Does the Bible mention Islam?

BilliardsBall said:

What? The Jewish people and some Roman people called for the death of the Christ, part of God's redemptive plan, per the Bible.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and not all Jews of Israel, wanted Christ Jesus crucified, that includes the
12 disciples of Jesus and many others of Israel.
Therefore there are two groups of Jews in Israel.
This is why it's written
"Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel" Romans 9:6.

Therefore not all Jews are of Israel.

So those Jews that yelled to curicify Jesus, are not of Israel.

" I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan" Revelation 2:9.

Note that even Christ Jesus have denounce those Jews, who say they are Jews and are not.

BilliardsBall said:

What? The Jewish people and some Roman people called for the death of the Christ, part of God's redemptive plan, per the Bible.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and not all Jews of Israel, wanted Christ Jesus crucified, that includes the
12 disciples of Jesus and many others of Israel.
Therefore there are two groups of Jews in Israel.
This is why it's written
"Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel" Romans 9:6.

Therefore not all Jews are of Israel.

So those Jews that yelled to curicify Jesus, are not of Israel.

" I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan" Revelation 2:9.

Note that even Christ Jesus have denounce those Jews, who say they are Jews and are not.

Faithofchristian said:

Yeah, and not all Jews of Israel, wanted Christ Jesus crucified, that includes the
12 disciples of Jesus and many others of Israel.
Therefore there are two groups of Jews in Israel.
This is why it's written
"Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel" Romans 9:6.

Therefore not all Jews are of Israel.

So those Jews that yelled to curicify Jesus, are not of Israel.

" I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan" Revelation 2:9.

Note that even Christ Jesus have denounce those Jews, who say they are Jews and are not.

Click to expand...

One can then then see, when using that argument, that is applicable to Christains in accepting Muhammad and also in accepting Baha'u'llah in this Day of God.

In accepting Baha'u'llah, one has to accept all of Gods Messengers and as such becomes all the names of the followers of all of Gods Faiths.

One becomes a Jew in acceptance of Abraham and Moses, a Christain in acceptance of Christ, a Muslim in acceptance of Muhammad, a Buddhist in acceptance of Buddha, a Zoroastrian in acceptance of Zoroaster and a follower of Krishna the Bab and Baha'u'llah.

One fold, One Shepherd, our One God's will done on earth as in heaven. What a great day!

Regards Tony

adrian009 said:

In regards our attitude towards studying the Bible;

The Universal House of Justice has asked us to recommend your continued study of “Some Answered Questions” since this book contains the interpretations given by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá on the meaning of some of the passages you mention from the Book of Daniel as well as other subjects found in the Old and New Testaments. You will note that in addition to giving His explanations, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá encourages personal initiative in unravelling divine mysteries. For example, at the end of Chapter XX on “The Necessity of Baptism” He says: “This subject needs deep thought. Then the cause of these changes will be evident and apparent.” And at the end of Chapter XXX on “Adam and Eve", after setting forth His own interpretation of the subject, He goes on to say: “This is one of the meanings of the Biblical story of Adam. Reflect until you discover the others.
(Universal House of Justice, Extracts From The Bahá’í Writings And From Letters Of The Guardian And The Universal House Of Justice On The Old And New Testaments)

What I understand is that we are asked not only to study what the Baha'i writings have to say about the Bible but to go beyond that. We should take personal initiative to unravel the Divine mysteries.

Click to expand...

I see that as something we are encouraged to do, not a commandment. There is only so much time in the day and we have to choose what is most important. In my case what is most beneficial to other people is more important than unraveling the divine mysteries for myself. Moreover, there are plenty of Baha'u'llah's writings I have yet to unravel.

adrian009 said:

As above the issue is being certain that the Gospel and Torah has the exact words of Christ or Moses.

Click to expand...

How could they possibly have the exact words?

adrian009 said:

Who wrote the Gospels while important to understanding the background and context, is not the main concern here at all. Besides that, we don't know the names of all the individuals who initially penned each chapter of 114 chapters of the Quran. It doesn't matter and is not relevant to what makes the Gospels or Quran authentic.

Click to expand...

It does matter if we are going by the definition of authentic:

Authentic: of undisputed origin; genuine. https://www.google.com/search

adrian009 said:

This idea the Muslims promote that we don't have the correct scriptures is thoroughly discounted by Baha'u'llah's words in the Kitab-I-Iqan.

Click to expand...

I guess you are referring to this:

adrian009 said:

So if we want to consider the meaning of the word authentic as being the origin, we know the origin of the Gospels and Torah is God and His Manifestations. The origins in regards authorship is not relevant.

Click to expand...

No, neither God nor His Manifestations wrote the Gospels or the Torah. Thus they are not authentic. But maybe you believe that the Holy Spirit unerringly guided the gospel writers to write the Bible, as if God had written it Himself. If that is the case then I think you have a lot of explaining to do regarding the resurrection story. Did that actually happen as it was recorded? Some of that cannot be interpreted symbolically as CG is always saying.

