God's grace to forgive and transform is not conditioned to recognizing Jesus' deity, blood atonement or physical resurrection

[civic]

I have refuted through reason and Scripture the claims made by @jeremiah1five that Gentiles were hybrid heritage Hebrews. But even more importantly, I have made clear before @jeremiah1five that any thesis supposedly based on a sacred book should be rejected automatically if it is evil.

As I have said, grandmom's and little children's notions of good and evil come first. The Bible comes second.
The inspired authors of the Bible started writing under the premise that their readers could tell right from wrong... and had a basic understanding of what "mercy", "justice" or "love" means.

So, if the theology of @jeremiah1five proposes that God does not love the Congolese, that we should not love the Congolese, and the only fate of Congolese is a well-deserved and painful destruction... then his theology is wrong by definition, because it is evil. There is no truth in evil, and that applies to the topic we are discussing in this thread.

If you, @synergy, or @Johann or @TomL[/USER] come to conclude that 15 millions of Sikhs deserve to be tormented in hell forever because of their doctrinal views, then your theology would be automatically wrong, because it would be evil... and then you should become the kind of Christians that abhor those views (there are millions of those Christians, fortunately!) .
Of course, what I still believe is that in your heart of hearts you are pretty sure that God, somehow, through a process unknown to you and me, forgives them and transform them and saves them.



Hi @synergy and @Johann
Hi everyone

It is weird that, when I announce that I will review Paul, Johann writes "It should be interesting" and synergy writes "It will be fascinating"... as if reviewing the direct sayings of Christ, as I am doing, was not the most interesting and fascinating thing for a Christian!
So, as I get closer to review Paul, I want to insist on the obvious:

1. Jesus was not an apostle of Paul. Paul was an apostle of Jesus.
2. Christians consider Christ, not Paul, as the Founder of the church, and the rock of their faith.
3. We don't study Jesus's words as a complement of the theology exposed by Paul. We study Paul's words as a complement of the theology exposed by Jesus.

I hope all my Christian friends agree with me on these three statements.

As far as Christian doctrine is concerned there is no disagreement between the teachings of Jesus and Paul. Paul did talk about things that Jesus did not in the gospels and went into greater detail on certain things such as the resurrection for example. And we know Paul declared he was taught directly by Christ. N.T. revelation was progressive. For example John in Revelation goes into much more detail than Christ taught to His disciples in Matthew 24.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

I want to share with you the last key event in the gospel that shows how Jesus considered forgiveness. Then I will make a summary of how God forgives according to the first 43 books of the Bible (or 50, if we included those recognized by Catholics). Then, next week God's willing, I expect to go through Paul and the other books of the New Testament.

OK, here we go with the last key event in this subject:

When they came to the place which is called The Skull, there they crucified Him and the criminals, one on the right and one on the left. 34 Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” And they divided His clothes by casting lots. (Luke 23:33-34)​

​

The Roman Soldiers did not harbor in their brains a belief in Jesus' deity, substitutionary atonement or promise of a physical resurrection.
Not just that: perhaps the vast majority of them didn't even harbor in their brains a belief in the God of Israel.
However, Jesus interceded for their sins before the Father anyway. Why? "For they know not what they do". Jesus didn't say they were stupid or stubborn. They just didn't have the proper knowledge.

The episode makes it clear that Jesus was convinced that God's mercy and justice is above our limitations to detect or apprehend the truth. God does not punish ignorance... because ignorance supposes honesty. It seems that, for God, honesty is above being doctrinally right.

With this in mind, we all can be sure that Jesus also intercedes for the millions and millions of human beings who act in honesty, even if we are convinced they are intellectually wrong.
I want to close the post with a question (Yes, I love questions and scenarios. That's my style of debate).
Who in this Forum can claim to be right in all his beliefs? Who can claim to know enough as to make Jesus' intercession unnecessary on the basis of "For they know not what they do"?

