Koran v. Bible

[1robin]

Both Quran and the Bibe teach the same spiritual truths....Only, the social and religious laws are different, as these 2 Books had come for 2 different ages.

For example Jesus and Muhammad said the same thing about their own station:

“In truth, they who plighted fealty unto thee [O Muhammad], really plighted that fealty unto God.” Qur’án 48:10

"I and my Father are one" Jesus, (John 10:30)

First of all what is Baha'i and what is it based on? If you don't mind saying.

If you mean that Christianity and Islam have some common claims and teachings I agree.

If you are saying they both claim the same God, are equally valid, and have virtually the same theology I couldn't disagree more.

In Christianity
1.Christ was crucified (killed)
2.Salvation is based in unmerited grace (The only logical system that can be imagined)
3.Christ is devine and faith in him as such is necessary
4.You should not return violence with violence
5.Gods kingdom is spiritual (seperation of church and state)
6.There is no compulsion in the bible
7.Bible based on many witnesses and written over more than a thousand years.
8.Offers and demands a spiritual experience that verifies the presence of God and his nature. (The born again experience)

In Islam
1.Christ was not crucified (killed)
2.Salvation is based on works (If thought about seriously this system can't work)
3.Christ is merely a prophet
4.You may fight with brutality if
you are attacked (and many say even if you aren't)
5.To leave Islam can be punished
by death (and has even in modern times)
6.The religion is the state (A repression of concience, and the sign of a weak theology)
7.Quran is based on the word of one man.
8. Has no guranteed spiritual experience that validates the presence of Allah.

These are just some of the most common core issues and couldn't be more different. When two competeing claims to absolute truth are contradictory they can't possibly both be true. I'll stick with the bible.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

First of all what is Baha'i and what is it based on? If you don't mind saying.

If you mean that Christianity and Islam have some common claims and teachings I agree.

If you are saying they both claim the same God, are equally valid, and have virtually the same theology I couldn't disagree more.

In Christianity
1.Christ was crucified (killed)
2.Salvation is based in unmerited grace (The only logical system that can be imagined)
3.Christ is devine and faith in him as such is necessary
4.You should not return violence with violence
5.Gods kingdom is spiritual (seperation of church and state)
6.There is no compulsion in the bible
7.Bible based on many witnesses and written over more than a thousand years.
8.Offers and demands a spiritual experience that verifies the presence of God and his nature. (The born again experience)

In Islam
1.Christ was not crucified (killed)
2.Salvation is based on works (If thought about seriously this system can't work)
3.Christ is merely a prophet
4.You may fight with brutality if
you are attacked (and many say even if you aren't)
5.To leave Islam can be punished
by death (and has even in modern times)
6.The religion is the state (A repression of concience, and the sign of a weak theology)
7.Quran is based on the word of one man.
8. Has no guranteed spiritual experience that validates the presence of Allah.

These are just some of the most common core issues and couldn't be more different. When two competeing claims to absolute truth are contradictory they can't possibly both be true. I'll stick with the bible.

The Baha'i Faith is an independent religion, with it's own Scriptures, Laws and missions. The Divine Mesenger of Baha'is is Baha'u'llah, who revealed 70 times the size of the Qur'an and more than 15 times the size of the Old and New Testaments of the Bible.
The main mission of the Baha'i Faith is unity of mankind.
To know more about Baha'i Faith, you can read from:
The Bahá


Now, in regards to the main point of discussion.

I am aware of the list of differences that you provided. But I believe the differences are due to misinterpretations rather than the actual teaching of the Books.

I prefer to choose one or two of the items in your list and discuss them, to show a point that both Quran and Bible can be saying the same thing, if interpreted in a logical way.

For example, Christians believe that true Christianity teaches Jesus was crucified, then physically resurrected and went up, based on the Bible description.
Most Moslems believe that Jesus was never crucified, but went up physically, based on literal interpretation of a verse of Quran, and believing that the Bible text is changed from it's true original.
Baha'is believe that Jesus was crucified, but only His physical body died, and His spirit ascended, based on Baha'i Scriptures, and based on spiritual interpretation of the Quran and Bible; meaning what Quran says is that They did not crucify His spirit, nor they killed His spirit, but His spirit returned to God.

 

[F0uad]

You made some huge errors hopefully i can correct you.

