I have a question which may offend some. It is not my intent to be provocative, so I'll apologize up front if offense is taken. But this is the question: are there two Korans, one version for Arabs, and another for non-Arabs? Over the years, I have repeatedly run into this persistent report. Until recently, I simply discounted it for lack of corroborating evidence. But I thought I should begin asking around among people who might know. Basically, the rumor I run into is this: the original Koran as written is a racist document that regards only Arabs as having souls. Arab non-Muslims lose their souls to Hell. But non-Arabs don't even have souls. Non-Arabs are the moral equivalent of unclean animals. They can be killed, raped, lied to or cheated with impunity. No sin can be committed against non-Arabs because non-Arabs have no soul. The Koran (which I am told exhorts men to beat their wives into obedience), is printed in two editions, one of which is only for Arab consumption (and perhaps only for upper echelons in the faith), the other of which is for general worldwide public consumption for reasons which should be obvious if the above rumor is true. I know that this rumor is probably on a plane with leprechaun sightings. But even if it is false, its decades-long persistence and widespread repetition is a phenomenon worthy of study. If, however, there is any grain of truth to it, the non-Arab world may be facing a fight to the death against racist fanatics willing to kill themselves in their cause. Any objective, empirical input would be appreciated. Once again, my apologies to anyone offended by this topic.
This is a bit of anti-Islamic propaganda that you have here. Beneath it all is an exaggeration. Conventionally, there is one Holy Qor'an, written in Arabic, somewhat like the King James Bible to the extent that many know every word, verse by vers of the whole book. Unlike the King James, that Holy Qor'an is conventionally accepted as the Text received from God. In fact there may have been some very minor variant renditions in the early years, but w/in a few decades of the Prophet Muhammad's life (the reign of on of the first three Kalifs), there was only one version.
Anything other than this Arabic text is understood to be an interpretation, rather than the Holy Qor'an and in this respect it is quite different from your Bible.
There is no basis for the allegation that only Arabs have souls. Most Muslims are not Arabs at all, and many of them understand Arabic well enough to figure out if the Holy Qor'an casts them as "unclean animals". In the Holy Qor'an, Blessed Jesus Christ is regarded as God's Representative on earth, and He was a Jew and not an Arab.
This is the first time that I've heard this fantastically offensive piece of anti_Islamic propaganda. Please politely tell all that you hear this from that it is an utter fabrication, of the worst stripe.
ROBERT ARVAY wrote: > I have a question which may offend some. It is not my intent to be > provocative, so I'll apologize up front if offense is taken. But this > is the question: are there two Korans, one version for Arabs, and > another for non-Arabs? Over the years, I have repeatedly run into this > persistent report. Until recently, I simply discounted it for lack of > corroborating evidence. But I thought I should begin asking around > among people who might know. > Basically, the rumor I run into is this: the original Koran as written > is a racist document that regards only Arabs as having souls. Arab > non-Muslims lose their souls to Hell. But non-Arabs don't even have > souls. Non-Arabs are the moral equivalent of unclean animals. They can > be killed, raped, lied to or cheated with impunity. No sin can be > committed against non-Arabs because non-Arabs have no soul. > The Koran (which I am told exhorts men to beat their wives into > obedience), is printed in two editions, one of which is only for Arab > consumption (and perhaps only for upper echelons in the faith), the > other of which is for general worldwide public consumption for reasons > which should be obvious if the above rumor is true. > I know that this rumor is probably on a plane with leprechaun sightings. > But even if it is false, its decades-long persistence and widespread > repetition is a phenomenon worthy of study. > If, however, there is any grain of truth to it, the non-Arab world may > be facing a fight to the death against racist fanatics willing to kill > themselves in their cause. > Any objective, empirical input would be appreciated. > Once again, my apologies to anyone offended by this topic.
First time I've heard any rumour even remotely like this. It sounds as paranoid and wrongheaded as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion - a self-serving myth to justify Islamophobia, as the Protocols were a self-serving myth to justify jew hating.
What I *have* heard is that Muslims tend to consider that the Arabic text of the Koran is the perfect word of God, and that it is in fact impossible to translate - which is why muslims, whatever their native tongue, place a great stress on learning and memorising the Koran in its original language.
This is the reason why Muslims have been so often reluctant to translate to Koran themselves, or to give any official status to translations produced by others.
Good translations of the Koran are around these days, and I would suggest the way to dispel these myths for yourself would be to study these translations and the history of the Koran for yourself.
>Good translations of the Koran are around these days, and I would suggest >the way to dispel these myths for yourself would be to study these >translations >and the history of the Koran for yourself.
Orrrr.... it's easy enough to enrol in an Arabic class and he could go and read the original for himself.
"ROBERT ARVAY" <RAR...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:1131-3BACF0C0-152@storefull-112.iap.bryant.webtv.net... I have a question which may offend some. It is not my intent to be provocative, so I'll apologize up front if offense is taken. But this is the question: are there two Korans, one version for Arabs, and another for non-Arabs? Over the years, I have repeatedly run into this persistent report. Until recently, I simply discounted it for lack of corroborating evidence. But I thought I should begin asking around among people who might know. Basically, the rumor I run into is this: the original Koran as written is a racist document that regards only Arabs as having souls. Arab non-Muslims lose their souls to Hell. But non-Arabs don't even have souls. Non-Arabs are the moral equivalent of unclean animals. They can be killed, raped, lied to or cheated with impunity. No sin can be committed against non-Arabs because non-Arabs have no soul. The Koran (which I am told exhorts men to beat their wives into obedience), is printed in two editions, one of which is only for Arab consumption (and perhaps only for upper echelons in the faith), the other of which is for general worldwide public consumption for reasons which should be obvious if the above rumor is true. I know that this rumor is probably on a plane with leprechaun sightings. But even if it is false, its decades-long persistence and widespread repetition is a phenomenon worthy of study. If, however, there is any grain of truth to it, the non-Arab world may be facing a fight to the death against racist fanatics willing to kill themselves in their cause. Any objective, empirical input would be appreciated. Once again, my apologies to anyone offended by this topic.
I thank all 4 of you for your replies. They are much appreciated. I shall attempt to be less ignorant, but always to pay more attention to the fundamentals of God's word.
We should acknowledge the holy and wondrous Scriptures, for failing to do this we have failed to acknowledge the truth of this blessed verse. For it is evident that whoso hath failed to acknowledge the truth of the Qur'an hath in reality failed to acknowledge the truth of the preceding Scriptures. This is but the manifest implication of the verse. Were We to expound its inner meanings and unfold its hidden mysteries, eternity would never suffice to exhaust their import, nor would the universe be capable of hearing them! God verily testifieth to the truth of Our saying! [-Bahá'u'lláh, Kitáb-i-Íqán, p. 204]
Hello, Adelard; A few weeks ago I (and others) discussed the issue of Christian fundamentals in a thread on TRB (if you care to look it up). Basically, they are encapsulated in the Apostle's Creed: There is one God who created all that was created. God is triune (Father, Son, Holy Spirit, 3 persons in one God). The son, Jesus, was born of a virgin, suffered and died on the cross for the remission of our sins, and was raised again from death. He is now physically in heaven, but will (soon?) return in glory to establish His kingdom on earth. Those who humbly trust in Jesus will be rewarded eternally in heaven. Those who reject His loving salvation will suffer eternally in the outer darkness or lake of fire. These comments are impromptu, and incomplete, but I will be happy to discuss them further if you wish. May God bless us all in these coming days!
