• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Koran v. Bible

FearGod

Freedom Of Mind
There are many which you can read from www.bahai.org .
But one of them which you have so far exposed to, is to correct the wrong interpretation of Quran and Bible!

But muslims don't accept his interpretation and i think also christians don't need bahaullah to translate their books,so his teaching will be useful for bahais only
 

FearGod

Freedom Of Mind
You are ignoring that there is only One God. That is the God that ALL Manifestations of God brought the Message from!

How did you believe in God? What is your proof?

:)

You can find the proof yourself when only you stop thinking about your short life on earth, i believe on the afterlife,and that is what i am looking for, i have full convidence on allah that i am not worry about anything on this short journey on earth.i looked and fetched for the truth,i found islam to be right for me.

most of the atheists don't believe on the afterlife,so they choose not to believe on god, and they will not worry on leading others to astray,because they don't think of the judgement day.

if you have the convidence on your own believe,then i have nothing to say but god bless you.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
And what you ignore:
LOCALITIES WHERE RELIGIONISTS RESIDE
RELIGION.......................NUMBER
Christianity.....................140,000
Baha'i Faith.....................110,000
All others.........................90,000 or fewer
The Baha'i Faith has been in second place since 1991.
Source: Encyclopedia Britannica
There is nothing to ignore here. It is completely meaningless. What in the world is it that you think these numbers mean. They seem to be an arbitrary meaningless statistic. What parameters did the person select for location? A house, church, country, county etc? Why did they select that one? This statistic has absolutely no bearing on whether the faith is genuine or not. It appears you are selecting random statistics for no other reason than it appears at the top of a few. No statistic like this proves it correct. Especially considering that Baha i only have less than 20 million believers compared with over 3 billion for Christianity and Islam. Statistics like this are useless in establishing the truth of a belief.
Not to mention which, the World Christian Encyclopedia (clearly NOT a Baha'i source) states that the Baha'i Faith is the fastest-growing religion among those already established on over 100 countries.
It might also have more believers named Greg over 37 years old and are lefthanded too. So what?
You also ignore the fact that Baha'u'llah prophesied both world wars, in particular with respect to Germany.
Can you provide these prophecies?
Trajedy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan in the year 1945 was because of the effect of bahaullah teachings,the world is changing gradually.
I am an amateur historian and I know WWII very well. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were caused because Jewish scientists developed the atomic bomb. It was used to counter the fact that Japan believed the Emperor was a God and they had a divine mandate to conquer the world. Their strict code of Bushido meant they could not surrender and must fight to the death. We estimated our casualties at over 500,000 and decided to drop the bomb instead of a conventional attack. None of this has anything at all to do of this Bahaullah guy. I have read over a hundred books on the subject and have watched several hundred hours of documentaries not one of which even mentioned that guy even once.
And the Baha'is are in no way "against" the Qur'an! Indeed, we respect it greatly.
Baha i seems to be for whatever gives it some measure of credibility. Why if consistent do both Islam and Christianity reject that faith.
 

Oryonder

Active Member
I will address all this stuff in the following.

Here are some statements by the earliest and therefore the most reliable scholars on the issue:

"Irenaeus (ca. a.d. 180) continued Papias’s views about Matthew and Mark and added his belief that Luke, the follower of Paul, put down in a book the gospel preached by that apostle, and that John, the Beloved Disciple, published his Gospel while residing in Asia. By the time of Irenaeus, Acts was also linked with Luke, the companion of Paul."6
"At the earliest, Acts cannot have been written prior to the latest firm chronological marker recorded in the book—Festus’s appointment as procurator (24:27), which, on the basis of independent sources, appears to have occurred between A.D. 55 and 59."3
"It is increasingly admitted that the Logia [Q] was very early, before 50 A.D., and Mark likewise if Luke wrote the Acts while Paul was still alive. Luke's Gospel comes before the Acts (Acts 1:1). The date of Acts is still in dispute, but the early date (about A.D. 63) is gaining support constantly."4
When were the gospels written and by whom?|What are the dates and authors of the gospels? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

Could you have possibly found a more biased source ? I doubt it.

