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 Do Baha'i believe Jesus or the Holy Spirit can cure the Leper?

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by spirit_of_dawn, Dec 20, 2018.

  1. adrian009

    adrian009 Well-Known Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2014
    Messages:
    7,152
    Ratings:
    +5,231
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    The resurrection of Christ has been well debated on RF. I've started a couple of threads myself.

    Resurrection of Christ - What's the evidence for and against a literal resurrection

    Resurrection of Christ: Literal fact or spiritual reality?

    Probably the best starting point is the earliest New Testament book that mentions the resurrection, namely Paul's first epistle to Corinthians. Paul as we know from the account in Acts of the Apostles 9 converted to Christianity on the road to Damascus, when he has a blinding vision. This is thought to be a few years after Christs post resurrection appearances culminating in His ascension. Paul speaks of His experience as if it were an encounter with the resurrected Christ in 1 Corinthians 15:4-9. So His encounter with the resurrected Christ appears to how a born again Christian might encounter Jesus, not in the flesh but the spirit.

    As I write, I am reminded of an even bigger hole Muslims dig themselves into. They claim the Apostle Paul corrupted Christianity!

    As for the gospel account themselves, the nature of reality of christ changes. His intimate companions or disciples have trouble initially recognising Him and He seems to take on a spirit like quality as he moves through walls.

    Of course the account of Christ's ascension (Acts of the apostles 1:9-11) has no credibility if taken literaly as we have Christ rising through the stratosphere to the physical (as opposed to spiritual) heaven.

    Next consider the metaphorical way the Body of Christ is used in the last supper and the Apostles. The Body of Christ represents the church of body of faithful believers.

    The Church is called “one body in Christ” in Romans 12:5, “one body” in 1 Corinthians 10:17, 1 Corinthians 12:27 and Ephesians 4:12 and “the body” in Hebrews 13:3.

    I could continue, but that will suffice for now.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. adrian009

    adrian009 Well-Known Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2014
    Messages:
    7,152
    Ratings:
    +5,231
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    What contradictions do you see between the nativity accounts in the Gospels and the Quran? Please outline any and I will happily resolve them.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  3. adrian009

    adrian009 Well-Known Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2014
    Messages:
    7,152
    Ratings:
    +5,231
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    It appears to be the mainstream Islamic position that the original Gospel is lost or extant!

    The Gospels that are extant nowadays were written after the time of ‘Eesa (peace be upon him) and have been tampered with a great deal - Islam Question & Answer

    Gospel in Islam - Wikipedia


    If you say the Quran corrects the Gospels you are saying in essence one supersedes the other.

    If you say the Quran is the Word of God and the Gospels are corrupted, you are saying the Quran supercedes the Gospels.

    This article spells it out.

    Do Muslims believe in the Bible? - Talk to Islam


    A translation error from one language to another is not corruption. We still have the Koine Greek version for reference after all.

    It is a relatively small part of the Gospel of John its origins remain uncertain and controversial ranging from being part of the original to being a later addition. Regardless the addition or removal of these verses does little to change Christian theology.

    Jesus and the woman taken in adultery - Wikipedia

    Mark 16:9-20 is most likely an early addition to the text though we can't be certain. It does little if anything to change Christian theology.

    Mark 16 - Wikipedia
     
  4. Niblo

    Niblo Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2017
    Messages:
    257
    Ratings:
    +228
    Religion:
    Islam
    Some time ago you claimed that – as a Baha’i – you: ‘Believe all of the Qur'an and each of the Gospels.’ I stated that this is impossible. You disagreed.

    Hi Adrian.

    I asked you three questions.

    First: Was Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) crucified or not?

    Having had a pre-senior moment while composing your original reply, you then wrote:

    ‘Baha'is are clear. We believe Jesus was crucified as recorded in the gospels.’

    When asked to justify – with supporting evidence from the text itself – your claim that the Qur’an’s account of the crucifixion is ‘metaphorical’ you replied that the text: ‘Simply needs an adequate translation.’

    You then reference the following verses:

    ‘And so for breaking their pledge, for rejecting God’s revelations, for unjustly killing their prophets, for saying: “Our minds are closed” - No! God has sealed them in their disbelief, so they believe only a little - and because they disbelieved and uttered a terrible slander against Mary, and said: “We have killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of God.” They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, though it was made to appear like that to them; those that disagreed about him are full of doubt, with no knowledge to follow, only supposition: nay (‘bal’) they certainly did not kill him - God raised him up to Himself. God is almighty and wise.’ (Al-Nisa: 155-158).

