Was Muhammad a good man?

[InvestigateTruth]

I need no lesson on what history is. I am far more familiar within than most. I am an amateur historian and have studied it in college specializing in military history. As I said there are currently 25,000 confirmed historical facts in the Bible. It has (at least to me) no known demonstrable historical error with any literal claim it has ever made. Its record is full of constantly prevailing when contested by secular scholars. Entire Museums are today filled with Hittite artifacts that at one time secular scholars claimed never existed. The obscure official titles given in Luke are now verified when for years critics said Luke was wrong. Many now claim Luke is an example an example of a perfect ancient historical document. Luke was a historian. It converts a large percentage of those scholars who set out to demonstrate it wrong. If you wish to contend with the Bible historical accuracy is not a good place to do it. It is uncontainable and routinely buries its critics. On no scale in existence is the Bible and unreliable historical resource.
You may not determine how things are to be examined based on convenient and irrational stadards that do not exist in the historical discipline. I may not for instance consider you purple until you claim otherwise. I may demand that unless Alexander the great appears and unties the Cyprian knot he never existed. That is as invalid as your declaration that anything unknown today never existed. Apparently you have never been in a historical academic environment. I will list tools and understandings gained over thousands of years of historical study. Not that you care.[/FONT][/COLOR]

1. Contemporary testimony and claims are ALWAYS considered far better than later claims unless massive amount of new data are available.
2. All historical claims are determined by probability not absoluteness. You look at the evidence and derive the conclusion that fits them best and assign it a reliability factor.
3. The historical evidence for three things is almost unanimously agreed on by historical and NT scholars no matter what side they are on: 1. Christ’s being a true religious figure that at least had a sense of divine authority. 2. At the Hebrews suggestion the Romans crucified Christ on the cross. 3. The tomb was well known at the time and was found empty.

That settles the issue as far as what history reveals and defeats anything even theoretically possible that you can produce. However I can make it even worse. The most brilliant experts in the fields go even farther.
The noted scholar, Professor Edwin Gordon Selwyn, says: "The fact that Christ rose from the dead on the third day in full continuity of body and soul - that fact seems as secure as historical evidence can make it."
Many impartial students who have approached the resurrection of Chris with a judicial spirit have been compelled by the weight of the evidence to belief in the resurrection as a fact of history. An example may be taken from a letter written by Sir Edward Clarke, K. C. to the Rev. E. L. Macassey: "As a lawyer I have made a prolonged study of the evidences for the events of the first Easter Day. To me the evidence is conclusive, and over and over again in the High Court I have secured the verdict on evidence not nearly so compelling. Inference follows on evidence, and a truthful witness is always artless and disdains effect. The Gospel evidence for the resurrection is of this class, and as a lawyer I accept it unreservedly as the testimony of truthful men to facts they were able to substantiate."

Professor Thomas Arnold, cited by Wilbur Smith, was for 14 years the famous headmaster of Rugby, author of a famous three-volume History of Rome, appointed to the char of Modern History at Oxford, and certainly a man well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said: "The evidence for our LORD's life and death and resurrection may be, and often has been, shown to be satisfactory; it is good according to the common rules for distinguishing good evidence from bad. Thousands and tens of thousands of persons have gone through it piece by piece, as carefully as every judge summing up on a most important cause. I have myself done it many times over, not to persuade others but to satisfy myself. I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which GOD hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."

Lord Lyndhurst (1772-1863), recognized as one of the greatest legal minds in British history, the Solicitor-General of the British government in 1819, attorney-general of Great Britain in 1824, three times High Chancellor of England, and elected in 1846, High Steward of the University of Cambridge, thus holding in one lifetime the highest offices which a judge in Great Britain could ever have conferred upon him. When Chancellor Lyndhurst died, a document was found in his desk, among his private papers, giving an extended account of his own Christian faith, and in this precious, previously-unknown record, he wrote: "I know pretty well what evidence is; and I tell you, such evidence as that for the Resurrection has never broken down yet."

http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/myredeemer/Evidencep29.html

There is not one single thing you or Bahaullah can say that even approaches the credibility of these scholars and the thousands just like them (Secular, Islamic, Christian, and even atheistic).
Continued below:

None of what you say here can prove Jesus performed Miracles, or that He physically came out from grave.

In fact, the idea that a person with his physical body goes to heaven, contradicts with teachings of Bible, as well as science.

Jesus said: "My Kingdom is not an earthly kingdom." John 18:36
That means, His kingdom is Heavenly, or from Heaven.
Paul said:
"...flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.."

That means it is not possible to go to the Kingdom in Heaven with Flash and Blood.
Paul said:

" it is raised a spiritual body." 1 Cor. 15:44

All of these points to the fact that Bible teaches spiritual resurrection, and physical body cannot raise to go to Heaven.

 

[james bond]

Google is a nice invention

Pfft, only right-wing xenophobic people believe this nonsense.


