Concerning the Islamic Conception of Jesus

[CG Didymus]

Wrong, the NT is the Word of God but not the words of the followers of Jesus who prefer to believe in Christian doctrines.

Wrong? Which must mean you the all-knowing Trailblazer is right? But you contradict yourself. Here you say the NT is the Word of God not the words of the followers of Jesus.

so Mathew, Mark, Luke, John were not followers of Jesus, if so what were they??

Since these people were followers of Jesus you walk that back. Then you say...

There are resurrection stories men wrote long after Jesus walked the earth but stories are not proof that anything in the stories ever actually took place.

The resurrection stories were written by men and imply the stories never happened?

Then come back to me and tell me about Baha'is and how we do not “really believe” in the Bible

I'm back and Baha'is do not really believe the Bible as believed by most Jews and most Christians. If Liberal Christians don't take it literally that's fine with me. Then Baha'is and Liberal Christians should qualify their statements... "We believe in some of the "spiritual" truths of the Bible, but many of the stories and events depicted in the Bible we don't take literally." Plus, Baha'is say they don't believe it is 100% authentic. So what percent is authentic? What percent is not literal?

People take the gospels too literally, but the writers go out of their way not to be taken literally. Its like they are shouting "Hello this is not literal

So where in the four gospel accounts of the post crucifixion story do the writers go out of their way to make it obvious Jesus didn't really rise from the dead? I happen to believe there is a good chance it didn't happen, but how would I know... maybe it did. Baha'is believe it definitely didn't happen, even though the gospel stories say it did.

We can expand this to the Jewish Bible also. It says God created Adam and Eve. Baha'is say humans evolved. The Bible says that some people lived to be hundreds of years old. Baha'is don't. So what do you say? That they were "symbolically" 900 years old? The Bible says Isaac was taken by Abraham to be sacrificed. The Baha'is say it was Ishmael. So why pretend you believe in the Bible and the NT? Why not just say you believe in some things in the Bible and the NT, but somethings aren't true? Like I say how would I know. For me, I think it is probably myth. But if, as improbable as it is, if it is exactly true, I have no problem with it.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm back and Baha'is do not really believe the Bible as believed by most Jews and most Christians. If Liberal Christians don't take it literally that's fine with me. Then Baha'is and Liberal Christians should qualify their statements... "We believe in some of the "spiritual" truths of the Bible, but many of the stories and events depicted in the Bible we don't take literally."

That is what Baha'is say.

Plus, Baha'is say they don't believe it is 100% authentic. So what percent is authentic?

If by authentic you mean did Jesus write it, none of it is authentic.

What percent is not literal?

I wouldn't know.

So where in the four gospel accounts of the post crucifixion story do the writers go out of their way to make it obvious Jesus didn't really rise from the dead?

I do not think they were trying to make it obvious.

Why not just say you believe in some things in the Bible and the NT, but somethings aren't true?

I have said that.

 

[CG Didymus]

Jesus is not supposed to come back, Christians just "believe" He will come back.

Acts 1:I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach...
3 After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive...
6 Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”
7 He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.
8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”
9 After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.
10 They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them.
11 “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”​

Christians have good reason to believe it is Jesus coming back. In verse 11 these two men, presumably angels, appear and say that this "same" Jesus will come back. So Baha'is believe Muhammad, The Bab and Baha'u'llah are all "returns" of the Christ and don't believe this "same" Jesus will be coming back. And, Baha'is believe the resurrection story is not literal, that Jesus died and is dead. Great, that's what Baha'is believe. Baha'is believe it is actual fact, though. Because they believe Baha'u'llah spoke the infallible truth from God. Fine, then the NT is not true. But, that's not exactly what Baha'is say... "It is true, just not literally true." Which, to me, that's still like saying it's not true.

On similar things like this you say, "But Jesus never once said he was coming back." Would it make a difference? Nothing in the NT is for sure the exact words Jesus said. Here we have two guys dressed in white appear? Like that really happened? So we could easily discount this also, and say that this whole story was made up. Fine, great... then stop saying you believe in the NT. You discount anything that disagrees with your Baha'i beliefs.

 

[CG Didymus]

The Gospel writers certainly emphasised the consistency of Christ’s message with the Hebrew Bible and that Christ fulfilled prophecies concerning the expected Messiah. Matthew for example has over 60 references to Hebrew Scriptures.

OT Quotations in the Gospel of Matthew.

