• 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!

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

Brian2

Veteran Member
There was certainly a fuller measure of God’s Grace released through the Revelation of Christ. However the foundation of that Revelation was Torah.

In relation to Moses Jesus spoke:

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” Matthew 5:17

Jesus disclosed His station gradually and was eventually crucified for His claim to be the Son of God, a reality of Christ the Baha’is uphold.

Notwithstanding both Moses and Christ were the beaters of a New Revelation from God that would form the foundation of faith for generations to come.

So the Baha’is don’t alter the Revelation of God. We affirm it and uphold it. However as the capacity of the people had changed from Moses to Christ, so too has that capacity changed from Christ to Bahá’u’lláh. So dramatic is the change in the conditions of humanity and the world a new Revelation is required. We can no longer pour old wine into new wineskins.

The Spirit of God was not given through Moses, it came with the New Covenant which was prophesied in the OT. The Law and the prophets were until John the Baptist and in Jesus day the Kingdom of God was preached for all to enter in. Wanting to combine the keeping of the Law of Moses with the New Covenant in the Spirit is something that Paul was against and that is what bursts the wineskins and destroys the wine.
The old wine you are speaking about is God's Spirit in the disciples of Jesus, the ones in the Covenant He brought. This old wine, since it is God's Spirit, cannot be replaced with anything better and can lead us into all truth (including anything that Baha'u'llah could possibly want to tell us as a message). Baha'i seems to want to replace the Spirit of God with the Spirit of God. How unnecessary that is.
Holding the station of the Son of God does not mean that Jesus is actually THE Son of God, just as holding the station of the Father does not mean that Baha'u'llah is the Father. The whole Bible story from start to finish is altered by Baha'u'llah and Jesus is downgraded to one of many Messengers instead of THE Messiah, THE Son of God.

As the story of God needed to be retold during the days of Christ, so too it needs to be retold in this day. Much of what was said in the Hebrew Bible is not relevant for the current age. Should we still put to death a man who collects wood on the Sabbath? Whatever you think is relevant from the Hebrew Bible was the message HaShem revealed to the Jewish people. A wider audience was not intended but lessons can be learnt. What verses do you feel are relevant to your exclusive one way Jesus claims and why?

There certainly are moral lessons from the OT and there is teaching about God and what He wants and what He is like. There are the passages which speak of the Messiah and what He would do. That He would rule forever on the throne of David over the nations and judge the earth (Isa 63) and bring peace and justice and mercy and will be ruler in the new earth forever over all nations as in Isa 65,66.
I could go on but you get the picture and these seem to be all things that Baha'u'llah wants to take from Jesus and apply to himself even when the NT applies them to Jesus.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Thus, are you saying the New Testament teaching about this or this particular verse is redundant now?

please read the passages.

No I am not saying that. The passage says what it says and means what it says and we all look and can recognise ourselves in the list of things that are mentioned and it does not mean that none of us will inherit the Kingdom of God.
What I am saying about the words that seem to refer to both the feminine and masculine side of a homosexual relationship is that the full cultural significance at the time of writing is unclear to me even if it seems clear to many Christians, the ones who condemn all homosexual acts and those who see these acts in a committed relationship as OK.
But anyway since we are all condemned at some time in our life by various lists that Paul writes condemning various things, that does not single out homosexuals.
I for example am attracted to women and have been known to lust after them, making me an adulterer in my heart. I have been addicted to alcohol and drugs thus making me a drunkard, and I could mention more I'm sure.
If God wants us to repent of those things then that still hold true for today as far as I can see. But I don't want to condemn others and their understanding and relationship with Jesus as that would be condemning myself. It is up to each person to come to terms with what is said in the Bible and that includes if they are in a homosexual relationship. All I could do is point out certain things in the Bible to people and the rest is up to them.
We are all in the same boat in our relationship with the Lord.
It is exactly what the 2 words (arsenokoitai, malakoi) meant when used by Paul which is disputed and possibly rightly.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
And you cannot ever prove that the Spirit of Truth in the verses refers to the Holy Spirit that was given to each disciple at Pentecost and to all those who became Christian or become Christian

What you believe is simply one interpretation of those verses, the commonly accepted Christian interpretation, but that in no way proves that your interpretation is right and the Baha'i interpretation is wrong.

The Bible does not tell you anything because it does not talk. You read it and interpret it according to your own understanding.