Matt Slick (aka The Slickster) God his masters from a quack school for quacks.

He earned his Masters of Divinity from Westminster Theological Seminary, in Escondido, CA

The Westminster Theological Seminary is a Joke and it had not even been acredited by the AST (which will acredit pretty much any school) until 1997 which was 6 years after "the slickster" graduated.

The School is "not" recognized by any of the Major Christian religious bodies (Roman, Lutheran, Anglican, Orthadox).

That said .. we can not discount someone on the basis of ad hom. Lets have a look at what "the slickster" says.

None of the gospels mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D.

Of course Slick gives us no references for this claim. Lets look at some things the Slickster left out. Things which would have to be included in "any" academic discussion of the topic.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html

Reginald Fuller:

A general range of dating for the Gospel of Mark can be suggested with reference to the external evidence. If the tradition of Markan authorship is accepted, Irenaeus implies that the Gospel of Mark was written after the death of Peter, traditionally set in Rome c. 65 CE...

This range can be further qualified by an examination of the internal evidence.
Mark's "Little Apocalypse" in chapter 13 is usually regarded as speaking of the events of the First Jewish Revolt, which took place 66-70 CE

The Slickster gives an early date of 55 for Mark ?? .. again no reference.

He claims that the writer of John was "obviously" a eyewitness to the events of Christs life. Again .. no reference or explanation ??

This guy is not a scholar, he is a "slickster". He is making one sided claims without giving support nor even discussing the major claims of Biblical adadamia to the contrary.

Robert Kysar writes the following on the authorship of the Gospel of John (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 3, pp. 919-920):
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html
The supposition that the author was one and the same with the beloved disciple is often advanced as a means of insuring that the evangelist did witness Jesus' ministry. Two other passages are advanced as evidence of the same - 19:35 and 21:24. But both falter under close scrutiny. 19:35 does not claim that the author was the one who witnessed the scene but only that the scene is related on the sound basis of eyewitness. 21:24 is part of the appendix of the gospel and should not be assumed to have come from the same hand as that responsible for the body of the gospel. Neither of these passages, therefore, persuades many Johannine scholars that the author claims eyewitness status

Apparently the Slickster does not often read Bible dictionaries.

If the author of the Gospel of John were an eyewitness, presumably the author would have known that Jesus and his compatriots were permitted to enter the synagogues. But at one several points it is stated that those who acknowledged Jesus as the Christ during the life of Jesus were put out of the synagogue. This anachronism is inconceivable as the product of an eyewitness

Kysar states concerning the dating of the Gospel of John: "Those who relate the expulsion to a formal effort on the part of Judaism to purge itself of Christian believers link the composition of the gospel with a date soon after the Council of Jamnia, which is supposed to have promulgated such an action. Hence, these scholars would date John after 90. Those inclined to see the expulsion more in terms of an informal action on the part of a local synagogue are free to propose an earlier date." (p. 919
Certainly not proof positive that John was written after 90 AD .. (notice both sides given )

Not by the Slickster though .. to him the writer of John was "Obviously" an eyewitness (no reference is given of course).

You would think someone with a Master's in Divinity would know these things. "Obviously" at least some of the graduates from from the Westminister Theological Seminary are not trained that well . Not only in the history of the Bible but in how to reference ones work.

And as for Slicks opening comment on "no mention of destruction of the Temple"

Kysar also observes on the dating of the Gospel of John: "The earliest date for the gospel hinges upon the question of whether or not it presupposes the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. Most agree that it does, although there have been persistent attempts to argue otherwise. The reasons for positing a post-70 date include the view of the Temple implicit in 2:13-22. Most would argue that the passage attempts to present Christ as the replacement of the Temple that has been destroyed." (p. 918) Note also the irony of 11:48: "If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our place [i.e. temple] and our nation." Finally, there is no mention of the Sadducees, which reflects post-70 Judaism

The commentary given by Slick suggest that one should just accept that there is nothing in the Gospels in relation to the destruction of the Temple.

This is at minimum disingenuous and at maximum borderline lying given the nature of the discussion.