Some of those quotes in Matthew are supposed fulfilled prophecies. I think they are very problematic.
Matthew 1:22-23 – All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: / "Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel," which means, "God is with us."
Isaiah 7:14 – "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.
It's out of context and the Hebrew word doesn't necessarily mean a "virgin." Nothing this child does has anything to do with Jesus.
Matthew 2:15 – This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet, "Out of Egypt I have called my son."
Hosea 11:1 – "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son."
Matthew is the only gospel that has Jesus and the family going to Egypt. Since this Matthew wasn't there, where did he get this information? Or, did he invent the story to "fulfill" the prophecy?
Matthew 2:23 – There [in Galilee] he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, "He will be called a Nazorean."
There's no cross reference, so where did Matthew get this?

Neither the Baha’i Revelation, not the Quran have been redacted to retrofit the Bible. They have been authenticated and can reasonably be considered the actual Words of The Bab, Bahá’u’lláh and Muhammad.

I actually meant that, like Matthew, things can be taken from the Bible and fitted into the new religion. Like the Glory of God coming through the gate that faces east. All of them are going to be out of context, since they only involve one or two verses. Another one is the "Comforter." For Christians it is the Holy Spirit. Baha'is say it is Jesus talking about the coming of Baha'u'llah. Another one is the one from Isaiah about the a child being given unto us. Christians have a child supposedly given unto us. But was the government on his shoulders? No, so the Baha'is say this refers to Baha'u'llah... But, when did anyone say about Baha'u'llah... unto us a child is born? So things are too easily fit in to the new religion to say whatever they need it to say.

 

[CG Didymus]

Hi, Islam here again. The Muslims largely believe Jesus never went through any sort of incident where he needed to be resuscitated, but rather that his prayer at Gethsamene was answered, and God saved him from all suffering and that the people who say he really was crucified or put on the stake or killed then by them are only conjecturing about something they know nothing about. There are varieties of personal beliefs but most Muslims seem to believe an illusion or someone else (Jesus Bar Abbas)
Barabbas - Wikipedia was thought to be Jesus Son of Mary and killed instead.

God is the author of confusion according to the Old Testament in clear examples, and the Qur'an, and through manipulating experiences and creating chaos supposedly brings about whatever God wants to bring about.

The Muslims reject the Trinity, the Death and Crucifixion of Jesus, the Divine Status of Jesus as God incarnate, the Descent of Jesus into Hades to preach to the dead, the "scapegoat" ideology of Jesus' blood sacrifice to cover the sin debt owed by mankind, original sin, basically every single defining Christian doctrine is completely rejected by Islam as false, illogical, even abhorrent or abominable, destructive to minds and the whole of reality if they were ever true, calamitous, despicable, unjust, false, exaggerates, erroneous, "false hope", and Satanic deception which deprecates the true and total easy power of Islam's model or concept of God.

The Muslims, being familiar with the Qur'an and familiar with the Christian beliefs and doctrines, would tend to look down on their conception as one of the worst in human history, but most Muslims are not very educated in the Qur'an or the Bible in much detail, which is probably for the best, so they happily assume it must be similar and saying the same kind of stuff, which it may be to some small degree but if they go in-depth, it very quickly becomes clear there is no way a devout Muslim can ever swallow what they would like that we should swallow, and the appropriate reaction to it ism treating it like absolute poison or toxic waste material or sewage.

That is also the way some fundamentalists view the Qur'an, though there is really far less justifiably objectionable content in the Qur'an, so their hate is different from a person finding the actual content really very wicked and twisted. They are always just grasping, like that "log in your own eye" thing.

The revulsion to the Qur'an seems unwarranted, prejudicial, and based on ugly freaks on television making everyone disgusted because of Islam being associated with criminals and marauding. Yet the contents, which anyone can read for free but people are too lazy to ever do anything, are clearly different, and the Bible starts right away with confusion as soon as it uses the term "Elohim" and the "im" being a plural, even though this is explained away quickly by various means, it is still immediately frustrating by introducing a problematic term almost immediately, and then going into a number of confusing and then downright unfair, unjust, vile, senseless stories, and confusing and corrupting, right from Genesis onwards.

Having read so many scriptures, the greatest of them all, the most clear, easy, usable, pragmatic, relevant, is the Qur'an. Its not a ton of blah blah blah blah, its bullet points repeated, emphasized, and in Arabic all while rhyming and rapping in a paced fashion. Its just awesome, but few will ever recognize it, which the Qur'an (like many bad artists) claims "is supposed to be that way" and that Allah has made people think what they can do and made them metaphorically cross eyed when looking at the Qur'an or even unable to even pick it up or read it at all, let alone ever understand it or like it or use it.

