Does the Bible mention Islam?

[CG Didymus]

Muhammad did correct errors in Christianity. Obvious examples are the Christian's misunderstanding of the nature of God based on the Nicene Creed. Specific errors included the Trinity, that Jesus was God incarnate, the resurrection and that Jesus was physically the son of God.

The opportunity for Muslims to explain to Christians and Jews who Muhammad was based on the bible had always been easily available. Muslims failed to seize the opportunity. A major theme of the Kitab-i-Iqan is about how Muhammad fulfilled the prophecies of Christianity. However, Islamic religious leaders became vain and foolish, imagining the Gospels and Torah were corrupt.

Had Islam not been corrupted there would have been no need for the Baha'i Faith. Had Christianity not been corrupted there would have been no need for Islam. If Judaism had not become corrupt there would have been no need for Christianity. Islam of course became utterly corrupted after the Muhammad's death with Umar's self interested appointment of Abu Bakr as successor to Muhammad instead of Ali.

Eventually Ali did become the leader and 4th Caliph. He was assainated in 661 leading to the rule of the Umayyads.

I'm looking for quotes from Muhammad in which he says he fulfilled some prophecy from the Bible. Since he didn't say, "Hey look, I'm this first Woe. Look at all the things it says. I fulfilled them all.' Or, "Me and Ali are these Two Witnesses". Without something from him then it all sounds like what, I think it was Tumah that said, "retrofitting" verses into prophecies. The Woes and the Two Witnesses are retrofitted more to prove the Baha'i Faith than Islam.

Then, about religions getting corrupt, so you have to include Hinduism and Buddhism and Zoroastrianism in there too. Making every religion that came from God... corrupt. We can't trust the leaders in any of these religions. We can't trust their interpretation or even their Scriptures. 'Cause they probably manipulated them in some way to corrupt them too. So all religions are filled with corrupt leadership and false doctrines? And God knew what would happened and allowed it?

And now, the Baha'is will be different? Baha'is aren't going to get things corrupted? God will somehow preserve his Truth, this time? But, He didn't all the other times? Why even say Baha'is respect all the other religions. They don't. They believe them to be way off track and causing lots of people to be blind to the "truth" of Baha'u'llah. Why try and sugarcoat that? Baha'is believe all religions, as believed and practiced today, are teaching false doctrines and have misinterpreted their Scriptures.

 

[Trailblazer]

The Resurrection of Jesus is the biggest deal for any Christians that call themselves "Bible-believing". New Christians today are told that the Bible is the Truth and needs to be believed. They are told Jesus conquered death and rose again. And, in that sacrifice, people can be saved from eternal punishment by believing in Jesus. That's how the story goes. If the story itself is BS then fine. That means the Bible is BS. But, the Baha'i Faith doesn't say that... plainly.

Sure, we have the "story" of the resurrection but all the beliefs Christians added around that is just fluff, false doctrines of the Church owing to misinterpretation of Bible verses, twisting them to mean what they do not mean. The cross sacrifice and the teachings of Jesus are what saved them, the resurrection does not save anyone from anything... It is added fluff. It is something someone wrote about Jesus, Jesus did not say it.

Some of the Bible is BS but not all of the Bible is BS. That is my position as a Baha'i, others might disagree.

They say that some things in the Bible have been changed, like Isaac for Ishmael in the attempted sacrifice by Abraham. They'll say not all things are "authentic". Which gives the Baha'is the ultimate decision on what is not authentic, since Baha'u'llah and Abdul Baha know best. Then, the other thing Baha'is use is to make things that they disagree with "symbolic". So nothing a Christian can say can prove anything. The Bible cannot be taken for what it says. The Bible can't be taken to mean what Christians have interpreted it to mean. The only true interpretation is the Baha'i interpretation. Which is essentially saying everything most Christians believe about their own book is BS.

You cannot have it both ways. The Baha'i Faith and Christianity are incompatible. If one is right the other is wrong. We both believe in the teachings of Jesus but that is not what Christians focus on. They focus on the false doctrines of the Church. Baha'is cannot abide by those.

The Bible does not SAY anything, that is what people need to understand. The Bible has to be read and interpreted and meaning needs to be assigned. The Christians have interpreted the Bible to mean something different from what the Baha'is have interpreted it to mean.