Slick is not a Joke because of where he graduated ( hopefully some that graduate are better trained)

Slick is a Joke because he is a Joke.

His ommision of relevent material in his one sided bias, and his making of controversial claims without reference nor stating that these claims are controversial would give him a failing grade in any form of real acadamia.
 
Last edited:

Oryonder

Active Member
I will address all this stuff in the following.

You seem to believe your view is consistent with most scholars. Here is the view of the most respected online biblical resource there is:

The only firsthand testimony that we have about the life and teachings of Jesus comes from the four Gospels. Who were the people that wrote these books?
The authorship is credited to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. There are three basic reasons why we believe the men bearing their names wrote the four gospels.

1. There Is Unanimous Tradition As To The Authorship Of The Gospels
The four gospels are unanimously attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - there are no other candidates. With works as important as the gospels it is unlikely that the original authors would have been forgotten. To quickly command acceptance from the people it had to have an author that was known.

There Are No Variations In The Titles

The fact that this happened is clear in that there are no variations in the titles of the gospels. Every source is unanimous that Matthew wrote Matthew, Mark wrote Mark, Luke penned his gospel, and John wrote his.
These three reasons - the unanimous testimony of the church, the unlikely authorship of these men, and the early identification of the document, all present a strong case for the traditional authorship of the gospels.
Summary
.
The evidence is clear and convincing. The traditional belief that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the four gospels is the only view that fits the known facts.
Blue Letter Bible - Help, Tutorials, and FAQs

When were the gospels written and by whom?|What are the dates and authors of the gospels? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

This is absolute bunk ? "The unanimous testimony of Church ?? are you claim this to be a reliable source.

Do you even read your own links .. Even the Slickster does not try and make this claim.

From your link .. given in "your post" above.

Mark was not an eyewitness to the events of Jesus' life. He was a disciple of Peter and undoubtedly it was Peter who informed Mark of the life of Christ and guided him in writing the Gospel known by his name. "Papias claimed that Mark, the Evangelist, who had never heard Christ, was the interpreter of Peter, and that he carefully gave an account of everything he remembered from the preaching of Peter."7 Generally, Mark is said to be the earliest gospel with an authorship of between A.D. 55 to A.D. 70

Luke was not an eyewitness of the life of Christ. He was a companion of Paul who also was not an eyewitness of Christ's life
 

F0uad

Well-Known Member

That you dared to use WikiIslam as your source shows a reflection of your needs, it is anti-Islamic and discrases Prophet Mohammed(saws) all the time.

Lets use the original Wikipedia:

Claims to be the fastest-growing religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Many different religions currently or previously have claimed to be the fastest growing religion. The world's largest religions that are showing increases that outrun birth-rate include Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism. There is often little coverage of the "unaffiliated" category (which includes deists, agnostics, atheists, and theists) although some evidence suggests they are growing rapidly. The fastest growing religion is Islam.

According to the Guinness Book of World Records, Islam is the world’s fastest-growing religion by number of conversions each year: Although the religion began in Arabia, by 2002 80% of all believers in Islam lived outside the Arab world. In the period 1990-2000, approximately 12.5 million more people converted to Islam than to Christianity. This was again shown in the 2005, 50th anniversary edition of Guinness Book of World Records, although the number of conversions was not mentioned this time.



Bruce you are dishonest the Global statistics Of the world Christian Encyclopaedia clearly says that Islam is superior in all aspects to that of the Bahai conversions or grow rate:

[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]World religions increase in 24 hrs.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]New non-Christian religions [/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]2[/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]Non-Christians [/FONT]

[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]147,000[/FONT]

[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]Christians [/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]69,000[/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]Muslims [/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]68,000[/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]Atheists [/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]1,200[/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]Baha'is [/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]400[/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]Buddhists [/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]10,600[/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]Chinese folk-religionists [/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]10,700[/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]Confucianists [/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]120[/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]Ethnoreligionists [/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]8,200[/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]Hindus [/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]37,000[/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]Jains [/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]100[/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]Jews [/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]350[/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]New-Religionists [/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]2,800[/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]Nonreligious [/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]16,700[/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]Shintoists [/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]-90[/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]Sikhs[/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]1,100[/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]Spiritists [/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]600[/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]Taoists [/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]70[/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]Zoroastrians [/FONT]
[FONT=Times,Times New Roman]160[/FONT]

I off-course do not agree with the numbers that are mentioned but at-least be honest.