Is the Muslim conception of Jesus compatible with, or similar to, the Baha'i concept of Jesus?

 

[Trailblazer]

Christians have good reason to believe it is Jesus coming back. In verse 11 these two men, presumably angels, appear and say that this "same" Jesus will come back.

Acts 1:9-11 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

I am well aware of these verses and I have discussed them at length with Christians for many years. As such, I already have an interpretation.

The disciples were staring up into the sky as the spirit of Jesus was taken up to heaven out of their sight. The two men dressed in white (angels) came along and asked why they were staring up into the sky because they wondered why the disciples were staring up into the sky. Then the angels told the disciples that the same spirit of Jesus that was taken up to heaven will return just as it went to heaven, in like manner.

It does not say that the disciples saw a body go up. It was the Christ Spirit that ascended, not a body, which is why the angels wondered why the disciples were staring into the sky, since there was nothing to look at. That makes perfect sense since angels can see spirits.

Descending from heaven upon the clouds means that the spirit of Jesus, the Christ Spirit, will be made manifest from the heaven of the will of God and will appear in the form of the human temple. Though delivered from the womb of Mary, Jesus in reality descended from the heaven of the will of God. Baha’u’llah descended in like manner, from the heaven of the will of God.

“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, as, for example, this subject of the ascension of Christ with an elemental body to the visible heaven is contrary to the science of mathematics. But when the truth of this subject becomes clear, and the symbol is explained, science in no way contradicts it; but, on the contrary, science and the intelligence affirm it.” Some Answered Questions, pp. 104-105

 

[VoidoftheSun]

Is the Muslim conception of Jesus compatible with, or similar to, the Baha'i concept of Jesus?

Generally yes, their perspective comes out of the Muslim conception but they don't agree about Tahrif to the extent we generally do. It's all quite rather subtle.

 

[Trailblazer]

But, when did anyone say about Baha'u'llah... unto us a child is born? So things are too easily fit in to the new religion to say whatever they need it to say.

When did anyone say the child that was born was Jesus? Jews do not believe the child that was born was Jesus.

Here is the Jewish translation and the comment below that an Orthodox Jew made to me on another forum.

>>Isaiah 9:5 For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace." 6 To him who increases the authority, and for peace without end, on David's throne and on his kingdom, to establish it and to support it with justice and with righteousness; from now and to eternity, the zeal of the Lord of Hosts shall accomplish this.

I'm glad you are studying the Tanakh. But now you need to understand it. This is NOT a messianic prophesy. The Messiah was not born in the Isaiah era as the simple English shows. The birth was of King Ahaz's son Hezekiah who was called the prince of peace.
***************************************

So Christians try to pilfer the Jewish scriptures and say the child and the Prince of Peace is Jesus but there is nothing in the NT that indicates these verses are about Jesus. These prophecies cannot refer to Jesus because Jesus disclaimed being the Mighty God when He called Himself “the Son of God” (John 5:18-47) and in those verses Jesus repudiates the charge that He claimed equality with God. Jesus disclaimed being the everlasting Father when He said, “my Father is greater than I” (John 14:28) and Jesus disclaimed being the Prince of Peace when He said, “I came not to send peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34). Jesus disclaimed bearing the government upon His shoulder when He said to “rend onto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's” (Mark 12:17, Matthew 22:21). Jesus disclaimed that He would establish a kingdom where he would rule with judgment and justice forever when He said, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36).

Baha'is believe that Baha’u’'llah was the Prince of Peace because world peace will be established during His religious dispensation. These verses fit Baha'u'llah because Baha’u’llah set up a system of government and it has already been established among the Baha’is. The institutions of that government are fully operational, but still in their infancy. They will be more developed in the future as the prophecy says (increase in government).

 

[Dawnofhope]

Some of those quotes in Matthew are supposed fulfilled prophecies. I think they are very problematic.
Matthew 1:22-23 – All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: / "Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel," which means, "God is with us."
Isaiah 7:14 – "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.
It's out of context and the Hebrew word doesn't necessarily mean a "virgin." Nothing this child does has anything to do with Jesus.
Matthew 2:15 – This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet, "Out of Egypt I have called my son."
Hosea 11:1 – "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son."
Matthew is the only gospel that has Jesus and the family going to Egypt. Since this Matthew wasn't there, where did he get this information? Or, did he invent the story to "fulfill" the prophecy?
Matthew 2:23 – There [in Galilee] he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, "He will be called a Nazorean."
There's no cross reference, so where did Matthew get this?

The point is the Gospel was not authored by Jesus as the Quran was authored by Muhammad or the Baha’i Writings by the Bab and Bahá’u’lláh.

