Resurrection-of-Jesus
Robert Arvay
In the thread, "Salvation, Resurrection and the Return of Jesus," I
got as far as Salvation, before the thread predictably swerved into
tangential topics.
We had not finished with salvation. I had got as far as showing that
man's sin separates him from God, and has placed man in a condition
which makes him forfeit his relationship with God. Salvation saved
man from this condition of forfeit. But man can still choose to
reject salvation.
To continue, I'd like to take up some very difficult questions which I
had somewhat expected my critics to raise. (Where are the critics
when you need them?)
If God knows everything, then He knew before He created man, that man
would sin. So, then, why did not God either (a) NOT make man, or (b)
arrange matters such that man would not sin? After all, God can do
anything.
Since sin came into the world through Adam, why should the rest of us
have to suffer? (Even if you don't believe in original sin, it's
obvious that we are born into a world where sin predominates. Is that
fair?)
Since every man sins, we obviously have a nature predisposed to sin.
So, then, why do WE get blamed for our sin, when it arises from our
nature, which we did not choose?
Given that man does sin, and if we accept that each person is
accountable for his own deeds, then why did it fall to Jesus to pay
the price for our sins? How did HIS death on the cross atone for OUR
sin? Is THAT fair?
Please note that I do not have neat, tidy, or completely satisfactory
answers to these questions. Life is full of open ended issues.
Indeed, I would go so far as to suggest that, if one DOES come up with
neat, tidy answers, he has not fully understood the question.
But even so, we must still confront such questions, examine them, and
establish some ongoing accommodation with them, so that their
"unanswerability" does not leave us paralyzed in our search for truth.
Well, now that I've thrown the rhetorical grenade into the room, I'll
step outside for a moment to take a breath, and hopefully to invite
response.
God bless us all.
Pat Kohli
Robert Arvay wrote:
> A brief recap:
>
> In the thread, "Salvation, Resurrection and the Return of Jesus," I
> got as far as Salvation, before the thread predictably swerved into
> tangential topics.
>
> We had not finished with salvation.
You are off topic.
Robert Arvay
Christianity is the Bible.
While Baha'is make the claim (especially to Christian prospective
Baha'is) that the Bible supports Baha'i claims (progressive
revelation, Bahaullah as the returned Jesus, etc), the discrepancies
in those claims soon become clear to anyone familiar with the Bible.
And the discrepancies continue to mount more and more, until the
prospective convert must finally either disavow the Bible as having
any real spiritual authority--- or disavow the Baha'i faith. These
discrepancies begin no later than the very first chapters of Genesis,
with the sin of Adam, and continue to the climax in The Revelation.
To the Christian, the crucial Biblical point which Baha'i rejects is
the divine nature of Jesus as the "only begotten Son of God." And
even more crucial, is the Baha'i equivocation about the atoning
sacrifice and the Resurrection event.
The Baha'i teachings on the Resurrection are not crystal clear, which
tends to confuse the discussion. The new Baha'i, upon questioning
closely these matters, is likely to find himself given vague or
contradictory answers, told to read further, and to interpret or
reinterpret the Biblical scriptures. But the real answer is that the
Baha'i must surrender entirely the central belief of Christianity.
Baha'is regard the Koran as superseding the Bible in authority
wherever the two conflict. And they conflict on crucial matters. The
Koran rejects the divinity of Jesus, His death on the cross, and
therefore of course, His bodily resurrection. Therefore, for Baha'is,
the Resurrection either did not happen at all, or is only figurative,
or even if acknowledged, of peripheral importance at most. For
Christians, the Resurection is the linch-pin, the very essence, of the
entire Christian faith.
The Bible cannot be understood at all in Baha'i terms, because it is
regarded simply as an interesting (perhaps useful and inspiring but
untrustworthy) collection of corrupted writings. The Christian
recognizes that the Bible is a coherent whole, authored by God Himself
through the hand of many men across many centuries in more than one
language. For such a book to have coherency is itself evidence of an
incorruptible work by a divine author, and therefore, of its absolute
authority.
And the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, is about Jesus. In
Genesis, Abraham places his son, Isaac, on an altar to be sacrificed
at God's command. But "the Angel of the Lord" intervenes, and tells
Abraham that God Himself will provide the sacrifice. And although
Abraham finds a ram entangled in a bush, this is only a small
fulfillment of that prophecy. For the sacrifce which God provides is
the only perfect sacrifice possible--- not Abraham's son, but God's.
When Jesus was dying upon the cross, he cried out, "My God, my God,
why have you forsaken me?" These are not words of faithless despair,
but quite the contrary, the opening words to Psalm 22, which is a
startling prophecy of the crucifixion, right down to the details of
Christ's garments being divided among the executioners, and his robe
undivided, being awarded on the basis of cast lots.
Throughout the Old Testament the Bible meticulously outlines the
importance of sacrifice and atonement. All of these point to Jesus.
A sacrifice made to God for the atonement of sins must be a perfect
sacrifice, unblemished, and a creature of value to the one who offers
it--- from a rich man a bull, from a poor man a dove.
The Jewish custom also called for a scapegoat, upon which the sins of
the people are attributed, and which then is driven into the
wilderness, to carry away the guilt.
The Passover, in which the Jews were instructed to cover their doorway
beams with the blood of sacrifice, as protection against the angel of
death, is a prelude to Christ's blood covering us with protection.
Of the Jews, the Bible prophesies that they shall recognize Him whom
they have pierced, and weep over Him as one weeps for an only child.
One cannot understand the Bible piecemeal. It is a whole, the very
Word of God.
Matt Menge
>
> Baha'is regard the Koran as superseding the Bible in authority
> wherever the two conflict. And they conflict on crucial matters. The
> Koran rejects the divinity of Jesus, His death on the cross, and
> therefore of course, His bodily resurrection. Therefore, for Baha'is,
> the Resurrection either did not happen at all, or is only figurative,
> or even if acknowledged, of peripheral importance at most. For
> Christians, the Resurection is the linch-pin, the very essence, of the
> entire Christian faith.
>
No this is not true. In many cases the Qur'an is interpreted
symbolically, and the Bible literally. This is why Baha'is
(definitely) believe in the crucifixion, for example.
And once again, I do not think it is knowledge of the Bible that
prevents people from recognizing Baha'u'llah. Unless of course you
mean knowledge as a source of pride.
Best Regards,
Matt
Dale Grider
mspm...@msn.com wrote on 4/18/03 5:08 PM:
How about knowledge as a source of "Truth" Matt, instead of the obfuscation
and sweeping of objective differences like Robert has clearly expressed
under the Baha'i carpet of denial?
Howdy
Matt Menge
I had heard that you used to frequent this site, but I had never seen
you "in person".
Dale Grider <howd...@insightbb.com> wrote in message news:<BACB8040.612C%howd...@insightbb.com>...
> >
> > And once again, I do not think it is knowledge of the Bible that
> > prevents people from recognizing Baha'u'llah. Unless of course you
> > mean knowledge as a source of pride.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Matt
>
> How about knowledge as a source of "Truth" Matt, instead of the obfuscation
> and sweeping of objective differences like Robert has clearly expressed
> under the Baha'i carpet of denial?
Actually, Robert and I have already done the point-by-point argument
thing. And right now he was just giving a re-cap. What I was trying
to avoid was just repeating the old arguments like a broken record and
not presenting any new information. That is what Baha'u'llah called
"contention and conflict".
Best Regards,
Matt
Robert Arvay
mspm...@msn.com (Matt Menge) wrote in message news:<dc19cfc5.03041...@posting.google.com>...
> Rober...@msn.com (Robert Arvay) wrote in message news:<e247d7b6.03041...@posting.google.com>...
>
> >
> > Baha'is regard the Koran as superseding the Bible in authority
> > wherever the two conflict. And they conflict on crucial matters. The
> > Koran rejects the divinity of Jesus, His death on the cross, and
> > therefore of course, His bodily resurrection. Therefore, for Baha'is,
> > the Resurrection either did not happen at all, or is only figurative,
> > or even if acknowledged, of peripheral importance at most. For
> > Christians, the Ressurection is the linch-pin, the very essence, of the
> > entire Christian faith.
> >
>
> No this is not true. In many cases the Qur'an is interpreted
> symbolically, and the Bible literally. This is why Baha'is
> (definitely) believe in the crucifixion, for example.
Can you refer me to any passage in the Koran which, literally or
figuratively, teaches that Jesus died on the cross for our sins and
was raised from death to eternal life--- or anything substantially
resembling the Biblical teaching on that? Noting that the Bible
teaches this as a physical fact, not allegory, I'd be interested to
know if the Koran would give Moslems a basis for believing in Christ
as Savior.
>
> And once again, I do not think it is knowledge of the Bible that
> prevents people from recognizing Baha'u'llah. Unless of course you
> mean knowledge as a source of pride.
>
The term, "knowledge as a source of pride" confuses me. Could you
clarify?
Thanks, and God bless you!
Robert Arvay
Since no one seems to have taken me up on tackling these tough
questions, I will provide my own thoughts on them.
> Please note that I do not have neat, tidy, or completely satisfactory
> answers to these questions. Life is full of open-ended issues.
> Indeed, I would go so far as to suggest that, if one DOES come up with
> neat, tidy answers, he has not fully understood the question.
>
Well, I would not wish to be accused of neatness or tidiness, then.
> But even so, we must still confront such questions, examine them, and
> establish some ongoing accommodation with them, so that their
> "unanswerability" does not leave us paralyzed in our search for truth.
Here then, are the questions, and my thoughts:
> If God knows everything, then He knew before He created man, that man
> would sin. So, then, why did not God either (a) NOT make man, or (b)
> arrange matters such that man would not sin? After all, God can do anything.
The fact that God CAN do anything does not mean that He WILL do
anything. He will not, for example, violate His divine nature by
doing anything evil. Nor will He revoke man’s ability (and
responsibility) to freely choose between good and evil.
God’s foreknowledge that man would sin should not be mistaken
for predestination that man MUST sin. Man’s familiar concept of
time can be very deceptive in this regard--- as even the physicist
will assure you (with his entropy model of time). God’s
knowledge that man would CHOOSE to sin, no more locked man into that
choice than does my memory, my retro-knowledge, take away my ability
to have freely chosen to do yesterday what I did.
>
> Since sin came into the world through Adam, why should the rest of us
> have to suffer? (Even if you don't believe in original sin, it's
> obvious that we are born into a world where sin predominates. Is that fair?)
Man’s suffering is due to sin, both his own, and the sins of
others.
This does not fit man’s conception of fairness. But, then, in
some people’s conception of fairness, nothing at all can be fair
until we are all of us alike in every way, in every resource and
possession. Man's concept of fairness is not always to be trusted.
God is more than fair to us in that He owes us nothing, and gives us
His all, even His only Son. As we suffer, so does God, and Him most
unfairly of all.
Man’s inability to understand this is the cause of his challenge
to God in this matter.
>
> Since every man sins, we obviously have a nature predisposed to sin.
> So, then, why do WE get blamed for our sin, when it arises from our
> nature, which we did not choose?
While man did not choose his nature, it is his nature to choose.
Having fallen from our original state of perfection, we suffer from an
attraction to sin and perversion.
But God has made provision for us to be saved from that fallen state,
and to return to Him in a state of perfection as He intended.
That provision was no less than the shed blood of His only Son.
>
> Given that man does sin, and if we accept that each person is
> accountable for his own deeds, then why did it fall to Jesus to pay
> the price for our sins? How did HIS death on the cross atone for OUR
> sin? Is THAT fair?
No, it was not fair. It is a burden which God freely chose to inflict
upon
Himself in our place. This, we can never understand, for we can never
understand the depth of love and devotion by which an almighty and
perfectly innocent, sinless God would Himself bear the unimaginable
burden of our sins, the sins of His rebellious creatures who had
treacherously become His enemies.
While we are attracted to sin, it is to God more reprehensible than we
can begin to imagine. Sin is so repulsive that the faintest hint of
it cannot enter into the presence of God. And yet, He found a way to
remove its stain from us who cannot conquer it, and to suffer its
pain, shame and horror Himself, who alone can triumph over our
wickedness.
===
These remarks are from a Christian perspective, however poorly stated
the remarks are. I find the underlying scriptures from which I draw
them, to be so central to my life and to my being that I cannot
imagine being anything other than (and indeed I once was other than) a
follower forever of my Lord and Savior Jesus, who alone is worthy of
all praise and all honor and all glory.
May we all be His!
Dale Grider
mspm...@msn.com wrote on 4/23/03 8:22 AM:
lol. The internet makes us all a bit like Cheshire cats!
Perhaps I have gained somewhat a former reputation as "persona non grata" at
times, but then, maybe I challenged some to think a bit deeper. And, while
there are few interlocutors who concede a point online, lurkers are often
more open to concede the Truth of a matter as it plays out in debate. Those
too are souls to reach with Christ's Truth. I've been busy elsewhere but
decided to pop in and see what some of the threads have going on. Robert
seemed to so accurately and eloquently have expressed some objective (yet
denied) differences between biblical theology and Baha'i that I thought I
might offer my own 2 cents worth in the thread.
In Jesus, our Savior,
Dale:)
errol9
Rober...@msn.com wrote on 23/4/03 5:54 pm:
> Can you refer me to any passage in the Koran which, literally or
> figuratively, teaches that Jesus died on the cross for our sins and
> was raised from death to eternal life--- or anything substantially
> resembling the Biblical teaching on that? Noting that the Bible
> teaches this as a physical fact, not allegory, I'd be interested to
> know if the Koran would give Moslems a basis for believing in Christ
> as Savior.
Robert
With regards passages in the Quran referring to Jesus dying on the cross, I
doubt if you will find it. A Baha'i on B/Net recommended I read this book
³BAHA'U'LLAH: THE GREAT ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE QURAN² by Muhammad Mustafa..
http://www.bahai-library.org/books/announcement.quran/2.html
It says, "In all of the Holy Books, the advent of two great Manifestations
of God is foretold." and refers to Quran 32,6 I went to the Baha'i (true
Seeker) and looked up The Meanings of the Holy Qur'án
By Abdullah Yusufali http://www.ibiblio.org/Bahai/Texts/EN/Holy_Quran/
There was no mention of two manifestations. I then decided to find who who
was Abdullah Yusufali and this is what I came up with at this website:
http://www.bohra.net/archive/yusefali.html.
I was left wondering was this Abdullah Yusufali trusted by the Baha'i faith
to be the proper translater of the Holy Quran. And is this Mustafa who
wrote this letter the same Mustafa who wrote ³BAHA'U'LLAH: THE GREAT
ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE QURAN²?........................Errol
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 10:58:55 +0100
From: Mustafa Abdulhussein
To: Hudaifa Kapadia
Subject: Re: The miraculous Qur'an
I have a question regarding AbduAllah Yusufali, was he Bohra? If so, is he
still alive? Could you tell me all that you know about this man, who
translated the Qur'an? I have heard many times that he was
>SHi3a and even Dawoodi Bohra...are these statements true??
Sorry for the delay in responding. Things have been hectic recently. I had
forgotten about this message and uncovered it when cleaning my in-box. Here
is what I know. You may post this to DB if you feel there is interest for
it.
Abdullah Yusufali was the son of Yusuf Ali Allabaksh, also known as Khan
Bahadur. This was a Dawoodi Bohra family, though I am not yet certain
whether they were practicing mu`mineen. Allabaksh had a civil service post
in the Surat Municipality and in his obituary, the name "Shaikh Yusuf Ali
Shujauddin" was used, a title which MAY have come from the Dawat. However,
the father, who apparantly spoke and taught Arabic, sent Abdullah Yusufali
to Anjuman-e-Islam, a modernist Islamic seminary, from an early age,
indicating that he had little affinity with us, even if he was a practising
Bohra.
Abdullah Yusuf Ali was never a Bohra because it is unlikely that he ever
gave mithaq. He has eulogised Abu Bakr in his translation of the Qur'an and
accepted the Sunni interpretations of some verses, such as the one with
"Siddiq", so he must have shunned his Shia background. However, I cannot see
Wahabism his writing and he does not appear to have written anything against
the Dawat. He seems to have completely ignored his Dawoodi Bohra roots.
He spent most of his life in the Western education system and was
sufficiently well versed in western literature to produce a translation that
is strongly focused on a western readership. Most scholars regard his
translation as highly apologetic and consider him to be among Islamicists
who, perhaps unwittingly, did more damage to the cause of Islam than
furthering it. Having said that, his translation is also widely acknowledged
as a classic work of scholarship.
He died in London in 1953, a poor man, wretchedly uncared for. I am not sure
how and why a man of lofty connections, who was at one time a man of good
means ended up like that.
Request du`a in Ashara.
Mustafa
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Hudaifa Kapadia
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 10:56:52 -0400 (EDT)
QisQos
> symbolically, and the Bible literally. This is why Baha'is
> (definitely) believe in the crucifixion, for example.
>
> And once again, I do not think it is knowledge of the Bible that
> prevents people from recognizing Baha'u'llah. Unless of course you
> mean knowledge as a source of pride.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Matt
The Devil believes in the Crucifixion as well, as do his legions of
fallen angels.
James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the
devils also believe, and tremble.
But you do not confess the Truth about the Cross and that is that it
was to redeem mankind of sin and the perils of Hell.
But you are also in a tricky position, because the mahometans do not
believe Christ Crucified, they say in their Koran that it was only an
appearance.
So what does bahullah say about this? If he says that Christ was NOT
crucified in reality and fact, he denies the Truth of the Gospels, if
he affirms the Truth of Christ Crucified in fact and reality and not
mere appearance, bahullah denies the Koran and Mahomet.
So which is it? Clearly it cannot be both - either the Gospel is wrong
or Mahomet is wrong, and either way, bahullah is wrong because he
affirms the "truth" of both positions, one which cannot be held
because they are mutually exclusive.
But Bahullah is dead and facing judgement before Christ Judging, it is
too late for him, but not for you.
So is what mahomet wrote true?
Koran 4:156
That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary,
the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him,
but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are
full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to
follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-
Or is the Gospel correct:
Matthew 27:35. And after they had crucified him, they divided his
garments, casting lots; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by
the prophet, saying: They divided my garments among them; and upon my
vesture they cast lots.
Clearly it has to be one or the other.
So if you as a bahaist believe in Christ Crucified, then you deny what
Mahomet says and say the Koran is false, and deny the alleged oneness
of the "manifestations".
But either way, you are still at peril as long as you believe in the
Crucifixion as you claim and deny the Truth of the Cross:
1 Cor. :22. For both the Jews require signs: and the Greeks seek after
wisdom.
1:23. But we preach Christ crucified: unto the Jews indeed a
stumblingblock, and unto the Gentiles foolishness:
My prayers for your eventual delivery to the salvation of the Cross.
QQ
Matt Menge
> lol. The internet makes us all a bit like Cheshire cats!
>
> Perhaps I have gained somewhat a former reputation as "persona non grata" at
> times, but then, maybe I challenged some to think a bit deeper.
The only thing bad I have heard about you (backbiting, perhaps) is
that you sometimes ally yourself with very questionable people. But
Robert is pretty much a straight arrow so you can't go wrong with him.
And, while
> there are few interlocutors who concede a point online, lurkers are often
> more open to concede the Truth of a matter as it plays out in debate. Those
> too are souls to reach with Christ's Truth.
Yes, certainly. Its just that I've heard this stuff from Robert so
many times before. I don't like "debates" that are just a
back-and-forth of dogmatic assertions. It would be nice if he would
actually quote from the Bible more frequently.
I've been busy elsewhere but
> decided to pop in and see what some of the threads have going on. Robert
> seemed to so accurately and eloquently have expressed some objective (yet
> denied) differences between biblical theology and Baha'i that I thought I
> might offer my own 2 cents worth in the thread.
No problem.