First of all what is Baha'i and what is it based on? If you don't mind saying.

If you mean that Christianity and Islam have some common claims and teachings I agree.

If you are saying they both claim the same God, are equally valid, and have virtually the same theology I couldn't disagree more.

I agree the concept of God is very different, the Islamic concept of god is more in comparison of what Jesus(p) taught and the Jews uphold pure monotheistic One-God.

2.Salvation is based in unmerited grace (The only logical system that can be imagined)

No it isn't and there are many verses that will contradict you on this you have to stop listening to Paul.

3.Christ is devine and faith in him as such is necessary

Any proof that he is divine? Muslims do have faith in him its necessary if you deny Jesus(p) you aren't a Muslim you have to accept all prophets and messengers before you even can do the testimony(shadaa).

4.You should not return violence with violence

No self-defence? Awesome.. i can do anything i want, Jesus(p) himself wanted to defend himself when he told hes disciples to get the swords. What about the Messanic-Age..

5.Gods kingdom is spiritual (seperation of church and state)

So there is no real heaven? I don't understand this..

6.There is no compulsion in the bible

Says who.. again what about the Messanic-story..

7.Bible based on many witnesses and written over more than a thousand years.

No proof of witnesses, witnesses didn't live in time of the writings, 1000year span means more people could have influenced it

8.Offers and demands a spiritual experience that verifies the presence of God and his nature. (The born again experience)

And then they turn to Atheism.

2.Salvation is based on works (If thought about seriously this system can't work)

Jesus(p) thought it could, and no salvation is based on mercy not works.

3.Christ is merely a prophet

And a messiah and one of the most righteousness persons, the word of god.

4.You may fight with brutality if
you are attacked (and many say even if you aren't)

No they don't if there were many then there would be 1,7billion muslims killing other people, yes you can protect yourself what seems more logical.

5.To leave Islam can be punished
by death (and has even in modern times)

Yes this happened in time of wars (in act of treason) and some countries that do not uphold the real Sharia but always true trials where in the Christian history many were just killed of being accused of being a witch, heretic anything even if you weren't.

6.The religion is the state (A repression of concience, and the sign of a weak theology)

Hmm wait a moment what happened in the year from 700 till 1100/1200 o i remember the Islamic Empire was enlightening the world.

7.Quran is based on the word of one man.

What seems much more reliable when he is told be trustworthy even by hes enemies, yet the Bible has been written by Unknown Authors in different times with no biography.

8. Has no guranteed spiritual experience that validates the presence of Allah.

Lol that's why Islam has branches and sects that are based on spirituality

These are just some of the most common core issues and couldn't be more different. When two competeing claims to absolute truth are contradictory they can't possibly both be true. I'll stick with the bible.

Yup lets follow a book that contradicts itself.

 

[1robin]

Ok i will start by explaining why i think its not preserved right or is not reliable in my understanding with making a comparison between the two scriptures.

Since i use a much more criteria on religious text then you what ever it may be before calling it Authentic or even anything reliable, i will lower the scepticism a little bit and also only focus only the Gospels without the Old-Testament.

I am very demanding of scripture. Sometimes I really am interested in where a comma is used. It would be more accurate to say that your position makes you more demanding of the bible than the Quran. I have not noticed any in depth scriptural problems you have mentioned. You seem to be reading a standard Islamic list of things to say to Christians. If you have some in depth claims you think shows this unreliability then list them and we can discuss them.

The New Testament was originally composed in the Greek language so therefore making it a translation of the Armaric Words Jesus(p) spoke and therefore using different kind of meanings and interpretations to begin with.

This is true but the Greek original is known in most cases and so isn't usually a problem as far as what the scriptures originally said even if a modern bible is wrong. For example I believe that the amplified bible went from Greek straight to modern english and used very descriptive words to translate the Greek correctly.

The New testament was written in about 60 Years after Jesus(P) till 200 Years with the earliest fragments off-course coming from 60/90Years and most scholars and historians agreeing that it was Mark.
So we can see that it had a long time span with no authority, no canonizing, no strong oral tradition, and not a single apostle who confirmed it, authorized anyone or confirming any text. Like i said the only evidence is the scripture itself there is no record in the 1st century.. NOTHING

It was John. You can read the fragment online, it is a verse from John. Until this was found then Mark was thought to be the oldest. I will agree that I wish the Gospels had less of a gap, however the professional new testament scholars still insist the issues are very minor. If you want to see an indepth professional scholar watch James White vs Bart Ehrman debate "misquoteing Jesus" and you will know why I say this.