It would be a start if you could at least understand that there are various interpretations of the Bible and they are made by people, and that is why all Christians do not have the same beliefs.

There are various interpretations of the Bible made by people and that is why all Christians so not have the same beliefs. But the Baha'i interpretation is not an interpretation, it is reading something into the passages which is not there in the Bible. It is imposing Baha'i doctrine on what the Bible tells us about the Holy Spirit and who He is and what Titles He has.

Instead of just making the claim over and over again, go ahead and try to assemble some verses and try to prove that the Spirit of Truth is the Holy Spirit that was given to each disciple at Pentecost and to all those who became Christian or become Christian.

If you cannot prove that, it is just a belief, no different from the Baha'i belief.

I have lost count of the number of times I have assembled some verses to prove that the Spirit of Truth is the Holy Spirit who was given to each disciple at Pentecost. Why would I do it again? It is you who should do that to prove your Baha'i doctrine.

You believe in your interpretation for the sake of your Christian faith, because you conceded to Baha'u'llah being the Spirit of Truth that would mean that the same man Jesus is not going to return. Moreover, if you believe in the Gospel of John then you have to believe all if it, not only the part that you believe supports your beliefs, and what Jesus clearly says is that He is not going to return to this world.

John 14:19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.


Given what Jesus said in those verses, there cannot be a second coming if the same man Jesus unless (a) Jesus lied, or (b) the Bible is in error.

Why are you moving on to another topic? The Baha'i teaching about this is just as easily shown to be wrong as their idea of who the Spirit of Truth is. But what is the point of moving on when the Bible shows that Baha'u'llah is not even whom he claims to be, the Spirit of Truth?
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
Changing the laws is just speculation because it is said very clearly that he is coming to enforce the law of Islam.

What you would find surprising is that most of these ahadith reported say "Abnu Maryama", the son of Maryam.
Yes, though Islam based on Quran can mean a new Law from God. Just as Jesus, Moses, or Noah enforced Laws of Islam. Based on Quran all Messengers taught Islam, and their followers were Muslims.
It is said Isa ibn Maryam will return. In our view it is Metaphorical. The Prophet did not want to explicitly reveal a new Person comes. A new Revelation is also mean to test the belief of people.
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
Initially as Jews there would be things they could not bear and the Spirit of Truth introduced these things to them more slowly. That is why it is said that He will lead them into all truth (John 16:13) not just shove it in their face the same day.
But how do I know that the Spirit of Truth taught them all things? Maybe it did not teach them all things, but was leading them into all truth nonetheless.
The doctrines and teachings of the Church come from what these first Christians wrote however. If we contradict them then we are teaching error and not truth.
Ok, but the Spirit of Truth must have said many things to them, as Jesus said He still had many things to say. Jesus was speaking to the apostles, so, He could have said those things to them, if you think the Jews could not bear them.
I don't see any evidence that they were lead to all the truth. This is why in Bahai view, this Prophecy is regarding a new Revelation, and the spirit of Truth is Bahaullah. Bahaullah said, what Jesus did not say, was that, the Father will come. This is what they could not bear it then. And when the Father comes, He will lead to all the truth. And Bahaullah revealed many scriptures, which in Bahai view, are those, many things that Jesus had still to say.

Jesus alluded that in the End the Father Himself comes.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
No, because I believe the Spirit of Truth is a specific reference to Baha’u’llah, who brought the Holy Spirit.

So that would mean that you deny the truth of these passages.
John 14:15 “If you love me, keep my commands. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.
John 14:26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
John 15:26 “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me. 27 And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning.

These passages are Jesus showing that the Holy Spirit is the Advocate and is the Spirit of Truth and promising this Spirit to His disciples of 2000 years ago to live with and in them forever.

As I said in my previous post, you interpret the Bible and assign a meaning to it and it is according to what you already believe from other verses and Christian teachings. The Bible does not say that the Spirit of Truth in John 14 and John 16 is the Holy Spirit that was sent at Pentecost as per Acts 2, you just assume that because of what you already believe. That is a Christian addition so that Christians don’t have to see Baha'u'llah because if they did they could no longer believe that the same man Jesus is going to return.

