There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus in the New Testament

[firedragon]

I think it's worth looking into... Do the Baha'is really believe in the "substance" of the Bible?

You should read the "Some answered questions" by Abdul Baha.

What do they mean when they say "the Bible"? If people look at what the Jews believe about their Bible, it's a lot different than what Christians believe about their Bible.

They quote the New Testament predominantly. When they say Bible, they are referring to the Greek Septuagint and the Greek New Testament of Erasmus which is basically the KJV. But I don't wanna get into it and just go on and on, up and down with someone.

But I think that Baha'is "mine quote" to create their own version of what is the "substance" of the Bible.

Not only quote mine, but they also completely twist meanings. For an example, a woe turns into a prophet. And they quote revelation. One day a Bahai right here told me that Abha in Buddhism is the same as abba in arabic meaning father. The problem is, I happen to by a long shot know both languages. Ab has no "h" sound there. Abha in Pali is not pronounced Ab+ha. B and H are pronounced together. Just like Abaaa with a breath added to the letter b. These are completely different. In fact, this is so disingenuous it's unbelievable. I mean "UNBELIEVABLE". Ab means father in Arabic. Abha in Pali means the nature of something which is "bright". Brightness. Prabha is to emit that brightness.

I honestly could not believe how people could dupe those who don't know the language. The English reader reading these letters can be duped.

 

[Trailblazer]

Does any other offer eternal life?

Yes, Baha'u'llah offered eternal life.

“O My servants! Whoso hath tasted of this Fountain hath attained unto everlasting Life, and whoso hath refused to drink therefrom is even as the dead. Say: O ye workers of iniquity! Covetousness hath hindered you from giving a hearing ear unto the sweet voice of Him Who is the All-Sufficing. Wash it away from your hearts, that His Divine secret may be made known unto you. Behold Him manifest and resplendent as the sun in all its glory.”

Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 167-169

“The Book of God is wide open, and His Word is summoning mankind unto Him. No more than a mere handful, however, hath been found willing to cleave to His Cause, or to become the instruments for its promotion. These few have been endued with the Divine Elixir that can, alone, transmute into purest gold the dross of the world, and have been empowered to administer the infallible remedy for all the ills that afflict the children of men. No man can obtain everlasting life, unless he embraceth the truth of this inestimable, this wondrous, and sublime Revelation.”

Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 183-184

 

[CG Didymus]

Not only quote mine, but they also completely twist meanings. For an example, a woe turns into a prophet. And they quote revelation.

Yes, that's one of the things I question them on... And that's questioning Abdul Baha'.

Here's some of the places where I found a "woe" mentioned in Revelation. Only the woes in Rev 8:13 are made to mean a "manifestation" of God.

Rev 8:13 And I beheld, and heard an angel flying through the midst of heaven, saying with a loud voice, Woe, woe, woe, to the inhabiters of the earth by reason of the other voices of the trumpet of the three angels, which are yet to sound!​

​

Rev 12:12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.​

​

Rev 18:10 Terrified at her torment, they will stand far off and cry:​

​

“‘Woe! Woe to you, great city,
you mighty city of Babylon!
In one hour your doom has come!’​

​

Rev 18:16 and cry out:​

​

“‘Woe! Woe to you, great city,
dressed in fine linen, purple and scarlet,
and glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls!​

​

Rev 18:19 They will throw dust on their heads, and with weeping and mourning cry out:​

​

“‘Woe! Woe to you, great city,
where all who had ships on the sea
became rich through her wealth!
In one hour she has been brought to ruin!’​

​

There's lots of things I liked about the Baha'i Faith, but they are the ones that told me to investigate the truth for myself. And I did that and found some reasons to doubt them. And I'm not going that deep into the Bible... Just a basic look at what verses they are quoting and the context surrounding those verses.

 

[CG Didymus]

Does any other offer eternal life?

Strange stuff... She asked me why Baha'is get dragged into all these threads, and then she answers you with quotes from her religion, the Baha'i Faith.

I don't think when a Born-Again Christian talks about Eternal life, it is the same thing a Baha'i is talking about.

As I've been told many times... I am lost in my sin. And there's only one way to get my sins forgiven. And that is by accepting Jesus... that he died on the Cross to pay the penalty for my sins. If I don't? Christians tell me I will be cast into hell.

Baha'is don't teach that, and I really doubt they believe that. For them we all have eternal life. The better we are, the closer to God we will be.

Actually that sounds much better.

But... if that's true, then Christianity is wrong and has been wrong from the very beginning when they first started believing these stories that were allegedly not even written by eyewitnesses.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, that's one of the things I question them on... And that's questioning Abdul Baha'.

Here's some of the places where I found a "woe" mentioned in Revelation. Only the woes in Rev 8:13 are made to mean a "manifestation" of God.