For a Baha'i, the only true interpretation is the Baha'i interpretation, which is essentially saying most of what Christians believe about their own book is BS.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then, about religions getting corrupt, so you have to include Hinduism and Buddhism and Zoroastrianism in there too. Making every religion that came from God... corrupt. We can't trust the leaders in any of these religions.

That's it in a nutshell CG, and it makes sense why they are corrupt if you think about it, and know history and human nature.

And now, the Baha'is will be different? Baha'is aren't going to get things corrupted? God will somehow preserve his Truth, this time? But, He didn't all the other times?

It will be different this time, and the reason it will be different is because of the Covenant of Baha'u'llah. Never before in the history of religion has a Manifestation of God made a written covenant with His followers, never.

 

[CG Didymus]

It is true that one reason God sends a new Messenger is because the former religion had become corrupted....

“This is the Day when the loved ones of God should keep their eyes directed towards His Manifestation, and fasten them upon whatsoever that Manifestation may be pleased to reveal. Certain traditions of bygone ages rest on no foundations whatever, while the notions entertained by past generations, and which they have recorded in their books, have, for the most part, been influenced by the desires of a corrupt inclination. Thou dost witness how most of the commentaries and interpretations of the words of God, now current amongst men, are devoid of truth. Their falsity hath, in some cases, been exposed when the intervening veils were rent asunder. They themselves have acknowledged their failure in apprehending the meaning of any of the words of God.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 171-172​

But if that was the only reason God sends a new Messenger, that would invalidate the core teaching in the Bahá'í Faith...

Progressive revelation is a core teaching in the Bahá'í Faith that suggests that religious truth is revealed by God progressively and cyclically over time through a series of divine Messengers, and that the teachings are tailored to suit the needs of the time and place of their appearance.[1][2] Thus, the Bahá'í teachings recognize the divine origin of several world religions as different stages in the history of one religion, while believing that the revelation of Bahá'u'lláh is the most recent (though not the last—that there will never be a last), and therefore the most relevant to modern society.[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_revelation_Baha'i​

I give poor Adrian all kinds of questions about "progressive" revelation. As practiced, religions do have contradictory beliefs. The only answer I get from Baha'is is that "originally" all religions taught the same kind of things. The worst analogy about "progressive revelation" is the "grades" in school. No, the religions are not like that.

It would be like you go to the 6th grade and the teacher tells you, "forget all the things your previous teachers taught you. I'm going to correct all of the misconceptions and erroneous things they taught you... except what they taught you the very first day. Those things were true, but there after they got corrupted." Then the poor kids would say, "You mean 2 plus 2 isn't 5?"

But, it's worse then that. Baha's say "No, there is no reincarnation." "No, there is no hell or devil." "No, Jesus is dead. People don't come back to life physically." "No, Muhammad was not the last prophet." "And, all you Jews... No, you don't have to abide by the Jewish laws. We have new better laws for you to follow."

 

[CG Didymus]

That's it in a nutshell CG, and it makes sense why they are corrupt if you think about it, and know history and human nature.

It will be different this time, and the reason it will be different is because of the Covenant of Baha'u'llah. Never before in the history of religion has a Manifestation of God made a written covenant with His followers, never.

What do you think of Judaism? They had "Judges" and prophets anointed or appointed by God to keep them in line. Then later, a king that was the "Lord's" anointed in David. And still, today, there are those that obey the covenant that was made with God to follow His Law. But the Jews have know they haven't been perfect, and have been "chastised" by God until they repent. But it is their Law and their Scriptures that they are told to keep following. I've asked this often, why should they have converted to any of the other religions? The main ones being Islam and Christianity. Why leave Judaism for either one when both of them got away from "The Truth" of God?

 

[Trailblazer]

I give poor Adrian all kinds of questions about "progressive" revelation. As practiced, religions do have contradictory beliefs. The only answer I get from Baha'is is that "originally" all religions taught the same kind of things. The worst analogy about "progressive revelation" is the "grades" in school. No, the religions are not like that.

Any contradictory beliefs that religions have are because they were changed by man. That does not count because it is not "the religion." It is a distortion of the original. This has nothing to do with Progressive Revelation because these distortions come from man, not from God.