Best Regards,
Matt
Matt Menge
> Can you refer me to any passage in the Koran which, literally or
> figuratively, teaches that Jesus died on the cross for our sins and
> was raised from death to eternal life--- or anything substantially
> resembling the Biblical teaching on that?
Actually, I am not as familiar with the Qur'an as the Baha'i
teachings, but I do recall a passage where Jesus says "Peace be upon
the day I was born (?), the day I died, and the day I will be raised
again to life"
Noting that the Bible
> teaches this as a physical fact, not allegory, I'd be interested to
> know if the Koran would give Moslems a basis for believing in Christ
> as Savior.
What I am saying is that the Baha'is definitely believe the
crucifixion was a _literal_ fact. Many Muslims do not.
> >
> > And once again, I do not think it is knowledge of the Bible that
> > prevents people from recognizing Baha'u'llah. Unless of course you
> > mean knowledge as a source of pride.
> >
> The term, "knowledge as a source of pride" confuses me. Could you
> clarify?
>
Baha'u'llah taught that there were two kinds of knowledge, divine and
satanic. As you are aware, in modern society it is no longer physical
strength or millitary prowess that give you status in society, it is
intelligence. Intelligent people usually make the most money, get the
most respect, etc. So knowledge can definitely make a person proud.
Bear in mind I am not saying you are proud, but that generally
speaking I think more intelligent people are often further from God.
I probably brought it up to avoid being redundant.
Best Regards,
Matt
errol9
Qis...@aol.com wrote on 24/4/03 2:49 pm:
> So is what mahomet wrote true?
> Koran 4:156
> That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary,
> the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him,
> but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are
> full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to
> follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-
> Or is the Gospel correct:
>
> Matthew 27:35. And after they had crucified him, they divided his
> garments, casting lots; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by
> the prophet, saying: They divided my garments among them; and upon my
> vesture they cast lots.
You have a good point there QisQos,
Either Baha'is believe in the (Matthew Gospel 27:35) defination or the
(Quran, 4:156) of Christ's crucifion. He died or he didn't die, they cant
have it both ways. Also either the Baha'is believe in the GOSPEL OF
BARNABAS (believed by christians to be a forgery) or they believe their own
Islam/Bahai view as is stated below (in Baha'i approved literature) proof
for the THE ADVENT OF TWO GREAT MANIFESTATIONS, the Bab and Baha'u'llah.
The Gospel of Barnabas contradicts all the other four Gospels in the Bible
Either Baha'is agree with the Islamic belief of St Barnabas or they agree
with the Christian belief of the Bible. You would agree they cant play on
the swings and the hobby horses at the same time?.................Errol
THE MEDIEVAL GOSPEL OF BARNABAS
http://www.bendigo.latrobe.edu.au/sae/arts/barnabas/Entry.html
THE ADVENT OF TWO GREAT MANIFESTATIONS
http://www.bahai-library.org/books/announcement.quran/2.html
"If the coming of the Apostle Muhammad was foretold in the Biblical
reference to "Ahmad", where are the names of "the Bab" and "Baha'u'llah"
mentioned clearly in the Qur'an?
Had the names of the Bab and of Baha'u'llah been mentioned clearly in the
Qur'an, there is little reason to expect that the 'ulama would not have
interpreted the "Bab" as "Gate" and Baha'u'llah as "Glory of God", making
the words refer to divine attributes. Those who replace future tense with
past tense and interpret "Bayan" as "articulate speech", would be similarly
predisposed to interpreting "Baha'u'llah" and "Gate" in a manner that
precluded acknowledgment of Manifestations of God after Muhammad.
Categorical rejection of the possibility that further Divine Revelation
could come after Muhammad requires rejection of interpretation of the
prophecies of the Qur'an regarding the advent of the Bab and of Baha'u'llah.
Regarding the statement in the Qur'an that the advent of an Apostle named
"Ahmad" is written in the Bible, the Christians were unable to find the word
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Qur'an 61:6.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
page 15
"Ahmad" in the New Testament. The argument was further given that even were
the name "Ahmad" found in the New Testament, the name of the Prophet was
Muhammad and not Ahmad.
This resulted in accusations being directed toward the Christians of having
tampered with the Bible and erasing from the New Testament all reference to
Muhammad, including a Gospel according to St. Barnabas that purportedly
contained clear prophecies concerning the coming of Muhammad after Christ.
However, as "Ahmad" is an Arabic word and the New Testament was not written
in Arabic, the word "Ahmad" could not be found as such. The Greek version of
the New Testament refers to the Prophet Muhammad in the Greek equivalent of
"Ahmad" by using "Paraclete" or "Pharaclete", which translates as
"Comforter" or "Redeemer" and is the meaning of the name "Ahmad."8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Lights of Guidance, p. 378 #1022.
Randy Burns
actual historical fact.
Cheers, Randy
--
QisQos <Qis...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:29a4262b.03042...@posting.google.com...
Or is the Gospel correct:
>
> Matthew 27:35. And after they had crucified him, they divided his
> garments, casting lots; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by
> the prophet, saying: They divided my garments among them; and upon my
> vesture they cast lots.
>
>
> Clearly it has to be one or the other.
>
Robert Arvay
Qis...@aol.com (QisQos) wrote in message news:<29a4262b.03042...@posting.google.com>...
(snip)
> But you
[Baha'is]
> are also in a tricky position, because the mahometans do not
> believe Christ Crucified, they say in their Koran that it was only an
> appearance.
>
> So what does bahullah say about this? If he says that Christ was NOT
> crucified in reality and fact, he denies the Truth of the Gospels, if
> he affirms the Truth of Christ Crucified in fact and reality and not
> mere appearance, bahullah denies the Koran and Mahomet.
>
> So which is it? Clearly it cannot be both - either the Gospel is wrong
> or Mahomet is wrong, and either way, bahullah is wrong because he
> affirms the "truth" of both positions, one which cannot be held
> because they are mutually exclusive.
You would have a good point, QQ, except that Baha'is seem not to be
bothered by this kind of discrepancy. If one does not like what words
are written, one can claim that the words do not really mean what they
say: Either the Gospels must be liberally interpreted, or else the
Koran must be taken figuratively--- or both. In the case of Isaac and
Ishmael (which one of them was put on the altar? Isaac per Bible,
Ishmael per Koran) they resolve the discrepancy with the dismissal
that, it's only an unimportant detail.
What liberals seem to like least about Christian fundamentalists is
that we are (in their opinion) too sure of ourselves, and therefore
closed-minded, dogmatic, and unyielding on matters of doctrine or
scripture.
What fundamentalists like myself find most frustrating about liberals
is that their terms are unworkably vague and ambiguous. While they
accuse us of being insecure, and therefore of clinging to "outmoded"
beliefs, it is the liberals who are too insecure to commit themselves
to a position lest they offend someone. Thus, in the liberal
churches, sins are not really sins, and all God really wants from us
is that we "care," but never so much that we would go to war to end an
injustice.
>
> But Bahullah is dead and facing judgement before Christ Judging, it is
> too late for him, but not for you.
>
> So is what mahomet wrote true?
> Koran 4:156
> That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary,
> the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him,
> but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are
> full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to
> follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-
The first half of that passage made me wonder--- well, perhaps it is
referring to the fact that although Jesus died physically on the
cross, He was not conquered by death. That, I think, would be the
Baha'i explanation. But the second part of the surah takes away that
escape hatch, denying the certainty of our knowledge that Jesus did
indeed die physically on the cross.
>
> Or is the Gospel correct:
>
> Matthew 27:35. And after they had crucified him, they divided his
> garments, casting lots; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by
> the prophet, saying: They divided my garments among them; and upon my
> vesture they cast lots.
>
>
> Clearly it has to be one or the other.
>
> So if you as a bahaist believe in Christ Crucified, then you deny what
> Mahomet says and say the Koran is false, and deny the alleged oneness
> of the "manifestations".
>
> But either way, you are still at peril as long as you believe in the
> Crucifixion as you claim and deny the Truth of the Cross:
>
> 1 Cor. :22. For both the Jews require signs: and the Greeks seek after
> wisdom.
>
> 1:23. But we preach Christ crucified: unto the Jews indeed a
> stumblingblock, and unto the Gentiles foolishness:
>
> My prayers for your eventual delivery to the salvation of the Cross.
>
> QQ
Amen to that!
Adelard Rubangura
> With regards passages in the Quran referring to Jesus dying on the cross,
I
> doubt if you will find it.
Yes, there is Errol, I believe Matt was talking about this verse too.
Qur'an 19:33
"Peace be upon Me the Day I was born and the Day I die and the day I shall
be raised alive."
As the above verse says, it refers to three things: Birth of Jesus, Death of
Jesus, and His being raised which can be understood as His Resurrection or
as His Return.
An other point to consider is that in all Prophets or Messengers of God
mentioned in the Qu'ran, the only one who has been given the title of
Ruh'u'llah ( The *Spirit of God* ) is Jesus Christ.
So the point that I am trying to make is that only human bodies are subject
to death and not spirits. Moreover what made Jesus a Messenger of God was
*His Spirit* and not His body. As a result killing of the BODY of Jesus did
not *equate*, according to the testimony of the Qur'an, with killing Jesus
the Messenger of God as the "Spirit of God."
So one may conclude that the following verses of the Qur'an are trying to
convey that fact noted above.
Qur'an 4:157-159:
"And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah Jesus son of Mary,
Allah's messenger --"
Qur'an 3:55
"they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew
him not for certain, But Allah took him up unto Himself."
To even understand well, we would need to consider a historical context on
the meaning of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ from the Followers of Moses's
beliefs. They were under the impression that by having him crucified, his
falsehood was going to be proven according to one of their prophecies.
From the perspective of Pharisees, the choice for crucifying Jesus over the
thief was meant to fulfill at least three purposes: to halt the spread of
His message, to punish Him for breaking the Sabbath and speaking blasphemy;
and to test the powers of Jesus if He can escape the crucifix and remain
alive against one of their
Old Testament beliefs which teach that one who is hung by way of the tree,
is accursed ( see Deuteronomy 21:23 ).
So, truly, as the Qu'ran states, Jesus never died "Spiritually Speaking"
because the Gospel and His message of Love spread all over the world
God Bless
Adelard
Jeremiah
> fallen angels.
>
> James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the
> devils also believe, and tremble.
>
> But you do not confess the Truth about the Cross and that is that it
> was to redeem mankind of sin and the perils of Hell.
>
> But you are also in a tricky position, because the mahometans do not
> believe Christ Crucified, they say in their Koran that it was only an
> appearance.
Seth says that it was not Jesus who died on the cross, but rather
another person...so there are many who do not embrace the ahistorical
Jesus myth.
"I have many a truth to tell you but you can not yet bear it"
> So what does bahullah say about this? If he says that Christ was NOT
> crucified in reality and fact, he denies the Truth of the Gospels, if
> he affirms the Truth of Christ Crucified in fact and reality and not
> mere appearance, bahullah denies the Koran and Mahomet.
The uhj can elucidate on any of Baha'u'llah's writings and therefore
they can say different things according to the times or era and
understandings of the 'elucidators' and the translations they are
working with
> So which is it? Clearly it cannot be both - either the Gospel is wrong
> or Mahomet is wrong, and either way, bahullah is wrong because he
> affirms the "truth" of both positions, one which cannot be held
> because they are mutually exclusive.
YES...they can have both wayz and many wayz....whatever elucidation
applies to the given question.
Jeremiah*
errol9
Adelard_...@yahoo.com wrote on 25/4/03 3:57 am:
>
>> With regards passages in the Quran referring to Jesus dying on the cross,
> I
>> doubt if you will find it.
>
> Yes, there is Errol, I believe Matt was talking about this verse too.
>
> Qur'an 19:33
> "Peace be upon Me the Day I was born and the Day I die and the day I shall
> be raised alive."
Sure this verse could represent Muhammad, (or the 4th Iman's window cleaner
who happened to be a good Muslim). Nowhere does it say its Jesus Christ.
That is the problem with the Quran (it was made to be recited) and not
interpreted) read:
BAHA'U'LLAH: THE GREAT ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE QUR'AN by MUHAMMAD MUSTAFA
http://www.bahai-library.org/books/announcement.quran/index.html
Why is it many Muslims dont believe Jesus died at all (especially on a
Cross) infact many of their jehads in past history and at present is to
destroy the myth of the Cross. MUHAMMAD MUSTAFA himself relies on The
medieval Gospel of St Barnabas for proof about jesus not dying (whether in
the spirt or the flesh) at all, and prophesy over the twin Manifestations
> As the above verse says, it refers to three things: Birth of Jesus, Death of
> Jesus, and His being raised which can be understood as His Resurrection or
> as His Return.
As I said the above verse does not mention *who* dies or whose spirit was
resurrected.
>
> An other point to consider is that in all Prophets or Messengers of God
> mentioned in the Qu'ran, the only one who has been given the title of
> Ruh'u'llah ( The *Spirit of God* ) is Jesus Christ.
So what does that prove to non-Muslim's or non-Baha'is, that the founder of
the Baha'i faith could be called Baha'u'llah?
>
> So the point that I am trying to make is that only human bodies are subject
> to death and not spirits. Moreover what made Jesus a Messenger of God was
> *His Spirit* and not His body. As a result killing of the BODY of Jesus did
> not *equate*, according to the testimony of the Qur'an, with killing Jesus
> the Messenger of God as the "Spirit of God."
So you believe Christians only think the resurrection of Christ's body was
more imporant than the resurrection of the spirit, when in fact (Trinitarian
believing Christians) believe both body and spirit was resurrected together
after the spirit first (had decended into hell and on the third day ascended
into heaven). The concept is as much a mystery as the mystery surrounding
the dissapearance of the Iman Ali in Shi'ite islam. You would agree Muslims
or Baha'is cant even agree over this mystery so how can Muslims and Baha'is
solve the mystery over Christ's resurrection?
> So one may conclude that the following verses of the Qur'an are trying to
> convey that fact noted above.
>
> Qur'an 4:157-159:
> "And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah Jesus son of Mary,
> Allah's messenger --"
>
> Qur'an 3:55
> "they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew
> him not for certain, But Allah took him up unto Himself."
>
> To even understand well, we would need to consider a historical context on
> the meaning of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ from the Followers of Moses's
> beliefs. They were under the impression that by having him crucified, his
> falsehood was going to be proven according to one of their prophecies.
> From the perspective of Pharisees, the choice for crucifying Jesus over the
> thief was meant to fulfill at least three purposes: to halt the spread of
> His message, to punish Him for breaking the Sabbath and speaking blasphemy;
> and to test the powers of Jesus if He can escape the crucifix and remain
> alive against one of their
> Old Testament beliefs which teach that one who is hung by way of the tree,
> is accursed ( see Deuteronomy 21:23 ).
>
> So, truly, as the Qu'ran states, Jesus never died "Spiritually Speaking"
> because the Gospel and His message of Love spread all over the world
Point taken Adelard, But Christians dont believe Jesus died "Spiritually
Speaking" either.
Questions about the Baha'i Faith no Baha'i could ever answer.
Understanding that The coming of *TWO* Manifestations (the Madhi first, then
followed by a Messiah) is an accepted Islamic prophesy.
No1) Where in any of the Christian Gospels (not the Gnostic or the medieval
Gospel of St Barnabas) is there a prophesy of TWO similar manifestations?
No2) If Baha'u'llah (Messiah) is supposed to be the Second Coming of
Christ as promised in the Book of Revelation, where, who or what is the Bab
(Al Madhi) mentioned in the Book of revelation?.
No3) If Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l Baha believed the Bab was the return of
John the Baptist, why did neither of them name the first "John the baptist"
a "Manifestation of God"?...............................Errol
>
>
> God Bless
> Adelard
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Robert Arvay
From what I gather concerning the Koran's account of the crucifixion
and resurrection of Jesus, one can interpret the Koran to mean either
that the Biblical account is correct, or is not, depending upon the
reader's preference.
The Bible leaves no room for ambiguity on the subject, unless one is
really determined to read it as other than its plain meaning.
==============
"Adelard Rubangura" <Adelard_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<b8abmt$82le5$4...@ID-75457.news.dfncis.de>...
errol9
> Greetings;
>
> From what I gather concerning the Koran's account of the crucifixion
> and resurrection of Jesus, one can interpret the Koran to mean either
> that the Biblical account is correct, or is not, depending upon the
> reader's preference.
Good point Robert, its a pity some Muslims and Baha'is don't realise that
before they try and interpret the Quran without professional help only leads
to misunderstanding. Muhammad Mustafa explains that well here.
http://www.bahai-library.org/books/announcement.quran/1.html
But there is no doubt that although a certain degree of proof with regards
prophesy of the coming of two Baha'i manifestations can be found in Islamic
Hadihs and the Medieval Gospel of St Barnabas (considered a forgery by
christian scholars) nothing can be found in the Quran or the Holy Bible,
about these twop manifestations. The only prophesy is in the Bible referring
to the Second coming of Christ which is in the Book of Revelations.
Likewise neither the Islamic hadihs (oral stories) or the Medieval Gospel of
St Barnabas are the word of God........................Errol
CHAPTER I:
INTERPRETATION OF THE QUR'AN
The task of interpreting the Qur'an is a delicate one. Many interpretations
have been written, generally concluding with the phrase: "God and His
Apostle alone know the truth". The statement indicates that the
interpretation reflects a personal understanding and that the true
interpretation remains in the knowledge of God and His Apostle Muhammad.
God warned the Muslims in the Qur'an against interpreting the Qur'an. This
is stated very clearly in the Surih of the Family of 'Imran (III, v. 5)
[3:5]:
He it is who hath sent down to thee "the Book." Some of its signs are of
themselves perspicuous; these are the basis of the Book and others are
figurative. But they whose hearts are given to err, follow its figures,
craving discord, craving an interpretation; yet none knoweth its
interpretation but God And the stable in knowledge say "We believe in it;
all is from our Lord" But none will bear this in mind, save men endued with
understanding. Part of this verse is cited by Baha'u'llah in the
Kitab-i-Iqan, the punctuation contributing to its meaning:
"None knoweth the interpretation thereof but God and they that are
well-grounded in knowledge."1 It is evident from the above verse that the
Qur'an includes verses that are clear and others that are figurative. The
clear verses are ones which provide
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 17 and 213, as translated by Shoghi Effendi. See also
Selections from the Writings of the Bab, p. 11 The Shi'ih interpretation of
"they that are well-grounded in knowledge" is that of being in reference to
the Imamate. See An introduction to Shi'i Islam by M. Momen. pp. 151-2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
page 2
the laws and ordinances of the Faith, such as those concerning prayer,
ablutions, fasting, alms, marriage, divorce and inheritance. These laws and
ordinances distinguish the believers of the Qur'an as an independent
community. The verses which set forth these laws and ordinances, being
"perspicuous", are not essentially and necessarily in need of
interpretation. Whenever specific issues and situations arise which call for
the application of these verses, it is generally understood that in the
first instance the "well-grounded in knowledge" and after them,
distinguished men of learning, may explain and interpret such verses in
order to make them applicable to the individual as well as to the community.
The figurative verses, however, definitely require interpretation in order
that their meanings may be understood. Those described by the Qur'anic verse
as leaders who, "craving interpretation", will make pronouncements according
to their own whims and fancies, seeking to expound meanings of the
figurative verses, will in the end be sources of "error" and "discord". The
interpretation of these verses is known only to God and the "well-grounded
in knowledge" who do not have the permission to reveal their interpretation
despite their knowledge of it. Those endowed with understanding, men of true
knowledge, will know that the figurative verses of the Qur'an should not and
cannot be authoritatively interpreted by mortal minds. In the Surih of
Resurrection (LXXV, vv. 16- 19) [75:16-19], God addresses Prophet Muhammad:
Move not thy tongue in haste to follow and master this revelation: For we
will see to the collecting and the recital of it [qur'anahu];
------------------------------------------------------------------------
page 3
But when we have recited it, then follow thou the recital,
And, verily, afterwards it shall be ours to make it clear [bayanahu] to
thee.2
In some translations "make it clear" is translated as "explanation thereof',
both having the same meaning
It is evident from the verse cited above that God called on Prophet
Muhammad, and thereby His followers, not to hasten efforts to master the
understanding of the Qur'an, but rather to follow the instructions therein.