Ps: The whole website is anti-islamic yet the numbers of Muslims are bigger then that of the Bahai religion.
 
Last edited:

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
That you dared to use WikiIslam as your source shows a reflection of your needs, it is anti-Islamic and discrases Prophet Mohammed(saws) all the time.

I do not agree with that Website generally. But I only used their statistics (which could be wrong or right). You only need to show why their statistics are not correct, without judging my intention why I used that website!
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
But muslims don't accept his interpretation and i think also christians don't need bahaullah to translate their books,so his teaching will be useful for bahais only

You are ignoring the fact, that many Moslems and Christians converted to Baha'i Faith. There is a well documented history on that.
You seem to speak on behalf of the whole Moslems and Christians!
 

F0uad

Well-Known Member
I do not agree with that Website generally. But I only used their statistics (which could be wrong or right). You only need to show why their statistics are not correct, without judging my intention why I used that website!

:facepalm: Serious read the page its source is a Public Forum(like religionforums) that is represented by Christians with not even having done a research or study on the subject. Also the whole article is dishonest it doesn't even mentions that the Public Forums latter tells that Islam doesn't loses members since it gets more by conversions and the source also mentions that it has no reliable data so a BIG FAIL there you go.

Ill give you two quick examples it says that in the Sub-Sharan Christians outnumber Muslims 2 to 1 do you belief this?

It then says that Muslims in the Netherlands are getting less devoted and go less to mosques however i live in the Netherlands and according to the original numbers the % has increased not decreased. Also it states that churches are not closing i live in Holland and i know they are closing

Here some links to proof my point:
http://achristianineurope.blogspot.be/2011/09/14-of-churches-in-netherlands-to-close.html

http://antonhein.com/26-church-everywhere-all-the-time

Quote Wikipedia:

A 2007 research God in Nederland, based on in-depth interviews of 1132 people concluded that 61% of the Dutch are non-affiliated. Fewer than 20% attend church regularly. Similar studies were done in 1966, 1979 and 1996, showing a steady decline of religious affiliation. That this trend is likely to continue is illustrated by the fact that in the age group under 35, 69% are non-affiliated. However, those who are religious tend to be more profoundly religious than in the past. Religious belief is also regarded as a very personal affair, as is illustrated by the fact that 60% of self-described believers are not affiliated with any organised religion. There is a stronger stress on positive sides of belief, with Hell and the concept of damnation being pushed into the background. One quarter of non-believers sometimes pray, but more in a sense of meditative self-reflection





Anyway i don't want this to be hold against Christians, the whole Article is blasphemous even for Bahai people if you actually took time to read what it says about Mohammed(saws)
 
Last edited:

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
We believe it has been interpreted too literal mostly through out the ages by people.

Do you have a Baha'i reference that might have more specifics?

I'd agree but I guess I'm looking for something to test my own understanding against.

And do the Baha'i see the entire Bible as divinely inspired?
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
:facepalm: Serious read the page its source is a Public Forum(like religionforums) that is represented by Christians with not even having done a research or study on the subject. Also the whole article is dishonest it doesn't even mentions that the Public Forums latter tells that Islam doesn't loses members since it gets more by conversions and the source also mentions that it has no reliable data so a BIG FAIL there you go.

Ill give you two quick examples it says that in the Sub-Sharan Christians outnumber Muslims 2 to 1 do you belief this?

