Mirza Ghulam Ahmad vs Bahaullah..who is the real Mahdi..

[Servant_of_the_One1]

In the Authentic Orthodox Islam, both guys are recognized as imposters and false prophets.

Atleast they get recognition

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think that both were con men and that the religious sects they founded are harmful and irrational.

 

[ameraz1]

In the Authentic Orthodox Islam, both guys are recognized as imposters and false prophets.

Atleast they get recognition

In orthodox Judaism, Jesus (pbuh) is recognized as a false prophet. In orthodox Christianity, Muhammad (pbuh) is recognized as a false prophet. Welcome to the club >

Abu Sa'id al-Khudri reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: You would tread the same path as was trodden by those before you inch by inch and step by step so much so that if they had entered into the hole of the lizard, you would follow them in this also. We said: Allah's Messenger, do you mean Jews and Christians (by your words)" those before you"? He said: Who else (than those two religious groups)? (Sahih Muslim, Book #034, Hadith #6448)

 

[ameraz1]

I have not studied much from him. As far as I know, there is no online source, where I can read his writings in english. Did he really say that:

·"I do not claim that I am the same Mahdi who will come according to (words of Hadith) 'from the son of Fatima and from my progeny' etc." (Braheen-e-Ahmadiyya V, Roohani Khazain vol.21 p.356)

·"We admit this that several Mahdis may have come before and possibly will come in future as well and probably someone by the name of Imam Muhammad may also appear." (Roohani Khazain vol.3 p.379)

·"It is possible and quite possible that at some time in future such Messiah may appear upon whom the literal words of Hadith(of Holy Prophet) fit, because this humble self has not come with the Reign and Command of this world, but with poverty and humility." (Izala-e-Auham, Roohani Khazain vol 3 p.197)

·"It is possible that in future no Messiah may come. It is possible 10,000 more Messiah may come and one of them may descend in Damascus." (Izala-e-Auham, Roohani Khazain vol 3 p.251)

Sorry for quoting anti Ahmadiyya sites, but this is the only stuff I could find. I just want information about these things, so it is not a debate I think.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani conducted a Mubahala with Maulana Abdul Haq Ghaznavi, in Eidgah ground of Amristar on Zeeqadah 10, 1310 A.H.
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani had said on Oct. 2, 1907 (7 months, 24 days before his death) that "the liar among the participants in a Mubahala dies during the lifetime of the truthful." (Majmuai-Ishtiharat Mirza Qadiani, Vol. 9, P.440)
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani died during the lifetime of Maulana Abdul Haq Ghaznavi on May 26, 1908

Is this accurate?



So humanity will know soon



Every sect thinks, that they are the one. If you believe in sunni hadiths, you should know, that Mahdi will be a descendant of Muhammad. That's probably the most important attribute of Mahdi in all Hadiths.



Baha'u'llahs claims are exactly about him coming as the messiah in the latter days.

They read the Evangel and yet refuse to acknowledge the All-Glorious Lord, notwithstanding that He hath come through the potency of His exalted, His mighty and gracious dominion. We, verily, have come for your sakes, and have borne the misfortunes of the world for your salvation. Flee ye the One Who hath sacrificed His life that ye may be quickened? Fear God, O followers of the Spirit, and walk not in the footsteps of every divine that hath gone far astray. Do ye imagine that He seeketh His own interests, when He hath, at all times, been threatened by the swords of the enemies; or that He seeketh the vanities of the world, after He hath been imprisoned in the most desolate of cities? Be fair in your judgement and follow not the footsteps of the unjust.

- Bahaullah, Most Holy Tablet (Tablet to the Christians)

O Jews! If ye be intent on crucifying once again Jesus, the Spirit of God, put Me to death, for He hath once more, in My person, been made manifest unto you. Deal with Me as ye wish, for I have vowed to lay down My life in the path of God. I will fear no one, though the powers of earth and heaven be leagued against Me.

- Bahaullah, Gleanings from the writings of Bahaullah, p. 101



So God tricked the jews or what ever followers of Jesus called themselves at that time. The followers of Jesus all believed, that Jesus died on the cross, was dead, and appeared to people after 3 days as a spirit. So if this didn't happen, God would have tricked the followers of Jesus into a false belief. And if the bible was false, then you still would need to explain, why the Quran says, that Jesus didn't die, but was taken up to heaven.



The shiites and sunnites both believe, that Mahdi and Jesus are two persons.

Raph,

I have looked at just one of these and one has to read a page or two or around the quoted text to get the full context of what is being said. However, I will have to translate it and then provide reference if you want to have it translated independently. It will take me some time to do so, but I will get back to you hopefully in not more than a day or two. However, I will not respond to a query of such nature after that. There are also anti-Bahai websites who do the same thing quoting one sentences.

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

In orthodox Judaism, Jesus (pbuh) is recognized as a false prophet. In orthodox Christianity, Muhammad (pbuh) is recognized as a false prophet. Welcome to the club >

Abu Sa'id al-Khudri reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: You would tread the same path as was trodden by those before you inch by inch and step by step so much so that if they had entered into the hole of the lizard, you would follow them in this also. We said: Allah's Messenger, do you mean Jews and Christians (by your words)" those before you"? He said: Who else (than those two religious groups)? (Sahih Muslim, Book #034, Hadith #6448)

You are not being serious.