God further gives the assurance that He will reveal the explanation of the
Book, and that such a clarification will be forthcoming at some future date.
In the Surih of the Heights (VII, vv. 50-1) [7:50-51] it is written:
And now have we brought them the Book: with knowledge have we explained it;
a guidance and a mercy to them that believe. What have they to wait for now
but its interpretation? When its interpretation shall come, they who
aforetime were oblivious of it shall say, "The Prophets of our Lord did
indeed bring the truth; shall we have any intercessor to intercede for us?
or could we not be sent back? Then would we act otherwise than we have
acted" But they have ruined themselves; and the deities of their own
devising have fled from them!3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See Miracles and Metaphors, part II, Commentary on "Then it is Ours to
Explain It," pp. 51-58, end p. 11.
3. cf. Qur'an 10:40. Cited by Mirza Abu'l-Fadl in Baha'i Proofs, p. 213,
in connection with prophecies concerning the unsealing of the Texts at the
time of the return. Additional commentary on this theme and these verses can
be found on pp. 10 and 52 of Miracles and Metaphors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
page 4
God thus confirms that the interpretation of the Qur'an would come in the
future. "What have they to wait for now but Its interpretation?" implies
that they should expect and seek the forthcoming interpretation. Moreover,
the verse confirms that when the interpretation is revealed, it would be
rejected and meet with the opposition of the forgetful and heedless.
Muhammad did not leave an interpretation of the Qur'an, nor did any of His
Successors. During later centuries, after the ascension and disappearance of
the Imams, when interpretations were attempted, none of the interpreters
claimed authenticity or divine origin for their interpretations.
In Six Lessons on Islam, Marzieh Gail provides the following description
concerning the recital and gathering of the verses of the Qur'an, about
which there is general agreement among Muslim historians:
. . . The verses were written down at the moment of revelation or soon
after, on palm leaves, leather, stone, the shoulder-blades of sheep;
furthermore, the Arabs had wonderful memories, and many learned it by
heart....Soon after the ascension of Muhammad many reciters of the Qur'an
were killed in battle; it was therefore thought necessary to compile the
entire Qur'an into one; the task was given to the Prophet's amanuensis, Zayd
ibn Thabit. Therefore, although with misgivings and doubting the propriety
of the work, Zayd searched out the entire Qur'an and compiled it, simply
putting the long surihs first, regardless of chronology. As a matter of
fact, the short surihs at the end, telling of the coming of the Day of
....God, were revealed at the beginning Zayd's text continued to be standard
during 'Umar's caliphate, but it was found that variations had crept into
many copies; the men of Syria and 'Iraq had different readings, and the
caliph 'Uthman
------------------------------------------------------------------------
page 5
therefore had all the versions compared with Zayd's original, Zayd and three
coadjutors being appointed to do the work. Transcripts of this recension
were sent out to all the cities, all other copies were burnt, and what we
still have is this recension of the third Caliph's. Zayd's original
compilation was made within two or three years of Muhammad's ascension, and
there is no question as to its accuracy; 'Ali the Imam, was there, and many
of the devout who knew the Qur'an by heart, and besides the transcripts of
the separate portions were in daily use.
The Qur'an was therefore revealed, recited and preserved during the lifetime
of Prophet Muhammad. Its compilation and recension, resulting in its present
form, were made soon after His ascension. God promised to send the
interpretation of the Qur'an. The believers were enjoined to look for the
interpretation which would be made manifest as decreed by God, and were
further warned that any interpretation made in the meantime could only be
the result of "craving discord" on the part of the interpreter, giving rise
to schism and dissension. How and when, therefore, would the promised
interpretation become available to the world? Who would come to the world
with the interpretation?
Sekhmet
>There is no evidence that any statement in the Four Gospel stories is an
>actual historical fact.
Well, there's that stuff from Josephus which, if nothing else, at least
acknowledges that Jesus existed:
http://members.aol.com/fljosephus/quotes.htm
The recent discovery of an ossuary labeled "James, son of Joseph, brother of
Jesus" is, of course, merely circumstantial evidence at this point.
--Sekhmet
Matt Menge
> in article b8abmt$82le5$4...@ID-75457.news.dfncis.de, Adelard Rubangura at
> Adelard_...@yahoo.com wrote on 25/4/03 3:57 am:
>
> >
> >> With regards passages in the Quran referring to Jesus dying on the cross,
> I
> >> doubt if you will find it.
> >
> > Yes, there is Errol, I believe Matt was talking about this verse too.
> >
> > Qur'an 19:33
> > "Peace be upon Me the Day I was born and the Day I die and the day I shall
> > be raised alive."
>
> Sure this verse could represent Muhammad, (or the 4th Iman's window cleaner
> who happened to be a good Muslim). Nowhere does it say its Jesus Christ.
Doesn't the next verse say: "Such was Jesus, son of Mary"?
> That is the problem with the Quran (it was made to be recited) and not
> interpreted) read:
>
> BAHA'U'LLAH: THE GREAT ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE QUR'AN by MUHAMMAD MUSTAFA
> http://www.bahai-library.org/books/announcement.quran/index.html
>
> Why is it many Muslims dont believe Jesus died at all (especially on a
> Cross) infact many of their jehads in past history and at present is to
> destroy the myth of the Cross. MUHAMMAD MUSTAFA himself relies on The
> medieval Gospel of St Barnabas for proof about jesus not dying (whether in
> the spirt or the flesh) at all, and prophesy over the twin Manifestations
>
Do you think you could be more specific about your source? This is a
100-page book with no index. But I have the book before me, so once I
find it, no problem.
Best Regards,
Matt
Randy Burns
news:20030425085412...@mb-m15.aol.com...
> Randy wrote:
> >There is no evidence that any statement in the Four Gospel stories is an
> >actual historical fact.
>
> Well, there's that stuff from Josephus which, if nothing else, at least
> acknowledges that Jesus existed:
> http://members.aol.com/fljosephus/quotes.htm
Sekhmet, this is well known to be a latter interpolation made by Christians.
Plus Josephus, who lived during the Jewish rebellion, certainly himself
never met Jesus. Nor in fact did he ever mention the name is his writings
before the interpolations were made by later hands.
> The recent discovery of an ossuary labeled "James, son of Joseph, brother
of
> Jesus" is, of course, merely circumstantial evidence at this point.
I was waiting for Arvay to say that, but personally I think this ossuary is
a fake, probably recently created in the last twenty years or so. It was
"found" by a dealer who claimed to have purchased it prior to 1978 and
therefore was not discovered at a genuine dig of any kind. Not to the
mention the fact that it is proof of nothing. Actually though I accept that
James the Just was a real person. However let me repeat that there is
absolutely not a single shred of historical evidence that a single act of
Jesus as recounted in the four Gospels ever happened. This is a fact that
the average Christian is incapable of facing. That doesn't mean that a
"Jesus" person didn't exist, just that he didn't do the things recounted in
the Gospels. The Gospels are 100% fiction so far as anyone can tell.
Cheers, Randy
errol9
mspm...@msn.com wrote on 25/4/03 2:32 pm:
> errol9 <err...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:<BACED11D.208BB%err...@ntlworld.com>...
>> in article b8abmt$82le5$4...@ID-75457.news.dfncis.de, Adelard Rubangura at
>> Adelard_...@yahoo.com wrote on 25/4/03 3:57 am:
>>
>>>
>>>> With regards passages in the Quran referring to Jesus dying on the cross,
>> I
>>>> doubt if you will find it.
>>>
>>> Yes, there is Errol, I believe Matt was talking about this verse too.
>>>
>>> Qur'an 19:33
>>> "Peace be upon Me the Day I was born and the Day I die and the day I shall
>>> be raised alive."
>>
>> Sure this verse could represent Muhammad, (or the 4th Iman's window cleaner
>> who happened to be a good Muslim). Nowhere does it say its Jesus Christ.
>
> Doesn't the next verse say: "Such was Jesus, son of Mary"?
That is the problem unless both verses are put together the single verse on
its own does not make sense. Anyway the verse is still gobbly gook and
makes little sense to any modern day western reader (literally or
symbolically) To say that illiterate Arab Muslim's knew more about the death
and resurrection of jesus Christ out of the Quran than well read Christian
clerics who knew thei Bibles well is an insult to their intelligence.
>
>> That is the problem with the Quran (it was made to be recited) and not
>> interpreted) read:
>>
>> BAHA'U'LLAH: THE GREAT ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE QUR'AN by MUHAMMAD MUSTAFA
>> http://www.bahai-library.org/books/announcement.quran/index.html
>>
>> Why is it many Muslims dont believe Jesus died at all (especially on a
>> Cross) infact many of their jehads in past history and at present is to
>> destroy the myth of the Cross. MUHAMMAD MUSTAFA himself relies on The
>> medieval Gospel of St Barnabas for proof about jesus not dying (whether in
>> the spirt or the flesh) at all, and prophesy over the twin Manifestations
>>
>
> Do you think you could be more specific about your source? This is a
> 100-page book with no index. But I have the book before me, so once I
> find it, no problem.
No problem, here is the quote below. The Baha'i author has stated the Gospel
of St Barnabas was part of the New testament. This is Islamic lies and now
used by a Baha'i author approved by a member of the UHJ and a Bahai
publishing trust to propagate the coming of both manifestations. The Gospel
of St Barnabas was a 15th century Italian forgery written long after the
beginning of Islam. St Barnabas was not even part of the Gnostic gospels,
which were not included in the New Testament........................Errol
http://www.bahai-library.org/books/announcement.quran/2.html
"Ahmad" in the New Testament. The argument was further given that even were
the name "Ahmad" found in the New Testament, the name of the Prophet was
Muhammad and not Ahmad. This resulted in accusations being directed toward
the Christians of having tampered with the Bible and erasing from the New
Testament all reference to Muhammad, including a Gospel according to St.
Barnabas that purportedly contained clear prophecies concerning the coming
of Muhammad after Christ. However, as "Ahmad" is an Arabic word and the New
Testament was not written in Arabic, the word "Ahmad" could not be found as
such. The Greek version of the New Testament refers to the Prophet Muhammad
in the Greek equivalent of "Ahmad" by using "Paraclete" or "Pharaclete",
which translates as "Comforter" or "Redeemer" and is the meaning of the name
"Ahmad."8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Matt
Sekhmet
>Sekhmet <sekhm...@aol.com.nz> wrote in message
>news:20030425085412...@mb-m15.aol.com...
>> Randy wrote:
>> >There is no evidence that any statement in the Four Gospel stories is
>an
>> >actual historical fact.
>>
>> Well, there's that stuff from Josephus which, if nothing else, at least
>> acknowledges that Jesus existed:
>> http://members.aol.com/fljosephus/quotes.htm
>
>Sekhmet, this is well known to be a latter interpolation made by Christians.
The Christians definitely messed around with the original quote, but I don't
think they were responsible for the original comments attributed to Josephus.
Here's a site that discusses that:
http://www.uncc.edu/jdtabor/josephus-jesus.html
>Plus Josephus, who lived during the Jewish rebellion, certainly himself
>never met Jesus. Nor in fact did he ever mention the name is his writings
>before the interpolations were made by later hands.
>
>> The recent discovery of an ossuary labeled "James, son of Joseph, brother
>of
>> Jesus" is, of course, merely circumstantial evidence at this point.
>
>I was waiting for Arvay to say that, but personally I think this ossuary
>is
>a fake, probably recently created in the last twenty years or so. It was
>"found" by a dealer who claimed to have purchased it prior to 1978 and
>therefore was not discovered at a genuine dig of any kind.
It is possible that it's a fake. Preliminary tests seem to indicate that the
inscription is ancient, but that's only preliminary, and it's also possible
that it could have been faked long ago, instead of recently.
>Not to the
>mention the fact that it is proof of nothing.
Yes. That's why I referred to it as "merely circumstantial". Worthless without
additional corroboration.
>Actually though I accept
>that
>James the Just was a real person. However let me repeat that there is
>absolutely not a single shred of historical evidence that a single act of
>Jesus as recounted in the four Gospels ever happened.
With that I agree. However, that's not what you said! ;-)
>This is a fact that
>the average Christian is incapable of facing. That doesn't mean that a
>"Jesus" person didn't exist, just that he didn't do the things recounted
>in
>the Gospels. The Gospels are 100% fiction so far as anyone can tell.
Could be (and parts definitely are), but I bet they're based on _something_
real...
--Sekhmet
Randy Burns
> >Sekhmet, this is well known to be a latter interpolation made by
Christians.
>
> The Christians definitely messed around with the original quote, but I
don't
> think they were responsible for the original comments attributed to
Josephus.
> Here's a site that discusses that:
> http://www.uncc.edu/jdtabor/josephus-jesus.html
That's an interesting site.
First note that the earliest known manuscript of Josephus (according to this
site) is the 11the century AD! This first particular book was written about
90CE at which time the work of the early Christian groups were well know and
of course 2-3 of the Gospels had already been written. There is no way to
know what Josephus is using as a source, he obviously is not using his own
memory. He never met Jesus and it doesn't appear that he ever met anyone
who did.
Josephus might be used as a source to confirm that the information in the
Gospel was known by people living in 90 AD, two generations after the time
of Christ's death, but that's about all. There are other confirmations of
that, we know Christians existed at that time. I think Josephus was writing
for the crowd here and wanted to put in some good lurid stuff to please
people.
To have historical confirmation you need either a living witness (who you
would have to evaulate for accuracy) or some official account of Jewish or
Roman origin circa 30 AD. No such thing exists. If Jesus had actually done
the things as described in the Gospels you can rest assured that we would
know about it. After all, John the Baptist did only a small part of that
and he is more acceptable as an historical figure.
This thing about the ossuary is that no matter now many times it might be
proven to be a fake there will always be people willing to believe in it.
Cheers, Randy
Matt Menge
>
> That is the problem unless both verses are put together the single verse on
> its own does not make sense.
Huh?
Anyway the verse is still gobbly gook and
> makes little sense to any modern day western reader (literally or
> symbolically).
It makes perfect sense.
To say that illiterate Arab Muslim's knew more about the death
> and resurrection of jesus Christ out of the Quran than well read Christian
> clerics who knew thei Bibles well is an insult to their intelligence.
> >
The Qur'an frequently makes statements about the Bible that don't even
appear in second-hand sources. Muslims claim to have divinely
inspired knowledge of history, not of the Bible. So maybe it should
be the historians who are "insulted".
> >> That is the problem with the Quran (it was made to be recited) and not
> >> interpreted) read:
> >>
> >> BAHA'U'LLAH: THE GREAT ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE QUR'AN by MUHAMMAD MUSTAFA
> >> http://www.bahai-library.org/books/announcement.quran/index.html
> >>
> >> Why is it many Muslims dont believe Jesus died at all (especially on a
> >> Cross) infact many of their jehads in past history and at present is to
> >> destroy the myth of the Cross. MUHAMMAD MUSTAFA himself relies on The
> >> medieval Gospel of St Barnabas for proof about jesus not dying (whether in
> >> the spirt or the flesh) at all, and prophesy over the twin Manifestations
> >>
> >
> > Do you think you could be more specific about your source? This is a
> > 100-page book with no index. But I have the book before me, so once I
> > find it, no problem.
>
> No problem, here is the quote below. The Baha'i author has stated the Gospel
> of St Barnabas was part of the New testament. This is Islamic lies and now
> used by a Baha'i author approved by a member of the UHJ and a Bahai
> publishing trust to propagate the coming of both manifestations. The Gospel
> of St Barnabas was a 15th century Italian forgery written long after the
> beginning of Islam. St Barnabas was not even part of the Gnostic gospels,
> which were not included in the New Testament........................Errol
>
I wouldn't know. The issue in question is not too interesting to me,
anyways.
Best Regards,
Matt
Sekhmet
[snip]
>To have historical confirmation you need either a living witness (who you
>would have to evaulate for accuracy) or some official account of Jewish
>or
>Roman origin circa 30 AD. No such thing exists.
Maybe we just haven't found it yet. ;-)
>If Jesus had actually
>done
>the things as described in the Gospels you can rest assured that we would
>know about it.
Maybe.
>After all, John the Baptist did only a small part of that
>and he is more acceptable as an historical figure.
He is? Why?
>This thing about the ossuary is that no matter now many times it might be
>proven to be a fake there will always be people willing to believe in it.
Like the Shroud of Turin, which seems to get "conclusively debunked" every
couple of decades or so, then sooner or later rises again. ;-)
--Sekhmet
Dale Grider
randy....@gte.net wrote on 4/24/03 1:05 PM:
> There is no evidence that any statement in the Four Gospel stories is an
> actual historical fact.
>
> Cheers, Randy
Of course there is. Historically, the fact that the incredible claims of
Christianity were never refuted by the contemporary Jewish leadership so
opposed to this popular movement is telling. Also, Roman accounts would have
refuted the claims by presenting the body if it had been available. It is
unreasonable to suppose that Jesus' followers could have stolen the body out
from under Roman guards. Evidence comes in many forms, and is always only
accepted by those open to it.
Howdy!
Dale Grider
> So what does bahullah say about this? If he says that Christ was NOT
>> crucified in reality and fact, he denies the Truth of the Gospels, if
>> he affirms the Truth of Christ Crucified in fact and reality and not
>> mere appearance, bahullah denies the Koran and Mahomet.
>>
>> So which is it? Clearly it cannot be both - either the Gospel is wrong
>> or Mahomet is wrong, and either way, bahullah is wrong because he
>> affirms the "truth" of both positions, one which cannot be held
>> because they are mutually exclusive.
This kind of observation is the type that is most revealing of human
religion. It is one example of an objective observation of internal
doctrinal contradiction that destroys the validity of this allegedly
inspired source of Truth.
Another similar example that I have discussed at length with Baha'is in the
past, and that relates to the Baha'i reinterpretation of the meaning of
Jesus' Resurrection, has to do with His virgin birth. If one reads the
rationale behind the official Baha'i denial of a literal/personal
Resurrection for Jesus, it is based largely upon the assumption that such
literalism is naive superstition and is unreasonable based upon common sense
and hard science. William Sears in His book The Wine of Astonishment, well
expresses this line of thought as he berates foolish fundamentalists whose
lietral beliefs amount to ignorant superstition.
YET, the virgin birth of Jesus is officially accepted as a literal event by
official Baha'i teaching!!!
When one compares the rationale against the literal/personal Resurrection
with the case of the virgin birth (no male sperm to fertilize the egg and
create a zygote) that comparison reveals a blatantly irrational double
standard within Baha'i theology that seems rather clearly to demonstrate the
kind of "picking and choosing" of rationalized arguments to support various
positions that are the carelessly inconsistent and UN-inspired fruit of
error filled human religion.
If, as Abdul Baha argues in Some Answered Questions, the Resurrection REALLY
just means the renewed faith of the Apostles after three days, and as within
the Baha'i theology literal belief in this miracle as being a REAL literal
event is regarded as naive superstition, then virgin births would need to be
interpreted in the same fashion...yet they are not within the Baha'i
paradigm!
Howdy!
Randy Burns
concept.
Cheers, Randy
--
Dale Grider <howd...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:BACF6F74.6477%howd...@insightbb.com...
> in article e247d7b6.03042...@posting.google.com, Robert Arvay
at
> YET, the virgin birth of Jesus is officially accepted as a literal event
Randy Burns
rebellion or after? Jews would love to do a bit of refuting but have had a
hard time due to constant persecution by Christians.