    This translation is by Professor M.A.S. Abdul Haleem. I trust it is adequate enough for you?

    You write: ‘I can see how you would interpret this literally to mean He was not crucified, but can you see how I could interpret figuratively to mean it was His spirit and Cause they did not kill?

    No. Not at all!

    How difficult would it have been for Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) to reveal that while Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) was indeed crucified, it was only his body that perished; not his ‘spirit’ and not his ‘cause’?

    Your interpretation of Al-Nisa 157 is a classic example of eisegesis; reading into the text your own presuppositions and biases, based on a conviction that the Gospel accounts of the crucifixion are historically reliable.

    I much prefer exegesis – the process of extracting the meaning of a text in accordance with context and what is actually said: ‘They did not crucify him’…..they ‘did not kill him.’ No room for blarney here.

    Second: Did Yeshua arise from the tomb or not?

    When asked to justify – with supporting evidence from the text itself – your claim that the Gospel account is ‘allegorical’ you first mention Paul. However, since Paul did not write the Gospels, lets see what you have to say about them:

    ‘As for the gospel account themselves, the nature of reality of Christ changes. His intimate companions or disciples have trouble initially recognising Him and He seems to take on a spirit like quality as he moves through walls.’

    In Luke 24 we read:

    ‘They were still talking about all this when he himself stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you!" ln a state of alarm and fright, they thought they were seeing a ghost. But he said, "Why are you so agitated, and why are these doubts rising in your hearts? Look at my hands and feet; yes, it is I indeed. Touch me and see for yourselves; a ghost has no flesh and bones as you can see I have." And as he said this he showed them his hands and feet. Their joy was so great that they still could not believe it, and they stood there dumfounded; so he said to them, "Have you anything here to eat?" And they offered him a piece of grilled fish, which he took and ate before their eyes.’ (Verses 36-43).

    Please note: Yeshua said, ‘Touch me…’; from the Greek ‘psilaphao’, which means to touch, to squeeze, or to feel. He is giving the disciples permission to examine his resurrected body; to see for themselves that it is a real body and not a spirit.

    The disciple Thomas was not present at this first meeting. When told of Yeshua’s visit he scoffed: ‘Unless I see the holes that the nails made in his hands and can put my finger into the holes they made, and unless I can put my hand into his side, I refuse to believe.’ (John 20: 25).

    Thomas (like you, it seems) did not believe that actual bodily resurrection is possible.

    Eight days later came another visit. This time, Thomas is present. Yeshua speaks to him: ‘Put your finger here; look, here are my hands. Give me your hand; put it into my side. Doubt no longer but believe." Thomas replied, "My Lord and my God !" Jesus said to him: "You believe because you can see me. Happy are those who have not seen and yet believe." (Verses 26-29).

    Yeshua makes yet another appearance, this time at the Sea of Tiberias. The day ends with a communal meal of fish, with Yeshua tucking-in with all the rest.

    Getting back to Paul. He writes:

    ‘Well then, in the first place, I taught you what I had been taught myself, namely that Christ died for our sins, in accordance with the scriptures; that he was buried; and that he was raised to life on the third day, in accordance with the scriptures; that he appeared first to Cephas and secondly to the Twelve. Next he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died; then he appeared to James, and then to all the apostles; and last of all he appeared to me too; it was as though I was born when no one expected it.’ (1st Corinthians: 3-8).

    The author of ‘Acts’ writes:

    ‘He had shown himself alive to them after his Passion by many demonstrations: for forty days he had continued to appear to them and tell them about the kingdom of God. When he had been at table with them, he had told them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait there for what the Father had promised.’ (Acts 1:3-4).

    How can one read these verses and then claim that the resurrection accounts are ‘allegorical’. No, the authors of these verses intended them to be taken literally. And this the Church has done, and continues to do.

    Third: Which account of his birth is correct: the Gospel account or the Qur'anic account?

    You write: ‘What contradictions do you see between the nativity accounts in the Gospels and the Quran? Please outline any and I will happily resolve them.’

    Are you being serious?

    Mark makes no mention of the nativity.

