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

[Dawnofhope]

Thats a hypocritical response because you have no response and you know that you have no valid argument or sources.

Ill take you to the OP and ask you to read again. Maybe I will remind you the dilemma you are posed with in the OP which you cannot answer so you are resorting to a Tu Quoque fallacy.

The Quran says "He was not crucified".
You believe "the Quran is Gods revelation".
You also believe He was crucified.

Its an oxymoron. Thats the question. If you dont have answers, and if your responses about Josephus etc are all quick searches without any proper information, just admit it. This is logically fallacious.

I have provided reference to multiple documents that support the historicity of the crucifixion of Christ. You refuse to provide any to support your view because you don't have any. That is why reputable historians almost universally agree Jesus was crucified.

The Quran wasn't revealed out of a vacuum. Everything has a historic context. The idea that Muhammad was explaining to His followers the Christians got it wrong in regards one of the most established and provable facts about their own religion is simply preposterous when considered in the light of what we now know.

But see, Ayoub is modern day, your claim was "Early Quran Commentators". I know maybe you are trying desperately to ignore what you yourself said and couldn't substantiate or accept your own false statements that some Ishmaili proselytisers and a "secret group in Iraq" were "Early Commentators". But please dont think other people are that stupid to forget your claim when you cleverly try to change your claim to something else.

But only to honour you I have given you some of the earliest Quran commentators. Of course, you wouldn't care about them since it doesnt serve your purpose. I did that only to honour your own need of bringing in early Quran commentators, which is irrelevant to this thread. This thread is not about what Muslims, Ishmailis, Quran commentators or some Iraqi secret group believed, this is about the "QURAN" and what the simple text says.

I have no need to denounce and insult religious groups and individuals who hold a different perspective. The reality is there are Muslims now who see 4:157 metaphorically and Muslims early on who believed exactly the same. So your assertion that 4:157 can only be viewed literally is false.

Hypocrisy should be exposed. Intellectual dishonesty is as clear as brilliant white in this thread. So dont turn this into some hypocrisy. Act your talk Adrian.

• The Quran says Jesus was not crucified.
• You believe he was.
• You believe Quran was Gods revelation.

You will never be able to reconcile this intellectually. Thats why even a person who acts gentlemanly like you is resorting to all kinds of fallacies and duplicities.

Peace.

For centuries the crucifixion of Christ has been an Achille's heel for Muslims amidst Christian-Muslim dialogue. I can see why.

Now you have started a thread claiming the Gospel Muhammad refers to in the Quran on multiple occasions wasn't the Christian Gospel at all. With the denial of crucifixion of Christ you rely on a literal interpretation of a single verse. With the denial of the Christian Gospel and Jewish Torah you rely on claiming the multiple references to the Gospel and Torah in the Quran weren't literal at all. All the best with that.

 

[firedragon]

I have provided reference to multiple documents that support the historicity of the crucifixion of Christ.

There is none. You gave Josephus, which is known forgery. And even that is irrelevant anyway because the OP is about the Quran.

I have no need to denounce and insult religious groups and individuals who hold a different perspective. The reality is there are Muslims now who see 4:157 metaphorically and Muslims early on who believed exactly the same. So your assertion that 4:157 can only be viewed literally is false.

Not true. You just made "my assertion" up. Thats called misrepresenting someone.

For centuries the crucifixion of Christ has been an Achille's heel for Muslims amidst Christian-Muslim dialogue. I can see why.

Not relevant.

Now you have started a thread claiming the Gospel Muhammad refers to in the Quran on multiple occasions wasn't the Christian Gospel at all.

No. Wrong. Read the thread.

Also that was started to help Bahai's not derail every thread with an irrelevant point used as apologetics. So I shall open a new thread on the historicity of Jesus and historical sources like Josephus since that was another Bahai attempt at ignoring the point of the OP and derailing the thread.

Peace.

 

[Link]

That Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) was raised alive – both body and soul – is made clear by the use of the word ‘bal’ in verse 158 (‘…… they certainly did not kill him – Nay! (‘bal’), Allāh raised him up to Himself. Allāh is almighty and wise.’).

