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

[InvestigateTruth]

Well, supernatural powers have failed in that case. This is not talking logically, this is preaching and proselytising.

Can you tell me who wrote the Gospel of Matthew?

In our view, God had power to plan it in the right way. So, this Book, His own Book, He planed it to be written legitimately, even if you dont know who wrote it.
But in Bahai View, Jesus, taught His apostles what to be written in the Christian Bible. Then those apostles wrote it. When we say apostles wrote it, that does not necessarily mean, by their own hand. They could have in turn, ask other early believers to write it. But ultimately it was written according to how Jesus wanted it to be. And Jesus was a Manifestation of God, and had power to train such people to do this task. The Task of writing the Gospel.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Sorry. Thats just preaching. Its invalid.

Then we have no way of communicating.

I wish you well and happy in life firedragon, but it is time for me to leave all this alone.

Be well, be safe, Regards Tony

 

[firedragon]

I see this is just continually prolteszing a martial view of the Bible. Thinking that God has no control over how the Bible was to be recorded for future generations.

The Key here is, the Bible was only needed to AD622, as the Christian should have embraced Muhammad and the Quran. The Jews should have embraced Christ and Muhammad.

Regards Tony

Sorry Tony. Thats just more preaching. Just say that no one knows who wrote it. Its simple, and that's the truth.

 

[firedragon]

In our view, God had power to plan it in the right way. So, this Book, His own Book, He planed it to be written legitimately, even if you dont know who wrote it.
But in Bahai View, Jesus, taught His apostles what to be written in the Christian Bible. Then those apostles wrote it. When we say apostles wrote it, that does not necessarily mean, by their own hand. They could have in turn, ask other early believers to write it. But ultimately it was written according to how Jesus wanted it to be. And Jesus was a Manifestation of God, and had power to train such people to do this task. The Task of writing the Gospel.

Well. Thats empirically fallacious. Just faith statements. If this is what Bahaullah preached, he was wrong. The burden of proof is on the proponent, so this kind of faith statement is just preaching. Not valid.

 

[firedragon]

Then we have no way of communicating.

I wish you well and happy in life firedragon, but it is time for me to leave all this alone.

Be well, be safe, Regards Tony

Great. Cheers.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Sorry Tony. Thats just more preaching. Just say that no one knows who wrote it. Its simple, and that's the truth.

That is why we can not Communicate.

God does as God Wills, the Bible is of God, not man.

We know Muhammad did not write the Quran, so what are you proving, you are proving Jesus did not write the Gospel, same as Muhammad. Sure it may have been recorded later, so what? Is that not God's Will, after all its Gods Word.

The Bab and Baha'u'llah wrote it with their own Pen, does that make it any better?

The issue one may have is that some. branches of Islamic doctrine will be smashed, if one comes to accept the Bible as God's Word.

Time to go. Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

Please read my full post. This is irrelevant.

You said: "That is him refuting the Christian belief that this comforter, the paraklete, was the Holy Spirit. Thats irrelevant to the Son of man episode in the Gospel of Matthew. A completely different subject altogether."

So why is what I said irrelevant?
Just because Christians believe that the comforter, the paraklete, was the Holy Spirit, does that make it so?
Christians also believe that Jesus was God, does that make it so?

If you read all the verses in John 14, 15, and 16 that refer to the Comforter, it makes logical sense that the Comforter is a person who brings the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit has to be brought by someone. It does not just get sent by God and float around in mid-air.

The Church teaching is that the Comforter and Spirit of truth are the Holy Spirit that was sent to the disciples at Pentecost, but that makes no sense, because the disciples did not do all of the following things that it says the Comforter and Spirit of truth will do in these verses: John 14:26; John 15:26; John 16:8,13,14

• Teach you all things
• Call to remembrance what Jesus said
• Testify of Jesus
• Glorify Jesus, receive of Jesus, and shew it unto you
• Guide you into all truth
• Speak what He hears and shew you things to come
• Reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment

So when I call Christians out on that, they tell me another Church teaching, which is that since the Holy Spirit was sent at Pentecost until the present day is the indwelt Holy Spirit is doing all of these things above, which makes absolutely no sense, but it is all they have when they are caught with their pants down..

You are a logical personal, so how can you believe that which does not comport with reason?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Well. Thats empirically fallacious. Just faith statements. If this is what Bahaullah preached, he was wrong. The burden of proof is on the proponent, so this kind of faith statement is just preaching. Not valid.