Just as I thought these rumors have no foundation, I watched an interview on TV (last night) with some Moslems which reignited the matter. The interviewees were anti-Taliban Afghanis. They admitted that they trade in drugs. When asked, isn't this against your religion, they replied that it's forbidden to harm Moslems with drugs, but not non-Moslems. They said that this is supported in the Koran. Now look, I'm not looking under the bed for reasons to impugn Moslems or their Koran. But others in this thread have said that they never heard of such rumors (of a secret Koran). I wondered why I had. All I'm saying now is that, if these Afghanis are willing to so openly state that non-Moslems are not to be regarded as human, then there is indeed a sliver of evidence behind these rumors. To be sure, religious bigotry is not confined to Moslems. Christians have historically persecuted nonChristians. And the Bible has been misused toward that end. I'm not trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. I'm simply concerned, in light of the recent atrocities against us, to know more about the mindset of those whose acts of destruction are limited only by their physical ability to inflict them on us. If they are not limited by morality, the war is a matter of life and death for us. A related question: is it true that in every majority-Moslem country, there is no freedom of religion for non-Moslems? How does that portend (if at all) as our own Moslem populations increase? Am I a nut case for thinking of these things?
<Snip> < The son, Jesus, was born of a virgin, suffered
> and died on the cross for the remission of our sins,
<snip>
What does it mean ?
As i understand what you are saying is that you can still commit sins, but if you believe in Christ, you will be save by Christ's salvation. Is that true?
You know the drill. If it fits, cut and stick! The same methods used in Christian Fundamentalism are used in Muslim Fundamentalism: Misquotation, appeal to authority, deciet by omission, consensus by elimination, outrageous paraphrasing, etc. If they did not quote chapter and verse, chances are they were quoting their own opinion and not necessarily the Quran. There are two versions of Quran published that differ only in the dialect of english used (as seen in various Bible translations) and the chapter and verse system in use. E.g. The Muslim non-aggression commandment is found in Sura 2:190 in one version, and in Sura 2:186 in the other version. There are easily enough Arabic-speaking Westerners to have discovered and raised academic curiosities if there was ever a secret Quran. There has been over a millenium for this skeleton to stumble out of the closet!
The Quran is not the only source of material written or dictated by Mohammed. There are also a number of Prophet's Charters which, explicitly prohibit the persecution or harassment of Christians. I have provided these for your perusal:
The Prophets Charter Written by Ali on behalf of Mohammed in the year 2AH.
"This is the certificate written by Mohammed son of 'Abdallah, the Prophet of God, and His messenger unto all mankind, delivering both promises and threats, and having in his keeping the deposit of God unto His Creation, that men might have no plea after the coming of the Messengers. And God is mighty and wise. This he wrote concerning the people of the Christian religion, and to such as profess the Christian religion in the East and West, near and Far, clear speaking and barbarous, known and unknown. He wrote it for them as a charter, and whosoever violates, alters, or transgresses the covenant that is therein, shall have violated the covenant of God, broken His promise, ridiculed his religion, and earned His curse, whether he be a sovereign or any other Moslem. If any monk or pilgrim entrench himself in mountain, valley, cave, township, level, sand, or church, I shall be behind them defending them from any that shall envy them, by myself, my helpers, my people, my sect, and my followers, inasmuch as they are my subjects and the people of my covenant. And I exempt them from the vexation in victuals which is endured by the people of the Covenant in that they have to pay the tax, save so far as they themselves of their own free will offer it, and there is to be no compulsion nor force employed. No Bishop is to be removed from his diocese, nor monk from his monkdom, nor ascetic from his cell, nor pilgrim from his pilgrimage, neither is any of their assembling-places or churches be pulled down. Neither shall any of the wealth of their churches be employed for the building of mosques or houses for moslems; and whoever doeth this shall have violated the charter of God and the charter of His Prophet; neither shall there be taken from monks, bishops, or ministers any poll tax or fine. I shall maintain their security wheresoever they be, whether on land or sea, east, west, north, or south. They shall at all times and in all places be under my protection and within my covenant and immunity from all mischief. Likewise the hermits in the mountains and blessed places shall not have to pay land-tax nor tithe on that which they sow, nor shall a portion be taken from them seeing that it is only enough for their own mouths, nor shall they have to render assistance at harvest-time, nor shallthey be forced to go out on service in time of war, neither shal more be demanded of them that pay the land-tax and the owners of property and estates and those that engage in merchandise than twelve dirhems altogether once a year. None of them shall be made to pay more than is due, neither shall they be striven with save in kindly dealing. They shall guard them under the wing of mercy by keeping off them the vexation of all mischief wherever they be and wheresoever they dwell. And if Christians dwell among Moslems, the Moslems shall satisfy them, and suffer them to pray in their churches, and shall not interfere in any way with the practice of their religion. And whoso violates the charter of God, and does the contrary thereof, shall be counted a rebel against His covenant and against His Apostle; further, the Moslems shall aid in repairing the Christian churches and places, which shall remain in keeping of the Christians on condition that they abide in their religion and act according to the charter. None of them shall be compelled to bear arms, for the Moslems shall protect them. And none shall violate this charter for all time, even unto the Day of Judgement and the end of the world."
(Reproduced on page 123 of "Umayyads and 'Abbasids". Being the fourth part of "Jurji Zayden's History of Islamic Civilization". Authored by Jurji Zayden. Translated by D. S. Margoliouth, D. Litt. For Darf Publishers, London. First published 1907. New impresssion 1987. - All spelling and punctuation errors of this book's rendition preserved as found for future study.)
(Prior Source: Feridun Bey "Compositions of the Sultans")
(Original kept in the Monastery of Mt. Sinai Removed in 1600 AD by Sultan Selim the Conquerer to Constantinople For translation into Turkish A copy of which was returned to the monastery)
Here is what Gary L. Matthews has to say about this charter: "Perhaps Muhammad's single strongest statement (of which I'm aware) isn't in the Qur'an. It's His "Charter to the Christians" -- a legally binding document which He, as head of the Muslim State, issued to the monks of St. Catherine at Mount Sinai. Dictated by the Prophet Himself, it was transcribed by His son-in-law and successor, Ali, then signed and witnessed by twenty-two of His leading companions. This agreement spells out Muhammad's attitude and policy toward Christians everywhere -- a mandate He sternly imposes upon every Muslim "until the Day of Resurrection". An English translation by Anton Haddad was published in 1902 by the Baha'i Board of Counsel in New York, under the title: "The Oath of Muhammad to the Followers of the Nazarene". The Arabic text is found, perhaps among other sources, in Naufal Effendi Naufal's "Sunnajutu't-Tarab". "
The more people join become privy to a conspiracy, the less likely it will succeed, and the faster it will be exposed. This is why the only successful covert organisations operate in smll cells. That way, each operation that is conspired is only known to a minimal number of people. When you speak of two versions of one book referenced by millions of people, that nobody is aware of in spite of international travel and friendship, it seems impractical.
Now there is more than one version of Christian canon, and the Coptic Bible is a completely different book to the Orthodox/Catholic/Protestant Bibles. If there were more than one Quran based on differing Islamic canons, then we would see numerous Islamic sects dedicated to one version or the other, as we do in Christianity.