It then says that Muslims in the Netherlands are getting less devoted and go less to mosques however i live in the Netherlands and according to the original numbers the % has increased not decreased. Also it states that churches are not closing i live in Holland and i know they are closing

Here some links to proof my point:
A Christian in Europe: 1/4 of churches in the Netherlands to close in the next 10 years

Church everywhere, all the time | Janet and Anton Hein

Quote Wikipedia:

A 2007 research God in Nederland, based on in-depth interviews of 1132 people concluded that 61% of the Dutch are non-affiliated. Fewer than 20% attend church regularly. Similar studies were done in 1966, 1979 and 1996, showing a steady decline of religious affiliation. That this trend is likely to continue is illustrated by the fact that in the age group under 35, 69% are non-affiliated. However, those who are religious tend to be more profoundly religious than in the past. Religious belief is also regarded as a very personal affair, as is illustrated by the fact that 60% of self-described believers are not affiliated with any organised religion. There is a stronger stress on positive sides of belief, with Hell and the concept of damnation being pushed into the background. One quarter of non-believers sometimes pray, but more in a sense of meditative self-reflection





Anyway i don't want this to be hold against Christians, the whole Article is blasphemous even for Bahai people if you actually took time to read what it says about Mohammed(saws)

Ok, I agree....they are biased website.
Anyways, I don't believe that numbers matter anyways, considering that the Baha'i Faith has been around for less than 200 years, and has been spread to the whole world, (among all races and religious believes0 without forcing anyone to believe or doing any war. There is not even 1 instance that someone in Baha'i faith, was forced to convert.
 

F0uad

Well-Known Member
Ok, I agree....they are biased website.
Anyways, I don't believe that numbers matter anyways, considering that the Baha'i Faith has been around for less than 200 years, and has been spread to the whole world, (among all races and religious believes0 without forcing anyone to believe or doing any war. There is not even 1 instance that someone in Baha'i faith, was forced to convert.
Ok but what has that to do with anything?

I mean the there are only around 6million Bahai people in comparison with Islam: 1,6-9Billion or Christianity: 2,1-4Billion its nothing. Even the grow is nothing compared with Islam or Christianity..

Its not that i disrespect the Bahai religion or its followers but i see the Bahai people sometimes use hadiths or Quranic verses yet Islamic teaching is very clear on the notion that Mohammed(saws) is the last messenger and prophet.
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
Do you have a Baha'i reference that might have more specifics?

I'd agree but I guess I'm looking for something to test my own understanding against.

And do the Baha'i see the entire Bible as divinely inspired?

Yes, the Bible is divinely inspired. There are minor inaccuracies in it, which even the Christian Scholars agree, but fundamentally it is legitimate.

There are many specifics in Baha'i scriptures which interpretes Bible symboically. Here you can find some:

About resurrection of Christ:

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 103-105

About Second coming of Christ:

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 110-112
 

F0uad

Well-Known Member
Yes, the Bible is divinely inspired. There are minor inaccuracies in it, which even the Christian Scholars agree, but fundamentally it is legitimate.

There are many specifics in Baha'i scriptures which interpretes Bible symboically. Here you can find some:

About resurrection of Christ:

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 103-105

About Second coming of Christ:

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 110-112

Ok and does the Quran have inaccuracies? One has to have them since for example the Crucifixion, sin-taking, son-of-god and other stories that contradict each other.
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
Ok but what has that to do with anything?

I mean the there are only around 6million Bahai people in comparison with Islam: 1,6-9Billion or Christianity: 2,1-4Billion its nothing. Even the grow is nothing compared with Islam or Christianity..

But don't you think that all religions initially, had much less number of people comparing to others?
and If it has nothing to do with anything, why do you mention number of Moslems and Christians, and comparing it with Baha'is?

Its not that i disrespect the Bahai religion or its followers but i see the Bahai people sometimes use hadiths or Quranic verses yet Islamic teaching is very clear on the notion that Mohammed(saws) is the last messenger and prophet.

The difference is in interpretation again!
We believe that, what was intended by "Day of Resurrection" was another guidance which "Spiritually" resurrects mankind.
So, Yes, Muhammad was the seal of Prophets and Messengers untill the Day of Resurrection.
We do not believe that the Words of God is limitted, He can send Messengers anytime He wants. No one can say He cannot.
But Quran and Hadithes has also many verses that talks about another revelation from God sometimes in a hidden way, and sometimes explicitly.