No it is what the Bible tells us because the Spirit of Truth is shown to be the Holy Spirit and is promised to the disciples of 2000 years ago,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but that just shows that Baha'u'llah is not whom he claims to be. When it comes to the same Jesus returning there are plenty of other reasons to believe that, eg.
Acts 1:11 “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”

However there is no reason to believe the Advocate and the Spirit of Truth were the Holy Spirit that was sent at Pentecost, because the Bible does not say that. There is nothing in the Bible that says that the Advocate and Spirit of Truth were sent to the disciples 2000 years ago.

Yes I just showed you the verses that tell us these things. Either believe them or not but don't twist them around to try to make them agree with Baha'i, because they do not.

Acts 2:14-15 do not show that the Day of Pentecost was what the prophecy of Joel was referring to. Clearly, Acts 2:16-22 are referring to what will happen in the last days, which is when Christ was slated to return.

Joel was speaking of the last days when God would pour His Spirit upon all flesh, not only the Christians:

Acts 2
16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;
17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

I don't get it, you post the very verses that show that Peter saw the prophecy of Joel as speaking about that Pentecost and also showing that that Pentecost was in the last days, and you deny what it is telling you.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Ok, but the Spirit of Truth must have said many things to them, as Jesus said He still had many things to say. Jesus was speaking to the apostles, so, He could have said those things to them, if you think the Jews could not bear them.
I don't see any evidence that they were lead to all the truth. This is why in Bahai view, this Prophecy is regarding a new Revelation, and the spirit of Truth is Bahaullah. Bahaullah said, what Jesus did not say, was that, the Father will come. This is what they could not bear it then. And when the Father comes, He will lead to all the truth. And Bahaullah revealed many scriptures, which in Bahai view, are those, many things that Jesus had still to say.

Jesus alluded that in the End the Father Himself comes.

The Spirit did remind those disciples of what Jesus had said to them.

John 14:26 But the Advocate, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

The disciples had heard all that Jesus had said to them but it had not all been sorted out and gelled in them and the Spirit of Truth did that.

John 14:15 “If you love me, keep my commands. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

The promised Advocate, Holy Spirit, is the Spirit of Truth and he would live with and in the disciples.
So if the Bible shows us that he Spirit of Truth is the Holy Spirit promised by Jesus to His disciples of 2000 years ago to live in and with them, that probably tells us something about the claims Baha'u'llah makes about the Bible and what it says.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
I find it strange that the standard response of any Bahai for most of the issues of contradiction is just a statement of "I see no contradiction at all".

Then the other normal response is "they did that too", which is the Tu Quoque that I see day in, day out from all the Bahai's.

Why is this a prevalent response?

Firedragon. You have become endearing because you speak without fear and I admire someone who questions like you do. You’re post are food for thought and most welcome. Only we cannot criticise the Holy Books as they are considered



But please do be very careful. Those who question too much usually end up becoming Baha’is.

You are safest if you don’t speak to Baha’is or eat their food as it has been said that people who eat with Baha’is, something is put in the food to make them Bahá’í. Lol

If you ever discover what we have discovered you will be so filled with joy that you will feel like you are in heaven. I opposed Baha’u’llah for 3 years, now I am a Baha'i staunchly defending Him for 45 years. And I consider myself unworthy to be His follower.
It is the same situation as with the Jews and Christians, as in most of the Jews rejected Jesus. However the Christians have found legitimate prophecies about the Messiah which Jesus fulfilled and legitimate ways to understand the OT concerning the identity of the Messiah as the NT presents Jesus. When it comes to Baha'u'llah and the Bible, the whole meaning of the Bible about the identity of the Messiah is changed and we end up with a situation where the Baha'i understanding relies on additions to the meaning that the Bible gives.
When it comes to the passages we are discussing (John 14,15,16) we see that the Spirit of Truth is the Advocate and is the Holy Spirit and that this Spirit is promised to the disciples Jesus is speaking to and to those why believe in Jesus because of the teaching of the disciples. When the Baha'is look at John 14,15and 16 they have to say "And also the Spirit of Truth and the Advocate can be someone who brings the Holy Spirit." and there also is a denial that the Holy Spirit, as a Spirit who lives with and in Christians can teach them and lead them into all truth and etc.
Do you see the additions and denials that need to be made to achieve the desired results of Baha'u'llah being the Spirit of Truth? If not then can you show me your reasoning about those scriptures which brings your desired result without additions and denials.
The main scriptures I am referring to are: John 14:15-21, John 14:26, John 15:26, John 16:7-8, 13.


