False Prophets the most used comeback!

[vsedriver]

Nothing is more pleasing to God than to have a family of Mother Teresa’s UNITED in action towards complete selfless service towards God.
.

Mother Teresa’s family consisted of nuns, AKA unmarried women who took vows to remain unmarried. Mother Teresa became a eunuch for the love of God. She did not marry and raise a family. Perhaps her selfless service towards God was complete do to her choice to remain unmarried.

Thank you for proving that remaining unmarried and devoting your life towards complete selfless service towards God is the higher calling.

 

[vsedriver]

The Bible belongs to all people. The Word of God shows no segregations. It is the interpretations of it that people cling onto as if its a property war
(Maybe i should have worded my previous post better)

.

You seem to believe that the Bible is open to many interpretations. But it is not. It may vary in individual inspiration but interpretation has always been the responsibility of the Church through the Bishops in the Magisterium. Just as the Holy Spirit inspired the writing of the Sacred Scripture so to does the Holy Spirit inspire the interpretation of Sacred Scripture by the Magisterium of the Church.

There can be only one authority for the understanding of Sacred Scripture because there can be only one Truth. The denial of this leads to schizophrenic theology in the form of 30,000 or more Christian sects and denominations (denominations are offshoots of Catholicism).

This has nothing to do with exclusivity. Exclusivity would come into play if Catholics refused to share the interpretation of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition but this in not the fact. All are welcome to learn the Truth.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

I’ve met several Baha’is with Zoroastrian backgrounds… but see the following as it gives a detailed account:
bahai-library.com/buck_bahaullah_zoroastrian_saviour
Here Baha’u’llah responds to questions by a Zoroastrian Mánikchí Sáhib an emissary on behalf of the Parsees of India to assist their coreligionists in Iran:
reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/TU/tu-4.html

Big problem with . . . Drawing from the Jewish ideal of the three highest offices (tria munera), which gave rise to an expectation of three messiahs at the time of John the Baptist (note the three questions addressed to the Baptist in the first chapter of the gospel of John), Bahá’u’lláh was neither a “royal” messiah, nor was he a “priestly” messiah. But was he a “prophetic” messiah?
First, John was asked four questions, not three. There is also a division being made in the office of the Messiah, “royal,” “priestly,” and “prophetic,” as though
there are three Messiah’s which is wrong. JESUS is King, Priest, and Prophet as Messiah, fulfills all three offices, so Baha’u’llah is out of the offices to meet.
Also have an issue withWhile Bahá’u’lláh’s claim, on the face of it, failed to fulfil Zoroastrian apocalypses literally, he did succeed in making a case for fulfilment symbolically. As stated, Persian Zoroastrians who accepted Bahá’u’lláh recovered neither their former monarchy nor their lost empire. But they did get a new world religion, the Bahá’í Faith, which, like Zoroastrianism, was Persian in origin, and had a number of resonances with, if not elements of, Zoroastrianism itself. In this light, the Bahá’í Faith was embraced by Zoroastrian converts as Zoroastrianism reborn. But, for other Zoroastrians, the Bahá’í religion
was simply Zoroastrianism abandoned.
Oh Sure, Yes! “Symbolically…” Of Course! You know one can claim anything as
symbolic and form his own cult too you know. Why also do you think that some Zoroastrians feel that the Bahá’í Faith is just “Zoroastrianism abandoned?”

Besides, Zoroastrianism has TWO gods, coexistent, coeternal.

And that come to pass which he spoke, and he say to thee: Let us go and follow strange gods,
which thou knowest not, and let us serve them: Thou shalt not hear the words of that prophet
or dreamer: for the Lord your God trieth you, that it may appear whether you love him with all
your heart, and with all your soul, or not.
– (Deuteronomy 13:2-3)

 

[RC_David333]

**the Catholic monk, brother Dimond, totally destroys the heretical arguments of the calvinist in this debate. Here is the link to that debate…

youtube.com/watch?v=Qn1vC1Ez-OI

To learn more about brother Dimond, his Monastery and the true teachings of our Lord, Jesus Christ, then please visit VaticanCatholic.com or MostHolyFamilyMonastery.com **

 

[arthra]

Vsedriver,

Thanks for your posts… I’ve always thought of the Bible as part of the spiritual heritage of mankind… since so many elements of it come from various sources and offers such a vast treasury of spiritual experience over a thousand years…

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Vsedriver,

Thanks for your posts… I’ve always thought of the Bible as part of the spiritual heritage of mankind… since so many elements of it come from various sources and offers such a vast treasury of spiritual experience over a thousand years…

Is that right?
Because I see people such as Mormons and Baha’i using the
Bible, but more as one would use a hammer towards a screw.

Currently watching an episode of the John Ankerberg Show
dealing with Christianity vs Baha’i, which seems to demon–
strate the imagery I just made above.

 

[vsedriver]

Vsedriver,

Thanks for your posts… I’ve always thought of the Bible as part of the spiritual heritage of mankind… since so many elements of it come from various sources and offers such a vast treasury of spiritual experience over a thousand years…

the Bible is older than a thousand years. The old testament is God’s covenant with the chosen people. The new testament is God’s new covenant with all mankind through Jesus Christ.