 

[mohdrafique.jodhpurwala]

There is no messiah and Mahdi in belief in Islam,Quran is last constitution,and follow Quran and if no understand pray to guide us right path which u like(god)(allah)(eloh)

 

[ameraz1]

You are not being serious.

Kindly refrain from making comments here unless you have something substantive to say

 

[raph]

Raph,

I have looked at just one of these and one has to read a page or two or around the quoted text to get the full context of what is being said. However, I will have to translate it and then provide reference if you want to have it translated independently. It will take me some time to do so, but I will get back to you hopefully in not more than a day or two. However, I will not respond to a query of such nature after that. There are also anti-Bahai websites who do the same thing quoting one sentences.

Yes I apologized for quoting anti Ahmad sites, I understand that most what they say is false. If you want to translate it , id appreciate.

So there is no site where I can read it in english? If you guys really have the truth dont hide it, give it to the masses how else can the world know

 

[arthra]

Aside from the "Administrator's" Post # 62 above.. and my reaction is to Ameraz as well as Raph my friend... Baha'is bear no grudge against Ahmadis.. We have no anti-Ahmadi pamphlets or sites on the web. And I have neither time or energy to engage in a long protracted debate here. My hope is that we can learn from one another and respond to fair questions if there be any on a comparative religion format....

Maybe a good start would be to share some prayers and sentiments for peace?

"This recent war has proved to the world and the people that war is destruction while Universal Peace is construction; war is death while peace is life; war is rapacity and bloodthirstiness while peace is beneficence and humaneness; war is an appurtenance of the world of nature while peace is of the foundation of the religion of God; war is darkness upon darkness while peace is heavenly light; war is the destroyer of the edifice of mankind while peace is the everlasting life of the world of humanity; war is like a devouring wolf while peace is like the angels of heaven; war is the struggle for existence while peace is mutual aid and co-operation among the peoples of the world and the cause of the good-pleasure of the True One is the heavenly realm."

~ A letter written by 'Abdu'l-Bahá to the Central Organization for a Durable Peace, The Hague, 17 December 1919

surely this is something the world still needs desperately today after ninety years...

 

[Servant_of_the_One1]

Kindly refrain from making comments here unless you have something substantive to say

Let me know when the false prophets are recognized to be truthful.

As for ahmadis, they are apostates by all scholars of islam.

 

[ameraz1]

1) Let’s begin with the prayer-duel or mubahila with Maulana Abdul Haq Ghaznavi and the quote from Majmauai Ishtiharaat that the liar dies in the lifetime of the truthful. I encourage you to have that excerpt translated independently from someone. It actually is speaking against this notion of dying with in lifetime of the other and the quote given is a title of a paragraph that addresses this incorrect position about mubahilas/prayer-duels. Please read the following article on this event which also the Quranic principle of prayer duels which only mentions that the loser incurs the curse of Allah:

Reality to the Mubahalah of Abdul Haq Ghaznavi - Ahmadi Answers

You can also research any allegation on this website which is one of the most comprehensive answering allegations.

Another website reference on allegations and basic research is Claims of the Promised Messiah |

For the rest of the quotes I am summarizing what is being talked about on the page. Feel free to make independent verifications.

2) “I do not claim that I am the same mahdi who will come according to words of ahadith from the son of Fatima and from my progeny”

Basically, the talking point here is that the prophetic concept of Mahdi is not as central as the terminology of the Messiah of Jesus Son of Mary. Ahmad(as) is showing that there are many weak hadith that say Mahdi would be physically of the progeny of Fatimah. The same page states the hadith: There is no Mahdi but Jesus (Ibn Maja, Bab Al-I'atisam Bis-Sunnah). Ahmad(as) is explaining that the messiah was to be the mahdi and he is that mahdi. Some of these hadith that say a mahdi will come who will cause bloodshed and kill the disbelievers cannot be taken literally as they would contradict Quran. He’s also says that many of these hadith have contradiction like some say he would be from progeny of the Abbasids and some of say from the progeny of Fatima.

3) “we admit that several mahdis may have come before and possibly will come in future as well and probably someone by the name of imam Muhammad may also appear”

“it is possible that in future no Messiah may come. It is possible 10,000 more Messiah may come and one of them may descend in Damascus.”

The point that Ahmad(as) is illustrating is that the true following of Muhammad (sa) can have revivers (mujadids), mahdis, and messiahs even 10,000 messiahs can be sent by Allah but the honour of being a prophet of Allah would be of one. Once again the term messiah here is only in the sense that they would have messianic qualities. The Caliphs are also considered to have messianic qualities. In regards to the Messiah Son of Mary in the end-times, Ahmad has stated in other books after I leave this life no such Messiah will appear after me till the day of judgement. But the qualities of a messiah can appear throughout devout and true Ahmadis. In regards to the messiah prophecied by the holy Prophet(saw) Ahmad(as) said that till day of judgement no other such messiah will come.

The term Mahdi is used often in hadith literature and generally denotes somone who is guided by Allah. For example, the Rashideen Caliphs were also termed as Al-Mahdiyeem (guided). Mahdi can apply to a number of people in Islamic history and also has application. The prophet Muhammad (sa) in a Bukhari hadith has prayed to Allah to make Jarir a “Mahdi”. It is only in this context he has said that someone named Imam Muhammad could come who could be a Mahdi too or someone with Messianic qualities to come from Damascus.