Matthew is one of the three synoptic Gospels and arguably the last after Mark and Luke. So the text has been written based on pre-existing material including Mark, Luke and the Tanakh. The Quran is the Words of Muhammad.

Obviously there is an intent from the author to convey Jesus as a fulfilment of Hebrew Prophecy. To what extent that prophetic fulfilment is valid is another story.

I actually meant that, like Matthew, things can be taken from the Bible and fitted into the new religion. Like the Glory of God coming through the gate that faces east. All of them are going to be out of context, since they only involve one or two verses. Another one is the "Comforter." For Christians it is the Holy Spirit. Baha'is say it is Jesus talking about the coming of Baha'u'llah. Another one is the one from Isaiah about the a child being given unto us. Christians have a child supposedly given unto us. But was the government on his shoulders? No, so the Baha'is say this refers to Baha'u'llah... But, when did anyone say about Baha'u'llah... unto us a child is born? So things are too easily fit in to the new religion to say whatever they need it to say.

Sure. So based on the Life and Teachings of Bahá’u’lláh, Baha’is argue He fulfilled both Hebrew and NT prophecy. However its not the main concern. The Life and Teachings of Bahá’u’lláh is the main concern. Despite the persecution of His enemies His Cause triumphed. Both the Persian and Ottomans tried to suppress Bahá’u’lláh’s Message through torture, imprisonments and exile over 40 years. They failed.Prophecy has some value but its very limited.

 

[Brickjectivity]

So where in the four gospel accounts of the post crucifixion story do the writers go out of their way to make it obvious Jesus didn't really rise from the dead?

To begin with they aren't texts on how to be a Christian or how to make a church. Where do they say "These are instructions on how to be a Christian and how to be saved and what to think?" They don't claim to do all of that. We might impose that onto them at our own risk.

I happen to believe there is a good chance it didn't happen, but how would I know... maybe it did. Baha'is believe it definitely didn't happen, even though the gospel stories say it did.

"Did or didn't happen" doesn't come into it. When a person is baptized we say that they have died. What?! Died? When? I didn't see their chest stop rising and falling did you? Are we lying? The purpose is not to deceive. I think its an expression of commitment. They have died and have also been resurrected into a life apart from sin. That takes commitment. Without commitment its meaningless.

Do we really mean that converts have died? We say we do; yet they breath and have the same blood as before. Did it really happen? We also say they have denied themselves; yet they have names. Do we eat Christ's flesh and drink he blood? We say we do; yet where are the red stains and why isn't the uncooked flesh stuck in our teeth? The gospels don't explain this, because its not their function. Their function is specifically not instructions on how to build a church, how to do conversions and how to think about mysteries.

Let me go ahead and answer the objection that I'm expecting some will think of. This is raised in I Corinthians 15:12 which says "But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? ... Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost." (I Corinthians 15:12,18) I don't know how to reconcile this accusation (by Paul) against me, but I'm not saying there is no resurrection. I believe that in time the passage above will be better explained. For now it appears to disagree with every other passage that says living in sin is death and that repentance is resurrection, and I included in that Paul's own words in his other letters. For now I say that repentance is the resurrection spoken of in the gospels. Anyone who can't handle that may ignore it. Anyone who thinks that Jews would actually slay an innocent person who does miracles go ahead and keep thinking so, but they accuse the innocent in this case. As for me let me think that the death of Jesus is the same as the death of those being baptized, if Christians in fact do die with Christ and consider it to be real and not imaginary.

The reward of the righteous is converts; unless I am thick.

Baha'is believe it definitely didn't happen, even though the gospel stories say it did.

It does happen, just as Christians eat the body and the blood of Jesus. We do that, some of us more than others. We ought to be called criminals, because it is against the law to eat humans. If Christ is not raised then I am still dead in my sins, separate from the house of faith. Also if I'm not eating his flesh and drinking his blood then I have no part in him. Am I, or aren't I? Do I or don't I?

We can expand this to the Jewish Bible also. It says God created Adam and Eve. Baha'is say humans evolved. The Bible says that some people lived to be hundreds of years old. Baha'is don't. So what do you say? That they were "symbolically" 900 years old? The Bible says Isaac was taken by Abraham to be sacrificed. The Baha'is say it was Ishmael. So why pretend you believe in the Bible and the NT? Why not just say you believe in some things in the Bible and the NT, but somethings aren't true? Like I say how would I know. For me, I think it is probably myth. But if, as improbable as it is, if it is exactly true, I have no problem with it.