 

[TomL]

I have refuted through reason and Scripture the claims made by @jeremiah1five that Gentiles were hybrid heritage Hebrews. But even more importantly, I have made clear before @jeremiah1five that any thesis supposedly based on a sacred book should be rejected automatically if it is evil.

As I have said, grandmom's and little children's notions of good and evil come first. The Bible comes second.
The inspired authors of the Bible started writing under the premise that their readers could tell right from wrong... and had a basic understanding of what "mercy", "justice" or "love" means.

So, if the theology of @jeremiah1five proposes that God does not love the Congolese, that we should not love the Congolese, and the only fate of Congolese is a well-deserved and painful destruction... then his theology is wrong by definition, because it is evil. There is no truth in evil, and that applies to the topic we are discussing in this thread.

If you, @synergy, or @Johann or @TomL[/USER] come to conclude that 15 millions of Sikhs deserve to be tormented in hell forever because of their doctrinal views, then your theology would be automatically wrong, because it would be evil... and then you should become the kind of Christians that abhor those views (there are millions of those Christians, fortunately!) .
Of course, what I still believe is that in your heart of hearts you are pretty sure that God, somehow, through a process unknown to you and me, forgives them and transform them and saves them.



Hi @synergy and @Johann
Hi everyone

It is weird that, when I announce that I will review Paul, Johann writes "It should be interesting" and synergy writes "It will be fascinating"... as if reviewing the direct sayings of Christ, as I am doing, was not the most interesting and fascinating thing for a Christian!
So, as I get closer to review Paul, I want to insist on the obvious:

1. Jesus was not an apostle of Paul. Paul was an apostle of Jesus.
2. Christians consider Christ, not Paul, as the Founder of the church, and the rock of their faith.
3. We don't study Jesus's words as a complement of the theology exposed by Paul. We study Paul's words as a complement of the theology exposed by Jesus.

I hope all my Christian friends agree with me on these three statements.

John 8:24 (LEB) — 24 Thus I said to you that you will die in your sins. For if you do not believe that I am he, you will die in your sins.”

Your opinion does not overturn scripture

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

John 8:24 (LEB) — 24 Thus I said to you that you will die in your sins. For if you do not believe that I am he, you will die in your sins.”

Your opinion does not overturn scripture

The verse you are stating above, my brother, does not teach that billions of people will not be forgiven because they don't assent to Jesus deity, blood atonement or physical resurrection.
The verse you are stating means that people who do not follow the Message of Christ remain in their sins. "Believe in Christ" means "Follow his path".

This last interpretation is in harmony with everything God teaches about repentance and forgiveness.
It is also in harmony with what you, TomL, believe in your heart.

If you, TomL, were really convinced that the Bible teaches that God will send billions of his children to hell because of being Buddhist, Hindi, Muslim or Sikh, then you would have thrown away the Bible, started psychotherapy, or both.

The fact that you remain like a mentally healthy man, interested in the Bible, proves that you believe that, somehow, God forgives every person who comes to Him genuinely repented.
"The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
a broken and a contrite heart,
O God, You will not despise." (Psalm 51:17)

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

As far as Christian doctrine is concerned there is no disagreement between the teachings of Jesus and Paul. Paul did talk about things that Jesus did not in the gospels and went into greater detail on certain things such as the resurrection for example. And we know Paul declared he was taught directly by Christ. N.T. revelation was progressive. For example John in Revelation goes into much more detail than Christ taught to His disciples in Matthew 24.

I agree, civic.
I think your comment is very well written and true in general*

What I beg you all to bear in mind is that one thing is to "go into greater detail" over something already stated by Jesus, and a different thing is to radically change a teaching. Paul could not be changing the terms of God's mercy: he would just go into greater detail as corresponds to the situation of the churches he felt responsible for.

God's purpose in having the four gospels is to have a direct view of what Jesus said and did so that we can intepret all further teachings into that light. Otherwise, Jesus wouldn't had preached to multitudes for years, and God would not have left his words and deeds written in the gospels. It would have been sufficient to have epistles from his disciples.