Since the Roman Church Fathers and the Council of Nicea made the Trinity official and later incorporated text into it such as the trinity-verse(what is now removed) we can clearly see that the Bible has been changed even by the earlier authorities. What about the Gentile/Jewish scribes they could have easily influenced the text and they did if you ever read Berhman's book.

As far as the old testament goes, that would be too much to cover. That is why I wanted to do an indepth study on a small section. Since Islam and Christianity disagree on the death of Christ and it is very important, I would rather stay focused on it. I knew you would bring up Ehrman, he is a smart man but Dr White showed him what a true scholar is. Look up the debate. It is one of the best. The trinity verse you mention is one that is not reliable. These are few and far between and it is because of the amazing textual tradition of the bible (no Uthman burned the bibles) that the problem was found and is noted in most all modern bibles. I do not care about the Trinity one way or another. The real issue is if Christ is necessary and suffecient for salvation. Since I have had that spiritual salvation experience then for me it is a fact. I told you I would admit it if you found an actual issue and I did. So where is the bias you think I have?

Now compare this with the Quran that was being compiled in the time of Mohammed(saws) and was finished 15years after him by hes own companions he in-trusted then 5 years later it was canonized and accepted by all the companions who lived with Mohammed(saws).

I will cover all this in my critique as soon as you are through with the bible.

It depends on what we use the internal or external i personaly use the external such as the preservation. Lets say the New-Testament is reliable where i see no reason for since it talks about the events 200 to 60 years after it, with internal text problems.
Bet lets say its Reliable then there are still 100,000's of ways to interpret the text on wherein the Quran has a tasfir (Context) from the Prophet(saws) and hes companions included Historical Context.

For most biblical historical narratives (the gospels) no interpretation is needed. Only abstract doctrinal issues which we are not discussing would benefit from a Tasfir. We have commentaries and something Islam doesn't:
New International Version (©1984)
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
We have God's promise that the holy spirit will teach us the truth.

Now lets say your a Theist(Not christian or following any religion) what would you find a better and more trustworthy preservation? (try to be honest)

F0uad I didn't understand what you mean here

Ps: Lets use this as our private discussion as there is no other place.

Good idea.

 

[F0uad]

I am very demanding of scripture. Sometimes I really am interested in where a comma is used. It would be more accurate to say that your position makes you more demanding of the bible than the Quran. I have not noticed any in depth scriptural problems you have mentioned. You seem to be reading a standard Islamic list of things to say to Christians. If you have some in depth claims you think shows this unreliability then list them and we can discuss them.

Why Islamic list i could be a Jewish one a atheistic but i don't its not that i do not have a bible in my home or look into things people said or studies. I would say that Paul and Jesus(p) do not fit into each other as one the most Major scriptural problem and teachings.

This is true but the Greek original is known in most cases and so isn't usually a problem as far as what the scriptures originally said even if a modern bible is wrong. For example I believe that the amplified bible went from Greek straight to modern english and used very descriptive words to translate the Greek correctly.

I was talking about going from Aramaic to Greek not from Greek into English... so what has English anything to do with this? Ask any Jew if you can understand the full Torah with reading it in English no they cannot because a translastion is a interpretation therefore the Aramaric Jesus(p) spoke was translated as a interpretation into the Greek with different meanings.

It was John. You can read the fragment online, it is a verse from John. Until this was found then Mark was thought to be the oldest. I will agree that I wish the Gospels had less of a gap, however the professional new testament(CHRISTIAN) scholars still insist the issues are very minor. If you want to see an indepth professional scholar watch James White vs Bart Ehrman debate "misquoteing Jesus" and you will know why I say this.

One fragment? That doesn't look very special to me anyway you made a huge error i highlighted it and made a quick correction, i did a time ago i found nothing interested. Personally i find James White a good speaker but not debater he didn't brought any good/new arguments against it, since Bart Ehrman is more a researcher and a studier then a debate or a speaker i find hes works more interesting.

