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

[Brian2]

No no brother. I am sorry, Malakoi means "soft men". I thought since I said soft men, you would have remembered it. Arsenokoitus is what you are referring to as Homosexuals. If you think they deserve to be bagged along with the thieves and other sinners, still, what did the soft men do wrong? Do you understand? They are not homosexuals, they are just effeminate men which is cited separately which means there is a distinction in between them.

I don't know what a Malakoi did wrong but it seems that the cultural context of the word is more to do with character traits than with being effeminate as we might understand that today.

 

[firedragon]

I don't know what a Malakoi did wrong but it seems that the cultural context of the word is more to do with character traits than with being effeminate as we might understand that today.

No brother. There is nothing like that.

It seems like Paul is just condemning them because at that time they were considered sinners.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

The ahadith also say that as soon as Jesus returns, the dajjal will crumble and die. Then it says Jesus will climb the dajjal and cut his neck. It also says that he will kill the pig. Imam Malik says Jesus will tell the pigs to pass by in peace, but some other ahadith say that he will kill the pig.

Yes, it is also said, Dajjal has a donkey that is huge and runs extremely fast.
In our view they are all symbolic. Killing is also symbolic and has spiritual signification. it is said Dajjal lives 40 years.

I believe the Dajjal or Anti Christ, represents all false teachings attributed to the Religion of God, or all false teachings against the teachings of Christ. When Christ comes, He kills dajjal, by renewing the teachings Of Christ, and exposing the falsehood.
Breaking cross, is also symbolic and means abrogating the Old Christian Rites. Killing pig, can also mean, changing the Laws of Islam, as in Islam eating pig was forbidden.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

In our view Bahaullah fulfilled the prophecies of return of Christ, and the End Time prophecies in Hebrew and Christian Bibles. So, upto you. Pick whichever you want .

Ok. I have picked one that Baha'u'llah interprets himself (Not Bahai interpretation).


"This is the significance of the well-known words: “The wolf and the lamb shall feed together.”79 Behold the ignorance and folly of those who, like the nations of old, are still expecting to witness the time when these beasts will feed together in one pasture! Such is their low estate. Methinks, never have their lips touched the cup of understanding, neither have their feet trodden the path of justice. Besides, of what profit would it be to the world were such a thing to take place? How well hath He spoken concerning them: “Hearts have they, with which they understand not, and eyes have they with which they see not!”80

Consider how with this one verse which hath descended from the heaven of the Will of God, the world and all that is therein have been brought to a reckoning with Him. Whosoever acknowledged His truth and turned unto Him, his good works outweighed his misdeeds, and all his sins were remitted and forgiven. Thereby is the truth of these words concerning Him made manifest: “Swift is He in reckoning.” Thus God turneth iniquity into righteousness, were ye to explore the realms of divine knowledge, and fathom the mysteries of His wisdom."

The Kitáb-i-Íqán | Bahá’í Reference Library (bahai.org)


And another explanation from Abdul-baha:

Consider likewise that in the short span of time since the advent of Bahá’u’lláh, people of all nations, kindreds, and races have entered beneath the shadow of this Cause. Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, and Persians all consort together with perfect love and fellowship, as if for a thousand years they had belonged to the same kindred and family—indeed, as if they were father and son, mother and daughter, sister and brother. This is one of the meanings of the fellowship between the wolf and the lamb, the leopard and the kid, and the lion and the calf.

Some Answered Questions | Bahá’í Reference Library (bahai.org)



But I think the wolf has always been with the lamb. And the lion has always been eating straw with the ox. And the leopard has always been with the kid goat.

Thats the law.

10 tribes of Israel:

Straw
Rueben the cattle.
Judah the lion
Levi the bear.

Stubble
Joseph the sheep
Benjamin the wolf
Dan the horse

Dust
Asher the goat
Gad the leopard
Naphtali the deer.


