Could King David be raised up for the Jews decades before second coming of Jesus?

[dlamberth]

Supreme..... when you pass on and go to heaven.... do you think that you would be willing to allow Messiah Jesus/ Yeshua and/ or The Father and/or The Holy Spirit to make a copy of your identity, personality and memories if He had any use for that copy?

That sounds like reincarnation.


.

 

[smaneck]

Anyway, it was the Jews who would have made this charge (and apparently did according to the gospels), as Romans would not have been too familiar with the concept of Messiah as understood by Jews.

I think they were. There were lots of Zealots at the time claiming to be the messiah. The Romans knew full well it meant in that context.

Infact, this is similar to the case of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad a.s., who made the claim to being the Imam Mahdi. The opponent mullahs made the allegation against him to the British government that having made such a claim, he would now wage war against the British just as the 'Sudanese Mahdi' did, who had defeated the British in Khartoum in 1885 (iirc).

I don't think the British authorities were ever seriously concerned with Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's activities. Keep in mind that Baha'u'llah had made virtually the same claims more than a generation earlier and the British were well aware of those. The difference, of course, is that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's claims were made in the context of his debates with Christian missionaries.

Now, the opponents falsely accuse him of abolishing jihad altogether.

Such an accusation against Baha'u'llah would have been true.

There are interesting answers as to why this was so. In any case, blasphemy was a false charge against him.

There were reasons for them to think so. Even though Jesus' claims to divinity and sonship were made as he himself asserted in the context of Psalm 82:6

"I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High"

How many Christians even today understand them in that context?

 

[Dialogues]

I think they were. There were lots of Zealots at the time claiming to be the messiah. The Romans knew full well it meant in that context.

According to the gospels, Pilate made every effort not to have Jesus crucified. Pilate said he found no fault in him. He passed him on to Herod to decide. He tried to have him released instead of Barabbas. If the Romans thought messiah simply meant a worldly king, why did Pilate do his best to try to save him?

I don't think the British authorities were ever seriously concerned with Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's activities.

They actually sent an agent to keep an eye on his activities in Qadian, and this continued until 1907, the year before Mirza Ghulam Ahmad a.s. passed away, by which time they had apparently become convinced he had no worldly political agenda.

Keep in mind that Baha'u'llah had made virtually the same claims more than a generation earlier and the British were well aware of those.

Was it not the Bab who claimed to be Mahdi and were Babis not militant, having a concept of a warring Mahdi?

The difference, of course, is that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad's claims were made in the context of his debates with Christian missionaries.

That was one of his activities, but his claims were not made in that context as such. He was also debating hindu pundits who were attacking Islam.

Such an accusation against Baha'u'llah would have been true.

Jihad in the Qur'an is a spiritual striving against the self, overcoming one's weaknesses, making efforts in acts of worship, and spreading the teachings of the Qur'an. The verses on Jihad are Meccan verses (except one), where there was no fighting. It is a shame to abolish such Jihad. There is only one verse, which is Medinan, where a connection can be made between Jihad/striving and fighting. And even then, fighting is permissible against those who initiate it. So, are you telling me that Baha'is are not even supposed to strive to defend themselves when attacked?

There were reasons for them to think so. Even though Jesus' claims to divinity and sonship were made as he himself asserted in the context of Psalm 82:6

"I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High"

How many Christians even today understand them in that context?

They have given a new meaning to sonship which was never the meaning of it in the OT or in the usage of Jesus. It simply means a beloved servant of God. It was never a claim to divinity.

Peace.

 

[smaneck]

According to the gospels, Pilate made every effort not to have Jesus crucified. Pilate said he found no fault in him. He passed him on to Herod to decide. He tried to have him released instead of Barabbas. If the Romans thought messiah simply meant a worldly king, why did Pilate do his best to try to save him?

Yes, the Gospels are eager to get the Romans off the hook for this. Ever consider why?

Was it not the Bab who claimed to be Mahdi and were Babis not militant, having a concept of a warring Mahdi?