A taxi driver has the right to refuse his service to others. And a drunk man can be passed by anyone, muslim or nonmuslim, as some, including me before I converted to Islam, feel uncomfortable around drunks. White taxi drivers used to pass blacks all the time due to the fear.
Pfft, one example that I already talked about. Try again.


People hav the right to not go to whatever restaurant or market. Schools, people can have a choice to bring their own food, and if you ever had halal meat, it is not much different And prisons, well, you don't have many choices in prison.


Lol which is due to xenophobia as halal and kosher are very similar.

Maybe I was wrong. You are not being honorable. Is this what Muhammad has taught you? Or is it the Qur'an?

The way a person represents himself tells me a lot.

You were so righteous before, but when faced with questions about the Qur'an you refuse to answer. I asked my friend the same things. Will wait to hear what he says. He thinks it was written by one person.

Again, you are making assumptions and judgments such as labeling me a right wing xenophobic person. Where do you get these things? I don't think I made a judgment towards you earlier, did I? Maybe I didn't expect you to answer because you popped out of the blue.

All I did was answer your questions the best way I knew how. If you do not agree, then state your case. We already went over the taxi driver and clerks, so no need to repeat yourself. My point was they cited Islam as the reason for their behavior. Well, Islam is not the law. One has to obey the laws of the country they are in.

In regards to halal and kosher (which isn't the point), the US and UK has made it a point to meet the needs of the people of Muslim faith. I do not have have a problem with that. The US is a place where freedom of religion is practiced. It isn't the ME. Where the problems occur is when Muslims insist on their way using Sharia Law and not respecting the same of non-Muslims. Just like stunning animals to avoid cruelty, Islam and Muslims have to conform to the states or countries laws. The same with kosher. I'm not just singling out Muslim religious practices.

That is the main problem in the ME if you ask me. I would like to see freedom of religion in the ME and other religions move in. In my opinion, this would go a long way to solving some of the religious conflicts and civil war that goes on.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Can you produce Caesar, Alexander, the fleet at Salamas, the shields used at Thermopylae, or the planes used to sink the Bismarck. Yet all are taught as factual history.
History does not validate Bahaullah claims so you must dismiss it by the most desperate means possible. Miracles do not validate him so you must do the same. Neither interpretation, scholarship, personal experience, nor philosophy validates Baha'i teaching and so everything and everyone must be dismissed. What makes it worth doing this for? How did you become so committed to something that in no way deserves it?
Wrong again. Faith is based on evidence in most instances. If not that is usually defined as blind faith and God never demanded that, however Bahaullah lives on it.
I nor you ever saw 99.99999999% of humanity nor 99.9999999% of history is all therefor never existent? This is terrible terrible argumentation. In fact you never saw Bahaullah.
It should be based on exactly what it is, the reasonable conclusion given reasonable facts and evidence. That is far more than your faith can be based upon. It is based in opposition to facts and history.

This has lost its appeal or justification. I suggest study of the Historical methods and what evidence exists and how historical claims are evaluated. The Biblical claims of miracles (literal) is consistent with ALL the evidence available and testimony given by contemporary witnesses yet you claim no miracles were done (based on what, no evidence exists for that). Not to mention Baha’i is hypocritical and inconsistent in claiming that the greatest literal miracles were performed yet denying the less significant, based on what? Whatever problems that exist or you invent for the Bibles historical claims they are far far worse for Bahaullah’s claims.

Also see the almost infinite advantage in textual tradition over other works taught as fact by colleges around the world at the table from this site.
Foolish Faith - Chapter 6: Unparalleled Historicity - A Brief History of the New Testament

Here is the conclusion from he most popular critic of the Bible current alive and one of it's worst.

Not only for Jesus’ burial, but also for the women’s discovery of the empty tomb, and therefore, he says, we can conclude with “some certainty” that Jesus was in fact buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb and that three days later the tomb was found empty.


Read more: Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? The Craig-Ehrman Debate | Reasonable Faith

You should read the transcipts or watch debates like this one from two of the most competant and qualified scholars on either side on the issue, before you contend it.

It is true, I also did not see Baha'u'llah. But, we are talking about the "Evidences"
It is about the quantity and quality of evidences.
I did not say, there is absolutely no evidence for Jesus to have existed.
You claim that there were many eye-witnesses who saw Him after death.

But, the mention about those witnesses are in the Bible ONLY.
The Bible claims to be inspired by God, and not necessary a literal history Book.


"The Christian gospels were written primarily as theological documents rather than historical chronicles.[89][90][223] However, the question of the existence of Jesus as a historical figure should be distinguished from discussions about the historicity of specific episodes in the gospels, the chronology they present, or theological issues regarding his divinity.[224] A number of historical non-Christian documents, such as Jewish and Greco-Roman sources, have been used in historical analyses of the existence of Jesus.[221]"

Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



In fact, there are verses in Bible, that by "Witnesses" and "Seeing" is meant, those who have recognized the Truth of Christ by their Spiritual Eye. Not the literal and physical Eye. Spiritual Eye, is the power to recognize truth, not that they actually saw Him literally.