-- Timothy Casey South Australia wor...@iprimus.com.au
Hello, Adelard; You ask the crucial (no pun intended) question, can a saved sinner continue sinning and yet still be saved? Can? Yes. Does? No. Salvation of a lost soul does not mean the perfection of that soul into one who never fails, never stumbles, never sins. Salvation is the rescue of that soul from the slavery to sin. Just as God breathed a soul into Adam giving him spiritual life, Adam's sin suffocated that life, leaving mankind in a hopeless condition, a condition of spiritual death. Christ suffered that death for us, in our place, even being separated from His Father in Heaven (and thus His dying words, "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?"). Hopelessness became hope. When a person gives his life to Jesus, he does not lose his life, but rather gains it. Just as Jesus suffered the penalty of sin for us, so also did he conquer death for us in the resurrection. Therefore, we, too are raised from the death of sin by His loving grace. When a person accets this free gift from Jesus, a gift so valuable we could never earn it ourselves, he undergoes a dramatic transformation which no one can begin to understand unless he has experienced it. The Bible describes it as having become a new person, and at the same time, having all things made new unto him. But the unsaved cannot understand, just as the saved cannot expain it. The closest I can come is to say that salvation filled me with an enduring, intense sense of gratitude to Jesus which dominates my life through all of life's joys and pains, through all its hills and valleys. Yet, as Paul said, I do the things which I ought not, and do not the things which I ought. Although I am transformed from a slave of sin into a servant of God, I am like the Israelite freed by Moses from slavery and entering into the desert of freedom, of its uncertainty and its responsibilities. The Israelites wanted to turn back to Egypt and become slaves once again! Could they have? Yes. But they did not. So also the saved sinner has not reached the Promised Land, but rather, only just set out upon the journey. Through the valley of the shadow of death he must pass--- not around it. All the way, he continues to need, and to receive, God's leadership, guidance and direction. When he sins, God corrects him, with punishment or other means, but never with condemnation. God's love is unconditional. And God is always, always with us in our struggles. It is not true that one can use salvation as a license to commit evil with immunity. (The Bible says, do not use your liberty for evil.) Acceptance of salvation is not mechanical. It is heartfelt. It is a humbling, an admission of wrongdoing, an abject remorse, and a transforming resolve to devote one's life to God. And because God is constantly imploring each and every unsaved person to accept His free gift, it actually requires an act of will and of irrevocable rebellion (the sin against the Holy Spirit, the acceptance of the mark of the Beast) to avoid being saved. This is how salvation is open to all, even if they have never known of Jesus in the intellect. Somehow, in the spirit, God gets through to everyone. I know that I can never adequately answer your question. It can be answered only by God. But He has promised that you shall know the truth, and that it shall set you free. If you pray to Him, He will answer. If you read His word (the Holy Bible is God's inerrant word for this and all ages to come), you will be enriched. If you commune with His devoted followers, God will nurture you through them. May the peace of Jesus Christ, that peace which surpasses understanding, be upon us all, now, and during these difficult times to come.
> <Snip> > < > The son, Jesus, was born of a virgin, suffered > > and died on the cross for the remission of our sins, > <snip>
> What does it mean ?
> As i understand what you are saying is that you can still commit sins, but > if you believe in Christ, you will be save by Christ's salvation. Is that > true?
> Adelard
Hai Adelard! There is another way of looking at this topic.
When Christ died on the cross, He forgave His persecutors - Christ must have forgiven them if He asked God to forgive them. This was done as an example of what we must do. The Golden Rule is the summation, purpose, and therefore the very context of the Bible. Every interpretation thereof, must fit with the Golden rule. Matthew 7:12 states the Golden Rule in full:
"Do unto others as you would that others do unto you; for this is the Law and the Prophets."
The "Law and the Prophets" was how such collections of canonical religious texts as the Bible, were referred to in Christ's time. The statement from Mathew 7:12 is a paraphrase of a statement in Talmud Shabbat 31a:
"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. That is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary."
It is clear that if the entire Law (and Prophets, etc) is summed up by the Golden Rule, then it is true that the correct interpretation of every religious precept is a reflection of the Golden Rule in specific application.
So what does this have to do with remission of sins? Well, the mission statements (such as the Golden Rule as it is held in Judaism and Christianity and quoted above) define the limitation of definition and meaning, that such concepts as "salvation" and "remission of sin" can have if they are used in the same collection of texts in which, the mission statement occurs. Remission of sins is an excellent example. It seems that Christ was extremely consistent with what He intimated to be the purpose of religion. In Matthew 6:14-15 we read:
[Matthew 6:14] "For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; [Matthew 6:15] "but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."
This definition of salvation is clearly in line with the context of the Bible discussed above, and further serves the same purpose of the Bible as discussed above. It is further supported by such statements as:
[Luke 6:37] "Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven"
[Matthew 5:7] "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy."
When Christ died on the cross, He forgave His oppressors and this is an example of the degree to which we must forgive others. This is how the crucifixion is Biblically related to "salvation" and "remission of sins"
As for the name of your faith, this is largely irrelevant for:
[2 John 1:9] "Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son."
In other words, it is the teaching and not the teacher that is important. The light and not the lamp -
[Luke 6:43] "For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit; [Luke 6:44] for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thorns, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush.
- The fruit and not the tree.
Abdu'l-Baha is reported to have said:
"When Christians act according to the teachings of Christ, they are called Baha'is. For the foundations of Christianity and the religion of Baha'u'llah are one. The foundations of all the divine Prophets and Holy Books are one. The difference among them is one of terminology only. Each springtime is identical with the former springtime. The distinction between them is only one of the calendar - 1911, 1912 and so on. The difference between a Christian and a Baha'i, therefore, is this: There was a former springtime, and there is a springtime now. No other difference exists because the foundations are the same. Whoever acts completely in accordance with the teachings of Christ is a Baha'i. The purpose is the essential meaning of Christian, not the mere word. The purpose is the sun itself and not the dawning points. For though the sun is one sun, its dawning points are many." (`Abdu'l-Baha: Promulgation of Universal Peace, Pages: 247-248)
This reflects a similar and unifying theme in published Baha'i literature.
Anyway, that is just my perspective...
-- Timothy Casey South Australia wor...@iprimus.com.au
> "When Christians act according to the teachings of Christ, they are called > Baha'is. For the foundations of Christianity and the religion of > Baha'u'llah are one. The foundations of all the divine Prophets and Holy > Books are one. The difference among them is one of terminology only. Each > springtime is identical with the former springtime. The distinction between > them is only one of the calendar - 1911, 1912 and so on. The difference > between a Christian and a Baha'i, therefore, is this: There was a former > springtime, and there is a springtime now. No other difference exists > because the foundations are the same. Whoever acts completely in accordance > with the teachings of Christ is a Baha'i. The purpose is the essential > meaning of Christian, not the mere word. The purpose is the sun itself and > not the dawning points. For though the sun is one sun, its dawning points > are many." > (`Abdu'l-Baha: Promulgation of Universal Peace, Pages: 247-248)
> This reflects a similar and unifying theme in published Baha'i literature.
> Anyway, that is just my perspective...