If you were Torah observant you'd be commanded to tell your child that you had been a slave in Egypt, even if it appeared that you had always lived somewhere else. Would you be lying to your child, or would you be teaching them to experience deep feelings that could not be expressed easily? Would you perhaps be teaching them compassion in a way which surpassed the limitations of words? Would that be lying?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Great post! Yes, it is true, the Muslims are obsessed with the afterlife, as are apparently the "world rejecting" Christians who are told to give up on the world and martyrs were highly praised and a sought after status in Early Christianity apparently.

I don't think the Muslims necessarily misunderstood, but were threatened by how ordinary people who were illiterate may have seemed to take things at large rather than refined commentaries which few even had access to or were able to even read amongst Christian communities. For the longest time, Christians in many communities had no access or knowledge of what the scripture or liturgy was even saying at all.

"Falsehoods" meaning, relaying events which never occurred, literally or figuratively, because the Muslims do not believe Jesus was killed in that way or died then, nor that he needed to die that way or that forgiveness occurs in such a way, the whole thing being false.

Thanks! It took a little while to write it.

A martyr is someone who risks their life rather than let themselves be corrupted. It is one of the rare instances in which risk of life is considered acceptable, even though it is a terrible waste. The goal of the martyr is to be righteous, not to die; and given the opportunity they escape from bondage and danger. Sometimes they do die but not always. Sometimes they fight the lions and win or flee to another city. That is as honorable as dying.

I do believe it was metaphorical and mystical language as you say, but it was also not dictated by Jesus, so is not even appropriately considered the revelation received and spoken by Jesus, which the Muslims would expect resembling the direct "speaking to the Prophet" style of the Qur'an.

From what I understand: the gospels contain sayings passed around and then written down. I think you'd be better off asking someone else though, because there is a lot of expertise involved in a competent account of current knowledge. It is still under research.

None of the books resemble that style, nor do they even claim to be such, and the writings of Baha'Ullah, though they seem to have a clear Islamic influence in style and content, also don't appear in the "talking TO the Prophet" style or the metric rhyming verses.

I did not know that about Baha'Ullah. I know that he writes at length.

There is no evidence Jesus ever said those things, and if Muhammed or Bob Seers wrote the Qur'an would not matter a bit, since Muhammed is not the focus nor even important in the view of the Qur'an which makes him out to be an expendable pawn overall, effortlessly replaced, its the content of the Qur'an itself which it says in a non-chalant manner, may be used to help or harm, which one never knows. It makes the message of the Qur'an highly unique and the worldview it presents which makes out the human beings to be totally unimportant. There is no emphasis on being particularly "chosen" or anything, that is why the emphasis falls on the afterlife, because this life is not expected to last, even as the Universe is expected not to last or this Sun or planet, so all hope then is directed into trying to attain a better state later, and putting faith in a man who supposedly died and because he died this apparently does something? Sounds absurd and dangerous, a bad horse to bet on. The Muslim is wagering with their soul, and they wager with making a case towards a hopefully kindly and just God who will credit us for a life filled with all sorts of measures meant to make punishment highly unlikely by most standards.

Maybe some Muslims do. I think that many are wagering that it is more meaningful to be kind and excellent than to not be. Its hard to tell whether Muslims are wagering their souls or trying to be excellent or what, and I think its best that we don't know who is doing what. I view God as the only permanent thing.

As for the purpose of the death and resurrection of Jesus it illustrates the philosophy of atonement of the gentiles. It is a philosophical argument for letting gentiles be Christians. I don't expect Muslims to be familiar with it, because you've got plenty of things to learn already. Its supposed to illustrate that even though people are imperfect we can do the right thing by means of our conscience -- something along those lines. It also may be arguing that the Torah has been or can be internalized. I'm not sure about that part.

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

Thanks! It took a little while to write it.

A martyr is someone who risks their life rather than let themselves be corrupted. It is one of the rare instances in which risk of life is considered acceptable, even though it is a terrible waste. The goal of the martyr is to be righteous, not to die; and given the opportunity they escape from bondage and danger. Sometimes they do die but not always. Sometimes they fight the lions and win or flee to another city. That is as honorable as dying.

From what I understand: the gospels contain sayings passed around and then written down. I think you'd be better off asking someone else though, because there is a lot of expertise involved in a competent account of current knowledge. It is still under research.

I did not know that about Baha'Ullah. I know that he writes at length.


Maybe some Muslims do. I think that many are wagering that it is more meaningful to be kind and excellent than to not be. Its hard to tell whether Muslims are wagering their souls or trying to be excellent or what, and I think its best that we don't know who is doing what. I view God as the only permanent thing.