* NOTE: I say "in general" because Paul did not claim to have been taught directly by Christ... I mean, as a person who interviews Christ or sits at his feet taking notes of what Christ says. In fact, Paul never claims to have seen Christ, in physical form. He saw a light and heard a voice in his way to Damascus. Paul rather claims spiritual experiences.​

 

[Johann]

The verse you are stating above, my brother, does not teach that billions of people will not be forgiven because they don't assent to Jesus deity, blood atonement or physical resurrection.

The Scriptures disagree with your statement.

J.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

The Scriptures disagree with your statement.

J.

The Scriptures, as I have shown in numerous passages, DO SUPPORT the notion that God forgives people out of his mercy and grace, without the need of blood, rituals, or confessions.
You would have to reject all those passages I have quoted.
But not just that.
If you believed that Scriptures disagree with my statement, you would have already thrown Scriptures away to the trash can, or started psychotherapy to find a way to sleep at night or stop suicidal thoughts.
You could not deal with your dentist, of the schoolteacher of your kids, or your customers, or your uncle, or your collages with whom you work every day... you would see in all of them people who deserve to burn forever in unbelievable pain.

But that's not the case. Is it?
So, why do you insist in an interpretation that you don't believe in, because is evil?

Don't you know that millions of Christians, including Christian theologians and pastors, believe that God will somehow forgive the Sikhs and Muslims who repent from their sins?

 

[Johann]

The Scriptures, as I have shown in numerous passages, DO SUPPORT the notion that God forgives people out of his mercy and grace, without the need of blood, rituals, or confessions.
You would have to reject all those passages I have quoted.
But not just that.
If you believed that Scriptures disagree with my statement, you would have already thrown Scriptures away to the trash can, or started psychotherapy to find a way to sleep at night or stop suicidal thoughts.
You could not deal with your dentist, of the schoolteacher of your kids, or your customers, or your uncle, or your collages with whom you work every day... you would see in all of them people who deserve to burn forever in unbelievable pain.

But that's not the case. Is it?
So, why do you insist in an interpretation that you don't believe in, because is evil?

Don't you know that millions of Christians, including Christian theologians and pastors, believe that God will somehow forgive the Sikhs and Muslims who repent from their sins?

I believe every word recorded in Scripture and the imperatives of Christ Jesus, as stated in Matthew 4:4 ('Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God').

You, however, have not provided a sound, apologetic rebuttal against the Scriptures. Your non-literal approach to Scripture is evident for all to see, as Paul writes in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, 'All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.'

We are still waiting to see how you will approach the Pauline Epistles and reconcile them with the Bahá'í reality and mentality. Until then, you continue offering analogies instead of engaging with the literal, doctrinal truths of the text.

J.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Your non-literal approach to Scripture is evident for all to see, as Paul writes in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, 'All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.'

A non-literal approach to Scripture is the right way to proceed, when reason tells us that a literal approach would take us to absurd or unethical conclusions.
This is applicable from the very first to the last page of the Bible. Here are two examples:

• Reading Genesis 1 literally would make you think that God made universe (or at least our galaxy) in 6 literal days. That's not true.
• Reading 1 Corinthians 14:34 would make you think that women should remain silent at church. That's not true.

In harmony to Paul's comment to Timothy, Scriptures should be interpreted in such a way that we are trained in righteousness and equipped for every good work.

'All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.'

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

We are still waiting to see how you will approach the Pauline Epistles and reconcile them with the Bahá'í reality and mentality. Until then, you continue offering analogies instead of engaging with the literal, doctrinal truths of the text.

J.

Jesus constantly used analogies to explain truth with all clarity. So that's Jesus' method, which I enjoy and emulate.
Why don't you debate using analogies, Johann? I encourage you to do it.