Sheikh al-Islam Mustafa Sabri explains that when the term ‘bal’, which he renders ‘on the contrary’:

‘Comes after a sentence expressing a negativity, then, according to the rules of Arabic linguistics, the sentence following it must mean the exact opposite of the one preceding it. The opposite of death is life. This is a requirement of the rules of linguistics

‘If we say that "the ascension here is a spiritual one" and "the Prophet Jesus (as) died in the normal sense," then we are violating that rule. In that case, the ascension following the expression "on the contrary" would not represent the opposite to the verbs of "killing" and "crucifying" in the negative sentence preceding it. That is because it may be possible for a person to be killed and for his or her soul to rise to the skies. Otherwise, this term would be meaningless, and there are no meaningless terms in the Qur'an …

‘According to those who support the thesis that the ascension is only one of the soul, the meaning of the verse is this: "They did not kill him and did not crucify him … on the contrary (‘bal’), Allah raised his station." There is no particular oratory here, let alone succinctness … No rational person could take the words "The elevator in my building raises me to the fourth floor every day," to mean that I am only raised to the fourth floor in spirit. Therefore, neither was the Prophet Jesus (as) raised only in spirit. (‘Position of Reason’; my emphasis).

Referring to this same verse, Said Ramadan al-Buti writes:

‘The mutual compatibility between the verses’ previous and later sections necessarily reveals a fact. For example, if an Arab says: "I am not hungry; on the contrary, I am lying on my side," this is not a correct sentence. In the same way, there is a discrepancy between the components in the sentence: "Khalid did not die; on the contrary, he is a good man." What would be correct is to say: "Khalid did not die; on the contrary, he is alive." …… The term bal expresses a contradiction between the preceding and the following words. In other words, bal cancels out a previous statement. (Islamic Catechism: page 338).

Equally correct are the words: ‘Yeshua did not die; on the contrary (‘bal’), he was raised alive.’

Concerning the words: ‘Allāh raised (‘rafaʿahu’) him up to Himself.’

The word ‘raise’ renders ‘rafa‘a’ (‘to raise’) rather than ‘ba‘atha’, which is used elsewhere in the Qur’an to mean ‘to resurrect’ after death. Commenting on this, Abu Musa al-Ash'ari writes:

‘There is a consensus among the community of the faithful that the Prophet Jesus (as) was raised alive to the heavens.’ (‘al-Ibana 'an Usul al-Diyana); and Hasan Basri Cantay writes: ‘Allah raised and lifted up the Prophet Jesus (as) in both body and soul.’ (Tafsir of the Qur'an); and Imam ibn Taymiyya writes: ‘The verse "He raised him to His Presence" … explains that the Prophet Jesus (as) was raised in both body and soul.’ (Majmu' Fatawa).

Citing Al-Nisa' 157-158, Zahid al-Kawthari claims that the ascension of Yeshua is beyond doubt: ‘That is because the basic meaning of the word rafa'a in the verses is transportation from below to above. There is no element here that could be used to interpret the verses metaphorically. Therefore, there is no evidence for seeking to produce a meaning in the sense of ascension in honour and station.’ (Nazra 'Abira fi Maza'im; page 93; my emphasis).

In order to show that the Qur’an supports the New Testament narrative one must find other Qur’anic verses that contradict Al-Nisa: 155-158. There are none.

Salam

Neither Bahai view not the traditional Islamic viewpoint, but the 3 days was a feign death, Isa (a) didn't die but appeared like he got crucified (since physically he was supposed to be dead) and he was supposed to have "died" before Gospels was revealed but God was not gonna let that happen, and so God let this be a miracle that he was not killed and made it a feign death.

In fact, this is the apparent meaning of the Gospels, that it was a not a real death but a feign one since he came back from the grave.

But what you wrote is right, the phrase "but rather" is a negation of the preceding.

