else is wrong.... sort of. Because Baha'i do have issues with the beliefs held by people in the other religions. So, it might as well be saying that all the other religions are wrong.

Anyway, again, I appreciate how you try to give information and opinions without letting in turn into an argument.

 

[Truthseeker]

So, the real problem then is how do you tie in Buddha and Zoroaster as having clarified or corrected any of the misunderstood beliefs of Israelites?

They did not live in the vicinity of the Jews, so why would they clarify their beliefs? Buddha did not like the empty rituals of His time in India, He wanted His religion to address real problems, like how to deal with suffering. Krishna helped to establish Monotheism where He lived in part if what is called Iran today.

But let's say is was a manifestation, then what about all the other people that those Hindus say were also "incarnations" of Vishnu just like Krishna. Why exclude them?

That is unknown to me whether they existed or not. The Baha'i Faith says nothing about them one way or the other.

So, I don't think it's worth even trying to tie in the Dharmic religions with the Abrahamic religions. Different people, different culture, with very different beliefs. How does any manifestation clarify those differences? Many Gods, incarnations of Gods, and reincarnation? And in the Bible all other religions weren't even considered true... But were considered false, including their Gods. I think that is how the Bible would have dealt with Hindu beliefs.

Anyway, thanks for taking up the discussion. I think Tony was just over generalizing. And if so, that's all he had to say.

The Central figures said very little about the Dharmic Figures, since they were not to concern of people the addressed most of the time. Do we really have to reconcile everything though to live together through unity in diversity?

I appreciate you appreciate my taking up the discussion. I try to be honest.

 

[Truthseeker]

And although I enjoy these arguments/discussions, I think believers in most any religion today should be more like you and not debate. Just give opinions and comments and maybe give reasons why you believe that way based on your religions, and then leave it at that. And I think that is especially true of Baha'is. Baha'is have to be like the Switzerland of religions and stay neutral. Saying things like, "We all have different beliefs and different interpretations, but are they worth arguing over?"

Exactly. I don't like arguing.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'd imagine people 2000 years ago would have no problem believing in demons and Satan. And no problem believing in a virgin born God/man. And since he was a God/man, he would be able to walk on water, cast out demons, bring the dead back to life and all the rest.

What makes you say 2000 years ago? I'm not kidding here -- how about 4,000 years ago, or 10,000 years ago?

 

[Trailblazer]

I do not believe that.

You do not believe that Adam and Eve were not the first man and woman on earth?

Did the Bab talk about evolution, by the way?

No, I don't think that the Bab talked about evolution, but Abdu'l-Baha, the son of Baha'u'llah, talked about evolution.
If you want to know what he said you'll have to ask @Truthseeker since he knows a lot about what he said and I don't.

 

[YoursTrue]

You do not believe that Adam and Eve were not the first man and woman on earth?

No, I don't think that the Bab talked about evolution, but Abdu'l-Baha, the son of Baha'u'llah, talked about evolution.
If you want to know what he said you'll have to ask @Truthseeker since he knows a lot about what he said and I don't.

Aren't his words written down so you can read them?

 

[Trailblazer]

OK, who are the leaders or receiver of messages in your religion? I mean how did it work out re who came first with messages from God? and within the past 200 years, let's say, which messengers do you believe were truthful messengers?

The Bab and Baha'u'llah were the only ones who received messages from God.
Abdu'l-Baha (the son of Baha'u'llah) and Shoghi Effendi (the great grandson of Baha'u'llah) were appointed interpreters of that Writings of Baha'u'llah.
There have been no Messengers of God since Baha'u'llah, who wrote His Writings from 1852-1892, when He died.