As far as the old testament goes, that would be too much to cover. That is why I wanted to do an indepth study on a small section. Since Islam and Christianity disagree on the death of Christ and it is very important, I would rather stay focused on it. I knew you would bring up Ehrman, he is a smart man but Dr White showed him what a true scholar is. Look up the debate. It is one of the best. The trinity verse you mention is one that is not reliable. These are few and far between and it is because of the amazing textual tradition of the bible (no Uthman burned the bibles) that the problem was found and is noted in most all modern bibles. I do not care about the Trinity one way or another. The real issue is if Christ is necessary and suffecient for salvation. Since I have had that spiritual salvation experience then for me it is a fact. I told you I would admit it if you found an actual issue and I did. So where is the bias you think I have?

I am not sure what to reply on this maybe only on the Salvation part, would you say that Salvation is based on Injustice and what about doing the will of the father and following the commandments?

For most biblical historical narratives (the gospels) no interpretation is needed. Only abstract doctrinal issues which we are not discussing would benefit from a Tasfir. We have commentaries and something Islam doesn't:
New International Version (©1984)
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
We have God's promise that the holy spirit will teach us the truth.

Are you serious?
The Quran has so many commentaries that are based on context and historical context that directly come from the time of the prophet(saws) that the commentary of the bible looks like a joke. You just said that the verses can be interpreted as who ever wants to so with that in mind the scriptures could have even been more influenced. If i were you i would search up Ibn khatir who is one of the many commentaries on the Quran and see how much work he did on a couple of tasfirs. Hes Tasfir is probably 10times bigger then the whole bible.

F0uad I didn't understand what you mean here

I will clarify this later.


It seems to be that we are a dead-end since you keep saying they are reliable and i keep saying they aren't and i give you reason a, b, c and d without you really countering the reasons i would suggest that we move on the Quran?

Since you like videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2n31g-wCSfc

 

[1robin]

The Baha'i Faith is an independent religion, with it's own Scriptures, Laws and missions. The Divine Mesenger of Baha'is is Baha'u'llah, who revealed 70 times the size of the Qur'an and more than 15 times the size of the Old and New Testaments of the Bible.
The main mission of the Baha'i Faith is unity of mankind.
To know more about Baha'i Faith, you can read from:
The Bahá


Now, in regards to the main point of discussion.

I am aware of the list of differences that you provided. But I believe the differences are due to misinterpretations rather than the actual teaching of the Books.

I prefer to choose one or two of the items in your list and discuss them, to show a point that both Quran and Bible can be saying the same thing, if interpreted in a logical way.

For example, Christians believe that true Christianity teaches Jesus was crucified, then physically resurrected and went up, based on the Bible description.
Most Moslems believe that Jesus was never crucified, but went up physically, based on literal interpretation of a verse of Quran, and believing that the Bible text is changed from it's true original.
Baha'is believe that Jesus was crucified, but only His physical body died, and His spirit ascended, based on Baha'i Scriptures, and based on spiritual interpretation of the Quran and Bible; meaning what Quran says is that They did not crucify His spirit, nor they killed His spirit, but His spirit returned to God.

Where are these massive tombs of revelation that are so superior to all else. Why do we live in 2012 Anno Domino (the time of the lord) instead of (the time of Baha'u'llah). Apparently he isn't that powerful. I will try and check out your link.

 

[FearGod]

The Baha'i Faith is an independent religion, with it's own Scriptures, Laws and missions. The Divine Mesenger of Baha'is is Baha'u'llah, who revealed 70 times the size of the Qur'an and more than 15 times the size of the Old and New Testaments of the Bible.
The main mission of the Baha'i Faith is unity of mankind.
To know more about Baha'i Faith, you can read from:
The Bahá


Now, in regards to the main point of discussion.

I am aware of the list of differences that you provided. But I believe the differences are due to misinterpretations rather than the actual teaching of the Books.

I prefer to choose one or two of the items in your list and discuss them, to show a point that both Quran and Bible can be saying the same thing, if interpreted in a logical way.

For example, Christians believe that true Christianity teaches Jesus was crucified, then physically resurrected and went up, based on the Bible description.
Most Moslems believe that Jesus was never crucified, but went up physically, based on literal interpretation of a verse of Quran, and believing that the Bible text is changed from it's true original.
Baha'is believe that Jesus was crucified, but only His physical body died, and His spirit ascended, based on Baha'i Scriptures, and based on spiritual interpretation of the Quran and Bible; meaning what Quran says is that They did not crucify His spirit, nor they killed His spirit, but His spirit returned to God.