Your ideas are rather spurious since the claims you are talking about
weren't made until one or two generations after the time period in question.
There is no evidence to support the idea that James the Just taught about
the physical resurrection of his brother, there is no real evidence that
Paul taught that is there?
There is no reason to suppose that a story made up 30-50 years after the
fact was known about in the time of Jesus. Obviously if you could provide
evidence that Jews in Jerusalem were actually talking about Jesus in 35AD
you would be making major major history!
Randy
--
Dale Grider <howd...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:BACF692B.6474%howd...@insightbb.com...
> in article HPUpa.31153$yO5....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net, Randy Burns at
> Of course there is. Historically, the fact that the incredible claims of
errol9
mspm...@msn.com wrote on 25/4/03 10:19 pm:
Well you should, the problem is the Bahai Faith play on western ignorance of
both Islam and christianity, and many are conned (which included myself)
into joining a new religious movement which has serious historical flaws
and errors in its make up. Try learning about were many of the Baha'is and
Ahmadis (new 19th century movements from Islam) got their information from
concerning a connection between the Quran and the New Testament.....Errol
The Forgery of the Gospel of Barnabas
May 2002 version.
http://www.muslimhope.com/forgeryofthegospelofbarnabas.htm
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Matt
Matt Menge
> >>
> >> No problem, here is the quote below. The Baha'i author has stated the Gospel
> >> of St Barnabas was part of the New testament. This is Islamic lies and now
> >> used by a Baha'i author approved by a member of the UHJ and a Bahai
> >> publishing trust to propagate the coming of both manifestations. The Gospel
> >> of St Barnabas was a 15th century Italian forgery written long after the
> >> beginning of Islam. St Barnabas was not even part of the Gnostic gospels,
> >> which were not included in the New Testament........................Errol
> >>
> >
> > I wouldn't know. The issue in question is not too interesting to me,
> > anyways.
>
> Well you should, the problem is the Bahai Faith play on western ignorance of
> both Islam and christianity, and many are conned (which included myself)
> into joining a new religious movement which has serious historical flaws
> and errors in its make up. Try learning about were many of the Baha'is and
> Ahmadis (new 19th century movements from Islam) got their information from
> concerning a connection between the Quran and the New Testament.....Errol
>
> The Forgery of the Gospel of Barnabas
> May 2002 version.
>
> http://www.muslimhope.com/forgeryofthegospelofbarnabas.htm
Perhaps you misunderstand me. I think it is quite possible that Mr.
Mustafa was simply wrong on this issue. My acceptance of Islam as a
revealed religion has nothing to do with the Gospel of Barnabas. But
if I have some time this weekend I will look over the article.
Best Regards,
Matt
Dale Grider
randy....@gte.net wrote on 4/25/03 11:21 PM:
> Show me where the Baha'i Faith accepts the 'virgin birth' save as a symbolic
> concept.
>
> Cheers, Randy
>
In regards to the doctrine of the virgin birth of Jesus I offer just a few
(but more than sufficient) examples that help to define the Bahaąi position.
Shoghi Effendi, stated: 'On this point, as on several others, the Baha'i
Teachings are in full agreement with the doctrines of the Catholic Church.'
(Lights of Guidance, 490-491). He further stated: 'In this matter we are in
entire agreement with the most orthodox church views.' (High Endeavors,
70)."
Of course the Catholic Church holds an absolutely literal and fully
supernatural belief in the virgin birth of Jesus.
From a letter dated December 31, 1937 written on behalf of the Guardian to
an individual believer:
"First regarding the birth of Jesus Christ. In light of what Baha'u'llah and
Abdu'l-Baha have stated concerning this subject it is evident that Jesus
came into this world through the direct
intervention of the Holy Spirit, and that consequently His birth was quite
miraculous. This is an established fact, and the friends need not feel at
all surprised, as the belief in
the possibility of miracles has never been rejected in the Teachings. Their
importance, however, has been minimized."
The quote is fully self explanatory...literal-supernatural event.
(From a letter dated February 27, 1938 written on behalf of the Guardian to
an individual believer)
"The Teachings do not tell us of any miraculous birth besides that of
Jesus."
Thus, logically, the positive claim is being made here that Jesusą case IS
łmiraculaous˛.
Thus there is no doubt whatsoever that the Baha'i writings, when taking up
the issue of Jesus' Resurrection, however, attempt to symbolize it away on
the basis of it's being a naturalistic impossibility that only the
superstitious would accept. This is the ENTIRE thesis of William Sears "The
Wine of Astonishment", as well as Abdul Baha's rational in Some Answered
Questions for explaining away the Resurrection as only existing in the
renewed faith of the disciples.
Yet the virgin birth is officially seen as a literal supernatural miracle
within the temporal realm!??? Again, it is the DOUBLE STANDARD that reveals
an objectively observable theological contradiction. If I start arguing for
the ascension or Resurrection of Jesus as a literal, historical, bodily
event, Bahaąis are going to have all kinds of "authoritative" Baha'i texts
to throw at me as if to demonstrate my superstitious naivete.
Yet, according to the same limiting standard of acceptability, ask any
embryologist what possibility there is for a human egg to become a zygote
without any human sperm to fertilize it. And go one step further, just so as
to be sure to set the context of our miracle accurately in terms of any
łfuture˛ technology that might intervene to break the natural human
definition of fertilization, yet with means still within a naturalistic
framework of understandability. Ask how much possibility there might be for
such a virgin birth, minus a human father (no Sperm to fertilize the egg)
2,000 years ago by a Jewish peasant girl in the Middle East. The answer is
0%. If it is a miracle, it is a genuine truly supernatural miracle.
Thus, the very principle by which the truly miraculous, literal and personal
Resurrection of Jesus is rejected by official Bahaąi teaching, is carelessly
contradicted in its acceptance of Jesus literal virgin birth.
In Jesus Christ our sole eternal hope,
Howdy!
QisQos
> Randy wrote:
> [snip]
> >To have historical confirmation you need either a living witness (who you
> >would have to evaulate for accuracy) or some official account of Jewish
> >or
> >Roman origin circa 30 AD. No such thing exists.
It depends upon what one considers as "historical evidence".
The facts of the Gospel speak to the historicity in themselves whether
or not Josephus or any one else agrees.
But this is bESIDES the point:
The argument is the internal contradictione between two sources of
revelation believed to be true in the bahaist religion.
That is to say, the Bahaist believes that both Christ and mahomet are
"manifestations" of God therefore what their "books" say is true.
Now, presented with the evidence that the Gospel account of the
crucifixion flat out contradicts the Koran, the Bahaist response is to
question history?
Now how about that? First, historical method never will be sufficient
to support any scripture, be it Gospel or Koran.
There is for example NO evidence that Mahomet ever said anything in
the Koran and no record of any Koran at all from the time of Mahomet
and we have no actual history that Mahomet ever existed.
So your arguments are quite pointless, since the entire basis of
bahaism is based not on historicity but on revelation.
And two of the antecedents of Bahullah's revelation contradict each
other at the most central point: the issue of the Cross, the Death of
Christ Jesus, His Resurrection and His ascent to Heaven, and His role
as Judge on the Last Day.
Mahomet teaches nothing about any of this in his Koran that can in
anyway, even by the most symbolic sense be taken to be anything BUT a
contradiction to Jesus Christ.
So in the end is NO rational bahaist response to this quandry which
really is the underlying Achille's heel of Bahullah's claim to be a
"manifestation " as well as to the claim of progressive revelation.
The inconvenient fact of Jesus death and resurrection and His coming
judgement stand in stark contradiction to the merely symbolic spin
placed on them by bahaist apologists.
What was so metaphorical about Thomas inspecting Jesus' wounds? That
sounds quite literal to me. Great pains are taken by the Gospel
writers to point out this resurrection was of the FLESH, and not
merely a ghost, vision, or fable, but real and literal.
John 20:27. Then he said to Thomas: Put in thy finger hither and see
my hands. And bring hither the hand and put it into my side. And be
not faithless, but believing.
20:28. Thomas answered and said to him: My Lord and my God.
20:29. Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou
hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen and have believed.
The risen Christ EATS solid food:
Luke 24:42. And they offered him a piece of a broiled fish and a
honeycomb.
24:43. And when he had eaten before them, taking the remains, he gave
to them.
Now this is anything but merely symbolic, since it depicts the risen
Christ eating fish and honeycomb - why include this in the Gospel if
not to make the point that this Lord is not a mythical critter like
Dionysus or Tammuz (other dead gods of legend but symbolic only) but
eats and is tangible after his return from the dead - unlike the false
gods of the Greeks and the Chaldeans who are understood as fable, not
flesh.
Similarly great pains are taken to point out that the Virgin Birth is
real in every way, with no intercourse with a man to produce the Holy
Infant.
Luke 1:But Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I have no
relations with a man?"
Abdul Baha is just plain wrong, and the with evil intent to deceive,
to state that the resurrection of Christ was only symbolic.
1 John 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that
confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is
come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of
antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now
already is it in the world.
2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess
not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an
antichrist.
The unfortunate thing is that most American bahaists are such because
they are grossly ignorant of the Bible and its Truth and have been
easily deceived by the proselytizers at the firesides with all of this
talk about the "return of the Christ Spirit" and their "symbolic"
interpretation of scripture.
Psalmus 126:1 Nisi Dominus aedificaverit domum in vanum laboraverunt
qui aedificant eam
Unless the Lord build the House they labour in vain who build it...
QQ
errol9
> The unfortunate thing is that most American bahaists are such because
> they are grossly ignorant of the Bible and its Truth and have been
> easily deceived by the proselytizers at the firesides with all of this
> talk about the "return of the Christ Spirit" and their "symbolic"
> interpretation of scripture.
It's not only US Baha'is who are Ignorant, most westerners who join the
Baha'is are ignorant of both the Bible and the Quran. and are gullible and
easy deceived by the love bombing techniques used by hardened Baha'i
proselytizers to encourage them to sign declaration cards.
Some of the Baha'i teachers could sell snow to the eskimoes for a dollar a
bucket they could talk a hind leg of a snow goose on the wing....Errol
errol9
Matt
That may be true. But it is one enormous blunder when a member of the UHJ
for 40 years supports the publication of BAHA'U'LLAH: THE GREAT ANNOUNCEMENT
OF THE QUR'AN by MUHAMMAD MUSTAFA. It seems obvious to me both these
Baha'is (and probably many more from a Persian background still believe this
Gospel is part of the Gnostic Gospels left out of the bible. Afterall we are
dealing with the very divine nature of the whole beginning of the Baha'i
Faith and reasons why Christianity has rejected the Muhammadan revelation
for the past 1300 years.
I notice from this account that there is also an Apochryphal Epistle
attributed to St Barnabas as well as Acts of Barnabas. All of these things
are very well known in early Christian/apochryphal writings where it was
common to attribute letters and acts to well known people. But it is well by
Christian religious scholars the Gospel of St Barnabas was an forgery.
St. Barnabas
d. 61 Feastday: <http://www.catholic.org/saints/f_day/index.php> June 11
All we know of Barnabas is to be found in the New Testament. A Jew, born in
Cyprus and named Joseph, he sold his property, gave the proceeds to the
Apostles, who gave him the name Barnabas, and lived in common with the
earliest converts to Christianity in Jerusalem. He persuaded the community
there to accept Paul as a disciple, was sent to Antioch, Syria, to look into
the community there, and brought Paul there from Tarsus. With Paul he
brought Antioch's donation to the Jerusalem community during a famine, and
returned to Antioch with John Mark, his cousin. The three went on a
missionary journey to Cyprus, Perga (when John Mark went to Jerusalem), and
Antioch in Pisidia, where they were so violently opposed by the Jews that
they decided to preach to the pagans. Then they went on to Iconium and
Lystra in Lycaonia, where they were first acclaimed gods and then stoned out
of the city, and then returned to Antioch in Syria. When a dispute arose
regarding the observance of the Jewish rites, Paul and Barnabas went to
Jerusalem, where, at a council, it was decided that pagans did not have to
be circumcised to be baptized. On their return to Antioch, Barnabas wanted
to take John Mark on another visitation to the cities where they had
preached, but Paul objected because of John Mark's desertion of them in
Perga. Paul and Barnabas parted, and Barnabas returned to Cyprus with Mark;
nothing further is heard of him, though it is believed his rift with Paul
was ultimately healed. Tradition has Barnabas preaching in Alexandria and
Rome, the founder of the Cypriote Church, the Bishop of Milan (which he was
not), and has him stoned to death at Salamis about the year 61. The
apochryphal Epistle of Barnabas was long attributed to him, but modern
scholarship now attributes it to a Christian in Alexandria between the years
70 and 100; the Gospel of Barnabas is probably by an Italian Christian who
became a Mohammedan; and the Acts of Barnabas once attributed to John Mark
are now known to have been written in the fifth century. His feast day is
June 11.
Below we have a Muslim site propagating the forged Gospel of St Barnabas as
true fact. It is this deceit which many Baha'is who come from a Muslim
background and read BAHA'U'LLAH: THE GREAT ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE QUR'AN
by MUHAMMAD MUSTAFA can be tricked into believing this Gospel is true.
http://www.muslimsonline.com/babri/gospelbarnabas.htm
Errol
Randy Burns
> revelation believed to be true in the bahaist religion.
>
> That is to say, the Bahaist believes that both Christ and mahomet are
> "manifestations" of God therefore what their "books" say is true.
I think what Baha'u'llah stated is that the utterances of Christ were the
teachings of God or something to that effect, we do not accept the "book" of
Christ. We do accept the Koran. That's a clear difference.
> Now, presented with the evidence that the Gospel account of the
> crucifixion flat out contradicts the Koran, the Bahaist response is to
> question history?
History is clearly not involved, we question the propaganda effort of the
four Gospels, and historians are clearly in agreement with us.
> Now how about that? First, historical method never will be sufficient
> to support any scripture, be it Gospel or Koran.
Have you read the Koran? In the case of the Gospel you are correct, that is
what I have been saying all along, but I'm less sure about the Koran.
> There is for example NO evidence that Mahomet ever said anything in
> the Koran and no record of any Koran at all from the time of Mahomet
> and we have no actual history that Mahomet ever existed.
If Muhammed didn't exist where did his children come from? Who fathered his
daughter (perhaps she was a virgin birth as well)? Muhammed's son-in-law
Ali was the 4th Caliph and that is an historical fact.
> So your arguments are quite pointless, since the entire basis of
> bahaism is based not on historicity but on revelation.
But you are saying that the basis of Christianity is historically true?
That the Gospels are historically accurate and that is why you believe in
them? Do you believe in Christ because of what he taught you OR because of
what he did? Sounds like you believe in what he did, of which there is no
proof, but you reject what he taught, which can prove itself by its own
virtue.
Seriously, you don't accept any of the Christs spiritual teachings? If not
why bother with your religion? Your only desire is a greedy one to get into
heaven, why don't you try to practice the actual teachings of Christ while
you reside on earth?
> And two of the antecedents of Bahullah's revelation contradict each
> other at the most central point: the issue of the Cross, the Death of
> Christ Jesus, His Resurrection and His ascent to Heaven, and His role
> as Judge on the Last Day.
What Baha'u'llah said is that the spiritual teachings do not contradict each
other.
> Mahomet teaches nothing about any of this in his Koran that can in
> anyway, even by the most symbolic sense be taken to be anything BUT a
> contradiction to Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ is not the narrator of the Gospels, other people are. Where
does the Koran negate anything that came out of the mouth of Jesus as
depicted in the Gospels?
> So in the end is NO rational bahaist response to this quandry which
> really is the underlying Achille's heel of Bahullah's claim to be a
> "manifestation " as well as to the claim of progressive revelation.
> The inconvenient fact of Jesus death and resurrection and His coming
> judgement stand in stark contradiction to the merely symbolic spin
> placed on them by bahaist apologists.
You can't possibly be claiming to be a rational person, can you?
> What was so metaphorical about Thomas inspecting Jesus' wounds? That
> sounds quite literal to me. Great pains are taken by the Gospel
> writers to point out this resurrection was of the FLESH, and not
> merely a ghost, vision, or fable, but real and literal.
If that had been written by someone who actually knew Thomas and he was
relating an actual oral history it would be something of interest but if you
acquainted yourself with what historians have discovered about the writing
of the Gospels you would realize that this never happened. Literally all
the stories of Jesus actions as depicted in the Gospels are "fictions"
simply made up to put a dress around the sayings of Jesus, which constituted
the real teachings of the Christ.
> John 20:27. Then he said to Thomas: Put in thy finger hither and see
> my hands. And bring hither the hand and put it into my side. And be
> not faithless, but believing.
Was that reported in the Daily Jerusalem Post in 34 CE? I must go to the
library and look that up. Thanks for pointing that out.
SNIP. Sorry that is all irrelevant without some historical collaboration.
>
> Now this is anything but merely symbolic, since it depicts the risen
> Christ eating fish and honeycomb - why include this in the Gospel if
> not to make the point that this Lord is not a mythical critter like
> Dionysus or Tammuz (other dead gods of legend but symbolic only) but
> eats and is tangible after his return from the dead - unlike the false
> gods of the Greeks and the Chaldeans who are understood as fable, not
> flesh.
The Gospels are fiction. You should do some basic research on this, there
are lot's of books available.
> 1 John 4:2 >
Wasn't this John the gay lover of Jesus?
> The unfortunate thing is that most American bahaists are such because
> they are grossly ignorant of the Bible and its Truth and have been
> easily deceived by the proselytizers at the firesides with all of this
> talk about the "return of the Christ Spirit" and their "symbolic"
> interpretation of scripture.
Most Baha'is are well educated and know how to read books. Something you
might want to learn soon.
Cheers, Randy
Matt Menge
of the Gospel of Barnabas as well. I mean how can the oldest version
be in Italian?
Best Regards,
Matt
errol9 <err...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<BAD0B124.20B9F%err...@ntlworld.com>...
QisQos
> Which time period would they have been refuting them? Before the Jewish
> rebellion or after? Jews would love to do a bit of refuting but have had a
> hard time due to constant persecution by Christians.
>
and without success, the alleged persecutions have not stopped them
from trying:
the first attempts are recorded in the Acts of the Apostles for
starters, I would recommend you read this book.
> Your ideas are rather spurious since the claims you are talking about
> weren't made until one or two generations after the time period in question.
> There is no evidence to support the idea that James the Just taught about
> the physical resurrection of his brother,
You are appealing to modern Freemasonic lies that James the Just was
Jesus' "brother", there is simply no evidence to support this
conjecture. the word adelphos was used many times in the NT which is
Greek for "brother" but does not necessarily mean sibling as you seem
to be eager to appoint. And I don't see Eisenman being persecuted, a
popularizer of those lies which you seem to believe uncritically.
>there is no real evidence that
> Paul taught that is there?
>
Erm what does one consider the pauline epistles if not evidence? These
are by far the oldest known books, by some scholar's reckoning, so
what are you talking about?
> There is no reason to suppose that a story made up 30-50 years after the
> fact was known about in the time of Jesus.
Well of course, at the time of Jesus, He was living among us and the
story was not history but taking place live and in person. Jesus never
wrote a book nor did he reveal one, His life is the message and His
death, and His resurrection , and His prophesied return.
>Obviously if you could provide
> evidence that Jews in Jerusalem were actually talking about Jesus in 35AD
> you would be making major major history!
>
And what do we consider the Gospels, Acts and the Epistles if not
evidence and testimony?
> Randy
>
> --
QisQos
errol9
randy....@gte.net wrote on 26/4/03 11:23 pm:
>
> QisQos <Qis...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:29a4262b.03042...@posting.google.com...
>> The argument is the internal contradictione between two sources of
>> revelation believed to be true in the bahaist religion.
>>
>> That is to say, the Bahaist believes that both Christ and mahomet are
>> "manifestations" of God therefore what their "books" say is true.