Every sect thinks, that they are the one. If you believe in sunni hadiths, you should know, that Mahdi will be a descendant of Muhammad. That's probably the most important attribute of Mahdi in all Hadiths.

Yes, every sect has a right to say they are the rightly-guided sect. However, Ahmadiyya is the only sect against which all the other 72 sects have united in opposition. This happened with the World Muslim League meeting in Riyadh in 1974 followed by a constitutional amendment in Pakistan in the same year to declare Ahmadi-Muslims as infidels. This we believe is the fulfillment of the prophecy.

The Mahdi may be a descendant of Muhammad/Fatimah, the hadiths are certainly not beyond alteration but just as Jesus was a descendant of David, we also believe that Ghulam Ahmad (as) who is of Persian descent could well be a descendant of Muhammad. This is not central according to us. The wider study and reconciliation to eschatological prophecy is really what is central. Also, as mentioned above there are a myriad Mahdi references in Islamic traditions, so one cannot be sure which Mahdi is being spoken of there, the real prophecy to reconcile to is the symbolism in Jesus, Son of Mary which is far more specific, Mahdi is too generic a term, merely means one who is guided.

So God tricked the jews or what ever followers of Jesus called themselves at that time. The followers of Jesus all believed, that Jesus died on the cross, was dead, and appeared to people after 3 days as a spirit. So if this didn't happen, God would have tricked the followers of Jesus into a false belief. And if the bible was false, then you still would need to explain, why the Quran says, that Jesus didn't die, but was taken up to heaven.

The accounts of the canonized Gospels that you are reading today were established at the council of Nicea 300 years after Jesus (as) while competing doctrines such as those of Arius were put down as Constantine passed edicts making it crime and heresy to possess non-canonical texts. The doctrine of Jesus’s divinity adopted at Nicea was developed by Saul of Tarsus (aka St. Paul) during Jesus’s times to preach to greek and roman gentiles. The council of Jerusalem headed by St. James and the true disciples of Jesus had a serious conflict with Paul over his doctrines which is recorded in gospel account i.e. Galatians, Corinthians, Acts etc.. When Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD by the Romans after the Jewish revolt the church their lost its grip while Paul’s doctrine found ears with greeks who believed in concepts of divine humans. These are the accounts you are reading today. Recently, there has been an academic surge in gnostic non-canonical texts after the discovery of the Nag Hammadi scriptures with the gosepls of Thomas, Peter, Mary etc. which were buried in the fourth century possibly after the edicts of nicea and the canon.

But even if you study the canon texts today one can decipher through the contradictions and see that while Jesus was put on the cross, he did not die there and nobody then would have believed that someone whose legs were not broken and was on the cross for only a few hours could have died there. Even Pilate expresses surprise that Jesus died so quickly. He was only assumed as such and there was probably a plot to rescue him. This is a long narrative so if you are interested you read the following blog.

Did Jesus (peace be on him) survive the crucifixion? And continue his mission with the lost tribes of the Israelites

Also, recommend reading Ghulam Ahmad's book, Jesus in India: https://www.alislam.org/library/books/Jesus-in-India.pdf

Also, if you want biblical references on Paul’s conflict with the council of Jerusalem, please let me know and I will pull it together. I value making time for anyone who is a true seeker of the truth and I respect this Bahai creed.

The shiites and sunnites both believe, that Mahdi and Jesus are two persons.

Yes, Shiites and Sunnis believe it is two figures, but we believe it is two terms applying to the same personage. As many prophecies of the end-times are being fulfilled according to Sunnis and Shias no two persons have manifested so far per their thinking. The Imam Muhammad Al-Mahdi awaited by Shiites was born over a thousand years ago and is in occultation to surface at some point. How do you reconcile the Bab being the Mahdi for the Shiites? And if Bab is the gate to the Mahdi, then how is he the Mahdi himself? Just curious what is the response to that?

Lastly, below is a wikipedia link to bibliography of Ghulam Ahmad (as), some books are translated to english and pdf are given where available:

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad bibliography - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The official website is IslamAhmadiyya - Ahmadiyya Muslim Community - Al Islam Online - Official Website which has a lot of writings and references

And, lastly here is a link to the longest running english language islami-ahmadiyya journal originated by Ghulam Ahmad (as) himself where one can search on a range of topics: The Review of Religions » Ahmadiyya Muslim Community

 

[ameraz1]

Let me know when the false prophets are recognized to be truthful.

As for ahmadis, they are apostates by all scholars of islam.

We don't follow scholars, we follow the prophet Muhammad (sa) and the Holy Quran. Take a look around you and see what following the scholars has wrought . . .

“The Messenger of Allah –may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him- said: Terror and dismay will appear in my Ummah. The people will turn to their scholars while they will be (like) monkeys and pigs.” (Nawadir al-Usool 2/609 Narration 860, Makteba al-Imam al-Bukhari, Cairo 2008)

 

[ameraz1]

Aside from the "Administrator's" Post # 62 above.. and my reaction is to Ameraz as well as Raph my friend... Baha'is bear no grudge against Ahmadis.. We have no anti-Ahmadi pamphlets or sites on the web. And I have neither time or energy to engage in a long protracted debate here. My hope is that we can learn from one another and respond to fair questions if there be any on a comparative religion format....