> -- > Timothy Casey > South Australia > wor...@iprimus.com.au
Hello Adelard and Timothy; In reading Timothy Casey's response, I wish to commend him for his well researched comments, and to say that I agree with much of what he says. However, he necessarily steers away from the main point, which is to address the nature of salvation (ref Adelard's question of works vs faith) through Christ. Tim's focus on the Golden Rule does not suffice. Salvation from sin is the center and core of Christ's unique role as the one and only begotten Son of God, the Messiah. The Golden rule is a subset, not an overarching principle, of salvation. The key error in Baha'i doctrine (as I see it), is that while quoting the Bible on the one hand, Baha'is reject the Bible as the uncorrupted, inerrant word of God. Therefore, they are resorting for support to something they regard as unreliable support! Holding the Koran as superior to the Bible, they quote the Bible whenever the quote seems to support their position. But then they turn around and dismiss (or tortuously interpret) the Biblical quotes which undermine their position. They do this of necessity, because in order for Baha'i (or Islamic) theology to work, Jesus must be demoted from His true nature as one person of the Trinity. Adam, on the other hand, through whom sin entered into the world, must strangely be elevated to a position of equality with Jesus. Each of them becomes merely one among many "springtimes," or "manifestations," (but not the thing being manifested), none to be preferred above any other. This inherent contradiction between the Baha'i and Christian essentials of faith cannot be overcome by any attempts at reconciling the two. One of them must be flat wrong. And while Baha'i apologists are impressively skilled at making the attempt, even they must resort to verbal contortions, shifting back and forth between literal and liberal interpretations at the drop of a verse. And while they seem to do well with individual (inconvenient) passages of the Bible, the overall Biblical message stands as an insurmountable fortress against all attempts to make it fit the Baha'i concept of Jesus being only a manifestation of God, and not God incarnate. I am not the only former Baha'i to have noticed these things. Baha'is themselves are well intentioned and beloved by God. But Baha'i doctrine is a dangerous deception. The only shield and shelter is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. You can know that for a fact based not on what I say, but by your own experience through prayer, Bible reading, and fellowship with saved Christians. Jesus proves Himself to me all the time. He is reaching out to you, also. May He be extra close to us in these unsteady times.
Hello, Timothy; Strange. My WebTV "discuss" messageboard did not pick up your message 14617 that begins with "You know the drill." But I got it by happenstance off Mailgate. Never mind. I want to thank you for the post. It was very informative, and frankly, quite gratifying to find that there is unequivocal Moslem textual support for religious tolerance. Taking it at face value, I am reassured that we are not facing into the maw of a worldwide, intractable ideology bent on our annihilation--- although the smaller version of it which we do face is horrific enough, having already killed thousands of us in one fell swoop. It does leave me with the question of political repression of nonMoslem religions in Moslem dominated countries, but that question leaves a hopeful future. I'll disagree with your characterization of Christian Fundamentalists, but I've addressed that in other posts on TRB. Thank you again, Timothy, and may God richly bless you and yours!
> > "When Christians act according to the teachings of Christ, they are called > > Baha'is. For the foundations of Christianity and the religion of > > Baha'u'llah are one. The foundations of all the divine Prophets and Holy > > Books are one. The difference among them is one of terminology only. > Each > > springtime is identical with the former springtime. The distinction > between > > them is only one of the calendar - 1911, 1912 and so on. The difference > > between a Christian and a Baha'i, therefore, is this: There was a former > > springtime, and there is a springtime now. No other difference exists > > because the foundations are the same. Whoever acts completely in > accordance > > with the teachings of Christ is a Baha'i. The purpose is the essential > > meaning of Christian, not the mere word. The purpose is the sun itself and > > not the dawning points. For though the sun is one sun, its dawning points > > are many." > > (`Abdu'l-Baha: Promulgation of Universal Peace, Pages: 247-248)
> > This reflects a similar and unifying theme in published Baha'i literature.
> > Anyway, that is just my perspective...
> > -- > > Timothy Casey > > South Australia > > wor...@iprimus.com.au
> Hello Adelard and Timothy; > In reading Timothy Casey's response, I wish to commend him for his well > researched comments, and to say that I agree with much of what he says.
Thankyou, Robert.
> However, he necessarily steers away from the main point, which is to > address the nature of salvation (ref Adelard's question of works vs > faith) through Christ.
Faith vs. works is an interesting false dilemma that seems as old as Christianity itself. The second chapter of James was written to address this fallacy. To summarise, it says that works are the life of faith, and without works, faith is dead. In today's language, one could go as far as interpreting that without deeds, there is no faith, for all deeds are done in good faith of something. Depression, which is a lack of motivation, is the consequence of despair, which is a complete lack of faith in anything. The ultimate product of lack of faith is inaction.
> Tim's focus on the Golden Rule does not suffice.
If indeed, the question concerned the "faith and works" issue, then perhaps I missed my mark. However, as stated in the final clause of Matthew 7:12, the Golden Rule forms the foundation for Christian belief. A foundation is always a good place to begin building, as surely as the first tool of the explorer is a compass.
> Salvation from sin is the center and core of Christ's unique role as the
Individual salvation as the purpose of the unique aspect of Christ's role, is a viable interpretation. Even the crucifixion revolves around this issue by exemplification of the mission statement in Matthew 7:12
> one and only begotten Son of God, the Messiah.
"Son of God" is analogous with "Friend of God", "Apostle of God", Manifestation of God" etc. in Baha'i theology. However, in Christian (Biblical) doctrine, a son or daughter of God is whoever does the will of God:
[John 1:12] But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; [John 1:13] who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
By:
[Mat 5:9] "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
Because:
[Mat 12:50] For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, and sister, and mother."
Thus, according to Christ, a "son of God" is far from unique in station. Certainly far more humble than the Baha'i analogy with Manifestation of God. How interesting that the next Manifestation chose to name His religion, "Surrender to Peace", which is literally what, "Islam" means.
> The Golden rule is a > subset, not an overarching principle, of salvation.
According to the final clause of Matthew 7:12, "for this is the law and the prophets", the Golden Rule is not a meagre subset, but the foundation on an entire religious system of which, individual salvation is only a part thereof. This is further supported by the statement that:
“So we know and believe the love God has for us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.” (1 John 4:16)
There is no other approximation of God in the Bible, and as God is the object of religion IE:
[Mark 12:28] And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, "Which commandment is the first of all?" [Mark 12:29] Jesus answered, "The first is, `Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one; [Note the use of "the Lord _OUR_ God" by Christ] [Mark 12:30] and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' [Mark 12:31] The second is this, `You shall love your neighbour as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these."
It stands to reason that love as defined by the Golden Rule, stands above all else in the Bible, and sets the context for all Biblical interpretation in accordance with the last clause of Matthew 7:12
> The key error in Baha'i doctrine (as I see it), is that while quoting > the Bible on the one hand, Baha'is reject the Bible as the uncorrupted, > inerrant word of God. Therefore, they are resorting for support to > something they regard as unreliable support!
Not really. The text of the bible is regarded by the Baha'i Faith as follows:
"THIS book is the Holy Book of God, of celestial Inspiration. It is the Bible of Salvation, the Noble Gospel. It is the mystery of the Kingdom and its light. It is the Divine Bounty, the sign of the guidance of God." Abdu'l-Baha Abbas. (`Abdu'l-Baha: Abdu'l-Baha in London, Page: 18)
In other words, there is much truth to be gleaned from the Bible. However, historically, the Bible did not exist as such until the canon was ordained by the Catholic Church in 492 AD. Most of the New Testament texts were written decades after the ascension of Christ. They reflect the cultural, historical, and legal context of the time, in addition to the teachings of Christ. Of a necessity, much of these works is symbolic or written in parables because Aramaic, the language of the Bible, has only a tiny vocabulary. Things such as materialism and fundamentalism find no words to express them in ancient Aramaic. This is best exemplified by the comparison of the story of the Virgin Birth with the fact that not only is the lineage of Christ depicted inconsistently, but through Joseph. The lineages being traced through Joseph, are in complete contradiction with the Virgin Birth account. This demonstrates that in the minds of the authors, the male dominance characteristic of their culture influenced their writing more than reason and logic could.
