Bahai's and the Bible. Errant or Inerrant. Holistic or cherry picking?

[Dawnofhope]

Well, all the Bahai's who have participated so far in my opinion is against this Dibdin person. He obviously does not have any choice but admit the most blatant, kindergarten level scholarship that says no one knows who in the world were the authors of the canonical Gospels. There is nothing more blatant than that in any kind of NT scholarship. But the Bahai's have been saying otherwise.

Nevertheless, I thank you for a nice read. Though I think this paper by Dibdin is one of the most unscholarly works I have ever read, it was good to know the perspective they have taken. I dont know why they have given scholars like FF Bruce, one of the most respected and revered Bible scholars, when they have not taken anything substantive from his work. This is full of assumptions. Though the Gospels were utterly anonymous, lets just assume "they were uplifted and inspired". Think about it, how in the world is that a valid thesis? For the sake of our faith, lets just assume this. Thats great???

I dont know what to say brother.

Peace.

Dibdin isn’t trying to add to Christian scholarship, rather Baha’i scholarship. There’s an important distinction, in that Baha’is recognise some degree of authority within the Baha’i writings whereas Christians don’t. So the Baha’is have been discussing the Bible within a Western setting from the end of nineteenth century when those from a Christian background became Baha’is. Most were from a Christian background. So in providing the paper written in 1996 it provides a glimpse of the evolution of Baha’i thought about the Bible over a one hundred year period. The Baha’is on RF are a diverse group from differing backgrounds including Protestant, Catholic, evangelical, atheism, agnosticism and Islam. We’re all engaged in a process of learning. Part of that learning is study of the Baha’i and Christian texts. Another part is becoming acquainted with biblical scholarship. We’re not all university scholars here and not claiming to be experts.

In regards authorship of the Gospels there is no agreement amongst scholars. Although the majority would attribute these books to unknown authors, there’s a significant minority who believe it was the Apostle John who wrote the Gospel of John. My personal view is that we can not know for certain who wrote any of the Gospels from the available evidence. There may be a faith based argument that it was the Apostle John for both Christians and Baha’is but there’s a case to be made that it wasn’t. The Baha’is here are simply providing their views in all sincerity as you have asked.

 

[firedragon]

Dibdin isn’t trying to add to Christian scholarship, rather Baha’i scholarship.

I dont recognise "Christian scholarship" but I do recognise New Testament scholarship. You can add to scholarship with valid scholarship, not unscholarly, under researched, apologetics. Also, assumption that ""they were uplifted and inspired" though we have no clue who were the authors is not scholarship, it just assumption to provide some foundation to a particular faith.

Thus, it is very important to make this distinction.

In regards authorship of the Gospels there is no agreement amongst scholars. Although the majority would attribute these books to unknown authors, there’s a significant minority who believe it was the Apostle John who wrote the Gospel of John.

What are the evidences provided by them? Please quote.
I am interested in understanding exactly what this thesis is. Thus, who are these scholars, what are their arguments to say that it was this apostle John? Who is this apostle John? Is it the son of Zebedee, or the elder? I presume you are referring to the son of Zebedee, the brother of James who were fishermen in Matthew.

Thus, since you said this I will expect your response and it will be an interesting area to explore.

 

[firedragon]

We’re not all university scholars here and not claiming to be experts.

When you say "we're" you are making a big mistake. Because there are some Bahai's who pretend to be experts in languages they have absolutely no knowledge of. Thus Adrian, just because you may have the humility to say this, others are not. No one needs to be scholars, but what we need to do is make an honest exploration.

Nevertheless, the Bahai writings use the same apologetics that Christians use but they claim "this is scholarship". Apologetics is not scholarship, though scholarship maybe used for apologetics. The Bahai arguments are almost exactly the same arguments used by Christian evangelists. The exact same thing. But this is when they are defending the Bible in order to propagate the Bahai theology and establish the Biblical background. This is not scholarship and if someone is calling it scholarship they dont know what scholarship means. Sorry to say this but they are taking innocent people for granted.