The scriptures do not contradict each other but they are different. You do not need to learn the same things in college that you learned in grade school. This is logic 101 stuff.

It would be like you go to the 6th grade and the teacher tells you, "forget all the things your previous teachers taught you. I'm going to correct all of the misconceptions and erroneous things they taught you... except what they taught you the very first day. Those things were true, but there after they got corrupted." Then the poor kids would say, "You mean 2 plus 2 isn't 5?"

Sorry but no. All we say is to forget the misinterpretations of scriptures and man-made distortions to the older religions. We are not saying to forget the scriptures of those religions. The proof of that is in the Writings of Shoghi Effendi.

But, it's worse then that. Baha's say "No, there is no reincarnation." "No, there is no hell or devil." "No, Jesus is dead. People don't come back to life physically." "No, Muhammad was not the last prophet." "And, all you Jews... No, you don't have to abide by the Jewish laws. We have new better laws for you to follow."

So, what is wrong with that? We are saying those religions were misunderstood and corrupted by man, and they were. You can choose to accept the premises or reject them. If after all these years you still do not accept the Baha'i Faith premises I do not think you ever will. Maybe you should just become a Christian and then you will be saved and forgiven. That is a lot easier than being a Baha'i.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Are you sure Ezekiel 30 is about the coming of Moses? I think it has the King of Babylon coming and beating up on them.

You are right. Its about God's Judgement and reckoning on Egypt through His chosen Vassal King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I'm looking for quotes from Muhammad in which he says he fulfilled some prophecy from the Bible. Since he didn't say, "Hey look, I'm this first Woe. Look at all the things it says. I fulfilled them all.' Or, "Me and Ali are these Two Witnesses". Without something from him then it all sounds like what, I think it was Tumah that said, "retrofitting" verses into prophecies. The Woes and the Two Witnesses are retrofitted more to prove the Baha'i Faith than Islam.

There is no mention of the book of Revelation at all in the Quran. Muhammad's followers were not intimately familiar with the Bible. Besides, the meaning of Revelation was not written for Muslims to explain to Christians. Much of it was yet to happen. The meaning was sealed until the end times (1844).

OTOH some the signs of Christ coming in Matthew 24 certainly applied to Muhammad.

Then, about religions getting corrupt, so you have to include Hinduism and Buddhism and Zoroastrianism in there too. Making every religion that came from God... corrupt. We can't trust the leaders in any of these religions. We can't trust their interpretation or even their Scriptures. 'Cause they probably manipulated them in some way to corrupt them too. So all religions are filled with corrupt leadership and false doctrines? And God knew what would happened and allowed it?

And now, the Baha'is will be different? Baha'is aren't going to get things corrupted? God will somehow preserve his Truth, this time? But, He didn't all the other times? Why even say Baha'is respect all the other religions. They don't. They believe them to be way off track and causing lots of people to be blind to the "truth" of Baha'u'llah. Why try and sugarcoat that? Baha'is believe all religions, as believed and practiced today, are teaching false doctrines and have misinterpreted their Scriptures.

Religion becomes corrupt with time and becomes its own worst enemy. I don't see how any objective observer of history could seriously argue otherwise.

Sure God allowed it to happen, just as He allows tree to grow, blossom, bear fruit and eventually die.

 

[Trailblazer]

What do you think of Judaism? They had "Judges" and prophets anointed or appointed by God to keep them in line. Then later, a king that was the "Lord's" anointed in David. And still, today, there are those that obey the covenant that was made with God to follow His Law. But the Jews have know they haven't been perfect, and have been "chastised" by God until they repent. But it is their Law and their Scriptures that they are told to keep following. I've asked this often, why should they have converted to any of the other religions? The main ones being Islam and Christianity. Why leave Judaism for either one when both of them got away from "The Truth" of God?

Were I not a Baha'i, I would look at Islam as the next most likely to be true religion.... Judaism has a lot of good features but they made one BIG mistake -- they rejected Jesus Christ. Otherwise, I like Judaism but is just way too old to be useful in this new age. I could never believe in Christianity because it is too exclusive and its doctrines are drop dead false.