Maybe a good start would be to share some prayers and sentiments for peace?

"This recent war has proved to the world and the people that war is destruction while Universal Peace is construction; war is death while peace is life; war is rapacity and bloodthirstiness while peace is beneficence and humaneness; war is an appurtenance of the world of nature while peace is of the foundation of the religion of God; war is darkness upon darkness while peace is heavenly light; war is the destroyer of the edifice of mankind while peace is the everlasting life of the world of humanity; war is like a devouring wolf while peace is like the angels of heaven; war is the struggle for existence while peace is mutual aid and co-operation among the peoples of the world and the cause of the good-pleasure of the True One is the heavenly realm."

~ A letter written by 'Abdu'l-Bahá to the Central Organization for a Durable Peace, The Hague, 17 December 1919

surely this is something the world still needs desperately today after ninety years...

Thank you for those words of grace and for sharing this wonderful prayer.

 

[raph]

Thank you for your very long answer, ameraz1.

Basically, the talking point here is that the prophetic concept of Mahdi is not as central as the terminology of the Messiah of Jesus Son of Mary. Ahmad(as) is showing that there are many weak hadith that say Mahdi would be physically of the progeny of Fatimah. The same page states the hadith: There is no Mahdi but Jesus (Ibn Maja, Bab Al-I'atisam Bis-Sunnah). Ahmad(as) is explaining that the messiah was to be the mahdi and he is that mahdi. Some of these hadith that say a mahdi will come who will cause bloodshed and kill the disbelievers cannot be taken literally as they would contradict Quran. He’s also says that many of these hadith have contradiction like some say he would be from progeny of the Abbasids and some of say from the progeny of Fatima.

So basically, with this statement he is rejecting the hadiths about Mahdi, not him being the Mahdi? The Bab called out for Jihad, so the "bloodshed" was fullfilled with Him in a way.

The point that Ahmad(as) is illustrating is that the true following of Muhammad (sa) can have revivers (mujadids), mahdis, and messiahs even 10,000 messiahs can be sent by Allah but the honour of being a prophet of Allah would be of one. Once again the term messiah here is only in the sense that they would have messianic qualities. The Caliphs are also considered to have messianic qualities. In regards to the Messiah Son of Mary in the end-times, Ahmad has stated in other books after I leave this life no such Messiah will appear after me till the day of judgement. But the qualities of a messiah can appear throughout devout and true Ahmadis. In regards to the messiah prophecied by the holy Prophet(saw) Ahmad(as) said that till day of judgement no other such messiah will come.

What I don't understand is this: Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed to recieve revelations and prophecies from God. How is He not a prophet then? Is not the whole thing of a prophet, to recieve revelation? "but the honour of being a prophet of Allah would be of one." Or do you mean that this one is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad?

Yes, every sect has a right to say they are the rightly-guided sect. However, Ahmadiyya is the only sect against which all the other 72 sects have united in opposition. This happened with the World Muslim League meeting in Riyadh in 1974 followed by a constitutional amendment in Pakistan in the same year to declare Ahmadi-Muslims as infidels. This we believe is the fulfillment of the prophecy.

Seems plausible.

The accounts of the canonized Gospels that you are reading today were established at the council of Nicea 300 years after Jesus (as) while competing doctrines such as those of Arius were put down as Constantine passed edicts making it crime and heresy to possess non-canonical texts.

The same thing happened with the Quran, but not so late. Uthman has canonized it, and burned the rest. So why have the christians failed to canonize the Bible and Uthman succeeded? The answer can only be, because God guided Uthman or the muslims. But I also believe, that God guided the christians to canonize the Bible, why wouldn't He?

The doctrine of Jesus’s divinity adopted at Nicea was developed by Saul of Tarsus (aka St. Paul) during Jesus’s times to preach to greek and roman gentiles.

I don't think, that He developed anything. He recieved revelation from Jesus and wrote it down 20 years after Jesus death. His letters seemed to get recognition from the christians. Do you know any source, as early as 50 AD, that say, that Jesus is not devine? As far as I know, every christian believed, that Jesus was devine.

Recently, there has been an academic surge in gnostic non-canonical texts after the discovery of the Nag Hammadi scriptures with the gosepls of Thomas, Peter, Mary etc. which were buried in the fourth century possibly after the edicts of nicea and the canon.

Do the authentic non-canonical gospels say, that Jesus was not devine?

But even if you study the canon texts today one can decipher through the contradictions and see that while Jesus was put on the cross, he did not die there and nobody then would have believed that someone whose legs were not broken and was on the cross for only a few hours could have died there. Even Pilate expresses surprise that Jesus died so quickly. He was only assumed as such and there was probably a plot to rescue him. This is a long narrative so if you are interested you read the following blog.

Except, that the Gospels say, that Jesus died. If Jesus didn't die, there should have been historical accounts about that. But every early christian believed, that Jesus died, as far as I know.

How do you reconcile the Bab being the Mahdi for the Shiites? And if Bab is the gate to the Mahdi, then how is he the Mahdi himself? Just curious what is the response to that?

Do you have a reference, where Bab claims to be the gate to the Mahdi?