I learned about the Bahai faith from you Adrian. I am no expert in your theology nor have I got any studies in your scripture. That is why I am not addressing your scripture in my discussions. But the Bahai's have been addressing all the scripture and saying that "they have studied the scripture" but when asked for a simple matter, they do not respond directly. And the things they say have no basis whatsoever and it is evident that though some claim to have "studied", they have not even read a single chapter in these scriptures. Not a single chapter. That was amazing to me. I have seen claims that "we only listen to unbiased scholarship, not scholars who are atheists or against Christianity or criticises Christians". But reading through the Bahai literature Bahaullah, Abdul Baha, Effendi, all of them criticise Christians, and what do they call "Christian Divines" have made huge blunders in rendering the Bible etc etc etc. Thus, that's a hypocritical position to say "we dont listen to critics of Christianity" while basically worshiping several critics of Christianity as part of the core doctrine.

Anyway, I look forward to your references to these scholars you were speaking of. I would like to see what these scholars argue to prove that John the son of Zebedee wrote the Gospel according to John.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Hi @firedragon, Its late here and I hope to respond in greater depth tomorrow to some of the important issues you raise.

To be clear, I'm not a religious scholar though I have three university degrees in science, medicine and a postgraduate fellowship in general practice. I have studied theology briefly as an elective during my medical studies. I'm thinking about taking a couple of papers this year on Old Testament and New Testament theology. Between family life and a busy professional life, it may be hard to find the time.

In regards the C Dibdin paper, it is aimed at a Baha'i audience, was published in the Association of Baha'i Studies. It appears appropriately referenced and draws on a range of literature (30 books). It also appears concise, informative and clearly written. What he says in reasonable regards a Baha'i perspective is solid and he references some of the key Baha'i works in this area. Most universities don't have courses on the Baha'i Faith. I don't know what his credentials are beyond his involvement in Baha'i scholarship. Once again it does directly answer your question about how Baha'is might approach study of the Christian Bible.

The specific question about the authorship of the Gospel of John is useful in that it could determine how a Baha'i such as myself would investigate this question. The answer is the same way everyone else should. In addition Baha'ís would refer to the Baha'i writings.

According to Wikipedia:

The authorship of the Johannine works—the Gospel According to St. John, the three Epistles of John, and the Revelation of St. John the Divine—has been debated by scholars since at least the 2nd century AD.[1] The debate focuses mainly on the identity of the author(s), as well as the date and location of authorship of these writings.

Although authorship of all of these works has traditionally been attributed to John the Apostle,[2] only a minority of contemporary scholars believe he wrote the gospel,[3] and most conclude that he wrote none of them.[4][5] Although some scholars conclude the author of the epistles was different from that of the gospel, most scholars agree that all three epistles are written by the same author.[6][7][8]

References

1. ^ F. L. Cross, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 45
2. ^ Jump up to:a b Stephen L Harris, Understanding the Bible, (Palo Alto: Mayfield, 1985), 355
3. ^ Lindars, Edwards & Court 2000, p. 41.
4. ^ Jump up to:a b "Although ancient traditions attributed to the Apostle John the Fourth Gospel, the Book of Revelation, and the three Epistles of John, modern scholars believe that he wrote none of them." Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible (Palo Alto: Mayfield, 1985) p. 355
5. ^ Jump up to:a b c Kelly, Joseph F. (1 October 2012). History and Heresy: How Historical Forces Can Create Doctrinal Conflicts. Liturgical Press. p. 115. ISBN 978-0-8146-5999-1.
6. ^ Kruger, Michael J. (30 April 2012). My library My History Books on Google Play Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books. p. 272. ISBN 9781433530814.
7. ^ Brown, Raymond E. (1988). The Gospel and Epistles of John: A Concise Commentary. p. 105. ISBN 9780814612835.
8. ^ Marshall, I. Howard (14 July 1978). The Epistles of John. ISBN 9781467422321.

Authorship of the Johannine works - Wikipedia

So according to Wikipedia that is appropriately referenced, a minority of contemporary scholars believe the Apostle John wrote the Gospel of John.

The arguments used in favor of the Apostle John's authorship should be familiar to you. If not I'm happy to present them.

 

[firedragon]

Hi @firedragon, Its late here and I hope to respond in greater depth tomorrow to some of the important issues you raise.

Of course brother. Thank you so much.

To be clear, I'm not a religious scholar though I have three university degrees in science, medicine and a postgraduate fellowship in general practice. I have studied theology briefly as an elective during my medical studies. I'm thinking about taking a couple of papers this year on Old Testament and New Testament theology. Between family life and a busy professional life, it may be hard to find the time.

I am indeed in debt and it's an honour to meet such a person.