It is like you go to a court, and you have a case. Do you have the cloths that Jesus used to wear? or His writings with His own Hand? or did he have a seal to stamp His own Writings as a proof of their Authenticity? Do you have His own seal today to match with documents?

Is there any recorded History that is accepted by those who are not Christians (independent witnesses)

But in case of Baha'u'llah, all these documents exists.

 

[james bond]

My friend replied.

"By "wrote", I mean authored. Mohamed was illiterate, so he recited the Qur'an from memory as he made it up. After he died people began getting parts of it wrong, so a group of his followers committed it to writing to preserve it as Mohamed preached it."

As I stated, Muhammad could not read nor write. I thought he recited his thoughts and visions from Angel Gabriel and one of his followers wrote it down.

So what parts of the Qur'an were recited? What parts were written after he died?

It seems like the poll has split into roughly 50-50 that Muhammad was a good person. On one hand, the good, peaceful people would favor Muhammad, but on the other, there is enough doubt caused by the bad, violent practitioners that he is condemned.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

What is your view on who wrote the Qur'an? Was it Muhammad or others? What was written when Muhammad was alive? What was written after his death?

It could not have been written by Muhammad since he was illiterate.

Can I have a crack at this one, and the Muslims can correct me if I'm wrong, from a doctrinal viewpoint?
The Qur'an was communicated to Muhammad directly from God. It was then verbally communicated to his followers (I'm sure my language use here is incorrect...sorry...), and was eventually written down. But oral communication of the text is how it began.

How'd I do? And no Google from me...

[edit]
Bah...I didn't see the last couple of posts which had already moved on from this...my bad!
[/edit]

 

[1robin]

Christ and His Disciples talked most of the time with symbols and parables.

Christ told between 33 and 40 parables. They only exist within 3 Gospels in the entire NT. There is no way that first parables account for most of what is claimed in the NT, that second you would know it even if they did, and third even if they did that makes Baha'i's claims any more reliable. The point here is to maximize ambiguity or try to by claiming something you do not know so you can use the uncertainty you think exists to allow for Baha'i's irrational claims about what literal and what is symbolic to stand. 95% of the NT is crystal clear as to whether symbolic or literal. Baha'i can't sneak in on 5%.

The Disciples came to Jesus, and asked Him: "Why you speak in Parables?"

I do not think anyone on Earth that has read the Bible is unaware that parables exist. To prove what is a parable is virtually certain here is a list of them.

· Parables #1-2-3-4 New cloth, New wine. Lamp on a stand. Wise & foolish builders.
· Parables #5-6 Moneylender forgives unequal debts. Lamp on a stand (2nd time).
· Parables #7-8 Rich man builds bigger barns. Servants must remain watchful.
· Parables #9-10 Wise and foolish servants. Unfruitful fig tree.
· Parable #11 Sower of seeds into four types of soil.
· Parable #12 Weeds among good plants. “Kingdom of Heaven”.
· Parables #13-15 Growing seed. Mustard seed. Yeast. “Kingdom of Heaven”.
· Parables #16-19 Hidden treasure. Pearl. Fishing net. Owner of a house. “Kingdom of Heaven”.
· Parables #20-21 Lost sheep. The sheep, gate, and shepherd.
· Parables #22-23 Master and his servant. Unmerciful servant.
· Parables #24-25 Good Samaritan. Friend in need.
· Parables #26-27 Lowest seat at the feast. Invitation to a great banquet.
· Parable #28 Cost of discipleship.
· Parables #29-30 Lost sheep (sheep as sinners). Lost copin.
· Parable #31 Lost (prodigal) son.
· Parable #32 Shrewd manager.
· Parable #33 Rich man and Lazarus.
· Parable #34 Workers in the vineyard, early and late.
· Parables #35-36 Persistent widow and crooked judge. Praying: Pharisee and tax collector.
· Parable #37 King's servants given minas.
· Parables #38-39 Two sons, one obeys, one does not. Wicked tenants.
· Parable #40 Invitation to a wedding banquet.
· Parables #41-42 Signs from a fig tree. Wise and foolish servants.
· Parables #43-44 Wise and foolish virgins. Servants must remain watchful.
· Parable #45 Three servants given talents.
· Parable #46 Sheep and goats will be separated.
http://www.swapmeetdave.com/Bible/Parables/

You can take all of them out and you have not began to touch thousands of verses claiming the miracles are literal. In fact most parables have little to do with miracles.

Prophecies regarding Messiah could not be fulfilled by Jesus unless interpreted symbolically and spiritually. Messiah was supposed to be king, Jesus was not, He was from carpenter family. Messiah was to conquer east and west. Jesus did not conquer anywhere literally. Messiah was supposed to rule with sword. Jesus did not rule literally with sword.

Yes they were or will be if you understand excatlogy. If you pick only one I will demonstrate it.

