Trackdayguy
Speed doesn't kill, it's hitting the wall
Looks like the pole at the beginning of this post reveals where most people are at on this forum, regarding literalism. I think this has been a great topic with some amazing replies
-
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!
Which Navity Story is Correct and Why?
- Thread starter Dawnofhope
- Start date
-
- Tags
- baha'i christianity islam nativity
leroy
Well-Known Member
Well Mathew knew Jesus, and Luke knew James the brother of Jesus..they both had access to reliable sources.
Because each author was focusing in different details..if you ask 2 individuals about the party last night, each individual will provide a different version of the same story.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
The two people were at the party. So if they had conflicting stories of about something that had happened then what? One gospel writer has the family going to Egypt and the other has them going back to Nazareth. And, neither of them were there. James wasn't born yet and Jesus was just a baby. So why couldn't it have been Mary? And then, why would the stories differ so much? It's seems much more than focusing on different details.
leroy
Well-Known Member
To me it seems obvious that both Lucke and Math knew Marry, (but we can’t really know) what we do know is that Math knew Jesus and Luck knew James, both Jesus and James knew Marry and Joseph (obviously) so they had access to reliable information. …
Why the stories differ? As I said each one focuses on different details….one of the authors didn’t consider the trip to Egypt relevant, the other didn’t consider the wise men relevant, …so what?
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
If the real story includes all the details that are included in both Luke and Matthew then yes, so what. But, if the family goes to Egypt to avoid Herod in one gospel, but the family goes to Jerusalem and then on to Nazareth in the other... by doing that, how did the family avoid Herod and his men? But, whatever the complications of the gospel versions are, I don't see how the version in the Quran fits at all.
Sorry...... I just keep seeing the double-speak.
I suppose if the Baha'is were trying thinking along strategic lines, optimising our place in the food chain then believing in virgin birth is good for business.
Trackdayguy
Speed doesn't kill, it's hitting the wall
Why does it matter if its factual ?
leroy
Well-Known Member
To me it doesn’t matter, I am willing to grand that of all the miracles in the gospels, the virgin birth is the less likely to have occurred. …
But to me the truth of Christianity is not dependant on whether if the story is true or not
But both Luke and Math, seem to have the intention to report what really happened and they both had access to reliable sources…so why not giving them the benefit of the doubt?
Trackdayguy
Speed doesn't kill, it's hitting the wall
I'm not so sure we know that to be a fact.
We can understand the symbolism if we realize that these 'stories' are all written in the 'shadow' of the cross.
To say born of a virgin is one thing, to claim a virginal birth confuses it with the 'virginal conception'. It is the Christological movement in the NT, from Paul's born of a woman, through John's pre-existent Christ.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
Part of the Baha'i place in the food chain has to do with breaking away from following superstitious myths and traditions by saying that science and religion should agree... and if they don't go with science until proven otherwise. Following wandering stars, angels appearing to shepherds, and a baby being conceived by the Holy Spirit and not a human father with human DNA sounds very mythical and superstitious. So I agree with Old Badger, the Baha'is use "Double Speak" to agree and disagree with other religions at the same time.I suppose if the Baha'is were trying thinking along strategic lines, optimising our place in the food chain then believing in virgin birth is good for business.
Where is the science in the Nativity story? A comet led the wisemen? Really? It hovered over Bethlehem? Angels appeared to the shepherds? Do Baha'is believe in angels appearing? And if they do, what does science believe about that? Then a baby being conceived without a human father? But, that's not all, even if you say that is possible, then do you believe a spirit, even if it's a Holy Spirit, can essentially, be the father?
So which story is true? Maybe none. Maybe it's religious myth. But out of all of the things said, Baha'is say that for sure, the Virgin Birth happened? In spite of all the contradictory things in the different stories? I don't know... what is the Baha'i strategy? It does want to convince people that what they say is the truth don't they?
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
We don't know the sources. Christians can say that ultimately it was God that "inspired" them to write the story as they did. And, it is important to Christianity that the NT and the rest of the Bible be factual.
Unfortunately, it doesn't sound possible that it is factual. But, you do have a "reliable" source... a manifestation of God, Baha'u'llah. He says the Virgin Birth did happen. But, too bad, most Christians don't believe in him, because he claims to be the Return of Christ... and he claims that Muhammad, and The Bab, and all the other prophets/founders of all the other major religions were, essentially "The Christ".
If that's true, then whether or not Jesus was born from a Virgin isn't all that important. What's important is that Jesus is not the "only" way. He is one of many messengers, or manifestations, from God. He, like all the others, are a reflection of God. But he, himself, is not God.
Its not the role of the Baha'is to convince anyone of the truth of Baha'u'llahs claims. Rather it is the responsibility for any seeker of truth to sincerely investigate for themselves their truth or otherwise.
Baha'is believe in an Omnipotent God who can perform miracles, not an impotent god. A belief in the harmony between science and religion for Baha'is doesn't mean God doesn't exist or His hands are tied.
The book of Genesis records the earth being created six thousand years ago in six days. That contradicts all we know about the natural sciences so we can safely discount that as being literally true. That's a good example where science and reason is applied to religion and we can say its not literally true. The resurrection is another.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
Could you comment on this part of my post? "Where is the science in the Nativity story? A comet led the wisemen? Really? It hovered over Bethlehem? Angels appeared to the shepherds? Do Baha'is believe in angels appearing? And if they do, what does science believe about that? Then a baby being conceived without a human father? But, that's not all, even if you say that is possible, then do you believe a spirit, even if it's a Holy Spirit, can essentially, be the father?"