Rev 8:13 And I beheld, and heard an angel flying through the midst of heaven, saying with a loud voice, Woe, woe, woe, to the inhabiters of the earth by reason of the other voices of the trumpet of the three angels, which are yet to sound!​

​

Rev 12:12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.​

​

Rev 18:10 Terrified at her torment, they will stand far off and cry:​

​

“‘Woe! Woe to you, great city,​

you mighty city of Babylon!​

In one hour your doom has come!’​

​

Rev 18:16 and cry out:​

​

“‘Woe! Woe to you, great city,​

dressed in fine linen, purple and scarlet,​

and glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls!​

​

Rev 18:19 They will throw dust on their heads, and with weeping and mourning cry out:​

​

“‘Woe! Woe to you, great city,​

where all who had ships on the sea​

became rich through her wealth!​

In one hour she has been brought to ruin!’​

​

There's lots of things I liked about the Baha'i Faith, but they are the ones that told me to investigate the truth for myself. And I did that and found some reasons to doubt them. And I'm not going that deep into the Bible... Just a basic look at what verses they are quoting and the context surrounding those verses.

See, this "woe" thing is good for those who don't know the language. I don't know greek at all, but the word ouai is not interpreted as "a manifestation of God". You know what? Could you tell me which scholar of the New Testament got the rendering you presented? Please do give me the information since you said.

Thanks.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL… It does sound like you are mad… all I am doing is taking your tactics and saying the same thing but to you (If you look carefully, I even use your words in many occasions)

And as always, you are making statements without evidence of support and therefore have, in effect, admitted that your position is worthless. A pity you can’t debate properly but and unjustified and unsupported anti-Christ position of no faith often causes that to happen.

but on my side...

Not made, just disappointed. I am always sad when I see a fellow human being that is too afraid to reason rationally. I know that they are far more apt to harm others through self imposed ignorance than others would.

As to supposed claims made without evidence, I tend to assume that people have at least a high school education. If I state something that needs support you can always ask.

 

[Eli G]

I hope that at some point, before I die, the clichés used as smokescreens and disqualifications in the apologetics manual will end... and some serious debate on the subject will begin.

Let's pray for it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is another statement filled with opinions..

Fact… no one knows for sure when it was written - scholars have estimated anywhere between 50 and 90 AD or 20+ - 60 years after the death of Christ.
How long is classified as “long after the fact”?
Why is “long after the fact” make it false?

Because someone write an autobiography, does it mean it all highly dubious?

You keep confirming that you are not a student of the Bible at all. You appear to have no idea when the Gospels were written. Well since you seem to believe the false claim that they were named for the authors I can understand that.

Another statement of opinion intimating that what you are saying is true while there are countless people who find it not dubious.



Yes, but also people don’t exaggerate. The statement is a fallacy… like saying “Mechanics often sell you services you don’t need therefore all mechanics are bad”. (This is what you are giving the hue of even if you didn’t literally say it0



OK.

But just notice how biased your statements are.

Oh please, yes, my statements are biased with the assumption that I am have a discussion with someone that has at least some understanding of the topic that we were discussing.

By the way, you still have not explained how that article that you put so much faith in helped you in anyway at all? That article only showed that they too are not students of the Bible. They got one thing right but did not understand how that sank their own beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I hope that at some point, before I die, the clichés used as smokescreens and disqualifications in the apologetics manual will end... and some serious debate on the subject will begin.

Let's pray for it.

Apologists cannot afford to be honest. Unfortunately that makes them far too easy to refute.

 

[Eli G]

What is an authorized "student of the Bible" to an anti-Christian person?

 

[Eli G]

Apologists cannot afford to be honest. Unfortunately that makes them far too easy to refute.

Is that a public confession?

My impression is that @Kenny is been a more honest and serious "apologist" than you've ever been.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is that a public confession?

My impression is that @Kenny is been a more honest and serious "apologist" than you've ever been.

Confession? Wow you are doubly confused. Kenny only accused me of what he would never do himself. I found valid sources. He could only find biased ones. Openly biased ones. In the sources that I used writers get in trouble if they are biased. In the sources that Kenny uses they are expected to be biased.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is an authorized "student of the Bible" to an anti-Christian person?

I do not know. You would have to find an "anti-Christian person".

 

[Eli G]

To me an "anti-Christian" person may not be the same that it means for you. We, christians, have different views than others about things related to the Bible.

For example, an anti-Christian would never accept that the Bible is God-inspired.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To me an "anti-Christian" person may not be the same that it means for you. We, christians, have different views than others about things related to the Bible.

For example, an anti-Christian would never accept that the Bible is God-inspired.

Well then you need to drop the improper terminology. For example if you want to claim that the Bible is "God-inspired" the burden of proof would be upon you. Unfortunately you do not seem to understand some basic concepts such as the concept of evidence. And you do not appear to be able to reason logically as shown by the endless logical fallacies that you use. Many people here would help you with those concepts.

 

[Eli G]

Confession? Wow you are doubly confused. Kenny only accused me of what he would never do himself. I found valid sources. He could only find biased ones. Openly biased ones. In the sources that I used writers get in trouble if they are biased. In the sources that Kenny uses they are expected to be biased.

That's not what I see.