Authentic: of undisputed origin; genuine. https://www.google.com/search

I cannot speak about the Qur’an as I am not sure who wrote it, but this quote is relevant:

From Letters Written on Behalf of the Guardian:

...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 Bahá'u'lláh.
(28 July 1936 to a National Spiritual Assembly)

The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments

adrian009 said:

I disagree for the reasons stated above. This is our main point of disagreement. We don't need to make statements like 'The Gospels are not authentic' just because we don't know the names of the authors or it is the opinion of most secular Bible scholars. I believe this perspective is not supported by the Baha'i writings.

Click to expand...

I think it is clearly supported:

adrian009 said:

Once again the Gospels have been inspired by God, are under God's protection, and all the God wished to convey through His Manifestations is within the text. The substance of God's teachings is clearly there in the Gospels and Torah although we can not be certain that it all contains the exact words of Christ or Moses.

Click to expand...

I can agree that the substance is there because Abdu’l-Baha said it. The problems arise when we are reading individual verses and thinking they were the exact words of Jesus. One or two words can change the entire meaning of a verse.

adrian009 said:

There are two issues I'm grappling with here.

1/ What does it mean that all the previous dispensations are abrogated? Perhaps you have perfect clarity, but I do not.

Click to expand...

Abrogate: If someone in a position of authority abrogates something such as a law, agreement, or practice, they put an end to it. Abrogate definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

So Baha’u’llah, who was in a position of Authority vouchsafed onto Him by God, put an end to all the previous religious Dispensations.

Shoghi Effendi made it perfectly clear:

adrian009 said:

What are the implications for Christians and Muslims who utterly convinced of the supremacy of their respective theological perspectives are part of a dispensation that is now abrogated? They clearly don't know its been abrogated and if I tell them it has, how likely are they to listen?

Click to expand...

They do not have to listen but that does not mean we should not tell them the truth. This is the entire crux of progressive revelation. Humanity cannot progress until those of the older religions relinquish them. They cannot be Jews and Baha’is or Christians and Baha’is because the religions are contradictory in many ways. Not only that, but if they are still waiting for a Messiah that has come already how can they possibly ever move on? You and I both know they are harboring a fantasy. And of course there is this...


The Baha’i Faith is either the Truth from God for this age or not. We are living in this age, not a past age. Why mince words?

adrian009 said:

2/ Presuming I come to properly understand what it means, what's the best way to communicate this truth that only Baha'is are aware of? I could tell then straight up, but does everyone have the capacity to hear what I have to say?

Click to expand...

The best way to communicate it is openly and honestly, explaining it like I just did. If they do not have the capacity to hear it that is because they are so attached to their religion (wrapt in the dense veils of your selfish desires), and there is nothing anyone can do about that. People DO have the capacity to recognize Baha’u’llah though, and they are called to account for their failure:

adrian009 said:

What I understand from the Baha'i writings, and I could be completely wrong, is that receptivity to Baha'u'llah's message has everything to do with the purity of one's heart and nothing to do with what religion they are affiliated with.

Click to expand...

That is true, it has nothing to do with which religion they are affiliated with. But more than anything else it is related to whether they are a true seeker or not.

Tablet of the True Seeker

If they are so attached to their religion that they have closed the door on any possibility that another religion might be what God wants them to follow, then game over.

Trailblazer said:

I see that as something we are encouraged to do, not a commandment. There is only so much time in the day and we have to choose what is most important. In my case what is most beneficial to other people is more important than unraveling the divine mysteries for myself. Moreover, there are plenty of Baha'u'llah's writings I have yet to unravel.

How could they possibly have the exact words?

It does matter if we are going by the definition of authentic:

Authentic: of undisputed origin; genuine. https://www.google.com/search

I guess you are referring to this:

“Our purpose in relating these things is to warn you that were they to maintain that those verses wherein the signs referred to in the Gospel are mentioned have been perverted, were they to reject them, and cling instead to other verses and traditions, you should know that their words were utter falsehood and sheer calumny. Yea “corruption” of the text, in the sense We have referred to, hath been actually effected in particular instances. A few of these We have mentioned, that it may become manifest to every discerning observer that unto a few untutored holy Men hath been given the mastery of human learning, so that the malevolent opposer may cease to contend that a certain verse doth indicate “corruption” of the text, and insinuate that We, through lack of knowledge, have made mention of such things. Moreover, most of the verses that indicate “corruption” of the text have been revealed with reference to the Jewish people, were ye to explore the isles of Qur’ánic Revelation.”
The Kitáb-i-Íqán, pp. 88-89​

No, neither God nor His Manifestations wrote the Gospels or the Torah. Thus they are not authentic. But maybe you believe that the Holy Spirit unerringly guided the gospel writers to write the Bible, as if God had written it Himself. If that is the case then I think you have a lot of explaining to do regarding the resurrection story. Did that actually happen as it was recorded? Some of that cannot be interpreted symbolically as CG is always saying.

