The Bahai interpretation of Jesus, the crucifixion, and him in the Qur'an

[InvestigateTruth]

His religion was not resurrected in three days. For all the great things said by Abdul Baha, this, to me, is the worst thing said. We have the empty tomb. We have disciples go to the tomb. We have disciples talk with, eat with and touch Jesus. But all those verses are symbolic of the disciples being the real resurrected body of Jesus? Okay, if Abdul Baha is right, then the gospel story is the dumbest thing ever written.

I'm sticking with, if the gospel story isn't literally, historically true, then the gospel writers made it up or based it on legends and traditions that were floating around. But really? All those verses being symbolic? Why? Why... if after three days they started spreading the word about what Jesus taught, then why not say so? Because later the NT does say so. They did start teaching about a resurrected savior, but that was after they met with Jesus and saw him alive. I question it. I doubt it really happened literally, but I doubt the Baha'i "symbolic" explanation even more. Really? Why would four gospel writers all tell a make believe story about Jesus, and then expect people to know they were being allegorical?

And Paul also said that if Christ hasn't been raised from the dead, that they were all still lost in their sins. And Christians also read the Bible carefully and found Satan and Jesus everywhere. They found a sin curse that God put on Adam that needed Jesus, the perfect sacrifice, to fix. They found one verse where a young woman has a baby and they make that into a prophecy about Jesus being born of a virgin. If the Bible interprets itself the way the Christians see it, then the Holy Spirit is the Comforter that came on Pentecost.

And Baha'is "carefully" find verses here and there that they can use... just like Christians did. But is it the Bible interpreting itself, or each religion picking through verses that justifies their beliefs?

Yes, if the Religion of christ had died after Jesus crucifixion, it means it was not from God. I think that's what Paul meant when He said if Christ has not risen they were still in Sin.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, if the Religion of christ had died after Jesus crucifixion, it means it was not from God. I think that's what Paul meant when He said if Christ has not risen they were still in Sin.

Yeah, but the Quran says that they did not crucify him.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Yeah, but the Quran says that they did not crucify him.

As said before, in Bahai view, Quran wants to teach, the Christ has a spiritual reality, rather then just a physical body, and the spiritual reality of Christ, which is the important matter, was not crucified.

And if you say, this verse is not talking about the spiritual reality because the Text has nothing that denotes "Sprit", I like to get your attention to this verse:

"And do not say about those who are killed in the way of Allah, "They are dead." Rather, they are alive, but you perceive [it] not." 2:154

In the Text of This verse, there is nothing that denotes spirit, but that can be understood from the verse. It is same in 4:157

 

[firedragon]

As said before, in Bahai view, Quran wants to teach, the Christ has a spiritual reality, rather then just a physical body, and the spiritual reality of Christ, which is the important matter, was not crucified.

And if you say, this verse is not talking about the spiritual reality because the Text has nothing that denotes "Sprit", I like to get your attention to this verse:

"And do not say about those who are killed in the way of Allah, "They are dead." Rather, they are alive, but you perceive [it] not." 2:154

In the Text of This verse, there is nothing that denotes spirit, but that can be understood from the verse. It is same in 4:157

What ever it is, the verse says "he was not crucified" while you believe "he was" so that's a direct opposite to what Effendi quotes as Gods word.

 

[CG Didymus]

Yes, if the Religion of christ had died after Jesus crucifixion, it means it was not from God. I think that's what Paul meant when He said if Christ has not risen they were still in Sin.

And tell me about this "religion of Christ" that arose? What were their beliefs? And was it from the same God that Baha'is claim is real? The One, True, God? Since I know you'll have to give some off the wall answer, I'll tell you. A religion that believed in the fall of man because of Adam. A religion that believed in Satan and his demons. A religion that believed in God the Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. A religion that evolved into a church that had people confess their sins to the priests. A religion that killed heretics. A religion that forced conquered people into believing in it. And so on. That was the religion you're talking about?