>
> I think what Baha'u'llah stated is that the utterances of Christ were the
> teachings of God or something to that effect, we do not accept the "book" of
> Christ. We do accept the Koran. That's a clear difference.
Never a truer word spoken, I wish all Baha'i would be as honest as you
Randy. The Kitaba-I-Iqan has 177 verses from the Quran and only 9 verses
from the Bible. Below is proof that Bahai's dont believe the Bible is
authentic, why some Baha'is try to hypocritically con Christians they uphold
the Gospels when proselytizing is beyond me. They shoud tell Christians the
truth why thwy uphold the Quran over they Bible from the beginning.
"The Bible is not wholly authentic, and in this respect is not to be
compared with the Qur'an, and should be wholly subordinated to the authentic
writings of Baha'u'llah (28 July 1936 to a National Spiritual Assembly)
http://bahai-library.org/uhj/resurrection.bible.html
Errol
errol9
> Well, after reading the articles you posted, I am somewhat suspicious
> of the Gospel of Barnabas as well. I mean how can the oldest version
> be in Italian?
The Medieval Gospel of Barnabas was apparently written in both Spanish and
Italian in the mid 15th century, and limited copies were planted in
libraries and well known Catholic pilgrimage spots all over Europe at the
time. It was a Muslim plot to help try and convert Christians to Islam in
Europe but it failed miserably because of the Spanish inquisition, the
collaspe of the head of the Orthodox Church and fall of Constantinople to
Islam. The manuscript lay dormant for many centuries until the late 19th
century when Muslims became interested in it again and translated it into
Arabic, Persian and Urdu. 200,00 copies were printed and sold in Pakistan
recently as 1973, many Muslims (and now it looks like some Baha'is from a
Muslim background) are tricked into believing it is genuine........Errol
QisQos
There are some serious and erroneuous conclusions that you make in
your arguments, conclusions which are not supported by any statements
that I have made they are as follows:
> But you are saying that the basis of Christianity is historically true?
I reply, Yes
> That the Gospels are historically accurate and that is why you believe in
> them?
Again, Yes.
> Do you believe in Christ because of what he taught you OR because of
> what he did?
The gift of Faith is a gift of the Holy Ghost and I believe in what
Jesus taught and what He did, but not simply because the Bible says
so. I believe in what Jesus did and taught because this is the
teaching of he Catholic Church, which is the compiler, editor and
publisher of the Bible in the centuries after the events of the Birth,
Life, Crucifixion, Death and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus.
>Sounds like you believe in what he did, of which there is no
> proof, but you reject what he taught, which can prove itself by its own
> virtue.
>
There is no basis for your assertion.
> Seriously, you don't accept any of the Christs spiritual teachings?
Again, this is a false assumption that you make based upon some
distortion that you have read into what I have written, there is no
basis for this in anything that I have written.
>If not
> why bother with your religion?
Again, a perfidious distortion and a false statement on your part.
>Your only desire is a greedy one to get into
> heaven,
A false assumption on your part, craftily fabricated in the Bahai
manner so as to avoid seeing the TRuth by throwing up the sand of
false accusations and attacking those who say in opposition to you
rather than considering the argument in itself.
The entire aim of life is to love, worship, know and serve God for, by
and of Himself not for any desire of gain, nor from any fear of
punishment - that is the teaching of the Catholic Church, and I
believe this because it is revealed by God who can neither deceive,
nor be deceived. Revelation is not dependent upon the academic methods
of the worldly wise and the wisdom of men:
>why don't you try to practice the actual teachings of Christ while
> you reside on earth?
>
I do which is why I am correcting the ignorant, fighting heretical
errors and rebuking those who are obstinate in teaching falsehoods
about Christ and His Church.
And you have in your ad hominem attacks demonstrated my point which I
restate below:
> > So in the end is NO rational bahaist response to this quandry which
> > really is the underlying Achille's heel of Bahullah's claim to be a
> > "manifestation " as well as to the claim of progressive revelation.
> > The inconvenient fact of Jesus death and resurrection and His coming
> > judgement stand in stark contradiction to the merely symbolic spin
> > placed on them by bahaist apologists.
You again state:
> You can't possibly be claiming to be a rational person, can you?
>
Again instead of responding rationally you attack the person.
> > What was so metaphorical about Thomas inspecting Jesus' wounds?
> If that had been written by someone who actually knew Thomas and he was
> relating an actual oral history it would be something of interest but if you
> acquainted yourself with what historians have discovered about the writing
> of the Gospels you would realize that this never happened.
The "historians" as you call them are using modernist historical
method which is little more than conjecture based on analysis of some
very limited, fragmentary and distorted texts which lie outside the
canon. There is not much that they can really conclude except
conjecture, and yes I am familiar with the methods they use, and yes I
reject them as unsound.
> Literally all
> the stories of Jesus actions as depicted in the Gospels are "fictions"
> simply made up to put a dress around the sayings of Jesus, which constituted
> the real teachings of the Christ.
>
Not hardly, these are again falsehoods spun by largely apostate
academicians to deceive and distort the true message of the Gospels -
that Christ came, died on the Cross for our sins, resurrected on the
third day and ascended into heaven, from where he will return on the
last day to Judge, so I pray before your death that you get your
accounts squared away and are able to face Jesus with a repentant and
contrite heart.
> > John 20:27. Then he said to Thomas: Put in thy finger hither and see
> > my hands. And bring hither the hand and put it into my side. And be
> > not faithless, but believing.
>
> Was that reported in the Daily Jerusalem Post in 34 CE? I must go to the
> library and look that up. Thanks for pointing that out.
>
LOL, you are using modern assumptions to judge traditions that are
older than contemporary historical method.
> SNIP. Sorry that is all irrelevant without some historical collaboration.
> >
1 Corinthians 2:1-5
In coming to you brothers and sisters, I come proclaiming to you the
testimony of God not according to excellence of word or of wisdom. For
I decided not to know anything among you but Jesus Christ and this one
crucified. I come to you in weakness and in much fear and trembling.
My word and proclamation are not in persuasive words of human wisdom
but by the demonstration of the Spirit and power, so that your faith
might not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
And I also respond:
Of course the fact that the traditions were mainly oral and not
compiled before the 4th century AD makes this convenient for you to
want "historical verification". But then, what do you accept as
"history"? Do you not know like all human wisdom, the study of history
is given to the changing standards on men? What then can this say
about the actions of the supernatural upon humanity, the inspiration
of the Holy Ghost upon the apostles? There you will find your
"history" sadly lacking as well because history is a purely
maturalistic method, and using it to verify supernatural testimony is
a fallacy. The main fallacy of the historical method you use is based
on a single glaring flaw: textual dependence. Jesus did not come to
write a book, but to teach, to heal, and to die of the Cross in
expiation of our sins.
Textual dependence can say nothing about oral tradition and customary
belief which has been the major means of transmitting the Chritian
faith from the beginning via the apostolic hierachy. Thus Peter
anointed Linus who taught Clement, and on down the line of the Bishops
of Rome to the present. What does "text" have to say about any of
this? well, we do have the Clementine writings, I suppose those could
be considered as evidence could they not? But then it appears that you
are only selectively choosing and picking what you would accept as
textual evidence.
There is very little that you would accept because the only verifiable
material is within the Church - and you only accept that which comes
from OUTSIDE the Church, which leaves you in a jam because nobody
outside the Church had much to say about the Church in them days, that
is unless they were enemies of the Church.
> The Gospels are fiction. You should do some basic research on this, there
> are lot's of books available.
>
I have read numerous of these books and they are all flawed, primarily
by making mythological comparisons, etc. There is no proof the Gospels
are fiction.
> > 1 John 4:2 >
>
> Wasn't this John the gay lover of Jesus?
>
I answer thus far in the hope that souls who are reading your
contumacious attack on Christ and Christians realize that there is no
small amount of hatred for Jesus and for God and for Truth among the
Bahais so they will not be deceived by the lovey dovey hand holding
facade the bahaists create in the name of "unity". This facade of
unity and tolerance quickly evaporates into name calling and anger
when the internal inconsistencies of Bahulah's teachings are brought
out.
So rather than see where the actual falsehood lies in bahullah's
writing, you instead have pursued a long and irrelevant apopeal to
so-called historians in a hope of somehow proving that Christianity is
wrong.
The issue here is that you have failed to prove that Bahullah is
right: it still stands - the Crucifixion, Death and Resurrection of
Jesus Christ is denied by the Bahaist authors. The denial of this very
fact, the central aspect of Christian faith will forever give lie to
the Bahaist idea of "progressive revelation" because Jesus came only
to reveal Himself in the sacrifice of the Cross.
1Corinthians 1:22-25
For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach
Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks
foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ
the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God
is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
> Most Baha'is are well educated and know how to read books. Something you
> might want to learn soon.
>
> Cheers, Randy
Just knowing how to read a book does not mean that you know what it
means or how it is meaningful.
QisQos
QisQos
Greetings in the name of Christ Crucified:
Evidence in the form of what would these people accept?
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/080401.htm
The writing of Clement, third Bishop of Rome, would seem to be quite
evidentiary since of course he met with and was instructed by Barnabas
and Peter.
So what basis can be used to argue that the writings of an unbeliever
like Josephus are more true than the witnesses and first Bishops? For
some, no proof is ever enough.
Of course the inconsistent, who deny the veracity of the Gospel will
also deny that of the Church Fathers because they will argue these are
not found in the Bible.
Thus wanting it both ways, nothing which favors the Church or its
Truth will be accepted, but any calumnious falsehood written by
unbelievers will be put forth as historical fact.
What underlies this attitude is hatred for and rebellion against God
who in his Mercy set His Son upon a Cross that we may be spared the
cost of our rebellion.
But wanting to believe that God's Justice is mocked, having set before
themselves the Golden Calf of wordly unity and harmonious fellowship,
the Bahaists instead prefer to deny the central fact of Christ's
ministry which is to be the Bread of Life and the Chalice of the New
Covenant that we who take and eat may live with in and for Him.
Acts 2:42. And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles
and in the communication of the breaking of bread and in prayers.
QisQos
Dale Grider
I think it extremely revealing (reflecting upon my former post here
concerning the virgin birth) how Baha'i theology readily accepts the virgin
birth as a literal miracle, but denies vehemently the notion of a
personal/literal Resurrection. Virgin birth does not carry the singular and
exclusive implications of the Resurrection. The virgin birth is not a threat
to Baha'i theology. However, if Jesus, in PERSON as well as body, was raised
from the dead to eternal life...then He alone retains the identity of
"Christ", even eternally in that eternal Resurrection! How then can
Baha'u'llah (a different person) be any less than an imposter in claiming to
be Jesus returned, while that same Jesus, Jesus of Nazareth, who was raised
in person and flesh, sits at the right hand of the Father and shakes HIS
HEAD.
Who is the antichrist??? He who denies that Jesus Christ is Lord and that He
was raised from the dead to eternal life.
In Him who alone can save us,
Howdy!
Matt Menge
> I think it extremely revealing (reflecting upon my former post here
> concerning the virgin birth) how Baha'i theology readily accepts the virgin
> birth as a literal miracle, but denies vehemently the notion of a
> personal/literal Resurrection.
Actually, if Jesus was born of a virgin, unlike Baha'u'llah, that
would still make Christ unique. Also, it means that Jesus was not the
product of pre-marital sex/adultery, which is the only other
alternative.
Virgin birth does not carry the singular and
> exclusive implications of the Resurrection.
I agree that 'Abdu'l-Baha wanted to get away from exclusivity.
Indeed, that appears to be the primary thrust of His interpretations
of the Bible and other Scriptures.
Of course, 'Abdu'l-Baha definitely believed in miracles, so it is
probable that the miraculous appearances of Jesus after the
crucifixion were real. Where one crosses the line is to say that
Jesus currently has a body like ours, that He is flying around in our
upper atmosphere (heaven), crashing into jet planes, and so forth.
>
However, if Jesus, in PERSON as well as body, was raised
> from the dead to eternal life...then He alone retains the identity of
> "Christ", even eternally in that eternal Resurrection!
How is that? Why would Baha'u'llah need to repeat what Jesus did
anyways? Does He need to part the Red Sea as well? Does He need to
cause a flood? Does He need to step into a fire and not get burned?
> Who is the antichrist??? He who denies that Jesus Christ is Lord and that He
> was raised from the dead to eternal life.
>
Now you're just makin' stuff up.
Best Regards,
Matt
Randy Burns
QisQos <Qis...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:29a4262b.03042...@posting.google.com...
> Erm, the Jews have tried for 2 millenia to refute the claims of Jesus,
> and without success, the alleged persecutions have not stopped them
> from trying:
If the Jews were not able to refute the claims of "Jesus" or really
Christians speaking for "Jesus" since Jesus hasn't been seen in awhile, then
why aren't Jews Christians? I think the answer is obvious. The Jews did
refute these teachings of Christians and that is why the Christians got out
of town and went to greener pastures. Only genuinely naive people like the
Greeces and Romans were prepared to sucumb to the Christian mythos. And
let's face it, this mostly occurred thru the Sword when the Church was made
a part of the Roman Empire.
> You are appealing to modern Freemasonic lies that James the Just was
> Jesus' "brother", there is simply no evidence to support this
> conjecture. the word adelphos was used many times in the NT which is
> Greek for "brother" but does not necessarily mean sibling as you seem
> to be eager to appoint. And I don't see Eisenman being persecuted, a
> popularizer of those lies which you seem to believe uncritically.
Okay, is that a teaching of the Catholic Church? I thought Christian's in
general accepted James the Just as an actual brother of Jesus but it's okay
with me if you don't. Do you deny that he was the head of the Jerusalem
Church also? Didn't Paul admit that what he, Paul, believed did not
coincide with the beliefs of the Jerusalem Church? I wonder what the
Jerusalem Church actually taught?
> Erm what does one consider the pauline epistles if not evidence? These
> are by far the oldest known books, by some scholar's reckoning, so
> what are you talking about?
If you provide an actual quote I will be happy to comment.
> And what do we consider the Gospels, Acts and the Epistles if not
> evidence and testimony?
The epistles of Paul are considered to be the earliest documents of
Christianity. Everything else in the NT was written after them, this
includes the four Gospel accounts. You might want to check out a couple of
books on scholarship of these texts.
I personally enjoyed the book "Who Wrote the Gospels?" by Randel McCraw
Helms, 1997, maybe you would also.
Apparently the Gospel of Mark was written about 70 CE, Matthew about 10
years later, John about 90=95 and Luke/Acts sometime after the turn of the
century. There is some absolutely fascinating research going on in this
area today. But as far as any scholar can tell, none of the Gospels writers
were actually eyewitnesses to the life of Christ, nor did any of them
personally know such people.
Cheers, Randy
Dale Grider
>
> Actually, if Jesus was born of a virgin, unlike Baha'u'llah, that
> would still make Christ unique.
You missed the point Matt. The "uniqueness" of Jesus' virgin birth does not
preclude, in and of itself, Baha'u'llah's coming again as His return. The
biblical doctrine of Jesus personal, complete and eternal Resurrection
(personal/spiritual/ even physical, identity) does.
> I agree that 'Abdu'l-Baha wanted to get away from exclusivity.
> Indeed, that appears to be the primary thrust of His interpretations
> of the Bible and other Scriptures.
We would have to discuss specific scriptures instead of speaking in vague
generalities filled with assumptions as you are doing here. The keyword is
"interpretations". There are certain ways to "interpret" that abuse a
reasonable exegesis of the texts. My position is that what Abdul Baha (and
others) do in their "interpretations" of biblical texts so as to make them
agree with Baha'i doctrine modt often abuses any reasonable understanding of
the biblical text in question. The Resurrection of Jesus is a dramatic case
in point. Luke 24, for example, is going WAY out of its way to melodramatize
the fact that Jesus was raised in the same, though glorified, bpdy that hung
on the cross. Comparing any reasonable exegesis (call it "interpretation" if
you insist) of that passage with Abdul Baha's argument that the
Resurrection of Jesus REALLY only meant the renewed faith of the Apostles
after three days, and what you have is a gross abuse of, and denial of, the
true New Testament Message.
I had asserted that,
> However, if Jesus, in PERSON as well as body, was raised
>> from the dead to eternal life...then He alone retains the identity of
>> "Christ", even eternally in that eternal Resurrection!
>
You respond,
> How is that? Why would Baha'u'llah need to repeat what Jesus did
> anyways? Does He need to part the Red Sea as well? Does He need to
> cause a flood? Does He need to step into a fire and not get burned?
Again you seem set to miss the point. The point is that with Jesus' TOTAL
and eternal Resurrection (body, mind, soul, spirit...EVERYTHING), raised to
eternal life (identity permanently established and set forever in ONE
person, Jesus Christ of Nazareth), the one thing that Baha'u'llah CAN'T
"repeat" FOR SURE, is to come into the world as the Christ! Someone else
holds that personal identity Matt, the eternally risen Lord Jesus Christ.
That Jesus Christ was in retention of the identity of the Christ when
Baha'u'llah was born. He held it throughout the life of Baha'u'llah. He
continued to be the eternally risen identity of the One Christ when
Baha'u'llah died and faced him. And it is He, Jesus Christ of Nazareth,
risen in totality as the eternal identity of the one True Christ who holds
that singular identity today, and for forever more. The point is that Jesus
rose to eternal life as the Christ, personally. Any other person who claims
to be Him is an imposter Matt. Read the end of the Bible Matt, the very end
of Revelation. John calls for the Christ to hurry and return. He calls the
name of JESUS CHRIST PERSONALLY, not Baha'u'llah, a different person.
>
>> Who is the antichrist??? He who denies that Jesus Christ is Lord and that He
>> was raised from the dead to eternal life.
>>
>
> Now you're just makin' stuff up.
No, I disagree. I did not ascribe my comment to any specific or singular
passage of Scripture, but would argue that the context of New Testament
passages that define who Jesus is and what He did would find what I said to
be a true statement. Baha'u'llah comes as the Christ returned. Jesus Himself
warned that if <ANYONE> comes claiming to be His return, reject them as an
impostor. The only reasonable conclusion one can draw from that is that
Baha'u'llah comes in the spirit of antichrist to deny the ONGOING ETERNAL
identity of the Christ found in Jesus alone amongst humankind, and that
Jesus' return will not be one needy of heralding by mortals, but will be
supernaturally undeniable by all mankind.
CHEERS, Howdy!
QisQos
> concerning the virgin birth) how Baha'i theology readily accepts the virgin
> birth as a literal miracle, but denies vehemently the notion of a
> personal/literal Resurrection.
Hello Dale:
This is because the Mahometans accept the virgin birth as literal - so
the inconsistency goes back futher than just Bahullah.
Bahullah being a Mahometan accpets without question the virgin birth
but posits the docetic and heretical view that Christ was crucified
only in appearance.
Which brings to the fore the utter falsity of Mahomet and his Koran,
that is to say, Mahomet denied the fact of Jesus' redemption by the
Cross and instead places upon the Mahometans the burden of the Law,
albeit modified from the Talmuds.
What the mahometans and bahaists fail to apprehend is the finality of
Jesus' sacrifice for once and for many, pro multis, that is those who
accept and believe in Christ Crucified for the remission of sin.
Mahomet, and by extension Bahullah, claim the idea of successive
prophethood, which is completely false idea.
The idea of the finality of the redemptive Cross compltetely
contradicts everything Mahomet and Bahullah state about the Gospel -
it was a testimony to the redemption of the cross, not a mere book of
new laws and institutions as the Mahometans and Bahaists claim.
Only Christ can save, and Bahullah and Mahomet now quake before the
Throne of God without recourtse to salvation, how terrible these
words:
Luke 3:25. But when the master of the house shall be gone in and shall
shut the door, you shall begin to stand without; and knock at the
door, saying: Lord, open to us. And he answering, shall say to you: I
know you not, whence you are.