Yes, and no. The Bab did claim to be the Mahdi but he declined to declare a jihad even when everything was prepared for him to do so. The Babis who fought in Nayriz and Mazandaran did so without the Bab's authorization and they were attempting to replicate the events of Karbila. However, you are correct that the Bab does not explicitly abolish jihad. Baha'u'llah does that:
The unbelievers and the faithless have set their minds on four things: first, the shedding of blood; second, the burning of books; third, the shunning of the followers of other religions; fourth, the extermination of other communities and groups. Now however, through the strengthening grace and potency of the Word of God these four barriers have been demolished, these clear injunctions have been obliterated from the Tablet and brutal dispositions have been transmuted into spiritual attributes. Exalted is His purpose; glorified is His power; magnified is His dominion!“ (Baha’u'llah, Tablets of Baha’u'llah, p. 91,92)

That was one of his activities, but his claims were not made in that context as such. He was also debating hindu pundits who were attacking Islam.

Yes, I'm familiar with his debates with the Arya Samajists. But those don't start until 1886 and if I'm not mistaken he makes his claims around 1882. His debates with missionaries start around 1868.

Jihad in the Qur'an is a spiritual striving against the self, overcoming one's weaknesses, making efforts in acts of worship, and spreading the teachings of the Qur'an. The verses on Jihad are Meccan verses (except one), where there was no fighting. It is a shame to abolish such Jihad.

Don't worry, that form of jihad is not being abolished.

So, are you telling me that Baha'is are not even supposed to strive to defend themselves when attacked?

Not if we are being attacked for our religion.

They have given a new meaning to sonship which was never the meaning of it in the OT or in the usage of Jesus. It simply means a beloved servant of God. It was never a claim to divinity.

Or it least it was not a claim to deity.

 

[Dialogues]

Yes, the Gospels are eager to get the Romans off the hook for this. Ever consider why?

Yes, because Jesus was not preparing people to fight against Roman rule and was infact not even speaking out against them. Rather, he was criticising the Jewish leaders as fools, blind guides, hypocrites, whitewashed tombs, brood of vipers, and what not. So it is no surprise that they were the ones trying to get him crucified.

Yes, I'm familiar with his debates with the Arya Samajists. But those don't start until 1886 and if I'm not mistaken he makes his claims around 1882. His debates with missionaries start around 1868.

In 1868 or 1869, people asked him to debate a Muslim clergy but he said he found the clergy’s point of view was objection-less, and withdrew from debate; there was an uproar but the young man did not care. On that night, God revealed to him, “God is pleased at this action of yours, and He will grant you much blessing, such that the kings will seek blessing from your garments.”…..Then those kings were shown to him in a vision.

He wrote his book acclaimed book 'Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya' from around 1880-1884, in which he expounded on the proofs of the truth of the religion of the Holy Prophet Muhammad s.a. So you are mistaken in your assumption that his main focus was refuting Christian missionaries. Yes, it was part of his mission to break the cross (i.e. refute Christian dogmas) and kill the swine (fight against immorality), but he was also hakam adal, i.e. a just judge in resolving the doctrinal disputes which were rife and rampant among Muslim sects.

Don't worry, that form of jihad is not being abolished.

Is it affirmed though? Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad a.s. wrote volumes about inner purification and the steps and stages of attaining nearness to God. He did say that the Messiah was supposed to put off religious wars and declared it haraam to wage religious wars in our time, and said those who would now fight non-muslims in a jihad would be sorely defeated. He told Muslims to reflect on this that Muslims were deprived by Allah of the power of fighting in comparison with unbelievers because there was no need for it any more, and that the Jihad of the time was to fight with the pen and refute the opponents of Islam whose attacks were now made with the pen rather than the sword, unlike the case in the past.

Not if we are being attacked for our religion.

What exactly did he say? Can you quote his own writings on this?

Or it least it was not a claim to deity.

And what is the difference?

Peace.

 

[LoAmmi]

A whole new religion formed from Jesus, so how can one deny that his person existed, and he preached his doctrines, and some people accepted him, whilst others opposed him? The religion came out of something. Do you believe that something can come out of nothing? Even theists have some issues dealing with this question. And infact, denial of prophets is a sort of denial of God, for the signs shown by prophets increases people's faith in a Living God. If not of belief in the signs of prophethood, belief in God would diminish. Hence it is a sin to deny and oppose the prophets of God.

I don't believe Jesus or Muhammad to be Jewish prophets. I cannot comment if they are prophets to other nations, but I don't care. We weren't told we had to follow prophets to other nations, but to keep to the Torah. That's what I care about.

Joseph Smith has an entire new religion formed around him. Do you believe in Mormonism?