But I have nothing to do with your apologetic debate or as I see it, a competition of skills to determine who is best qualified to discuss any topic. I don't think you even remember how that fight between you started; that stopped being important a while ago. Now you want to prove who is better; or at least you are too focused on that and nothing else, and the answer you get, at your same level and better, bothers you.

When are you going to stop acting like an immature child and focus more on the content and less on your own pride as a debater?

This is my last comment about form and not content. I won't get dirty in your mud.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In Luke also we have a historian who seems to have been in a position to collect witness accounts, telling us that is his source of information, and this may be only 30 years after the death of Jesus.
It is more than exaggeration to say that Jesus rose from the dead if He did not.

What makes you think that Luke was a historian or that he even wrote Luke/Acts? There really does not seem to be any good reasoning behind that claim. And yes, myths and lies can spring to life very very quickly. After death hallucinations are actually fairly common. And the willingness of people to believe them when it involves a loved one makes them spread. Are you American? Are you old? If you were you would know about Elvis Presley and the countless sightings of him after he died. These people were not lying. They most probably saw someone for just a fraction of a second that looked a bit like Elvis. The mind does the rest on its own.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can't prove that he is right or wrong. But there are claims of witness accounts. Can't do any better than that. Even if the writer claimed to have been a witness, that can't be proven. Even if the writer wrote in the first person and claimed to be Jesus, that can't be proven.
Actually, others writing about Jesus and what they witnessed sounds better than a gospel written by someone who claims to have been Jesus.
Does any other religion have better claims of authenticity?

Oh, one more point. Claims that one got the story from an eyewitness means that the writer was not an eyewitness and it was technically not an "eyewitness account". That is second hand at best and would be called "hearsay" in a court of law.

 

[Eli G]

What makes you think that Luke was a historian or that he even wrote Luke/Acts? There really does not seem to be any good reasoning behind that claim. ...

You got some info here.

2 Although Luke is nowhere named in the account, ancient authorities are agreed that he was the writer. The Gospel is attributed to Luke in the Muratorian Fragment (c. 170 C.E.) and was accepted by such second-century writers as Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria. Internal evidence also points strongly to Luke. Paul speaks of him at Colossians 4:14 as “Luke the beloved physician,” and his work is of the scholarly order one would expect from a well-educated man, such as a doctor. His fine choice of language and his extensive vocabulary, larger than that of the other three Gospel writers combined, make possible a most careful and comprehensive treatment of his vital subject. His account of the prodigal son is regarded by some as the best short story ever written.

3 Luke uses more than 300 medical terms or words to which he gives a medical meaning that are not used in the same way (if they are used at all) by the other writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures. For example, when speaking of leprosy, Luke does not always use the same term as the others. To them leprosy is leprosy, but to the physician, there are different stages of leprosy, as when Luke speaks of “a man full of leprosy.” Lazarus, he says, was “full of ulcers.” No other Gospel writer says that Peter’s mother-in-law had “a high fever.” (5:12; 16:20; 4:38) Although the other three tell us of Peter’s cutting off the ear of the slave of the high priest, only Luke mentions that Jesus healed him. (22:51) It is like a doctor to say of a woman that she had “a spirit of weakness for eighteen years, and she was bent double and was unable to raise herself up at all.” And who but “Luke the beloved physician” would have recorded in such detail the first aid rendered to a man by the Samaritan who “bound up his wounds, pouring oil and wine upon them”?—13:11; 10:34.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101990103

I am not sure if that info will be "authorized" on your view, but still...

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's not what I see.

Yes, but your own beliefs tend to make you highly biased. In science debates I often try to get deniers of science to learn what is and what is not evidence in the sciences. The concept applies to all of the sciences so the topic that is being debated does not even have to be brought up On the very few times that I have gotten a creationist to even begin to learn what is and what is not science they all bail when they realize that there is strong evidence for evolution and there is none for creationism. Maybe years later they changed their minds, but when they learn what is and what is not evidence the most frequent response is to pretend that the conversation never happened.

But I have nothing to do with your apologetic debate or as I see it, a competition of skills to determine who is best qualified to discuss any topic. I don't think you even remember how that fight between you started; that stopped being important a while ago. Now you want to prove who is better; or at least you are too focused on that and nothing else, and the answer you get, at your same level and better, bothers you.

I do not use apologists. I am against them. I use sources that are evidence based. So this is not about "proving who is better". I am merely trying to get my opponent to argue and reason rationally.

When are you going to stop acting like an immature child and focus more on the content and less on your own pride as a debater?

This is my last comment about form and not content. I won't get dirty in your mud.

Oh my, an unjustified personal insult. Please note I have not called you any names. I treated you with respect. I could have claimed all sorts of things about you and as long as I was careful I would not get dinged for it. This sort of hypocrisy where you do not follow the teachings of Jesus makes me question the actual beliefs of many fundamentalists. To me they do not appear to be followers of Jesus.

By the way, you are conflating Kenny and I. I am the one that tries to get my opponent to reason and argue rationally. He is the one that is emotional and talks about using magical charms against others. Luckily I do not believe in magic.