Faith statements does not mean fallacious. A faith, can be logical, or illogical.
So, if you think it is logical, it is your job to tell why. You have not given one reason.
It is like someone says I believe in God. This is faith statement, but does it mean it is fallacious? You have to see the reasoning behind it.
Moreover we said we trust in Baha'u'llah because He has shown supernatural signs.
Tell me, when and where did Bahaullah was studying or learning the Bible? How could He have all those verses in His mind? When did He memorized them?
You keep saying He is wrong, without any logical reason. I can understand it is against your logic, but to me, you did not provide a valid reasoning.

 

[firedragon]

Faith statements does not mean fallacious.

Nope. The argument is fallacious.

 

[firedragon]

Tell me, when and where did Bahaullah was studying or learning the Bible? How could He have all those verses in His mind? When did He memorized them?

He read the Bible obviously. Because he quoted verses that did not have any authenticity. So he was reading the existing Bible at the time because it was before the discovery of some of the older manuscripts. I never addressed this issue in this thread because it was not my intent, but now because of all the irrelevance in this thread it has derailed so no worries. Lets take it.

If Bahaullah had divine knowledge, how come he did not know that he was referring to fallacious verses?

 

[firedragon]

You said: "That is him refuting the Christian belief that this comforter, the paraklete, was the Holy Spirit. Thats irrelevant to the Son of man episode in the Gospel of Matthew. A completely different subject altogether."

So why is what I said irrelevant?
Just because Christians believe that the comforter, the paraklete, was the Holy Spirit, does that make it so?
Christians also believe that Jesus was God, does that make it so?

If you read all the verses in John 14, 15, and 16 that refer to the Comforter, it makes logical sense that the Comforter is a person who brings the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit has to be brought by someone. It does not just get sent by God and float around in mid-air.

The Church teaching is that the Comforter and Spirit of truth are the Holy Spirit that was sent to the disciples at Pentecost, but that makes no sense, because the disciples did not do all of the following things that it says the Comforter and Spirit of truth will do in these verses: John 14:26; John 15:26; John 16:8,13,14

• Teach you all things
• Call to remembrance what Jesus said
• Testify of Jesus
• Glorify Jesus, receive of Jesus, and shew it unto you
• Guide you into all truth
• Speak what He hears and shew you things to come
• Reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment

So when I call Christians out on that, they tell me another Church teaching, which is that since the Holy Spirit was sent at Pentecost until the present day is the indwelt Holy Spirit is doing all of these things above, which makes absolutely no sense, but it is all they have when they are caught with their pants down..

You are a logical personal, so how can you believe that which does not comport with reason?

Oh God.

1. I was talking about something else.
2. LOH gave an argument that was not relevant.
3. You are giving the same argument.

SO its irrelevant.

 

[firedragon]

We know Muhammad did not write the Quran, so what are you proving, you are proving Jesus did not write the Gospel, same as Muhammad. Sure it may have been recorded later, so what? Is that not God's Will, after all its Gods Word.

1. Lol. How do you know that Muhammed did not write the Quran?
2. And when did I prove that Jesus did not write the Gospel(S)? There is nothing to prove there in the least because it is apparent to any tom, dick or harry that Jesus didnt write anything in the NT.
Anyway, it is a logical fallacy called Tu Quoque to bring Muhammed to a discussion about the NT. Its prevalent with all the Bahais in this forum. Every single interaction is like that.

So you guys want to discuss the scholarship behind the Bible and the Quran? You think that both are the same? Cmon, lets discuss it then brother. No worries.

 

[Trailblazer]

Hmm. You really want to get to that debate? Quran vs New Testament?

Is this your style of responding to a question? Your answer is like "I do the same mistake you do". Its called the Tu Quoque fallacy.

If you cannot answer a question, its less embarrassing to stay without giving an answer rather than doing a logical fallacy.
This seems like a prevalent habit of the Bahais. Tu Quoque fallacy all the time. Please try and refraining from it.

If you really want to compare the Quran and the Four Gospels in the New Testament, we will have to look at various forms of criticism. Do you wish to engage? But please note, that its not relevant to this particular question I asked.

Sorry, I was in a hurry. Actually, I was sloppy because I thought you were comparing the Writings of Baha'u'llah to the Qur'an and that would be a valid comparison, given similar authenticity.

After I realized my answer did not fit the question you asked I was waiting for you to reply so I could answer it again.

So why do I believe those verses I quoted from the New Testament? I believe them because they were fulfilled by Baha'u'llah, but that does not mean I believe everything in the New Testament is inerrant, or that it is the exact words of Jesus, because that is logically impossible.