 

[CG Didymus]

The Muslim belief that Jesus was not crucified or killed has interesting parallels to the Christian belief in the resurrection. Both beliefs are based on a very literal interpretation of religious scripture and both beliefs are completely contrary to all the available evidence beyond sacred scriptures. Beyond the Bible there is not a shred of evidence that Jesus literally rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. Beyond the Quran there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest Jesus was not crucified as history so clearly records. The Christian belief relies on an obsolete cosmology that runs contrary to all science. The Muslim belief essentially tries to rewrite history when there is clear and compelling evidence Jesus was crucified. As this thread has clearly demonstrated, it is an exercise in frustration and futility trying to convince Muslims that their scripture means anything other than what they believe. For most it is a fixed belief, immutable and can not be changed through discussion on a forum such as this, not that I wish to change anyone's belief. It is an opportunity for each of us to examine afresh the evidence and draw our own conclusions. Beyond that, I have little more to add today.

Yes, so when it comes to the Bible and the NT, especially the gospel stories, why believe them at all? Why not believe that it is nothing more than religious myth and legends? Even with the virgin birth, a moving star is added into the story that guides the wise men to the place where the baby Jesus is... then stops? And only two gospel writers add in the virgin birth story at all, and both have contradictory details. And since neither one was there, where did they get their contradictory details? Legends and myths maybe? But then walking on water and turning water into wine, all the various healings, especially bringing a couple people back to life, which parts are real, and which parts are made up myths and legends that got added into the story?

Then it gets to the empty tomb. If the body is gone, and the body Jesus is seen in has the scars from the crucifixion, then the writers are implying that it was the same body... just a "glorified" version of it... since it does have flesh and bone, and he says to come touch him and see that it is him and not a ghost. Powerful stuff... unless it's not real. Then what's so great about it? Nothing. If those things didn't happen, if those things were just made up... or, as Baha'is say, were "symbolic", then what was real and what was so impressive about Jesus? All the good stuff never happened.

But some other stuff also never happened. The other NT writers say that his death was necessary to pay a sin debt owed to God. That a perfect sacrifice was needed. They say that Adam's sin made that necessary. And the proof that Jesus accomplished that was that he conquered sin and death. And, of course, all that stuff about conquering Satan too. But all that is gone. It's all make believe. And I don't know of one Christian sect or denomination that has the story right.

So, for me, the easier thing to believe, is that the NT, and most all of the great Bible stories, are made up fictional stories based on myths and legends. And made up myths and legends are not "true". For me, it doesn't help, and it actually makes them worse to say that they are "symbolically" true. As if God was playing spiritual mind games with people to see how gullible they'd be. No, I think that people can be very gullible... especially 2000 years ago. I don't think it would have been that strange to be told that Jesus came back to life and ascended into the sky.

But, what was the point of the story? To get people to believe in God and Jesus and to obey God and his rules. The promise? To live forever in God's heavenly Kingdom. And for those that don't believe and continue to do evil? They'll get cast into hell along with Satan, the devil. A virgin born God/man that can heal the sick and raise the dead and eventually have God rise him also was the "only" way to conquer evil and Satan. But, most important, his sacrifice was necessary to pay the debt we owed to God. A debt we could never pay on our own, because we could never be good enough. But, Jesus paid the debt for us. All we have to do is trust in him and believe in him. Great story. But if it was only "symbolic"? In other words Jesus only "symbolically" healed people and rose from the dead? And, if there is no Satan? Then what's so great about that story? It make believe. It's fictional.

So now we have the Baha'i Faith. How do the Baha'is make sense of all the world's religions? They take some things and leave other things out. They accept all the "major" religions but drop most all "minor" religions and their prophets. Some of those they can say were movements within one of the major religions. They drop idea of many Gods and have only one God. They drop Satan and any other "evil" gods. Any ideas contrary to Baha'i beliefs are "adjusted", either by making them "symbolic" or by saying that those thing were "traditions" of men that got added into the religion.

So here we've got an "adjustment". Christianity has Jesus getting crucified but then coming back to life and never dying but ascending into the clouds of heaven. Islam says he was not crucified, but it was made to look like he was? Then what? Do they have him ascending also? Then the Baha'is have him being crucified and dying, but from then on... none of that part of the story is real? The story of the empty tomb and appearing and ascending are all symbolic and didn't really happen? I don't know, but what bothers me the most is how the Baha'is try to reconcile all these things by saying, "Well, that was God being symbolic." What is God being symbolic about with the Baha'i Faith? Or has God finally decided to quit playing spiritual games with people?