As for the purpose of the death and resurrection of Jesus it illustrates the philosophy of atonement of the gentiles. It is a philosophical argument for letting gentiles be Christians. I don't expect Muslims to be familiar with it, because you've got plenty of things to learn already. Its supposed to illustrate that even though people are imperfect we can do the right thing by means of our conscience -- something along those lines. It also may be arguing that the Torah has been or can be internalized. I'm not sure about that part.

Just to clarify my writing in case anyone might have misunderstood, I'm not representing the Bahai religion here in this thread, but the Qur'an and the Qur'an's Islam, and was referring to the Qur'an and the Qur'an's style of "talking to" the Prophet, which is a very strange and unique style among the scriptures of the world and in my opinion bolsters its claims. Its a great and sophisticated hoax if it is a hoax, because of that stylistic choice. The accusations against Muhammed at the time were apparently:
-He is learning from someone, possibly a foreigner or a Jew or Christian familiar with things he wouldn't normally have much access to.
-A jinn, spirit, demon, or angel is instructing him or has possessed him.
-He is a madman or drunkard (the word for crazy person often has Jinn in it anyway)
-He is a Con-Artist, so does not genuinely believe in what he is saying or doing but is doing it for some nefarious purpose or for wealth in a far-fetched way since he is apparently not asking for payment or charity for himself.
-He is especially sent by Satan and the Demonic Forces as a kind of Anti-Christ False Prophet meant to turn people away from worship of Jesus.
-He is a Jewish or Christian Reformer or Cult Leader trying to formulate a new religion or comissioned by some group to create a syncretic or reformed religion.
-He is a Poet and Artist, A Creative Radical who is going too far.

ttps://youtu.be/3R8tRKIiAII

The Qur'an repeatedly makes the claim that Muhammed and all the Prophets were ordinary human beings who went about their business shopping at markets and what not and was ultimately irrelevant, expendable, a frightened and weak human who has been, like Frodo from Lord of the Rings or Bilbo Baggins, tasked suddenly and not even seeking out such, with an incredible task to be the one who brings forth the words of the Qur'an. He has no special knowledge or power, and was himself an ignorant person from an unknowing people, but like all those before him, who were likewise not very knowing or intellectual until God inspired them like the Black Monolith in 2001 Space Odyssey.

ttps://youtu.be/cHWs3c3YNs4

The callous nature in which "God" regards the lives of people, even Prophets, seems sensible or appropriate with the claim that God can just as easily bring about any sort of experience or reality, kill them, bring them back, effortlessly and has absolute control over everything and is just making the story or narrative and drama as desired. The whole thing is dealt with in a non-chalant manner and the risks and fear felt by the human beings is not carried through to the expression in the text which is almost dealt with as comedic. There is more seriousness placed on justness and putting forth good and not doing evil things than in the importance of much else like in building a legacy, having a spouse, having sex, having children, making money. It is neither emphasized nor condemned, but the focus is placed almost entirely on, as you observed, the Afterlife and impending death and Judgment no matter how long one may live.

The Qur'an has me utterly fooled and convinced, I completely believe this is indeed representative of the truest and most useful of Odin's revelations and inspiration, that the model of God it presents is best, that the God I believe in is not like the suggestions of any other scriptures as the description most pristinely given in the Qur'an, that Allah as described in the Qur'an is the True and Real God, represented in all the world's scriptures and ideas but most prominent and best depicted through the Qur'an which represent God's real attitude and voice, one suitable to the real God, completely relaxed, humorous, having nothing at all at stake or any risk or any desire not being instantly met. Maybe it is just that I read it in that way, most likely the correct and best way, as a non-human with infinite power and utterly unthreatened and not challenged by anything since everything is being puppeted by it in the first place.

Muhammed was a marionette doll, as was everyone around him, in a comedic passion play set up by a God with all the time in the universe.

ttps://youtu.be/KeuRAWSJGFY

ttps://youtu.be/563xkXq4duw

Azaz El

Al-Aziz

 

[CG Didymus]

People take the gospels too literally, but the writers go out of their way not to be taken literally. Its like they are shouting "Hello this is not literal OK?

So where in the four gospel accounts of the post crucifixion story do the writers go out of their way to make it obvious Jesus didn't really rise from the dead? I happen to believe there is a good chance it didn't happen, but how would I know... maybe it did. Baha'is believe it definitely didn't happen, even though the gospel stories say it did.

I do not think they were trying to make it obvious.

