Why Do You Reject Jesus?

[Truthseeker]

Nor do I. It is the words of men.

Indeed. Jesus referred to himself as a prophet, and was so regarded. Jesus never referred to himself as God.

Matthew 13:57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.

Luke 13:33 Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.

Matthew 21:11 And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.

Luke 7:16 And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us; and, That God hath visited his people.

Then there is this, which Jesus didn't contradict when it was said to him.

4:19 The woman saith unto him, Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet.
(King James Bible, John)

 

[Truthseeker]

@Trailblazer maybe you choose to disregard what Baha'u'llah said here, but it makes logical sense, as well as being from Baha'u'llah:

We have also heard a number of the foolish of the earth assert that the genuine text of the heavenly Gospel doth not exist amongst the Christians, that it hath ascended unto heaven. How grievously they have erred! How oblivious of the fact that such a statement imputeth the gravest injustice and tyranny to a gracious and loving Providence! How could God, when once the Day-star of the beauty of Jesus had disappeared from the sight of His people, and ascended unto the fourth heaven, cause His holy Book, His most great testimony amongst His creatures, to disappear also? What would be left to that people to cling to from the setting of the day-star of Jesus until the rise of the sun of the Muhammadan Dispensation? What law could be their stay and guide? How could such people be made the victims of the avenging wrath of God, the omnipotent Avenger? How could they be afflicted with the scourge of chastisement by the heavenly King? Above all, how could the flow of the grace of the All-Bountiful be stayed? How could the ocean of His tender mercies be stilled? We take refuge with God, from that which His creatures have fancied about Him! Exalted is He above their comprehension!
(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 89)

 

[Link]

@Trailblazer maybe you choose to disregard what Baha'u'llah said here, but it makes logical sense, as well as being from Baha'u'llah:

We have also heard a number of the foolish of the earth assert that the genuine text of the heavenly Gospel doth not exist amongst the Christians, that it hath ascended unto heaven. How grievously they have erred! How oblivious of the fact that such a statement imputeth the gravest injustice and tyranny to a gracious and loving Providence! How could God, when once the Day-star of the beauty of Jesus had disappeared from the sight of His people, and ascended unto the fourth heaven, cause His holy Book, His most great testimony amongst His creatures, to disappear also? What would be left to that people to cling to from the setting of the day-star of Jesus until the rise of the sun of the Muhammadan Dispensation? What law could be their stay and guide? How could such people be made the victims of the avenging wrath of God, the omnipotent Avenger? How could they be afflicted with the scourge of chastisement by the heavenly King? Above all, how could the flow of the grace of the All-Bountiful be stayed? How could the ocean of His tender mercies be stilled? We take refuge with God, from that which His creatures have fancied about Him! Exalted is He above their comprehension!
(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 89)

What about people who never received the Gospels during that time?

It seems Bahai Faith went to scripture centric mode, while Quran is more about Ibrahim then his book, more about Musa then his book, more about Isa then his book.

Much of Quran and Ahlulbayt (a) hadiths is to make us realize the universal guidance is not written words, but rather, written words (Quran) compliment the guidance and lead to that guidance and path, but the path is something else. It has a living reality in all times connected to all beings in all times.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, different Baha'is have different takes on that. There is some mythical stuff there, but I don't know in many cases if they are mythical. I leave it as a mystery.

I also leave it as a mystery but I believe in most cases the alleged miracles are mythical.
As for the resurrection I believe that was just stories that men made up.

As I see it, His teachings are largely, if not wholly intact.

I do not see it that way since Jesus had nothing to do with what is in the NT, so that is logically impossible.
As you know I am driven more by logic than faith.

I know that Baha'is want to believe it but I don't believe it, and actually, that is not what Abdu'l-Baha said.

"When Abdu'l-Bahá states we believe what is in the Bible, He means in substance. Not that we believe every word of it to be taken literally or that every word is the authentic saying of the Prophet."