All religions have a bit of the Truth since man naturally seeks for a relationship with God. But only Catholicism has the whole Truth as taught to us by the Son of God, Jesus Christ. If all mankind needed was a book, Jesus would have written one. But he left us the Church of which the Bible is a key part but only a part.

We need look no further for any other ‘prophets’.

 

[PRmerger]

All religions have a bit of the Truth since man naturally seeks for a relationship with God. But only Catholicism has the whole Truth as taught to us by the Son of God, Jesus Christ. If all mankind needed was a book, Jesus would have written one. But he left us the Church of which the Bible is a key part but only a part.

Egg-zactly!

We are not a People of the Book. We are a People of the Word.

 

[Servant19]

the Bible is older than a thousand years. The old testament is God’s covenant with the chosen people. The new testament is God’s new covenant with all mankind through Jesus Christ.

All religions have a bit of the Truth since man naturally seeks for a relationship with God. But only Catholicism has the whole Truth as taught to us by the Son of God, Jesus Christ. If all mankind needed was a book, Jesus would have written one. But he left us the Church of which the Bible is a key part but only a part.

We need look no further for any other ‘prophets’.

“WHOLE” Truth means there is nothing more to say.

If Catholicism has the whole Truth, why can it not provide a solution to:

1. It’s own tainted history of problems, and
2. The problems of humanity as a whole.

Whole Truth would address these two simple issues immediately.

.

 

[Servant19]

Then you should have given him credit.

I did dear friend, you can go back and have a more thorough read

Oh my. Unit over truth? What is the point in having unity in falsehood? Both you and professor Johnson are way off the mark here. Paul preached Jesus. Jesus is Truth itself, or rather, Himself.

Christ’s Church, therefore, is called to unity in truth because it is called to unity in Christ. Here’s an example of Paul’s views on unity with those outside of the Church, i.e. non-Christians:

“Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 15 What harmony is there between Christ and Belial[a]? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God.” (2 Cor 6:14-15)

So I ask you, Servant, based upon Paul’s words above, why would any Christian accept the words of those who deny the truth of Christ in favor of some subsequent “prophet”, whether that be Muhammad (who denies Christ’s divinity and salvific power) or Baha’u’llah who claims to be even greater than Christ? Sorry, no unity there.

Yes, righteousness and wickedness are separate entities.

What is it within the Bahai Faith that is wickedness Steve? In fact, how do you define wickedness?

Strong position, spirit forms the identity of a human. This is almost anti-Catholic.
Weak position, the identity is more in line with Catholic teaching…but Paul said neither matters, as long as there is unity.

Which one is truth? The strong position? Or the weak position?

Absolute truth is unknown by any human, but unity is perfectly within the reach of any human.

Paul understood this…

.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

“WHOLE” Truth means there is nothing more to say.

PRECISELY!

If Catholicism has the whole Truth, why can it not provide a solution to:

1. It’s own tainted history of problems, and
2. The problems of humanity as a whole.

Whole Truth would address these two simple issues immediately.

So God’s Truth is not good enough?
God didn’t come and die for us to stop wars and contentions, poverty and so forth.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

What is it within the Bahai Faith that is wickedness Steve? In fact, how do you define wickedness?

What is wicked about the Baha’i Faith? It leads people astray, away from the Cross, away from Salvation.

Oh, and you have not yet answered my challenge:

I also found something interesting** . . .**

Originally Posted by **Servant19 **

 

[Servant19]

But not another person; another Messiah. The same Messiah who will come again. Not a new prophet or a new manifestation. The same One, Jesus Christ. He is the fulfillment. We do not wait for or seek another. We wait for Jesus, the same person born in a stable in Bethlehem roughly 2000 years ago. It is he who will come again.

Please explain therefore how the same person born in a stable can return with a “new name”?

This is attested in the NT and the OT.

In Revelation 3:12, you will see a new name being mentioned alongside the new Jerusalem.

The one who is victorious I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will they leave it. I will write on them the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on them my new name."

And in Isaiah 62, we see reference to a new name.

62 For Zion’s sake I will not keep silent,
for Jerusalem’s sake I will not remain quiet,
till her vindication shines out like the dawn,
her salvation like a blazing torch.
2 The nations will see your vindication,
and all kings your glory;
you will be called by a new name
that the mouth of the Lord will bestow.

And again in the same chapter, it is emphasised that the new Jerusalem shall be built, (there will be no rest) not miraculously appear with the pointing finger of God. God will WORK THROUGH those who will not rest to establish His Kingdom:

6 I have posted watchmen on your walls, Jerusalem;
they will never be silent day or night.
You who call on the Lord,
give yourselves no rest,
7 and give him no rest till he establishes Jerusalem
and makes her the praise of the earth.

.

 

[Servant19]

PRECISELY!

So God’s Truth is not good enough?
God didn’t come and die for us to stop wars and contentions, poverty and so forth.

He should have

If I was to die for something it would be to end all human suffering immediately, and eternally, and I will die fighting for that cause.

