1. 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!

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

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by firedragon, Dec 27, 2020.

  1. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    10,223
    Ratings:
    +2,799
    Codex Sinaiticus.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
  2. InvestigateTruth

    InvestigateTruth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    Messages:
    7,027
    Ratings:
    +2,240
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    I quote for chapter of Resurrection:

    "Such is the case of Christ’s coming from heaven. It has been explicitly stated in numerous passages of the Gospel that the Son of man came down from heaven, or is in heaven, or will go up to heaven. Thus in John 6:38 it is said: “For I came down from heaven”, and in John 6:42 it is recorded: “And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?”, and in John 3:13 it is stated: “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.”"



    The biblical references I see are all from John, not from Luke. If you could find from Luke please quote.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. InvestigateTruth

    InvestigateTruth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    Messages:
    7,027
    Ratings:
    +2,240
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    There are many places in the Gospels that is about ascension of Christ, such as Mark 16:19.
    Also, many times in John, Jesus said He will go to father, who is in Heaven. Are all of these also not present in the Manuscripts?

    So, even if in Luke, this part was added, it can be viewed as a commentary addition to make the verse clear, that this verse is about departing Jesus from this world. It is not an invention. It is like today, you would see many translations of the Quran that includes some words which are not in the Original Arabic Quran. Though the addition of comments, should be within brackets, but, perhaps in Luke 24:51, whoever add that additional part, did not include brackets, to make it clear this is a comment added to the verse.
     
    #284 InvestigateTruth, Jan 1, 2021
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2021
    • Informative Informative x 1
  4. loverofhumanity

    loverofhumanity Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2016
    Messages:
    8,177
    Ratings:
    +4,072
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    Scholarly is not always correct. Dibdin has recognised the Promised One. That makes Him amongst the most knowledgeable people.

    He is also a personal friend and very sincere person.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Tony Bristow-Stagg

    Tony Bristow-Stagg One Planet One People Please
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2017
    Messages:
    12,605
    Ratings:
    +5,754
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    I like that it was found in 1844.

    Also Codex Vaticanus is dated around the same time, used as the basis for most modern translations is said to be mostly in agreement with the Codex Sinaiticus.

    It is good they find these confirmations.

    Regards Tony
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. loverofhumanity

    loverofhumanity Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2016
    Messages:
    8,177
    Ratings:
    +4,072
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith

    Scholarly is not always correct. Dibdin has recognised the Promised One. That makes Him amongst the most knowledgeable people.

    He is also a personal friend and very sincere person


    Ps: Christian scholars however knowledgeable, why have they thus far failed to recognise Muhammad?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. adrian009

    adrian009 Veteran Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2014
    Messages:
    10,416
    Ratings:
    +9,655
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    To be clear, my personal belief is that we can not know for certain who wrote the Gospel of John.

    The argument in support of the Apostle John, son of Zebedee being the author is well presented in this paper along with an assessment of some of the counter arguments.

    Who Wrote the Gospel of John? | Zondervan Academic

    I briefly explored this topic on RF about two years ago.

    Who wrote the Gospel of John?

    The specific references relating to the passage I highlighted in bold in my post to you were:

    1/ Stephen L Harris: Understanding the Bible

    2/ Lindars, Barnabas; Edwards, Ruth; Court, John M. (2000). The Johannine Literature. A&C Black. ISBN 978-1-84127-081-4

    As a Baha'i it does not concern me whether or not the Apostle John wrote this Gospel. I have no irons in that particular fire. It does concern me that it is an essential part of the accepted Christian Canon. As such, it is the sacred literature that is an essential foundation of my belief in Christ and Baha'u'llah.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  8. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    10,223
    Ratings:
    +2,799
    Adrian. If you have no "irons" in it, there is no point in this discussion. In that case you are just giving some reference without analysing it.