Sorry Adrian, I don't know if I can trust a God that let's his Scriptures get written in such a way to mislead so many people... except of course the Baha'is. They can see the connections through the symbolism of it all. Where as, I don't see God doing it, I see people writing things and attributing them to God, so of course it's not going to match up.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Yes, so when it comes to the Bible and the NT, especially the gospel stories, why believe them at all? Why not believe that it is nothing more than religious myth and legends? Even with the virgin birth, a moving star is added into the story that guides the wise men to the place where the baby Jesus is... then stops? And only two gospel writers add in the virgin birth story at all, and both have contradictory details. And since neither one was there, where did they get their contradictory details? Legends and myths maybe? But then walking on water and turning water into wine, all the various healings, especially bringing a couple people back to life, which parts are real, and which parts are made up myths and legends that got added into the story?

Then it gets to the empty tomb. If the body is gone, and the body Jesus is seen in has the scars from the crucifixion, then the writers are implying that it was the same body... just a "glorified" version of it... since it does have flesh and bone, and he says to come touch him and see that it is him and not a ghost. Powerful stuff... unless it's not real. Then what's so great about it? Nothing. If those things didn't happen, if those things were just made up... or, as Baha'is say, were "symbolic", then what was real and what was so impressive about Jesus? All the good stuff never happened.

But some other stuff also never happened. The other NT writers say that his death was necessary to pay a sin debt owed to God. That a perfect sacrifice was needed. They say that Adam's sin made that necessary. And the proof that Jesus accomplished that was that he conquered sin and death. And, of course, all that stuff about conquering Satan too. But all that is gone. It's all make believe. And I don't know of one Christian sect or denomination that has the story right.

So, for me, the easier thing to believe, is that the NT, and most all of the great Bible stories, are made up fictional stories based on myths and legends. And made up myths and legends are not "true". For me, it doesn't help, and it actually makes them worse to say that they are "symbolically" true. As if God was playing spiritual mind games with people to see how gullible they'd be. No, I think that people can be very gullible... especially 2000 years ago. I don't think it would have been that strange to be told that Jesus came back to life and ascended into the sky.

But, what was the point of the story? To get people to believe in God and Jesus and to obey God and his rules. The promise? To live forever in God's heavenly Kingdom. And for those that don't believe and continue to do evil? They'll get cast into hell along with Satan, the devil. A virgin born God/man that can heal the sick and raise the dead and eventually have God rise him also was the "only" way to conquer evil and Satan. But, most important, his sacrifice was necessary to pay the debt we owed to God. A debt we could never pay on our own, because we could never be good enough. But, Jesus paid the debt for us. All we have to do is trust in him and believe in him. Great story. But if it was only "symbolic"? In other words Jesus only "symbolically" healed people and rose from the dead? And, if there is no Satan? Then what's so great about that story? It make believe. It's fictional.

So now we have the Baha'i Faith. How do the Baha'is make sense of all the world's religions? They take some things and leave other things out. They accept all the "major" religions but drop most all "minor" religions and their prophets. Some of those they can say were movements within one of the major religions. They drop idea of many Gods and have only one God. They drop Satan and any other "evil" gods. Any ideas contrary to Baha'i beliefs are "adjusted", either by making them "symbolic" or by saying that those thing were "traditions" of men that got added into the religion.

So here we've got an "adjustment". Christianity has Jesus getting crucified but then coming back to life and never dying but ascending into the clouds of heaven. Islam says he was not crucified, but it was made to look like he was? Then what? Do they have him ascending also? Then the Baha'is have him being crucified and dying, but from then on... none of that part of the story is real? The story of the empty tomb and appearing and ascending are all symbolic and didn't really happen? I don't know, but what bothers me the most is how the Baha'is try to reconcile all these things by saying, "Well, that was God being symbolic." What is God being symbolic about with the Baha'i Faith? Or has God finally decided to quit playing spiritual games with people?

Sorry Adrian, I don't know if I can trust a God that let's his Scriptures get written in such a way to mislead so many people... except of course the Baha'is. They can see the connections through the symbolism of it all. Where as, I don't see God doing it, I see people writing things and attributing them to God, so of course it's not going to match up.

