Continuing Revelation

[pawnraider]

Like you did when you completely ignored the verses that followed?

And you haven't ignored ones that I've given?

 

[Ironhold]

The one thing that never fails to amaze me is how non-Christians think they know Christian theology and/or the Bible so much more than Christians themselves.

Actually, this is the case more often than not.

You see, it's alarmingly common for "defenders of the faith" to not understand the faith that they're trying to defend. Even in a best-case scenario, they will use arguments that can easily be turned against the Bible or even mainline Christianity itself because they do not understand the matter at hand. For example, they'll say that the Book of Mormon cannot be true because it makes reference to "steel", in the process not realizing that the KJV references steel no less than four times in the Old Testament; that same argument thus discredits the KJV.

In a worst-case scenario?

I've had three people admit to me that they hadn't read the Bible cover-to-cover yet before trying to debate me on the matter, and I was once engaged in an online debate with someone who tried to argue that reading the Bible through wasn't necessary.

 

[pawnraider]

You realize that most of Jesus' disciples were illiterate fisherman? Only a few of them could even read the Tanakh.

If this were true then they would not have been able to write the epistles which bear their names. The claim of illiteracy just doesn't hold up.

 

[pawnraider]

You see, it's alarmingly common for "defenders of the faith" to not understand the faith that they're trying to defend. Even in a best-case scenario, they will use arguments that can easily be turned against the Bible or even mainline Christianity itself because they do not understand the matter at hand. For example, they'll say that the Book of Mormon cannot be true because it makes reference to "steel", in the process not realizing that the KJV references steel no less than four times in the Old Testament; that same argument thus discredits the KJV.

If Mormon claims for the age ofbook of Mormon are to be believed then the word "adieu" should not be in the book of Mormon because the French language had yet to exist.

 

[Ironhold]

If Mormon claims for the age ofbook of Mormon are to be believed then the word "adieu" should not be in the book of Mormon because the French language had yet to exist.

I take it that you've never done translating work?

Contrary to popular belief, translating material from one language to another isn't an exact science. Even the best translators sometimes have to smooth things over to cover for the fact that some words, phrases, and concepts simply don't exist in the target language, often going with "near enough" substitutes; we've also got extreme instances wherein words that are acceptable in one language translate into things that aren't in another.* In contrast, it's generally only your amateur translators and your machine translators that go for strict literal translations, as they don't understand this concept.

In this case, using the word "adieu" in place of a word with a similar meaning that didn't quite translate cleanly isn't much of an issue.


*An example of this comes from the anime series "Inuyasha". The main female lead is named Kagome in the original Japanese. However, the Spanish dub of the series created for broadcast in Latin America had to change her name to Ahome, reportedly because in some dialects the word "kagome" translates as a vulgarity. The dub produced for broadcast in Spain, however, was able to keep her original name because the word has no such connotations there.

 

[jackcv]

Pawnraider, your posts are shocking. You shame the Savior and embarrass the word Christian with your senseless, non-scriptural and anti-scriptural arguments. That is twisted.

We go to the words of the Savior, and you say he did not mean what a plain reading by any 3rd grade child shows he did mean.

We cite multiple congruent scriptural statements by the Messiah and his apostles and prophets, and you harp that we do not rely on patristic authority - scribes and philosophers who rejected revelation and were trying to figure God out for themselves 100-200-300 years after the true authorities were dead and gone.

Once in a while you throw out a single authoritative statement, out of context.

So here is another scripture that applies to both you and me:

1Jesus said to his disciples: “Things that cause people to stumble are bound to come, but woe to anyone through whom they come. 2It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble. 3So watch yourselves.

“If your brother or sistera sins against you, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive them.​

Bring people to the Redeemer, not to Greek-saturated, politically motivated speculation.

God bless you forever, my friend. In the process, I promise He will bring you to your knees, as He is doing to me.

 

[jackcv]

Not to be argumentative-but I'm sure that's how this will be taken as such-but there's absolutely no biblical support that little fantasy whatsoever.

Why don't you tell us what you think it means?

I asked you first: What do you think that "in the name of Jesus Christ" means? What do you think the name of Jesus Christ is?

As for biblical support for this, there is lots. I already gave you some applicable statements from inspired scripture (not patristic authorities) yesterday. Here is one more:

James 4:2-6

2Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. 3Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts. 4Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God. 5Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy? 6But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.​

 

[jackcv]

If this were true then they would not have been able to write the epistles which bear their names. The claim of illiteracy just doesn't hold up.