I am not debating about which religion is true or you accept. I am debating the "reasoning and method for investigating"

The methods established over the thousands of years of BIBLICAL study have established a time honored understanding common to most researchers in most areas. Baha'i comes along in the last 5% of the history and claims the exact opposite in most cases. If you read Greenleafs defence of the Gospels you will learn by what methods reliable testimony and evidence is established because he literally wrote the book on them.
Continued:

 

[1robin]

A belief based on Miracles that you were never witnessed in my view can be totally vain,

A belief based on what we have not seen is an absolute necessity in all religions. If was only based on the things seen it would be called an "obvious" not a "faith". Your doing something even worse. You are taking a claim of the miraculous from an eyewitness and without seeing it declaring it not true. Not to mention I have experienced the supernatural myself several times.


Lets' compare.
1. My beliefs concern some things I have not seen.
1. Your beliefs concern things you have not seen.
Here is where yours goes off the rails.

2. My beliefs in the supernatural are consistent with the supernatural experiences I have had and that billions of other Christians claim.
2. Yours are in spite of my experience and that of billions of Christians that claim the same.

3. My faith is consistent with reliable Biblical testimony of eye witnesses. Confirmed reliable as to all standards used by the greatest experts in human history.
3. You beliefs are in-spite of that testimony.

4. My faith is consistent with time honored and well established Biblical doctrine.
4. Your stands in complete opposition to the same not only for the Bible but also for the Quran and I would imagine for most major faiths.


So you see that whatever shortcoming exist or you invent for my faith they are far worse for yours. You are trying to allow your faith to survive by obscuring mine, Islam's, and applying a scrutiny that would be far more of a indictment to your faith to mine alone. Of course my faith is not perfect but it is infinitely more solidly founded than what you claim.

and as I said, a Wise and Merciful God would not make His Proof, "Miracles".

I do not think a statement more wrong and counter intuitive could possibly be uttered. History shows that the very statement from people's mouths whenever one of history’s prophets claims to be from God is "prove it". It is fitting, rational, necessary, and logical. In no way what ever is the man who claims he is from God and refuses to prove it even when asked more believable than the man who claims such and heals the blind, raises the dead, knwos scripture better than teachers at age 12, and casts out demons. That is silly.

Miracles are a spiritual gift. God appointed people to “work miracles” just like he appointed apostles, prophets and teachers. We are all to desire the “higher gifts” such as miracles and other gifts. – 1 Cor 12:28-31

Many people in Jesus’ time expected a performance of signs as ‘proof’ of supernatural-authority – Mat. 16:1

· Signs (specifically: casting out demons, speaking in tongues, not getting hurt from snakes and poison, laying on their hands on the sick and the sick recovering) will accompany those who believe – Mk 16:17
· Some signs take place in the sky, involving the sun, moon, stars and heavens – Lk 21:11, 21:25
· Corinthians tells us that some signs are not for believers, but for unbelievers! – 1 Cor. 14:22
· Signs mark true apostles – 2 Cor. 12:12

Since Bahaullah told you this can't be, you have had to completely destroy this verse given to only a specific group for a specific reason and distort the hundreds of ithers where miracles were given specifically as signs and proofs. (They were testing him and refused to believe).

Twice Jesus told the Pharisees that ‘an evil and adulterous generations seeks for a sign’ – Mat 12:39, Mat 16:4

You can't wish away all the literal miracles: There are approximately 125 verses in the Old Testament and 100 verses in the New Testament, which contain these words (sign, miracle, wonder, etc.)

The Proof must be based on something that everyone else can also verify. Miracles even if it was done, can be a proof for those who witness them. But the teachings, and verifiable Historical life can be proof.

If there were proof it would be called knowing not believing. Faith precludes proof in both my faith and the philosophy you have adopted.

So far the only area in which a contention made by you is a valid method for debates like this is about the prophecies concerning Jesus. You are wrong about them but the methodology is valid. I would advise you select one of those to pursue.

 

[1robin]

None of what you say here can prove Jesus performed Miracles, or that He physically came out from grave.

I have stated over and over again that faith precludes proof, not only that but all historical claims are based in some part of faith. You are demanding a standard you have no basis to demand. My claims aren’t about proof they are about the best explanation for the data at hand.

1. Reliable testimony by reliable men as to literal miracles affirmed by scholars who know how to evaluate such claims more than anyone on earth.
2. The historical conclusions about the empty tomb made by most historians regardless of which side they are on.
3. My own person experience with the supernatural.
4. The claims by billion to have experienced a risen Christ.
5. The willingness of the apostles to defend the facts at the expense of their lives and comfort.
That’s a start. When totaled up the evidence for the supernatural strongly favors it's existance. The evidence against is far weaker.

In fact, the idea that a person with his physical body goes to heaven, contradicts with teachings of Bible, as well as science.

Is that why 95% of Biblical scholars claim it not only is consistent but a theological necessity? Science has no say or access to these claims one way or other. It is not a scientific claim and is closed to the discipline.

Jesus said: "My Kingdom is not an earthly kingdom." John 18:36
That means, His kingdom is Heavenly, or from Heaven.
Paul said:
"...flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.."