Even though all those things still happened, I think the belief in a resurrected Jesus helped create that religion. The Church really got going after Jesus' resurrection and then the descending of the Holy Spirit on the disciples on Pentecost. It was not three days after Jesus had died that the religion got going. And without Constantine, would the religion have gotten going? But that's okay, like Trailblazer always tells me, "all that is in the past" and to got with it. Forget our differences and unite as one people with one God and one religion... the one true religion for this day and age. Oh yeah, how do we know it is God's "true" religion if the claims it makes don't always add up and make sense? Just ignore those things? Or talk about them?

 

[Sundance]

We both know what is in the fragments of the manuscripts of Josephus that refer to Jesus. We know the arguments in regards the fragment that refers to the crucifixion. We come to different conclusions about the fragment in question.

The manuscript of Josephus is but one of many pieces of evidence that support's the crucifixion of Jesus. We could examine Tacitus, Mara-Bar Seripian's letter and the Babylonian Talmud. There are the four Gospel accounts. There are other NT references such as Paul's reference in his first epistle to Corinthians.

Almost all reputable historians of antiquity agree Jesus was crucified.

@firedragon, in a separate thread, I myself recall making reference to these same sources critiquing another attempt of yours to discredit the historicity of Jesus’s Crucifixion, namely Josephus and Tacitus.

We had further gone on to discuss the interpolation in Josephus’s passage in Antiquities, for which I had offered in response the original passage found in an Arabic translation. I’ll post it below as a reminder:


“At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders.”

As made evident, Josephus says that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified, upon the orders of Pontius Pilate.

 

[firedragon]

@firedragon, in a separate thread, I myself recall making reference to these same sources critiquing another attempt of yours to discredit the historicity of Jesus’s Crucifixion, namely Josephus and Tacitus.

We had further gone on to discuss the interpolation in Josephus’s passage in Antiquities, for which I had offered in response the original passage found in an Arabic translation. I’ll post it below as a reminder:


“At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders.”

As made evident, Josephus says that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified, upon the orders of Pontius Pilate.

1. Can you explain why the testimonium is not listed in the TOC in older latin manuscripts?
2. What is exact text in the arabic manuscript?

 

[Sundance]

1. Can you explain why the testimonium is not listed in the TOC in older latin manuscripts?
2. What is exact text in the arabic manuscript?

I couldn’t say, but perhaps the Latin manuscripts – unlike the Greek, Arabic, and Syriac – do not contain the Testimonium.

It was difficult, but thanks to a paper by one Shlomo Pines on the Arabic Testimonium from Agapius’ translation, I’ve found the text (PDF version) as follows:

 

[firedragon]

I couldn’t say, but perhaps the Latin manuscripts – unlike the Greek, Arabic, and Syriac – do not contain the Testimonium.

Why? They are much earlier. So if they dont contain the testimonium, why do you rely on latter manuscripts?

It was difficult, but thanks to a paper by one Shlomo Pines on the Arabic Testimonium from Agapius’ translation, I’ve found the text (PDF version) as follows:

So you truly believe Josephus said "Amsheeha allazey kaalatha eantha Alaa anbiyaa" really? And why does the Greek text differ so much? Dont you think you should scrutinise this more?

Yet I appreciate your effort. Its truly commendable.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

It is just annoying in all honesty; to be buggered even after presenting to a person the truth of what Jesus Christ had said, yet they desire to change and say no no that is not right.

I am happy to offer a different discussion perspective.

The important thing I see about this topic, is that when Jesus offers he is the Way and the the Truth and the Light, is to ask ourselves, who was Jesus?

Jesus asked that exact question of the Disciples and it was Peter's answer that the Church was to be built upon.

Peter answered you are the Christ. We know Christ is not a Surname, but has meaning as "The Annointed One". So Jesus was Annointed with the Holy Spirit. Spirit can not be killed, Spirit is not flesh and Jesus offerd flesh amounts to nothing.

