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

[firedragon]

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

What do you mean Tony? I did not understand your question.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

What do you mean Tony? I did not understand your question.

I am saying that it does not matter, we know that Christ was not killed.

We have the Quran to confirm this, we have the Baha'i Writings to confirm this.

Regards Tony

 

[firedragon]

I am saying that it does not matter, we know that Christ was not killed.

We have the Quran to confirm this, we have the Baha'i Writings to confirm this.

Regards Tony

Thats good for your faith. If you wish to believe the Christ was killed, not killed, etc etc is all upto you. I am addressing this thread.

Nevertheless you are misquoting the Quran. The Quran does not make any separation between the Christ and Isa. No way. You had said that Muhammed is also the Christ. So you are misquoting the Quran, and imposing things that are not there.

Maybe sometimes you should study the source, not only read and believe whats written in the Bahai material and believe them blindly.

 

[firedragon]

Of course, any thread of discussion with the Bahai's will turn into proselytising and a discussion of faith. It has to. Its inevitable.

 

[firedragon]

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?

Comes down? You mean God is the sky daddy like the atheists make a mockery of?

I know that you want to refer to Quran 2:210 and pretend you are an arabic expert, then insult someone thinking they dont know the language, etc etc etc. You lack all kinds of language knowledge, but have a lot of talent in insulting others, thus it is impossible to make you understand the Quran. It will never happen. So you are throwing things that you wish to argue about but not about the thread.

Its Harfu Isthafaaman. Its a question of doubt. It is asking "are they waiting for God to come down?" Does not mean "God is coming down". Who ever made this case to you was utterly ignorant and took you for granted. This is a grilling. An interrogation. Its a question, not a statement. If God and angels became visible, everyone would be forced to believe and the test designed by God would lose its meaning. God wanted to create creatures with free will, and He is testing this program on this planet. Those who make good decisions will join God in eternity and those who make bad decisions will join Satan in hell and there they will vanish eternally. Now that's a faith statement. So you are making a big mistake out of ignorance, and someone has mislead you to absurdity. Thus you should go and question these people who lied to you.

Tell me. I can give you a manuscript that dates to Muhammeds time. Can you give me a manuscript of the New Testament that dates to Jesus's time? Thats the discussion.

Make me understand why the Bahai elders failed to know the earliest Bible? The more authentic one! Manifestations of God have divine knowledge, so they should have known a lot of things that did not exist at the time. Like the fact that the earliest Bible had two more books in them. And that some verses were forged. Thats the discussion.

They should have known that there was no one called "St. Mark" who wrote "Gospel of Mark". Thats the discussion.

 

[loverofhumanity]

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

How much of our limited knowledge is actually our own? It’s all passed down and taught to us.

True knowledge however, I believe, comes from the Word of God, which is the ‘Mother Book’ from which all knowledge flows.

We should always judge man’s knowledge by what is stated in the Holy Texts because they are the ‘Balance’ in which to weigh the validity of our own knowledge.

 

[firedragon]

How much of our limited knowledge is actually our own? It’s all passed down and taught to us.

True knowledge however, I believe, comes from the Word of God, which is the ‘Mother Book’ from which all knowledge flows.

We should always judge man’s knowledge by what is stated in the Holy Texts because they are the ‘Balance’ in which to weigh the validity of our own knowledge.

If you call a book that has factual and historical invalidity and/or errors "mother book", your preaching to me is a side attempt to avoid the thread, and/or derail it.

Why did not your bringers of the goods from the mother book not know anything further from the KJV? Did not they actually fish off the "mother book"?

This is why brother proselytising is no answer for a question.

 

[firedragon]

The New Testament calls Jesus "monogenis".

What do Bahai's think of this?

 

[Vouthon]

New The New Testament calls Jesus "monogenis".

Hmm, do you not mean "Monogenes”?

That's the Greek word used for “begotten” in John 3:16, John 3:18, John 1:14, John 1:18 and 1 John 4:9.

In every scriptural verse where John employs the word MONOGENES, it is in a context in which he simultaneously relies on the term GENNAO “new birth” (see John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9).

The Johannine author is intentionally making a distinction between the new birth that believers experience and the Son’s unique begottenness from the Father.

(John 1:14 YLT) And the Word became flesh, and did tabernacle among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of an only begotten of a father, full of grace and truth.

[Jhn 1:14 MGNT] (14) καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας

"The Son is the image [eikon] of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in Him all things were created" (Colossians 1:15)

"For to which of the angels did God ever say,

“You are my Son;
today I have begotten you”?" (Hebrews 1:5)

​

I, too, would be interested to hear what Baha'is think of this word and its theological import.

 

[firedragon]

Hmm, do you not mean "Monogenes”?

That's the Greek word used for “begotten” in John 3:16, John 3:18, John 1:14, John 1:18 and 1 John 4:9.

In every scriptural verse where John employs the word MONOGENES, it is in a context in which he simultaneously relies on the term GENNAO “new birth” (see John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9).

The Johannine author is intentionally making a distinction between the new birth that believers experience and the Son’s unique begottenness from the Father.