Moreover, there are many proofs, which I had placed many.
The biggest proof, is the unerring Books that Baha'u'llah revealed, without studying any.
There are clear verses in Quran:

“Every ‘om-mat’ hath its set time. And when their time is come, they shall not
retard it an hour; and shall not advance it.” (Al A’raf – 7:32)

“O children of Adam! There shall come to you Messengers from among
yourselves, rehearsing My signs to you; and whoso shall fear God and do good works, no fear shall be upon them, neither shall they be put to grief.” (Al A’raf – 7:33)

“To each age its Book. What He pleaseth shall God abrogate or confirm; for with
Him is the source of revelation.” (Ra’d – 13:38-39)

“Neither too soon nor too late shall ‘om-mat’ reach its appointed time.”
(Mu’menun – 23:45)

“He guideth whom He will into the right path. Thus have We made you an
intermediate ‘om-mat’.” (Baqarah – 2:136-137)


“Believe ye then part of the Book, and deny part? Qur’án 2:85.



There are also many fullfield prophecies and scientific discoveries found in Baha'i Scriptures, before anyone knew about them. Which I placed links to them in this thread as well as other.

Moreover, the fact that Prophet Mhammad talked about coming of Mehdi and Christ, means, God would send guidance to humanity.

Also, we believe in spiritual and symbolic interpretation of many verses and Hadithes, which there are clear eveidence in Quran, that some of it's verses are "Symbolic"..... and many many more proofs!

There are Hadithes that Mihdi is a Prophet, and He will reveal new book and law, which I have already placed.
 
Last edited:

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Thank you for your post,but you are completely wrong by saying that Baha'i Faith is the fastest-growing religion.

See the reports from the news,

[youtube]XfnagknpFBs[/youtube]
FOX TV News - Islam World Most Growing Religion 2010 - YouTube

[youtube]lp0yuUZD3-I[/youtube]
RT News: Many Americans Converting to Islam Despite Growing Islamaphobia - YouTube

[youtube]Y0-ZY-Nd-wA[/youtube]
BBC News Europeans converting to islam - YouTube
I do not regard Baha i as a contender for the fastest growing faith however I would like to add something to the claim Muslim's make that Islam is the fastest growing. It is hardly a meaningful statistic that Islam is the fastest growing religion if even true. In middle eastern Islam a new child born to Islamic parents is automatically counted as a new Muslim. Families in the middle east have approx 9 children to every 1.? in the western Christian leaning countries. Why they do this in such impoverished conditions is another subject. It is in most cases a risk of life and limb to leave Islam in many countries. There have been several cases of this recently. Since Islam is a state as well as a religion it's citizens are compelled if not outright forced to at least make a superficial claim to Islam. How is the statistics concerning the numbers of people added to the Islamic religion a meaningful fact even if true?
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Yes, the Bible is divinely inspired. There are minor inaccuracies in it, which even the Christian Scholars agree, but fundamentally it is legitimate.

Thank you for the references.

It's important to agree with whomever's teachings you are learning from I think.

While there is a lot there I agree with there is still some I don't. Enough that I can see Baha'i is not for me.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Could you have possibly found a more biased source ? I doubt it.
I chose them because they have the greatest credentials to comment on the gospels than any other person besides the apostles themselves. Every modern form of jurisprudence assigns a higher value to a competent source the earlier that source is. Its the basic historical method.

Matt Slick (aka The Slickster) God his masters from a quack school for quacks.
You apparently didn't get your spelling from a non quack school yourself. Besides none of the quotations above are from him.



The Westminster Theological Seminary is a Joke and it had not even been acredited by the AST (which will acredit pretty much any school) until 1997 which was 6 years after "the slickster" graduated.

The School is "not" recognized by any of the Major Christian religious bodies (Roman, Lutheran, Anglican, Orthadox).

That said .. we can not discount someone on the basis of ad hom. Lets have a look at what "the slickster" says.
I was not aware we were discussing the Westminster theological school.