Issacher the as s



Baha'u'llah said:
"I am the One Whom the tongue of Isaiah hath extolled, the One with Whose name both the Torah and the Evangel were adorned. Thus hath it been decreed in the Scriptures of thy Lord, the Most Merciful. He, verily, hath borne witness unto Me, as I bear witness unto Him. And God testifieth to the truth of My words".
The Summons of the Lord of Hosts | Bahá’í Reference Library (bahai.org)

Is he?

Who raised up the righteous man from the east, called him to his foot, gave the nations before him, and made him rule over kings? he gave them as the dust to his sword, and as driven stubble to his bow. Isaiah 41:2

Spear - Sword - Bow
Straw - Dust - Stubble


The Lord is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked: the Lord hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet. Nahum 1:3

 

[Brian2]

I see no contradiction at all. To me it clearly speaks of Baha’u’llah. It’s the same with Christ. To you it’s clear but to the Jews they disagree.

It is the same situation as with the Jews and Christians, as in most of the Jews rejected Jesus. However the Christians have found legitimate prophecies about the Messiah which Jesus fulfilled and legitimate ways to understand the OT concerning the identity of the Messiah as the NT presents Jesus. When it comes to Baha'u'llah and the Bible, the whole meaning of the Bible about the identity of the Messiah is changed and we end up with a situation where the Baha'i understanding relies on additions to the meaning that the Bible gives.
When it comes to the passages we are discussing (John 14,15,16) we see that the Spirit of Truth is the Advocate and is the Holy Spirit and that this Spirit is promised to the disciples Jesus is speaking to and to those why believe in Jesus because of the teaching of the disciples. When the Baha'is look at John 14,15and 16 they have to say "And also the Spirit of Truth and the Advocate can be someone who brings the Holy Spirit." and there also is a denial that the Holy Spirit, as a Spirit who lives with and in Christians can teach them and lead them into all truth and etc.
Do you see the additions and denials that need to be made to achieve the desired results of Baha'u'llah being the Spirit of Truth? If not then can you show me your reasoning about those scriptures which brings your desired result without additions and denials.
The main scriptures I am referring to are: John 14:15-21, John 14:26, John 15:26, John 16:7-8, 13.

 

[Dawnofhope]

No. You have not taken it in context, and you have not understood the point. Its not just an old man. Please read through properly.



See, just read your own statement. There is a book that does not call itself to be written by a person called John. But you think "there is a possibility it is not written by John".

Just think. You find a book with the author himself never claiming his own name. But you say "there is a possibility it is not written by John" which is evident that first you assumed it was written by John without the author claiming it is a John, and then state "it is possible that he is not" as if the author claimed it is John, but still there is a possibility it is not written by him. At least if its a pseudonymous book with an actual name in it like some other books in the NT, it is valid to say "there is a possibility that Titus is not written by Paul".

Thats based on an assumption. But the assumption has become Gospel truth for you for so long that you are insistent on keeping the assumption because that is tradition, and you find it hard to let go.

If you read the response I gave you and your reply to it you would notice that you have not really responded to the points I have made but rather given some other points. That kind of response shows that one is not interested in the points made but is interested in holding on to tradition, that's all.



I think you should read again. You have not understood it.

Lets say the author of John was 95 when he was writing this book, he is narrating a story that happened 70 years ago like it happened yesterday, and speaks of someone writing things down 70 years ago, not when he was writing. Do you understand? So how do you assume he was writing about himself? Also, how do you think this book was written 70 years after Jesus? If he was an eye witness, do you think the book will be dated to the 2nd century at all? There is no way. Maybe you should understand how its done.

ANd I have given you some other points that you did not address.



Maybe because you are prejudiced and bias you are not even able to consider the "lame argument" that I had spoken of. Because you are bias and reduced (Maybe), you did not understand that I was speaking of your fellow bahai Dibdin has used "other peoples lame arguments" which are not the real arguments that people use in determining authorship. I was not saying Dibdin was making lame arguments, but he was addressing some lame arguments, not the valid arguments that scholars make.