You are still avidly waiting to see how I will approach Paul, as if what I have already quoted had not established the sound basis of how God forgives.
So, if Paul had not written anything, would you feel orphan of the knowledge of God's love and mercy? Is Paul the foundation of your faith?

 

[Johann]

A non-literal approach to Scripture is the right way to proceed, when reason tells us that a literal approach would take us to absurd or unethical conclusions.

Incorrect. The virgin birth, crucifixion, death, burial, and glorious resurrection of the Messiah are all literal events, as Scripture clearly affirms.

The virgin birth is prophesied in Isaiah 7:14 ('Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel') and fulfilled in Matthew 1:23 ('Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call His name Immanuel, which translated means, "God with us"').

The crucifixion and death of Jesus are also literal events, as confirmed in John 19:30: ('So when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, "It is finished!" And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit'). Jesus’ death was a real, physical event central to the gospel message.

The resurrection is equally literal, with Luke 24:6-7 affirming, 'He is not here, but is risen! Remember how He spoke to you when He was still in Galilee, saying, "The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again."' The resurrection validates Jesus’ divine identity and mission, as stated in 1 Corinthians 15:17: 'And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.'

The literal second coming of Christ is a core doctrine of Christianity, with Acts 1:11 stating, 'This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.'

In contrast, the Bahá'í Faith interprets these events differently. Bahá'ís believe in the metaphorical significance of the resurrection and the return of Christ, viewing the second coming as fulfilled through Bahá'u'lláh.

For Bahá'ís, the virgin birth and crucifixion are seen more symbolically. Bahá'í teachings do not affirm the literal nature of Christ’s physical resurrection or His return in bodily form, instead interpreting these events in a spiritual or symbolic manner, as they believe Bahá'u'lláh’s revelation represents the fulfillment of Christ’s return.

But here lies the issue: you admit that you are not a Christian. So, why should I accept your interpretation as truth when you attempt to explain away the literal events of Jesus as mere metaphors?

I’m sorry, my friend, but I cannot allow you to deviate or deflect until you offer a sound, biblically grounded rebuttal against the Scriptures. The Bible clearly presents these events in a literal sense: the virgin birth (Matthew 1:23), the crucifixion (John 19:30), the resurrection (Luke 24:6-7), and the second coming (Acts 1:11).

Until these issues are addressed with solid scriptural reasoning, I must hold to the literal truth as revealed in God's Word.

J.

 

[Johann]

Jesus constantly used analogies to explain truth with all clarity. So that's Jesus' method, which I enjoy and emulate.
Why don't you debate using analogies, Johann? I encourage you to do it.

You are still avidly waiting to see how I will approach Paul, as if what I have already quoted had not established the sound basis of how God forgives.
So, if Paul had not written anything, would you feel orphan of the knowledge of God's love and mercy? Is Paul the foundation of your faith?

So you want to pit Jesus gospel against that of Paul?

What Did Paul Mean by ‘Gospel’?
The “two gospels” claim asserts Paul was preaching a gospel story about Jesus that came to him secondhand. Jesus, meanwhile, preached about a new way of life associated with the arrival of the kingdom.

We all have genres of Scripture that appeal to us and tempt us to develop a personal ‘canon within the canon.’


Such a message certainly corresponds with Mark’s summary of Jesus’s preaching (Mark 1:14–15). (Ironically, this passage is likely Mark’s summary of eyewitness accounts passed along to him—not unlike the experience of Paul.) But did Jesus define his “social and ethical” gospel as turning to a new way of life that would lead to justice and generosity for all?

To answer this question, we must return to the beginning of Mark. Mark uses “the gospel” in his title to the book in 1:1 (“the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God”). In this title, he defines “gospel” as an account of Jesus that depicts him as the the Christ (or Messiah) and the Son of God (Jewish and Roman titles for a king).

How did Mark come to do this?

In the first-century Roman world, the term “gospel” (euangelion) didn’t describe a biographical narrative about someone’s life; it described victories given by the gods on the battlefield as well as the birth, rise to power, and decrees of the divine ruler (e.g., the Priene calendar inscription about Augustus Caesar).