Authentic: of undisputed origin; genuine. https://www.google.com/search

I cannot speak about the Qur’an as I am not sure who wrote it, but this quote is relevant:

From Letters Written on Behalf of the Guardian:

...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 Bahá'u'lláh.
(28 July 1936 to a National Spiritual Assembly)

The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments

I think it is clearly supported:

...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 Bahá'u'lláh
. (28 July 1936 to a National Spiritual Assembly)

When 'Abdu'l-Bahá states we believe what is in the Bible, He means in substance. Not that we believe every word of it to be taken literally or that every word is the authentic saying of the Prophet.
(11 February 1944 to an individual believer)

We cannot be sure of the authenticity of any of the phrases in the Old or the New Testament. What we can be sure of is when such references or words are cited or quoted in either the Quran or the Bahá'í writings.
(4 July 1947 to an individual believer)

The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments​

I can agree that the substance is there because Abdu’l-Baha said it. The problems arise when we are reading individual verses and thinking they were the exact words of Jesus. One or two words can change the entire meaning of a verse.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the mention. I'd really like to believe Jesus came back to life. That would be the most incredible story in the world. But how realistic is it? If he came back to life, but not only him, Jesus brought two people back to life and then all the people that came out of their graves when Jesus was crucified, then, I'd think, if all those people and Jesus really did come back to life, there would have been much more uproar over what was happening.

Since there wasn't, I'd say maybe the resurrections of those other people were made up. But Jesus presents a problem. There is kind of an uproar. Christians can claim that the tomb was empty. There was no body. Some Baha'is say that the disciples could have hidden it away and buried it. But then lie about it? And keep a straight face while the gospel writers told the story of how Jesus came back to life?

But then also, someone had to make up the stories about the appearances Jesus made. Supposedly the apostles all saw him, ate with him and talked with him and touched him. And then Jesus supposedly said to touch him and see that he is not a ghost?

If they pulled that kind of deception off, it would have been amazing. If he really rose from the dead, then that's even more amazing. Sadly, the very last thing that I would think happened is that the apostles and the gospel writers knew that Jesus was dead and wrote about and told the story that he had resurrected, but only meant it symbolically. But who knows,? But it's fun debating it with you and all the rest of the Baha'is. Thanks for taking the time to write your all your posts. I really appreciate it.

CG Didymus said:

Thanks for the mention. I'd really like to believe Jesus came back to life. That would be the most incredible story in the world.

Click to expand...

No, the most incredible story in the world would be if Christ has returned in the Person of Baha'u'llah.
Don't you think that would be more important for all of humanity than that Jesus rose from His grave?

CG Didymus said:

But how realistic is it? If he came back to life, but not only him, Jesus brought two people back to life and then all the people that came out of their graves when Jesus was crucified, then, I'd think, if all those people and Jesus really did come back to life, there would have been much more uproar over what was happening.

Click to expand...

I do not think of that uproar, I think of how reasonable it is that people came back to life after they died. It is really ludicrous. This is what the Bible has done to people... Why did God allow it to happen?

CG Didymus said:

Since there wasn't, I'd say maybe the resurrections of those other people were made up. But Jesus presents a problem. There is kind of an uproar. Christians can claim that the tomb was empty. There was no body. Some Baha'is say that the disciples could have hidden it away and buried it. But then lie about it? And keep a straight face while the gospel writers told the story of how Jesus came back to life?

Click to expand...

The question is, was there really ever an empty tomb or was that just a story. There is no way we can know for sure what happened so why conjecture, unless it is important to our belief in God? This how I rationalize.

CG Didymus said:

But then also, someone had to make up the stories about the appearances Jesus made. Supposedly the apostles all saw him, ate with him and talked with him and touched him. And then Jesus supposedly said to touch him and see that he is not a ghost?

If they pulled that kind of deception off, it would have been amazing. If he really rose from the dead, then that's even more amazing. Sadly, the very last thing that I would think happened is that the apostles and the gospel writers knew that Jesus was dead and wrote about and told the story that he had resurrected, but only meant it symbolically. But who knows? But it's fun debating it with you and all the rest of the Baha'is. Thanks for taking the time to write your all your posts. I really appreciate it.

Click to expand...

I agree, that would have been the worst thing, if they knew that Jesus was dead and still wrote what they did. The best thing that could ever happen to humanity is if they found archaeological evidence of Jesus... Then we could finally put an end to all of this.... Otherwise, we will have to wait till everyone recognizes Baha'u'llah, and that is a long way off.
It is always nice reading your posts and talking to you... You are one of my favorite posters here, maybe my most favorite...
You and I were in Southern California about the same time... I became a Bahai in 1970 and lived in Santa Barbara from 1970-1972. I met Bill Sears in the mountains behind SB. I then left SB to come to Washington, then to Arizona, upstate NY, Idaho, Utah, California again, and Washington again.... I am probably here to stay.

BilliardsBall said:

I'm happy to be more helpful in this context. Consider the following:

Paul uses a number of expressions to describe Jesus Christ as GOD, e.g.:

Click to expand...

Thank you for all the quotes in regards the nature of Christ. I appreciate your interest in this thread. I wonder if it’s somewhat left field for you to be discussing your faith with Baha’is. It’s good you’re made the effort.

I’ve probably said this before, but in addition to Jesus being the ‘Son of God’, I also believe Jesus to be a spiritual incarnation of God. So in that sense I agree that Jesus was God.