(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer and cited on behalf of the Universal House of Justice, March 13, 1986 in a letter to a believer, in Lights of Guidance, no. 1660)

 

[Trailblazer]

@Trailblazer maybe you choose to disregard what Baha'u'llah said here, but it makes logical sense, as well as being from Baha'u'llah:

We have also heard a number of the foolish of the earth assert that the genuine text of the heavenly Gospel doth not exist amongst the Christians, that it hath ascended unto heaven. How grievously they have erred! How oblivious of the fact that such a statement imputeth the gravest injustice and tyranny to a gracious and loving Providence! How could God, when once the Day-star of the beauty of Jesus had disappeared from the sight of His people, and ascended unto the fourth heaven, cause His holy Book, His most great testimony amongst His creatures, to disappear also? What would be left to that people to cling to from the setting of the day-star of Jesus until the rise of the sun of the Muhammadan Dispensation? What law could be their stay and guide? How could such people be made the victims of the avenging wrath of God, the omnipotent Avenger? How could they be afflicted with the scourge of chastisement by the heavenly King? Above all, how could the flow of the grace of the All-Bountiful be stayed? How could the ocean of His tender mercies be stilled? We take refuge with God, from that which His creatures have fancied about Him! Exalted is He above their comprehension!
(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 89)

The genuine text of the heavenly Gospel does exist but so what? That does not mean it is accurate.

From the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh:

The Four Gospels were written after Him [Christ]. John, Luke, Mark and Matthew - these four wrote after Christ what they remembered of His utterances.
(From a previously untranslated Tablet)

The Bible

The Bahá'í Library Online: Bahai articles, books, translations, and historical materials

www.bahai-library.com

 

[Truthseeker]

I do not see it that way since Jesus had nothing to do with what is in the NT, so that is logically impossible.
As you know I am driven more by logic than faith.

I know that Baha'is want to believe it but I don't believe it, and actually, that is not what Abdu'l-Baha said.

"When Abdu'l-Bahá states we believe what is in the Bible, He means in substance. Not that we believe every word of it to be taken literally or that every word is the authentic saying of the Prophet."

(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer and cited on behalf of the Universal House of Justice, March 13, 1986 in a letter to a believer, in Lights of Guidance, no. 1660)

That's true, not every word is the authentic saying of the Prophet. But there are 4 Gospels written by different people, and from those we get the sense on the whole what His teachings were, and we also see the different wording between the different Gospels. You have a problem perhaps as seeing God as having certain characteristics that I don't have. I see God as just and loving because that is how He is presented by Prophets, and I have faith in what they say, whereas you judge the matter wholly by logic and reason, so there is a irreconcilable difference between us on that.

 

[Truthseeker]

The genuine text of the heavenly Gospel does exist but so what? That does not mean it is accurate.

Yes, it has some inaccuracies. The thrust of what Baha'u'llah said to me is that this is in response to those who discounted that the truths of what Christ said is not in the Gospels, specifically in this case to a prophecy in Matthew of chapter 24. He is essentially saying that the thrust of what Christ said in those verses were correct as he analyzes them.

 

[CG Didymus]

Who do you you think the righteous servant is? Israel is called a servant, but never a righteous one.

All the religions that base themselves off of the Hebrew Bible take bits and pieces of it to build their story. With Christians, one of the first ones that I question is... Who is the child in Isaiah 7:14? Most all Christians will probably say "Jesus". But what about the rest of the verses that describe what this boy will do and what will happen?

If Christians are okay with taking a few verses from here and there to build their story about Jesus, then fine for them. But who else are you going to convince?

 

[CG Didymus]

There was a time when everyone needed a liege lord (local strong man) to protect one’s home and way of life. Though Trump likes to portray himself in that way, these are not those times. Not hiring.

The legend of Trump is still developing. For some he is the "Savior". He is the "Lion". For believers, he has already conquered death.

To others, though, he's more like the beast and false prophet. Especially if he gets elected and makes it so people can't buy and sell unless they worship his image.

If we're still able to make people into "gods", then just imagine 2000 years ago.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's true, not every word is the authentic saying of the Prophet. But there are 4 Gospels written by different people, and from those we get the sense on the whole what His teachings were, and we also see the different wording between the different Gospels.

Who is the true author of the Gospels?