    Matthew writes that Yeshua was born at Bethlehem in Judaea; that certain ‘wise men’ came calling – after meeting with King Herod in Jerusalem; that Herod commands them to go find the child, and to report back to him; that these ‘wise men’ then follow a star, until it ‘halts over the place where the child was’ They enter and see Yeshua with his mother. They fall to their knees; pay; homage; offer gifts of gold and frankincense and myrrh; and return home – having been ‘warned in a dream not to go back to Herod.’

    Luke writes of a worldwide census during the governorship of Quirinius; of a journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem; of a babe ‘wrapped in swaddling clothes, and laid in a manger because there was no room at the inn’; of shepherds taking it in turn to watch their flocks in the fields during the night*; of an ‘angel of the Lord’ who – having ‘terrified’ the shepherds by his appearance – speaks words of comfort: ‘Do not be afraid. Listen, I bring you news of great joy, a joy to be shared by the whole people. Today in the town of David a saviour has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord. And here is a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger.’; of a ‘great throng of the heavenly host, praising God and singing: ‘Glory to God in the highest heaven, and peace to men who enjoy his favour’; of the shepherds hurrying off, and finding ‘Mary and Joseph, and the baby lying in the manger.’

    * I’m reminded of a ditty we used to sing at Christmas, when I was a kid (and when there were no adults around):

    ‘While shepherds washed their socks at night, while seated on the grass; and angel of the Lord came down, and kicked them up the ……!’ Well…we were Baptists, after all.

    John doesn’t mention the nativity.

    This is what the Qur’an has to say:

    ‘And so it was ordained: she conceived him. She withdrew to a distant place and, when the pains of childbirth drove her to (cling to) the trunk of a palm tree, she exclaimed, ‘I wish I had been dead and forgotten long before all this!’ but a voice cried to her from below, ‘Do not worry: your Lord has provided a stream at your feet and, if you shake the trunk of the palm tree towards you, it will deliver fresh ripe dates for you, so eat, drink, be glad, and say to anyone you may see: “I have vowed to the Lord of Mercy to abstain from conversation, and I will not talk to anyone today.” She went back to her people carrying the child……’ (Maryam: 22-27).

    Which nativity account is correct: Matthews; Luke’s; or Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla)’s?

    Have a great weekend, and very best regards.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. Niblo

    Niblo Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2017
    Messages:
    257
    Ratings:
    +228
    Religion:
    Islam
    Hi again,

    In šāʾ Allāh, I'll reply to this post in a few days.

    Take care!
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  6. adrian009

    adrian009 Well-Known Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2014
    Messages:
    7,152
    Ratings:
    +5,231
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    I think this is just a long winded way of saying "I'm right and you are wrong. There can only be one possible way of viewing these verses and that is a literal interpretation of the verse." It is the same approach the Christian fundamentalists take. When such statements are made it usually means there no more sensible arguments to be made so opinion is stated as fact. I we are now best to agree to disagree. I have just started another thread on this topic if you are interested.:)

    Was Jesus Crucified or Not?

    I'll respond to the other points soon.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Niblo

    Niblo Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2017
    Messages:
    257
    Ratings:
    +228
    Religion:
    Islam
    While we are waiting:

    I wrote: ‘I know of no Islamic scholar who teaches that the ʾInjīl is extant. I’d be grateful for any help you can give. My understand is that the ʾInjīl has been lost (although certain elements may yet be found in the Gospels, for example the Sermon of the Mount).’

    You replied: ‘It appears to be the mainstream Islamic position that the original Gospel is lost or extant!’

    In support of this statement you refer to two sites (via links).

    The people of one site affirm – ‘without any doubt’ – that: ‘We also believe that there is no longer any book that remained as it was revealed by Allaah, neither the Gospel nor anything else, apart from the Qur’aan. Even the Christians themselves do not believe that the books that they have before them were revealed in that form from God, nor do they claim that the Messiah wrote the Gospel or at least that it was written during his lifetime.’

    The second site states: ‘Muslim scholars have resisted identifying the Injil with the New Testament Gospels. Some have suggested the Injil may be the Gospel of Barnabus or (the) Gospel of Thomas. More commonly, Muslim scholars have argued that the Injil refers to a text now lost or hopelessly corrupted.’

    The ‘Gospel of Barnabus’ is a forgery.