So what do you think the baha'i is the correct one and both muslims and christians were wrong about jesus pbuh.

What is the story of jesus pbuh and virgin Mary as described on your book.

 

[1robin]

Why Islamic list i could be a Jewish one a atheistic but i don't its not that i do not have a bible in my home or look into things people said or studies. I would say that Paul and Jesus(p) do not fit into each other as one the most Major scriptural problem and teachings.

Because it did not look like you researched any of your supposed contradictions. Almost all had very simple and clear reasons they did not contradict which you didn't know. Some of the ones you mention are used all the time by Islamists who apparently didn't read much about them either.

I was talking about going from Aramaic to Greek not from Greek into English... so what has English anything to do with this? Ask any Jew if you can understand the full Torah with reading it in English no they cannot because a translastion is a interpretation therefore the Aramaric Jesus(p) spoke was translated as a interpretation into the Greek with different meanings.

This is just a big and unproductive attempt to make some copout statement about how the quran can only be understood in Arabic and so you have a back door out of anything you don't like. If your God can't make his word understood outside Arabic then your God is small, trivial, and apparently born after 400AD.

One fragment? That doesn't look very special to me anyway you made a huge error i highlighted it and made a quick correction, i did a time ago i found nothing interested. Personally i find James White a good speaker but not debater he didn't brought any good/new arguments against it, since Bart Ehrman is more a researcher and a studier then a debate or a speaker i find hes works more interesting.

Why is a fragment that is known to be the earliest one we have that contains a verse from John, not suffecient to say that John is the oldest we have. Because that would not be convenient for you? Dr White has actually held the codexes that Ehrman only comments on. Dr White is a professor, scholar, and contributing editor, Ehrman wrote a book to sell and that's what he does now. Dr White was a leading scholar for the (NIV bible I think), Ehrman is selling a book. Dr White was a contributer to the Chicago statement of faith, Ehrman is selling his book. White is an internationally respected scholar, Ehrman is selling a book.

I am not sure what to reply on this maybe only on the Salvation part, would you say that Salvation is based on Injustice and what about doing the will of the father and following the commandments?

It is no more unjust than Allah forgiveing anything, I don't get your point. The works (of the law) are still very important, however they are (a temporal institution) secondary to what Christ did and trumped by it. A system where we earn salvation is an impossible one and infinately complicated.

Are you serious?
The Quran has so many commentaries that are based on context and historical context that directly come from the time of the prophet(saws) that the commentary of the bible looks like a joke. You just said that the verses can be interpreted as who ever wants to so with that in mind the scriptures could have even been more influenced. If i were you i would search up Ibn khatir who is one of the many commentaries on the Quran and see how much work he did on a couple of tasfirs. Hes Tasfir is probably 10times bigger then the whole bible.

I never said the Quran doesn't have commentaries. It is Khathir not Katir. I said we have them too but we also have a guarranty that God himself (the holy spirit) will be our commentary and that beats any earthly one.

I will clarify this later.

OK

It seems to be that we are a dead-end since you keep saying they are reliable and i keep saying they aren't and I give you reason a, b, c and d without you really countering the reasons i would suggest that we move on the Quran?

Now F0uad this is just absolutely dishonest. Your reasons a, b, c, and d (more like a and half a b) were all completely wrong. I spent far more words and references showing you in detail how they are completely wrong then you did saying they were wrong by far. This is just the kind of Muslim head in the sand stuff I have been saying makes debates pointless. This reminds me of the Muslim armies coming back from Isreal after getting whipped to a pulp and they see a reporter and start yelling victory.

Since you like videos:
[youtube]2n31g-wCSfc[/youtube]
Was the Bible FORGED? Prof. Bart Ehrman answers Dr. James White - MUST WATCH!! - YouTube

I can't watch them where I am at. However it's a 90% chance I have seen it before. I have conditioned my willingness to discuss the subject with you on your willingness to be reasonable. Every time you act reasonable the next thing you do is something unreasonable like the statement above. So once again I will not move on and waste my time until you will admit that even though you believe the bible is corrupt that you have failed to prove the parts about the death of Christ are corrupt. I am willing to respond to several more attempts of your to test this if you need them but at some point you are going to have to admit the situation unless you produce something better than what you have.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

So what do you think the baha'i is the correct one and both muslims and christians were wrong about jesus pbuh.