Of course Slick gives us no references for this claim. Lets look at some things the Slickster left out. Things which would have to be included in "any" academic discussion of the topic.

Gospel of Mark
Could you at least post which of my statements you are referring to. The ones you did were not by this guy. They were by early church historians or fathers.



The Slickster gives an early date of 55 for Mark ?? .. again no reference.

He claims that the writer of John was "obviously" a eyewitness to the events of Christs life. Again .. no reference or explanation ??
You complain about the absence of references. Then make a counter claim and provide no references. Amazing. It is very easy to determine he was a witness by comparing his gospel accounts with the other witness accounts. This has been extensively done and John still stands.

This guy is not a scholar, he is a "slickster". He is making one sided claims without giving support nor even discussing the major claims of Biblical adadamia to the contrary.
Opinion is not fact unless proven. I was interested in the statements quoted by him not him in particular. Regardless of what kind of scholar he is the statements he quoted are found in many places and I posted many of them.

Robert Kysar writes the following on the authorship of the Gospel of John (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 3, pp. 919-920):
Gospel of John
Please post where at a site I am to find whatever it is you are claiming. I do not have the time to read everything contained in dozens of links people provide. If your claim rests on the statements you posted I find them relevant but very unconvincing. There are selective and insufficient minor points but if I can I will research them further.

Apparently the Slickster does not often read Bible dictionaries.
Why are you so obsessed with this guy I never heard of before. What degrees do you have that would persuade me to value your opinions.


Certainly not proof positive that John was written after 90 AD .. (notice both sides given )
This seems disconnected from any context. It also seems to suggest my claims are true. I don't get it.

Not by the Slickster though .. to him the writer of John was "Obviously" an eyewitness (no reference is given of course).
I have read that same conclusion in dozens of sites. In fact my NIV bible (worked on by 100+ scholars) asserts John is the author.

You would think someone with a Master's in Divinity would know these things. "Obviously" at least some of the graduates from from the Westminister Theological Seminary are not trained that well . Not only in the history of the Bible but in how to reference ones work.
I get it you don't like him. So we can add him to John, Paul, accepted commentators, etc that say things you don't like so you dismiss them. Is there anyone that disagrees with your unorthodox theology that you don't hand wave away.

And as for Slicks opening comment on "no mention of destruction of the Temple"
I will delete any following repeated personal comments about this guy that don't contain some actual applicability.



The commentary given by Slick suggest that one should just accept that there is nothing in the Gospels in relation to the destruction of the Temple.

This is at minimum disingenuous and at maximum borderline lying given the nature of the discussion.

Slick is not a Joke because of where he graduated ( hopefully some that graduate are better trained)

Slick is a Joke because he is a Joke.

His ommision of relevent material in his one sided bias, and his making of controversial claims without reference nor stating that these claims are controversial would give him a failing grade in any form of real acadamia.
And you think it is more acceptable to make claims counter to man with a masters degree who didn't provide some references by not referencing many of your points. You make a bunch of sweeping assertions and back up only 20%-30% and then complain when someone else does it. At the very least his were on the subject and not some personal meaningless diatribe.
 
Last edited:

F0uad

Well-Known Member
But don't you think that all religions initially, had much less number of people comparing to others?
and If it has nothing to do with anything, why do you mention number of Moslems and Christians, and comparing it with Baha'is?
It was not me who started that subject but i found dishonest links posted by several persons that's why i replied on it.

The difference is in interpretation again!
We believe that, what was intended by "Day of Resurrection" was another guidance which "Spiritually" resurrects mankind.
So, Yes, Muhammad was the seal of Prophets and Messengers untill the Day of Resurrection.
We do not believe that the Words of God is limitted, He can send Messengers anytime He wants. No one can say He cannot.
But Quran and Hadithes has also many verses that talks about another revelation from God sometimes in a hidden way, and sometimes explicitly.
Ok let me ask something differently why don't the Bahai people take the Hadiths and Tasfeer in when they are going to interpret a verse? Almost all the verses have a context so why not follow the context that the companions and the prophet Mohammed(saws) has passed down?