Those who deny the Lord's truth shall be not known in the Last Day and
depart into the Fire, a sad end for Mahomet and Bahullah, but it is
not too late for the other bahaists and mahometans.
QQ
Randy Burns
You may have to explain some things to me about the virgin birth of Jesus.
This does mean that Jesus was a virgin when he was born? Virgin as in pure?
Pure as in extra virgin olive oil? (Sorry, I had to joke). But if you tell
me that you believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, I would have to ask for
anatomical details before I could be sure that I understood you, would I
not? The idea of it conveys a wide number of possibilities does it not?
Seriously I have no idea what your beliefs really are or what they mean in
real terms.
You said that Shoghi Effendi stated that the Baha'i Teachings are in full
agreement with the doctrines of the Catholic Church, and I would bet that
they probably are. Problem is I have no idea what the Catholic Church
actually teaches on this matter: I mean the actual language that is
employed. The Church I think has some kind of creed which states their
beliefs. I've never read this to my knowledge or memory. Can you perchance
reproduce it? I would be interested.
You further state:
> Of course the Catholic Church holds an absolutely literal and fully
> supernatural belief in the virgin birth of Jesus.
Do they? I can assure you that I have no idea. But can you be sure that
you haven't yourself actually misinterpreted the Church's position on this
matter? Can I ask if you are Catholic? and if you aren't can you tell us
what creed you personally do hold to?
Okay, you then quote Shoghi Effendi's letter as thus:
> "First regarding the birth of Jesus Christ. In light of what Baha'u'llah
and
> Abdu'l-Baha have stated concerning this subject it is evident that Jesus
> came into this world through the direct
> intervention of the Holy Spirit, and that consequently His birth was quite
> miraculous. This is an established fact, and the friends need not feel at
> all surprised, as the belief in
> the possibility of miracles has never been rejected in the Teachings.
Their
> importance, however, has been minimized."
I think the problem here Dale is pretty simple, but not what you might
think. The problem is that Baha'is can say "I believe in the Resurrection
of Jesus" and "I believe in the miraculous birth of Jesus" just like you do.
We do not deny these things, rather we fully affirm them. However when we
say these things Baha'u'llah makes it clear that they are spiritual actions
and spiritual realities, and not physical things (or at least not
necessarily physical things). Actually though he doesn't say they aren't
physical actions, he simply states that they are definitely spiritual
actions.
You see Baha'is believe in the spiritual resurrection of Jesus, we see the
idea of a physical resurrection as being symbolic of this very real
spiritual resurrection. With the miraculous birth, we also see this as a
spiritual birth. We do not have to deny the physical idea because it is not
important, it is the spiritual that is important.
I can fully subscribe to Shoghi Effendi's statement above, though I confess
I have no idea what exactly he meant by it. You could interpret the passage
in any number of different ways, could you not?
Baha'is believe that Jesus was preexistent to His life on earth and that He
lives still and will never die? Do you believe something different from
this? That's great, I have no problem with that. But get this! if Jesus
was preexistent, how did he get to earth? That was the miracle, is it not?
Jesus was the incarnation of the Word of God, that is the miracle which
Baha'is accept. That is the virgin birth.
I personally have no details on the physical birth of Jesus, but perhaps you
can provide them. Question is, can you prove them?
I can prove the spiritual resurrection of Jesus and the spiritual virgin
birth of Jesus, can you prove the physical ones? Does it really make a
difference to you?
Cheers, Randy
Dale Grider <howd...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:BAD05057.64E7%howd...@insightbb.com...
> in article CWmqa.3101$B61....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net, Randy Burns at
>
QisQos
> Baha'is are ignorant of both the Bible and the Quran. and are gullible and
> easy deceived by the love bombing techniques used by hardened Baha'i
> proselytizers to encourage them to sign declaration cards.
>
> Some of the Baha'i teachers could sell snow to the eskimoes for a dollar a
> bucket they could talk a hind leg of a snow goose on the wing....Errol
Okay, but do YOU accept and believe in the salvation of the Cross?
It is not enough to denounce the false beliefs of bahaists who you
have fallen out with, you miust necessarily proclaim and accept the
sacrifice of the Cross as true and of your personal faith.
QQ
Dale Grider
randy....@gte.net wrote on 4/27/03 8:24 PM:
> The Jews did refute these teachings of Christians and that is why the
>Christians got out of town and went to greener pastures. Only genuinely naive
>people like the Greeces and Romans were prepared to sucumb to the Christian
>mythos.
Then you suggest (unreasonably) that the Apostles and early Christians died
martyr's deaths for something they knew was their own dishonestly fabricated
hoax. You say that they took their "refuted" story to more gullible people,
away from the original locale, and presented it to those who were more
ignorant of the facts than the crafty, "in the know", Jews.
That thesis Randy, if you really believe what you are asserting, is not
only foolishly irrational in terms of the expected behavior of the early
Christian community, it shows an argument so weak and unreasonable as to
reveal a desperate and intellectually dishonest dodge on your part.
In Jesus, the only Christ
Howdy!
Dale Grider
randy....@gte.net wrote on 4/27/03 9:11 PM:
> This does mean that Jesus was a virgin when he was born?
No. Everyone is a virgin when they are born! It means that His mother, Mary,
was a virgin, yet, by the power of the Holy Spirit, and no human father,
still conceived the infant Jesus in her womb. Thus He was the incarnate Son
of God. Jesus is "God the Son" since His LITERAL Father.... was God. He is
both fully God, and fully man in an absolute (not figurative) sense. Islam
rejects this. So does Baha'ism in asserting that Jesus (like so many other
"manifestations") was only a "reflection" of God, and not God incarnate.
In Him who alone has secured our Salvation; Jesus,
Howdy!
Dale Grider
randy....@gte.net wrote on 4/27/03 9:11 PM:
> You said that Shoghi Effendi stated that the Baha'i Teachings are in full
> agreement with the doctrines of the Catholic Church, and I would bet that
> they probably are. Problem is I have no idea what the Catholic Church
> actually teaches on this matter: I mean the actual language that is
> employed. The Church I think has some kind of creed which states their
> beliefs. I've never read this to my knowledge or memory. Can you perchance
> reproduce it? I would be interested.
As I said before concerning the Virgin birth, Absolutely supernatural
miracle according to RC doctrine. No controversy there Randy. I leave it for
you to (easily) discover in doing a bit of research if you are genuinely
interested in corroborating it.
Howdy!
Dale Grider
randy....@gte.net wrote on 4/27/03 9:11 PM:
> Do they? I can assure you that I have no idea. But can you be sure that
> you haven't yourself actually misinterpreted the Church's position on this
> matter? Can I ask if you are Catholic? and if you aren't can you tell us
> what creed you personally do hold to?
Yes they do. I am a "cradle Catholic" (brought up in the Roman Catholic
tradition.) I have issues with some RC doctrinal matters but find myself to
be solidly behind the Church in what I consider the fundamental tenets of
the historic Christian Faith. They don't jibe with Baha'i theology. The
Resurrection of Jesus is the most critical point of departure I feel. It
defines so much of the Truth of the Gospel Message, and its exclusive
singularity as the one hope for mankind.
Howdy!
Dale Grider
randy....@gte.net wrote on 4/27/03 9:11 PM:
> The problem is that Baha'is can say "I believe in the Resurrection
> of Jesus" and "I believe in the miraculous birth of Jesus" just like you do.
> We do not deny these things, rather we fully affirm them. However when we
> say these things Baha'u'llah makes it clear that they are spiritual actions
> and spiritual realities, and not physical things (or at least not
> necessarily physical things). Actually though he doesn't say they aren't
> physical actions, he simply states that they are definitely spiritual
> actions.
The problem Randy is that the New TEstament DOES ascribe to them (and as
exceedingly important) that there is an aspect of them that is truly
physical, that they have a tangible, absolute and objective reality and that
that aspect is VITAL to getting the whole Truth. Again I point you to Luke
24. And I think again that the importance of that physical connection is in
understanding that Jesus Resurrection LOCKS IN the identity of the Christ in
an absolutely singular, personal and eternal way. THAT is why it is SO
EMPHASIZED in the New Testament passages and why it is so abusive to try to
twist those passages away from their clear intentions.
>
> You see Baha'is believe in the spiritual resurrection of Jesus, we see the
> idea of a physical resurrection as being symbolic of this very real
> spiritual resurrection. With the miraculous birth, we also see this as a
> spiritual birth. We do not have to deny the physical idea because it is not
> important, it is the spiritual that is important.
Well the Roman Catholic belief that Shoghi Effendi says is completely in
agreement with Baha'i teaching on the topic of the virgin birth, sees it as
an absolutely SUPERNATURAL miracle, not a "seeming miracle" that is really
explainable in materialistic/naturalistic terms, but that we just don't
understand yet. (the line Abdul Baha often uses in Some Answered Questions
to try to have his cake and eat it too concerning the miraculous) The RC
Church ascribes no naturalistic explanation to the virgin birth. It is a
direct act of God counter to the normal laws of science and nature.
>
> I can fully subscribe to Shoghi Effendi's statement above, though I confess
> I have no idea what exactly he meant by it. You could interpret the passage
> in any number of different ways, could you not?
What he meant was what he said Randy. The problem is that it contradicts
many of the lines of argumentation Baha'i writings use to try to refute
select miracles, on principle. Miracles are, by definition, counter to the
laws of science and nature... if they are "truly" miraculous (not like TV to
cave men kind of "seeming" miraculousness).
>
> Baha'is believe that Jesus was preexistent to His life on earth and that He
> lives still and will never die? Do you believe something different from
> this? That's great, I have no problem with that. But get this! if Jesus
> was preexistent, how did he get to earth? That was the miracle, is it not?
Yes it was a miracle for a virgin peasant girl to conceive a child who had
no human father. No less acceptable then was the absolute, physical and
personal Resurrection as such a miracle, literal and true miracle. If one
accepts the former virgin birth, one cannot dismiss on principle (as Baha'i
theology attempts) the latter Resurrection as only superstitious naivete'
against reason and science.
> Question is, can you prove them?...> I can prove the spiritual resurrection
of Jesus and the spiritual virgin
> birth of Jesus, can you prove the physical ones? Does it really make a
> difference to you?
The Christian Faith is a reasoned and reasonable Faith. But God in His
Wisdom has seen fit for that reasoning to lead up only so far to a point of
Faith. You will be held responsible not for having refused to make a blind
or unreasonable leap of Faith, but for having obstinately refused, if
ultimately you do refuse, to make a reasoned and reasonable leap, one you
should have made in righteous Trust of God who gave you what you needed to
see the True path.
Howdy!
>
Randy Burns
mentioned in early Jewish and Roman sources by name. That is something that
can't be said about Jesus. The Gospel stories use the story of John the
Baptist to place Jesus in real time, just like they use the real names of
Jewish High Priests and of Pontius Pilate. These are historical characters.
The technique is much like a modern novel like The Seven Percent Solution
where Sherlock Holmes travels to Vienna to meet Sigmund Freud.
Randy
--
Sekhmet <sekhm...@aol.com.nz> wrote in message
news:20030425210411...@mb-m05.aol.com...
>
> >After all, John the Baptist did only a small part of that
> >and he is more acceptable as an historical figure.
>
> He is? Why?
>
Randy Burns
in
> > them?
>
> Again, Yes.
The idea of the historical accuracy of the Gospels in their entirety is of
course absurb. Sorry, Jesus never got out of the boat and walked on water.
Never happened. If that is why you believe then you are doomed to
disappontment.
> The gift of Faith is a gift of the Holy Ghost and I believe in what
> Jesus taught and what He did, but not simply because the Bible says
> so. I believe in what Jesus did and taught because this is the
> teaching of he Catholic Church, which is the compiler, editor and
> publisher of the Bible in the centuries after the events of the Birth,
> Life, Crucifixion, Death and Resurrection of our Lord Jesus.
You believe based solely on the words of others. This practice is condemned
by the Baha'i Faith and the teachings of Baha'u'llah.
How do you know that you fully understood what they told you? Are you the
sole judge of the accuracy of both the Bible and the teachings of the
Catholic Church? If not then you are incapable of knowing whether they
taught you the truth and whether you understood it correctly or not.
> The entire aim of life is to love, worship, know and serve God for, by
> and of Himself not for any desire of gain, nor from any fear of
> punishment - that is the teaching of the Catholic Church, and I
> believe this because it is revealed by God who can neither deceive,
> nor be deceived. Revelation is not dependent upon the academic methods
> of the worldly wise and the wisdom of men:
That sounds suspiciously like a Baha'i teaching. I think you have been
reading too much Baha'i literature. Better give it up before it does
permanent damage.
> > > So in the end is NO rational bahaist response to this quandry which
> > > really is the underlying Achille's heel of Bahullah's claim to be a
> > > "manifestation " as well as to the claim of progressive revelation.
> > > The inconvenient fact of Jesus death and resurrection and His coming
> > > judgement stand in stark contradiction to the merely symbolic spin
> > > placed on them by bahaist apologists.
What exactly is your "rational" argument that Jesus died and his corpse got
up and walked around and ate something? Because someone told you it
happened? Sorry that is hearsay and not rational proof of anything. The
Catholic Church fundamentally does not rest its case on rationality. Can
you quote a Catholic theologian to the effect that the Catholic Church has a
"rational" argument for the physical resurrection of Jesus?
> The "historians" as you call them are using modernist historical
> method which is little more than conjecture based on analysis of some
> very limited, fragmentary and distorted texts which lie outside the
> canon. There is not much that they can really conclude except
> conjecture, and yes I am familiar with the methods they use, and yes I
> reject them as unsound.
Maybe you should arrange to have them punished by God.
> Not hardly, these are again falsehoods spun by largely apostate
> academicians to deceive and distort the true message of the Gospels -
> that Christ came, died on the Cross for our sins, resurrected on the
> third day and ascended into heaven, from where he will return on the
> last day to Judge, so I pray before your death that you get your
> accounts squared away and are able to face Jesus with a repentant and
> contrite heart.
Maybe you should arrange to have them punished by God.
> LOL, you are using modern assumptions to judge traditions that are
> older than contemporary historical method.
Yes, we are talking about "traditions" aren't we. Do you understand what a
tradition is?
> And I also respond:
> Of course the fact that the traditions were mainly oral and not
> compiled before the 4th century AD makes this convenient for you to
> want "historical verification". But then, what do you accept as
> "history"? Do you not know like all human wisdom, the study of history
> is given to the changing standards on men? What then can this say
> about the actions of the supernatural upon humanity, the inspiration
> of the Holy Ghost upon the apostles?
You could read the writings of Baha'u'llah and find the answers to these
questions.
>There you will find your
> "history" sadly lacking as well because history is a purely
> maturalistic method, and using it to verify supernatural testimony is
> a fallacy. The main fallacy of the historical method you use is based
> on a single glaring flaw: textual dependence. Jesus did not come to
> write a book, but to teach, to heal, and to die of the Cross in
> expiation of our sins.
You forgot the Resurrection I think.
> Textual dependence can say nothing about oral tradition and customary
> belief which has been the major means of transmitting the Chritian
> faith from the beginning via the apostolic hierachy. Thus Peter
> anointed Linus who taught Clement, and on down the line of the Bishops
> of Rome to the present. What does "text" have to say about any of
> this? well, we do have the Clementine writings, I suppose those could
> be considered as evidence could they not? But then it appears that you
> are only selectively choosing and picking what you would accept as
> textual evidence.
You tell me. I've never read the Clementine writings, nor do I know what
the scholars say about them. Unfortunately it was very common in ancient
times to write a book and put a famous person's name on them as author.
That does not mean that person was the real author.
> > The Gospels are fiction. You should do some basic research on this,
there
> > are lot's of books available.
> >
> I have read numerous of these books and they are all flawed, primarily
> by making mythological comparisons, etc. There is no proof the Gospels
> are fiction.
You should write a book refuting these claims then, you could be famous.
> So rather than see where the actual falsehood lies in bahullah's
> writing, you instead have pursued a long and irrelevant apopeal to
> so-called historians in a hope of somehow proving that Christianity is
> wrong.
I'm not saying "wrong" but I'm saying you have no proof. It is not the same
thing. However you are now admitting that there is no proof. If there were
you would be providing it. If you could refute what the scholars say, you
would do so and become famous. Obviously you can't and I agree with you.
> The issue here is that you have failed to prove that Bahullah is
> right: it still stands - the Crucifixion, Death and Resurrection of
> Jesus Christ is denied by the Bahaist authors. The denial of this very
> fact, the central aspect of Christian faith will forever give lie to
> the Bahaist idea of "progressive revelation" because Jesus came only
> to reveal Himself in the sacrifice of the Cross.
All Baha'is believe in the Crucifixion, Death and Resurrection of Jesus
Christ, no Baha'i author that I have ever hear of has denied it. Jesus did
come to reveal Himself on the Cross. The things you "can't" prove are your
idle fancies. The spiritual reality is evident for all to see.
Cheers, Randy
Randy Burns
> concerning the virgin birth) how Baha'i theology readily accepts the
virgin
> birth as a literal miracle, but denies vehemently the notion of a
> personal/literal Resurrection.
Dale, please see my other answer. Baha'is do accept both the virgin birth
and the Resurrection. We accept them both as spiritual realities that are
manifest to the world. There is no difference in the way the virgin birth
is treated and the way the Resurrection is treated in any Baha'i writings
that I know of.
I think you confuse what Abdu'l-Baha said in Some Answer Questions (though
God knows I haven't read the book since the 70's). When he says that the
Resurrection is symbolic he is not denying the spiritual reality, he is
saying that the idea of a physical resurrection is a "symbol" of the very
real spiritual resurrection. Baha'is fully believe in the spiritual
resurrection of Jesus.
>Virgin birth does not carry the singular and
> exclusive implications of the Resurrection. The virgin birth is not a
threat
> to Baha'i theology.
I again would submit that there is no difference in the way Baha'i treats
the virgin birth and the Resurrection. We treat them both the same way, ie
they are spiritual realities and there is proof of their spiritual reality.
Can you give me the anatomical realities of the "virgin" birth and quote
your official Roman Catholic source for these?
> However, if Jesus, in PERSON as well as body, was raised
> from the dead to eternal life...then He alone retains the identity of
> "Christ", even eternally in that eternal Resurrection!
Baha'is believe Jesus was preexistent to the creation of the Universe and is
always alive and will always live. I don't think any Baha'i has a problem
with your statement above. I can't make it any plainer than that.
> How then can
> Baha'u'llah (a different person) be any less than an imposter in claiming
to
> be Jesus returned, while that same Jesus, Jesus of Nazareth, who was
raised
> in person and flesh, sits at the right hand of the Father and shakes HIS
> HEAD.
Dale, the next time you see Jesus sitting at the right hand of His Father,
shaking His Head, will you say Hi for me? Thanks.
Cheers, Randy
Randy Burns
you bad bad sinner you.
Cheers, Randy
--
QisQos <Qis...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:29a4262b.03042...@posting.google.com...
>
Randy Burns
the empty headed Athenians. But let's face it Dale, there are gullible
people just about everywhere but I submit that the Roman subjects were ripe
for this kind of delusion. You don't explain why you this argument is weak
and unreasonable. I find it strong and reasonable. You will have to be a
bit more specific.
Randy
--
Dale Grider <howd...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:BAD21577.68C2%howd...@insightbb.com...
Randy Burns
Cheers, Randy
--
Dale Grider <howd...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:BAD217E7.68C3%howd...@insightbb.com...
Randy Burns
the word supernatural means?
"of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable
Universe"
That, I believe, would be the spiritual world, something which Baha'is
obviously believe in. Obviously the virgin birth and resurrection of Jesus
as a spiritual reality would definitely be supernatural, no question about
it. We affirm it.
Cheers, Randy
--
Dale Grider <howd...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:BAD218AA.68C4%howd...@insightbb.com...