Try and reflect upon that last paragraph I wrote. Before you make assumptions about others, at least read the argument clearly, and if there are any clarifications just ask.



Just like you they made faith based associations.

Anyway, simply accusing someone as prejudiced and bias just because you did not understand the argument is a quick resort to ad hominem fallacy. Rather, try and be broadminded enough to understand what is said. If not lets say that to each other.

Also, you speak of defending your fellow Bahai's who have defied even the Bahai teachings by saying the Quran and the Bible are the same, and they are both Gods word, inerrant. This is tribalism to defend your kind no matter what. Rather than trying to be tribalistic in speaking of fellow Bahai's, address the point.

Have a good day.

I read your earlier post and considered it carefully before responding. The only point I didn't address was the assertion that John the Apostle wasn't the author because there is little mention of him in the synoptic Gospels. We don't have much biographical information regarding any of the disciples when you think about it. The four Gospel accounts are brief and would take less than two and half hours to recite the longest ones (Luke and Matthew). The Gospels primarily concern the life and Teachings of Jesus, and there isn't a huge amount said about any of the twelve disciples or other companions and family. Other than Peter and Judas it is hard to determine the relative importance of any of Jesus's contemporaries based on the Gospel accounts. Acts is a useful bridge between Christ's ministry and the Apostolic period of Church building.

Why do you assume John would have written the Gospel from memory late in his life? He probably wrote the bulk of it at a similar time to the other Gospels but the final version didn't make it into general circulation until much later. Maybe he had already passed on and a redacted version based on his written account around 70 AD was made available?

So there are many possibilities. Of course those verses about the beloved disciple may have nothing to do with John the Apostle or the authorship as you suggest. The early Christians may have got it wrong. It doesn't bother me in the slightest if irrefutable proofs are provided that demonstrate John couldn't possibly be the author. I'll happily accept it and move on. In the interim my personal belief is that we can't possibly know for certain who wrote the Gospel of John. Nor can we completely discount the possibility the early Christians were right about John the Apostle. Why is that so unreasonable?

The way to avoid tribalism is to focus on the facts and principles and avoid personal attacks. Avoid getting frustrated when an argument that is crystal clear to one party is far from clear to another. We also need to be realistic about the enormous influence our respective Faith's have on our beliefs. How many Christians will accept the Quran as the Word of God? How many Muslims will accept Jesus was crucified?

 

[firedragon]

Yes, it is also said, Dajjal has a donkey that is huge and runs extremely fast.
In our view they are all symbolic. Killing is also symbolic and has spiritual signification. it is said Dajjal lives 40 years.

I believe the Dajjal or Anti Christ, represents all false teachings attributed to the Religion of God, or all false teachings against the teachings of Christ. When Christ comes, He kills dajjal, by renewing the teachings Of Christ, and exposing the falsehood.
Breaking cross, is also symbolic and means abrogating the Old Christian Rites. Killing pig, can also mean, changing the Laws of Islam, as in Islam eating pig was forbidden.

Changing the laws is just speculation because it is said very clearly that he is coming to enforce the law of Islam.

What you would find surprising is that most of these ahadith reported say "Abnu Maryama", the son of Maryam.

 

[firedragon]

Why do you assume John would have written the Gospel from memory late in his life? He probably wrote the bulk of it at a similar time to the other Gospels but the final version didn't make it into general circulation until much later. Maybe he had already passed on and a redacted version based on his written account around 70 AD was made available?

Thats not correct. Because if someone wrote part of it fifty years after Jesus, then the rest were written by different authors because of philological analysis. I have actually explained part of it to you already.

The way to avoid tribalism is to focus on the facts and principles and avoid personal attacks. Avoid getting frustrated when an argument that is crystal clear to one party is far from clear to another. We also need to be realistic about the enormous influence our respective Faith's have on our beliefs. How many Christians will accept the Quran as the Word of God? How many Muslims will accept Jesus was crucified?