> Holding the Koran as > superior to the Bible,
The Quran has only a slight edge on the Bible in that it was dictated or written by Mohammed. The great equaliser is that the Quran was assembled from scattered fragments and writings by later followers, and in this sense is still vulnerable to the influence of culture and history. This is because the order and organisation of such fragments can also influence the message with the cultural bias possessed by the people who compiled these into the Quran. What is really challenging for the reader of the Quran is the difficulty of finding obvious mission statements that give direction to Islam. Any lack of mission statement severely restricts the meaningfulness of the text because it denies that text any purpose.
> they quote the Bible whenever the quote seems to > support their position.
I think Baha'is tend to quote the scripture of relevance to the people with whom they communicate. That has always been my approach, both as a Baha'i and before I became a Baha'i.
> But then they turn around and dismiss (or > tortuously interpret) the Biblical quotes which undermine their > position.
Every theology has its far share of literalism and "tortuous" symbolic interpretation. The key to determining the accuracy of a given theology is to determine the objectives of the scriptures concerned and measure the consistency of interpretation against this certain foundation of purpose.
> They do this of necessity, because in order for Baha'i (or Islamic) > theology to work, Jesus must be demoted from His true nature as one > person of the Trinity. Adam, on the other hand, through whom sin > entered into the world, must strangely be elevated to a position of > equality with Jesus.
Adam has a dual nature. There are two different creation stories in Genesis. One describes the creation of Adam the Manifestation, while the other describes the creation of Adam, the community that followed the Manifestation. In Genesis 5:2 we read that Adam is plural _and_ both male and female. This further demonstrates significance of Adam the community as opposed to Adam the individual. The community of Adam sinned and was caste out of the Garden of Eden, just as the community of Christ did sin in its persecution of "heretics", and likewise was cast out of the Garden of the Trust of the Peoples and their Kindreds. In this very day, minor extreme elements of Islam following in the footsteps of history's extreme elements of Christianity etc., persecute those they consider heretical or different. The sin of Adam (the community) is judgement being the fruit of knowledge of good and evil. Judgement is the sin of all those who persecute others.
> Each of them becomes merely one among many > "springtimes," or "manifestations," (but not the thing being > manifested), none to be preferred above any other. > This inherent contradiction between the Baha'i and Christian essentials > of faith cannot be overcome by any attempts at reconciling the two.
If it is the same sun that rises every day, does this make the sun any less than it is. Likewise, if the spirit of Christ is present at every Manifestation of God, does this fact belittle the Spirit of Christ?
As for Christian essentials, these must necessarily be determined by a scriptural mission statement and not by a theologian or tortuous interpretation.
> One > of them must be flat wrong. And while Baha'i apologists are > impressively skilled at making the attempt, even they must resort to > verbal contortions, shifting back and forth between literal and liberal > interpretations at the drop of a verse.
This is verily better than disregarding some verses altogether - such as the final clause of Matthew 7:12, or Luke 6:37, or 1John 6:7-8, or the Beatitudes, or Matthew 6:14
> And while they seem to do well > with individual (inconvenient) passages of the Bible, the overall > Biblical message stands as an insurmountable fortress against all > attempts to make it fit the Baha'i concept of Jesus being only a > manifestation of God, and not God incarnate.
The literal interpretation of such "inconvenient" passages of the Bible are completely out of context with respect to
...
RAR...@webtv.net (ROBERT ARVAY) wrote in message <news:124-3BB3A7B9-149@storefull-112.iap.bryant.webtv.net>... > Hello Adelard and Timothy; > In reading Timothy Casey's response, I wish to commend him for his well > researched comments, and to say that I agree with much of what he says. > However, he necessarily steers away from the main point, which is to > address the nature of salvation (ref Adelard's question of works vs > faith) through Christ. Tim's focus on the Golden Rule does not suffice. > Salvation from sin is the center and core of Christ's unique role as the > one and only begotten Son of God, the Messiah. The Golden rule is a > subset, not an overarching principle, of salvation. > The key error in Baha'i doctrine (as I see it), is that while quoting > the Bible on the one hand, Baha'is reject the Bible as the uncorrupted, > inerrant word of God. Therefore, they are resorting for support to > something they regard as unreliable support!
My understanding is that although there are some errors in the Bible, they tend to be about insignificant issues. For example it is certain that Baha'is believe Abraham sacrificed Ishmael and not Isaac. Shoghi Effendi says as much. But on the other hand this is not a very significant issue.
Paul was a very great man, but he was not a Prophet like Isaiah or Jeremiah. In fact I don't really have a problem with what Paul says. Maybe this is because I have not studied him carefully enough. If I had any problem with Paul it is what he chooses to emphasize. Indeed his emphases appear to be different than those of Jesus. From this it is clear that he is marketing Christianity to the Gentiles who are not familiar with the concept of revelation. So instead Paul talks to them in terms they understand like sacrifices (which they practised) and faith (as in faith in their pagan Gods or in the Roman Empire). Jesus did not emphasize these things (although they do appear in His teachings) but Paul did, because he was marketing Christianity to the Gentiles.
Holding the Koran as
> superior to the Bible, they quote the Bible whenever the quote seems to > support their position. But then they turn around and dismiss (or > tortuously interpret) the Biblical quotes which undermine their > position. > They do this of necessity, because in order for Baha'i (or Islamic) > theology to work, Jesus must be demoted from His true nature as one > person of the Trinity.
Adam, on the other hand, through whom sin
> entered into the world, must strangely be elevated to a position of > equality with Jesus.
From what I have seen there is a lot more of this elevation going on than demotion. The arguments against Jesus Godhood are at quite an abstract level and have few practical ramifications. For all practical purposes, such as prayer, divine intervention, forgiveness of sins, and so on Jesus is indeed God. In fact Baha'u'llah on numerous occasions stated that he himself was God, meaning the same thing.
Where Baha'i teachings genuinely differ is their view of Messengers other than Jesus. Indeed figures such as Adam, Moses, the Buddha, Muhammad and so on are also seen as being effectively God. They could also be viewed as appearances of Christ.
As for Adam, my understanding is that the farther back one goes the more one has to interpret. The Adamic age ended some 5,000 years ago, and people thought and acted very different at that time than they do now. I view the story of Adam in twi different ways. In one sense Adam, which means 'man' or 'earth man', is actually representative of mankind itself. In another sense I think Eden represents heaven. That is to say Eden is the world of God, and Adam's 'sin' (sin means to separate oneself from God) is his interest in mankind, which causes him to be cast out of heaven and born into the human world. But it was this act which actually allowed him to guide and educate mankind.
Each of them becomes merely one among many
> "springtimes," or "manifestations," (but not the thing being > manifested), none to be preferred above any other.
Actually the Manifestations are what they manifest for all practical purposes. The Manifestations are all-knowing, all-powerful, all-wise, and the creators of the universe. Your down-playing of Manifestationhood is actually a cheap trick to make Baha'is look like something they are not.