> in article 4d%qa.10213$B61....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net, Randy Burns at
>
>
Randy Burns
Jesus, see my other posts. It sounds like your faith is weak, if you have
problems with some RC doctrinal matters, perhaps that is why you are so
interested in Baha'i. Don't let the Devil get on your backside, Howdy!
Cheers, Randy
PS I don't think you really understand Baha'i theology as well as you think
you do. If you have been learning it from Baha'is then I know you don't
understand it.
--
Dale Grider <howd...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:BAD219A8.68C5%howd...@insightbb.com...
> in article 4d%qa.10213$B61....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net, Randy Burns at
>
Randy Burns
last Gospel written, yet unlike other Lukan passages, this passage has no
parallels in the other Gospels. The only part with a parallel, that of Mark
which is the earliest Gospel, is the part preceding Jesus at Emmaus.
If the Jesus in this passage were the real physical Jesus rather than the
spiritual Jesus, how did he "vanish from their sight." What were the
physics of that vanishing? Why did the other disciples think Jesus was a
ghost? When it says "he opened their minds to understand the scriptures" do
you suppose that he sawed open their brains?
Cheers, Randy
--
Dale Grider <howd...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:BAD21EBF.68C6%howd...@insightbb.com...
> in article 4d%qa.10213$B61....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net, Randy Burns at
>
Randy Burns
> agreement with Baha'i teaching on the topic of the virgin birth, sees it
as
> an absolutely SUPERNATURAL miracle, not a "seeming miracle" that is really
> explainable in materialistic/naturalistic terms, but that we just don't
> understand yet. (the line Abdul Baha often uses in Some Answered Questions
> to try to have his cake and eat it too concerning the miraculous) The RC
> Church ascribes no naturalistic explanation to the virgin birth. It is a
> direct act of God counter to the normal laws of science and nature.
I have no idea what the Roman Catholic statement is, you haven't produced it
yet. Please source it.
Obviously there can be no doubt that the supernatural creation of a
spiritual reality is a true miracle that has no materialistic or
naturalistic explanation. We are in total agreement there. Since we
Baha'is see the virgin birth and the Resurrection as spiritual truths, we
obviously are not offering naturalistic explanations either. But if there
is no naturalistic explanation of the virgin birth then not only do you
"have no proof" but also you do not have a "literal" virgin birth. If you
have a "literal" virgin birth then that would mean something in naturalistic
terms would it not? ie Mary was still intact, had had no sexual intercourse
etc. Are you saying that Mary was Not Intact but in fact a virgin or that
she was Intact? That she had no intercourse or wasn't aware of having had
intercourse, etc. These are all naturalistic facts are they not? Thus you
are offering a naturalistic explanation whether you like it or not. You are
saying it happened in nature, it is naturalistic but in some miraculous
fashion.
> What he meant was what he said Randy.
What everyone means is what they say, however no one ever understands it, do
they Dale?
> The problem is that it contradicts
> many of the lines of argumentation Baha'i writings use to try to refute
> select miracles, on principle. Miracles are, by definition, counter to the
> laws of science and nature... if they are "truly" miraculous (not like TV
to
> cave men kind of "seeming" miraculousness).
All spiritual realities are contrary to the laws of nature, all spiritual
realities are miracles. Baha'is have no desire to refute select miracles.
Name one select miracle that we deny? We have been affirming every miracle
that you have talked about so far.
> Yes it was a miracle for a virgin peasant girl to conceive a child who had
> no human father. No less acceptable then was the absolute, physical and
> personal Resurrection as such a miracle, literal and true miracle. If one
> accepts the former virgin birth, one cannot dismiss on principle (as
Baha'i
> theology attempts) the latter Resurrection as only superstitious naivete'
> against reason and science.
No Baha'i theology dismisses either one or the other, both are clearly
affirmed. Unfortunately if you say that it is a naturalistic fact that
something happened you have to produce natural proofs. You have no natural
proofs as you have already admitted. Spiritual realities are proven with
spiritual proofs, natural realities are proven with natural proofs.
> The Christian Faith is a reasoned and reasonable Faith. But God in His
> Wisdom has seen fit for that reasoning to lead up only so far to a point
of
> Faith. You will be held responsible not for having refused to make a blind
> or unreasonable leap of Faith, but for having obstinately refused, if
> ultimately you do refuse, to make a reasoned and reasonable leap, one you
> should have made in righteous Trust of God who gave you what you needed to
> see the True path.
I sincerely hope so, Howdy! I already accept all the tenets you have
suggested so far. All Baha'is affirm them as spiritual realities.
Cheers, Randy
errol9
> errol9 <err...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> It's not only US Baha'is who are Ignorant, most westerners who join the
>> Baha'is are ignorant of both the Bible and the Quran. and are gullible and
>> easy deceived by the love bombing techniques used by hardened Baha'i
>> proselytizers to encourage them to sign declaration cards.
>>
>> Some of the Baha'i teachers could sell snow to the eskimoes for a dollar a
>> bucket they could talk a hind leg of a snow goose on the wing....Errol
>
> Okay, but do YOU accept and believe in the salvation of the Cross?
Where I come from, (Northern Ireland) the acrimonious divisions between
Catholics and Protestants (over this very said statement) and at the same
time murdering one another only helped drive me away from Christianity and
into joining the Bahai Faith. Your terminolgy "DO YOU ACCEPT" AND BELIEVE
IN THE SALVATION OF THE CROSS" is no different than some Baha'is terminology
"DO YOU ACCEPT BAH'U'LLAH AND IF SO YOU MUST BE OBEDIENT TO THE COVENANT AND
THE WILL AND TESTAMENT OF ABDU'L BAHA". Fundamentalist Conditions and
standards such as these only remove one's freedom of conscience and only
help chase people away from becoming members of either religion, be they
Baha'i, Christian or Islam.
> It is not enough to denounce the false beliefs of bahaists who you
> have fallen out with, you miust necessarily proclaim and accept the
> sacrifice of the Cross as true and of your personal faith.
There are also as many sects and fragmentations under the Umbrella of
Christianity, Judaism and Islam who call each other false beliefs (and
anti-christs) so the Baha'i Faith is only one of many to be called false.
At present, I am investigating the teachings of Christianity through the
Orthodox Church, and if I have anything to thank the Baha'i Faith for it is
creating an interest for me to at least read and study the Bible. The Baha'i
Faith is an Islamic based new 19th century movement (not unlike the Ahmadis
Movement) who lay claim to the coming of their "Madhi" and their "Messiah"
The more I read the Bible I find no connection between their (Two
Manifestations) and Christianity or Judasim. My recent reading of
BAHA'U'LLAH: THE GREAT ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE QUR'AN by MUHAMMAD MUSTAFA
http://www.bahai-library.org/books/announcement.quran/index.html
Has only helped prove my case that Baha'u'llah is no more the return of
Christ than the Prophet Muhammad or Islam was to succeed Christianity.
The Muslim plot to try and use lies, trechery and a forged Gospel of St
Barnabas to advance the cause of Islam in Europe failed in the 15th Century.
And both Islam and the Baha'i Faith are trying the same plot all over again,
because their is no proof of Muhammad or Baha'i Manifestations in the Bible.
Errol
The Forgery
http://www.bahai-library.org/books/announcement.quran/index.html
How Muslims and Bahais like Muhammad Mustafa, UHJ member Mr. 'Ali Nakhjavani
and Laura M. Herzog believe in the forgery to propagate Muhammad and the two
Baha'i manifestations of the Baha'i faith
http://islam.itl.org.uk/barnabas/intro.htm#2
>
> QQ
errol9
When we are on the subject of the resurrection-of-Jesus and you are both
Catholics can you give us Baha'is and ex Baha'is on TRB comments on the
Catholic belief of the *physical* Resurrection of the Blessed Virgin Mary?
Errol
in article BAD219A8.68C5%howd...@insightbb.com, Dale Grider at
howd...@insightbb.com wrote on 28/4/03 2:39 am:
errol9
When we are on the subject of the resurrection-of-Jesus and you are both
Catholics can you give us Baha'is and ex Baha'is on TRB comments on the
Catholic belief of the *physical* Resurrection of the Blessed Virgin Mary?
http://www.catholicplanet.com/booklet2.htm
Errol
in article BAD219A8.68C5%howd...@insightbb.com, Dale Grider at
howd...@insightbb.com wrote on 28/4/03 2:39 am:
> in article 4d%qa.10213$B61....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net, Randy Burns at
errol9
randy....@gte.net wrote on 28/4/03 3:52 am:
> The idea of the historical accuracy of the Gospels in their entirety is of
> course absurb. Sorry, Jesus never got out of the boat and walked on water.
> Never happened. If that is why you believe then you are doomed to
> disappontment
Yeah, and neither did a miracle happen when the Bab was shot, but all the
Baha'is believe in Babi/Bahai mircales. How do you explain this one Randy?
Errol
errol9
randy....@gte.net wrote on 28/4/03 3:52 am:
>
> You tell me. I've never read the Clementine writings, nor do I know what
> the scholars say about them. Unfortunately it was very common in ancient
> times to write a book and put a famous person's name on them as author.
> That does not mean that person was the real author.
Thats exactly what happened to the medieval Gospel of St Barabas. A Muslim
forged it and some Baha'is believe in it today in this article...Errol
http://www.bahai-library.org/books/announcement.quran/2.html
"Ahmad" in the New Testament. The argument was further given that even were
the name "Ahmad" found in the New Testament, the name of the Prophet was
Muhammad and not Ahmad. This resulted in accusations being directed toward
the Christians of having tampered with the Bible and erasing from the New
Testament all reference to Muhammad, including a Gospel according to St.
Barnabas that purportedly contained clear prophecies concerning the coming
of Muhammad after Christ. However, as "Ahmad" is an Arabic word and the New
Testament was not written in Arabic, the word "Ahmad" could not be found as
such. The Greek version of the New Testament refers to the Prophet Muhammad
in the Greek equivalent of "Ahmad" by using "Paraclete" or "Pharaclete",
which translates as "Comforter" or "Redeemer" and is the meaning of the name
"Ahmad."8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The real truth:
http://www.bendigo.latrobe.edu.au/sae/arts/barnabas/Entry.html
errol9
randy....@gte.net wrote on 28/4/03 4:05 am:
> Dale, please see my other answer. Baha'is do accept both the virgin birth
> and the Resurrection. We accept them both as spiritual realities that are
> manifest to the world.
Well then who do Baha'is and Muslims believe was Jesus's natural father?
Errol
errol9
randy....@gte.net wrote on 28/4/03 4:23 am:
> Sic 'em, QisQos, enquiring minds want to know! Down on yer knees Errol R,
> you bad bad sinner you.
At least if you have a flame war on cyberspace with Ducky, Quacky and Dafty
you dont get a letter from the Church Elders ordering you off the internet
like your outfit does............Errol
errol9
randy....@gte.net wrote on 28/4/03 4:23 am:
> What are the exact words of the official Catholic doctrine?
Its something similar to the Covenant and W&T of Abdul Baha. In other words
a load of mumbo jumbo that nobody can understand. Obedience to the vatican
and the UHJ and dont call Baha'i councellors or RC Clergy bad names
(irrespective of the hanky panky they get up to) is all they ask for.
Errol
Matt Menge
or the other, so I don't think there is much to debate.
Best Regards,
Matt
errol9 <err...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<BAD298EE.20FCF%err...@ntlworld.com>...
errol9
mspm...@msn.com wrote on 28/4/03 3:39 pm:
> I have never heard anything about this in the Baha'i writings one way
> or the other, so I don't think there is much to debate.
Matt, I was not asking you I was asking Dale and QisQos the question.
Errol
Randy Burns
Baha'i Faith because of some things that Shoghi Effendi said and that many
Baha'is misinterpret. I do not have the quotes though but perhaps QQ and
Dale have them.
Cheers, Randy
--
Matt Menge <mspm...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:dc19cfc5.03042...@posting.google.com...
Matt Menge
>
> >
> > Actually, if Jesus was born of a virgin, unlike Baha'u'llah, that
> > would still make Christ unique.
>
> You missed the point Matt. The "uniqueness" of Jesus' virgin birth does not
> preclude, in and of itself, Baha'u'llah's coming again as His return. The
> biblical doctrine of Jesus personal, complete and eternal Resurrection
> (personal/spiritual/ even physical, identity) does.
So what you mean is the argument that He will be flying around in the
sky, and not reborn in the womb? I suppose that you could argue that
He may choose to be reborn in the womb anyways, but this is so far
afield from my thinking that I don't even know if I want to argue it.
The idea that Jesus still has a physical body is pretty ridiculous.
>
>
> >> I agree that 'Abdu'l-Baha wanted to get away from exclusivity.
> >> Indeed, that appears to be the primary thrust of His interpretations
> >> of the Bible and other Scriptures.
> >
> >We would have to discuss specific scriptures instead of speaking in vague
> >generalities filled with assumptions as you are doing here.
I thought we agreed. It is also a periphral issue. All right, let's
look at Some Answered Questions. There is chapter 21, "The Symbolism
of the Bread and Wine" where He states that the wine and bread are
merely symbols for turning to and believing in Christ. That would
have eliminated a few religious wars. There is chapter 22 called
"Miracles" where He states that if you want to believe in miracles
(and you may) you have to believe in the miracles of all religions.
In chapter 43 He states that the Buddha was a Messenger of God, which
attempts to demolish the non-theistic "uniqueness" of modern Buddhism.
The keyword is
> "interpretations". There are certain ways to "interpret" that abuse a
> reasonable exegesis of the texts. My position is that what Abdul Baha (and
> others) do in their "interpretations" of biblical texts so as to make them
> agree with Baha'i doctrine modt often abuses any reasonable understanding of
> the biblical text in question.
Well, I can tell you that so far I find your interpretations to be
very unreasonable. So I suppose it goes back to the "vague
generalities" thing.
The Resurrection of Jesus is a dramatic case
> in point. Luke 24, for example, is going WAY out of its way to melodramatize
> the fact that Jesus was raised in the same, though glorified, bpdy that hung
> on the cross.
My reading was that this was in no way a normal body. Not only does
Jesus "teleport" considerably, but there are many occasions when Jesus
was not to be found anywhere. Also there are those truly bizzare
occasions where Jesus's own disciples do not recognize Him.
So I guess it depends on what you mean by a "glorified body". To me
it means a body composed of spiritual, not physical, matter. It is
this same spiritual body that all people possess after they pass on.
Comparing any reasonable exegesis (call it "interpretation" if
> you insist) of that passage with Abdul Baha's argument that the
> Resurrection of Jesus REALLY only meant the renewed faith of the Apostles
> after three days, and what you have is a gross abuse of, and denial of, the
> true New Testament Message.
I think you miss the point. 'Abdu'l-Baha did not deny the appearances
of Christ. He simply stated that that is not THE Resurrection. Those
miracles may well have occurred, but they are peripheral to the
central point.
>
>
> I had asserted that,
>
> > However, if Jesus, in PERSON as well as body, was raised
> >> from the dead to eternal life...then He alone retains the identity of
> >> "Christ", even eternally in that eternal Resurrection!
> >
>
> You respond,
>
> > How is that? Why would Baha'u'llah need to repeat what Jesus did
> > anyways? Does He need to part the Red Sea as well? Does He need to
> > cause a flood? Does He need to step into a fire and not get burned?
>
> Again you seem set to miss the point. The point is that with Jesus' TOTAL
> and eternal Resurrection (body, mind, soul, spirit...EVERYTHING), raised to
> eternal life (identity permanently established and set forever in ONE
> person, Jesus Christ of Nazareth), the one thing that Baha'u'llah CAN'T
> "repeat" FOR SURE, is to come into the world as the Christ!
I disagree. Even if Jesus was still a person flying around, eating,
going to the bathroom, and putting on deodorant up in the sky, the
Baha'i concept of return does not mean the return of identity, it
means the return of qualities.
> That Jesus Christ was in retention of the identity of the Christ when
> Baha'u'llah was born. He held it throughout the life of Baha'u'llah. He
> continued to be the eternally risen identity of the One Christ when
> Baha'u'llah died and faced him. And it is He, Jesus Christ of Nazareth,
> risen in totality as the eternal identity of the one True Christ who holds
> that singular identity today, and for forever more.
I agree with this actually. Although I believe that Christ no longer
has a physical body, He certainly retains His identity in the next
world, just as Elijah does. But just as John the Baptist was the
return of Elijah, so is Baha'u'llah the return of Christ. They have
the same qualities, but they are not the same person.
> >
> >> Who is the antichrist??? He who denies that Jesus Christ is Lord and that He
> >> was raised from the dead to eternal life.
> >>
> >
> > Now you're just makin' stuff up.
>
>
> No, I disagree. I did not ascribe my comment to any specific or singular
> passage of Scripture, but would argue that the context of New Testament
> passages that define who Jesus is and what He did would find what I said to
> be a true statement. Baha'u'llah comes as the Christ returned. Jesus Himself
> warned that if <ANYONE> comes claiming to be His return, reject them as an
> impostor.
I am not sure where you are getting this from. The closest passage to
this might appear in Luke 21:8, and this is just saying not to follow
any such claim until the time is right.
And might I call to your attention that we don't know what Jesus looks
like anyways. Also the idea that "every eye shall see Him" cannot
possibly be taken literally, as it would take centuries for someone up
in the clouds to visit every human locale.
Best Regards,
Matt
Randy Burns
it out, the Catholics would look like fools, wouldn't they?
Cheers, Randy
--
errol9 <err...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:BAD2A0BC.20FD5%err...@ntlworld.com...
> in article f12ra.10724$B61....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net, Randy Burns at
>
errol9
mspm...@msn.com wrote on 28/4/03 4:28 pm:
> And might I call to your attention that we don't know what Jesus looks
> like anyways. Also the idea that "every eye shall see Him" cannot
> possibly be taken literally, as it would take centuries for someone up
> in the clouds to visit every human locale.
Matt, sure most Baha'is dont know what Baha'u'llah looks like either, isn't
he supposed to be the return of Christ and if any Baha'is make it known they
have photo of him an ABM will visit them and tell them to hide the photo.
I know of one incident of this happening.............Errol
Matt Menge
heaven is not a physical place, it is a state of existence. Hence
even if Mary did ascend into the sky, such an event would be somewhat
meaningless, as "heaven" is not in the sky.
Best Regards,
Matt
errol9 <err...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<BAD298EE.20FCF%err...@ntlworld.com>...
errol9
mspm...@msn.com wrote on 28/4/03 7:49 pm:
> Actually, I do want to say something here. In the Baha'i teachings
> heaven is not a physical place, it is a state of existence. Hence
> even if Mary did ascend into the sky, such an event would be somewhat
> meaningless, as "heaven" is not in the sky.
The Catholic Church dont think that Matt, according to RC doctrine Christ's
mother's body could hardly go to heaven without her son going also?
Errol
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SECOND EDITION
974 The Most Blessed Virgin Mary, when the course of her earthly life was
completed, was taken up body and soul into the glory of heaven, where she
already shares in the glory of her Son's Resurrection, anticipating the
resurrection of all members of his Body.
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p6.htm
Matt Menge
comes Baha'is won't be able to say "Gee, He doesn't *look* like a
Prophet. His eyes aren't as charismatic. He doesn't seem to have the
same facial expressions." And so on and so forth.
Best Regards,
Matt
errol9 <err...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<BAD320F4.2114D%err...@ntlworld.com>...
Matt Menge
> in article dc19cfc5.03042...@posting.google.com, Matt Menge at
> mspm...@msn.com wrote on 28/4/03 3:39 pm:
>
> > I have never heard anything about this in the Baha'i writings one way
> > or the other, so I don't think there is much to debate.
>
> Matt, I was not asking you I was asking Dale and QisQos the question.
>
So you don't want to know the Baha'i position on this issue at all, or
do you just want to know Dale and QisQos's position first?