On this, I have to agree with Pawnraider. The Jews were a very literate people, from the little I have read and heard on this subject. LoAmmi would probably be a better authority, though.

 

[LoAmmi]

I asked you first: What do you think that "in the name of Jesus Christ" means? What do you think the name of Jesus Christ is?

What do you think it means? I would pretty much reject any notion that I pray in the name of Jesus in the same way I'd reject I pray in the name of any other human.

 

[pawnraider]

We cite multiple congruent scriptural statements by the Messiah and his apostles and prophets, and you harp that we do not rely on patristic authority

I fail to see how quoting those you give above establishes patristic authority which is doesn't. You must admit that Mormon theology, such as it is, is significantly different than Christian theology and anything else that preceded it.

 

[pawnraider]

In this case, using the word "adieu" in place of a word with a similar meaning that didn't quite translate cleanly isn't much of an issue.

Problem is that Joseph Smith, Jnr was supposedly doing the "translating". That is quite an amazing feat when the only language he knew was English.

 

[pawnraider]

Actually, this is the case more often than not.

You see, it's alarmingly common for "defenders of the faith" to not understand the faith that they're trying to defend. Even in a best-case scenario, they will use arguments that can easily be turned against the Bible or even mainline Christianity itself because they do not understand the matter at hand. For example, they'll say that the Book of Mormon cannot be true because it makes reference to "steel", in the process not realizing that the KJV references steel no less than four times in the Old Testament; that same argument thus discredits the KJV.

In a worst-case scenario?

I've had three people admit to me that they hadn't read the Bible cover-to-cover yet before trying to debate me on the matter, and I was once engaged in an online debate with someone who tried to argue that reading the Bible through wasn't necessary.

Admittedly ignorance is never a good starting point or position from which one should wish to bring to any discussion or an argument. But citing these people as the norm, which you are doing, instead of as the exception is not a good way you to be going bout this.

 

[Job8]

The problem with judging a tree by its fruits (i.e. judging a person's claim to being a Manifestation by the wisdom of the writings), is that many Baha'i's seem to elevate Baha'ullah's writings to the same inerrant status that many Christians elevate the KJV.

Not sure what you mean by this. Those who hold to the KJV as the written Word of God -- Scripture, Divine Revelation -- are holding to that which has indeed been the written Word of God in the traditional Hebrew and Greek Texts and also as an English translation for over 400 years. Baha'ullah's writings cannot be equated with this, since his message is also at variance with the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The standard for comparing all so-called "revelations" is Scripture -- the Word of Truth. And the KJV presents it in English in an uncorrupted manner (as opposed to modern Bible translations). Whatever is contrary to the Gospel is false, no matter how wonderful it sounds. Let's take an example:

Every human being possesses an immortal, rational soul that passes through this world for a brief time and continues for eternity to advance towards God. Our life’s purpose is to progress spiritually by serving our fellow human beings. In doing so, we acquire the divine qualities we will need in the life to come.

This Bahai teaching is no different than any other pagan religion which teaches that a man can earn and merit his own salvation. There is no reference to the blood of Christ and the sacrifice of of Christ. So it sounds wonderful but it is UTTERLY FALSE. The Bible teaches that it is appointed unto man ONCE TO DIE AND AFTER THIS THE JUDGEMENT.

 

[pawnraider]

Not sure what you mean by this. Those who hold to the KJV as the written Word of God -- Scripture, Divine Revelation -- are holding to that which has indeed been the written Word of God in the traditional Hebrew and Greek Texts and also as an English translation for over 400 years. Baha'ullah's writings cannot be equated with this, since his message is also at variance with the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The standard for comparing all so-called "revelations" is Scripture -- the Word of Truth. And the KJV presents it in English in an uncorrupted manner (as opposed to modern Bible translations). Whatever is contrary to the Gospel is false, no matter how wonderful it sounds. Let's take an example:



This Bahai teaching is no different than any other pagan religion which teaches that a man can earn and merit his own salvation. There is no reference to the blood of Christ and the sacrifice of of Christ. So it sounds wonderful but it is UTTERLY FALSE. The Bible teaches that it is appointed unto man ONCE TO DIE AND AFTER THIS THE JUDGEMENT.

Well said!

 

[smaneck]

The one thing that never fails to amaze me is how non-Christians think they know Christian theology and/or the Bible so much more than Christians themselves.