There is definitely one to be preferred above others, and that is the most recent one. To a Baha'i the only thing important about Christian beliefs and practices is the extent to which they are similar to Baha'i beliefs and practices. Also as a general rule Manifestations are greater than the ones that preceded them. Adam and Baha'u'llah are exceptions to this rule because they founded a cycle and the Manifestations after them were not, or will not be, as great. That is to say Baha'u'llah is greater than Adam, but not Noah.
> This inherent contradiction between the Baha'i and Christian essentials > of faith cannot be overcome by any attempts at reconciling the two. One > of them must be flat wrong.
I think the errors in the Bible are pretty minor. I do not see any contradictions on significant issues.
And while Baha'i apologists are
> impressively skilled at making the attempt, even they must resort to > verbal contortions, shifting back and forth between literal and liberal > interpretations at the drop of a verse.
Well, Baha'is generally accept Baha'i interpretations (the interpretations of Baha'i scripture) of the Bible as superior. They do not always fully grasp why this is the case. But I can tell you as a fact that Baha'i scriptural interpretation was a large part of what made me interested in the Faith at first. Not just because it allowed for another Prophet, but because I actually found it to make more sense than common approaches. The first Baha'i book I read was a small introduction to the Faith, but it was second book, the Kitab-i-Iqan which actually converted me. I simply found the Baha'i approach to scripture to be superior to any I had seen thusfar.
And while they seem to do well
> with individual (inconvenient) passages of the Bible, the overall > Biblical message stands as an insurmountable fortress against all > attempts to make it fit the Baha'i concept of Jesus being only a > manifestation of God, and not God incarnate.
I don't know where your coming from. There is nothing small or petty about being a Manifestation of God. For all practical purposes a Manifestation is God. It is only at a highly abstract level that He is not. There is no limit to Manifestation's knowledge or power or goodness. They are truly infinite. To see this as downplaying the station of Christ boggles the mind. I really don't know what you are talking about.
Hello, Timothy; Once again I commend your lucidity and thoroughness. I think you make as good a case as can be made for your point of view. In doing so, however, I still think that you conclude as I do, that the Baha'i and Christian viewpoints are not reconcilable. Your Biblical quotations are some of my favorites (although I didn't remember chapter and verse numbers). But you see them through a different lens than I do. And I see them as the inspired, literal, inerrant word of God, which you allow that you don't, although I notice that you choose your words very carefully, attributing much of the Bible to historic and cultural context. But when you say that the Koran "has only a slight edge on the Bible," you encounter that breaking point which separates Christianity from Baha'i by an infinite gulf. We do not regard the Koran in any way superior to the Bible. God's word is perfect, and we believe He has protected His holy scripture from any corruption. Ironically, I do agree with much of what you say. But when one is dealing with such absolutes as truth, a grain of difference can in reality be a mountain. For example, I do agree that the Bible is heavily saturated in culture. The very concept of the atoning sacrifice, the scapegoat, the remission of sin by blood alone--- all that is Hebrew from beginning to end. The male lineage of Jesus, even though Joseph is not the bio-father, is also richly Hebrew. None of this disqualifies the truth of the Bible, but brilliantly reinforces it! The Jews are the chosen people through whom the Messiah enters the world, and through whom all the people of the world are blessed. In the old testament, there are numerous indications that fatherhood was not counted from the seed, but from marriage to the mother. Jesus fulfilled the prophecies so thoroughly and so completely that the book The Passover Plot made the case that it had to be an elaborate, fraudulent setup (which would be true, except for the miracle of the virgin birth!). Yet, the setup would have to be so impossibly complex that it is entirely implausible. Tim, if I have been uncouth, I apologize. I cannot claim the slightest share of any authority of my own. I came to the Bible an unworthy publican, and remain wretchedly sinful. My only boast is in Jesus. I would continue further, but unless it interests you, I'll not delve into every detail of every verse. I believe in every jot and tittle of the Bible, and not because of any intellectual capacity, but only as the unmerited gift of God. Yes, love and forgiveness are the law. But grace, the blood of Jesus, transcends the law. May you share in the feast of salvation (and I don't rule out that you are already saved) as I do, and may we share His joy in heaven forever!
Hello, Matt; You state that your understanding is that there are some errors in the Bible, but that they are insignificant. You choose as an example a crucial difference between the Bible and the Koran. In Genesis, Abraham offers Isaac up as a sacrifice. In the Koran, it's not Isaac but Ishmael. This is a vital difference. Indeed, in a book written by a holy, perfect God, any error would be significant. The Bible has no "filler" lines, no tossaway verses. Every "jot and tittle" is purposeful and indispensable. The story of Isaac's almost-sacrifice is a prophetic passage, foreshadowing Christ's crucufixion and resurrection. Genesis Chapter 22 tells this fascinating story. God tells Abraham to take his son, "your only son," (see John 3:16), and sacrifice him upon a far distant mountain. Some have thought this mountain to be Golgotha, where Jesus would be crucified centuries later. Along the way, Isaac asks his father, where is the sacrifice? Abraham tells Isaac, prophetically, that God will provide the sacrifice. Later, they find a ram tangled in the bushes and sacrifice it. But the sacrifice which God will (has) provide(d) is His Only Son, Jesus Christ, the Messiah. In this story, we can vicariously experience the pain and anguish of Abraham, who loves God so completely that he will lose his only son Isaac in perfect obedience. Only then can we begin to imagine the pain of God the Father, as He gave up His only son Jesus for us. In referring to Isaac as Abraham's only son, God is not misspeaking, nor is the significance trite. It is Isaac, not Ishmael, who is in the legitimate lineage of the Messiah. Ishmael is a child born of Abraham's (And Sara's) momentary departure from faith. Isaac is the child promised to Abraham, born of faith, not the work of intercourse with a slave girl. Not to pillory Ishmael, who is rescued by God in the wilderness. But he is not the equal, not the superior of Isaac. And this is no insignificant matter. Once again the Christian / Moslem and Christian / Baha'i dichotomies are sharply either / or. Moslems and Baha'is are certainly beloved and sought by God for eternal salvation. I don't say that one must belong to a church to be saved. Salvation is from Jesus alone, a free gift to us, the undeserving. But the Bible is the inerrant, enduring word of God. To lose that is to lose much. May God richly bless us all in these coming times of trial!
> Hello, Timothy; > Once again I commend your lucidity and thoroughness. I think you make > as good a case as can be made for your point of view. In doing so, > however, I still think that you conclude as I do, that the Baha'i and > Christian viewpoints are not reconcilable.
Thankyou for your kind assessment of my poor expression. I cannot say that I feel that Baha'i and Christian viewpoints are irreconcileable. There is a common purpose and goal. All that differs is cultural - the differences of "traditions of men". Everything else must necessarily derive from purpose, such that a Christian who lives the life that Christ prescribed is described by `Abdu'l-Baha as a Baha'i.