    I have a copy of the ‘Gospel of Thomas’; translated from the Coptic by Jean-Yves Leloup.

    Leloup tell us that the document was discovered in 1945, in upper Egypt, in the area where ‘Khenoboskion, the ancient monastic community founded by St. Pachomius, had once stood.’

    He writes:

    ‘This Gospel of Thomas contains no biography of Jesus (Yesu in Greek and Coptic, Yeshua in Aramaic), nor any account of his miracles. It is a collection of 114 sayings, called logia in Greek (singular: logion). These are said to be the naked words attributed to the Master, “the Living Jesus,” written down by Didymus Judas Thomas, the Twin.

    ‘This gospel has elicited a wide range of reactions from critics. For some scholars it represents one of many apocryphal writings, an item of academic interest in the study of gnostic texts. For others, it is a mere collage of the words of Jesus derived from the canonical gospels and mixed with heterodox traditions that claim to originate with Jesus. For still others, it is the closest document we have to the very source that the canonical gospels themselves drew upon, a tradition that predates them. In this view, the Gospel of Thomas is the “protogospel” that we have so long been seeking, the only one that transmits the authentic words of Jesus. But whether we like it or not, Yeshua of Nazareth was not a writer. It is therefore impossible to speak of “the authentic words of Jesus.”'

    I do not believe that this Gospel is the ʾInjīl. By the way, it makes no mention of the crucifixion, nor of the resurrection! Make of that what you will.

    I wrote: ‘The Qur’an does not ‘supersede the Gospels’, as you claim. It merely corrects errors that have distorted the message given to Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām).’

    You replied:

    ‘If you say the Quran corrects the Gospels you are saying in essence one supersedes the other………If you say the Quran is the Word of God and the Gospels are corrupted, you are saying the Quran supercedes the Gospels.’

    No. You are misunderstanding the meaning of the word ‘supersede’. To supersede means to take the place of….or to supplant.

    The verb ‘(to) correct’ means to make true’ to make accurate; to remove errors or faults

    A pupil writes: ‘The Norman invasion of England took place at Brighton, in 1166.’

    When his teacher replaces ‘Brighton’ with ‘Hastings’ and ‘1166’ with ‘1066’ she is not supplanting (superseding…..abrogating) his statement, she is correcting it (removing its errors) so as to make it true.

    I repeat: ‘The Qur’an does not ‘supersede the Gospels’, as you claim. It merely corrects errors that have distorted the message given to Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām).’

    I wrote:

    ‘The spurious ‘Comma Ioanneum’: ‘…added by some enterprising person or persons in the ancient Church who felt that the New Testament was sadly deficient in direct witness to the kind of doctrine of the Trinity which he favoured and who determined to remedy that defect . . . ’ (Anthony and Richard Hanson: ‘Reasonable Belief: A Survey of the Christian Faith; page 171)’.

    ‘What is this if not corruption?’

    You replied: ‘A translation error from one language to another is not corruption. We still have the Koine Greek version for reference after all.

    The ‘Comma Ioanneum’ is not a ‘translation error’. It is a deliberated insertion into a later manuscript of a text not found in earlier manuscripts.

    A footnote in the Ignatius Bible Edition of the ‘Didache Bible’ states that the ‘Comma Ioanneum’ is: ‘First found in the Latin (fourth century) and does not appear in any Greek manuscript until the fifteenth century. It is probably a marginal gloss that found its way into the text.’

    The Dominicans of the École Biblique de Jerusalem; and editors of the Jerusalem Bible say this about the ‘Comma:

    ‘The words are not found in any of the early Gk MSS, or any of the early translations, or in the best MSS of the Vulg(ate) iself…(they are)…probably a gloss that has crept into the text.’

    I repeat, the ‘Comma Ioanneum’ is spurious, and yet – in spite of this – the Church insisted (for centuries) that it be included in 1 John 5:7-8; on the grounds that it had become official Church teaching!

    In 1927, the Holy Office (Guardian of Catholic orthodoxy; and once named the ‘Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition’) declared: ‘After careful examination of the whole circumstances that its genuineness could be denied’ (Ludwig Ott: ‘Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma’, page 56).

    This is why one of my Bibles (the Jerusalem Bible) reads: ‘So there are three witnesses, the Spirit, water and blood; and the three of them coincide.’ Another Catholic version of mine – the Douay-Rheims – does contain the ‘Comma Ioanneum’. I ask you, yet again, which of these two is the uncorrupted version: the former or the latter?