The verb euangelizō (“I proclaim the good news”) was used in the Septuagint, particularly in Isaiah (e.g., Isa. 40:9–10; 52:7–10), to announce that God was acting to save his people from exile, overthrowing the idolatrous rulers of the world and establishing his reign. By citing Isaiah 40:3 in his introduction, Mark is using the title “gospel” to document how Jesus’s death on the cross functions as his entrance into his kingly reign.

This gospel from the Gospels doesn’t contradict Paul’s gospel. In 1 Corinthians 15:3–11, Paul emphasizes how the proclamation of the cross and resurrection fulfills the Old Testament story.

He affirms the historicity of the resurrection by recounting that Jesus appeared to Peter and James—men the “two gospel” advocates claim were Paul’s enemies. In Romans 11:1–7, Paul explains that the gospel he preached was a fulfillment of the prophets’ promises: God would rescue his people through Jesus’s death and resurrection, resulting in his enthronement as king.

Why Did Paul Refer to ‘My Gospel’?
If Paul and Jesus agree, why does the apostle use the phrase “my gospel”? It’s worth observing that he only adds the modifier in “my/our” six of the 60 times he used the term “gospel.” He highlights how his gospel includes a judgment performed by King Jesus (Rom. 2:16), enables the obedience that comes from faith (Rom. 16:26), and empowers endurance as believers are persecuted because of Christ (2 Cor. 4:3; 1 Thess. 1:5). These examples demonstrate that rather than differentiating his message from Jesus’s, Paul is aligning it.

By comparison, Paul uses “the gospel” without any qualifier 27 times. This most common designation reflects his understanding that the gospel he preached was the same one preached by the Jerusalem church (Acts 15:22–30). Additionally, Paul uses “gospel of Christ” (e.g., Rom. 15:19) and “gospel of God” (e.g., 1 Thess. 2:2) in ways that parallel Mark 1:1 and 1:14.

The gospel revealed to Paul (Gal. 1:11–12) aligns with Jesus’s plan—that the Gentiles would hear the good news of Jesus’s kingship, which enables people to be saved (Matt. 24:14; 26:13; Mark 13:10; 14:9; Luke 24:44–49).

Its not going well for you thus far @Pancho Frijoles.

J.

 

[synergy]

The Scriptures, as I have shown in numerous passages, DO SUPPORT the notion that God forgives people out of his mercy and grace, without the need of blood, rituals, or confessions.
You would have to reject all those passages I have quoted.
But not just that.
If you believed that Scriptures disagree with my statement, you would have already thrown Scriptures away to the trash can, or started psychotherapy to find a way to sleep at night or stop suicidal thoughts.
You could not deal with your dentist, of the schoolteacher of your kids, or your customers, or your uncle, or your collages with whom you work every day... you would see in all of them people who deserve to burn forever in unbelievable pain.

But that's not the case. Is it?
So, why do you insist in an interpretation that you don't believe in, because is evil?

Don't you know that millions of Christians, including Christian theologians and pastors, believe that God will somehow forgive the Sikhs and Muslims who repent from their sins?

One doesn't need to know all the facts of Christian Redemptive History to be saved but that does not mean that the Baha'i have the right to trample on that Redemptive History by having Baha’u’llah usurp the Divine Paraklete and 2nd Coming Offices of the Holy Spirit and Christ.

That clearly proves that Christianity and the Baha'i faiths are incompatible, the same way matter and antimatter are incompatible. The only way that Christianity can be absorbed into the Baha'i collective is if Christianity is gutted from the inside. That's exactly what the Bahai faith is attempting to do with its usurping attempts. That will never succeed. Mark my words.

 

[Johann]

One doesn't need to know all the facts of Christian Redemptive History to be saved but that does not mean that the Baha'i have the right to trample on that Redemptive History by having Baha’u’llah usurp the Divine Paraklete and 2nd Coming Offices of the Holy Spirit and Christ.