After his declaration, he soon assumed the title of the Báb. Within a few years the movement spread all over Iran, causing controversy. His claim was at first understood by some of the public at the time to be merely a reference to the Gate of the Hidden Imám of Muhammad, but this understanding he publicly disclaimed. He later proclaimed himself, in the presence of the heir to the Throne of Persia and other notables, to be al-Qā'im. In the Báb's writings, the Báb appears to identify himself as the gate (báb) to Muhammad al-Mahdi and later he begins to explicitly proclaim his station as equivalent to that of the Hidden Imam and a new messenger from God.[9] Saiedi states the exalted identity the Báb was claiming was unmistakable, but due to the reception of the people, his writings appear to convey the impression that he is only the gate to the Hidden Twelfth Imam.[9] To his circle of early believers, the Báb was equivocal about his exact status, gradually confiding in them that he was not merely a gate to the Hidden Imam, but the Manifestation of the Hidden Imam and al-Qā'im himself.
Bábism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Bab, as He faced the congregation, declared: "The condemnation of God be upon him who regards me either as a representative of the Imam or the gate thereof. The condemnation of God be also upon whosoever imputes to me the charge of having denied the unity of God, of having repudiated the prophethood of Muhammad, the Seal of the Prophets, of having rejected the truth of any of the messengers of old, or of having refused to recognise the guardianship of Ali, the Commander of the Faithful, or of any of the imams who have succeeded him." He then ascended to the top of the staircase, embraced the Imam-Jum'ih, and, descending to the floor of the Masjid, joined the congregation for the observance of the Friday prayer
(Ref: Dawn Breakers, page 154)

I think, that He just gradually revealed himself. He didn't want to shock people with the whole truth at once.

 

[ameraz1]

So basically, with this statement he is rejecting the hadiths about Mahdi, not him being the Mahdi? The Bab called out for Jihad, so the "bloodshed" was fullfilled with Him in a way.

He did not ultimately reject the hadith regarding the Mahdi, he said that they are not central and that Mahdi is a generic reference to figures who are heavenly guided, he said that latter-days Messiah is the prominent term.

What I don't understand is this: Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed to recieve revelations and prophecies from God. How is He not a prophet then? Is not the whole thing of a prophet, to recieve revelation? "but the honour of being a prophet of Allah would be of one." Or do you mean that this one is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad?

Yes, the one termed in prophecy as Jesus, Son of Mary is a prophet and that prophet we believe to be Ghulam Ahmad (as).

The same thing happened with the Quran, but not so late. Uthman has canonized it, and burned the rest. So why have the christians failed to canonize the Bible and Uthman succeeded? The answer can only be, because God guided Uthman or the muslims. But I also believe, that God guided the christians to canonize the Bible, why wouldn't He?

You are right, Quran canonization is less than 20 years after Muhammad’s (sa) death whereas Gospels is 300 years later. The crucial point here is not so much the timeline but that in Christianity there was a fundamental difference of doctrine of divinity of Christ. Muslim never had a dispute on fundamental doctrine, any issues in canonization were around orthography or if certain short chapters which are prayers should be included or not. Bible vs. Quran cannon has a fundamental difference on the divinity of Christ and the trinity which is severely shunned by Quran, so one cannot believe that both doctrines were guided by God. Islam and Judaism are strictly monotheistic. Further, the OT prophecy of Deuteronomy 18:18 says that the prophet to be raised from the Ishmaelits is the one that will speak only the words that are spoken to him—Quran is the only document with the legacy that it is 100% the spoken word of God thru the agency of archangel Gabriel. And thus we take it to be the legitimate statement of Jesus that he was a prophet and messenger in a manner consistent with other prophets/messengers as exhorted in Quran 5:75.

I don't think, that He developed anything. He recieved revelation from Jesus and wrote it down 20 years after Jesus death. His letters seemed to get recognition from the christians. Do you know any source, as early as 50 AD, that say, that Jesus is not devine? As far as I know, every christian believed, that Jesus was devine.

Paul had a very serious conflict with the actual disciples of Jesus in Jerusalem which is, in fact, recorded in the NT. Below are some references . . .

> Galatians Chapter 2: Paul journeys to Jerusalem to communicate privately to the Apostles the Gospel he has been preaching to the Gentiles. He calls them "false brethren" who had been spying on his ministry and were regulating him in verse 4. In verse 5, he says he did not submit to them, not even for a minute. Verse 6: Whoever they were made no difference to him, those who were in conference added nothing to him.

> Corinthians Chapter 11: Paul relates those who are preaching a different Christ as "Satan", like the serpent who beguiled Eve, These are the chiefest apostles (verse 5). Verse 8: He robbed other Churches so that he could serve the Gentiles. Verse 13-14: He calls the Apostles "false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And then calls them Satan!

> Acts 21: Here James admonishes Paul on preaching Gentiles to forsake the Mosaic law, Paul takes part in a ritual to get his admission to submit to the law he has been violating, and a mob recognizes him and beats him up for trashing the law of Moses. Paul doesn't respond but he has been teaching exactly this per Galatians 5: 2-4.

> There is a Christian compilation dated to 300 CE called the "Psuedo-Clemenitines", this has two sets of traditions called "Homilies" and "Recognitions". The 2nd set called "Recognitions" has a story of a violent shouting-match and then an altercation between James and someone called "The Enemy". Later in the book, this enemy is identified as Saul of Tarsus (Recognitions 1:70-71).