To me it is obvious why someone (who is rational) would leave an older religion for a newer one. Old religions have little that is useful for the modern age and their teachings and laws prevent them from progressing into the new age. But those who belong to those religions cannot see that because they have been brainwashed from birth to believe that their religion is the only true religion. They are even frightened of looking at anything new. You said it well: "But it is their Law and their Scriptures that they are told to keep following."

The older religions are the primary reason the Baha'i Faith is still relatively small. How can anyone not see that? It is so obvious.

 

[CG Didymus]

Sure, we have the "story" of the resurrection but all the beliefs Christians added around that is just fluff, false doctrines of the Church owing to misinterpretation of Bible verses, twisting them to mean what they do not mean. The cross sacrifice and the teachings of Jesus are what saved them, the resurrection does not save anyone from anything... It is added fluff. It is something someone wrote about Jesus, Jesus did not say it.

Some of the Bible is BS but not all of the Bible is BS. That is my position as a Baha'i, others might disagree.

You cannot have it both ways. The Baha'i Faith and Christianity are incompatible. If one is right the other is wrong. We both believe in the teachings of Jesus but that is not what Christians focus on. They focus on the false doctrines of the Church. Baha'is cannot abide by those.

The Bible does not SAY anything, that is what people need to understand. The Bible has to be read and interpreted and meaning needs to be assigned. The Christians have interpreted the Bible to mean something different from what the Baha'is have interpreted it to mean.

For a Baha'i, the only true interpretation is the Baha'i interpretation, which is essentially saying most of what Christians believe about their own book is BS.

I don't have a problem with the actual words written in the NT to be embellished myth and legends. But then, that would make Christianity a false religion. And, that would negate Jesus too. But, Baha'is are in some in between place. That is why I have a problem even with the explanations given by Abdul Baha. His interpretation of the Resurrection doesn't work for me at all.

If God did in fact create humans out of nothing, to restore life into a dead body should be easy enough. So because the resurrection and ascension doesn't fit with modern science, I don't see that as a good reason to assume that the verses must be symbolic. The Christian writers went out of their way to tell of the resurrected Jesus. I don't see how all of them would come up with the same symbolic story. But, I could see how they could come up with a phony story. Only problem is... how did they get away with it when the Jews and the Romans would have been able to expose it. So Christians have that going for them, but not much else.

They ruin the resurrection story by having Matthew claim that dead people came out of their graves and walked around Jerusalem. So, for me, that's evidence that they embellished things. Oh yeah, then several times there was God's voice from heaven speaking. That'd be nice if it did happen. It'd be nice if God took more of an active role like He supposedly did in the Jewish Bible. But, unfortunately, I think that's just religious myth too.

So a lot of the "fluff" is right there in the New Testament... including a wondering star guiding the Wise men to the "virgin" birth. Like angels telling shepherds about the new born king. Like only two writers telling the birth story and they contradict each other. Yet, Baha'is believe that? And they reject Satan, hell and the resurrection? Those are the main things of Christianity. Those things are in the NT. Satan and hell is why the NT says Jesus had to come and sacrifice himself... to "save" humans. That humans can in no way save themselves. It is not doctrines from the church. It is in the writings of the NT. If Christianity is wrong, it's in the very writings that got put into the NT.

And that is so very possible, because it was the church leaders that put picked which writings got in, and then they formulated doctrines based on those writings. If things were wrong, it started with the NT itself. Adrian is always pointing out that the writers were probably not eyewitnesses. What are the chances they quoted Jesus correctly? Baha'is don't believe that the Christians were "filled" with the Holy Spirit, so who guided these writers to say what they did? But, anyway, my feeling is that if Christianity and the NT is not 100% right, it is not worth believing. And Baha'is reject a big chunk of what the NT says and still claim it is from God? Why? Jesus didn't write it. The Holy Spirit, if the Holy Spirit is not indwelling and guiding the Christians, didn't write it. People wrote it. People with agendas. People that wanted to make Jesus out to be a God/man. And, it worked.

 

[CG Didymus]

Were I not a Baha'i, I would look at Islam as the next most likely to be true religion.... Judaism has a lot of good features but they made one BIG mistake -- they rejected Jesus Christ. Otherwise, I like Judaism but is just way too old to be useful in this new age. I could never believe in Christianity because it is too exclusive and its doctrines are drop dead false.