What is the story of jesus pbuh and virgin Mary as described on your book.

It is the same as Quran and the Bible.

Jesus was born without having a physical Father through Holy Spirit.
He was crucified and died on the cross, but His reality was not crucified, and His spirit ascended.
After 3 days, His cause was raised as the disciples after 3 days raised to teach Christ Teachings ("Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular" Corin. 12:27)
(The Body of Christ which according to Bible was the disciples and His Cause raised after 3 days)

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Where are these massive tombs of revelation that are so superior to all else. Why do we live in 2012 Anno Domino (the time of the lord) instead of (the time of Baha'u'llah). Apparently he isn't that powerful. I will try and check out your link.

Well, just as Christianity took 300 years to spread around the earth...But Baha'i Faith spread around the earth in less than 100 years.

 

[FearGod]

It is the same as Quran and the Bible.

Jesus was born without having a physical Father through Holy Spirit.
He was crucified and died on the cross, but His reality was not crucified, and His spirit ascended.
After 3 days, His cause was raised as the disciples after 3 days raised to teach Christ Teachings ("Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular" Corin. 12:27)
(The Body of Christ which according to Bible was the disciples and His Cause raised after 3 days)

What is the verses which mention the story of Jesus and virgin Mary in your books.
Quote the verses please.

 

[FearGod]

Well, just as Christianity took 300 years to spread around the earth...But Baha'i Faith spread around the earth in less than 100 years.

But honestly saying i didn't feel comfortable trying to read the bahaullah book whereas
i read the holy bible with ease similar to the quran,even though that we believe that the
bible was corrupted because of men,but still words of god is felt by heart and mind.

i can't see that the bahaullah faith will become stronger even after 1000 years,just my opinion.

 

[beerisit]

But honestly saying i didn't feel comfortable trying to read the bahaullah book whereas
i read the holy bible with ease similar to the quran,even though that we believe that the
bible was corrupted because of men,but still words of god is felt by heart and mind.

i can't see that the bahaullah faith will become stronger even after 1000 years,just my opinion.

Actually trruth you believe that the bible has been corrupted because that is what Muhammad and his companions have told you.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

But honestly saying i didn't feel comfortable trying to read the bahaullah book whereas
i read the holy bible with ease similar to the quran,even though that we believe that the
bible was corrupted because of men,but still words of god is felt by heart and mind.

i can't see that the bahaullah faith will become stronger even after 1000 years,just my opinion.

What is the reason you didn't feel comfortable to read Baha'u'llah's Books?

 

[FearGod]

Actually trruth you believe that the bible has been corrupted because that is what Muhammad and his companions have told you.

No not exactly,but some facts such as Noah flood was global is wrong in the bible but
in the quran it was just local flood which do make sense.

 

[beerisit]

No not exactly,but some facts such as Noah flood was global is wrong in the bible but
in the quran it was just local flood which do make sense.

Not relevant to either your post or mine.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

What is the verses which mention the story of Jesus and virgin Mary in your books.

Quote the verses please.

There are many references in Baha'i Scriptures, regarding Christ.

And regarding the virgin Birth of Jesus, Baha'u'llah confirmed the Bible and Quran, and revealed in the Book of Iqan as follows:

"...reflect upon the state and condition of Mary. So deep was the perplexity of that most beauteous countenance, so grievous her case, that she bitterly regretted she had ever been born. To this beareth witness the text of the sacred verse wherein it is mentioned that after Mary had given birth to Jesus, she bemoaned her plight and cried out: "O would that I had died ere this, and been a thing forgotten, forgotten quite!" I swear by God! Such lamenting consumeth the heart and shaketh the being. Such consternation of soul, such despondency, could have been caused by no other than the censure of the enemy and the cavilings of the infidel and perverse. Reflect, what answer could Mary have given to the people around her? How could she claim that a Babe Whose father was unknown had been conceived of the Holy Ghost? Therefore did Mary, that veiled and immortal Countenance, take up her Child and return unto her home. No sooner had the eyes of the people fallen upon her than they raised their voice saying: "O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of wickedness, nor unchaste thy mother."