That clearly proves that Christianity and the Baha'i faiths are incompatible the same way matter and antimatter are incompatible. The only way that Christianity can be absorbed into the Baha'i collective is if Christianity is gutted from the inside. That's exactly what the Bahai faith is attempting to do with its usurping attempts. That will never succeed. Mark my words.

Just to add Scripture @synergy --and a little "tweak" if you don't mind.

While it’s true that one does not need to fully understand every detail of Christian redemptive history to be saved, the Bahá'í Faith’s attempt to redefine and reinterpret these truths poses a direct challenge to the foundations of Christianity. Central to Christian redemptive history is the person and work of Jesus Christ—His role as the divine Son of God, the promised Messiah, and the fulfillment of prophecy through His virgin birth, crucifixion, resurrection, and His future literal second coming. The Bahá'í Faith undermines this by claiming that Bahá’u’lláh has usurped the offices of the Holy Spirit as the Divine Paraclete (John 14:26) and of Jesus Christ in His promised second coming (Acts 1:11, Revelation 19:11-16).

This theological usurpation clearly demonstrates the incompatibility between Christianity and the Bahá'í Faith. Just as light and darkness cannot coexist (John 1:5) and matter and antimatter destroy one another when brought together, so too, Christianity cannot be subsumed into the Bahá'í framework without being stripped of its truth and power. Bahá’u’lláh’s teachings, by denying the literal resurrection, the deity of Christ, and the finality of His revelation, hollow out the gospel message and replace it with a counterfeit spirituality.

Scripture warns against such distortions. Galatians 1:8-9 states, 'But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let him be accursed!'

The Bahá'í attempt to reinterpret Jesus’ second coming as a metaphor fulfilled by Bahá’u’lláh is an example of a 'different gospel,' which does not align with the literal promises of Scripture.

Furthermore, 2 John 1:7 declares, 'For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.' The Bahá'í reinterpretation fits this warning, as it denies the literal and physical nature of Christ’s return.

The Bahá'í approach to absorbing Christianity into its framework is akin to spiritual colonization. It seeks to gut Christianity from the inside by stripping it of its unique claims—namely, that salvation is through Christ alone (John 14:6) and that the Holy Spirit is the promised Paraclete who empowers believers (John 16:13-14).

By redefining these offices, the Bahá'í Faith diminishes the core truths of the gospel, attempting to merge incompatible belief systems into a universalist construct. But as Jesus Himself said, 'No one can serve two masters' (Matthew 6:24).

The victory of Christ and His Church is assured. As Matthew 16:18 states, 'And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.'

The Bahá'í attempts to usurp Christ’s redemptive work and His rightful offices will never succeed because the truth of God’s Word endures forever (Isaiah 40:8). The Christian gospel remains untouched and unshakable, grounded in the finished work of Jesus Christ and empowered by the Holy Spirit.

Mark my words: the attempts of the Bahá'í Faith to redefine and co-opt Christian truths will fail, just as all false teachings and movements throughout history have fallen before the unchanging truth of God’s Word.

J.

 

[synergy]

Just to add Scripture @synergy --and a little "tweak" if you don't mind.

While it’s true that one does not need to fully understand every detail of Christian redemptive history to be saved, the Bahá'í Faith’s attempt to redefine and reinterpret these truths poses a direct challenge to the foundations of Christianity. Central to Christian redemptive history is the person and work of Jesus Christ—His role as the divine Son of God, the promised Messiah, and the fulfillment of prophecy through His virgin birth, crucifixion, resurrection, and His future literal second coming. The Bahá'í Faith undermines this by claiming that Bahá’u’lláh has usurped the offices of the Holy Spirit as the Divine Paraclete (John 14:26) and of Jesus Christ in His promised second coming (Acts 1:11, Revelation 19:11-16).