Well, some of us have actually read the Bible more and in my own case I studied church history under Heiko Oberman who was probably the greatest Reformation historian. When you quote a passage from scripture I can straight-away recognize it see whether or not you have taken it out of context. I also know when Christians are spouting off stuff that isn't in the scriptures.

Another thing is how these new and relatively recent religions or faiths have no patristic authority whatsoever to support their theology.

Patristic authority? As in the Church Fathers? If we were following the early Church Fathers we would be Christians! This is a little like saying the problem with dogs is that they aren't cats.

 

[pawnraider]

Well, some of us have actually read the Bible more and in my own case I studied church history under Heiko Oberman who was probably the greatest Reformation historian. ]/QUOTE]
What does this have to do with my point?


Patristic authority? As in the Church Fathers? If we were following the early Church Fathers we would be Christians!

Or realize that Baha'i theology cannot be traced any further back than the "Bab" or Mirza Husayn Ali.

 

[smaneck]

And you haven't ignored ones that I've given?

I believe I addressed every single one of them.

 

[smaneck]

Or realize that Baha'i theology cannot be traced any further back than the "Bab" or Mirza Husayn Ali.

Yes and no. We generally date our religion as beginning with the Bab's declaration, but every new revelation builds on the past one. Bible and the Qur'an are to us rather like the Old Testament is to you.

 

[smaneck]

Not sure what you mean by this. Those who hold to the KJV as the written Word of God -- Scripture, Divine Revelation -- are holding to that which has indeed been the written Word of God in the traditional Hebrew and Greek Texts and also as an English translation for over 400 years.

The KJV is the written Word of God? Really? Because it has been around for 400 years? Why depart from the Vulgate then which was the standard scripture for well over a thousand years?

Baha'ullah's writings cannot be equated with this, since his message is also at variance with the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I doubt very seriously if you know Baha'u'llah's Writings well enough to make that statement.

The standard for comparing all so-called "revelations" is Scripture -- the Word of Truth.

All revelation is scripture and the Word of Truth.

And the KJV presents it in English in an uncorrupted manner (as opposed to modern Bible translations).

And you know this how?

Whatever is contrary to the Gospel is false, no matter how wonderful it sounds. Let's take an example:

Just want to point out that what you are quoting is not from our scriptures, it appears to be someone's interpretation.

This Bahai teaching is no different than any other pagan religion which teaches that a man can earn and merit his own salvation.

There was nothing in that passage which mentioned salvation period. We are not in the business of selling fire insurance.

There is no reference to the blood of Christ and the sacrifice of of Christ.

There is elsewhere in the Baha'i Writings:

"That which thou hast heard concerning Abraham, the Friend of the All-Merciful,
is the truth, and no doubt is there about it. The Voice of God commanded Him to
offer up Ishmael as a sacrifice, so that His steadfastness in the Faith of God
and His detachment from all else but Him may be demonstrated unto men. The
purpose of God, moreover, was to sacrifice him as a ransom for the sins and
iniquities of all the peoples of the earth. This same honor, Jesus, the Son of
Mary, besought the one true God, exalted be His name and glory, to confer upon
Him. For the same reason was Husayn offered up as a sacrifice by
Muhammad, the Apostle of God. No man can ever claim to have comprehended the nature of the hidden and
manifold grace of God; none can fathom His all-embracing mercy. Such hath been
the perversity of men and their transgressions, so grievous have been the
trials that have afflicted the Prophets of God and their chosen ones, that all
mankind deserveth to be tormented and to perish. God's hidden and most loving
providence, however, hath, through both visible and invisible agencies,
protected and will continue to protect it from the penalty of its wickedness.
Ponder this in thine heart, that the truth may be revealed unto thee, and be
thou steadfast in His path." Gleanings 75-76.

The real difference between Baha'is and Christians on this issue is that Christians see this as something that happened once and never again whereas Baha'is see it as an ongoing process.

The Bible teaches that it is appointed unto man ONCE TO DIE AND AFTER THIS THE JUDGEMENT.

Are you under the false impression that we believe in reincarnation?

 

[pawnraider]

Yes and no. We generally date our religion as beginning with the Bab's declaration, but every new revelation builds on the past one. Bible and the Qur'an are to us rather like the Old Testament is to you.

Problem with that is I've noticed that you and others of your faith or belief try and apply Baha'i definitions to other beliefs and/or faiths. In other words you try and make the Baha'i faith appear compatible and a descendant of other faiths. Not sure I'm making myself understood here.