The Baha'i perspective is clear;

As to the position of Christianity, let it be stated without any hesitation or equivocation that its divine origin is unconditionally acknowledged, that the Sonship and Divinity of Jesus Christ are fearlessly asserted, that the divine inspiration of the Gospel is fully recognized, that the reality of the mystery of the Immaculacy of the Virgin Mary is confessed, and the primacy of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, is upheld and defended.

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Promised Day Is Come, Pages 108-113

Another important belief is I consider the Bible to be the inspired word of God. In that sense the Bible has been under God’s protection. That doesn’t mean I take it all literally.

Froma Baha'i perspective:

Bahá'u'lláh writes concerning the Books of Christians and the peoples of other Faiths:
"...the words of the verses themselves eloquently testify to the truth that they are of God."
Bahá'u'lláh, The Kitáb-i-Iqan

"You must know the Old and New Testaments as the Word of God"
'Abdu'l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace

"Surely the Bible is the book of God"
'Abdu'l-Bahá, Paris Talks,

"That city is none other than the Word of God revealed in every age and dispensation. In the days of Moses it was the Pentateuch; in the days of Jesus the Gospel
Bahá'u'lláh, The Kitáb-i-Iqan

Baha'is are encouraged to study the Bible and become familiar with all the Divine mysteries. As my ancestors for many centuries have been Christian, that is my desire and perogative to do just that.

Let's consider some of the verses you bring to the discussion.

BilliardsBall said:

Col 1:15 – "who is the image of the invisible God"

2 Cor 4:4 – "Christ who is the image of God"

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Philippians 2:5-6

Col 2:9 – "in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily"

Heb 1:3 – "Who being the … express image of His Person"

Click to expand...

As I understand it Jesus to be a perfected reflection of god and so in that sense consider Him to be a Manifestation of God. However, although Jesus came in the flesh and had a physical body just like you and I, it is the Divine attributes or virtues, not physical characteristics that enable us to equate Hm with God.

BilliardsBall said:

The same word "Lord" is used of Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the Father, which clearly shows the thinking of Paul and other NT writers on the deity of Christ:

Click to expand...

I have no problem with that.

BilliardsBall said:

1 Cor 3:5-7 – "Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one? 6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. 7 So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase."

2 Cor 3:17 – "Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty."

Ac 4:29 – "Now, Lord, look on their threats" – Peter's prayer is to the Father

Act 5:3,4 – Peter equates the Holy Spirit and God

It is perfectly true that at the beginning, the Jews were somewhat hesitant to call Jesus “God”, they were almost afraid to mention the name of Jehovah. And here was someone standing before them as a man in the flesh. One can well understand their hesitation about calling Him God. But we have evidence to show that, even at the very beginning, they'd already begun to do so.

Click to expand...

It is true that the true nature of Jesus, including His Divinity was obscured early in His Ministry but became clearer as the time of His crucifixion drew nearer. It could well be that a reason for the Jews crucifying Him was His claims to Divinity. However, we can't be certain.

Our point of difference hasn't been the Divinity of Christ, but the assertion this was the reason Caiaphus had Him put to death. The Biblical text as far as I can see doesn't make this clear. It may be clear to you because of Jesus was God and His true nature became clearer as His ministry progressed and I can understand why you would believe it is the reason Christ was crucified. However the texts makes explicit mention of Jesus being the Messiah and 'Son of God' as the reasons Caiphas made his decision (Matthew 26:57-66).

In regards Christ's claim to be the Messiah, they also made an issue that Elijah had not yet come as this was a requirement of scripture (Malachi 3:1 and Malachi 4:5). However Jesus was clear that John the Baptist was Elijah (Matthew 17:11-12).

Jesus causing a disruption at the temple was another issue (Matthew 21:12-13).

Having many people come to Jerusalem to celebrate passover was yet another reason. His influence had spread far and wide and the religious authorities now felt threatened.

I'm not too sure why its so important to you, THE reason Jesus was crucified, had to be His claim to be God. However I agree, its plausible that it was A reason.

BilliardsBall said:

Acts 20:28 – Paul commands them "to feed the church of God, which He has purchased with His Own blood." He isn't referring to the Father, but to Jesus.

Click to expand...

On another note, I think its important to note Paul used many phrases where He equates the Body of Christ with the Church.

Members of the Body of Christ are joined to Christ in salvation (Ephesians 4:15-16)

Members of the Body of Christ follow Christ as their Head (Ephesians 1:22-23)

Members of the Body of Christ are indwelt by the Holy Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9)

Members of the Body of Christ possess gifts of the spirit (1 Corinthians 12:4-31)

Members of the Body of Christ partake of Christ’s death and resurrection (Colossians 2:12)

Members of the Body of Christ share Christ’s inheritance (Romans 8:17)

Members of the Body of Christ receive the gift of Christ’s righteousness (Romans 5:17)

LuisDantas said:

Of course it isn't. Islaam was created some four centuries after the writing of the latest books of the Bible, after all.

