• 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!

Can theological difference between the Gospels and the Qur'an be resolved?

Can theological difference between the Gospels and the Qur'an be resolved?

  • Yes

    Votes: 8 47.1%
  • No

    Votes: 7 41.2%
  • Possibly

    Votes: 1 5.9%
  • I don't know

    Votes: 1 5.9%

  • Total voters
    17

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm going to keep my reply very short. Jesus was a pacifist because he could have destroyed the Roman Empire if he wanted to:

'But Jesus said to him, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels? How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?”' Matthew 26:52-54

'And it came to pass on a certain night that the angel of the Lord went out, and killed in the camp of the Assyrians one hundred and eighty-five thousand; and when people arose early in the morning, there were the corpses—all dead. ' II Kings 19:35

Let's do some quick math. One legion consisted of about 6000 soldiers, so 12 legions of angels would be at least 72 000. If one angel can kill 185 000 people, that means Jesus could have easily annihilated 13 320 000 000 people if he so wished. That's double the current Earth population.

I think the main different between our worldviews is that you take a very realistic, practical approach to religion; whereas I attribute a lot to spirituality and the metaphysical world. I believe that God could have revealed the Gospel of Christ at any time, at any place on the Earth, no matter how isolated it may have been. And indeed that is what is happening now.
I do take a practical approach to my faith, but will have the discernment when to see scripture as spiritually rather than literally.

A good example are the verses in the Olivet discourse concerning Christ Returning on clouds of great power. This is not to be interpreted literally but instead symbolically where heaven denotes loftiness. The clouds refer to traditions and the ways of men that obscure our vision from seeing the truth. An example are the false expectations the Jews had in recognising their Messiah such as being One like King David who would defeat their enemies. Such clouds obscure belief in Muhammad and more recently Bahá’u’lláh.
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
The new covenant was inaugurated in front of both Gentiles and Jews at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion. The last supper was merely a symbolic gesture to this event. (The wine and bread symbolized his body and blood which would be broken and spilt on the cross). The New covenant was established between God and all nations, not exclusively to the Jewish people like the Old covenant.
According to my understanding this is true.

And so we return to our original point. From what I can understand, Baha’Is believe that Jesus is who he claimed to be. The focus of the debate is whether Yahweh and Allah is the same God. ie did Jesus receive revelation from the same God which Muhammad did? My argument was if Yahweh went through all the trouble of establishing the new covenant through Yeshua, why would He impose concepts of the old covenant/Mosaic Law to Muhammad which Yahweh tried to demolish?
Basically one could ask the question in reverse - Why would Yahweh abolish that which He had gone to all the trouble of having the Jews exiled from Egypt for? Ie why would he establish all these social laws just to have them abolished?

According to my understanding of the Baha'i perspective, it is that the social aspects of the law (as opposed to the moral aspects of the law) are suited to the needs and requirements of the age in which they were revealed. Accordingly for example because the Jews were no longer living under the organised society of the egyptians with judges to appeal to, martial law was established (the law of eye for an eye tooth for a tooth). By comparison the Jews in the time of Jesus were living under the empire of the romans, and could appeal to organised law to deal with injustice. So the law of eye for an eye was adapted to "turn the other cheek" and martial law was abolished. So basically what it boils down to from a Baha'i perspective is that the law that Yahweh revealed was suitable for the time and place it was revealed, and the Gospel law was suitable for the time it was revealed. Then the law revealed by Yahweh as contained in the Quran was suited to the needs and requirements of the age in which it was revealed as there were savage tribes existing which had yet to be brought under the tent of civilisation, and whom Islam was destined to influence.


'A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code [the Law].' - Romans 2:28-29
According to my understanding what this is saying is that a person is not a Jew who outwardly practices the social aspects of the Mosaic law, but inwardly is morally corrupt, rather a person is a true Jew who has cleansed the heart from immorality.

Note that my argument is not focusing on the relationship with God and the Arab people. My argument is within God Himself. Why would Yahweh/Allah, after all the suffering at the crucifixion in order to abolish the Law, decide to impose it again to Muhammad?
To reiterate, Jesus came to abolish certain social aspects of the law which were replaced by Gospel law, as they were not fitted to pragmatic needs and requirements, then under a differing set of social requirements a different social law was revealed. It is like a physician, when the body suffers from high blood pressure the prescription for low blood pressure will not be given as this could worsen the condition of the patient. Then later on if the patient is suffering low blood pressure the prescription for high blood pressure will not be given. Likewise the social prescription given to the body of humanity varies accordingly to pragmatic needs and requirements.

Kind regards :)
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
According to my understanding this is true.


Basically one could ask the question in reverse - Why would Yahweh abolish that which He had gone to all the trouble of having the Jews exiled from Egypt for? Ie why would he establish all these social laws just to have them abolished?

According to my understanding of the Baha'i perspective, it is that the social aspects of the law (as opposed to the moral aspects of the law) are suited to the needs and requirements of the age in which they were revealed. Accordingly for example because the Jews were no longer living under the organised society of the egyptians with judges to appeal to, martial law was established (the law of eye for an eye tooth for a tooth). By comparison the Jews in the time of Jesus were living under the empire of the romans, and could appeal to organised law to deal with injustice. So the law of eye for an eye was adapted to "turn the other cheek" and martial law was abolished. So basically what it boils down to from a Baha'i perspective is that the law that Yahweh revealed was suitable for the time and place it was revealed, and the Gospel law was suitable for the time it was revealed. Then the law revealed by Yahweh as contained in the Quran was suited to the needs and requirements of the age in which it was revealed as there were savage tribes existing which had yet to be brought under the tent of civilisation, and whom Islam was destined to influence.



According to my understanding what this is saying is that a person is not a Jew who outwardly practices the social aspects of the Mosaic law, but inwardly is morally corrupt, rather a person is a true Jew who has cleansed the heart from immorality.


To reiterate, Jesus came to abolish certain social aspects of the law which were replaced by Gospel law, as they were not fitted to pragmatic needs and requirements, then under a differing set of social requirements a different social law was revealed. It is like a physician, when the body suffers from high blood pressure the prescription for low blood pressure will not be given as this could worsen the condition of the patient. Then later on if the patient is suffering low blood pressure the prescription for high blood pressure will not be given. Likewise the social prescription given to the body of humanity varies accordingly to pragmatic needs and requirements.

Kind regards :)
The question I always ask is way God had the death penalty by stoning for certain laws like breaking the Sabbath, and then, not only the death penalty, but even the Sabbath were done away with. Laws that were said to be forever I think it says. But the biggest theological difference I think is how Jesus had the authority to forgive sins and that by believing in him a person's sins were forgiven and they were thus qualified to go to heaven. Other religions, and probably Islam included, makes it so a person has to "work" for their salvation. Then the Baha'is come along and change everything by saying their is no "hell" to be saved from. It makes really wonder if it is God making this stuff up or people.
 
Top