Great. So focus on the argument, not about what happened to your other brethren. Even if Muslims dont accept this or that, or Christians dont accept the other, or the Bahai's dont accept neither. Just focus on the argument put forth.

Cheers.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Thats not correct. Because if someone wrote part of it fifty years after Jesus, then the rest were written by different authors because of philological analysis. I have actually explained part of it to you already.

I have already acknowledged the possibility and indeed the likelihood of different authors. Our main disagreement is the possibility that John the Apostle could be one of those authors. I don't see how you can discount that possibility but its fine. We simply agree to disagree.

Great. So focus on the argument, not about what happened to your other brethren. Even if Muslims dont accept this or that, or Christians dont accept the other, or the Bahai's dont accept neither. Just focus on the argument put forth.

Cheers.

Agreed.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Thus, I would like to ask the Bahai's, what methodology they use to pick and choose which parts are good for all of their allusions and prophecies etc etc etc, and what parts are errant. Is there a methodology or is it just ad hoc cherry picking.

This topic is purely about the Bible, not about the Quran, not about the Geethas, the Shruthis, the Buddha, Krishna or any other thing that is irrelevant to the topic.

This is purely addressing the Bible, and the Bahai methodology

1. of choosing which parts are historically valid, and which parts are errant, based on their own belief statements.

2. What critical method do you apply to identify anything in it? Is it just anything that seems to support the theology of the Bahai's or is there another method?

The answer is simple. The same methodology anyone else might use. The question that might be more relevant is what do Baha'is do when they investigate a biblical theological question and discover it conflicts with the Baha'i Writings they consider sacred and authoritative?

 

[Brian2]

No brother. There is nothing like that.

It seems like Paul is just condemning them because at that time they were considered sinners.

Yes of course. The question is what it was that was considered to be sin and another question could be why something that was considered sin then would not be sin now.

 

[Brian2]

Remember Jesus said there are many things you cannot bear them. spirit of truth will say them, and teach all truth.

If the Spirit of Truth had appeared at the time Christians interpreted, then it must have taught them all truth. So, how do you know they were taught all the truth? What difference practically was made, or what additional truth they were taught, that Jesus had not? What was it, that they could not bear it, had Jesus told them, and made Jesus keep it until Spirit of Truth comes?
How could they bear it later, but not when they were with Jesus?

Initially as Jews there would be things they could not bear and the Spirit of Truth introduced these things to them more slowly. That is why it is said that He will lead them into all truth (John 16:13) not just shove it in their face the same day.
But how do I know that the Spirit of Truth taught them all things? Maybe it did not teach them all things, but was leading them into all truth nonetheless.
The doctrines and teachings of the Church come from what these first Christians wrote however. If we contradict them then we are teaching error and not truth.

 

[Brian2]

Brian2, that is most likely because you are not aware of what Baha'u'llah has offered on this topic.

I read those verses and can see the Glory of God is in them.

Regards Tony

Are you also saying that you do not see the contradictions?
But of course you offer no logical explanation of the contradictions I see.

 

[Brian2]

Correct, with an alternate thought. We first have to know who was Jesus as Christ the Son, before we can understand how Jesus as Christ, also becomes the Father.

Not until we see Christ as the Father, can we truly know who Jesus Christ the Son was.

John 14:7 "If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him."

It is definitely indicating that when you know the Spirit of Christ, you also know the Father.

Regards Tony

It is definitely indicating what other passages tell us, that Jesus is the image of the invisible God, that His Glory is the radiance of God's Glory and to know Him is to know the Father.
But I don't like adding another doctrine to that which we get from the Bible because it changes the definitions and meanings of words and stories etc to such an extent that the whole Bible ends up with a different meaning than it originally had.
And that is because Baha'u'llah, whom many have gone after, but who cannot pass the tests of the return of Jesus and a true prophet, wants to change the past (one might say change times and laws) so that people come to him even though God's words in the Bible tell us not to.