I seem to recall that there are those who see Islaam as a "promised revelation", often as a materialization of Immanuel (which is already a troubled, very feeble prediction on its own, even before Islaam enters the scene). But as references go, those are just a thin veneer to give a bit of form to a core of pure wishful thinking.

Click to expand...

I haven't seem you around for a while @LuisDantas
Hope all is well.

For one who doesn't believe in the God of Abraham or any of His prophets, your answer makes perfect sense.

Perhaps the question was directed more towards people of the book such as Christians who might see Islam predicted as something malevolent, or Muslims who may take a similar approach that Christians have with the Tanakh.

Trailblazer said:

I see that as something we are encouraged to do, not a commandment. There is only so much time in the day and we have to choose what is most important. In my case what is most beneficial to other people is more important than unraveling the divine mysteries for myself. Moreover, there are plenty of Baha'u'llah's writings I have yet to unravel.

Click to expand...

To study the Bible is certainly not a commandment or law like obligatory prayer or fasting. However its much more than being something that would be nice to do. As Baha'is we are asked to develop a profound understanding of the Baha'i Revelation and world history. As the historic context from which the Baha'i faith has emerged it would seem impossible to properly understand Baha'u'llah's revelation with both reference to Islam and Christianity.

The Guardian feels that a sound knowledge of history, including religious history, and also of social and economic subjects, is of great help in teaching the Cause to intelligent people; as to what subjects within the Faith you should concentrate on he feels that the young Bahá’ís should gain a mastery of such books as the “Gleanings”, “The Dawn-Breakers”, “God Passes By”, the “Íqán”, “Some Answered Questions” and the more important Tablets. All aspects of the Faith should be deeply studied—and … they need to know more about the Administration.
(4 May 1946 on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer)

Bahá'í Reference Library - A Compilation on Scholarship, Page 27

"Books such as the Iqán, Some Answered Questions and The Dawn-Breakers should be mastered by every Bahá'í. The first two books will reveal the significance of this divine revelation as well as the unity of all the Prophets of old."

Some Answered Questions - Bahai9

As you now some answered question has one of its five parts dedicated to Christian topics and that included 20 out of the 84 chapters.

The importance of the study of both Christianity and Islam is often emphasised.

“If for example a spiritually learned Muslim is conducting a debate with a Christian and he knows nothing of the glorious melodies of the Gospel, he will, no matter how much he imparts of the Qur’án and its truths, be unable to convince the Christian, and his words will fall on deaf ears. Should, however, the Christian observe that the Muslim is better versed in the fundamentals of Christianity than the Christian priests themselves, and understands the purport of the Scriptures even better than they, he will gladly accept the Muslim’s arguments, and he would indeed have no other recourse.”
(‘Abdu’l-Bahá, The Secret of Divine Civilization, p. 36)

"The truth is that Western historians have for many centuries distorted the facts to suit their religious and ancestral prejudices. The Baha'is should try to study history anew, and to base all their investigations first and foremost on the written Scriptures of Islam and Christianity."
(On behalf of Shoghi Effendi, quoted in Lights of Guidance, p. 497)

"Although," Abdu'l-Baha, in the Tablets of the Divine Plan, has written, "in most of the states and cities of the United States, praise be to God, His fragrances are diffused, and souls unnumbered are turning their faces and advancing toward the Kingdom of God, yet in some of the states the Standard of Unity is not yet upraised as it should be, nor are the mysteries of the Holy Books, such as the Bible, the Gospel, and the Qur'an, unraveled. Through the concerted efforts of all the friends the Standard of Unity must needs be unfurled in those states, and the Divine teachings promoted, so that these states may also receive their portion of the heavenly bestowals and a share of the Most Great Guidance."
(Shoghi Effendi, The Advent of Divine Justice, pp. 57-58)

Bible to be studied - Bahai9

Clearly the study of Islam is even more strongly encouraged.

The mission of the American Bahá'ís is, no doubt to eventually establish the truth of Islam in the West.'
- Shoghi Effendi, Lights of Guidance, #1665.

On the importance of the study of Islam to Bahá'ís, the Guardian, Shoghi Effendi, said that for 'a proper and sound understanding of the Cause' its study was 'absolutely indispensable.'
- Lights of Guidance, #1903.

Islam and the Bahá'í Faith

Being on this forum as really provided a great impetus to learn more. I've been a Baha'i for nearly 30 years and I feel I know so little.

It seems to me you already know a lot about Christianity.

Trailblazer said:

How could they possibly have the exact words?

Click to expand...

Having a good memory helps. I think its called oral traditions.

Oral gospel traditions - Wikipedia

Trailblazer said:

It does matter if we are going by the definition of authentic:


Authentic: of undisputed origin; genuine. https://www.google.com/search

Click to expand...

I like the Universal House of Justice's approach better.

Trailblazer said:

It does matter if we are going by the definition of authentic:


Authentic: of undisputed origin; genuine. https://www.google.com/search

Click to expand...

The art of coming up with a plausible resolution to apparently contradictory verses requires more than a dictionary. It applies close analysis of the text.