So happy to discuss the eternal part of Jesus any time, which is Christ, the Holy Spirit.

That also ties into what Muhammad offered.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

what a bogus argument.

The question is not about the historicity of the crucifixion. What is relevant is what the Quran says, and the fact that the Bahai;s believe it is Gods word, and the contradicting belief that Jesus was Crucified.

How can it be bogus. As a Baha'i we beleive the Bible and the Quran are God's Word, because God told us through Baha'u'llah they indeed are.

As such Allah, our One God that does as God so wills, has explained some Biblical and Quran passages for us to consider. So in the interpretation of the remainder of those books, we can have a more open mind and thus remove centuries of arguments of unimportant doctrinal facets of Faith.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Yes, it has happened. So brother, just because you dont do it, dont say "No one does it" because that's acting God.

The station of the Quran in the Baha'i Writings offers a different view. As a Baha'i I could not deny the Quran and with the Bible we are confident it contains the Word of God, but not necessarily accurate word for word and all that advice is found in the writings.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Even though all those things still happened, I think the belief in a resurrected Jesus helped create that religion. The Church really got going after Jesus' resurrection and then the descending of the Holy Spirit on the disciples on Pentecost. It was not three days after Jesus had died that the religion got going.

I find it very interesting that the same event the prevents the Christian considering Baha'u'llah, has also prevented the followers of Islam as well. The Crucified Jesus was a test 2000 years ago and 180 years ago and still is.

Yet there are those that now embrace Jesus, the Bible, Muhammad and the Quran and who readily submit to One God in the Knowledge that God does as God Will's, who have turned swords into plowshares.

Yet the argument is over the apparent meaning of One Word.

My mother died the other day, but she did not die, it only appears that way to my father, my mother lives a more real life now, she was raised and lives eternal.

I wonder where people 2000 years from now may think my mother is?

Regards Tony

 

[Sundance]

Why? They are much earlier. So if they dont contain the testimonium, why do you rely on latter manuscripts?

Well, Josephus wrote using Koine Greek, not Latin. The early Western church used Latin.



So you truly believe Josephus said "Amsheeha allazey kaalatha eantha Alaa anbiyaa" really? And why does the Greek text differ so much? Dont you think you should scrutinise this more?

Yet I appreciate your effort. Its truly commendable.[/QUOTE]

Surely, @firedragon, you pull my leg, man! Of course not haha. I made clear that the quote was taken from a later Arabic translation of Josephus’s work. The would be like Christians insisting that Jesus and Paul spoke the Early Middle English of the King James Bible.

As for why the Arabic and Greek differ, they don’t too heavily. I suppose the differences originate from the Arabic using a second-hand source material and the Greek translation using both first and second-hand, but I’ll leave that for scholars to answer.

Indeed, and I find you quite the erudite individual, especially regarding your religion. It, as well, is quite praiseworthy.

 

[firedragon]

How can it be bogus. As a Baha'i we beleive the Bible and the Quran are God's Word, because God told us through Baha'u'llah they indeed are.

As such Allah, our One God that does as God so wills, has explained some Biblical and Quran passages for us to consider. So in the interpretation of the remainder of those books, we can have a more open mind and thus remove centuries of arguments of unimportant doctrinal facets of Faith.

Regards Tony

So you dont consider the Quran as Gods word right? Obviously not. So dont claim it is and say "Quran is wrong". That is a bogus argument.

So you dont think that "Quran is Gods word, but its wrong" is a bogus argument?

 

[firedragon]

Well, Josephus wrote using Koine Greek, not Latin. The early Western church used Latin.

Of course. But we dont have any of the old Greek manuscripts. So the question remains, if the testimonium is so important, why is it not in the TOC? Your answer was that it was probably not there. So the question is "why". So if your argument is that since it is not latin, then you should not even go into the arabic. How would you make an argument then?

