Why do you accept Jesus as Messiah?

[ppp]

That's another arrogant statement. Bragging about being humble isn't humility, just a FYI.

And yet my arrogance pales in comparison to the overweening arrogance of claiming that the details of one's life is of deep import to an all powerful creator of universes. The disposition of your genitalia is of deep and profound concern to the omnipotent creator of everything.

Hmmm

 

[Wildswanderer]

And yet my arrogance pales in comparison to the overweening arrogance of claiming that the details of one's life is of deep import to an all powerful creator of universes. The disposition of your genitalia is of deep and profound concern to the omnipotent creator of everything.

Hmmm

That in itself is a humbling thought that should inspire praise for your maker.

"for it was You who created my inward parts; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I will praise You because I have been fearfully and wonderfully made”.

 

[loverofhumanity]

You said that before. No one who has spoken of it in my sight has outlined any of these new parts.

A World Super-State – The Baha’i Model

The detail is in the bottom quote. An answer to stopping aggressors in the top one.

 

[ppp]

That in itself is a humbling thought that should inspire praise for your maker.

Believing that the supreme creator of the universe is entrall

A World Super-State – The Baha’i Model

The detail is in the bottom quote. An answer to stopping aggressors in the top one.

What do you think is in that post that was never thought of before? What is the "new"?

 

[loverofhumanity]

Believing that the supreme creator of the universe is entrall

What do you think is in that post that was never thought of before? What is the "new"?

It was new when it was written. The fact the thinking world has eventually caught up to it attests to its originality and the fact it still has yet to be achieved but is absolutely essential, is proof it is cutting edge. Today the greatest need is a just world order. Which religion taught the concept of the oneness of humanity before Baha’u’llah?

 

[Kenny]

One question I have for Christians is how literal do you take the Bible? Then, whose interpretation of the Bible do you go by?

If a Jew takes the Hebrew Bible literally, would they accept Jesus as their Messiah? Not that I believe in the Baha'i interpretation, but it is very similar to what Christians did to the Jews. They took the Jewish Scriptures and interpreted them in a way to make Jesus the Messiah... and Savior... and, for some Christians, they eventually made Jesus God.

I absolutely believe that all of you have put the Christian teachings to the test, and that they work for you. But does applying the Jewish Scriptures, or the Quran, or the Baha'i writings work for them? And I think lots of people in those, or any religion, would say that their Scriptures are true, and they work for them. But they all can't be true... If taken too literal. And I think that is what Christians did to Judaism. They found a way to make the laws not applicable to Christians. Then Islam and the Baha'i Faith give an interpretation that makes some of the Christian doctrines no longer necessary.

There are parts of the Bible that are literal and there are parts that are not. "Whose interpretation" would obviously depend on which scripture you are referencing.

To say that Islam's interpretation is the same as the Christian would be quite a stretch.

Most items are black and white. IMO Differences in viewpoints really would be relegated to one stretching a truth to fit their own truth and at the expense of other scriptures.

I don't agree that Christians took Jewish scriptures and made something literal that wasn't literal. It was Jewish writers that wrote most of the New Testament after studying their own scriptures.

Unless you are more specific, versus generalities, that is the most I can answer.

 

[ppp]

What do you think is in that post that was never thought of before? What is the "new"?

It was new when it was written. The fact the thinking world has eventually caught up to it attests to its originality and the fact it still has yet to be achieved but is absolutely essential, is proof it is cutting edge. Today the greatest need is a just world order. Which religion taught the concept of the oneness of humanity before Baha’u’llah?

Do you think that any sentence or group of sentences in your response addressed the question that I asked? Because it looks like to me that you just repeated your previous claim thinking perhaps that I wouldn't notice that there was no substance.

 

[alypius]

There is nothing about Plato's dialogues that require that one believes that the events actually happened. They are hypotheticals to illustrate a point, not assertions of reality. The New testament at least as Christians use. It is an assertion that these things actually happened and are actually true in reality. It's a vast difference.

Would it be valid to accept that Socrates actually existed based on Plato's writings (to extend further do we accept the account of the Roman historian Sallust in his Catiline's War - which is older that the Gospels)?

 

[alypius]

I don’t think we have evidence for either. A lot relies on recorded sayings by others which cannot be verified. So much of these beliefs rests on faith alone.

Aren't accounts of American Civil War commonly accepted even though no one is alive today from that event?