Jesus spoke about a ‘He’ that could both hear and speak. That’s a person as far as I’m concerned.
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
The Spirit did remind those disciples of what Jesus had said to them.

John 14:26 But the Advocate, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

The disciples had heard all that Jesus had said to them but it had not all been sorted out and gelled in them and the Spirit of Truth did that.

John 14:15 “If you love me, keep my commands. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

The promised Advocate, Holy Spirit, is the Spirit of Truth and he would live with and in the disciples.
So if the Bible shows us that he Spirit of Truth is the Holy Spirit promised by Jesus to His disciples of 2000 years ago to live in and with them, that probably tells us something about the claims Baha'u'llah makes about the Bible and what it says.
I would say the prophecy regarding the Advocate teaching and reminding what Christ said, must be for a far future distance when false teachers would rise among the Christians. At that time, they need someone to come and teach the true teachings of Christ again, as the true teachings of Christ would be lost or misinterpreted. Just as you see today, there are thousands of denominations, each is after that original teachings of Jesus. Each denomination claims they know the true teachings of Jesus. So, in Bahai view this Prophecy is related to Bahaullah, for He taught all those things that Jesus taught, meaning through His revelation, He explained the original and true interpretation of teachings of Christ.

Also the verse which says "the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him..." denoted a Person who is a universal manifestation, and have a Revelation for the whole world, but this Person would be rejected. This prophecy fits Bahaullah. I dont see how it can fit the invisible Holy Spirit. It must be a Person who is the embodiment of the Spirit, rather thn just an invisible Spirit.
 
Last edited:

firedragon

Veteran Member
No I am not saying that. The passage says what it says and means what it says and we all look and can recognise ourselves in the list of things that are mentioned and it does not mean that none of us will inherit the Kingdom of God.
What I am saying about the words that seem to refer to both the feminine and masculine side of a homosexual relationship is that the full cultural significance at the time of writing is unclear to me even if it seems clear to many Christians, the ones who condemn all homosexual acts and those who see these acts in a committed relationship as OK.
But anyway since we are all condemned at some time in our life by various lists that Paul writes condemning various things, that does not single out homosexuals.
I for example am attracted to women and have been known to lust after them, making me an adulterer in my heart. I have been addicted to alcohol and drugs thus making me a drunkard, and I could mention more I'm sure.
If God wants us to repent of those things then that still hold true for today as far as I can see. But I don't want to condemn others and their understanding and relationship with Jesus as that would be condemning myself. It is up to each person to come to terms with what is said in the Bible and that includes if they are in a homosexual relationship. All I could do is point out certain things in the Bible to people and the rest is up to them.
We are all in the same boat in our relationship with the Lord.
It is exactly what the 2 words (arsenokoitai, malakoi) meant when used by Paul which is disputed and possibly rightly.

The thing is, what I quoted have nothing to do with homosexuality, lusting, or aggression or anything that can even be thought of as a sin in very traditional settings. Maybe for Paul, these men who are called soft men or effeminate men were almost homosexual or what ever that meant to him. Somehow, the bottomline is, they are not considered brothers with the whole of humanity and everyone is not equal.

Thats the whole point.

Anyway brother. Thanks for engaging. I respect the way you discuss. Kudos.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Yes, though Islam based on Quran can mean a new Law from God.

Where does it say that? Im just curious.

Just as Jesus, Moses, or Noah enforced Laws of Islam. Based on Quran all Messengers taught Islam, and their followers were Muslims.
It is said Isa ibn Maryam will return. In our view it is Metaphorical. The Prophet did not want to explicitly reveal a new Person comes. A new Revelation is also mean to test the belief of people.

  • So when it says "Ibn Mariam" its metaphorical.
  • The prophet did not want to reveal a new person comes
Both are just made up as an apologetic attempt with nothing to back them up. Just some thing you came up with since you thought you should answer the question.

What about the ahadith calling the returning Jesus, the son of Mary?

Is it gonna be symbolic, metaphorical, or a slow revelation? How would you respond to that?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Firedragon. You have become endearing because you speak without fear and I admire someone who questions like you do. You’re post are food for thought and most welcome. Only we cannot criticise the Holy Books as they are considered



But please do be very careful. Those who question too much usually end up becoming Baha’is.