> Your Biblical quotations are > some of my favorites (although I didn't remember chapter and verse > numbers). But you see them through a different lens than I do. And I > see them as the inspired, literal, inerrant word of God, which you allow
Dare I say that if we allow the "Word of God" to decree that PI=3 or that the greatest tree is the mustard tree, what then do we do with practical geometry or for that matter, the mountain ash or even the sequouia? See:
Daniel 4:10-11, Matthew 4:8 (Basis for some modern Flat Earth theories)
Joshua 10:12, 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, & Psalm 104:5 (Basis for a Geocentric Universe with a fixed non-rotating Earth - A view used to convict Galileo of heresy)
1 Kings 7:23, 1 Chronicles 4:2 (10 X Pi = 30, not 31)
Mark 4:31-32(The mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds and becomes the greatest of all trees)
Genesis 7:19-24 (Global flood)
Literal inerrancy has lead to a clash of science and religion of titanic proportions, not to mention the questioning of the ethics of religion in general. It is of vital importance to draw the line between scripture and interpretation. What is on the page is scripture, but what we glean from reading scripture is interpretation - even if it is literal. If we generalise or homogenise our interpretation, we will always encounter problems. This is why the purpose of religion as expressed in religious mission statements are so vitally important. They determine the correctness of our interpretation. So when read that Baha''u'llah said that copper in its own mine, turns into gold over a period of seventy years; I need not throw away 200 years of geology to conform the decree of literal inerrancy; nor need I neglect the vast majority of copper deposits in the world on the basis that they are much older than seventy years by several orders of magnitude - Nor need I allow the literal inerrancy stance to determine that I should fraudulently mislead mining operations and their shareholders into believing that all these ancient copper deposits must really be gold... ...I only need question my own very fallible interpretation of the verses as to its relevance to the Covenant or the Ninth Ishraq.
> that you don't, although I notice that you choose your words very > carefully, attributing much of the Bible to historic and cultural > context. But when you say that the Koran "has only a slight edge on the > Bible," you encounter that breaking point which separates Christianity > from Baha'i by an infinite gulf.
I suspect that my personal attitude to the Quran puts me right in the middle of that "infinite gulf". Just what half of infinity is, does cause me to wonder at this situation! :^)
> We do not regard the Koran in any way > superior to the Bible. God's word is perfect, and we believe He has > protected His holy scripture from any corruption.
You are entitled to belief. However where do you draw the line between belief and denial? I also held on to the idea that the Bible was inerrant for a very long time. I still think that the Bible is wonderful and find it difficult to accept that what God has decreed, the Human hand has so arrogantly censored. However, there are bits missing everywhere. There are also at least five canons (Egyptian, Slavic, Greek, Roman, English). If human beings can happily burn the inconveniant books, nonchalantly fabricate others, and offer biased translation without marginal notes detailing all ambiguities and margins for error, I have to face the fact that people do impress their own beliefs over scripture by the very act of sifting (choosing a canon) "refining" (adding vowels) and selectively transating into a language with a far far greater vocabulary. What is most damning is all the cross-references to missing portions of the Bible. It is obvious that the book-burners have had a field-day. Consider:
Reference Missing Book Numbers 21:14 The Book of the Wars of the LORD Joshua 10:13 The Book of Jashar 2 Samuel 1:18 The Book of Jashar 1 Kings 11:41 Acts of Solomon 1 Chronicles 29:29 Chronicles of Samuel the Seer Chronicles of Nathan the prophet Chronicles of Gad the seer 2 Chronicles 9:29 History of Nathan the prophet Prophecy of Ahi'jah the Shi'lonite Visions of Iddo the seer (concerning Jerobo'am the son of Nebat) 2 Chronicles 12:15 Chronicles of Shemai'ah the prophet Chronicles of Iddo the seer 2 Chronicles 13:22 Story of Iddo the seer 2 Chronicles 20:34 Chronicles of Jehu the son of Hana'ni [Supposed to occur in "The Book of the Kings of Israel"] 2 Chronicles 33:19 Chronicles of the Seers (major subsection) Colossians 4:16 The letter of Paul to the La-odice'ans Jude 1:14 The Book of Enoch
> Ironically, I do agree with much of what you say. But when one is > dealing with such absolutes as truth, a grain of difference can in > reality be a mountain.
And mountains are there to be climbed! :^) The problem with absolutes, is that there is only one Absolute. Human fallibility deems that there is always more to learn, and that one more piece of information can always upset the applecart of human knowledge and belief.
> For example, I do agree that the Bible is heavily saturated in culture. > The very concept of the atoning sacrifice, the scapegoat, the remission > of sin by blood alone--- all that is Hebrew from beginning to end. The > male lineage of Jesus, even though Joseph is not the bio-father, is also > richly Hebrew. None of this disqualifies the truth of the Bible, but > brilliantly reinforces it!
Such pecadillos define the nature of Biblical truth - They disqualify it from material truth and emphasise its spiritual truth. In doing so they disqualify a materialist approach.
> The Jews are the chosen people through whom > the Messiah enters the world, and through whom all the people of the > world are blessed. In the old testament, there are numerous indications > that fatherhood was not counted from the seed, but from marriage to the > mother. Jesus fulfilled the prophecies so thoroughly and so completely > that the book The Passover Plot made the case that it had to be an > elaborate, fraudulent setup (which would be true, except for the miracle > of the virgin birth!).
That was also something that bothered me when I was a Catholic. Hearing the *We're-in-the-business-of-deliberately-and-thoughtfully-engineering-the-ful f ilment-of-prophecy* quotes from the weekly readings of the Gospels used to throw me. However, perhaps there is a lesson to this like deliberation, mindfulness, and thughtfulness? It also showed the mercy of Christ for the Jewish people by giving them signs to believe.
> Yet, the setup would have to be so impossibly complex that it is > entirely implausible.
Doesn't stop people from trying. Christ had a competitor who started an uprising and was crucified for it in 66AD - About the time that the Roman persecution of Christians began. This "other Christ", mentioned occasionally by Paul, also had brothers and sisters, mother and father with the same names. A theory is that this was the False-Christ who, leading his people as a material king; started a revolt and because of what they called themselves, got the rest of Christianity blamed for the crime as well.
> Tim, if I have been uncouth, I apologize. I cannot claim the slightest > share of any authority of my own.
Likewise, I apologise if you feel included in any of my harsh generalisations. You do tend to behave more like the Baha'is I am accustomed to dealing with. I have observed few other people with the maturity to apologise and reconcile themselves with others - On the slight chance that it _might_ be necessary. Although I must say that I am an authority on my own opinion in those moments when I can remember it all! :^)
> I came to the Bible an unworthy > publican, and remain wretchedly sinful.
I came to the Baha'i Faith lost and blind, frightened and wanting. I can't say that I have all the answers, but in the Baha'i Faith, my fears were banished and my questions answered. In the Baha'i Faith I found unparalleled freedom and security. I can wander amongst the scriptures of any religion secure in the knowledge that all scripture is from the same God to different peoples and their different cultures.
> My only boast is in Jesus. I > would continue further, but unless it interests you, I'll not delve into > every detail of every verse. I believe in every jot and tittle of the > Bible, and not because of any intellectual capacity, but only as the > unmerited gift of God.
"Unmerited Gift of God": That it is, along with all scripture.
> Yes, love and forgiveness are the law. But grace, the blood of Jesus, > transcends the law.
Well put, but perhaps love and forgiveness are more than the law. After all, it is written: "God is
...
RAR...@webtv.net (ROBERT ARVAY) wrote in message <news:26975-3BB90DEB-209@storefull-116.iap.bryant.webtv.net>... > Hello, Matt; > You state that your understanding is that there are some errors in the > Bible, but that they are insignificant. You choose as an example a > crucial difference between the Bible and the Koran. In Genesis, Abraham > offers Isaac up as a sacrifice. In the Koran, it's not Isaac but > Ishmael. > This is a vital difference. Indeed, in a book written by a holy, > perfect God, any error would be significant. The Bible has no "filler" > lines, no tossaway verses. Every "jot and tittle" is purposeful and > indispensable.