    I wrote:

    The ‘pericope adulterae’; a source of much controversy for decades. I have pointed out that the King James Version (based on the Textus Receptus) includes the ‘pericope adulterae’ as an original part of the Gospel. On the other hand, more modern translations – such as the ESV, NIV, RV; NRVS; and GNB – include the ‘pericope adulterae’, but bracket it as not original; while others print it in a smaller font (TNIV), or place it at the end of the gospel (REB), all with notes of explanation. This is because the story is not found in the earliest Greek manuscripts.

    ‘What is this if not corruption?’

    You replied:

    ‘It is a relatively small part of the Gospel of John its origins remain uncertain and controversial ranging from being part of the original to being a later addition. Regardless the addition or removal of these verses does little to change Christian theology.'

    It is not a matter of ‘changing Christian theology’; it is a matter of fidelity to the texts. Anything that does not belong to the story of Yeshua; that has been added to the Gospels – that was not written by any of the four anonymous authors – is a corruption by default.

    The same can be said for the various ending of Mark.

    Very best regards.
     
  8. CG Didymus

    CG Didymus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2012
    Messages:
    4,578
    Ratings:
    +1,793
    Religion:
    undecided
    But Baha'is don't believe the Bible is 100% authentic. And a change here or there doesn't change Christian theology? You mean the theology that Baha'is say is wrong? And, don't forget the change from Ishmael to Isaac. That doggone scribe that did that. But, that probably didn't affect theology either.
     
  9. adrian009

    adrian009 Well-Known Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2014
    Messages:
    7,152
    Ratings:
    +5,231
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    I agree the gospel accounts have been written by the authors as if they actually happened. But that is the power of story telling, where a narrative can be created and yet have many other meanings. The empty tomb and the obstructing stone, the Roman guards, and the ascension into the sky. These are all potent images carefully crafted to convey deeper spiritual meanings. The Body of Christ Himself has been used as a metaphor many times by the Apostles.

    Consider the text of Matthew 28:1-6 and the imagery used.
    In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
    And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
    His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
    And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.

    And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
    He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.


    This is not a straightforward description of historic events.

    The verses you quote don't really highlight how the reality of Jesus has changed in that His close companions didn't recognise Him.

    And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them.
    But their eyes were holden that they should not know him.
    And he said unto them, What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad?


    Luke 24:15-17

    Contrast this to the language used in regards the crucifixion:

    Pilate therefore, willing to release Jesus, spake again to them.
    But they cried, saying, Crucify him, crucify him.
    And he said unto them the third time, Why, what evil hath he done? I have found no cause of death in him: I will therefore chastise him, and let him go.
    And they were instant with loud voices, requiring that he might be crucified. And the voices of them and of the chief priests prevailed.
    And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they required.

    Luke 23:20-24

    And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left.
    Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

    Luke 23:33-34

    Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified.
    And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified.
    When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
    Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.
    Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.

    Matthew 27:22-26

    And after that they had mocked him, they took the robe off from him, and put his own raiment on him, and led him away to crucify him.
    And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name: him they compelled to bear his cross.

    Matthew 27:31-32

    The authors of the gospels clearly wanted to convey that Christ was crucified. Your argument that the resurrection narrative is true because that's what the gospel authors have clearly said has no credibility if on the other hand you reject the even clearer crucifixion accounts. Baha'is see the Gospel narratives as carefully crafted and Divinely inspired theological accounts rich with allusions to passages in the Hebrew Bible, symbolism to convey a spiritual message in the manner of Christ, along with the core Teachings. Such an approach assists us to make better sense of both the resurrection and crucifixion. If taken literally we have internal contradictions within the Gospels themselves as well as contradictions with the Quran. Muslims try to reconcile the contradictions by mutilating the Gospels beyond recognition. Removing the numerous New Testament references to the crucifixion doesn't work. In fact both the crucifixion and resurrection narratives are an inseperable part of the New Testament and intimately intertwined.

    Death and Resurrection Passages in the New Testament | CARM.org

    Cutting out the passages that don't fit is only useful for Muslims talking to Muslims.
     