 

[Brian2]

Personally I see the Pentecostal belief is not sound doctrine, I see it is one of the clouds that Christ returns on.

The Pentecost belief is just believing a story in the Bible. It is a historical narrative of what happened. As Joel said, the promise of the outpouring of the Spirit of Truth (God's Spirit) on all people in the last days. (Acts 2"16,17)

Sorry, but what I am seeing, Pentecost becomes an excuse to wait, to wait for an event that will not happen as expected and thus will be missed like a thief in the night.

Regards Tony

Nobody is going to miss the return of Jesus but we certainly don't want to be asleep when it happens and living as though it will never happen.

 

[Brian2]

14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:

15 For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.

16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:
[All flesh means all of humanity, not just Christians]

18 And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:

Surely you are not saying that you cannot see that Peter was referring to that Pentecost happening as the fulfilment of the prophecy of Joel. This also tells us that the "last days" began with the coming of Jesus.
And yes the Spirit is poured out onto all peoples who accept Jesus and the Spirit even is poured onto non believers to convict them of sin and righteousness and judgement to draw them to Jesus.

John 16:7 But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8 When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 about sin, because people do not believe in me; 10 about righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; 11 and about judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.

 

[Brian2]

Words spoken two thousand years ago by Christ as recorded in the Gospel of John 14:6 to His disciples comforting them after He had predicted His martyrdom. His disciples were all Jewish and had so was most likely an allusion to Jesus being the Promised Messiah based on the Septuagint. As well as affirming He was the Promised Messiah, the phrase "I am" features seven times in the Gospel of John.

What are the seven I AM statements in the Gospel of John? | GotQuestions.org

So there are further allusions to the Divinity of Christ. In other words the voice of God that spoke using the phrase "I am" through Moses in exodus 3:14 is the same voice of God speaking through Christ. Further, it emphases the station of Jesus being the equivalent to Moses.

Jesus was far more than Moses.

Heb 3:5 “Moses was faithful as a servant in all God’s house,” bearing witness to what would be spoken by God in the future. 6 But Christ is faithful as the Son over God’s house. And we are his house, if indeed we hold firmly to our confidence and the hope in which we glory.

Moses was but a man in the Bible. In Baha'i the story is altered to suite the teachings of Baha'u'llah, and Moses becomes a Messenger on the same level as Jesus.

Its a long bow to draw when Christians use John 14:6 to advocate for the exclusivity of Christ's for all peoples for all times.

Not really, but also that is not the only verse that this exclusivity of being THE Messiah comes from. The OT points to the one Messiah and Jesus is that One. The NT shows us that Jesus is the Lord of all and when He returns (in the way the NT tells us it will happen) the end of this earth will happen and Jesus will be seen by everyone and He will judge all people and raise the dead and judge them also and rule over the whole earth and all of God's Kingdom.
All these things which are written in the Bible are denied by Baha'i so that the whole story can be altered to suite Baha'u'llah and what he claims about himself.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Jesus was far more than Moses.

Heb 3:5 “Moses was faithful as a servant in all God’s house,” bearing witness to what would be spoken by God in the future. 6 But Christ is faithful as the Son over God’s house. And we are his house, if indeed we hold firmly to our confidence and the hope in which we glory.

Moses was but a man in the Bible. In Baha'i the story is altered to suite the teachings of Baha'u'llah, and Moses becomes a Messenger on the same level as Jesus.

There was certainly a fuller measure of God’s Grace released through the Revelation of Christ. However the foundation of that Revelation was Torah.

In relation to Moses Jesus spoke:

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” Matthew 5:17

Jesus disclosed His station gradually and was eventually crucified for His claim to be the Son of God, a reality of Christ the Baha’is uphold.