You are safest if you don’t speak to Baha’is or eat their food as it has been said that people who eat with Baha’is, something is put in the food to make them Bahá’í. Lol

If you ever discover what we have discovered you will be so filled with joy that you will feel like you are in heaven. I opposed Baha’u’llah for 3 years, now I am a Baha'i staunchly defending Him for 45 years. And I consider myself unworthy to be His follower.



Jesus spoke about a ‘He’ that could both hear and speak. That’s a person as far as I’m concerned.

Sorry mate. You seem like a nice guy. All that is good. But all this preaching is not relevant to me. I hope you understand.

By the way, I have a Bahai friend now. With a lot of difficulty I found one. This is after interacting with Adrian who was the first to enlighten me about the Bahai faith in a thread I opened to just understand the faith because I had no clue of your theology.

Anyway, have a great day. Cheers.
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
Where does it say that? Im just curious.

Does not the Quran say that followers of Jesus were Muslims? Now, if what Quran means by the term "Islam", is the same Shariah Laws of the Quran, how can we say, the followers of Jesus were performing Salaat, Fasting, paying Zakkat, etc? Obviously Jesus did not teach or not asked His followers to perform such Sharia Laws. Then how could they be called Muslim as per the Quran?
Thus, In Bahai view, Islam, is Submission to the Laws of God, past, present and future. This means, if God, brings a new Law, different than the Shariah of the Quran as per needs of new Age, then Submission to the new Law is also "Islam". Thus, when it is said the Mahdi or Christ establish Islam again, this can mean a new Law from God.

There are Hadithes that says, when Mahdi comes, He will bring a new Islam. Not the same old Islam as Muhammed.

And in the Quran it is said, the Quranic Rites are only beneficial for a term. After that, it will be referred to God, meaning, after that period, God will give a new Law that is beneficial for a new age.


  • So when it says "Ibn Mariam" its metaphorical.
  • The prophet did not want to reveal a new person comes
Both are just made up as an apologetic attempt with nothing to back them up. Just some thing you came up with since you thought you should answer the question.

What about the ahadith calling the returning Jesus, the son of Mary?

Is it gonna be symbolic, metaphorical, or a slow revelation? How would you respond to that?

This means a Person who is the return of Jesus, son of Mary.

There are Hadithes that says, when the Promised One comes, He is like the return of all Prophets.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Does not the Quran say that followers of Jesus were Muslims? Now, if what Quran means by the term "Islam", is the same Shariah Laws of the Quran, how can we say, the followers of Jesus were performing Salaat, Fasting, paying Zakkat, etc? Obviously Jesus did not teach or not asked His followers to perform such Sharia Laws. Then how could they be called Muslim as per the Quran?

Well. The Quran says that Abraham was a Muslim too.

Are you talking about the Shariah or Fikh?

And in the Quran it is said, the Quranic Rites are only beneficial for a term. After that, it will be referred to God, meaning, after that period, God will give a new Law that is beneficial for a new age.

Where? Interesting!

This means a Person who is the return of Jesus, son of Mary.

Nope. It means "Jesus is returning".

Its strange you dont even care where it says what. How its said. How its meant or whats the context. You just seem to respond to everything I say, with a very much made up answer. What ever you could make up as an answer to support your theology. You just gave a very bogus answer you cooked up.
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
Well. The Quran says that Abraham was a Muslim too.

Are you talking about the Shariah or Fikh?

I am asking the question, and I like your view. Does not Quran say, the apostles were Muslims?
My question is very clear: do you believe the Quran means, the apostles were following the Sharia Laws of Quran, such as Salaat, Fasting, Zakkat, avoiding pork?


My view is clear. No, the Quran does not mean the apostles were following the Quranic Shariah. The Quran was not revealed yet. So how could the apostles follow Shariah of the Quran?
Then, if the apostles were not following the Shariah of Quran, how could they be called Muslims?


"To every People have We appointed [different] rites and ceremonies which they must follow: let them not then dispute with thee on the matter, but do thou invite (them) to thy Lord: for thou art assuredly on the Right Way. 2:67



So, the people of Abraham also, must have been given a different Rites. Not the same Rites of Quran. But yet, Abraham was a Muslim. Thus Muslims does not mean, following the same Rites. It means, submission to God, whenever He reveals new commands.


Where? Interesting!