Surely, @firedragon, you pull my leg, man! Of course not haha. I made clear that the quote was taken from a later Arabic translation of Josephus’s work. The would be like Christians insisting that Jesus and Paul spoke the Early Middle English of the King James Bible.

As for why the Arabic and Greek differ, they don’t too heavily. I suppose the differences originate from the Arabic using a second-hand source material and the Greek translation using both first and second-hand, but I’ll leave that for scholars to answer.

Indeed, and I find you quite the erudite individual, especially regarding your religion. It, as well, is quite praiseworthy.

They do differ heavily. If you think the Greek is first hand, then that's just an assumption. Also you should just shove the Arabic manuscript away and not talk about it in the first place in that case. Hope you understand.

 

[firedragon]

The station of the Quran in the Baha'i Writings offers a different view. As a Baha'i I could not deny the Quran and with the Bible we are confident it contains the Word of God, but not necessarily accurate word for word and all that advice is found in the writings.

Regards Tony

Yep. Trying to reconcile both, the Bahai's have come up with a way to reconcile both that negates both books.

Quran is just speaking about Jesus's super body, bible is speaking Jesus's human body, so nicely reconciled.

But the Quran does not say that. Its just some made up story to reconcile both books to be nice to both. Universal evangelism to all religions.

 

[firedragon]

That also ties into what Muhammad offered.

Not unless you twist it around so much that every piece of text is unrecognisable.

Yet there are those that now embrace Jesus, the Bible, Muhammad and the Quran and who readily submit to One God in the Knowledge that God does as God Will's, who have turned swords into plowshares.

The problem with this is, with all due respect, I see a lot of Bahai's claim they have studied all the scriptures but have not even read them. Also, trying to reconcile everything what Abdul Baha has directly done is cherry pick what he thought can be reconciled, and made everything else an illusion or an allegory. The audience is pretty uneducated in any of these scriptures and are trying their best to show they are highly educated and even speak of "Bahai scholarship of the Bible" and things like that though when you follow through, it is not scholarship, it is apologetics and evangelism.

You say you embrace the Bible right? Which Bible do you embrace? Do you embrace every single bible? Or do you select one? Which one, and why? Can you explain?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

So you dont consider the Quran as Gods word right? Obviously not. So dont claim it is and say "Quran is wrong". That is a bogus argument.

So you dont think that "Quran is Gods word, but its wrong" is a bogus argument?

You are projecting your views and applying them to me, which is an an attempt to twist what I offered you firedragon. You would be aware of the Baha'i view of the Quran, it has been posted to you before and you are well aware we treat it as the Word of God. So this verse is good to ponder.

“And hold you fast to God’s bond, together, and be not disunited; remember God’s favor upon you when you were enemies, and He brought your hearts together, so that by His blessing you became brothers.” (Qur’an 3:103)

As to what has become of the meanings given in the Quran, that is a different issue and this was offered by Baha'u'llah to consider;

"In the religion of Islam, similarly, not every ordinance was explicitly revealed; nay not a tenth part of a tenth part was included in the Text; although all matters of major importance were specifically referred to, there were undoubtedly thousands of laws which were unspecified. These were devised by the divines of a later age according to the laws of Islamic jurisprudence, and individual divines made conflicting deductions from the original revealed ordinances." Bahá’u’lláh, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 5

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Yep. Trying to reconcile both, the Bahai's have come up with a way to reconcile both that negates both books.

Quran is just speaking about Jesus's super body, bible is speaking Jesus's human body, so nicely reconciled.

But the Quran does not say that. Its just some made up story to reconcile both books to be nice to both. Universal evangelism to all religions.

So it can be offered that luckily we now have another Messenger from God who cleared up these minor matters of Faith, so we can become One in Allah. We can practice this advice I share with you again.

“And hold you fast to God’s bond, together, and be not disunited; remember God’s favor upon you when you were enemies, and He brought your hearts together, so that by His blessing you became brothers.” (Qur’an 3:103)

As brothers we do not always have to agree.

Regards Tony