Trailblazer said:

I guess you are referring to this:

“Our purpose in relating these things is to warn you that were they to maintain that those verses wherein the signs referred to in the Gospel are mentioned have been perverted, were they to reject them, and cling instead to other verses and traditions, you should know that their words were utter falsehood and sheer calumny. Yea “corruption” of the text, in the sense We have referred to, hath been actually effected in particular instances. A few of these We have mentioned, that it may become manifest to every discerning observer that unto a few untutored holy Men hath been given the mastery of human learning, so that the malevolent opposer may cease to contend that a certain verse doth indicate “corruption” of the text, and insinuate that We, through lack of knowledge, have made mention of such things. Moreover, most of the verses that indicate “corruption” of the text have been revealed with reference to the Jewish people, were ye to explore the isles of Qur’ánic Revelation.”

The Kitáb-i-Íqán, pp. 88-89

Click to expand...

That wasn't what I had in mind from the Kitab-i-Iqan.

These verses instead;

Were they to be questioned concerning those signs that must needs herald the revelation and rise of the sun of the Muḥammadan Dispensation, to which We have already referred, none of which have been literally fulfilled, and were it to be said to them: “Wherefore have ye rejected the claims advanced by Christians and the peoples of other faiths and regard them as infidels,” knowing not what answer to give, they will reply: “These Books have been corrupted and are not, and never have been, of God.” Reflect: the words of the verses themselves eloquently testify to the truth that they are of God. A similar verse hath been also revealed in the Qur’án, were ye of them that comprehend. Verily I say, throughout all this period they have utterly failed to comprehend what is meant by corrupting the text.

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Íqán, Pages 81-93


"...We have also heard a number of the foolish of the earth assert that the genuine text of the heavenly Gospel doth not exist amongst the Christians, that it hath ascended unto heaven. How grievously they have erred! How oblivious of the fact that such a statement imputeth the gravest injustice and tyranny to a gracious and loving Providence! How could God, when once the Day-star of the beauty of Jesus had disappeared from the sight of His people, and ascended unto the fourth heaven, cause His holy Book, His most great testimony amongst His creatures, to disappear also? What would be left to that people to cling to..."
Bahá'u'lláh, The Kitáb-i-Iqan

Trailblazer said:

No, neither God nor His Manifestations wrote the Gospels or the Torah. Thus they are not authentic. But maybe you believe that the Holy Spirit unerringly guided the gospel writers to write the Bible, as if God had written it Himself. If that is the case then I think you have a lot of explaining to do regarding the resurrection story. Did that actually happen as it was recorded? Some of that cannot be interpreted symbolically as CG is always saying.

Click to expand...

The key words are 'not wholly authentic'. That's very different from 'not authentic'.

Authenticity does not relate to whether God or His Manifestations wrote the Torah or Gospels. If we take that line of reasoning then the Quran isn't authentic either because Muhammad didn't write it. He was illiterate. So it must mean something else....like what the Universal House of Justice explains it to mean.

You ask for elucidation of the statement made on behalf of the Guardian in this letter of 11 February 1944, “When ‘Abdu’l-Bahá states we believe what is in the Bible, He means in substance. Not that we believe every word of it to be taken literally or that every word is the authentic saying of the Prophet.” Is it not clear that what Shoghi Effendi means here is that we cannot categorically state, as we do in the case of the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, that the words and phrases attributed to Moses and Christ in the Old and New Testaments are Their exact words, but that, in view of the general principle enunciated by Bahá’u’lláh in the “Kitáb-i-Iqán” that God’s Revelation is under His care and protection, we can be confident that the essence, or essential elements, of what these two Manifestations of God intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in these two Books.
(Universal House of Justice, 1987 Sept 14, Resurrection of Christ)

I think we should give the Universal House of Justice the last word on this, don't you?

I'll respond to your other posts tomorrow.

Tony Bristow-Stagg said:

As did Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah.

Baha'u'llah made it clear that though the Messengers of God can do miraculous things, it is not why they came and it is not a lasting proof of who they are.

If a person accepts Christ by the Miracles He performed, then that alone compels them to accept Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah. That one will not accept the miracles they performed, then that shows how strong a piece of evidence it is for accepting Christ.

Baha'u'llah has thus taken them off the list of proofs that determine a Messenger from God. That advice was given by Christ also, as after performing a miracle, he told the person to tell no one.

My faith in Christ is unshakeable and it needs no miracles to back it up. Christ is far greater than our thirst for the miraculous. A change of heart to accept Gods Messengers is the greatest miracle of them all.

Regards Tony

Click to expand...

Which Christ? Messiah/God/Savior in flesh or...?

adrian009 said:

Thank you for all the quotes in regards the nature of Christ. I appreciate your interest in this thread. I wonder if it’s somewhat left field for you to be discussing your faith with Baha’is. It’s good you’re made the effort.

I’ve probably said this before, but in addition to Jesus being the ‘Son of God’, I also believe Jesus to be a spiritual incarnation of God. So in that sense I agree that Jesus was God.

The Baha'i perspective is clear;

As to the position of Christianity, let it be stated without any hesitation or equivocation that its divine origin is unconditionally acknowledged, that the Sonship and Divinity of Jesus Christ are fearlessly asserted, that the divine inspiration of the Gospel is fully recognized, that the reality of the mystery of the Immaculacy of the Virgin Mary is confessed, and the primacy of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, is upheld and defended.