"The Day that some of the Signs of your Lord do come, no good will it do to a person to believe then, if he believed not before, nor earned good through his Faith." (6:158). It is recorded in Bihar, that Imam Ali and Imam Sadiq said this verse denotes the advent of the awaited Qaim from us.



In another words, according to that verse, after Rise of Qaim, if someone had not believed in Quran before, but begins to believe in Quran after rise of Qaim, His belief will not do any good anymore, because, at that time, believing in Qaim, and His New Book will Profit him.

The Quranic evidence of abrogation of Quranic Laws is in surrah Al-Hajj:

“Indeed, those who reverence the Rites decreed by GOD demonstrate the righteousness of their hearts. In them are benefits to an Appointed Time, then their place is to the ancient House” 22:33


Therefore according to the verse, the Quranic Rites are beneficial until their appointed time, then after that, Religious Laws are Referred to the Ancient House, which according to Recorded Traditions, is in Heaven.
The term Ancient House in Islamic traditions is described as a heavenly Kabba, a place from where Quran was revealed to mankind. Thus, according to the above verse, after a certain time, these Quranic Laws go up again to the ancient house (meaning God will take then back, as no benefit in them anymore).


, and the time of ascension of the Quranic ordinances is in the 32nd Surrah:

“He directeth the ordinance from the heaven unto the earth; then it ascendeth unto Him in a Day, whereof the measure is a thousand years of that ye reckon.” 32:5



And the evidence of abrogation of Quran and coming of a new Book are in these Traditions recorded in Bihar and Al-Kafi:

Imam Ja’far Sadiq (a.s.) said: “When the Qaim rises, he will come with a new commandment from Allah, just as the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.s.) summoned men to a new set of commandments at the beginning of Islam.”



And the Quranic evidence that Qaim comes with a Book of God is in Surrah Al-Isra, verse 71:

“On the Day when We will summon all men by their Imam; and he whose Book is given in his right hand shall read it, nor shall they be wronged a straw.” 17:71


And in Al-kafi, ‘Abdallah ibn Sinan narrated, "I asked abu ‘Abdallah (a.s.) about the meaning of , ‘On the Day when We will summon all men by their Imam . . ." (17:71) The Imam (a.s.) said, "It refers to the Imam who is with them and he is Qa’im of the people of that time."


In Al-kafi it is narrated that Imam MuhammadBaqir (a.s.) said: “... they will disagree in the Book that will be with the Qaim, who will bring it to them, so much so that a large number of people will deny him.”

(Meaning people do not agree to accept the new Book)!!.


And in Bihar in another Hadith, Imam said, “Qaim rises with a new Cause, a new Book, new Judgement which is sever on Arabs.”

The Quranic evidence of the Book being severe on Arabs is in Surrah AlQamar:

"The Day the caller calls to an undesirable event" 56:6
It is recorded this verse is regarding, Imam Mahdi, who calls people to that which they dislike and deny.




Nope. It means "Jesus is returning".

Its strange you dont even care where it says what. How its said. How its meant or whats the context. You just seem to respond to everything I say, with a very much made up answer. What ever you could make up as an answer to support your theology. You just gave a very bogus answer you cooked up.

Did not Jesus Himself say, John is return of Elijah? It is recorded in the Bible. So, when Jesus said as per Gospels, that John is Elijah obviously, when Bahaullah says, He is Jesus, that "fits" with the same theology taught in Holy Books!
I understand It may not fit with literal interpretation of people.


Such Hadithes that speaks of return of Jesus are Mutishabihat..


271.روى الصدوق بإسناده عن حيّون مولى الرضا عليه السلا من ردّ متشابه القرآن إلى محكمه هدي إلى صراط مستقيم. ثمّ قال عليه السلام : إنَّ في أخبارنا متشابها كمتشابه القرآن، ومحكما كمحكم القرآن ، فردّوا متشابهها إلى محكمها، ولا تتّبعوا متشابهها دون محكمها فتضلّوا . [1]


My brief translation:

Imam Riza, said, in our Hadithes, there are Mutishabihat, just as there are Mutishabihat in the Quran.. You must refer, Mutishabihat to Muhkamaat...




