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

[firedragon]

Christians believed this from the Gospels. Abdul-Baha just explained that a literal interpretation was erronous.



Mark 16:19

So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

Luke 24:51

51While he was blessing them, he withdrew from them and was carried up into heaven.

Acts 1 ch 8:9

And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

So LOH, do you say that by dafault you dont care if any of this is authentic or not?

 

[firedragon]

From Shoghi Effendi.

we cannot be sure how much or how little of the four Gospels are accurate and include the words of Christ and His undiluted teachings, all we can be sure of, as Bahá'ís, is that what has been quoted by Bahá'u'lláh and the Master must be absolutely authentic. As many times passages in the Gospel of St. John are quoted we may assume that it is his Gospel and much of it accurate.
(23 January 1944 to an individual believer)

I have not seen this comment, but it is just blind belief in my opinion. Because it is not based on any kind of historicity, but a blind belief that simple because I say so, or someone says so, you must believe.

It maybe a valid thinking from your religious view point but is invalid.

 

[firedragon]

From Shoghi Effendi.

we cannot be sure how much or how little of the four Gospels are accurate and include the words of Christ and His undiluted teachings, all we can be sure of, as Bahá'ís, is that what has been quoted by Bahá'u'lláh and the Master must be absolutely authentic. As many times passages in the Gospel of St. John are quoted we may assume that it is his Gospel and much of it accurate.
(23 January 1944 to an individual believer)

Sorry brother. Quoting Effendi does not authenticate the Gospel of John. No offence, but this just seems like blind belief, and I shall say that.

 

[loverofhumanity]

So LOH, do you say that by dafault you dont care if any of this is authentic or not?

No of course not! We believe in the Bible. But rely on interpretation from an authoritative source.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I have not seen this comment, but it is just blind belief in my opinion. Because it is not based on any kind of historicity, but a blind belief that simple because I say so, or someone says so, you must believe.

It maybe a valid thinking from your religious view point but is invalid.

Blind belief is unacceptable but if God has said something I never question it. I question scholars and other people but never God.

 

[firedragon]

Blind belief is unacceptable but if God has said something I never question it. I question scholars and other people but never God.

Proselytisation.

 

[firedragon]

No of course not! We believe in the Bible. But rely on interpretation from an authoritative source.

Explain when you say " we believe in the Bible"/ Be clear. What is your definition of "we believe in the Bible"?

Be clear.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

@loverofhumanity How would you prove that the Gospel of John is Gods word?

I think before you ask this question, you need to ask, how would you prove that Jesus was a Messenger of God. Even before this, how would you prove that God exists. The issue with the way you are discussing this, is, you first take it on faith that God exists, but then you continue as if, the connection from an invisible God to a Book is provable the way you expect it.

But we say, God has come down and told us, this Book was inspired by God.
Does not the Quran, and Bible promise that the Lord comes down, and humanity meets Him?


we know it is from God, because in our view it is teaching truth, and we recognize it cannot be the work of Man. This is how we see it.
Now, you say my answer is faith based, but you realize when you say how to prove the Gospel of John is from God, you are first assuming there is a God, but yet, you have no proof of existence of a God. Yet, you appear to think it is appropriate to believe in God based on faith, but, when so many reasons given as to why the Gospel of John is divinely inspired, you think it is faith based. Are not the prophecies of the NT fulfilled by the manifestations of the Bab and Baha'u'llah? Are you saying it is possible that, two Persons appear exactly the way it was described in the Bible, yet, this Bible is a false Book?

Please clarify if I am wrong.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I apologise, I was referring to Luke, not Matthew. This is the ascension verse at the end of Luke as found in the KJV. I think its quoted similarly in the TNIV also. Please do check that up.

But you were arguing that, the ascension of Christ in Luke is not found in manuscripts. Right?
My question now: are you saying the ascension of Jesus, is not in any of the 4 Gospels manuscripts, and it was totally a later addition?

 

[Trailblazer]

Sorry brother. Quoting Effendi does not authenticate the Gospel of John. No offence, but this just seems like blind belief, and I shall say that.

Is there any particular reason you are singling out Gospel of John?
Do you believe that the synoptic gospels are authentic?
What would make any of the gospels authentic?

 

[loverofhumanity]

Explain when you say " we believe in the Bible"/ Be clear. What is your definition of "we believe in the Bible"?

Be clear.

"...the words of the verses themselves eloquently testify to the truth that they are of God."
(Book of Certitude)

It’s interpretation however we believe is only fully known by God and His Manifestation not scholars or mortal man.

 

[Trailblazer]

"...the words of the verses themselves eloquently testify to the truth that they are of God."
(Book of Certitude)

But of God is not the same as from God.