    Just for your information with no further questions let me state that in this article you gave,
    1. it only says about the beloved disciple. Not John. So that's the first assumption the writer is making.
    2. The Gospel of John was written 70 years later. The so called disciple was already a beloved disciple, with writing skills which is very rare, living in the year 30. If he was educated enough to have writing skills he is 20-25. If it is him who wrote this, he would have been 95. Its a miracle.
    3. Also if the person who wrote about himself in the third party, that is not feasible. This was someones narration about another person, not himself.

    There are many many other points to ponder. But I will not waste your time since you are not really interested in this. Yet, I must say that the "Objections" part in this article is quoting strawman arguments because those are not the true objections to this assumption. Thus, they are showing a strawman.

    Thanks and best regards.
     
  9. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    10,223
    Ratings:
    +2,799
    Looool. I think you guys are obsessed with logical fallacies. What kind of answer is "why have they thus far failed to recognise Muhammad"? Thats Tu Quoque. Invalid.

    Also what you said about Dibdin (Who I dont know personally of course) being like some God who has to be right, because he recognised the promised one, and that he is a personal friend is showing that you are just being bias and commits the genetic fallacy.

    Repeatedly.
     
  10. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    10,223
    Ratings:
    +2,799
    Not really. There are various variants. And they dont confirm but deny some of the things in the KJV that is from the received text.
     
  11. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    10,223
    Ratings:
    +2,799
    Oh yes. The more established forgery. Thanks for quoting and establishing that the whole faith comes from the KJV, and not the older and more authentic Bible. Its strange that you have picked this forgery, but ignored others like the Comma.

    No that's not a valid thesis because commentary additions are after the verse ends, not as part of the verse. There are many commentary endings like that and can be recognised by the manner in which the writing style changes.

    Still, it is not part of the older text. So its not authentic.

    Also you are comparing a translation of the Quran, to the Greek text of the Bible. Not a good comparison. A variant in a translation is useless and has nothing to speak about other than a commentary. A textual variant is a much more significant occurrence and if the tradition doesnt date to the older and more authentic witnesses it is a forgery, not just a translation which has words within brackets.
     
  12. adrian009

    adrian009 Veteran Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2014
    Messages:
    10,416
    Ratings:
    +9,655
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    Allow me to better explain myself. It does not matter to me whether the Apostle John wrote the Gospel or he didn’t. That doesn’t mean I’m not interested, I am. If I wasn’t interested, I wouldn’t have started a thread on this topic?

    In response to the points you make:
    1/ The author of the paper acknowledges at the outset there is no explicit mention of the authorship of the Gospel of John in the very beginning when he states. “The Gospel of John provides no explicit internal evidence concerning its author. John, the disciple, is nowhere identified by name.” He then puts forward five possible candidates for who the beloved disciple might be and explains why he thinks its John, son of Zebedee. As well as an analysis of how the text itself, having the early Christian writers believe it was the Apostle John are two strong arguments in my view.
    2/ I can see no reason why the Apostle John could’ve have been literate and lived to the age of 90 to 100 years.
    3/ It’s not uncommon for people to write about themselves in the third person. The text alludes to the author as being the disciple whom Jesus loved (John 21:24).
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  13. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    10,223
    Ratings:
    +2,799
    So all of this is assumption. Every single point.

    1. yes of course the author has to acknowledge it. Has no choice.
    2. Of course your argument is an apologetic, but ahistorical. You dont assume things based on other assumptions that are based on other assumptions. It is common to write in the third person narrative when it comes to historical records, not when you are writing your own experience and your own self. If the superscript was not there in your Bible you would not be making this argument, thus you are assuming its the original, but its not. So your assumption that a man lived to be 95 years old, and he wrote a book out of memory after 70 years, you are assuming the disciple was maximum 25 years which is a "Could Be" situation, and you are ignoring the synoptic problem and johannine inferiority in stating its the same person. Everything is a could be, and an assumption.
    3. This is another assumption. And everything seems to be an allusion. It does not allude to the author. It just says "this guy was there, and he wrote things down". This is a centuries past, post assumption of superscript, assumption of authorship, with an assumption of a name.