6- Ihtijaaj: It is narrated from Zaid bin Wahab Jahni from Hasan bin Ali bin
Abu Talib from his father (a.s.) that he said:
“In the last period of time, the Almighty Allah will raise a man among
the illiterate masses whom He will support by His angels and protect his
helpers, help him through His signs and he will conquer the whole world. All
would enter the fold of religion willingly or unwillingly. He would fill the
earth with justice, equity and proof. No disbeliever will remain without
accepting faith. During his rule, even the wild beasts would become tame.
And the earth will through up its vegetation. Blessings will descend from the sky. The treasures buried in the earth will be exposed and he would rule the
world for forty yea
rs. Fortunate would be one who lives till that time and
hears his speech.”



Notice that in this Hadith, it is said "a man comes who rules 40 years" it does not say that same Jesus. So, this is how we would refer Mutishabihat to Muhkamaat.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I am asking the question, and I like your view. Does not Quran say, the apostles were Muslims?
My question is very clear: do you believe the Quran means, the apostles were following the Sharia Laws of Quran, such as Salaat, Fasting, Zakkat, avoiding pork?

See, your question does not make sense. Quran was revealed in the 7th century. Thus, your question is like "did Saul drive a porche" when the car was made in the 20th.

Let me ask you something. A big favour. Dont use terms you dont understand. It does not make any impact but just makes you look pretty bad. Just ask your question without using words you dont understand. Dont say Shariah and ask about various things. Just ask your question in plain English. You obviously dont understand what Shariah is or what Fikh is. Its alright not to, but dont put words into a conversation like that. You always do that, and it does not look good.

My view is clear. No, the Quran does not mean the apostles were following the Quranic Shariah. The Quran was not revealed yet. So how could the apostles follow Shariah of the Quran?
Then, if the apostles were not following the Shariah of Quran, how could they be called Muslims?


"To every People have We appointed [different] rites and ceremonies which they must follow: let them not then dispute with thee on the matter, but do thou invite (them) to thy Lord: for thou art assuredly on the Right Way. 2:67



So, the people of Abraham also, must have been given a different Rites. Not the same Rites of Quran. But yet, Abraham was a Muslim. Thus Muslims does not mean, following the same Rites. It means, submission to God, whenever He reveals new commands.

I think you are quoting Assurah al haj. It doesnt say "different". Someone inserted those words within brackets.

You are missing the point of this verse. What matters is the sirathal musthaqeen. The straight path.

You dont have to go so far. Bottomline is that you are trying to say that Bahaullah brought a new revelation that abrogated the Qur'an. Simple.

Such Hadithes that speaks of return of Jesus are Mutishabihat..

What? Lool. This is absolutely hilarious.

Muthashabih ahadith?

I think brother. You are dishonest. You are just making things up. I shall not discuss with you anymore.

Bye.
 

InvestigateTruth

Well-Known Member
See, your question does not make sense. Quran was revealed in the 7th century. Thus, your question is like "did Saul drive a porche" when the car was made in the 20th.

Let me ask you something. A big favour. Dont use terms you dont understand. It does not make any impact but just makes you look pretty bad. Just ask your question without using words you dont understand. Dont say Shariah and ask about various things. Just ask your question in plain English. You obviously dont understand what Shariah is or what Fikh is. Its alright not to, but dont put words into a conversation like that. You always do that, and it does not look good.




You are missing the point of this verse. What matters is the sirathal musthaqeen. The straight path.

You dont have to go so far. Bottomline is that you are trying to say that Bahaullah brought a new revelation that abrogated the Qur'an. Simple.



What? Lool. This is absolutely hilarious.

Muthashabih ahadith?

I think brother. You are dishonest. You are just making things up. I shall not discuss with you anymore.

Bye.
It is a natural response to truth. It is said, truth is bitter.

Instead of replying like this, can you make a meaningful response to every point I made. A response to each verse. Otherwise my points hold.
I think you are quoting Assurah al haj. It doesnt say "different". Someone inserted those words within brackets. Instead of making this kind of reply, make a direct and meaningful reply, of you can.

You are arguing that the Hadithes says, Mahdi and Christ establish Laws of Islam
I told you yes but Islam means submission to God. In every Age, when a Messenger came to their People (امة)، they gave them different Ordinances to worship God.

But you think, that to all People, God appointed the same exact Ordinances, Rites and Ceremonies. ( مناسك)

Then how do you explain that, the Jews were asked to obey Sabbath, but followers of Quran, are not asked to follow Sabbath?
Do you see what I am trying to show you?


And according to Quran, Jesus reduced some of the Laws of Torah. Why did He do that?
 
Last edited:
Top