Paul’s views and doctrines were in direct contradiction to Jesus’s. Paul says, “everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved” (Romans 10:13). Jesus says, “not everyone who says to me Lord Lord shall enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 7:21). Paul says, “Christ is the end of the Torah” (Romans 10:4). Jesus says, “whoever breaks one the least of these commandments will be called least in the kingdom of heaven”(Matthew 5:19).

The true early Christians and the true disciples of Jesus were strict monotheists following the Judaic law. They stayed true to Jesus’s mission as to the Israelites only which Jesus affirms (Matthew 15:24). The doctrine for the gentile’s that we see today as the canon is entirely Paul’s who only self-proclaimed that Jesus authorized it. In fact, this false doctrine is in prophecy of the OT—“O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things where in there isno profit.” Jeremiah (16:19).

Again, this doctrine of divinity is entirely inconsistent with the Old Testament and the Quran, and is not from Jesus.

Some of the grave contradictions in the gospels also back this thesis. Esoteric researcher and one of the more robust developers of the “Jesus in India” thesis is Holger Kirsten. He says the following in his book “Jesus Lived in India” about the verse John 19:39 "The theologian Paul Billerbeck describes the event as if an embalming was to take place, using the aromatic substances suspended in oil. But Rabbanic texts refer only to the external oiling of the bodies of the departed. The addition of spices is nowhere mentioned, let alone in these quantities: it was never part of Jewish customs, and nor was embalming. It would be pointless, in any case, to perform an embalming in the way described. To prevent decomposition, the entrails would have to be removed which was repulsive to the Jews on both aesthetic and religious grounds, and these substances if applied would not have been effective in halting further decomposition. Many biblical authorities in consequence find this passage in John's Gospel incomprehensible and perplexing. One commentator, Haenchen, can only conclude, 'The writer of this verse had no idea of Jewish burial rites, and knew nothing about embalming either' . . . . . Let us read the crucial sentence again in the light of the conclusions we have already come to: 'Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury'. The spices were aloes and myrrh, this much we know. Myrrh was used an an ingredient for embalming by the Egyptians, but did not feature in the burial rites of Jews. Instead, Jewish custom prescribes that the body of the deceased be washed and oiled, the hair cut and tidied, and the body be dressed again and face covered with a cloth. Yet there is no mention of any of this in John's Gospel. Whatever Joseph and Nicodemus were doing it had nothing to do with Jewish burial rites. John says that they buried Jesus in a way customary to the Jews-- and then goes on to describe a burial that directly contravenes the custom! Now why would he do this? Did he really not know the burial rites? Of course he knew them, because he described a standard burial in the story of Lazarus. Here too, then, just as we had to discern a deeper truth in the comparison of differences in the description of Lazarus' and Jesus' burials, we have to discern what John was really trying to get across by obviously contradicting himself. So what happened in that rock-hewn tomb if it was not a burial?

Basically, what happened here is that whoever is the writer of the Gospel of John that we are reading today was probably a gentile in Paul’s church who had no idea of Jewish burial rites and rewrote the verse to make it reconcile to Jesus dying on the cross but left crucial detail that those herbs in those quantities would only have been gathered to tend to his wounds. Other custom and geographical errors have also been noted in gospels indicating they were written at some distance from Jerusalem and by people not close to Jewish law and custom.

Ghulam Ahmad (as) in his book “Jesus in India” has given at least a dozen references of historical books of medicine that reference the “ointment of Jesus” and say that this ointment was prepared to heal Jesus’s wounds.

Do the authentic non-canonical gospels say, that Jesus was not devine?

The non-canon Gnostic Gospels (not considered authentic by the church) were just discovered 60 years ago in egypt known as the Nag Hammadi texts. In the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus says "the light is within you" and doesn't says "i am the light". It also has a reference to Jesus being in India. To be honest, I do not have a thorough enough knowledge to say that they challenge the doctrine of divinity but they do challenge the canonical texts. Below is an interview with Mike Licona (prominent orthodox christian apologist) and Elaine Pagels of Princeton University ( a foremost scholar and researcher in Gnostic texts.

Except, that the Gospels say, that Jesus died. If Jesus didn't die, there should have been historical accounts about that. But every early christian believed, that Jesus died, as far as I know.

See answer above to question about Paul-- someone re-wrote them to say that he died.

Also interesting point here that the earliest 4th century manuscripts of Gospel of Mark (now believed to be the earliest of the four gospels) known as Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus do not have any ascension to heaven accounts nor any commandment by Jesus to go preach the gospels to the world-- they end at Mark 16:8. The narrative on ascension to heaven and preaching this gospel to the whole world appear in later manuscript probably added by Paul's church to validate his preaching to the gentiles.

 

[ameraz1]

Except, that the Gospels say, that Jesus died. If Jesus didn't die, there should have been historical accounts about that. But every early christian believed, that Jesus died, as far as I know.

