• 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!

Brian2

Veteran Member
Yet that is how your creed was established..
Yes, I know .. it "just happens" to be the truth.
Well, the victors WOULD say that.

The Bible could have been comprised of different texts.
We are expected to believe that every document is beyond question.
That is what the victors forced people to believe.
They were prejudiced and violent. :(

It only takes the inclusion of one or two biased texts to corrupt the truth.
satan is smarter than we might think.

The use of those 4 gospels and the rest of the NT was happening a couple of hundred years before Constantine.
The beliefs were established much earlier than Constantine also.
It was the attacks on those beliefs which led to the "official" stuff by something that was the "official" authority. Now all this is used against the Church and the truth.
As you say, Satan is smarter than we give him credit for at times.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Yet men cling to doctrine as truth, forgetful of a simple warning, thinking that their doctrine is not applicable to such a warning.

Deuteronomy 4:2 You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you.

Proverbs 30:5-6 Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.

Deuteronomy 12:32 Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it.

There is actually lots of warnings about adding to the Word of God, our own meanings.

Regards Tony

So what does a whole set of scriptures which contradict the Bible do if only a small text or 2 is enough to corrupt the truth?
Talk about ignoring warnings. :)
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
So what does a whole set of scriptures which contradict the Bible do if only a small text or 2 is enough to corrupt the truth?
Talk about ignoring warnings. :)

The key is that only God gives us the Scriptures and can add to and take away as God so wills.

Regards Tony
 

muhammad_isa

Well-Known Member
The use of those 4 gospels and the rest of the NT was happening a couple of hundred years before Constantine..

Quite possibly. Whatever is written in an early text does not mean that it was the majority view amongst early Christians. That would be "a church father" assumption, which is misleading.

What Origin believed is disputed. He is the weak link in the chain, and The Nicean Emperors destroyed all of his original works.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Quite possibly. Whatever is written in an early text does not mean that it was the majority view amongst early Christians. That would be "a church father" assumption, which is misleading.

What Origin believed is disputed. He is the weak link in the chain, and The Nicean Emperors destroyed all of his original works.

There does seem to be a chain of sorts. The Apostolic Fathers had associations with apostles, learning from them. Those apostles of course knew what Jesus had taught.
It was not a matter of majority view, it was a matter of teaching the truth as passed from Jesus. Part of that was the use of the Gospels which contained that truth.
 

muhammad_isa

Well-Known Member
There does seem to be a chain of sorts. The Apostolic Fathers had associations with apostles, learning from them. Those apostles of course knew what Jesus had taught.
It was not a matter of majority view, it was a matter of teaching the truth as passed from Jesus. Part of that was the use of the Gospels which contained that truth.

Origen is considered by some Christian groups to be a Church Father though he does not have this status in Orthodox Christianity.
...
Argument over the orthodoxy of Origen's teachings spawned the First Origenist Crisis in the late fourth century, in which he was attacked by Epiphanius of Salamis and Jerome but defended by Tyrannius Rufinus and John of Jerusalem. In 543, Emperor Justinian I condemned him as a heretic and ordered all his writings to be burned. The Second Council of Constantinople in 553 may have anathematized Origen, or it may have only condemned certain heretical teachings which claimed to be derived from Origen. His teachings on the pre-existence of souls were rejected by the Church.

-wiki Origen-

Discuss?
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Progressive revelation in the Bible is God gradually revealing more, but not contradicting what has already been revealed.

The Jews must consider the New Testament is a contradiction, therein lays the history of Faith.

With that, I dust my feet, wish you all the best and depart Brian2.

Regards Tony
 

muhammad_isa

Well-Known Member
The Jews must consider the New Testament is a contradiction ..

Well, of course. YHWH cannot be a man.

Interestingly, as I said above..
In 543 CE, Emperor Justinian I condemned Origen as a heretic and ordered all his writings to be burned.

Muhammad was born approximately 570 CE.

G-d is the best of planners. He does not leave us without truth.
Life is a test. We all have our reasons for our beliefs, and G-d is aware of all things.
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Well, of course. YHWH cannot be a man.

Interestingly, as I said above..
In 543 CE, Emperor Justinian I condemned Origen as a heretic and ordered all his writings to be burned.