Story’s, myths and parables help us understand who we are, reality and our relationships with others including God. In the greater scheme of things it doesn’t matter whether Jesus performed miracles. What matters is we strive to become the best we can be, that we love, are kind and generous and of service to humanity. We need a narrative to help us. We can’t pour new wine into old wine skins.

If being agnostic makes you a better person be agnostic. We all have choices and the power to act.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, so when it comes to the Bible and the NT, especially the gospel stories, why believe them at all? Why not believe that it is nothing more than religious myth and legends? Even with the virgin birth, a moving star is added into the story that guides the wise men to the place where the baby Jesus is... then stops? And only two gospel writers add in the virgin birth story at all, and both have contradictory details. And since neither one was there, where did they get their contradictory details? Legends and myths maybe? But then walking on water and turning water into wine, all the various healings, especially bringing a couple people back to life, which parts are real, and which parts are made up myths and legends that got added into the story?

Then it gets to the empty tomb. If the body is gone, and the body Jesus is seen in has the scars from the crucifixion, then the writers are implying that it was the same body... just a "glorified" version of it... since it does have flesh and bone, and he says to come touch him and see that it is him and not a ghost. Powerful stuff... unless it's not real. Then what's so great about it? Nothing. If those things didn't happen, if those things were just made up... or, as Baha'is say, were "symbolic", then what was real and what was so impressive about Jesus? All the good stuff never happened.

But some other stuff also never happened. The other NT writers say that his death was necessary to pay a sin debt owed to God. That a perfect sacrifice was needed. They say that Adam's sin made that necessary. And the proof that Jesus accomplished that was that he conquered sin and death. And, of course, all that stuff about conquering Satan too. But all that is gone. It's all make believe. And I don't know of one Christian sect or denomination that has the story right.

So, for me, the easier thing to believe, is that the NT, and most all of the great Bible stories, are made up fictional stories based on myths and legends. And made up myths and legends are not "true". For me, it doesn't help, and it actually makes them worse to say that they are "symbolically" true. As if God was playing spiritual mind games with people to see how gullible they'd be. No, I think that people can be very gullible... especially 2000 years ago. I don't think it would have been that strange to be told that Jesus came back to life and ascended into the sky.

But, what was the point of the story? To get people to believe in God and Jesus and to obey God and his rules. The promise? To live forever in God's heavenly Kingdom. And for those that don't believe and continue to do evil? They'll get cast into hell along with Satan, the devil. A virgin born God/man that can heal the sick and raise the dead and eventually have God rise him also was the "only" way to conquer evil and Satan. But, most important, his sacrifice was necessary to pay the debt we owed to God. A debt we could never pay on our own, because we could never be good enough. But, Jesus paid the debt for us. All we have to do is trust in him and believe in him. Great story. But if it was only "symbolic"? In other words Jesus only "symbolically" healed people and rose from the dead? And, if there is no Satan? Then what's so great about that story? It make believe. It's fictional.

So now we have the Baha'i Faith. How do the Baha'is make sense of all the world's religions? They take some things and leave other things out. They accept all the "major" religions but drop most all "minor" religions and their prophets. Some of those they can say were movements within one of the major religions. They drop idea of many Gods and have only one God. They drop Satan and any other "evil" gods. Any ideas contrary to Baha'i beliefs are "adjusted", either by making them "symbolic" or by saying that those thing were "traditions" of men that got added into the religion.

So here we've got an "adjustment". Christianity has Jesus getting crucified but then coming back to life and never dying but ascending into the clouds of heaven. Islam says he was not crucified, but it was made to look like he was? Then what? Do they have him ascending also? Then the Baha'is have him being crucified and dying, but from then on... none of that part of the story is real? The story of the empty tomb and appearing and ascending are all symbolic and didn't really happen? I don't know, but what bothers me the most is how the Baha'is try to reconcile all these things by saying, "Well, that was God being symbolic." What is God being symbolic about with the Baha'i Faith? Or has God finally decided to quit playing spiritual games with people?