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Promised Day Is Come, Pages 108-113

Another important belief is I consider the Bible to be the inspired word of God. In that sense the Bible has been under God’s protection. That doesn’t mean I take it all literally.

Froma Baha'i perspective:

Bahá'u'lláh writes concerning the Books of Christians and the peoples of other Faiths:
"...the words of the verses themselves eloquently testify to the truth that they are of God."
Bahá'u'lláh, The Kitáb-i-Iqan

"You must know the Old and New Testaments as the Word of God"
'Abdu'l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace

"Surely the Bible is the book of God"
'Abdu'l-Bahá, Paris Talks,

"That city is none other than the Word of God revealed in every age and dispensation. In the days of Moses it was the Pentateuch; in the days of Jesus the Gospel
Bahá'u'lláh, The Kitáb-i-Iqan

Baha'is are encouraged to study the Bible and become familiar with all the Divine mysteries. As my ancestors for many centuries have been Christian, that is my desire and perogative to do just that.

Let's consider some of the verses you bring to the discussion.



As I understand it Jesus to be a perfected reflection of god and so in that sense consider Him to be a Manifestation of God. However, although Jesus came in the flesh and had a physical body just like you and I, it is the Divine attributes or virtues, not physical characteristics that enable us to equate Hm with God.



I have no problem with that.



It is true that the true nature of Jesus, including His Divinity was obscured early in His Ministry but became clearer as the time of His crucifixion drew nearer. It could well be that a reason for the Jews crucifying Him was His claims to Divinity. However, we can't be certain.

Our point of difference hasn't been the Divinity of Christ, but the assertion this was the reason Caiaphus had Him put to death. The Biblical text as far as I can see doesn't make this clear. It may be clear to you because of Jesus was God and His true nature became clearer as His ministry progressed and I can understand why you would believe it is the reason Christ was crucified. However the texts makes explicit mention of Jesus being the Messiah and 'Son of God' as the reasons Caiphas made his decision (Matthew 26:57-66).

In regards Christ's claim to be the Messiah, they also made an issue that Elijah had not yet come as this was a requirement of scripture (Malachi 3:1 and Malachi 4:5). However Jesus was clear that John the Baptist was Elijah (Matthew 17:11-12).

Jesus causing a disruption at the temple was another issue (Matthew 21:12-13).

Having many people come to Jerusalem to celebrate passover was yet another reason. His influence had spread far and wide and the religious authorities now felt threatened.

I'm not too sure why its so important to you, THE reason Jesus was crucified, had to be His claim to be God. However I agree, its plausible that it was A reason.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed response. We can arguably agree that Jesus was crucified for claiming sonship, not something else, but if the Bible is divinely inspired, it also claims:

a) Jesus died and rose for salvation
b) Salvation is a free gift (Jesus paid for it)
c) Jesus said "unless you believe that I AM HE" you will perish, making I AM critical (singular!) and HE singular, unique

adrian009 said:

Authenticity does not relate to whether God or His Manifestations wrote the Torah or Gospels. If we take that line of reasoning then the Quran isn't authentic either because Muhammad didn't write it. He was illiterate. So it must mean something else....like what the Universal House of Justice explains it to mean.

Click to expand...

So what your answer boils down to is: 'we have to trust the opinions of the main Bahai authorities'?
On what basis do you trust their opinion(s)?

BilliardsBall said:

Which Christ? Messiah/God/Savior in flesh or...?

Click to expand...

The I Am, the Beginning and the End, the Alpha and Omega, the First and Last.

The Jesus the Christ that says;

John 6:63 "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."

Regards Tony

Marcion said:

So what your answer boils down to is: 'we have to trust the opinions of the main Bahai authorities'?
On what basis do you trust their opinion(s)?

Click to expand...

Baha'u'llah gave a Covernant from God that God's guidance will flow through the appointed and elected lines.

That guidance is dependant upon our submission to God.

Regards Tony

Trailblazer said:

No, neither God nor His Manifestations wrote the Gospels or the Torah. Thus they are not authentic. But maybe you believe that the Holy Spirit unerringly guided the gospel writers to write the Bible, as if God had written it Himself. If that is the case then I think you have a lot of explaining to do regarding the resurrection story. Did that actually happen as it was recorded? Some of that cannot be interpreted symbolically as CG is always saying.

Authentic: of undisputed origin; genuine. https://www.google.com/search

I cannot speak about the Qur’an as I am not sure who wrote it, but this quote is relevant:

From Letters Written on Behalf of the Guardian:

...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 Bahá'u'lláh.
(28 July 1936 to a National Spiritual Assembly)

The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments

Click to expand...

I wanted to briefly mention the gospels contain allegorical narratives that convey profound spiritual meanings. Two obvious examples are the resurrection and the casting out of demons or evils spirits. Clearly, from a Baha'i perspective, do they invalidate the Bible or make it less authentic? Some would argue yes, others no. I'm clearly in the "No" camp. The resurrection is an essential aspect of Christianity, Islam and the Baha'i Faith. We need to look no further the what Baha'u'llah has said in the Kitab-i-Iqan. In Islam it tied in with ends times eschatology.