The Torah teaches it, so what do you mean 'we did not believe' in it? I am aware that the account of Joseph is a great example of forgiveness, so I do not say it is absent from the Torah. However, it is a matter of emphasis.

Oh, another person from another religion come to teach the ignorant Jews about what they don't know about their own book! Sorry, we're the keepers of the Torah, we are the ones who were taught it's message.

Are you talking about "an eye for an eye"? I suppose you didn't know that it means that the punishment for a crime needs to meet the crime. Of course, that punishment was to be given by a court of law and not individual citizens. It was never ok for a random individual to kill people.

The problem is the Tanakh also describes how every prophet was rejected and opposed by Israelites themselves. So what makes you imagine that whenever a Messiah comes, all of Israel will automatically believe in him and obey him, whilst others will automatically reject and attack him and his followers?

Oh, this will be fun. Please show me where every prophet was rejected and oppressed by the Israelites.

 

[smaneck]

BYes, because Jesus was not preparing people to fight against Roman rule and was infact not even speaking out against them. Rather, he was criticising the Jewish leaders as fools, blind guides, hypocrites, whitewashed tombs, brood of vipers, and what not. So it is no surprise that they were the ones trying to get him crucified.

Perhaps partly. It might also be because the Gospels are written to attract the Romans to Christianity and persuade them that Christians are no threat to their authority.

After all, the Romans killed a lot more Christians than the Jews ever did!

Is it affirmed though?

Sure.

"Arise, O people, and, by the power of God’s might, resolve to gain the victory over your own selves, that haply the whole earth may be freed and sanctified from its servitude to the gods of its idle fancies—gods that have inflicted such loss upon, and are responsible for the misery of their wretched worshippers. These idols form the obstacle that impedeth man in his efforts to advance in the path of perfection. We cherish the hope that the Hand of divine power may lend its assistance to mankind and deliver it from its state of grievous abasement.
In one of the Tablets these words have been revealed: O people of God! Do not busy yourselves in your own concerns; let your thoughts be fixed upon that which will rehabilitate the fortunes of mankind and sanctify the hearts and souls of men. This can best be achieved through pure and holy deeds, through a virtuous life and a goodly behaviour. Valiant acts will ensure the triumph of this Cause, and a saintly character will reinforce its power. Cleave unto righteousness, O people of Bahá! This, verily, is the commandment which this Wronged One hath given unto you, and the first choice of His unrestrained Will for every one of you."

Hadrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad a.s. wrote volumes about inner purification and the steps and stages of attaining nearness to God.

Yes, so do many of Baha'u'llah's works. Key along those lines would be the Seven Valleys and the Gem of Divine Mysteries:

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/SVFV/svfv-1.htm

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Seven Valleys And the Four Valleys, Pages 1-8

What exactly did he say? Can you quote his own writings on this?

I quoted the main statement already, but there are others.

"Beware lest ye shed the blood of anyone. Unsheathe the sword of your tongue from the scabbard of utterance, for therewith ye can conquer the citadels of men’s hearts. We have abolished the law to wage holy war against each other. God’s mercy, hath, verily, encompassed all created things, if ye do but understand. Aid ye your Lord, the God of Mercy, with the sword of understanding. Keener indeed is it, and more finely tempered, than the sword of utterance, were ye but to reflect upon the words of your Lord. Thus have the hosts of Divine Revelation been sent down by God, the Help in Peril, the Self-Subsisting, and thus have the armies of divine inspiration been made manifest from the Source of command, as bidden by God, the All-Glorious, the Best-Beloved."

But here is the passage which clearly addresses whether or not we may defend ourselves if attacked for our religion:

"rendering assistance unto God, in this day, doth not and shall never consist in contending or disputing with any soul; nay rather, what is preferable in the sight of God is that the cities of men’s hearts, which are ruled by the hosts of self and passion, should be subdued by the sword of utterance, of wisdom and of understanding. Thus, whoso seeketh to assist God must, before all else, conquer, with the sword of inner meaning and 110 explanation, the city of his own heart and guard it from the remembrance of all save God, and only then set out to subdue the cities of the hearts of others.
Such is the true meaning of rendering assistance unto God. Sedition hath never been pleasing unto God, nor were the acts committed in the past by certain foolish ones acceptable in His sight. Know ye that to be killed in the path of His good pleasure is better for you than to kill. The beloved of the Lord must, in this day, behave in such wise amidst His servants that they may by their very deeds and actions guide all men unto the paradise of the All-Glorious."