Moreover, there are many proofs, which I had placed many.
The biggest proof, is the unerring Books that Baha'u'llah revealed, without studying any.
There are clear verses in Quran:

“Every ‘om-mat’ hath its set time. And when their time is come, they shall not
retard it an hour; and shall not advance it.” (Al A’raf – 7:32)
Verse 31 starts with:

O Children of Adam! wear your beautiful apparel at every time and place of prayer: eat and drink: But waste not by excess, for Allah loveth not the wasters.

Verse 32:
Say: Who hath forbidden the beautiful (gifts) of Allah, which He hath produced for His servants, and the things, clean and pure, (which He hath provided) for sustenance? Say: They are, in the life of this world, for those who believe, (and) purely for them on the Day of Judgment. Thus do We explain the signs in detail for those who understand.

I cant find anything of what you said in the text..

“O children of Adam! There shall come to you Messengers from among
yourselves, rehearsing My signs to you; and whoso shall fear God and do good works, no fear shall be upon them, neither shall they be put to grief.” (Al A’raf – 7:33)
This is the verse 33:

Say: the things that my Lord hath indeed forbidden are: shameful deeds, whether open or secret; sins and trespasses against truth or reason; assigning of partners to Allah, for which He hath given no authority; and saying things about Allah of which ye have no knowledge.

Again nothing in the verse or chapter that indicates anything of what you said.
“To each age its Book. What He pleaseth shall God abrogate or confirm; for with
Him is the source of revelation.” (Ra’d – 13:38-39)
Verse 38-39:
We did send apostles before thee, and appointed for them wives and children: and it was never the part of an apostle to bring a sign except as Allah permitted (or commanded). For each period is a Book revealed. Allah doth blot out or confirm what He pleaseth: with Him is the Mother of the Book.

The word Abrogation is not even mentioned or does it speak about the future, verse 39 clearly says Revealed therefore speaking in the past.

“Neither too soon nor too late shall ‘om-mat’ reach its appointed time.”
(Mu’menun – 23:45)
Verse 45 says: Then We sent Moses and his brother Aaron, with Our Signs and authority manifest,

“He guideth whom He will into the right path. Thus have We made you an
intermediate ‘om-mat’.” (Baqarah – 2:136-137)
What kind of Quran or translation are you using? :shrug:

135:
They say: "Become Jews or Christians if ye would be guided (To salvation)." Say thou: "Nay! (I would rather) the Religion of Abraham the True, and he joined not gods with Allah."

136:
Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in Islam)."

137:
So if they believe as ye believe, they are indeed on the right path; but if they turn back, it is they who are in schism; but Allah will suffice thee as against them, and He is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing.

“Believe ye then part of the Book, and deny part? Qur’án 2:85.
I think that was addressed to yourself?

There are also many fullfield prophecies and scientific discoveries found in Baha'i Scriptures, before anyone knew about them. Which I placed links to them in this thread as well as other.

Moreover, the fact that Prophet Mhammad talked about coming of Mehdi and Christ, means, God would send guidance to humanity.

Also, we believe in spiritual and symbolic interpretation of many verses and Hadithes, which there are clear eveidence in Quran, that some of it's verses are "Symbolic"..... and many many more proofs!

There are Hadithes that Mihdi is a Prophet, and He will reveal new book and law, which I have already placed.
First of all Bab/Bahullah is already dead so what has the Mahdi to do with him and he will not have a new law according to hadiths, Secondly he would rule a Caliphate and will lead the believers (Christians/Muslims) against the non-believers, Thirdly the Madhi is not a prophet or messenger but a pious and righteous leader.

Some questions:

1. What kind of Quran are you using, our which site since i cannot find any of the verses you have quoted?
2. How can the Bab or Abdullah be a messenger/prophet when the Quran and Hadiths are clear that no-one should come after Mohammed(saws)?
3. Why don't we use the interpretations of the companions of the prophet Mohammed(saws) and hes own interpretations and explanations?

I didn't even use a tasfeer to refute your interpretations because i simply cannot find the verses you quoted.. :confused:
 
Last edited:
Top