To me it is obvious why someone (who is rational) would leave an older religion for a newer one. Old religions have little that is useful for the modern age and their teachings and laws prevent them from progressing into the new age. But those who belong to those religions cannot see that because they have been brainwashed from birth to believe that their religion is the only true religion. They are even frightened of looking at anything new. You said it well: "But it is their Law and their Scriptures that they are told to keep following."

The older religions are the primary reason the Baha'i Faith is still relatively small. How can anyone not see that? It is so obvious.

Well, in the 70's a lot of people turned to Hindu and Buddhist types of religions. As a matter of fact, there was a huge "Jesus" movement in the 70's. I checked them all out. I liked things in all of them but not everything. I was in Southern California then and even checked out the Baha'i Faith. I went to conferences and events that had Seals and Crofts playing music, that had Bill Sears speaking, and in British Columbia, I heard a Hand of the Cause named Furutan. I like so much of all of them but disbelieve a lot of the deeper doctrines and beliefs of all of them. Anyway, catch you tomorrow.

 

[Firemorphic]

I don't know (or frankly care) what this 40 pages has been about but:

Islam, (the meaning of the word not the religion), is definitely a key doctrine in both Judaism and Christianity but they are characteristically approached and displayed with varying angles or interpretation (based around their core respective doctrines).
Islam, the religion, however isn't on any inherently obvious level as it is a successor or correcter of the aforementioned (within it's doctrine)

 

[Dawnofhope]

I don't know (or frankly care) what this 40 pages has been about but:

Islam, (the meaning of the word not the religion), is definitely a key doctrine in both Judaism and Christianity but they are characteristically approached and displayed with varying angles or interpretation (based around their core respective doctrines).
Islam, the religion, however isn't on any inherently obvious level as it is a successor or correcter of the aforementioned (within it's doctrine)

I suppose a lot of Muslims don't really care what's in the Bible as they see it as being corrupted and superseded by the Quran.

BTW, what's a Shia Muslim doing messing around with Babism? Isn't that an apostate religion?

 

[Firemorphic]

I suppose a lot of Muslims don't really care what's in the Bible as they see it as being corrupted and superseded by the Quran.

For many, this is likely the case (except those who are hostile towards each other and vice versa for Jews/Christians), I like the Tanakh and New Testament (respectively) on various levels within their own praxi but don't follow or believe their religions as they are.

BTW, what's a Shia Muslim doing messing around with Babism?

"messing around", I smell a whiff of disrespect there.

It's called Bayani Gnosticism and I consider The Bab one of our own esoteric masters. I don't necessarily theologically accept him on a fundamentally doctrinal level but I appreciate what he is and what he stood for, end of story.

Isn't that an apostate religion?

Sure, if you want to look at it like that, but Shi'ism itself is considered one of the worst apostates there are and ever have been in the history of Islam, to Salafi's (aside from Christians etc)

 

[TransmutingSoul]

It's called Bayani Gnosticism and I consider The Bab one of our own esoteric masters. I don't necessarily theologically accept him on a fundamentally doctrinal level but I appreciate what he is and what he stood for, end of story.

Only issue is it is not the end of the story, in any shape or form.

It is through the Bab that I came to know Muhammad ( Peace be upon Him).

It is through the Bab that I see Muhammad in the Tanakh and the New Testament and will defend Muhammad (Peace be upon Him)as a Messenger of God.

What a great Day Allah has blessed us to live in.

Regards Tony

 

[Firemorphic]

Only issue is it is not the end of the story, in any shape or form.

It is to his question, I don't have to justify my interest.

 

[Dawnofhope]

For many, this is likely the case (except those who are hostile towards each other and vice versa for Jews/Christians), I like the Tanakh and New Testament (respectively) on various levels within their own praxi but don't follow or believe their religions as they are.

The main focus of this OP is to what extent Islam/Muhammad is in the Bible. Any thread that mentions either the Bible or Islam gets a lot of attention around here. That's why there have been so many posts.

"messing around", I smell a whiff of disrespect there.

It's called Bayani Gnosticism and I consider The Bab one of our own esoteric masters. I don't necessarily theologically accept him on a fundamentally doctrinal level but I appreciate what he is and what he stood for, end of story.