 

[ppp]

Would it be valid to accept that Socrates actually existed based on Plato's writings

Plato does not make it clear whether he is claiming that Socrates existed or whether he is using Socrates has a teaching tool. I don't see how it matters whether or not Socrates existed. If you decide to build a religion around the assertion that Socrates was real, and insist the people worship Socrates and do all the things (that you claim) to be his will, then yes, acceptance would be invalid.

(to extend further do we accept the account of the Roman historian Sallust in his Catiline's War - which is older that the Gospels)?

I don't know. I am not familiar with Sallust. But if all he is doing is claiming that there was a war waged by normal humans that does not contradict any known history or evidence, then sure. Unless Sallust is claiming things like the existence of gods, aliens or mole men, I do not see that it matters much.

Do I accept that there was a Troy? Yes. That there was a Trojan War. Yes. Several. That the goddess Athena roamed the battle fields of one of them? No.

 

[Sheldon]

So you understand justice better than God does?

What objective can you demonstrate for any deity? Until sufficient objective evidence is demonstrated for a deity, it is pure assumption to talk hypothetically about what a deity might understand.

Yes justice in human terms would be you dying with no hope of anything else. But because Jesus took your place you don't have to be punished.

I find the notion of vicarious redemption utterly repugnant sorry, the idea another persons cries can be atoned by someone else being tortured to death as a blood sacrifice is utterly replant. Also it is axiomatic that if an omnipotent deity existed, it need not trouble itself over such nonsense and could forgive anything by sheer will.

Of course Adam and Eve knew enough... they were told what not to do.

The myth makes no sense, if they already knew it was wrong to eat the fruit, why would the fruit from the "tree of knowledge" matter? If it was verboten then why put the damn tree in harms way in the first place?

 

[Sheldon]

Aren't accounts of American Civil War commonly accepted even though no one is alive today from that event?

Yes, and I wouldn't accept any uncorroborated claims about that either, and I wouldn't accept any claims about supernatural magic, no matter how many "witnesses" wee written into the account after the fact.

Civil war records will be supported by objective evidence, death certificates, records of recruits, training, battles, etc etc etc.

You could produce Jesus's birth certificate and a DNA sample, with a signed affidavit from Mary and Joseph that they never had sex, and that she was a virgin, countersigned by Pontius Pilate and Herod, but It wouldn't lend any credence to any supernatural claims made about Jesus, obviously. Why on earth would it?

 

[Sheldon]

The detail is in the bottom quote. An answer to stopping aggressors in the top one.

Have you sent Putin a copy? Better suggest he fast forward to the part where he tops himself in a bunker.

 

[Sheldon]

There are parts of the Bible that are literal and there are parts that are not.

It is just pure serendipity of course, that the bits that are demonstrably false, turn out to be allegory every time facts disprove them.

 

[Wildswanderer]

The myth makes no sense, if they already knew it was wrong to eat the fruit, why would the fruit from the "tree of knowledge" matter? If it was verboten then why put

Because no choice equals no free will. No free will equals no ability to choose obedience. Or love.
They were no doubt like children in their understanding but I've found kids know when they do wrong. Even my dog knows that.

 

[Wildswanderer]

find the notion of vicarious redemption utterly repugnant sorry, the idea another persons cries can be atoned by someone else being tortured to death as a blood sacrifice is utterly replant. Also it is axiomatic that if an omnipotent deity existed, it need not trouble itself over such nonsense and could forgive anything by sheer will.

Obviously you have not imagined a deity that cared enough to die for his creation.
Utterly replant?

 

[ppp]

Obviously you have not imagined a deity that cared enough to die for his creation.
Utterly replant?

Neither have you. In Christianity, Jesus is alive.

 

[Kenny]

Don't ask me about relevancy when you're the one who for the Alexander. Go back and read the passage in Ezekiel. It's specifically says that Nebuchadnezzar would utterly destroy aTyre and that it would never be rebuilt. That did not happen. Your reference to Alexander is utterly irrelevant. What was predicted in that passage did not come to pass. In any way whatsoever.

You could study up on it,
Did Ezekiel Prophesy Correctly About Tyre? (Part 1)

What it sounds like to me is that you don't want to believe and so any excuse would be a good excuse not to.

After study, I found the prophecy to be reliable.

 

[ppp]

What it sounds like to me is that you don't want to believe and so any excuse would be a good excuse not to.

Right back at you. And I will remind you that while it is a critical for you, it's merely an academic point for me.

 

[Kenny]

Right back at you. And I will remind you that while it is a critical for you, it's merely an academic point for me.

Understand. Academically speaking, I really studied it and am satisfied that it is true (although you may not come to the same conclusion)... like two people looking at the same earth's beginnings and coming up with two different hypothesis.