Sorry, i just realized that you had asked in above quote if there are any historical accounts about Jesus being in India. Below are some, these are not all in India as he is believed to have traveled throughout East Asia in search of the lost tribes >

> According to researcher Holger Kirsten, the earliest record of Jesus's probable whereabouts after the crucifixion places him in Damascus. A book titled "To The Christians" attributed to Sossianus Hierocles, Roman governor of Phonecia, Lebanon, Bithynia and Egypt (a brutal persecutor of Christians) reads, "after fleeing the Jews, Christ collected as many as 900 men given to robbery". Kirsten states that there was a spiritual Essene center in Damascus which would be natural sanctuary for Jesus (as). Jesus is thought to have had links with the Essenes from his time in the wilderness and Kirsten believes the Essenes played a role in his rescue from crucifixion. The mention of white angels at the empty sepulchre in The Gospels are probably later embellishments of Essenes who perpetually doned white robes. Kirsten believes that Paul had taken the course to Damascus specifically to chase Jesus himself after receiving reports that Jesus was stationed there. Three miles outside of Damascus is a place called "Mayam-e-Isa" known by this name even today. The Persian historian Mir Khawand cited several sources that state that Jesus (as) had lived and taught in the area.

> Several historical texts mention the presence of Jesus and his disciples in Nasibain. It is infered that this is where Jesus would have started to interact with the lost tribes of Israelites. References include a well know Persian historical record, Rauzat-us-Safaa, where Jesus meets the King of Nasibain and heals some of his family members. Other references are Jami-ut-Tawarik by Fakir Muhammad, a Persian scholar, and Tafsir-Ibn-i-Jarir-at-Tabri-- which states that Jesus's public presence in Nasibain came at considerable danger to him. This agrees with the hadith quoted by Promised Messiah (as) in "Jesus In India" which states, "Allah revealed to Jesus: O Jesus! Keep moving from country to country, less thou art recognized and persecuted" (Kanz ul Ummal, vol 2 page 34, narrated by Abu Hurraira).

> Author O.M. Burke in his book “Among the Dervishes” writes about a community at the Persian and Afghan border in an area called Herat. During the time spent there he discovered the belief of the Dervishes that Jesus (as) had survived the crucifixion and escaped towards India. On his route he had stopped in their community to preach there. They hold a special fondness for him.

> The gnostic Gospel of Thomas contains passages of Jesus and Thomas at court of King Gondaphares of Andrapa attending his daughter's wedding in what is modern-day Taxila, Pakistan. Jesus and Thomas preach to the newly wedded couple and per researcher Suzanne Olsson reportedly gain the King's authorization to proceed to "Takht-e-Sulaiman" or The Throne of Solomon temple in Kashmir to conduct repairs there.

> In Kashmir there was a plaque that used to on the temple known as Throne of Solomon. The plaque read "At this time Yuz Asaph proclaimed his prophet-hood. He is Yusu, prophet to the children of Israelites". The plaque is now either hidden or destroyed but not before photographs had been taken. Researcher Holger Kirsten writes that ancient Persian historical record known as "Farhang-i-Asafia" states that Hazrat Issa had healed some lepers who had there after been known as "Asaf" or the purified. "Yuz" means leader. This is most likely how he picked up the name "Yuz Asaph".

> Jesus (Yuz Asaph) is reported to be at the second session of the Fourth Buddhist council held in Kashmir in 78 AD under the patronage of empror Kanishka. The Promised Messiah (as) has written at length that Jesus (as) was prophesied by Gautama Buddha as Meitreya (Messiah to come). Yuz Asaph is reported to have been present at the second session of the Fourth Buddhist Council held in Kashmir in 78 AD. A coin commemorated to the event is dedicated to Bhodhisattva Maitreya. Yuz Asaph is also reported to have been spiritual and religious advisor to the empror Kanishka, a patron of Bhuddists. Author Holger Kirsten states that a Messianic sect of Bhuddism known as Mahayana evolved during Jesus's times that focuses on the ideal of the Bodhvistta through acts of compassion, love and peace. He believes Jesus himself influenced these teachings. Promised Messiah (as) stated that Jesus (as) was an accepted leader of Buddhists of the time and that is the reason why so many accounts in the Sutras mirror the Gospels which are actually accounts of Jesus (as) attributed to Gautama.

> The tomb of Jesus Christ (as) is the Roza Bal Shrine in Kanyar district of Srinagar, Kashmir. The grave of Yuz Asaph is aligned in the Jewish East-West direction. A plate in the tomb with engraved feet marks of Yuz Asaph reveal crucifixion wounds.

 

[raph]

> Galatians Chapter 2: Paul journeys to Jerusalem to communicate privately to the Apostles the Gospel he has been preaching to the Gentiles. He calls them "false brethren" who had been spying on his ministry and were regulating him in verse 4. In verse 5, he says he did not submit to them, not even for a minute. Verse 6: Whoever they were made no difference to him, those who were in conference added nothing to him.

This passage is about Paul telling the jews, that he will preach the gospel to the gentiles. I don't know, whom he is calling "false brethren", it could be anyone. At the end of Gal 2, everybody agrees (even Peter) that Paul will preach to the gentiles, and the jewish apostels will preach to the jews. Also Peter recognizes, that Paul is driven by the Grace of God.

> Corinthians Chapter 11: Paul relates those who are preaching a different Christ as "Satan", like the serpent who beguiled Eve, These are the chiefest apostles (verse 5). Verse 8: He robbed other Churches so that he could serve the Gentiles. Verse 13-14: He calls the Apostles "false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And then calls them Satan!

He doesnt call the apostels "false apostels". In Verse 5, he says, that he is not worse, than the mainstream apostels. In verse 13:14, he talks about false apostels in generel. He does not call the 11 "false apostels".