The Bible is very well preserved, but there is nothing magical about being in the Bible. Many of the people in the Bible are special and in some cases even the narrators are special. But the people who compiled the Bible were not special. The Qur'an makes this correction because there is meaning attached to it, but not a meaning which contradicts Biblical teachings. See below.
> The story of Isaac's almost-sacrifice is a prophetic passage, > foreshadowing Christ's crucufixion and resurrection. Genesis Chapter 22 > tells this fascinating story. God tells Abraham to take his son, "your > only son," (see John 3:16), and sacrifice him upon a far distant > mountain. Some have thought this mountain to be Golgotha, where Jesus > would be crucified centuries later. Along the way, Isaac asks his > father, where is the sacrifice? Abraham tells Isaac, prophetically, > that God will provide the sacrifice. Later, they find a ram tangled in > the bushes and sacrifice it. But the sacrifice which God will (has) > provide(d) is His Only Son, Jesus Christ, the Messiah.
Ok, so where does it make a difference whether it was Isaac or Ishmael? Isaac is generally believed to be father of the Jewish people and Ishmael of the Arabian people. Hence, Isaac in some sense represents Moses and Ishmael Muhammad. However, neither of these individuals were actually sacrificed. Abraham's true seed was Christ Who was sacrificed (Galatians 3:16). And this seed was born through Isaac (Genesis 21:12), as Christ came from the Jewish people but was not a Messenger to the Jews only.
> In this story, we can vicariously experience the pain and anguish of > Abraham, who loves God so completely that he will lose his only son > Isaac in perfect obedience. Only then can we begin to imagine the pain > of God the Father, as He gave up His only son Jesus for us.
Again, this isn't really affected by whether it was Ismael or Isaac. Are you saying that Abraham cared more for one son just because of how it was born?
> In referring to Isaac as Abraham's only son, God is not misspeaking, nor > is the significance trite. It is Isaac, not Ishmael, who is in the > legitimate lineage of the Messiah. Ishmael is a child born of Abraham's > (And Sara's) momentary departure from faith. Isaac is the child > promised to Abraham, born of faith, not the work of intercourse with a > slave girl.
Then it would actually make more sense to sacrifice Ishmael, if he was really conceived out of sin... Here it is, God refers to Isaac in this way in Genesis 22:2. I suppose you could just substitute Ishmael for Isaac. After all, if Paul is to be believed it is neither Ishmael or Isaac who is the true seed, but Christ.
> Not to pillory Ishmael, who is rescued by God in the wilderness. But he > is not the equal, not the superior of Isaac. And this is no > insignificant matter.
So you're judging a person on the way he was born? Shouldn't we judge people on the basis of their personal qualities?
> Once again the Christian / Moslem and Christian / Baha'i dichotomies are > sharply either / or. Moslems and Baha'is are certainly beloved and > sought by God for eternal salvation. I don't say that one must belong > to a church to be saved. Salvation is from Jesus alone, a free gift to > us, the undeserving.
You seem to be a very kind person.
> But the Bible is the inerrant, enduring word of God. To lose that is to > lose much.
The Bible is pretty reliable. The Qur'an is apparently designed to be a kind of purification of scripture. Remarkably most of what is seen in the Qur'an agrees pretty closely with the Bible. There are some things added and of course there is different wording, but very few corrections. Baha'u'llah makes one amendment to the New Testament in the Kitab-i-Iqan. Overall the corrections are few and far between, and not too significant.
I know the people who compiled the Bible were supposed to be guided by the Holy Spirit. But in my mind that is kind of a weak argument. Maybe I was guided by the Holy Spirit when I wrote you this letter. I think God works to protect the integrity of scripture but He doesn't do all the work for us. We have to do our part too, and if we fail we come up with problems.
Hello, Timothy; Awhile back (months ago?) I exposited on the practical meaning of the literal (vs liberal) interpretation of the Bible. To recap: Literalism, while strictly loyal to the scripture, is not a slavish obedience to the dictionary. Instead, it is a disciplined approach to Bible reading which begins at the exact wording of the oldest available manuscripts. (The exact methodology considers more than just age, but I'm only a layman.) This discipline simply prevents unwarranted, creative departures (license) from the word of God, especially interpretations based on personal preference. Literalism takes into account symbolism (as in parables) and the difficulty of describing the spiritual in physical terms (as in visions). It also accepts that analogies are always approximate (else there would be no need for them), and that they make use of the familiar as a steppingstone to understanding the unfamiliar (and hence the familiar mustard tree being the greatest tree without mentioning the sequoia). Honest disagreements, even with the rigid discipline of literalism, are possible, of course. Literalism, however, provides common boundaries for the discussion of those inevitable human misunderstandings (1 Cor 13:12--- we see only in part, not the whole...). Literalism seeks the truth, and follows the path of truth wherever it might lead. It has no interest in substantiating any particular foregone conclusion. One of my greatest difficulties with Baha'i explanations of Biblical passages is that they frequently seem almost unrelated to the exact wording. (Even parables and visions are clearly indicated as such by the context. We don't just assign these categories at will.) In Baha'i writings, it is as if the Biblical wording were irrelevant and could mean anything or nothing. One glaring example of this is the "Pit of Error" interpretation of the bottomless pit in The Revelation Ch 20. And in general, Baha'i interpretations of Rev ignore the entire structure of the story line, making Heidi out of War and Peace (or vice versa). Of course this is necessary to the Baha'i position, because no meteoric object (Rev 8:8) has yet crashed into the sea destroying a third of all ships, etc etc etc. But, not to lose the forest for the trees (or the Bible among the verses), misinterpreting individual passages is only one way in which Baha'i misses the mark. The overall plan and message of the Bible is markedly different from the overall Baha'i message. The Bible frames creation with a definite beginning and a conclusive end. Baha'i doctrine holds to no specific beginning and to no ultimate finality. The Old Testament and New are intimately intertwined with each other, but not with the Bhagavad Ghita (etc). The OT is rich with references to Jesus [who is the Angel of the Lord in Genesis 32:24 wrestling with Jacob, and who appears to Manoah and his wife in the story of Samson in Judges 13]. The Trinity, which is elucidated in no one passage of the Bible, is exposited by the Bible in toto (it is a miraculously holistic book, unlike any other). The overall message of the Bible, more so than any particular passage (or selections thereof) presents a distinct picture, a divine world-view, which precludes any joining of Bible-based Christianity with any other world view. In the relevance to our discussion, the idea of Jesus being merely one among a number of (or among an unnumbered series of) manifestations is, excuse the expression, manifestly incompatible with the Biblical world-view AND its passages in context. And that is why--- either the Bible or Baha'i writings must be declared unreliable in order to achieve a fit. While appreciating the sincerity of your faith, and its positive effect on your life--- even your higher station in heaven than mine will be--- my own experience in life, my spiritual journey, has led me into the garden of Biblical literalism, its constant joys of discovery, its continual protection from fatal errancy--- and to the personal relationship with Jesus as the only one who can say, No man comes unto the Father but by me. He has yet to return, but each day brings us closer to that time when denial is no longer possible, that day when every knee shall bend, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. May he richly bless you and yours!
|