 

[firedragon]

I think before you ask this question, you need to ask, how would you prove that Jesus wa

I asked from someone else, not you so you dont know why I asked, thus you cannot tell me "before you ask this question you should do this and that".

 

[firedragon]

"...the words of the verses themselves eloquently testify to the truth that they are of God."
(Book of Certitude)

It’s interpretation however we believe is only fully known by God and His Manifestation not scholars or mortal man.

Quoting another books "belief statement" to believe in another book is absurd.

 

[firedragon]

But you were arguing that, the ascension of Christ in Luke is not found in manuscripts. Right?
My question now: are you saying the ascension of Jesus, is not in any of the 4 Gospels manuscripts, and it was totally a later addition?

Ive said it already. So in case you missed it, for the 5th time I am repeating this.

Its not in the earliest manuscript. Thats why. Hope you understand.

Maybe again, you should consult those so called "unbiased scholars".

 

[firedragon]

Is there any particular reason you are singling out Gospel of John?
Do you believe that the synoptic gospels are authentic?
What would make any of the gospels authentic?

Because this is the gospel LOH claimed to. Thats why.

Also, dont be hasty in making these assumptions. Exclusion of one thing does not mean inclusion of everything else. I did not say anything in the New Testament is authentic. I did not say the other gospels are authentic. So that's a strawman.

If you want, please go ahead providing some validity, and if you want you could discuss any of the gospels. No problem. But dont do a strawman. Just start the conversation with "I wish to discuss the gospel of Mark" for example. Hope you understand.

Just to make it clear, the oldest NT manuscript ever found is the P52. Its a scrap of the Gospel of John. All the other manuscripts come later. This is dated to the 2nd century. And the Gospel of John was written 70 years approx after Jesus, by someone anonymous, and is singled out as John, not a synoptic gospel because of all kinds of reasons.

If you wish, of course we could discuss this.

Anyway, LOH was speaking about the parakleet prophecy in John and that Bahaullah is he. Bahaullah wrote that he was parakleet. Thus, to validate that you have to prove that this verse is authentic. TO have faith in it you have to show its Gods word. Thats the background to this discussion. So go ahead.

All I keep seeing is faith statements dumping reason and research in the drain. But the Bahai's also claim that there are unbiased scholars they consult. But what I am asking is, rather than engage in this kind of rhetoric why not make some research and have a decent, rational conversation with some historicity in mind?

 

[firedragon]

"...the words of the verses themselves eloquently testify to the truth that they are of God."
(Book of Certitude)

Alright. So Bahaullah said this about everything he used or the whole Bible?

Can you give specific answer?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Alright. So Bahaullah said this about everything he used or the whole Bible?

Can you give specific answer?

Baha'u'llah was talking about the Corruption of the Text.

".... Were they to be questioned concerning those signs that must needs herald the revelation and rise of the sun of the Muḥammadan Dispensation, to which We have already referred, none of which have been literally fulfilled, and were it to be said to them: “Wherefore have ye rejected the claims advanced by Christians and the peoples of other faiths and regard them as infidels,” knowing not what answer to give, they will reply: “These Books have been corrupted and are not, and never have been, of God.” Reflect: the words of the verses themselves eloquently testify to the truth that they are of God. A similar verse hath been also revealed in the Qur’án, were ye of them that comprehend. Verily I say, throughout all this period they have utterly failed to comprehend what is meant by corrupting the text...... "

This link at end page 83

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Íqán, Pages 81-93

Regards Tony

 

[firedragon]

Baha'u'llah was talking about the Corruption of the Text.

".... Were they to be questioned concerning those signs that must needs herald the revelation and rise of the sun of the Muḥammadan Dispensation, to which We have already referred, none of which have been literally fulfilled, and were it to be said to them: “Wherefore have ye rejected the claims advanced by Christians and the peoples of other faiths and regard them as infidels,” knowing not what answer to give, they will reply: “These Books have been corrupted and are not, and never have been, of God.” Reflect: the words of the verses themselves eloquently testify to the truth that they are of God. A similar verse hath been also revealed in the Qur’án, were ye of them that comprehend. Verily I say, throughout all this period they have utterly failed to comprehend what is meant by corrupting the text...... "

This link at end page 83

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Íqán, Pages 81-93

Regards Tony

Okay. Reflect upon the verse Mark "Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen" and know that its absolutely forged.

This kind of thing cannot be reconciled no matter how many times you or I could reflect upon them.

Hope you understand.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Okay. Reflect upon the verse Mark "Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen" and know that its absolutely forged.

This kind of thing cannot be reconciled no matter how many times you or I could reflect upon them.

Hope you understand.

Hope you can also see that we can still see Christ has risen. Why did they not beleive?

We know it was not the flesh that arose, but the Spirit.

Regards Tony