And what is the difference?

Between having a divine nature and being a deity? I think what Baha'is call a Manifestation of God are more than simply men. In some ways they embodied the will of God, but they cannot incarnate His Essence.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Supreme..... when you pass on and go to heaven.... do you think that you would be willing to allow Messiah Jesus/ Yeshua and/ or The Father and/or The Holy Spirit to make a copy of your identity, personality and memories if He had any use for that copy?

I may be wrong.... but I suspect that ultimately there are far far more comparisons between some modern technological devices and what they can do with what our Creator can do with our human spirit- soul... than we might tend to imagine at first!

What does this even mean?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Zoness]

What does this even mean?

-CryptoLutheran

To be honest, I don't know what most of these prophecy threads mean most of the time. They just sound like words arranged in an order and then some generic "thing" happens and the prophecy has been fulfilled.

 

[Dialogues]

I don't believe Jesus or Muhammad to be Jewish prophets. I cannot comment if they are prophets to other nations, but I don't care. We weren't told we had to follow prophets to other nations, but to keep to the Torah. That's what I care about.

God is the Creator of all people. If He could send prophets to one people, why not to another? Especially if Israelites didn't have a standing instruction to convey the message to other people, it is an indication that God will have other ways of guiding them, i.e. by sending them prophets of their own. These prophets were sent to a limited group of people for their guidance for a time. The Indians have had their prophets (such as Krishna and Buddha), as did the Persians, such as Zoroaster, of whom Cyrus the Great was a follower, and who is described as a Messiah in the Bible.

Islam is the first religion to proclaim that it's message is for the guidance of all people. So God is not referred to as the God of Muhammad s.a., or that of the Arabs or Ishmaelites. He is referred to as the Lord of all the worlds. The Qur'an does not just address the believers, but also has verses addressing the people of the book (people having a scripture), the Children of Israel, as well as all of mankind.

Hence, it would be a good idea to at least study it's message.

Joseph Smith has an entire new religion formed around him. Do you believe in Mormonism?

He was killed like a false prophet and did not enjoy divine protection.

Oh, another person from another religion come to teach the ignorant Jews about what they don't know about their own book! Sorry, we're the keepers of the Torah, we are the ones who were taught it's message.

I know non-Muslims who have studied Islam much more than many Muslims have. So it is best to remain humble.

Are you talking about "an eye for an eye"?

I was indeed.

I suppose you didn't know that it means that the punishment for a crime needs to meet the crime. Of course, that punishment was to be given by a court of law and not individual citizens. It was never ok for a random individual to kill people.

I was referring to the principle teaching of justice. It's precise application is another matter.

Oh, this will be fun. Please show me where every prophet was rejected and oppressed by the Israelites.

What happened to Jeremiah? Was he accepted or opposed? Where did the Jewish leaders end up, and what happened to Jerusalem after him? What about Isaiah? How did he preach his message, and what happened to the Israelites after him? Why did Israelites go into bondage? What about Ezekiel? Why does it say again and again in his book that the Israelites are a rebellious house and God will pursue them to the ends of the world with drawn sword? Is it because of acceptance of prophets? These are just a few examples to illustrate the point. There is no valid basis for imagining that things would somehow be different for the Messiah.

Peace.

 

[LoAmmi]

God is the Creator of all people. If He could send prophets to one people, why not to another? Especially if Israelites didn't have a standing instruction to convey the message to other people, it is an indication that God will have other ways of guiding them, i.e. by sending them prophets of their own. These prophets were sent to a limited group of people for their guidance for a time. The Indians have had their prophets (such as Krishna and Buddha), as did the Persians, such as Zoroaster, of whom Cyrus the Great was a follower, and who is described as a Messiah in the Bible.

Islam is the first religion to proclaim that it's message is for the guidance of all people. So God is not referred to as the God of Muhammad s.a., or that of the Arabs or Ishmaelites. He is referred to as the Lord of all the worlds. The Qur'an does not just address the believers, but also has verses addressing the people of the book (people having a scripture), the Children of Israel, as well as all of mankind.

Hence, it would be a good idea to at least study it's message.

He was killed like a false prophet and did not enjoy divine protection.