In regards the C Dibdin paper, it is aimed at a Baha'i audience, was published in the Association of Baha'i Studies. It appears appropriately referenced and draws on a range of literature (30 books). It also appears concise, informative and clearly written. What he says in reasonable regards a Baha'i perspective is solid and he references some of the key Baha'i works in this area. Most universities don't have courses on the Baha'i Faith. I don't know what his credentials are beyond his involvement in Baha'i scholarship. Once again it does directly answer your question about how Baha'is might approach study of the Christian Bible.

I understand.

According to Wikipedia:

The authorship of the Johannine works—the Gospel According to St. John, the three Epistles of John, and the Revelation of St. John the Divine—has been debated by scholars since at least the 2nd century AD.[1] The debate focuses mainly on the identity of the author(s), as well as the date and location of authorship of these writings.

Although authorship of all of these works has traditionally been attributed to John the Apostle,[2] only a minority of contemporary scholars believe he wrote the gospel,[3] and most conclude that he wrote none of them.[4][5] Although some scholars conclude the author of the epistles was different from that of the gospel, most scholars agree that all three epistles are written by the same author.[6][7][8]

References

1. ^ F. L. Cross, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 45
2. ^ Jump up to:a b Stephen L Harris, Understanding the Bible, (Palo Alto: Mayfield, 1985), 355
3. ^ Lindars, Edwards & Court 2000, p. 41.
4. ^ Jump up to:a b "Although ancient traditions attributed to the Apostle John the Fourth Gospel, the Book of Revelation, and the three Epistles of John, modern scholars believe that he wrote none of them." Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible (Palo Alto: Mayfield, 1985) p. 355
5. ^ Jump up to:a b c Kelly, Joseph F. (1 October 2012). History and Heresy: How Historical Forces Can Create Doctrinal Conflicts. Liturgical Press. p. 115. ISBN 978-0-8146-5999-1.
6. ^ Kruger, Michael J. (30 April 2012). My library My History Books on Google Play Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books. p. 272. ISBN 9781433530814.
7. ^ Brown, Raymond E. (1988). The Gospel and Epistles of John: A Concise Commentary. p. 105. ISBN 9780814612835.
8. ^ Marshall, I. Howard (14 July 1978). The Epistles of John. ISBN 9781467422321.

Authorship of the Johannine works - Wikipedia

So according to Wikipedia that is appropriately referenced, a minority of contemporary scholars believe the Apostle John wrote the Gospel of John.

If you read the same book you have quoted above by Raymond Brown, he with no hesitation states that though the early church had beliefs of the Gospel of John being written by the so called "beloved disciple" and that they assume its John the son of Zebedee, and that he was the authority behind the Gospel of John, he disagrees and he says that it is doubted by most scholars that any of the Gospels were written by any eyewitness.

There is a reason for me to ask you for the exact reasoning of the scholars you are referring to. Try and find some scholars who support your view that John was written by John and give the reasoning they pose. Then you would understand a lot of things.

 

[Vinayaka]

It is the verse most commonly quoted to me by Christians to support their claims of exclusive truth. As with all scriptures, the textural, cultural and historical context needs to be considered.

The statement is made by Jesus just after He informed His disciples of His imminent martyrdom, His disciples were understandably extremely distressed. He comforted them, informing them that in His Father's House there were many mansions and after His departure He would prepare a place for each of them. He then spoke the words:

"I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the father, but by me." (John 14:6)

Was He telling His disciples not to follow Buddhism and Hinduism? That of course would make no sense as Buddhism and Hinduism were largely unknown to His disciples and there are no other specific references in the New Testament that refer to these religions. Perhaps He was criticising Islam? Clearly not, as Islam wasn't to emerge for nearly six hundred years later on the Arabian peninsula.

A much more likely explanation is He was reiterating that He was the Promised Jewish Messiah. We know from history many of the Jews were expecting the Messiah to come at that time and free them from Roman rule. Christ's audience was almost exclusively Jewish.

I wasn't looking to argue. Everyone is entitled to their POV.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I dont recognise "Christian scholarship" but I do recognise New Testament scholarship. You can add to scholarship with valid scholarship, not unscholarly, under researched, apologetics. Also, assumption that ""they were uplifted and inspired" though we have no clue who were the authors is not scholarship, it just assumption to provide some foundation to a particular faith.

Thus, it is very important to make this distinction.

The most important scholaral distinction for me is that a Messenger from God has given what is needed in relation to what is important about the Bible. That scholarship can not be refuted, it comes from the all Knowing God.

I see that is important when discussing sundary aspects of the Bible with a Baha'i.