Yes, I think the gospel writers were trying to make it seem like Jesus really did rise from the dead. Since many of us don't believe that is possible, even though some of us also believe that anything is possible for God, then we have to find a way to explain why they wrote what they did.

They wrote it as if a real event and what did that cause? People were expected to believe Jesus conquered death and the devil. People were expected to believe that the only way that they could get their sins forgiven and to become acceptable to God was to believe these stories about Jesus. Is this real or superstitious kinds of beliefs? I think a lot of us would think... "Hmmm? Rising from the dead... then floating off into the clouds... Hmmm? Being born with the taint of sin, because one man took a bite out of a forbidden fruit? That there is an evil spirit named Satan floating around us in the invisible world trying to trick us into not believing in God and Jesus?" Yeah, that could be seen as being very superstitious.

But, it is what the writers of the gospels said happened. They did not write it to be "obviously" not a true and literal story about Jesus. Christians formed their concept of who Jesus is based on those writings... which led them to believe that Jesus, in some way, must be God. Islam says "No way." Jesus is not God, and he didn't die on the cross. Baha'is say, "Yes, he died on the cross and stayed dead. He did not rise physically from the dead." Then Baha'is go on to say that there is no "original" sin or there is no Satan, the devil. So what does become obvious is that different religions want to keep and build off of some things from the previous religions but to change some of the things that are way too "superstitious" sounding. But in the writings of those previous religions, it is not "obvious."

 

[CG Didymus]

Acts 1:9-11 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

I am well aware of these verses and I have discussed them at length with Christians for many years. As such, I already have an interpretation.

The disciples were staring up into the sky as the spirit of Jesus was taken up to heaven out of their sight. The two men dressed in white (angels) came along and asked why they were staring up into the sky because they wondered why the disciples were staring up into the sky. Then the angels told the disciples that the same spirit of Jesus that was taken up to heaven will return just as it went to heaven, in like manner.

It does not say that the disciples saw a body go up. It was the Christ Spirit that ascended, not a body, which is why the angels wondered why the disciples were staring into the sky, since there was nothing to look at. That makes perfect sense since angels can see spirits.

Descending from heaven upon the clouds means that the spirit of Jesus, the Christ Spirit, will be made manifest from the heaven of the will of God and will appear in the form of the human temple. Though delivered from the womb of Mary, Jesus in reality descended from the heaven of the will of God. Baha’u’llah descended in like manner, from the heaven of the will of God.

“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, as, for example, this subject of the ascension of Christ with an elemental body to the visible heaven is contrary to the science of mathematics. But when the truth of this subject becomes clear, and the symbol is explained, science in no way contradicts it; but, on the contrary, science and the intelligence affirm it.” Some Answered Questions, pp. 104-105

Still, it is not obvious by what the writers said. 2000 years ago they say that Jesus came back to life. He has a flesh and bone body but can appear and disappear. He floats off into the clouds. These men say that this same Jesus will come back.

The easier way to interpret that, 2000 years ago, is that Jesus had a body and floated up into the clouds. How dumb right? Today, most of us aren't going to believe any of that. So they discount Christianity, Jesus, and lots of times God too. Then the Baha'is come along and say it was the spirit of Jesus? Why bother? Just say, "Hey, ancient people made up stuff. They added legends and myths into their religions. They said that God did miraculous things. They said that Jesus did miraculous things. It's all BS. The things we can salvage from the old religions is that we should love one another and stop fighting with each other. And these strange and varied religious beliefs are not worth arguing and fighting about... they aren't real. They are make-believe stories people made up to get people to obey rules and to try and get them to be nicer people. Today, let's just do the right thing and be nicer people. No more BS."

That is almost what Baha'is are saying. But no, they try and make all religions all tie in together. And somehow, to all be revelations from the one true God. So here we are arguing whether or not the Baha'i story makes sense and is the absolute truth from and invisible God that only communicates to people through special messengers.

 

[CG Didymus]

Generally yes, their perspective comes out of the Muslim conception but they don't agree about Tahrif to the extent we generally do. It's all quite rather subtle.

They say that Jesus is one of many "manifestations" of God, along with Krishna, Buddha and the Abrahamic "manifestations" They say that Jesus did die but didn't rise from the dead. His spirit rose, but that he, Jesus, is not coming back. The "Spirit of Christ" is what is coming back. And that "Spirit" was in Muhammad, The Bab, and Baha'u'llah. Oh, and I've asked them about the "Lamb" and the "Lamb that was slain" from the Book of Revelation, is there an Islamic belief or interpretation about who and what that is talking about?