> Acts 21: Here James admonishes Paul on preaching Gentiles to forsake the Mosaic law, Paul takes part in a ritual to get his admission to submit to the law he has been violating, and a mob recognizes him and beats him up for trashing the law of Moses. Paul doesn't respond but he has been teaching exactly this per Galatians 5: 2-4.

In verse 21, James asks, if Paul preached to the jews the gentile gospel. He heard stories, that Paul was preaching the gentile gospel to the jews. In verse 25, James agrees with Paul, that gentiles don't need to follow the mosaic law. Later Paul really gets beaten up. But jew did it, not christians. He got beaten up by people, who killed Jesus.

Paul’s views and doctrines were in direct contradiction to Jesus’s. Paul says, “everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved” (Romans 10:13). Jesus says, “not everyone who says to me Lord Lord shall enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 7:21). Paul says, “Christ is the end of the Torah” (Romans 10:4). Jesus says, “whoever breaks one the least of these commandments will be called least in the kingdom of heaven”(Matthew 5:19).

These are only contradictions, if you look at them superficially. Jesus himself said, that everyone who believes in Him, is saved. So Jesus was the first one to "contradict" himself. But there is a difference between real belief, and just saying "Lord Lord". Thats what He meant.

The true early Christians and the true disciples of Jesus were strict monotheists following the Judaic law. They stayed true to Jesus’s mission as to the Israelites only which Jesus affirms (Matthew 15:24). The doctrine for the gentile’s that we see today as the canon is entirely Paul’s who only self-proclaimed that Jesus authorized it.

The other apostels, even Peter, authorized Paul. (Gal 2:10)

For the second post. I don't think, I could check all these things myself. I guess, that you have good reasons to believe, that Jesus was in India.

God bless you

 

[ameraz1]

Sir, I don't feel it would add anything to argue further on points-of-view. If you feel that religion is something where two fundamentally opposed doctrines can be preached to two groups (Jesus the prophet/messiah to the Israelites vs Jesus the God to the Gentiles) and two fundamentally opposed doctrines (Jesus the prophet of Islam vs. Jesus the God of the Christians) can be guided by the same God, then it is yours to keep. I do not believe that Jesus or his true disciples would have advocated anything of the manner.

As for the evidence for Jesus in India, yes you can check all those references on your own. The only question is do you want to.

 

[raph]

Hi, from what I understand of the Bible, there was never a dispute between Paul and the other apostels about Jesus divinity. The only thing that they may have argued about was the law.

Isnt Jesus called spirit of God and Word of God in the Quran? Is God's Spirit not devine?

Regards

 

[ameraz1]

Hi, from what I understand of the Bible, there was never a dispute between Paul and the other apostels about Jesus divinity. The only thing that they may have argued about was the law.

Isnt Jesus called spirit of God and Word of God in the Quran? Is God's Spirit not devine?

Regards

The apostles were Jews and regarded themselves as Jews. To me, it is inconceivable they would have attributed divinity to Jesus in the sense that the Greeks did although Greek mythological influences did penetrate some Jewish traditions. The first commandment in the Torah states that Thee shall worship thy God alone Yahweh and none other. Christians today, as did the Greeks and Romans, worship Christ.

References to prophets as God or God-like attributes do exist in the Torah and one can take stock of the references you gave from the Quran about Jesus. Exodis 7:1 says " . . .Moses, see I have made thee a God unto Pharaoh". Jesus himself answered accusation of him claiming divinity in John 10:31-35, "The Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus said many good works have I shewed you from my father, which of those works do you stone me for. The Jews answered him, for good works we do not stone you, but for blasphemy; because you being a man make yourself a God. Jesus said, is it not written in your law that you are gods? if He (Yahweh) called them gods, to whom the word God came". Jesus is referring to the 82 Psalms verse 6: "I have said ye are gods, all of ye are the children of the most high".

In the Quran, Jesus is called the spirit of God but it also says that God breathed into man His spirit. Even if you extrapolate some concept of divinity that extends to prophets or men this does not constitute the manner in which Christianity (and I suspect Bahaism) apply divinity to prophets. Worshiping prophets has never been the case in the Abrahamic tradition and such interpretations are anathema in Judaism and Islam. Quranic text clearly condemns the popular Christian notion on the divinity of Jesus.

I believe the apostles never applied divinity to Christ in the sense Christians do today. The early Christian historian Hegesippus has written that the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem had asked St. James to use his influence in stopping the preaching that Jesus was the Messiah. The text reads, "we entreat you, restrain the people, for they have gone astray in regards to Jesus, as if he were the Christ (Messiah)". Now if the apostles believed in the divinity of Jesus and preached it, then this text would have said to stop them from preaching that Jesus is God, which is far greater violation for jews than calling him Messiah.

Jesus was Messiah only to the Israelites, I believe nor he nor the apostles ever sanctioned a different teaching for the gentiles. The Hellenized and Romanized version of the Gospels and Christianity you see today is also found by pagan traditions such as "Easter" based on the germanic goddess 'Ostara' for spring-time freshness and fertility symbolized by the eggs and rabbits fused in with the doctrine of resurrection.

So, given your defense of Paul and contemporary Christianity, I have a question-- I have come across statements about Bahais relating to Bahaullah as God in a similar sense to how Christians consider Christ as God. But I would like to ask a Bahai how true is this, and if you would like to present your point of view. Also, related, is it true that Bahais pray and prostrate in the direction of Bahaullah's grave?