There's no disrespect. I saw your posts in the DIR columns but because I'm not a Shia Muslim or gnostic couldn't comment.

The Bab is one of the twin Manifestations of God of the Baha'i religion. I grew up Christian but became a Baha'i nearly 30 years ago. I was curious as to how the Bab was important to you. I hadn't come across Bayani Gnosticism before.

Sure, if you want to look at it like that, but Shi'ism itself is considered one of the worst apostates there are and ever have been in the history of Islam, to Salafi's (aside from Christians etc)

Baha'is don't get labelled apostates in the West and are often seen as being progressive on account of our inclusiveness. However Baha'is are heavily persecuted in Iran.

I'd be interested to hear more about the significance of the Bab for you. Are you aware of His claim to be the Qa'im?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

It is to his question, I don't have to justify my interest.

No not at all, but I did read your DIR thread and since you are here, it would be interesting for you to offer a bit of what you have found to date.

Regards Tony

 

[Firemorphic]

There's no disrespect. I saw your posts in the DIR columns but because I'm not a Shia Muslim or gnostic couldn't comment.

Ok

The Bab is one of the twin Manifestations of God of the Baha'i religion.

As I'm aware

I grew up Christian but became a Baha'i nearly 30 years ago. I was curious as to how the Bab was important to you. I hadn't come across Bayani Gnosticism before.

I grew up Christian too, explored atheism and the entire world of western occultism (as well as Sanatan Dharma, Taoism and many others in the "East", I've touched everything major and many minor to some extent)

I hadn't come across Bayani Gnosticism before.

Well you don't call it that, you call it "Babism" and consider it a forerunner to Baha'ism. Your religion takes it as an exoteric pronouncement rather than an esoteric, regardless of The Bab's prophetic cycle dispensation.

Baha'is don't get labelled apostates in the West and are often seen as being progressive on account of our inclusiveness.

As I'm aware.

However Baha'is are heavily persecuted in Iran.

I know the situation is far more complex than that. Similarly, I have no immediate relation to affairs over there.

I'd be interested to hear more about the significance of the Bab for you. Are you aware of His claim to be the Qa'im?

Well, you read my thread, didn't you?
Yes, I'm aware of his claim to the gate for the manifestation of the Qa'im.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't have a problem with the actual words written in the NT to be embellished myth and legends. But then, that would make Christianity a false religion.

It would make it false if they took the words literally instead of understanding them to be myths.

And, that would negate Jesus too. But, Baha'is are in some in between place. That is why I have a problem even with the explanations given by Abdul Baha. His interpretation of the Resurrection doesn't work for me at all.

The explanation of Abdu’l Baha does not make any sense to me either because it cannot even be considered symbolic of what the gospel writers wrote. If there is any truth to the resurrection story then the body that walked around could have been a spiritual body that came down from heaven, not a physical body, and it just looked physical. I think that what Abdu’l Baha said is divorced from what is in the NT, it is just his version of what happened after three days and what it might mean; but how could Abdu’l-Baha know what happened? Maybe from Baha’u’llah.

I do not see all the stories told in the NT negate the real Jesus. If I told stories about you wouldn’t you still exist as the person you are?

If God did in fact create humans out of nothing, to restore life into a dead body should be easy enough. So because the resurrection and ascension doesn't fit with modern science, I don't see that as a good reason to assume that the verses must be symbolic. The Christian writers went out of their way to tell of the resurrected Jesus. I don't see how all of them would come up with the same symbolic story. But, I could see how they could come up with a phony story. Only problem is... how did they get away with it when the Jews and the Romans would have been able to expose it. So Christians have that going for them, but not much else.

But God did not create humans out of nothing, this is a Bible myth. Humans evolved just like every other species. And humans die just like everyone else, and they do not come back to life. A decomposed body does not get recomposed. This is totally against science. This garbage that God is omnipotent so God can do anything does not fly with me. You have to ask yourself, why would God do that? Where are these bodies going to go once they rise? This is called being rational By contrast; the Baha’i Faith has a rational explanation for everything, even the afterlife! I would never believe in it otherwise.

It makes more sense that they came up with a phony story than with a symbolic story, but we will never know now. Only God knows, and maybe Baha’u’llah knew but He was not telling. Baha’u’llah explained what the true meaning of the resurrection was...