 

[CG Didymus]

Another one is the one from Isaiah about the a child being given unto us. Christians have a child supposedly given unto us. But was the government on his shoulders? No, so the Baha'is say this refers to Baha'u'llah... But, when did anyone say about Baha'u'llah... unto us a child is born?

When did anyone say the child that was born was Jesus? Jews do not believe the child that was born was Jesus.

Not me. What are you trying to say?

This is NOT a messianic prophesy. The Messiah was not born in the Isaiah era as the simple English shows. The birth was of King Ahaz's son Hezekiah who was called the prince of peace.

Hmmm? Jews say it is not a messianic prophecy.

So Christians try to pilfer the Jewish scriptures and say the child and the Prince of Peace is Jesus

Yes they do. Maybe like Isaiah 7:14 too?

15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right,
16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.​

When did Jesus eat curds and honey? The context... before the boy reaches an age to where he knows wrong from right, the two kings will be dead. Absolutely nothing to do with Jesus. But verse 14 they say is a messianic prophecy about a child being born from a virgin? And, Baha'is support that belief in the "virgin" birth of Jesus? Why?

Baha'is believe that Baha’u’'llah was the Prince of Peace

So if it is not a messianic prophecy... why do the Baha'i try and "pilfer" it? Just leave it alone. Who's on the throne of David? Who was the child given to them? Hezekiah.

 

[CG Didymus]

Matthew is one of the three synoptic Gospels and arguably the last after Mark and Luke. So the text has been written based on pre-existing material including Mark, Luke and the Tanakh.

Yes but... the going to Egypt and the killing of the baby boys is all Matthew. So, since the NT is believed to be the "Word of God", are those stories true? Or, is it the "word" of the writer of Matthew to make it seem like Jesus fulfilled some prophecies?

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

They say that Jesus is one of many "manifestations" of God, along with Krishna, Buddha and the Abrahamic "manifestations" They say that Jesus did die but didn't rise from the dead. His spirit rose, but that he, Jesus, is not coming back. The "Spirit of Christ" is what is coming back. And that "Spirit" was in Muhammad, The Bab, and Baha'u'llah. Oh, and I've asked them about the "Lamb" and the "Lamb that was slain" from the Book of Revelation, is there an Islamic belief or interpretation about who and what that is talking about?

The Muslims in their later literature post-Qur'an tend to adopt various Jewish and Christian positions but the Qur'an makes no serious mention of any of the contents of the Book of Revelation generally and only later did Muslims seem to adopt the whole Christian business of the Anti-Christ and whatever, which many people are likely trying to make true one way or another.

The focus of the Qur'an is on much better things, but only a select few can actually read it and benefit from their understanding, as the focus is so entirely on God that if it is hitting correctly it gives complete peace and confidence regarding even the worst events possible, leaving a person in a state of release of anxieties, relief from pain, and "Surrender", which doesn't mean not doing anything, but surrendering to the reality, the fact of the matter, the truth of the struggle and why to fight for right and protect oneself from wrong.

 

[CG Didymus]

So where in the four gospel accounts of the post crucifixion story do the writers go out of their way to make it obvious Jesus didn't really rise from the dead?

To begin with they aren't texts on how to be a Christian or how to make a church.

"Did or didn't happen" doesn't come into it.

So did or didn't Jesus rise from the dead? It is obviously not believable, now. But, like I keep saying 2000 years ago, everyone had stories of Gods and their God/men doing miraculous things. I don't see that the resurrection story is "obviously" meant to be symbolic. If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, then why can't we just pity the fools that believe that he did physically rise from the dead? Why can't we just take it as a fictional story meant to get people to believe in this new God/man... Jesus?

 

[CG Didymus]

The Muslims in their later literature post-Qur'an tend to adopt various Jewish and Christian positions but the Qur'an makes no serious mention of any of the contents of the Book of Revelation generally and only later did Muslims seem to adopt the whole Christian business of the Anti-Christ and whatever, which many people are likely trying to make true one way or another.

The focus of the Qur'an is on much better things, but only a select few can actually read it and benefit from their understanding, as the focus is so entirely on God that if it is hitting correctly it gives complete peace and confidence regarding even the worst events possible, leaving a person in a state of release of anxieties, relief from pain, and "Surrender", which doesn't mean not doing anything, but surrendering to the reality, the fact of the matter, the truth of the struggle and why to fight for right and protect oneself from wrong.

Okay, I was hoping there'd be something about who the "Lamb" is. To me, it seems to be Jesus, but Baha'is can't have Jesus, the Godman, be the one returning... so, for them, it is the "Spirit of Christ" that is returning.