It will not make any difference but Jesus meant the source of his kingdom and it would not have anything to do with resurrection anyway. Paul meant flesh and blood can't merit or deserve heaven. The Bible in many places makes it clear we are given new physical bodies when resurrected. Has there ever been a verse in Islam, Christianity, or Judaism that Baha'i will leave intact or adopt the most prevalent interpretation. What you guys do to the Bible renders it unrecognizable.

That means it is not possible to go to the Kingdom in Heaven with Flash and Blood.
Paul said:
" it is raised a spiritual body." 1 Cor. 15:44

For no apparent reason, again here is the greatest commentator in history:

But believers shall at the resurrection have bodies, made fit to be forever united with spirits made perfect. To God all things are possible. The dead in Christ shall not only rise, but shall rise thus gloriously changed. The bodies of the saints, when they rise again, will be changed. They will be then glorious and spiritual bodies, fitted to the heavenly world and state, where they are ever afterwards to dwell. The human body in its present form, and with its wants and weaknesses, cannot enter or enjoy the kingdom of God.
Matthew Henry's Commentary


Since that is inconvenient and will be dismissed or distorted, I will give another:

44. a natural body—literally, "an animal body," a body molded in its organism of "flesh and blood" (1Co 15:50) to suit the animal soul which predominates in it. The Holy Spirit in the spirit of believers, indeed, is an earnest of a superior state (Ro 8:11), but meanwhile in the body the animal soul preponderates; hereafter the Spirit shall predominate, and the animal soul be duly subordinate.
spiritual body—a body wholly molded by the Spirit, and its organism not conformed to the lower and animal (Lu 20:35, 36), but to the higher and spiritual, life (compare 1Co 2:14; 1Th 5:23).
There is, &c.—The oldest manuscripts read, "IF there is a natural (or animal-souled) body, there is also a spiritual body." It is no more wonderful a thing, that there should be a body fitted to the capacities and want of man's highest part, his spirit (which we see to be the case), than that there should be one fitted to the capacities and wants of his subordinate part, the animal soul [Alford].
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown

All of these points to the fact that Bible teaches spiritual resurrection, and physical body cannot raise to go to Heaven.

Not that that is accurate but even if so would still not apply. Jesus body he appeared with after resurrection was not the same as went in the tomb. It was a glorified body and not mortal. In his case the scars were retained to demonstrate what he had done and provide proof. A spiritual body makes no sense if it has no physical form. A spirit is a non-corporeal entity and could never be described as a body. Every interpretation I have ever heard suggest spiritual implies orientation and quality in these verses not substance.

Romans 12:1
“But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelled in you”
Because Christ rose again in a physical body, so will we! It cannot be much plainer. Christ said we would likewise follow Him to be with God.

1 Corinthians 15:35-38
“But some [man] will say, how are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?
[Thou] fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:
And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other [grain]:
But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.”
So, Jesus Himself refers to our ‘body’ when we are raised up. The ‘body’, soma, literally refers to the body we can see.
Christ arose physically, and for this reason so will we. Our new bodies will be like Jesus’ new body (Philippians 3:21). Christ will know us individually in Heaven, and so we will know others we love. There would be an absurdity in being in a glorious place and yet see or know nothing! And Matthew 5:30 tells us those who are cast into hell will have bodies. And body and soul will go to hell, not just soul (Matthew 10:28). Romans 8:23 tells us our bodies will be “redeemed”.
The whole tenor of scripture speaks of an actual body in Heaven. Jesus had a physical body like all men’s. When He arose, his body looked just like an human body, but was different in type. Our bodies will be the same, otherwise how could we enjoy the amazing glory of God’s abode if we do not see it, hear, smell, touch, etc.?

How miserable must be those who think we will not have bodies or know each other in Heaven!
http://www.christiandoctrine.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=783:will-we-have-bodies-in-heaven&catid=187:salvation&Itemid=563

You are being hyper literal, confusing the literal with the symbolic, demanding standards that do not apply and do not make any sense, distorting the existence of known parables into an obfuscation of the whole, an obfuscation that seems to become clear as a bell whenever you need a verse to say something, strip context, and ignore overall narrative and scholarship as suites your needs. There is too much at stake for this sleight of hand type of research and study.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Christ told between 33 and 40 parables. They only exist within 3 Gospels in the entire NT. There is no way that first parables account for most of what is claimed in the NT, that second you would know it even if they did, and third even if they did that makes Baha'i's claims any more reliable. The point here is to maximize ambiguity or try to by claiming something you do not know so you can use the uncertainty you think exists to allow for Baha'i's irrational claims about what literal and what is symbolic to stand. 95% of the NT is crystal clear as to whether symbolic or literal. Baha'i can't sneak in on 5%.
I do not think anyone on Earth that has read the Bible is unaware that parables exist. To prove what is a parable is virtually certain here is a list of them.