Angels, demons and Satan are all part of Islam and even the Baha'i writings. Baha'i take demons and Satan metaphorically and so do many Christians. Many don't of course and take it literally along with the resurrection narrative. OTOH I don't see how God could have taught about these concepts had they not been woven into the story about the life and Teachings of Jesus. Our role as Baha'is is to demonstrate using the Bible itself and persuasive argument, the true significance of these concepts. That is exactly what Abdu'l-Baha did. He never denigrated the bible or said anything negative about it. To the contrary;

"The Bible and the Gospels are most honored in the estimation of all Baha'is. One of the spiritual utterances of His Holiness Christ in his Sermon on the Mount is preferable to me to all the writings of the philosophers. It is the religious duty of every Baha'i to read and comprehend the meanings of the Old and New Testament."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Star of the West, Vol. 14, p. 55)

THIS book is the Holy Book of God, of celestial Inspiration. It is the Bible of Salvation, the Noble Gospel. It is the mystery of the Kingdom and its light. It is the Divine Bounty, the sign of the guidance of God.
Bahá'í Reference Library - ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in London, Pages 17-18

"...all the Prophets of Israel were centers of inspiration; Christ also was a receiver of inspiration, but what a difference between the inspiration of the Word of God and the revelations of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Elijah!"
'Abdu'l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions

Furthermore, it is significant and convincing that when Muhammad proclaimed His work and mission, His first objection to His own followers was, “Why have you not believed on Jesus Christ? Why have you not accepted the Gospel? Why have you not believed in Moses? Why have you not followed the precepts of the Old Testament? Why have you not understood the prophets of Israel? Why have you not believed in the disciples of Christ? The first duty incumbent upon ye, O Arabians, is to accept and believe in these. You must consider Moses as a Prophet. You must accept Jesus Christ as the Word of God. You must know the Old and the New Testaments as the Word of God. You must believe in Jesus Christ as the product of the Holy Spirit.”
Bahá'í Reference Library - The Promulgation of Universal Peace, Pages 197-203

Trailblazer said:

I think it is clearly supported:

...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 Bahá'u'lláh
. (28 July 1936 to a National Spiritual Assembly)

When 'Abdu'l-Bahá states we believe what is in the Bible, He means in substance. Not that we believe every word of it to be taken literally or that every word is the authentic saying of the Prophet.
(11 February 1944 to an individual believer)

We cannot be sure of the authenticity of any of the phrases in the Old or the New Testament. What we can be sure of is when such references or words are cited or quoted in either the Quran or the Bahá'í writings.
(4 July 1947 to an individual believer)

The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments

Click to expand...

I found a couple more passages from the Universal House of Justice that are relevant to our discussion.

In studying the Bible Bahá'ís must bear two principles in mind. The first is that many passages in Sacred Scriptures are intended to be taken metaphorically, not literally, and some of the paradoxes and apparent contradictions which appear are intended to indicate this. The second is the fact that the text of the early Scriptures, such as the Bible, is not wholly authentic.
(28 May 1984 to an individual believer)

The Bahá'ís believe what is in the Bible to be true in substance. This does not mean that every word recorded in that Book is to be taken literally and treated as the authentic saying of a Prophet. A striking example is given in the account of the sacrifice which Abraham was called upon to make. The Guardian of the Faith confirms that the record in the Qur'an and the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, namely that it was Ishmael, and not Isaac as stated in the Old Testament, whom Abraham was to sacrifice, is to be upheld. In one of His Tablets 'Abdu'l-Bahá refers to this discrepancy, and explains that, from a spiritual point of view, it is irrelevant which son was involved. The essential part of the story is that Abraham was willing to obey God's command to sacrifice His son. Thus, although the account in the Torah is inaccurate in detail, it is true in substance....
...The Bahá'ís believe that God's Revelation is under His care and protection and that the essence, or essential elements, of what His Manifestations intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in Their Holy Books. However, as the sayings of the ancient Prophets were written down some time later, we cannot categorically state, as we do in the case of the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, that the words and phrases attributed to Them are Their exact words
(9 August 1984 to an individual believer)

Trailblazer said:

I can agree that the substance is there because Abdu’l-Baha said it. The problems arise when we are reading individual verses and thinking they were the exact words of Jesus. One or two words can change the entire meaning of a verse.

Click to expand...

I agree.

Tony Bristow-Stagg said:

Baha'u'llah gave a Covernant from God that God's guidance will flow through the appointed and elected lines.

That guidance is dependant upon our submission to God.

Regards Tony

Click to expand...

You submitted to the opinions of Bahaullah, I understand.

Marcion said:

You submitted to the opinions of Bahaullah, I understand.

Click to expand...

Understanding has many levels from ignorance to fully enlightened. It is our ignorance that can not see what it is to be fully enlightened. We all face this issue.

There is a Muslim tradition that I contemplate upon in regards to this matter;

"The good deeds of he righteous are the sins of the near ones".

Regards Tony