Sorry Adrian, I don't know if I can trust a God that let's his Scriptures get written in such a way to mislead so many people... except of course the Baha'is. They can see the connections through the symbolism of it all. Where as, I don't see God doing it, I see people writing things and attributing them to God, so of course it's not going to match up.

The Quranic narrative about Jesus's crucifixion, what is said in the text??

 

[Muffled]

The question of this is not if the Quran is correct historically or not. It is whether the Bahai belief that the Quran is Gods word, while also believing that Jesus was Crucified is conflicting.

I believe there is no conflict between the word of God in the Bible and the word of God in the Qu'ran. If the Ba'hais believe that then they are correct.

 

[Muffled]

But from the perspective of the bible . I believe Only the bible is from God .

I believe I have a better perspective from God who knows all things.

 

[firedragon]

I believe there is no conflict between the word of God in the Bible and the word of God in the Qu'ran. If the Ba'hais believe that then they are correct.

So they are correct because you believe. Which means "because you say so".

Nah. Invalid argument.

 

[John1.12]

I believe I have a better perspective from God who knows all things.

Which we know from the bible.

 

[firedragon]

In Bahai view, it just means His Religion was resurrected. After Jesus was crucified, His Religion became like a lifeless body for three Days. Then His apostles arised and started to teach the cause of God. This is metaphorically is resurrection of Christ.

Yeah. The typical Bahai "this is metaphorical when I need to associate it with my religion" flex.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Yeah. The typical Bahai "this is metaphorical when I need to associate it with my religion" flex.

"Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it." 1 Corinthians 12:27


If we read Bible carefly, it interprets itself. As we see in this verse, the disciples of Christ are symbolically said to be the body of Christ. So, when it is said Christ was resurrected, it is meant these disciples became the Christ as if Jesus was resurrected to teach again. Hope it is clear now.

 

[firedragon]

"Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it." 1 Corinthians 12:27


If we read Bible carefly, it interprets itself. As we see in this verse, the disciples of Christ are symbolically said to be the body of Christ. So, when it is said Christ was resurrected, it is meant these disciples became the Christ as if Jesus was resurrected to teach again. Hope it is clear now.

No its not. It is clear what you are attempting to do, but it is clear its just another post hoc ergo propter hoc. Also the thread is not about resurrection. So this is another irrelevance. What do you say? Another thread to discuss the resurrection being a death and resurrection of "religion"?

I can make a list of all the irrelevant topics brought in and open a thread for each of them.

 

[CG Didymus]

Story’s, myths and parables help us understand who we are, reality and our relationships with others including God. In the greater scheme of things it doesn’t matter whether Jesus performed miracles. What matters is we strive to become the best we can be, that we love, are kind and generous and of service to humanity. We need a narrative to help us. We can’t pour new wine into old wine skins.

If being agnostic makes you a better person be agnostic. We all have choices and the power to act.

Yes but if the myths are fictional then we have the same problem with telling kids about Santa Claus. Some kids we told the story as if Santa was real. They are told that if they are good Santa will bring them gifts. And lo and behold on Christmas morning, there are gifts under a tree. A tree that comes from a non-Christian myth.

Other problem, some religions weren't true, yet they spoke of a God or Gods and had divine messengers. I usually bring up the Aztecs or Polynesians, because they sacrificed people to their Gods. So I would imagine that you and most people today would not believe that those religious laws were real and that those Gods were real. I think they were made up to get people to obey the laws of that society and culture. But none of it was really true... but I'd imagine the people at the time believe it was true.

So if Jesus really existed, was crucified and rose again and paid the penalty for our sins, then fine. I'll apologize to God, Jesus and all the Christians that "witnessed" to me. But, to me, too many things sound just as mythical as those false religions. So am I going to change my behavior and follow all the things this God wants? No, some of it is doable and makes the world a better place for all people, but... what if I was born 2500 years ago in Jerusalem... before there was a Jesus. Would I want to obey all the Jewish laws? Would I bring a goat or a law as a sin offering to the priest, so he can kill it, chop it up and burn it? Back then probably yes. I'd have the pressure of that culture to follow what we are told is the truth about God.