Opinions vary regarding the authorship of the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Some assert that these were the actual names of the scribes. But most scholars conclude those names are merely placeholding pseudonyms, and the Gospels were written anonymously.
Mar 1, 2023
Who Wrote the New Testament? The Answer May Surprise You

I go with the scholars rather than with Christian tradition that says that the gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
How do we know that what these authors wrote accurately represents what Jesus said or did? There is no way we can know that so it has to be believed solely upon faith.

You have a problem perhaps as seeing God as having certain characteristics that I don't have. I see God as just and loving because that is how He is presented by Prophets, and I have faith in what they say, whereas you judge the matter wholly by logic and reason, so there is a irreconcilable difference between us on that.

I do not go by faith since faith is what one wants to believe based upon emotion and it tosses out logic and reason. I want to know what is actually true, not what I want to believe. Sure, I would like to believe that God is just and loving but I see no evidence for that, only what is in scriptures, which I do not consider evidence.

 

[CG Didymus]

Yes, it has some inaccuracies.

Yes, and to some of us it has a lot of inaccuracies. Did he rise from the dead? Did he walk on water? Did he cast out demons?

By the time we're done, and even for Baha'is, what can we trust to be true about any of the story. Yet, we're supposed to believe that the gospel writers got some of the things Jesus said correct?

That's a problem, because then someone like me can look at the Baha'is and complain that they are only cherry-picking the Bible and the NT for things that fit into their beliefs. That's not accepting or believing in Christianity or Jesus... it is making them into your Baha'i image. But it's not the same images of God and Jesus that Christians come up with.

It's a great story.... for those Christians that want to believe it. But for those people that don't believe it, it is leading them into believing things that are not real and not true.

And in some ways, even Baha'is fall into that group and have to say that some Christian beliefs aren't true.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I don't think that Jesus is a myth but I believe what was written about him in the NT is largely mythical.

As I understand it, if the story is all fiction, it is called myth, if it's all fact, it's called history, and if it's a blend, it's called legend.

In my case, I view Jesus as a metaphor for the human experience and connectedness to the rest of the Universe.

You're free to do that even if you are a believer. Believers have already gone over that slippery slope when they began to pick and choose which declarative sentences should be taken literally and which can be taken in other ways. The deity itself symbolizes man and his quest to self-actualize. The crucifixion represents the fall of Greco-Roman culture, with resurrection referring to the Renaissance (literally, rebirth) of that tradition in the West.

Credulity isn't the same thing as faith

Agreed.

Nothing here that you don't already know, but I'd like to summarize. Justified belief is not unjustified belief. Credulity includes both, but only the latter is faith.

Belief should be commensurate with the quantity and quality of evidence that supports that belief, and this has a semiquantitative range (possibly correct, probably correct, very probably correct). Also, it should be tentative and amenable to revision pending new relevant information. If it is, the belief can be said to be justified.

and faith doesn't have to exist as an opposite force to skepticism

Here I disagree. Skepticism (combined with empiricism) is the rejection of faith as a path to knowledge. Sufficient skepticism is what the faith-based believer lacks.

One can accept that Jesus existed and was a great teacher/guru without considering him a lord or savior.

Agreed, just as one can accept that he lived but was not a great teacher or savior.

Maybe that's not what YOU meant here, but I really don't understand why people consider that a special life or message absent the miracles. For me, that was the story of a typical religious reformer advocating for piety and what I consider imperfect moral instruction. I know and have known (or know about) thousands of people who have lived lives equal to or more exemplary than that one. Why is this trope repeated so often and accepted without analysis?

What is your reason for not accepting Jesus Christ as your lord and savior? The one who saves us all from eternal death—separation from God—according to the Holy Bible.

There's insufficient reason to believe that. The critically thinking empiricist needs reasons to believe, not reasons to not believe. That's the default position for every claim. That's skepticism.

You don’t have to be messed up to believe in Jesus.

You have to be willing to believe by faith, which can "mess" one up. I know this firsthand. The worst decision I ever made was faith-based and I'm still paying for it today.

I accept Jesus while retaining my intellectual integrity.

The critical thinker has a different definition of intellectual integrity, one which excludes belief by faith, which is a logical error that generates a non sequitur every time. It's best to navigate life using an accurate mental map. With faith, one adds roads that aren't there and omits roads that are. If you your vehicle has an inaccurate GPS map, it won't work out well for you. I also know that from firsthand experience.