· Parables #1-2-3-4 New cloth, New wine. Lamp on a stand. Wise & foolish builders.
· Parables #5-6 Moneylender forgives unequal debts. Lamp on a stand (2nd time).
· Parables #7-8 Rich man builds bigger barns. Servants must remain watchful.
· Parables #9-10 Wise and foolish servants. Unfruitful fig tree.
· Parable #11 Sower of seeds into four types of soil.
· Parable #12 Weeds among good plants. “Kingdom of Heaven”.
· Parables #13-15 Growing seed. Mustard seed. Yeast. “Kingdom of Heaven”.
· Parables #16-19 Hidden treasure. Pearl. Fishing net. Owner of a house. “Kingdom of Heaven”.
· Parables #20-21 Lost sheep. The sheep, gate, and shepherd.
· Parables #22-23 Master and his servant. Unmerciful servant.
· Parables #24-25 Good Samaritan. Friend in need.
· Parables #26-27 Lowest seat at the feast. Invitation to a great banquet.
· Parable #28 Cost of discipleship.
· Parables #29-30 Lost sheep (sheep as sinners). Lost copin.
· Parable #31 Lost (prodigal) son.
· Parable #32 Shrewd manager.
· Parable #33 Rich man and Lazarus.
· Parable #34 Workers in the vineyard, early and late.
· Parables #35-36 Persistent widow and crooked judge. Praying: Pharisee and tax collector.
· Parable #37 King's servants given minas.
· Parables #38-39 Two sons, one obeys, one does not. Wicked tenants.
· Parable #40 Invitation to a wedding banquet.
· Parables #41-42 Signs from a fig tree. Wise and foolish servants.
· Parables #43-44 Wise and foolish virgins. Servants must remain watchful.
· Parable #45 Three servants given talents.
· Parable #46 Sheep and goats will be separated.
http://www.swapmeetdave.com/Bible/Parables/

You can take all of them out and you have not began to touch thousands of verses claiming the miracles are literal. In fact most parables have little to do with miracles.

Yes they were or will be if you understand excatlogy. If you pick only one I will demonstrate it.

The methods established over the thousands of years of BIBLICAL study have established a time honored understanding common to most researchers in most areas. Baha'i comes along in the last 5% of the history and claims the exact opposite in most cases. If you read Greenleafs defence of the Gospels you will learn by what methods reliable testimony and evidence is established because he literally wrote the book on them.
Continued:

It seems that you are suggesting we should rely on the interpretations from Christians leaders. What proofs you have that these Leaders were lead by holy spirit? If we learn a lesson from history we see that the Jewish Leader's interpretations of Old Testament caused many Jews not to believe Jesus was Messiah. Like the scriptures in many places says the Book is sealed and even the scholars do not understand, but only the Wise shall understand when the Promised One unseals it. What proof you have these Scholars who clung to literal interpretations are indeed wise?

 

[arthra]

My friend replied.

"By "wrote", I mean authored. Mohamed was illiterate, so he recited the Qur'an from memory as he made it up. After he died people began getting parts of it wrong, so a group of his followers committed it to writing to preserve it as Mohamed preached it."

As I stated, Muhammad could not read nor write. I thought he recited his thoughts and visions from Angel Gabriel and one of his followers wrote it down.

So what parts of the Qur'an were recited? What parts were written after he died?

It seems like the poll has split into roughly 50-50 that Muhammad was a good person. On one hand, the good, peaceful people would favor Muhammad, but on the other, there is enough doubt caused by the bad, violent practitioners that he is condemned.

Hey James Bond...enjoy your movies!

In my view Prophet Muhammad received revelation over some twenty years or so...over time and what was revealed through Him was recited...eventually secretaries wrote it down. As the revelations were recited from the beginning by His Companions..who memorized them they could be verified. Eventually what was revealed was written down and eventually marks were added to aid in pronunciation... The order of teh Surihs was also eventually standardized.

As to people who do things in the name of religion.. They are often far from the teachings of the revelation and have not studied much. this should not reflect back on the Prophet or the Almighty.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

A belief based on what we have not seen is an absolute necessity in all religions. If was only based on the things seen it would be called an "obvious" not a "faith". Your doing something even worse. You are taking a claim of the miraculous from an eyewitness and without seeing it declaring it not true. Not to mention I have experienced the supernatural myself several times.

My beliefs are not based on what I have not seen. It is based on what I see. I read the Writings of Baha'u'llah, and to me, His knowledge must have been inspired divinely. This is something that is available right now, right here, and I can see and read His writings. His Books are available, and can be read and studied and investigated by each person.
But, the Miracles that are attributed to Jesus, are not available to see them right here, right now.

2. My beliefs in the supernatural are consistent with the supernatural experiences I have had and that billions of other Christians claim.
2. Yours are in spite of my experience and that of billions of Christians that claim the same.

I also believe in God, and that He gives us confirmation, and perhaps it is possible that He gives confirmation to many people. But note that is not a proof to others.

4. My faith is consistent with time honored and well established Biblical doctrine.
4. Your stands in complete opposition to the same not only for the Bible but also for the Quran and I would imagine for most major faiths.

Yes, your faith is more consistent with the "interpretations" that comes from mainstream Christian leaders. But in no way, I believe their interpretation of Bible is correct.