So first and foremost we look at the Baha'i Writings to understand what it is that is in the Bible, as the Bible has been assured as a sure spiritual guide.

There are Bible Scholars that became Baha'i, there are Christian Ministers that became Baha'i and have written books, I personally turn to them first, as they have had a vision from both sides of the debates.

Scholars are held in very hight esteem in the Baha'i Writings, they are also the first of the people that reject the Messengers.

Regards Tony

 

[firedragon]

So first and foremost we look at the Baha'i Writings to understand what it is that is in the Bible,

Your Bahai writings has addressed a false verse and said it was symbolic thinking it was an authentic verse. It was Abdul Baha.

So with that type of error, I cannot trust Bahai writings. And with Bahai's not even attempting to answer this.

There are Bible Scholars that became Baha'i, there are Christian Ministers that became Baha'i and have written books, I personally turn to them first, as they have had a vision from both sides of the debates.

There all kinds of all kinds who convert from one religion to another. Doesnt mean much.

I have met a church elder of the protestant, born again movement who was preaching at a large gathering. He spoke to me about a guy I knew for many many years who had converted to his Christian faith. He told me that he has read the Quran well since he was a Muslim prior to his conversion so he could compare. Yet, I know this guy who converted personally. And I know that he has never in his life read the Quran. Never. He cannot read a single word of arabic, and he never read the English translation. So that was just a piece of nonsense to me.

Sorry. This kind of preaching does not address the issues in the thread. This is just proselytising.

Thanks

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Your Bahai writings has addressed a false verse and said it was symbolic thinking it was an authentic verse. It was Abdul Baha.

@Tony Bristow-Stagg,
Do you know which specific verse @firedragon is referring when he says a false verse in Bible? Maybe it was quoted, but I missed it.

 

[firedragon]

@Tony Bristow-Stagg,
Do you know which specific verse @firedragon is referring when he says a false verse in Bible? Maybe it was quoted, but I missed it.

End of Luke. I cannot remember the exact verse number. But you cannot miss it, because it is the end of Luke. The ascension verse.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

End of Luke. I cannot remember the exact verse number. But you cannot miss it, because it is the end of Luke. The ascension verse.

I did a search of all pages up to this post and did not find where you quoted Luke?

There was a discussion on Luke for a few pages.

Regards Tony

 

[InvestigateTruth]

End of Luke. I cannot remember the exact verse number. But you cannot miss it, because it is the end of Luke. The ascension verse.

I dont know. Please quote it and also quote Abdulbaha commentary on the verse. Then show according to what scholarly evidences it is a false verse.

If you have done all these before, and I missed it, my apologies. But i cannot find them.

 

[firedragon]

I did a search of all pages up to this post and did not find where you quoted Luke?

There was a discussion on Luke for a few pages.

Regards Tony

I did.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

@firedragon

This one?

Bahai's and the Bible. Errant or Inerrant. Holistic or cherry picking?

Bahai's and the Bible. Errant or Inerrant. Holistic or cherry picking?

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I did.

Well, did. You find it, maybe post #171?

It was a post reply to David (LOH)

Regards Tony

 

[firedragon]

I dont know. Please quote it and also quote Abdulbaha commentary on the verse. Then show according to what scholarly evidences it is a false verse.

If you have done all these before, and I missed it, my apologies. But i cannot find them.

Do I have to quote Luke? When I say the end of it is it that hard to find? I cannot understand this really.

Anyway, its chapter 24 verse 51.

Abdul Baha speaks of the ascension exactly as said in this verse in "some questions answered". You cannot miss it. The chapter on the ascension if I am not mistaken.

The oldest Bible manuscript goes like this

51 And it came to pass, as he blessed them, he was separated from them.

52 And they returned to Jerusalem with great joy,

53 and were continually in the temple praising God.

But in the KJV it will be

24:51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from
them, and carried up into heaven.
24:52 And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great
joy:
24:53 And were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God.
Amen.



This is a very well known variant, and is an obvious forgery to insert the ascension. And Abdul Baha addressed this and didnt know that it was an insertion but he assumed it was part of the text. The problem is that he didnt have access to this manuscript. He should have known that this is not authentic.

 

[firedragon]

Well, did. You find it, maybe post #171?

It was a post reply to David (LOH)

Regards Tony

Please read this last post. If you wish I will cut and paste it here.

Do I have to quote Luke? When I say the end of it is it that hard to find? I cannot understand this really.

Anyway, its chapter 24 verse 51.