  10. adrian009

    adrian009 Well-Known Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2014
    Messages:
    7,152
    Ratings:
    +5,231
    Religion:
    Baha'i
  11. Niblo

    Niblo Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2017
    Messages:
    257
    Ratings:
    +228
    Religion:
    Islam
    .

    You write:

    ‘I agree the gospel accounts have been written by the authors as if they actually happened. But that is the power of story telling.’

    This is an admission that the Gospel accounts are a fiction.

    Concerning Matthew 28: 1-6, you write:

    ‘This is not a straightforward description of historic events.’

    This is an admission that the account is a fiction.

    I agree that the Gospels are - largely - works of fiction. Theology, rather than history. What disappoints me, Adrian – but does not surprise me – is that you insist in declaring that you ‘believe all that is in the Gospels’. The simple truth is that you – and all Baha’i – accept what you like, and reject what you please. It hurts me to say this – but your declaration is dishonest. I have no time for dishonesty.

    Thank you for you time, and I wish you all the best. But we are done.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  12. CG Didymus

    CG Didymus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2012
    Messages:
    4,578
    Ratings:
    +1,793
    Religion:
    undecided
    Strange that Adrian accuses Muslims of doing what Baha'is do.
    I always ask Adrian to explain how the four gospels writers all "crafted" the same "potent" images?
    Why, if the gospel accounts are written as if they really happened... why oh why can't that be exactly what they intended? If they embellished. If they made up the resurrection stories, then that is fiction. Why would it be some deep symbolic story that nobody knew about until nearly 2000 years later when the Baha'is finally told us all about the "true" meaning?

    It's a sad day for me to see you go. And, it is sad that despite the intent of Baha'is to unify and bring peace between the different religions, it seems they've brought more controversy and questions.
     
  13. Vinayaka

    Vinayaka devotee
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    27,099
    Ratings:
    +11,473
    Religion:
    Saivite Hindu
    Just now you noticed this? I've always been amazed by this syndrome, not just with Baha'is but with lots of folks. How many times have I felt like saying ... "But that's exactly what you guys do." The inability to look in a mirror and acknowledge this is a conundrum I have yet to figure out. "I'm right and you're wrong" rules the day.
     
  14. Niblo

    Niblo Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2017
    Messages:
    257
    Ratings:
    +228
    Religion:
    Islam
    I shan't be going just yet...God willing. It's simply that I cannot stomach....for now, at least...anymore Baha'i duplicity.

    I imagine Bill Clinton repeating: 'I Did Not Have Sexual Relations With That Woman.....I Did Not....NOT....NOT....NOT'; and a Baha'i reporter saying: 'Well, there you have it, ladies and gentlemen.....Clinton admits he had sexual relations with Lewinsky.........in a metaphorical manner!'
     
    #254 Niblo, Jan 27, 2019
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Vinayaka

    Vinayaka devotee
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    27,099
    Ratings:
    +11,473
    Religion:
    Saivite Hindu
    I hope you stick around as well. Some of us don't have the knowledge to debate these things, and it's always good to read a reasoned alternative.
     
  16. Tony Bristow-Stagg

    Tony Bristow-Stagg A World Citizen
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2017
    Messages:
    6,362
    Ratings:
    +2,628
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    Niblo, it is all part of what happens on and in a Judgement Day. It can be said that these conversations are but echoes of times past. They have already been had when previous Messengers of Allah graced the world with a new Message.

    The Promised Day of God brings again a Messenger with a New Message, but also brings the rejection of ages past.

    The Jews will not accept a Messenger from Christ forward, the Christains from Muhammad forward and the Muslims from the Bab Forward. All claim a finality of the Messages from Allah, veiled by a name.

    It could be that we have not learnt that Message.

    Regards Tony
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. adrian009

    adrian009 Well-Known Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2014
    Messages:
    7,152
    Ratings:
    +5,231
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    I'm disappointed but not surprised at your response. All the best.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  18. adrian009

    adrian009 Well-Known Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2014
    Messages:
    7,152
    Ratings:
    +5,231
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    We don't know for certain whether Mark 16:9-16 or the pericope adulterae (John 7:53, John 8:1-11) is an addition or interpolation of the Gospels as some scholars claim. Regardless, neither Baha'i nor Christian theology is changed.

    The Ishmael/Isaac change has little or no impact of Baha'i theology as both were sacrificed in different ways. Obviously Christians believe it was Isaac, not Ishmael that was sacrificed.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
Loading...