And now, meditate upon this most great convulsion, this grievous test. Notwithstanding all these things, God conferred upon that essence of the Spirit, Who was known amongst the people as fatherless, the glory of Prophethood, and made Him His testimony unto all that are in heaven and on earth. ​

Behold how contrary are the ways of the Manifestations of God, as ordained by the King of creation, to the ways and desires of men! "

- Baha'u'llah, Book of Iqan
Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Íqán, Pages 41-80



But with regards, to His resurrection, Abdulbaha (the appointed successor of Baha'u'llah) explained them as follows:

"Observe that it is said, "The Son of man is in heaven," while at that time Christ was on earth. Notice also that it is said that Christ came from heaven, though He came from the womb of Mary, and His body was born of Mary. It is clear, then, that when it is said that the Son of man is come from heaven, this has not an outward but an inward signification; it is a spiritual, not a material, fact. The meaning is that though, apparently, Christ was born from the womb of Mary, in reality He came from heaven, from the center of the Sun of Reality, from the Divine World, and the Spiritual Kingdom. And as it has become evident that Christ came from the spiritual heaven of the Divine Kingdom, therefore, His disappearance under the earth for three days has an inner signification and is not an outward fact. In the same way, His resurrection from the interior of the earth is also symbolical; it is a spiritual and divine fact, and not material; and likewise His ascension to heaven is a spiritual and not material ascension.

Beside these explanations, it has been established and proved by science that the visible heaven is a limitless area, void and empty, where innumerable stars and planets revolve.
Therefore, we say that the meaning of Christ’s resurrection is as follows: the disciples were troubled and agitated after the martyrdom of Christ. The Reality of Christ, which signifies His teachings, His bounties, His perfections and His spiritual power, was hidden and concealed for two or three days after His martyrdom, and was not resplendent and manifest. No, rather it was lost, for the believers were few in number and were troubled and agitated. The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body; and when after three days the disciples became assured and steadfast, and began to serve the Cause of Christ, and resolved to spread the divine teachings, putting His counsels into practice, and arising to serve Him, the Reality of Christ became resplendent and His bounty appeared; His religion found life; His teachings and His admonitions became evident and visible. In other words, the Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body until the life and the bounty of the Holy Spirit surrounded it. ​

Such is the meaning of the resurrection of Christ, and this was a true resurrection. But as the clergy have neither understood the meaning of the Gospels nor comprehended the symbols, therefore, it has been said that religion is in contradiction to science, and science in opposition to religion,...."

AbdulBaha, Some Answered Questions.
Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 103-105

 

[FearGod]

Not relevant to either your post or mine.

i mean some wrong facts found in the bible convinced me that it was corrupted,
such one example is Noah flood,not only because Mohammed pbuh confirmed that
the bible was corrupted,i do always investigate to find any mistake in the quran,
i am not of the kind of person who take things just blindly,i am a skeptical person,
and if i found a mistake which i do believe that it is wrong in the quran,then i will
discuss it here in the RF.

 

[beerisit]

i mean some wrong facts found in the bible convinced me that it was corrupted,
such one example is Noah flood,not only because Mohammed pbuh confirmed that
the bible was corrupted,i do always investigate to find any mistake in the quran,
i am not of the kind of person who take things just blindly,i am a skeptical person,
and if i found a mistake which i do believe that it is wrong in the quran,then i will
discuss it here in the RF.

And that is the problem, Muhammad "confirmed" that the bible was corrupted. He didn't confirm it at all. He never even read the bible. He "claimed" that the bible was corrupted. You then go and read what Muhammad says the stories really are and find that they are different to the bible stories and assume that he was right. To bad if he just got it wrong and the original was real. (not that I believe either)

 

[FearGod]

And that is the problem, Muhammad "confirmed" that the bible was corrupted. He didn't confirm it at all. He never even read the bible. He "claimed" that the bible was corrupted. You then go and read what Muhammad says the stories really are and find that they are different to the bible stories and assume that he was right. To bad if he just got it wrong and the original was real. (not that I believe either)

You don't believe on both books,but i do believe on all holy books whether corrupted or not,do that cause any problem to you.