“It hath been demonstrated and definitely established, through clear evidences, thatby “Resurrection” is meant the rise of the Manifestation of God to proclaim His Cause, and by “attainment unto the divine Presence” is meant attainment unto the presence of His Beauty in the person of His Manifestation.”
The Kitáb-i-Íqán, p. 170

“Strive, therefore, O my brother, to grasp the meaning of “Resurrection,” and cleanse thine ears from the idle sayings of these rejected people. Shouldst thou step into the realm of complete detachment, thou wilt readily testify that no day is mightier than this Day, and that no resurrection more awful than this Resurrection can ever be conceived.One righteous work performed in this Day, equalleth all the virtuous acts which for myriads of centuries men have practised—nay, We ask forgiveness of God for such a comparison! For verily the reward which such a deed deserveth is immensely beyond and above the estimate of men.”The Kitáb-i-Íqán, pp. 144-145​

By saying that, we know it was not bodies rising from graves. What Paul wrote about the resurrection in 1Cor 15 makes more sense if interpreted with a spiritual meaning than a physical one...

16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:

17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.​

If the spiritually dead do not become spiritually alive (born again), then the Cause of Christ is not raised (brought back to life).

If the Cause of Christ is not brought back to life then what’s the point, your faith is in vain.

So these verses may very well be where Abdul-Baha got his resurrection interpretation.

They ruin the resurrection story by having Matthew claim that dead people came out of their graves and walked around Jerusalem. So, for me, that's evidence that they embellished things.

Oh yeah, then several times there was God's voice from heaven speaking. That'd be nice if it did happen. It'd be nice if God took more of an active role like He supposedly did in the Jewish Bible. But, unfortunately, I think that's just religious myth too.

I can agree with that. I do not think God ever took an active role, it was just symbolic. But just think of the repercussions of people interpreting that literally.

So a lot of the "fluff" is right there in the New Testament... including a wondering star guiding the Wise men to the "virgin" birth. Like angels telling shepherds about the new born king. Like only two writers telling the birth story and they contradict each other. Yet, Baha'is believe that? And they reject Satan, hell and the resurrection? Those are the main things of Christianity. Those things are in the NT. Satan and hell is why the NT says Jesus had to come and sacrifice himself... to "save" humans. That humans can in no way save themselves. It is not doctrines from the church. It is in the writings of the NT. If Christianity is wrong, it's in the very writings that got put into the NT.

Well maybe. I do not know the NT very well, but still I think it could be interpreted in more than one way.’ I do not know that it says that humans can only be saved by Jesus; although it says we only get eternal life from believing in Jesus that is not the same. There is nothing to be saved from since there is no original sin. And Sati does not have to be an actual being, nor hell an actual place.

And that is so very possible, because it was the church leaders that put picked which writings got in, and then they formulated doctrines based on those writings. If things were wrong, it started with the NT itself. Adrian is always pointing out that the writers were probably not eyewitnesses. What are the chances they quoted Jesus correctly?

It is very possible that the church leaders handpicked what would go in the Bible to support their doctrines. And so, there is not a snowball’s chance in hell that the words were the exact words Jesus spoke.

Baha'is don't believe that the Christians were "filled" with the Holy Spirit, so who guided these writers to say what they did? But, anyway, my feeling is that if Christianity and the NT is not 100% right, it is not worth believing. And Baha'is reject a big chunk of what the NT says and still claim it is from God? Why? Jesus didn't write it. The Holy Spirit, if the Holy Spirit is not indwelling and guiding the Christians, didn't write it. People wrote it. People with agendas. People that wanted to make Jesus out to be a God/man. And, it worked.

Baha’is claim only that the Bible was inspired by God. Baha’is believe that the Holy Spirit does not live inside of bodies, but the gospel writers could have been guided BY the Holy Spirit. I agree, if Christianity and the NT is not 100% right, it is not worth believing. That is why I think it should be shelved and used as bookend... You should hear me yelling that to my husband, but I say worse things... I even hit him sometimes; I get so angry about the Bible. Even if there is some truth in it we don’t need it anymore, but of course I am a Baha’i and I have new books.

It did work and Jesus is in a very real sense a God/man; He just is not God incarnate.