    The book doesnt call itself John. The author doesnt call himself John. None of the authors name themselves John. Two endings can be found in John in chapters 10 and 12 only for the first part of the Gospel. Then there are two endings for the gospel in chapters 20 and 21. A redactor has added text which shows that the original author was not present at the time it was done. One of the things that is probably fatal to the theor)' that john son of Zebdee is the Beloved Disciple and also the author of this entire document is that none. and I do mean none. of the special Zebedee stories from the Synoptics are included in the Fourth Gospel. It is equally strange that the Zebedee brothers are so briefly mentioned in this Gospel (only in John 21:2} and that john is never explicitly equated with the Beloved Disciple. These are a few of the arguments, but your article does not address these but speaks of some lame arguments which are strawman as I said.
     
  14. Tony Bristow-Stagg

    Tony Bristow-Stagg One Planet One People Please
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2017
    Messages:
    12,605
    Ratings:
    +5,754
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    I did a bit of a search on the Codex Sinaiticus and found there is apparently the same issues as with all text.

    There are some scholars that see it is a fake and have gone out of their way to prove it.

    It is never easy, finding old reliable history.

    All the same it is for others a miracle.

    Regards Tony
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    10,223
    Ratings:
    +2,799
    Please quote the scholars, and their arguments and why you agree with their arguments.

    Thanks.
     
  16. Brian2

    Brian2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2020
    Messages:
    2,498
    Ratings:
    +389
    Religion:
    Christian
    Brian2 said: You did not answer what I said and what the Bible tells us. If you cannot answer why the Bible contradicts the Baha'i faith in those verses (John 14:15, John 14:26 and John 15:26) and show the Spirit of Truth to be the Holy Spirit that was given to each disciple at Pentecost and to all those who became Christian or become Christian, that is OK. I understand that you believe Baha'u'llah and are willing to deny what the Bible tells us for his sake and the sake of your faith.

    Yes I know you have a different understanding because of your beliefs, but what I don't see is why Baha'is point to John 14,15,16 as if it agrees with your belief that Baha'u'llah is the Spirit of Truth when it plainly contradicts it.
     
  17. Brian2

    Brian2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2020
    Messages:
    2,498
    Ratings:
    +389
    Religion:
    Christian
    Since Jesus is the Truth, maybe that is what He was telling His disciples. That we cannot come to the Father but through Jesus means to me that we do need to go through Jesus to get to the Father. Either we accept the Truth now or we need to be judged by Jesus at the final judgement to get to the Father.
     
  18. Brian2

    Brian2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2020
    Messages:
    2,498
    Ratings:
    +389
    Religion:
    Christian
    Pentecost was not the end when Jesus returns in glory to raise the dead and judge us, it was when the promise of the Holy Spirit was fulfilled initially and specifically to the people God promised the Holy Spirit to, His disciples of 2000 years ago. And of course since the Holy Spirit is shown to be the Advocate and the Spirit of Truth in John 14,15 and 16, that means that the Advocate and the Spirit of Truth came at Pentecost also. This is also when Jesus came to be with His disciples and make His abode with them
    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 14:23 Jesus replied, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word. My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.
    Pentecost was not the end but was the start of the last days according to Peter at Pentecost when he quoted the prophet Joel.
    Acts 2:15 These people are not drunk, as you suppose. It’s only nine in the morning! 16 No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:
    17 “‘In the last days, God says,
    The Jews had not left the land at that time so they could not return then. They will return to Israel and the Messiah will reign when He returns.
    I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
     
  19. Brian2

    Brian2 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2020
    Messages:
    2,498
    Ratings:
    +389
    Religion:
    Christian
    I don't know enough about the original meaning of the words to give you a good answer.
    Vouthron in posts 9 and 10 of Evangelicelhumanist's thread, Why i am an Atheist seems to know more on the subject than I do. Maybe you can ask him.
    Why I am an atheist
     
Loading...