I know non-Muslims who have studied Islam much more than many Muslims have. So it is best to remain humble.

I was indeed.

I was referring to the principle teaching of justice. It's precise application is another matter.

What happened to Jeremiah? Was he accepted or opposed? Where did the Jewish leaders end up, and what happened to Jerusalem after him? What about Isaiah? How did he preach his message, and what happened to the Israelites after him? Why did Israelites go into bondage? What about Ezekiel? Why does it say again and again in his book that the Israelites are a rebellious house and God will pursue them to the ends of the world with drawn sword? Is it because of acceptance of prophets? These are just a few examples to illustrate the point. There is no valid basis for imagining that things would somehow be different for the Messiah.

Peace.

Our discussion is relatively unproductive and needlessly antagonistic. I don't think anybody profits from continuing it.

 

[smaneck]

He was killed like a false prophet and did not enjoy divine protection.

So in your eyes, any prophet who gets killed must be false?

Why honor martyrs in that case?

 

[BruceDLimber]

So, are you telling me that Baha'is are not even supposed to strive to defend themselves when attacked?

Not if we are being attacked for our religion.

Indeed, Baha'i teachings goes farther than this and--back when there was a draft--specifically encouraged Baha'is to apply for conscientious-objector status as noncombatants, which many of us, myself included, did. I've thus had such status for the past 45 years, including during my service in the Air Force.

(And BTW, in reference to the original topic of this thread, in the Baha'i view the Second Coming of the Christ Spirit already occurred about a century and a half ago, so any reappearance of David clearly didn't apply....)

Peace,

Bruce

 

[smaneck]

Indeed, Baha'i teachings goes farther than this and--back when there was a draft--specifically encouraged Baha'is to apply for conscientious-objector status as noncombatants, which many of us, myself included, did. I've thus had such status for the past 45 years, including during my service in the Air Force.

Yes, although we are not complete pacifists the Baha'i concept of what constitutes a 'just war' is extremely narrow. Once world peace is a established if anyone were to arise to destroy that peace, then we could fight to stop this.

(And BTW, in reference to the original topic of this thread, in the Baha'i view the Second Coming of the Christ Spirit already occurred about a century and a half ago, so any reappearance of David clearly didn't apply....)

Uh, our Ahmadi friend thinks that happened more recently than that. Baha'u'llah and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad made nearly identical claims, it's just that Ghulam Ahmad made them about a generation later. Also, unlike Baha'is Ahmadis still consider themselves Muslims.

Bruce you might be interested to know that Mirza Abu'l-Fadl's book Miracles and Metaphors was largely written in response to questions raised by the third Ahmadi Khalifa.

Miracles and Metaphors - Abū al-Faḍl Gulpāyigānī - Google Books

 

[LoAmmi]

Yes, although we are not complete pacifists the Baha'i concept of what constitutes a 'just war' is extremely narrow. Once world peace is a established if anyone were to arise to destroy that peace, then we could fight to stop this.

Would WWII have been seen as a just war?

 

[smaneck]

Would WWII have been seen as a just war?

Not by this definition. Baha'is served as non-combatants during WWII.

 

[LoAmmi]

Not by this definition. Baha'is served as non-combatants during WWII.

For some obvious reasons, I tend to judge someone's pacifism based upon WWII. It scares me whenever people say they wouldn't have fought because that's basically saying their religion/beliefs don't think it's worth standing up and fighting for 12 million lives and that they'd be ok with that total rising. I view that as a grave evil.

 

[smaneck]

For some obvious reasons, I tend to judge someone's pacifism based upon WWII. It scares me whenever people say they wouldn't have fought because that's basically saying their religion/beliefs don't think it's worth standing up and fighting for 12 million lives and that they'd be ok with that total rising. I view that as a grave evil.

There were too few of us at the time to have made a difference in any case.

 

[LoAmmi]

There were too few of us at the time to have made a difference in any case.

Yes, but if there weren't it would be a problem. Just like when TG talks about his view of never wanting to fight. If everybody thought like who could have opposed that evil, my wife probably wouldn't exist right now.

 

[smaneck]

Yes, but if there weren't it would be a problem. Just like when TG talks about his view of never wanting to fight. If everybody thought like who could have opposed that evil, my wife probably wouldn't exist right now.

Yes, it would be, but I think the widespread growth of the Baha'i Faith will likely accompany the world's move towards universal peace.