This theological usurpation clearly demonstrates the incompatibility between Christianity and the Bahá'í Faith. Just as light and darkness cannot coexist (John 1:5) and matter and antimatter destroy one another when brought together, so too, Christianity cannot be subsumed into the Bahá'í framework without being stripped of its truth and power. Bahá’u’lláh’s teachings, by denying the literal resurrection, the deity of Christ, and the finality of His revelation, hollow out the gospel message and replace it with a counterfeit spirituality.

Scripture warns against such distortions. Galatians 1:8-9 states, 'But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let him be accursed!'

The Bahá'í attempt to reinterpret Jesus’ second coming as a metaphor fulfilled by Bahá’u’lláh is an example of a 'different gospel,' which does not align with the literal promises of Scripture.

Furthermore, 2 John 1:7 declares, 'For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.' The Bahá'í reinterpretation fits this warning, as it denies the literal and physical nature of Christ’s return.

The Bahá'í approach to absorbing Christianity into its framework is akin to spiritual colonization. It seeks to gut Christianity from the inside by stripping it of its unique claims—namely, that salvation is through Christ alone (John 14:6) and that the Holy Spirit is the promised Paraclete who empowers believers (John 16:13-14).

By redefining these offices, the Bahá'í Faith diminishes the core truths of the gospel, attempting to merge incompatible belief systems into a universalist construct. But as Jesus Himself said, 'No one can serve two masters' (Matthew 6:24).

The victory of Christ and His Church is assured. As Matthew 16:18 states, 'And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.'

The Bahá'í attempts to usurp Christ’s redemptive work and His rightful offices will never succeed because the truth of God’s Word endures forever (Isaiah 40:8). The Christian gospel remains untouched and unshakable, grounded in the finished work of Jesus Christ and empowered by the Holy Spirit.

Mark my words: the attempts of the Bahá'í Faith to redefine and co-opt Christian truths will fail, just as all false teachings and movements throughout history have fallen before the unchanging truth of God’s Word.

J.

Did you use Chatgpt to create that? I tried running my thoughts through it but I wasn't happy with the results. I gave your post a thumbs up.

 

[Johann]

Did you use Chatgpt to create that? I tried running my thoughts through it but I wasn't happy with the results. I gave your post a thumbs up.

Yes @synergy, let me know why you are not happy with the results.

J.

 

[synergy]

Yes @synergy, let me know why you are not happy with the results.

J.

I'm still learning how to construct a good prompt. Do you follow some guidelines to construct a good prompt?

 

[Johann]

I'm still learning how to construct a good prompt. Do you follow some guidelines to construct a good prompt?

Absolutely, I can provide you with a list of helpful prompts, but I encourage you to always fact-check the data to ensure accuracy. For example, you can explore how the Bahá'í Faith views the resurrection of Jesus by reviewing resources on their official site. A relevant search page can be found here: Bahá'í Faith on the Resurrection of Jesus."

Search Bahai.org

The website of the worldwide Bahá’í community

www.bahai.org

J.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

THE "CORE BLOCK"
Summary before Paul​

Forgiveness is essential in God's revelation and in any serious soteriology.
If the belief in Jesus' deity, substitutionary blood atonement or physical resurrection were a condition to obtain God's mercy, God would have stressed this at every single time He asked us to repent.
Let me repeat it: God would have leveraged on every single opportunity to do it.
But that's not the case. Here are 20 times (22, considering the repetitions) in which God addressed directly the topic of forgiveness. I will call this from now on "The Core Block".
In none of them God informs about condition that, for many Evangelical Christians, is essential and not-negotiable.