One who has faith has no need for empirical weight.

I'll bet that you do. I'll bet that you don't cross the street without looking for evidence that it's safe to do so.

The opposite is correct, however. The strict empiricist has no need for faith, and in fact, goes to great lengths to avoid it.

walking on water is just a story to show how Jesus defies natural laws, for example, raising the dead.

It's just a story to me, but a lot of believers believe it. If one is willing to believe by faith, why not believe that, too?

 

[Jimmy]

As I understand it, if the story is all fiction, it is called myth, if it's all fact, it's called history, and if it's a blend, it's called legend.

You're free to do that even if you are a believer. Believers have already gone over that slippery slope when they began to pick and choose which declarative sentences should be taken literally and which can be taken in other ways. The deity itself symbolizes man and his quest to self-actualize. The crucifixion represents the fall of Greco-Roman culture, with resurrection referring to the Renaissance (literally, rebirth) of that tradition in the West.

Agreed.

Nothing here that you don't already know, but I'd like to summarize. Justified belief is not unjustified belief. Credulity includes both, but only the latter is faith.

Belief should be commensurate with the quantity and quality of evidence that supports that belief, and this has a semiquantitative range (possibly correct, probably correct, very probably correct). Also, it should be tentative and amenable to revision pending new relevant information. If it is, the belief can be said to be justified.

Here I disagree. Skepticism (combined with empiricism) is the rejection of faith as a path to knowledge. Sufficient skepticism is what the faith-based believer lacks.

Agreed, just as one can accept that he lived but was not a great teacher or savior.

Maybe that's not what YOU meant here, but I really don't understand why people consider that a special life or message absent the miracles. For me, that was the story of a typical religious reformer advocating for piety and what I consider imperfect moral instruction. I know and have known (or know about) thousands of people who have lived lives equal to or more exemplary than that one. Why is this trope repeated so often and accepted without analysis?

There's insufficient reason to believe that. The critically thinking empiricist needs reasons to believe, not reasons to not believe. That's the default position for every claim. That's skepticism.

You have to be willing to believe by faith, which can "mess" one up. I know this firsthand. The worst decision I ever made was faith-based and I'm still paying for it today.

The critical thinker has a different definition of intellectual integrity, one which excludes belief by faith, which is a logical error that generates a non sequitur every time. It's best to navigate life using an accurate mental map. With faith, one adds roads that aren't there and omits roads that are. If you your vehicle has an inaccurate GPS map, it won't work out well for you. I also know that from firsthand experience.

I'll bet that you do. I'll bet that you don't cross the street without looking for evidence that it's safe to do so.

The opposite is correct, however. The strict empiricist has no need for faith, and in fact, goes to great lengths to avoid it.

It's just a story to me, but a lot of believers believe it. If one is willing to believe by faith, why not believe that, too?

Well…… you seem pretty adamant about your convictions. I’ll respectfully leave you to it.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I know and have known (or know about) thousands of people who have lived lives equal to or more exemplary than that one.

How many of them has such an impact on people lives that they were immortalized in text or by word of mouth?

Why is this trope repeated so often and accepted without analysis?

I lost track of what trope you're speaking of. Teacher/guru? Or lord/savior? You also introduced teacher/savior, which further muddied the water.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Well…… you seem pretty adamant about your convictions. I’ll respectively leave you to it.

This sounds strangely familiar.

Did you mean "respectfully?"

 

[Soandso]

Here I disagree. Skepticism (combined with empiricism) is the rejection of faith as a path to knowledge. Sufficient skepticism is what the faith-based believer lacks.