Notwithstanding both Moses and Christ were the bearers of a New Revelation from God that would form the foundation of faith for generations to come.

So the Baha’is don’t alter the Revelation of God. We affirm it and uphold it. However as the capacity of the people had changed from Moses to Christ, so too has that capacity changed from Christ to Bahá’u’lláh. So dramatic is the change in the conditions of humanity and the world a new Revelation is required. We can no longer pour old wine into new wineskins.

Not really, but also that is not the only verse that this exclusivity of being THE Messiah comes from. The OT points to the one Messiah and Jesus is that One. The NT shows us that Jesus is the Lord of all and when He returns (in the way the NT tells us it will happen) the end of this earth will happen and Jesus will be seen by everyone and He will judge all people and raise the dead and judge them also and rule over the whole earth and all of God's Kingdom.
All these things which are written in the Bible are denied by Baha'i so that the whole story can be altered to suite Baha'u'llah and what he claims about himself.

As the story of God needed to be retold during the days of Christ, so too it needs to be retold in this day. Much of what was said in the Hebrew Bible is not relevant for the current age. Should we still put to death a man who collects wood on the Sabbath? Whatever you think is relevant from the Hebrew Bible was the message HaShem revealed to the Jewish people. A wider audience was not intended but lessons can be learnt. What verses do you feel are relevant to your exclusive one way Jesus claims and why?

 

[Brian2]

firedragon just pointed something out to me that I had never realized, so I want to add that to what I posted before.

Trailblazer said: Can you explain how anything in John 14,15,16 contradicts that Baha'u'llah was the Spirit of Truth?
Can you explain who "he" and "him" is referring to?
If it is the Holy Spirit, as Christians believe, how can it do all the things it says "he" will do in the following verses?
How does the Holy Spirit speak if not through a man?
Christians cannot answer these questions with any logical answer.

Baha'i says the Holy Spirit (Christ Spirit) comes to Baha'u'llah and speaks through him.
That means that the Holy Spirit can speak to Baha'u'llah and that Baha'u'llah can say what the Spirit speaks to him.
The Bible tells us that the Holy Spirit is poured out only all people and speaks to them all. The Bible tells us that the Holy Spirit is poured out onto the disciples of Jesus and speaks to them and that they can proclaim to the world what the Spirit speaks to them.
That is logical. If the Spirit can speak to and do things through Baha'u'llah then the Spirit can do the same with anyone and that is the promise the Bible gives us.

firedragon said: Of course this contradicts the Bible and Christianity because Jesus says that the Parakleetus cannot come unless he goes away. But the Holy Spirit was already there with Jesus, it even impregnates Mary. So those who say it is the Holy Spirit is just making excuses. Thats a whole different story. #332

Trailblazer said: I guess you are referring to this verse? Are there any others?

John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

So, if Jesus had to go away before the Comforter (Advocate) could come, how could the Comforter have been sent at Pentecost? Jesus was with the disciples at Pentecost.

What does Jesus tell the disciples at Pentecost?

"It is expedient for you that I go away," Christ had said to His disciples; "for If I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send Him unto you." "When He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak of Himself; but whatsoever He shall hear, ...Jun 23, 2012

The Acts of the Apostles/Pentecost - Wikisource, the free online library

Pentecost was after Jesus had ascended to heaven and so He was not with the disciples at that time. But He came to them in the Holy Spirit that was sent at Pentecost.
The Holy Spirit is not just the Christ Spirit, it is the Spirit of God and Christ from this Spirit was impregnated into Mary at the conception (incarnation).
The Holy Spirit sent from God came to be with Jesus to empower Him, the man Jesus, for the ministry that He was about to embark on.

 

[firedragon]

Yes of course. The question is what it was that was considered to be sin and another question could be why something that was considered sin then would not be sin now.

Thus, are you saying the New Testament teaching about this or this particular verse is redundant now?

please read the passages.