Many people in Jesus’ time expected a performance of signs as ‘proof’ of supernatural-authority – Mat. 16:1

Which Jesus rejected their request, and said "Only a wicked generation asks for a Miracle"

If there were proof it would be called knowing not believing. Faith precludes proof in both my faith and the philosophy you have adopted.

By proof is meant "Evidences" that leads one to believe.
These evidences can be considered as proofs.

 

[1robin]

It is true, I also did not see Baha'u'llah. But, we are talking about the "Evidences"

I am, not sure where you’re going.

It is about the quantity and quality of evidences.

Both are on my side.

I did not say, there is absolutely no evidence for Jesus to have existed.

What is that supposed to mean?

You claim that there were many eye-witnesses who saw Him after death.

Yes.

But, the mention about those witnesses are in the Bible ONLY.

How does this help your argument and if fact it is false on top of irrelevant. Over 40 authors outside the Bible mention Christ, the witnesses of Christ, or even miracles. However apparently your criterion is one percent higher that whatever it is we actually have no matter how much. There is more textual evidence for Christ that any other figure of any type in ancient history. Colleges teach most of the others historical figures, why would the one with more evidence be left out. I know exactly why preference. All the evidence is on my side. You are arguing from silence.

The Bible claims to be inspired by God, and not necessary a literal history Book.

So? Is the inclusion of the statement "I am a history" book an automatic justification of what it contains. That is not how historical research has ever been done. You compare claims to evidence and the Bible literally annihilates critics. Nothing in ancient history is even close.

"The Christian gospels were written primarily as theological documents rather than historical chronicles.[89][90][223] However, the question of the existence of Jesus as a historical figure should be distinguished from discussions about the historicity of specific episodes in the gospels, the chronology they present, or theological issues regarding his divinity.[224] A number of historical non-Christian documents, such as Jewish and Greco-Roman sources, have been used in historical analyses of the existence of Jesus.[221]"
Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Until Wikipedia resurrects from the dead I will go with the actual degreed scholars I gave. I can't believe you challenge Greenleaf and Lyndhurst with Wikipedia. Not to mention you "quote" only concerned the reason they were written not the accuracy. It is true that if the theology was not a factor then they would not have been written but that has nothing whatever to do with their accuracy.

In fact, there are verses in Bible, that by "Witnesses" and "Seeing" is meant, those who have recognized the Truth of Christ by their Spiritual Eye. Not the literal and physical Eye. Spiritual Eye, is the power to recognize truth, not that they actually saw Him literally.

You are grossly confusing evidence for the Historical Jesus with the evidence for the spiritual significance and evidence of his life and teaching.

It is like you go to a court, and you have a case. Do you have the cloths that Jesus used to wear? or His writings with His own Hand? or did he have a seal to stamp His own Writings as a proof of their Authenticity? Do you have His own seal today to match with documents?

It is funny you asked this even after I gave the opinions of histories finest lawyers?
Continued below:

 

[1robin]

Is there any recorded History that is accepted by those who are not Christians (independent witnesses)

Yes, there are 40 extra biblical sources for Christ. Not to mention uncountable historical resources for events in the Bible.
http://www.free-online.org/free-thinking/lifes-big-questions/bible/is-the-new-testament-historically-reliable.htm

But in case of Baha'u'llah, all these documents exists.

Are you suggesting Biblical documents do not exist? Are you even suggesting we can reliably know what the originals said for a certainty? Documents Hitler and I both exist are we prophets? This has about run its course and is way off topic. In closing I suggest some research. Never questioned Bahaullah’s existence nor have seen any reason to consider that meaningful.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html


Greenleaf, one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School, originally set out to disprove the biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He was certain that a careful examination of the internal witness of the Gospels would dispel all the myths at the heart of Christianity. But this legal scholar came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection did in fact happen.

• 1783
  • Born December 5 in Newburyport, Massachusetts
• 1790-1799
  • Attended the Latin School, Newburyport
• 1801
  • Entered apprenticeship in law office of Ezekiel Whitman of Gloucester, Maine
• 1806
  • Admitted to the Bar of Cumberland County, Maine in June
• 1806
  • Married Hannah Kingman, daughter of Capt. Ezra Kingman of East Bridgewater, Massachusetts on September 18
• 1807-1817
  • Practiced law in Gray, Maine
• 1818
  • Moved law practice to Portland, Maine
• 1820-1832
  • Reporter for the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
• 1821
  • Published, Cases Overruled
• 1833
  • Appointed to Royall Professorship of Law at Harvard Law School
• 1842
  • Published, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence
• 1845
  • Appointed Dane Professor of Law at Harvard Law School
• 1848
  • Resigned teaching position at Harvard Law School
• 1849
  • Appointed judge to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, but declined
• 1853
  • Died, October 6 in Cambridge, Massachusetts

http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/myredeemer/Evidencep29.html


http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbbible.aspx?pageid=8589952775

“On the whole … archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the Scriptural record. More than one archaeologist has found his respect for the Bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine. Archaeology has in many cases refuted the views of modern critics.”
– Millar Burrows, Professor of Archaeology, Yale University[1]
http://www.bethinking.org/bible-jesus/advanced/archaeology-and-the-historical-reliability-of-the-new-testament.htm
The findings of archaeology have in fact reversed the opinions of a number of former skeptics. Among these is the scholar Dr. William F. Albright, who writes:

"The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible [by certain schools of thought] has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of numerous details."[3]
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t007.html

Wikipedia will never cut it.