1. 1 Kings 8:22-53 Prayer of Solomon while dedicating the Temple. Even when animal sacrifices would be the center of Temple's ritual, Solomon makes no reference whatsoever of blood atonement as the condition to be forgiven. And certainly, No mentioning of the need to believe in a future Messiah who would be God, pay debts and resurrect physically.
2. Isaiah 6:6 God forgives Isaiah without any mentioning of a future Messiah who would be God, pay debts and resurrect physically. Furthermore, God uses a symbol that has nothing to do with blood.
3. Isaiah 55:7 God forgives the person who turns to Him and abandons the bad ways. No mentioning of the need to believe in a future Messiah who would be God, pay debts and resurrect physically.
4. Jeremiah 36:3 God forgives people if they turn from their evil ways. No mentioning of the need to believe in a future Messiah who would be God, pay debts and resurrect physically.
5. Daniel 4:19 Daniel prays to God recognizing the sin of his people and ask Him to forgive them. No mentioning of the need to believe in a future Messiah ("the Son of Man") who would be God, pay debts and resurrect physically.
6. Psalm 32:1-5. Confession and sorrow are enough to expect God's mercy. No mentioning of the need to believe in a future Messiah who would be God, pay debts and resurrect physically.
7. Psalm 51. The most extensive and specific display of repentance present in the Bible. Full trust in God's power to cleanse sins and renew the heart. No mentioning of the need to believe in a future Messiah who would be God, pay debts and resurrect physically.
8. Psalm 103:1-3 Confidence in God's mercy. No mentioning of the need to believe in a future Messiah who would be God, pay debts and resurrect physically.
9. Mathew 5:7 Jesus teaches that those who are merciful will obtain mercy. No mentioning of rituals, creeds or blood atonement.
10. Matthew 6:9-14. The Lord's Prayer. We ask the Father to forgive our debts as we do with our debtors. No rituals, doctrinal confessions or substitutionary atonements required. As a corollary, Jesus states that if we show mercy to others, God will show mercy to us.
11. Matthew 9:13 (repeated in 12:7). Jesus reinforces what has been told in the Tanakh: that sacrifices do not satisfy God, but our attitude of mercy to others.
12. Matthew 9:27 (an again in 20:31-34). Two blind men ask Jesus for mercy. He extends that mercy out of compassion, without demanding a belief in his deity, blood atonement or future physical resurrection.
13. Matthew 15:22 A woman of Canaan asks Jesus for mercy. Even when she does not share the religion of Israel, Jesus does not demand this from her as a condition to extend his mercy.
14. Matthew 18:21-35. The king's mercy to his servant is for free. No substitutionary payment required. No confessions on theological beliefs required. The King just expects his servant to extend as well free mercy on others.
15. Mark 10:46-52. Bartimeus ask Jesus for mercy. He extends that mercy and heals him from blindness praising his faith. His faith, though, didn't include any declaration whatsoever of Jesus deity, blood atonement or physical resurrection.
16. Luke 1:50 God's mercy is for those who fear Him. God-fearing (righteousness) but no mention of a belief in Jesus deity, blood atonement or physical resurrection.
17. Luke 15:11-31 The Father accepts his son based on his repentance. No demand to pay a debt. The good brother does not offer to pay any debt. No substitutionary atonement at all.
18. Luke 16:23-25. The rich in torment asks Father Abraham for mercy. Such mercy is denied, not on the basis of any doctrinal error, but on the basis of an evil behavior.
19. Luke 18:9-14 The tax collector gets justified based on his humble repentance. No reference whatsoever to a substitutionary payment of a debt, or the need to believe in Jesus deity or physical resurrection.
20. Luke 23:33-34. Jesus intercedes for those who do not believe in his deity, substitutionary atonement or physical resurrection.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Absolutely, I can provide you with a list of helpful prompts, but I encourage you to always fact-check the data to ensure accuracy. For example, you can explore how the Bahá'í Faith views the resurrection of Jesus by reviewing resources on their official site. A relevant search page can be found here: Bahá'í Faith on the Resurrection of Jesus."

Search Bahai.org

The website of the worldwide Bahá’í community

www.bahai.org

J.

The source Johann is quoting is the official website and fully reliable.
I recognize Johann for his willingness to keep the conversation honest. That reveals his commitment to Christ.