But I am not God, so I will die trying, but God can and should be able to do this in an instant, and sustainably so…

.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

He should have

“…should have” is a very interesting phrase to apply to God.

If I was to die for something it would be to end all human suffering immediately, and eternally, and I will die fighting for that cause.

So God who came in the flesh died for nothing really, his death and resurrection were in vain?
What God did was far from good enough for you? I’m still really stuck on your “…should have”
phrase

And you didn’t answer my challenge yet . . .

 

[Servant19]

What is wicked about the Baha’i Faith? It leads people astray, away from the Cross, away from Salvation.

Salvation is offered by Baha’u’llah. There is no one being led astray. He represents the “I am” that gives salvation.

The “I am” does not have a human name, it is universal.

I can’t keep repeating this brother…

Oh, and you have not yet answered my challenge:

I cannot be bothered to do a search on the whole of the Dinkird. The source may well be incorrect.

I actually have two sources, both of which are from non-Baha’is which verify the Zoroastrian origin of the passage.

The first one is from
iawwai.com/ZoroastrianProphecies.html

…which if you go to its homepage doesn’t even recognize the Bahai Faith as a religion at all:
iawwai.com/index.htm

The second source is from a Zoroastrian poet named Muhammad Nátiq, who in his “Al-Munázarátu’d-Díníyyah” quotes this Zoroastrian prophecy, and again Nátiq never was or became a Bahai.

The source is obviously lost or is in the Dinkird and no one has spotted it yet.
Either way, it doesn’t form the basis in any way, for my willingness to sacrifice my life for Baha’u’llah

.

 

[Servant19]

So God who came in the flesh died for nothing really, his death and resurrection were in vain?
:

It was perfectly good enough
Trillions and trillions of souls have found salvation through His blessed sacrifice.

Baha’u’llah acknowledges this. Why is this wicked?

May I ask you Judas, what do you think is the purpose of religion?

.

 

[Servant19]

God didn’t come and die for us to stop wars and contentions, poverty and so forth.

By the way, in answer to this, God DID COME and made ultimate sacrifices to “stop wars and contentions, poverty and so forth”

Please read about the sacrifices made for humanity by Baha’u’llah

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Salvation is offered by Baha’u’llah. There is no one being led astray. He represents the “I am” that gives salvation.

The “I am” does not have a human name, it is universal.

I can’t keep repeating this brother…

You say that Baha’u’llah represents the “I AM”, I say that Jesus IS the “I AM”.
Anything apart from Christianity is further from Jesus, who is the I AM, so the
Baha’i Faith IS leading people astray. It is taking away the Deity of Jesus. The
Resurrection is also denied, it perverts the doctrines in the Bible, and so much
more. Baha’u’llah is leading people astray.

I cannot be bothered to do a search on the whole of the Dinkird. The source may well be incorrect.

But the Baha’i Faith is using that passage in its own defense, I’ve seen it throughout
the web during my search. Are the Baha’i lying? Why? Search for it using that link I
provided you. I’ve done my best to make my citations searchable, do likewise.

I actually have two sources, both of which are from non-Baha’is which verify the Zoroastrian origin of the passage.

The first one is from
iawwai.com/ZoroastrianProphecies.html

Which has that Dinkard passage that DOES NOT EXIST (unless you prove otherwise).

…which if you go to its homepage doesn’t even recognize the Bahai Faith as a religion at all:
iawwai.com/index.htmThe second source is from a Zoroastrian poet named Muhammad Nátiq, who in his “Al-Munázarátu’d-Díníyyah” quotes this Zoroastrian prophecy, and again Nátiq never was or became a Bahai.

Muhammad Nátiq never became Baha’i? Why ever not? Can you find me more
information on him and his Al-Munázarátu’d-Díníyyah? I’m trying, but the infor–
mation on him and his book are very few results, VERY FEW.

The source is obviously lost or is in the Dinkird and no one has spotted it yet.
Either way, it doesn’t form the basis in any way, for my willingness to sacrifice my life for Baha’u’llah

So what you are telling me is that the Baha’i cite a passage
from the Dinkird that does not exist, they made it up. Why?
You’d sacrifice your life for Baha’u’llah, but not to Jesus Christ, nor sacrif-
ice your time to convince me of the existence of a non-existent passage.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

It was perfectly good enough
Trillions and trillions of souls have found salvation through His blessed sacrifice.

Baha’u’llah acknowledges this. Why is this wicked?

May I ask you Judas, what do you think is the purpose of religion?

No Baha’u’llah nor the Baha’i acknowledge this, that GOD became INCARNATE
and DIED for sins of the world. The Baha’i Faith denies the Son (God The Son)
and according to the Apostle John, they also deny the Father (God The Father),
which they readily do by making him into Baha’u’llah.

So you believe in someone called Jesus, call him the Messiah, but this is not
the same Jesus, nor do you believe in the same God even. Your Jesus is on–
ly a manifestation/creation of some god who at one time was one of TWO.

So you preach a different God, a different Jesus, a totally
different Gospel. So that is both wicked and blasphemous.

Oh also, who is the “Promised One” in Christianity?
You never answered that. And please cite your source.