But today? I really don't think God needed to have animals killed in his honor, or to have people stoned to death for disobeying some of his laws, like the Sabbath. But for a Jew, I can see why they believe it and why it works for them. And was the purpose to make them a better person? In fact in any religion, how well is it doing in making better, honest, loving and caring people? Sure, a little with most. Probably a lot with a few. But, then some are liars, cheaters and all around jerks. Anyway, thanks Adrian for commenting on my post.

 

[CG Didymus]

The Quranic narrative about Jesus's crucifixion, what is said in the text??

I don't know, but I will soon find out.

 

[firedragon]

I don't know, but I will soon find out.

Haha. Brother, that was a link.

 

[CG Didymus]

Haha. Brother, that was a link.

Perfect, then I will know shortly. Thanks

 

[CG Didymus]

In Bahai view, it just means His Religion was resurrected. After Jesus was crucified, His Religion became like a lifeless body for three Days. Then His apostles arised and started to teach the cause of God. This is metaphorically is resurrection of Christ.

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?

"Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it." 1 Corinthians 12:27


If we read Bible carefly, it interprets itself. As we see in this verse, the disciples of Christ are symbolically said to be the body of Christ. So, when it is said Christ was resurrected, it is meant these disciples became the Christ as if Jesus was resurrected to teach again.

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?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Yes but if the myths are fictional then we have the same problem with telling kids about Santa Claus. Some kids we told the story as if Santa was real. They are told that if they are good Santa will bring them gifts. And lo and behold on Christmas morning, there are gifts under a tree. A tree that comes from a non-Christian myth.

I don’t think Santa and the Easter Bunny are in the same league as the resurrection of Christ, do you?

Other problem, some religions weren't true, yet they spoke of a God or Gods and had divine messengers. I usually bring up the Aztecs or Polynesians, because they sacrificed people to their Gods. So I would imagine that you and most people today would not believe that those religious laws were real and that those Gods were real. I think they were made up to get people to obey the laws of that society and culture. But none of it was really true... but I'd imagine the people at the time believe it was true.

Not every religion is from God, and those that are from God are not free from man made elements being introduced.

There’s pressure and coercion in every community. They are powerful forces in religious communities and can be very problematic. I believe if a religion has you feeling pressured to act in a manner that makes you uncomfortable then its an opportunity to ask hard questions and do serious soul searching. It is better to have no religion than the wrong religion. Do no harm.

So if Jesus really existed, was crucified and rose again and paid the penalty for our sins, then fine. I'll apologize to God, Jesus and all the Christians that "witnessed" to me. But, to me, too many things sound just as mythical as those false religions. So am I going to change my behavior and follow all the things this God wants? No, some of it is doable and makes the world a better place for all people, but... what if I was born 2500 years ago in Jerusalem... before there was a Jesus. Would I want to obey all the Jewish laws? Would I bring a goat or a law as a sin offering to the priest, so he can kill it, chop it up and burn it? Back then probably yes. I'd have the pressure of that culture to follow what we are told is the truth about God.

The tables have turned. Where I live there is pressure not to have a religion. The freedom of having no religion appears attractive and enticing.

But today? I really don't think God needed to have animals killed in his honor, or to have people stoned to death for disobeying some of his laws, like the Sabbath. But for a Jew, I can see why they believe it and why it works for them. And was the purpose to make them a better person? In fact in any religion, how well is it doing in making better, honest, loving and caring people? Sure, a little with most. Probably a lot with a few. But, then some are liars, cheaters and all around jerks. Anyway, thanks Adrian for commenting on my post.

If God really exists it would appear He has different requirements in this age compared to bygone eras.

As Bahá’u’lláh has said:

The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and center your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Page 213

 

[Marcion]

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?

The thing is, not four gospel writers made this myth up, but just one single writer. The other three gospels are different elaborated (enriched if you will) versions of the one story created by just one creative author. There need not have been any witness to a crucifixion scene nor to a resurrection event or an empty tomb. It could just be that one single inspired author mythicising in order to create an inspiring syncretic story out of the disappearance of the guru with the all too short mission.

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?

The latter and that is why all these religions cannot attract me to them. They are just rearranging things that are already mythical to start off with. There is nothing wrong with ever newer versions of myths but it's just not my thing, like atheists and Jesus himself I prefer reality not the religious outlook.