(John 1:14 YLT) And the Word became flesh, and did tabernacle among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of an only begotten of a father, full of grace and truth.

[Jhn 1:14 MGNT] (14) καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας

"The Son is the image [eikon] of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in Him all things were created" (Colossians 1:15)

"For to which of the angels did God ever say,

“You are my Son;
today I have begotten you”?" (Hebrews 1:5)

​

I, too, would be interested to hear what Baha'is think of this word and its theological import.

Yep. Mono means one/singular/only. Genno is to beget. Egenoto is Became. Egenisen is past participle of generate, the exact word used in the genealogy for begot. Monogenees is as every tom, dick, and harry knows is "Only Begotten". It is predominantly existent in reference to Jesus only in the Johannine literature. Thats unique.

So I wish to know what the Bahai's think of this.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

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".

I am not saying ask anyone.

What I mean, is, how can you expect anyone to prove to you there is a God, that you expect someone to prove the Gospel of John is from this God?
You are asking something, that you already know it is not possible to prove to others.
So, you should ask a fair question, if you want to have a fair discussion.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

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".

Can you please give a link to the source that says "Resurrection of Jesus, His ascension, and coming down Jesus in the clouds" (or whatever you say, it was a later addition) is not in any of the earliest manuscripts of the 4 Gospels?

I am learning something new now.
I did some search, but cannot find any info about . Thanks

@Vouthon, since you are a knowledgeable Christian, are you aware of any debates regarding non existence of any parts of "Resurrection of Jesus, His ascension, and coming down Jesus in the clouds" in the earliest Gospels manuscripts? Have you heard that before?

 

[loverofhumanity]

Hmm, do you not mean "Monogenes”?

That's the Greek word used for “begotten” in John 3:16, John 3:18, John 1:14, John 1:18 and 1 John 4:9.

In every scriptural verse where John employs the word MONOGENES, it is in a context in which he simultaneously relies on the term GENNAO “new birth” (see John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9).

The Johannine author is intentionally making a distinction between the new birth that believers experience and the Son’s unique begottenness from the Father.

(John 1:14 YLT) And the Word became flesh, and did tabernacle among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of an only begotten of a father, full of grace and truth.

[Jhn 1:14 MGNT] (14) καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας

"The Son is the image [eikon] of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in Him all things were created" (Colossians 1:15)

"For to which of the angels did God ever say,

“You are my Son;
today I have begotten you”?" (Hebrews 1:5)

​

I, too, would be interested to hear what Baha'is think of this word and its theological import.

This is the Word of God, the Holy Bible. It is Divinely inspired. It is the Gospel of salvation and blessed is the person who turns to it.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Hmm, do you not mean "Monogenes”?

That's the Greek word used for “begotten” in John 3:16, John 3:18, John 1:14, John 1:18 and 1 John 4:9.

In every scriptural verse where John employs the word MONOGENES, it is in a context in which he simultaneously relies on the term GENNAO “new birth” (see John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9).

The Johannine author is intentionally making a distinction between the new birth that believers experience and the Son’s unique begottenness from the Father.

(John 1:14 YLT) And the Word became flesh, and did tabernacle among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of an only begotten of a father, full of grace and truth.

[Jhn 1:14 MGNT] (14) καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας

"The Son is the image [eikon] of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in Him all things were created" (Colossians 1:15)

"For to which of the angels did God ever say,

“You are my Son;
today I have begotten you”?" (Hebrews 1:5)

​

I, too, would be interested to hear what Baha'is think of this word and its theological import.

It is spiritual birth, which is symbolic.

Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. ... So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

Here the begotten son, is not about the physical or flesh of Jesus that was born from God. It was His Spirit who was born of God's Spirit. But the spiritual Birth is not like birth of flesh. This Birth has nothing to do with Jesus being born of a virgin. Even if for the sake of argument, Mary got pregnant by Her Husband, still Jesus Spirit would have been born of the Spirit of God.

 

[firedragon]

What I mean, is, how can you expect anyone to prove to you there is a God, that you expect someone to prove the Gospel of John is from this God?

Because when someone claims its from God, and believe in it like its Gods word, I expect them to show me why they think its Gods word.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I know that you want to refer to Quran 2:210 .....Its Harfu Isthafaaman. Its a question of doubt. It is asking "are they waiting for God to come down?"

Let's discuss this then, with going through details of the verse from its Arabic words, since you like criticism.

In terms of grammar and verse construction, 2:210 is very similar to 7:53, so they must be translated and understood in the same way.

"هَلْ يَنظُرُونَ إِلَّا تَأْوِيلَهُ يَوْمَ يَأْتِي تَأْوِيلُهُ يَقُولُ الَّذِينَ

"Are they waiting but for the fulfilment....?" 7:53

Though the verse is asking question, This implies that the final fulfilment surely comes.


Now compare this, with 2:210:

"...هَلْ يَنظُرُونَ إِلَّا أَن يَأْتِيَهُمُ اللَّهُ فِي ظُلَلٍ "

"are they waiting but for God to come down in clouds....?"