Skepticism isn't the rejection of faith as a path to truth, imo. It can fill that role at times, but it's much larger than that and fills other roles as well. Faith doesn't have to always fill the role of "path to truth" either. People can use it that way, but it can be used in other ways as well

For instance, what separates an agnostic theist from an agnostic atheist? Let's say our agnostic theist is a deist in the truest form. Do they know god exists? Not anymore than the atheist, but the possibility of a greater being is a possibility none the less. The belief in the likelihood of such a being existing may rely more on faith than what the atheist may be comfortable with accepting, but that doesn't make the proposition any less logically sound. There are actual logical arguments to be made for the existence of a creator being even if atheists such as myself don't find those arguments to be all that compelling

All that said, faith can also fill practical roles as well. If two people become stranded in the Canadian wilderness and one understands the infinitesimal chances of anyone finding and rescuing them then they just give up. The other person who has faith that they'll be rescued is absolutely convinced they will be found so they never give up even when planes overhead fly right over head and don't see them. The person who keeps the faith that they will be rescued is just more likely to be rescued in the long run

Reminds me of the book I read as a kid called "Hatchet" about a similar topic, heh

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

For instance, what separates an agnostic theist from an agnostic atheist? Let's say our agnostic theist is a deist in the truest form. Do they know god exists? Not anymore than the atheist, but the possibility of a greater being is a possibility none the less. The belief in the likelihood of such a being existing may rely more on faith than what the atheist may be comfortable with accepting, but that doesn't make the proposition any less logically sound.

The difference between the agnostic theist and agnostic atheist is the same as the difference between any kind of atheist and any kind of theist: the presence or absence of a god belief.

Proposing a logically possible condition (hypothesis formation) is not the same as believing it to be the case (faith). I'm willing to call the possibility of the deist god's existence logically possible because I have no way to rule it out, but that's not the same as a belief in its existence, which is where we go from reason to faith.

All that said, faith can also fill practical roles as well. If two people become stranded in the Canadian wilderness and one understands the infinitesimal chances of anyone finding and rescuing them then they just give up. The other person who has faith that they'll be rescued is absolutely convinced they will be found so they never give up even when planes overhead fly right over head and don't see them. The person who keeps the faith that they will be rescued is just more likely to be rescued in the long run

We might be using these words differently:

• Faith that I'll be rescued = firm belief that that will happen absent sufficient evidence to justify that belief.
• Optimism that I'll be rescued = expectation that that is likelier than not.
• Hope that I'll be rescued = my desired outcome whatever I consider the likelihood of that to be.

 

[Ebionite]

All the religions that base themselves off of the Hebrew Bible take bits and pieces of it to build their story. With Christians, one of the first ones that I question is... Who is the child in Isaiah 7:14? Most all Christians will probably say "Jesus". But what about the rest of the verses that describe what this boy will do and what will happen?

If Christians are okay with taking a few verses from here and there to build their story about Jesus, then fine for them. But who else are you going to convince?

You are right about Isaiah 7:14, bethuwlah and almah are different words and a child born to a young woman only sets the context for what he does when he is young.

The only people I want to convince are those who are looking for the truth.

 

[River Sea]

Did you miss the part where YHWH died ? .. and the Israelite YHWH was neither eternal, incorporal nor all powerful .. on the contrary this God was quite fallable .. with the most petty of human and nasty of human characteristics .. Nothing like the God of Judaism Who's name is was kept a secret .. this adding to the mystery.

@Sargonski @Bharat Jhunjhunwala

So YHWH died; I didn't know this; I was still waiting to see if YHWH would learn how to overcome being jealous.

 

[Eliana]

It's relevant because the Pauline interpretation of the crucifixion is preferred by Christians when reading Isaiah 53. The alternative interpretation, which is consistent with the righteous servant of Psalm 35, is that the righteous servant was taken from the situation where he could be slaughtered and the wicked one was put in his grave instead.


Whether you are convinced or not doesn't matter, the point is that you have no counter-argument. Any explanation for all the relevant facts is better than no explanation.


Pretending that you actually asked won't work. It's an indication that you've been backed into a corner.


It comes down to belief vs truth. There's no reason to think that what you believe is true because you have no argument against my claim about the righteous servant.


So now you're arguing that I'm ignorant because I know about distinctions. Good job.


In other words, you don't care about facts that showed that you didn't know what you were talking about when you made you false accusation against Jesus.


I didn't claim that Isaiah 53 was a Messianic text. My claim related to the nature of the righteous servant that is described in the prophetic texts of the Tanakh.

You just like to argue, you once again didn't answer my question and I really can't have a discussion with someone this intellectually stunted... so now I'm ignoring you. Buh bye