Also, as I've said before, modern science wasn't around in Biblical times. I think the Bible was written as if it was the literal Truth and meant to be believed as such. Now, forget about it. It doesn't sound possible or reasonable to believe in the Creations story... but also the Virgin Birth. Baha's have tied their hands. You can't go against your religion and say that the Virgin Birth is not literal but symbolic like you do with other stories in the NT.
I'm sure you have "scientific" explanations of how a Virgin Birth is possible, but Christians have their "scientific" evidence for Creation and other things in the Bible too. But you don't believe that "science". You disregard it.
Then it's not the "role" of Baha'is to convince anyone of the truth about Baha'u'llah? But, wouldn't you say that a Baha'i should be convinced of the truth of the Baha'i Faith and be able to argue the truth about Baha'u'llah in a convincing way? If it's the truth and you can't be convincing, then your doing something wrong. And I've been to a lot of Baha'i teaching projects. They were trying to be convincing. And they did convince some to join. If you want to say it is God that does the convincing, that's fine. But the message presented to people by people plays its part... a big part.
There are signs in the heavens with the appearance of all Messengers. The Bab and Baha'u'llah were preceeded by astronomical wonders just as was Jesus the Christ. We are a long way from understanding why this is so from a scientific perspective. Who is looking?
People do have pure visions of the next world. Many people have found Faith because of a dream or a vision that came to them. Again, science will have to look before it finds and will require a mind free of prejudices.
The first man had neither father or mother.
I see the natural Laws are from one intelligent source, that source can do as it so pleases and knows what effect and result it has on the whole.
One can ask a million questions that we can not currently answer, dwell on them and use the doubt to cloud what we can know.
Regards Tony
The consensus in this thread favours the story either being a theological narrative or a work of pure fiction. Some Christians take it all literally but many don't, even some who have contributed to this thread.
In regards the virgin birth as recorded in Luke and Matthew the important aspect is most likely how it reinforces the Divine origins of Christ's message. He was born of the Holy Spirit with a special emphasis to the 'Son of God' a Messianic designation. Whether or not Jesus was actually born of a virgin Mary is not the main concern and somewhat of a distraction.
In regards the science, conception in humans and mammals requires the fertilisation of the female egg from the male sperm. The most common cause of virgin births in humans is sexual foreplay without intercourse where the ejaculate lands near the entrance of the vagina.
https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/dp5ekm/the-science-behind-the-virgin-birth
The word virgin could have different meanings including no penetrative sexual intercourse or the hymen was not broken.
Another explanation for the miraculous conception is an actual miracle took place.
In regards the star of Bethlehem I'm not aware of any Baha'i writings that support this being a literal account. Same deal with the appearance of angels.
As I've repeatedly started, there was no distinction between what was theologically or literally true as far as the Gospel writers were concerned or for that matter whoever was the author(s) of Genesis.
The creation myth can be disproved with science. The virgin birth can not be so easily discounted.
I have three science degrees, one in zoology, one in medicine and a post graduate medical fellowship. I have considered the YECs "evidence". I've little patience for any of it but as there are many Americans who are on this site will occasionally step in.
I'm convinced Baha'u'llah is the Manifestation of God for this day and am happy to explain why I believe this. There are all sorts of reasons why people reject the Baha'i Faith or don't become Baha'is. However we are all responsible for one life and one life only and that is our own. Your acceptance or rejection of Baha'u'llah is entirely between yourself and God as it is for me.
Though a sign in the heavens does hearld a New Manifestation;
"....By “heaven” is meant the visible heaven, inasmuch as when the hour draweth nigh on which the Day-star of the heaven of justice shall be made manifest, and the Ark of divine guidance shall sail upon the sea of glory, a star will appear in the heaven, heralding unto its people the advent of that most great light. In like manner, in the invisible heaven a star shall be made manifest who, unto the peoples of the earth, shall act as a harbinger of the break of that true and exalted Morn. These twofold signs, in the visible and the invisible heaven, have announced the Revelation of each of the Prophets of God, as is commonly believed...."
Baha’u’llah, The Book of Certitude, p. 61 on.
Regards Tony
Last edited:
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
There's a lot going on in the heavens. Does a messenger appear every time a comet passes by? But, scientifically, this star guided these guys from the East to Bethlehem? People back in the olden days new what a vision was, and seeing and talking to angels was different. And the first man? I thought Baha'is believed in evolution and not the Biblical Creation Story? So the first man didn't have a human father and mother but some kind of ape? But really, how did Jesus got all the genetic material? Half from Mary and the other half from the Holy Spirit? And that's scientific and not "superstitious"? The natural laws? You mean like natural laws that have stars exploding? Meteors crashing into Earth? Storms and earthquakes and volcanos killing people. And natural laws that control the animals that get hungry and eat people? And the laws that control those things are all from some intelligent source? So God planned all those things? Knowing they will kill people? Oh, and microbes and all those things that cause diseases that kill people. And what was this "intelligent" being thinking?
But seriously, who needs Jesus to be born of a Virgin if he wasn't resurrected from the dead? If one is symbolic and not literal, then why not both? Not many were there for the birth, but a lot were there for the resurrection. And they say they saw him, spoke with him and touched him. Sure, it shows crazy. Sounds like they made it up. But the same with the Virgin Birth.
All I can really tell you CG that this is not something I concern myself with. I never got into these biblical stories in a literal way. I have only read them after reading what Baha'u'llah offered in way of interpretation. Thus all I try to do is get spiritual nourishment from what all the Bible offers. A literal fulfillment is just a bonus event.
Regards Tony
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe one must go by the evidence. The only evidence is the testimony of Mary that she was a virgin.