Abdul Baha speaks of the ascension exactly as said in this verse in "some questions answered". You cannot miss it. The chapter on the ascension if I am not mistaken.

The oldest Bible manuscript goes like this

51 And it came to pass, as he blessed them, he was separated from them.

52 And they returned to Jerusalem with great joy,

53 and were continually in the temple praising God.

But in the KJV it will be

24:51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from
them, and carried up into heaven.
24:52 And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great
joy:
24:53 And were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God.
Amen.

This is a very well known variant, and is an obvious forgery to insert the ascension. And Abdul Baha addressed this and didnt know that it was an insertion but he assumed it was part of the text. The problem is that he didnt have access to this manuscript. He should have known that this is not authentic.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Please read this last post. If you wish I will cut and paste it here.

Do I have to quote Luke? When I say the end of it is it that hard to find? I cannot understand this really.

Anyway, its chapter 24 verse 51.

Abdul Baha speaks of the ascension exactly as said in this verse in "some questions answered". You cannot miss it. The chapter on the ascension if I am not mistaken.

The oldest Bible manuscript goes like this

51 And it came to pass, as he blessed them, he was separated from them.

52 And they returned to Jerusalem with great joy,

53 and were continually in the temple praising God.

But in the KJV it will be

24:51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from
them, and carried up into heaven.
24:52 And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great
joy:
24:53 And were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God.
Amen.

This is a very well known variant, and is an obvious forgery to insert the ascension. And Abdul Baha addressed this and didnt know that it was an insertion but he assumed it was part of the text. The problem is that he didnt have access to this manuscript. He should have known that this is not authentic.

Thank you.

Regards Tony

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Abdul Baha speaks of the ascension exactly as said in this verse in "some questions answered". You cannot miss it. The chapter on the ascension if I am not mistaken.

.

Thanks.

Here is the list of Chapters in Some Answered Questions related to Christian subject. I dont see a section related to ascension. Do you remember exactly which section?

Read online
Expand all
Some Answered Questions

• Part 2: Some Christian Subjects
  1. Intelligible Realities and Their Expression through Sensible Forms
  2. The Birth of Christ
  3. The Greatness of Christ
  4. True Baptism
  5. Baptism and the Changing Law of God
  6. The Bread and the Wine
  7. The Miracles of Christ
  8. The Resurrection of Christ
  9. The Descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles
  10. The Holy Spirit
  11. The Second Coming of Christ and the Day of Judgement
  12. The Trinity
  13. The Pre-existence of Christ
  14. Sin and Atonement
  15. Adam and Eve
  16. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit
  17. “Many Are Called, but Few Are Chosen”
  18. The Return of the Prophets
  19. Peter and the Papacy
  20. Free Will and Predestination

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Please read this last post. If you wish I will cut and paste it here.

Do I have to quote Luke? When I say the end of it is it that hard to find? I cannot understand this really.

Anyway, its chapter 24 verse 51.

Abdul Baha speaks of the ascension exactly as said in this verse in "some questions answered". You cannot miss it. The chapter on the ascension if I am not mistaken.

The oldest Bible manuscript goes like this

51 And it came to pass, as he blessed them, he was separated from them.

52 And they returned to Jerusalem with great joy,

53 and were continually in the temple praising God.

But in the KJV it will be

24:51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from
them, and carried up into heaven.
24:52 And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great
joy:
24:53 And were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God.
Amen.

This is a very well known variant, and is an obvious forgery to insert the ascension. And Abdul Baha addressed this and didnt know that it was an insertion but he assumed it was part of the text. The problem is that he didnt have access to this manuscript. He should have known that this is not authentic.

Luke 24:51–53

YLT
51and it came to pass, in his blessing them, he was parted from them, and was borne up to the heaven; 52and they, having bowed before him, did turn back to Jerusalem with great joy, 53and were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen.

Luke 24:51–53

RSV

51 While he blessed them, he parted from them, and was carried up into heaven. 52 And they returned to Jerusalem with great joy, 53 and were continually in the temple blessing God.

Luke 24:51–53

The Message

and while blessing them, took his leave, being carried up to heaven.

52–53 And they were on their knees, worshiping him. They returned to Jerusalem bursting with joy. They spent all their time in the Temple praising God. Yes.

So as you know, there are ample translations.

I remember watching a show on how the KJV came into being and the task was to provide the best translation possible.

I can not see your point are these not translated from the original transcript available?

Regards Tony