I do not consider the Four Gospels in the New Testament comparable to the Quran because they are not authentic, and the gospel authors are not even known, nor did they know Jesus personally. Correct me if I am wrong, but the scribes who compiled the Qur'an knew Muhammad and they wrote what they recalled from memory that Muhammad spoke or they made notes of what he said.

From Letters Written on Behalf of the Guardian:

...The Bible is not wholly authentic, and in this respect is not to be compared with the Qur'an, and should be wholly subordinated to the authentic writings of Bahá'u'lláh
. (28 July 1936 to a National Spiritual Assembly)

We cannot be sure of the authenticity of any of the phrases in the Old or the New Testament. What we can be sure of is when such references or words are cited or quoted in either the Quran or the Bahá'í writings.
(4 July 1947 to an individual believer)

The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments

 

[TransmutingSoul]

So you guys want to discuss the scholarship behind the Bible and the Quran? You think that both are the same? Cmon, lets discuss it then brother. No worries.

I have left this thread, but have to respond to this for you.

Please note, I have absolutely no need to do that.

Baha'u'llah has given a Message from God and confirms that the Bible is a sure spiritual guide, that does contain some errors, errors that do not matter to our spiritual destiny and do not take away from its guidance.

Baha'u'llah has confirmed the Quran contains no errors.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

Bahaullah has no clue of Biblical scholarship. He makes errors, quotes textual variants that are proven by even laymen to be false, latter additions.

Baha'u'llah had no need of Biblical scholarship, since His knowledge was either innate or He got His knowledge from God during His Revelation.

Nothing that Baha'u'llah referred to from the Bible is a quote, unless it has a footnote.

By the way, Investigativetruth is a sister right?

No, he is a brother.

 

[firedragon]

Please note, I have absolutely no need to do that.

Then brother, why do you bring it up?

Q: Why do you trust these verses in the NT?
Answer: What about the Quran?

Thats the Tu QUoque Fallacy. I know that you understand this.

Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

Baha'u'llah had no need of Biblical scholarship, since His knowledge was either innate or He got His knowledge from God during His Revelation.

Nothing that Baha'u'llah referred to from the Bible is a quote, unless it has a footnote.

No, he is a brother.

New Testament Criticism, Quran Criticism, the Bahai's and their divine inspiration

 

[Trailblazer]

If this is what Bahaullah preached, he was wrong.

No, Baha'u'llah did not preach that. Referring to God, Baha'u'llah wrote that the Bible is......

“His holy Book, His most great testimony amongst His creatures.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, p. 89

But clearly, the Bible is a testimony through the men who wrote it, men who were allegedly inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is not the Word of God in the same sense as the Qur'an or the Writings of Baha'u'llah.

From Letters Written on Behalf of the Guardian:

...The Bible is not wholly authentic, and in this respect is not to be compared with the Qur'an, and should be wholly subordinated to the authentic writings of Bahá'u'lláh
. (28 July 1936 to a National Spiritual Assembly)

We cannot be sure of the authenticity of any of the phrases in the Old or the New Testament. What we can be sure of is when such references or words are cited or quoted in either the Quran or the Bahá'í writings.
(4 July 1947 to an individual believer)

The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments

 

[Trailblazer]

The Bab and Baha'u'llah wrote it with their own Pen, does that make it any better?

That all depends upon what you mean by better.
I would say it is better in the sense that ii is more reliable.

From Letters Written on Behalf of the Guardian:

...The Bible is not wholly authentic, and in this respect is not to be compared with the Qur'an, and should be wholly subordinated to the authentic writings of Bahá'u'lláh
. (28 July 1936 to a National Spiritual Assembly)

We cannot be sure of the authenticity of any of the phrases in the Old or the New Testament. What we can be sure of is when such references or words are cited or quoted in either the Quran or the Bahá'í writings.
(4 July 1947 to an individual believer)

The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments

 

[Trailblazer]

Faith statements does not mean fallacious. A faith, can be logical, or illogical.
So, if you think it is logical, it is your job to tell why. You have not given one reason.
It is like someone says I believe in God. This is faith statement, but does it mean it is fallacious? You have to see the reasoning behind it.
Moreover we said we trust in Baha'u'llah because He has shown supernatural signs.
Tell me, when and where did Bahaullah was studying or learning the Bible? How could He have all those verses in His mind? When did He memorized them?
You keep saying He is wrong, without any logical reason. I can understand it is against your logic, but to me, you did not provide a valid reasoning.

I am a Baha'i for logical reasons, plain and simple....
As I always tell the atheists, I have no mushy gushy feelings towards God, or Baha'u'llah, but I could never refute the Revelation of Baha'u'llah as there is just too much evidence.