Best Regards,
Matt
errol9
mspm...@msn.com wrote on 29/4/03 2:57 am:
> Yes, and there's a good reason for this. When the next Manifestation
> comes Baha'is won't be able to say "Gee, He doesn't *look* like a
> Prophet. His eyes aren't as charismatic. He doesn't seem to have the
> same facial expressions." And so on and so forth.
Matt, Is this a special story told to all US Baha'is or did you make this
one up yourself, because its a bobby dazzler. Here is info on the subject.
Errol
Photographs of Baha'u'llah
"Concerning the question of display of the photograph of Baha'u'llah, the
Guardian's instructions were that this should be done only with the utmost
reverence, and then only on special occasions. While the Guardian did not
require believers to send such photographs to the Holy Land, he said that it
was better to do so. However, if you have made any photographic copies or
negatives of the photograph or the portrait, these should be forwarded to
the Holy Land in a safe way."
(From a letter dated 1 August 17 written by the Universal House of Justice
to an individual believer)
"It would be good to advise the young Persian believer who has this picture
that, while we do not wish to suggest that he should remove the photograph
from his book, it would be inappropriate for him to show it to others in a
casual manner. As you know, the photograph of Baha'u'llah isvery precious
and it should be handled with due reverence and respect."
(From a letter dated 7 February 1972 written by the Universal House of
Justice to an individual believer)
"The portraits of the Bab and Baha'u'llah should be shown infrequently and
on very special occasions, such as a special observance connected with an
event intimately associated with the Forerunner or Founder of our Faith.
"We do not think that the regular National Convention is such a special
occasion, and we feel that the privilege of displaying these very precious
portraits should not be abused." (From a letter dated 12 July 1973 written
by the Universal House of Justice to the National Spiritual Assembly of
Panama)
errol9
Matt, with respect, you are not the sole spokeperson or representitive for
the whole Baha'i Faith on TRB. If you dont wish to pass comment on any
subject, then kindly ignore it, there are others who might want to, like
what Randy had to say about Shoghi Effendi's comments on the Virgin Mary's
resurrection......................................................Errol
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Matt
Brid
Matt,
Forgive me if I'm wrong but I've got the distinct impression that you
don't want the debate on this and other Christian-related topics to
take place at all. The BF claims its founder to be the return of
Christ and tells well-meaning enquirers from a Christian background
that they are going to be 'completed' Christians if they accept the
faith. They told me that, but it didn't take me long to realize that
I'd really got involved with some form of half-baked Islam and I
couldn't get out quick enough.
It, therefore, seems fair enough to me that Christians explore just
how compatible the Baha'i founder and his teachings are with
Christianity. The question of the Resurrection is a crucial one for
Christians. Dale, QisQos and Robert are doing a good job. Errol is
also doing a good job in raising the question of where Islam fits into
the picture. Inconvenient questions for Baha'i apologists perhaps, but
useful for those seekers undertaking the independent investigation of
truth. If nothing else, it's a more productive thread than some others
currently running.
Brid
Matt Menge
> in article dc19cfc5.03042...@posting.google.com, Matt Menge at
> mspm...@msn.com wrote on 29/4/03 2:57 am:
>
> > Yes, and there's a good reason for this. When the next Manifestation
> > comes Baha'is won't be able to say "Gee, He doesn't *look* like a
> > Prophet. His eyes aren't as charismatic. He doesn't seem to have the
> > same facial expressions." And so on and so forth.
>
> Matt, Is this a special story told to all US Baha'is or did you make this
> one up yourself, because its a bobby dazzler.
Considering the Islamic ban on idolatry and human images, this would
seem to be the only logical conclusion.
Here is info on the subject.
>
I would put the Baha'i teachings on artistic representations of the
Manifestations in the same category. For example, Baha'is cannot even
represent Baha'u'llah with light.
And no, I haven't seen any specific references linking it to idolatry,
but I have discussed this before with other Baha'is and they seemed to
agree with me.
Best Regards,
Matt
Randy Burns
talking with Robert for about a year now.
Do you understand the Baha'i position on the Virgin birth and the
Resurrection of Jesus? Let me know if you have any questions? Not that I
have a clue myself, of course, but questions are so interesting.
Do you think Dale and QQ are really Catholics?
Cheers, Randy
--
Brid <bridci...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d5a5c190.03042...@posting.google.com...
errol9
randy....@gte.net wrote on 29/4/03 3:55 pm:
> I don't think Matt wants to stop the debate, he seems to have been enjoying
> talking with Robert for about a year now.
>
> Do you understand the Baha'i position on the Virgin birth and the
> Resurrection of Jesus? Let me know if you have any questions? Not that I
> have a clue myself, of course, but questions are so interesting.
>
> Do you think Dale and QQ are really Catholics?
>
> Cheers, Randy
I think Brid was referring to Matt's own statement here to my post over the
resurrection to the virgin Mary Randy, but its irrelevlant now because he
came back saying he wanted to debate something in his next post.
in article dc19cfc5.03042...@posting.google.com, Matt Menge at
mspm...@msn.com wrote on 28/4/03 3:39 pm:
>> I have never heard anything about this in the Baha'i writings one way
>> or the other, so I don't think there is much to debate.
>> Best Regards, Matt
The bodily resurrection of Jesus is accepted by Protestants but they refuse
to accept the bodily resurrection of the Virgin Mary unlike older branches
of Christianity like the the " Orthodox and Roman Catholics (who) both
maintain that Mary was taken bodily into heaven immediately after her death.
(This event is called the Assumption in the Catholic Church and the
Dormition in the Orthodox Church.) Thus Mary confirmed the promise of our
bodily resurrection at the Last Day. The only difference here is that the
Roman Catholic Church has dogmatized this view, while in Orthodoxy only
doctrines regarding the nature of the Trinity have the status of dogma."
http://www.slocc.com/orthodoxy/saintstheotokos.shtml
Errol
Matt Menge
>
> Matt,
>
> Forgive me if I'm wrong but I've got the distinct impression that you
> don't want the debate on this and other Christian-related topics to
> take place at all.
It is more that I don't want to attack a position of Catholic theology
unless there is some point to it. It is as if Errol is trying to pull
religious conflicts out of his hat. For example, if Errol asked
Baha'is to make a commentary on the Nicene Creed, I would be reluctant
to do that also.
On the other hand, if the conflict was inevitable or there was some
other important reason to answer the question I would be happy to.
So, since you ask:), I would say the biggest issue is that in Baha'i
teachings "heaven" is not a physical place, but a condition of
existence. Baha'u'llah said that if you searched the universe for
ever more but were far from God, you would find no rest. (AHW #40)
The point being that heaven is not to be found somewhere in the sky,
but rather in the state of one's existence (their "mental state") and
the state of their relationship with God.
>The BF claims its founder to be the return of
> Christ and tells well-meaning enquirers from a Christian background
> that they are going to be 'completed' Christians if they accept the
> faith. They told me that, but it didn't take me long to realize that
> I'd really got involved with some form of half-baked Islam and I
> couldn't get out quick enough.
>
There are some elements of Islam in the Baha'i Faith to be sure, but
most Muslims (even liberal ones) consider the Baha'i Faith to be a
radical departure from Islam.
> It, therefore, seems fair enough to me that Christians explore just
> how compatible the Baha'i founder and his teachings are with
> Christianity. The question of the Resurrection is a crucial one for
> Christians. Dale, QisQos and Robert are doing a good job.
I never said they weren't.
> Errol is
> also doing a good job in raising the question of where Islam fits into
> the picture.
Errol seems to want to start fights between the Baha'i Faith and other
religions.
> Inconvenient questions for Baha'i apologists perhaps, but
> useful for those seekers undertaking the independent investigation of
> truth.
No, the questions are not "inconvenient" at all. As long as it is the
Christians initiating these debates and not Baha'is, I am happy to
oblige them.
Best Regards,
Matt
errol9
> Errol seems to want to start fights between the Baha'i Faith and other
> religions.
Matt, would you prefer I start lovey dovey weekends between the Baha'is and
members from other religions so all the BIGS can teach the faith?....Errol
Brid
> I don't think Matt wants to stop the debate, he seems to have been enjoying
> talking with Robert for about a year now.
OK. It's just Errol he'd like to stop.
>
> Do you understand the Baha'i position on the Virgin birth and the
> Resurrection of Jesus? Let me know if you have any questions? Not that I
> have a clue myself, of course, but questions are so interesting.
Does anyone understand it? I think it can be summarized as the Bible
is true (but not as true as the Koran and definitely not as true as
the Baha'i Writings) and the bits we don't like are purely symbolic.
>
> Do you think Dale and QQ are really Catholics?
Is the Pope Polish?
>
> Cheers, Randy
>
Slán,
Brid
Brid
> unless there is some point to it. It is as if Errol is trying to pull
> religious conflicts out of his hat. For example, if Errol asked
> Baha'is to make a commentary on the Nicene Creed, I would be reluctant
> to do that also.
I don't share your impression of what Errol is trying to do. The BF
claims a relationship with all the major world faiths and Errol is
questioning this. If anyone else asked you for a Baha'i standpoint on
the Nicene Creed would you give it? There would be plenty of meat
there for debate after all - The Trinity, The Virgin Birth,
Crucifixion, Resurrection etc.
>
> On the other hand, if the conflict was inevitable or there was some
> other important reason to answer the question I would be happy to.
>
> So, since you ask:), I would say the biggest issue is that in Baha'i
> teachings "heaven" is not a physical place, but a condition of
> existence. Baha'u'llah said that if you searched the universe for
> ever more but were far from God, you would find no rest. (AHW #40)
>
> The point being that heaven is not to be found somewhere in the sky,
> but rather in the state of one's existence (their "mental state") and
> the state of their relationship with God.
Thank you for a clear statement of Baha'i views.
> There are some elements of Islam in the Baha'i Faith to be sure, but
> most Muslims (even liberal ones) consider the Baha'i Faith to be a
> radical departure from Islam.
Yes, I accept that the BF and Islam are two distinct religions. All
I'm saying is that I think there is more of Islam present in the
thinking and practices of the BF than Westerners are told.
> Errol seems to want to start fights between the Baha'i Faith and other
> religions.
I don't agree Matt. Errol is up-front about his ex-baha'i status and
his disillusionment with the faith. I don't think he tries to
represent himself as a BIGS. A lot of interfaith dialogue is marred by
an unwillingness to have open and honest discussion about our
differences.
> No, the questions are not "inconvenient" at all. As long as it is the
> Christians initiating these debates and not Baha'is, I am happy to
> oblige them.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Matt
I'm not sure I follow you here. Are you saying that if an enrolled
baha'i initiates a debate about the Resurrection of Christ or other
Christian issue you wouldn't respond?
Best wishes,
Brid
Matt Menge
> baha'i initiates a debate about the Resurrection of Christ or other
> Christian issue you wouldn't respond?
I am saying that starting a debate on these issues can be somewhat
akin to throwing the first punch in a fight. I don't want to start a
discussion by saying X, Y, and Z are wrong with Christianity. Unless
of course, there was some important reason to do so.
Baha'is are not supposed to attack the church(es), which in my mind
means that we don't run around looking for flaws in their theology.
But naturally, if there is some important reason to do so, then we are
obligated to (as the ban on attacking the church is not particularly
strict).
Best Regards,
Matt
Matt Menge
I see trying to start religious conflicts as an ignoble practice;
especially in modern times when religious conflicts seem to be the
worst problems in the world.
Best Regards,
Matt
errol9
bridci...@yahoo.com wrote on 29/4/03 9:27 pm:
> mspm...@msn.com (Matt Menge) wrote in message
> news:<dc19cfc5.03042...@posting.google.com>...
>> It is more that I don't want to attack a position of Catholic theology
>> unless there is some point to it. It is as if Errol is trying to pull
>> religious conflicts out of his hat. For example, if Errol asked
>> Baha'is to make a commentary on the Nicene Creed, I would be reluctant
>> to do that also.
>
> I don't share your impression of what Errol is trying to do. The BF
> claims a relationship with all the major world faiths and Errol is
> questioning this. If anyone else asked you for a Baha'i standpoint on
> the Nicene Creed would you give it? There would be plenty of meat
> there for debate after all - The Trinity, The Virgin Birth,
> Crucifixion, Resurrection etc.
Thankyou Brid, unfortunately most BIGS on TRB and other newsgroups see any
ex-baha'i entering into any form of challenge or critique of their religion
(in relation to other religions) as an attack on their cherished belief.
Most are happy on home ground defending any attacks moans or groans from
disidents relating to the institutions, the covenant and will & testament of
Abdu Baha, and obedience to the UHJ in Haifa. This is because very few non-
Baha'is would be well read (or had any experiences, or would be interested
in) the Administrative Order of the Baha'i Faith.
However when it comes to providing documented evidence from sacred scripture
(other than the Quran) to defend their religions divine claim that one of
their founders is the return of Christ then this becomes a different ball
game altogether. The first stumbling block I found during my 13 years as a
Bahai was that most Baha'is went out of their way to defend the text in the
Quran and the Prophet Mumammad against the text in Bible and first coming of
Christ. Infact I found when many Baha'is spoke amongst themselves they were
inclined to be pro Islam and anti-Christian yet they put on another face
when talking to Christians, as if butter wouldn't melt in their mouths.
Here is a Jewish/Baha'is view on Jesus......Errol
A Baha'i View of Jesus
Copyright © 1999 by Lloyd Mandansky
When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his
disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and
others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the
living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon
Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father
which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon
this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it.
One might well ask the Baha'i Faith, "Whom do you say that Jesus is?" After
all, the Baha'i Faith teaches the Divine origin of Christianity, so, the
question is not out of line. Now, I could give my opinion as to what the
answer is, but, I will defer to a more authoritative source for the answer.
When asked about this portion of the Gospel of Matthew, Abdu'l-Baha
responded (as recorded in the book "Some Answered Questions"), "This
utterance of Christ is a confirmation of the statement of Peter, when Christ
asked: Whom do you believe Me to be? and Peter answered: I believe that
"Thou art the Son of the living God." Then Christ said to him: "Thou art
Peter" -for Cephas in Aramaic means rock - "and upon this rock I will build
My church. Christ wished by suggestion, or an allusion, to confirm the words
of Peter; so on account of the suitability of his name, Peter, He said: "and
upon this rock I will build My church," meaning, thy belief that Christ is
the Son of the living God will be the foundation of the Religion of God, and
upon this belief the foundation of the church of God - which is the Law of
God - shall be established."
From this, it is plain that the Baha'i Faith teaches that Jesus was both
Christ (or Messiah) and Son of the living God. But, what do the terms Christ
(or Messiah) and Son of God mean? Are they terms that were developed by the
Christian Faith or do they predate it? I have found that the term Christ is
the English transliteration for the Greek Christo, which, in turn, is a
translation of the Hebrew Mashiah (or in English - Messiah). According to
"The Standard Jewish Encyclopedia," Messiah means "The Anointed One." An
"Anointed One is an individual who receives Divine sanction and a unique
inviolability of status. This definition is very close to what Baha'is
define as a Manifestation of God. Among those listed as Manifestations of
God are Jesus, Muhammad, Abraham, Zoroaster, Buddha, The Bab and
Baha'u'llah. We are told, though, that there are others, some of the names
of which are lost in antiquity.
The term "Son of God" is defined by "The Standard Jewish Encyclopedia" as,
"Term applied in the bible to demi-gods, angels, and similar mythological
beings (Gen. 6:2-4 and Ps. 82:6) as well as to human beings standing in a
relation of special intimacy to God such as kings (Ps. 89:27-8) or the
people of Israel (Ex. 4:22; Hos. 11:1)." The same source defines "Son of
Man" as "Epithet applied in the books of Ezekiel and Daniel to a man of god
in his relation to God."
While I realize that these terms have a stronger meaning within the
Christian Faith, I presented the Jewish definition because it is within that
Faith that these terms originated and it is a good possibility that this was
the basic idea conveyed when the terms were used when originally applied to
Jesus. As a Baha'i (from Jewish background) I have no problem with applying
these terms to Jesus and find them consistent with what the Baha'i Faith
teaches of Him.
Baha'u'llah designated Jesus as the "Spirit of God" and proclaimed that
Jesus was the One Who "appeared out of the breath of the Holy Ghost."
Baha'u'llah wrote the following concerning Jesus, "Know thou that when the
Son of Man yielded up His breath to God, the whole creation wept with a
great weeping. By sacrificing Himself, however, a fresh capacity was infused
into all created things, Its evidences, as witnessed in all the peoples of
the earth, are now manifest before thee. The deepest wisdom which the sages
have uttered, the profoundest learning which any mind hath unfolded, the
arts which the ablest hands have produced, the influence exerted by the most
potent of rulers, are but manifestations of the quickening power released by
His transcendent, His all-pervasive and resplendent Spirit. We testify that
when He came into the world, He shed the splendour of His glory upon all
created things. Through Him the leper recovered from the leprosy of
perversity and ignorance. Through Him the unchaste and wayward were healed.
Through His power, born of Almighty God, the eyes of the blind were opened
and the soul of the sinner sanctified. He it is Who purified the world.
Blessed is the man who, with a face beaming with light, hath turned towards
Him."
>
>
Brian Walker
errol9 wrote:
> in article d5a5c190.03042...@posting.google.com, Brid at
> bridci...@yahoo.com wrote on 29/4/03 9:27 pm:
>
>
>>mspm...@msn.com (Matt Menge) wrote in message
>>news:<dc19cfc5.03042...@posting.google.com>...
>>
>>>It is more that I don't want to attack a position of Catholic theology
>>>unless there is some point to it. It is as if Errol is trying to pull
>>>religious conflicts out of his hat. For example, if Errol asked
>>>Baha'is to make a commentary on the Nicene Creed, I would be reluctant
>>>to do that also.
>>
>>I don't share your impression of what Errol is trying to do. The BF
>>claims a relationship with all the major world faiths and Errol is
>>questioning this. If anyone else asked you for a Baha'i standpoint on
>>the Nicene Creed would you give it? There would be plenty of meat
>>there for debate after all - The Trinity, The Virgin Birth,
>>Crucifixion, Resurrection etc.
>
>
> Thankyou Brid, unfortunately most BIGS on TRB and other newsgroups see any
> ex-baha'i entering into any form of challenge or critique of their religion
> (in relation to other religions) as an attack on their cherished belief.
Not so, not at all. The principle is of independent investigation of
truth, and if you feel you have a truth, well and good.
What HWMNBN (aka errol) is referring to - I think - is the tendency of
an ex-Baha'i to espouse a vitriolic opposition to the BF. We can look at
HWMNBN own actions a a prime example. This state of affairs will
certainly yield a less than positive response.
> Most are happy on home ground defending any attacks moans or groans from
> disidents relating to the institutions, the covenant and will & testament of
> Abdu Baha, and obedience to the UHJ in Haifa. This is because very few non-
> Baha'is would be well read (or had any experiences, or would be interested
> in) the Administrative Order of the Baha'i Faith.
IIRC, this is a forum for discussion of the BF, so it does not surprise
me that topics of interest for Baha'is primarily are discussed here.
>
> However when it comes to providing documented evidence from sacred scripture
> (other than the Quran) to defend their religions divine claim that one of
> their founders is the return of Christ then this becomes a different ball
> game altogether.
?
> The first stumbling block I found during my 13 years as a
> Bahai was that most Baha'is went out of their way to defend the text in the
> Quran and the Prophet Mumammad against the text in Bible and first coming of
> Christ.
That has not been my experience
> Infact I found when many Baha'is spoke amongst themselves they were
> inclined to be pro Islam and anti-Christian yet they put on another face
> when talking to Christians, as if butter wouldn't melt in their mouths.
Again, not in my experience
Brian
snip
--
Brian F. Walker
Registered Linux User 270078
Debian GNU/Linux