Muhammad was born approximately 570 CE.

G-d is the best of planners. He does not leave us without truth.
Life is a test. We all have our reasons for our beliefs, and G-d is aware of all things.

G_D is not a man, but all we know about God is given by G_d's chosen Mesengers or Prophets.

Baha'u'llah quoted the verse you offered in this passage about Muhammad.

"The essential requirement for whoso advanceth a claim is to support his assertions with clear proofs and testimonies. Beyond this, the rejection of the people, whether learned or ignorant, hath never been, nor shall it ever be, of any consequence. The Prophets of God, those Pearls of the ocean of Divine Unity and the Repositories of Divine Revelation, have ever been the object of men’s repudiation and denial. Even as He saith: "Each nation hath plotted darkly against their Messenger to lay violent hold on Him, and disputed with vain words to invalidate the truth." And again: "No Messenger cometh unto them but they laugh Him to scorn."

Consider the dispensation of Him Who is the Seal of the Prophets and the King of the Chosen Ones—may the souls of all mankind be offered up for His sake! After the Daystar of Truth dawned above the horizon of Hijáz, how great were the cruelties which the exponents of error inflicted upon that incomparable Manifestation of the All-Glorious! Such was their heedlessness that they regarded every injury inflicted upon that sacred Being as ranking among the greatest of all acts, and constituting a means of attainment unto God, the Most High. For in the early years of His mission the divines of that age, both Christian and Jewish, turned away from that Daystar of the heaven of glory, whereupon all people, high and low alike, bestirred themselves to extinguish the light of that Luminary of the horizon of inner meanings. The names of all these divines have been mentioned in the books of old; among them are Wahb Ibn-i-Ráhib, Ka‘b Ibn-i-Ashraf, ‘Abdu’lláh-i-Ubayy, and others of their like.

Finally, matters came to such a pass that these men took counsel together and conspired to shed His pure blood, even as God—glorified be His mention!—saith: "And remember when the disbelievers schemed against Thee, that they might lay hold upon Thee, or slay Thee, or cast Thee out; and so they schemed, and God schemed, and God, verily, is the best of schemers."
Again He saith: "But if their opposition be grievous to Thee—if Thou canst, seek out an opening into the earth or a ladder into heaven and bring to them a sign; yet if God wished, He could gather them unto true guidance; be Thou not, then, of the ignorant." By God! The hearts of His favoured ones are consumed at the purport of these two blessed verses. Such established and undisputed facts have been forgotten, and no one hath paused to reflect, in days past or in this day, upon the things that have prompted men to turn away from the Revealers of the light of God at the time of their manifestation....."

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Summons of the Lord of Hosts, Pages 96-138

Regards Tony
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
That is for you to decide CG.

Regards Tony
How can I decide what it is you're trying to say if you're not the one that explains what you're trying to say?

If I'm left to decide things, then Baha'u'llah added Ishmael into the Abraham story and took out Isaac, because both the Jewish Scriptures and the Christian NT say it was Isaac. And Jesus rose from the dead, because the NT says he showed himself to be alive with many proofs.

So, for Baha'is not to believe he came back to life is taking away what the texts says and adding in their interpretation. So, are you sure you don't want to support your beliefs and explain why the Jews and the Christians are wrong about Ishmael, and why the Christians are wrong about Jesus coming back to life?
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
I dust my feet
Matthew 10:14: “And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.” Mark 6:11: “And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them.

That's why I believe Baha'is can be just as bad as fundamentalists of other religions. You are right and they are wrong. Can't prove it, other than your prophet said so. Yet, Baha'is ae supposed to "love" everybody and believe and respect their religions? No, Baha'is don't. They believe them all to be wrong in one way or another. Baha'is believe their Scriptures, maybe not the Quran, have errors. They believe the people have made errors in interpreting their Scriptures. And they are teaching and spreading false doctrines. Other than that, I guess Baha'is just love everything about them.

Oh, and how do you unify the different religions if you "dust" your feet off of them, and they do the same to you? No unity, just more divisions.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
"The essential requirement for whoso advanceth a claim is to support his assertions with clear proofs and testimonies.
Well, there you go. That's all that the Atheists have been asking for. So, since it is an "essential" requirement... what are those "clear" proofs?
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
So, what were the Scriptures God gave to the Hindus and Buddhists? Are there any that the Baha'is support as being from God?