L
Likewise 2:210, though is asking a question, it implies that God surely comes"


I told you before. In Your translation you are missing the word الّا، which in English is "but" or "except for". So it must be translated as:

"are they waiting but for God to come down?"

Tell me. I can give you a manuscript that dates to Muhammeds time. Can you give me a manuscript of the New Testament that dates to Jesus's time? Thats the discussion.

No, I cannot. But what does that prove?
Now, tell me, can you give me a manuscript that Quran dates back to Allah, when He was talking to the Angel Gabriel, as He Allah was giving verses of the Quran to the angel? Of course not. My point is, if we are discussing the evidence for divinity of the Quran, the manuscripts of Quran does not prove anything, but the text of the Quran itself can be judged. Likewise believing in divinity of the Bible, is seen from its text by those who recognize it inspired by God.

 

[firedragon]

It is spiritual birth, which is symbolic.

The universal answer for everything that a Bahai cannot explain. The plug and play solution.

Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. ... So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

Here the begotten son, is not about the physical or flesh of Jesus that was born from God. It was His Spirit who was born of God's Spirit. But the spiritual Birth is not like birth of flesh. This Birth has nothing to do with Jesus being born of a virgin. Even if for the sake of argument, Mary got pregnant by Her Husband, still Jesus Spirit would have been born of the Spirit of God.

I did not say "begotten", I asked about "Only Begotten" so your response is a strawman.

 

[firedragon]

Let's discuss this then, with going through details of the verse from its Arabic words, since you like criticism.

What criticism? Form criticism, narrative criticism, redaction, Source, what criticism?

Let's discuss this then, with going through details of the verse from its Arabic words, since you like criticism.

In terms of grammar and verse construction, 2:210 is very similar to 7:53, so they must be translated and understood in the same way.

"هَلْ يَنظُرُونَ إِلَّا تَأْوِيلَهُ يَوْمَ يَأْتِي تَأْوِيلُهُ يَقُولُ الَّذِينَ

"Are they waiting but for the fulfilment....?" 7:53

Though the verse is asking question, This implies that the final fulfilment surely comes.


Now compare this, with 2:210:

"...هَلْ يَنظُرُونَ إِلَّا أَن يَأْتِيَهُمُ اللَّهُ فِي ظُلَلٍ "

"are they waiting but for God to come down in clouds....?"

L
Likewise 2:210, though is asking a question, it implies that God surely comes"


I told you before. In Your translation you are missing the word الّا، which in English is "but" or "except for". So it must be translated as:

"are they waiting but for God to come down?"

So that's another evidence that your strategy is to cherry pick from a cherry picked verse. Whats the gain? Nothing.

Its the full verse that speaks, not cherry picking one or two words from the verse. You want to prove something bogus in the Quran, and you are even willing to make up things for that.

Nevertheless, lets discuss the grammar of the Quran. Since you are an expert maybe you could explain.

Can you explain what happens when you qualify a Harfun Isthifaamun with a faala madharia? Please explain.

No, I cannot. But what does that prove?
Now, tell me, can you give me a manuscript that Quran dates back to Allah,

See, that's a stupid question you are using thinking its very clever in strategy to prove other peoples hypocrisy, but see how dumb that question is.

Allah or God is eternal. I presume you understand that word. So nothing can date back to something eternal.

What this proves is that when you dont have proper arguments, you just have to make up some bogus argument to stick. Its nonsensical.

Of course you cannot provide any kind of evidence that is even close to the Quran, because it doesnt exist. Thats your problem.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

The universal answer for everything that a Bahai cannot explain. The plug and play solution.



I did not say "begotten", I asked about "Only Begotten" so your response is a strawman.

Yes, Jesus as a Manifestation of God, was the only begotten son of God. But this birth is not like a material birth. But this spiritual birth is Manifestation of the Will and attributes of God. This is called Manifestation of God. There is Only One Manifestation of God. Once "the Manifestation of God" appeared in Jesus, and another time "the Manifestation of God" appeared in Bahaullah. There is only One Manifestation of God, the only begotten son. This Son can appear in any one who, God wants, in any Age to reveal the Will and Words of God. Hope this is a little more clear.

 

[firedragon]

My point is, if we are discussing the evidence for divinity of the Quran, the manuscripts of Quran does not prove anything, but the text of the Quran itself can be judged. Likewise believing in divinity of the Bible, is seen from its text by those who recognize it inspired by God.

The thing is, when the Bible is questioned, why do you always, every single time pull the Quran up? Is it because you cannot answer to your New Testament? So you have to commit the Tu Quoque Logical fallacy.

Thats fine. I opened this thread because it is a Bahai strategy to commit these logical fallacies. Every single Bahai who has responded in this thread have done the same thing in every single discussion. Maybe Adrians frequency of doing that is quite low.

Nevertheless I will answer you. No problem.

What evidence proves is that the Quran is closest to the source, Muhammed than the New Testament has any reliable source that's close to Jesus. So you comparing them is absolutely absurd and is just a Tu Quoque with no substance.