That is a personal choice for each person CG, I have read many passages from those Scriptures that I see reflected the will of God for humanity.

Regards Tony
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Well, there you go. That's all that the Atheists have been asking for. So, since it is an "essential" requirement... what are those "clear" proofs?

How many times do we have to answer that?

"Know thou of a certainty that the Unseen can in no wise incarnate His Essence and reveal it unto men. He is, and hath ever been, immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived. From His retreat of glory His voice is ever proclaiming: “Verily, I am God; there is none other God besides Me, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise. I have manifested Myself unto men, and have sent down Him Who is the Day Spring of the signs of My Revelation. Through Him I have caused all creation to testify that there is none other God except Him, the Incomparable, the All-Informed, the All-Wise.” He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof of the truth of His Mission than the proof of His own Person."

So the Person, their life and then their Message is all the proof we get.

The explanations given in those Writings is all we have to ponder.

Those Writings are the proof, as the Messenger is no longer here in person. The history of the person and life are available, but people will reject those records, whereas the Writings are from the very source.

Regards Tony
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Oh, and how do you unify the different religions if you "dust" your feet off of them, and they do the same to you? No unity, just more divisions.

God gives unity, not me CG. If God tells me to leave then to themselves, then God must have a plan for them.

Not discussing faith, does not mean one does not live in harmony with them. We just do not offer any more proofs from the heart.

They are free to remain waiting without my interference. A Bahai does not engage in proselytism as debate can very easily go beyond a point of no return.

Regards Tony
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Rev 1:7--this seeing will happen but it does not mean all at once imo, but it could mean that after the resurrection of those that pierced Him. (Now "piercing" certainly points to Jesus)
The verses before verse 7 also show that it is speaking of Jesus who is coming.
Rev 1 verses 1-6 are about Jesus but they do not show that verse 7 is also about the same man Jesus coming back to earth, because that would have to mean that John 14:19 and John 17:11 are incorrect.
Matthew 24:27 has a corresponding passage in Luke.
Luke 17:24 For the Son of Man in his day will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other. 25 But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation.
The Luke one makes it plain that "east to west" is not a literal meaning and it also makes it plain that the Son of Man whom is spoken of is Jesus, the one who first was rejected and suffered many things by the generation when He was speaking. Baha'u'llah suffered and was rejected "after" he came.
That is exactly what happened to Baha’u’llah. First, he suffered many things and was rejected by His generation and after that “in His day” His message flashed like lightening from east to west.

BUT it goes further in that the Messiah is to return onto the Mount of Olives, East of Jerusalem anyway when He does eventually come.
The prophecy does not say when Christ returns he will stand on the Mount of Olives, but we know that Jesus stood on the Mount of Olives so this prophecy is about Him.

“In Zechariah (14:4) we read: "14:4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south." Not surprisingly, Christian commentators through the centuries have identified Jesus as the “branch of the Lord” (also referred to in the book of Jeremiah 2:5-6), as “the Lord…the messenger of the covenant” and John the Baptist as the “messenger” of the Lord, who “shall prepare the way before me”, and have noted that the feet of Jesus did indeed stand “upon the mount of Olives” and that an earthquake occurred upon His crucifixion."

This was in:
Essays on Jesus and the New Testament
by Peter Terry
 
Last edited:

Brian2

Veteran Member
Origen is considered by some Christian groups to be a Church Father though he does not have this status in Orthodox Christianity.
...
Argument over the orthodoxy of Origen's teachings spawned the First Origenist Crisis in the late fourth century, in which he was attacked by Epiphanius of Salamis and Jerome but defended by Tyrannius Rufinus and John of Jerusalem. In 543, Emperor Justinian I condemned him as a heretic and ordered all his writings to be burned. The Second Council of Constantinople in 553 may have anathematized Origen, or it may have only condemned certain heretical teachings which claimed to be derived from Origen. His teachings on the pre-existence of souls were rejected by the Church.

-wiki Origen-

Discuss?

I have not read all of what Origen said but know that some of his ideas are not accepted.
Do you want to discuss any particular ideas of his?
 
Top