Bahaullah is simply another theological philosopher in a very long line of minor characters who have done the same thing he has. Christ is the most influential character in Human history. In fact even Greenleaf's credentials far surpassa nything Bahalluah has to justify claims about the Bible or history. However all of this is way off topic.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

The fact that two thing contradict does not mean both are wrong but at least one is.

When the historical sources about a person contradict each other, that means they are not reliable to be taken perfectly true.
Judgement must be fair. It is like there is a case and you go to court. There are various sources about the case that are contradictory to each other. How would the Fair Judge know which one is correct?

This is the situation about Muslims. There are various sects. Each have their own Hadithes and Histories. How do you know which group is telling the Truth?

Moreover, looking at history of Muslims 1000 years ago, they did not act properly. They killed many, as well as themselves. How could the History that is given by these people be trustworthy?

Your interpretations conflict with everyone else’s so are your therefor false (especially considering everyone else has spent at least 10 times the time Bahaullah has spent studying the Quran and the Bible).[/FONT][/COLOR]

In fact Baha'u'llah did not study Quran or Hadithes at all, but He just knew them. That is a proof of His divine knowledge.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I am, not sure where you’re going.

1robin, I suggest if you want to respond to me, read my whole posts, then make a reply. It seems to me, you read a line, then you make a reply. While if you had continued my whole post, then you would know where I am getting at, at the end.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Yes, there are 40 extra biblical sources for Christ. Not to mention uncountable historical resources for events in the Bible.

Before I go and read you links, let me make something clear:

When I say, "independent witnesses" I mean, It has to meet these two condtions at the same time:

1) those who lived at the time of Jesus, and have seen the Miracles of Jesus, but were not Christians, and yet testified that Jesus performed Miracles.
And,

2) These independent witnesses are not mentioned in Bible only, but they are recorded in other non-christian sources, such as Jewish sources.

 

[1robin]

1robin, I suggest if you want to respond to me, read my whole posts, then make a reply. It seems to me, you read a line, then you make a reply. While if you had continued my whole post, then you would know where I am getting at, at the end.

1. I have yet to single attempt to provide evidence why Bahaullah should be considered other than anything but another false prophet who in no way could demonstrate the source for his "revelations". Yet you insist evidence is the issue.
2. I have presented evidence after evidence for the Biblical figures sources for their revelation. You have not even attempted to provide counter evidence. You only make insignificant probes at the evidence I provide. Yet you insist evidence is the issue.
3. ALL the evidence (no matter whether weak or strong) is in support of my claims and you have yet to post a single piece of evidence (weak, strong, invented, forged, or gained by fantasy) to counter mine. Yet you insist evidence is the issue.

I was being humorous but my claim is absolutely accurate and even more so considering the rest of the post that you claim I had not read. You may make a bad, good, irrational, or fantastic argument about how strong my evidence is but you have Zero evidence to counter it. Not only that, but I even provided the conclusions of history’s greatest experts on evidence (Christian, secular, or hostile). You provided a Wikipedia quote that did not even address the historical accuracy of the Bible but only purpose. I really like you personally but your argumentation is simply not effectual or even has any potentiality of being so. I eventually burn out in contestation of logic this fallacious. It takes an honest challenge for me to justify this amount of time. Either be more challenging or less prolific please. Try picking one specific claim (I keep asking you to do so) and we will resolve it if an inconvenient resolution is even a possibility for you. No insult intended, its pure exasperation. Churchill said it was exhilarating to be shot at with such little effect. To me it is wearisome. Do you ever watch professional debates on these issues, by the best scholars in existence? I have watched thousands of hours of them and have read many transcripts. I know what the real issues and arguments are. I know where Christianity’s weaknesses are. I know how textual scholarship works. I know the experts and their claims in these areas. I know the historical history of the arguments involved. That is how I know when I am fighting preference instead of scholarship. Tell you what post me a single example of the evidence you claim exists that counters mine.

 

[1robin]

Before I go and read you links, let me make something clear:

When I say, "independent witnesses" I mean, It has to meet these two conditions at the same time:
1) Those who lived at the time of Jesus, and have seen the Miracles of Jesus, but were not Christians, and yet testified that Jesus performed Miracles.
And,
2) These independent witnesses are not mentioned in Bible only, but they are recorded in other non-Christian sources, such as Jewish sources.

With all due respect. (This apparently means anyone may say anything and is not allowed to be blamed.)

1. That is an irrational requirement.
2. It is an unjustified requirement.
3. It is a hypocritical requirement. You have posted page after page of not just biased sources but simply Bahaullah’s claims and then said "there".
4. I have included quite a few non-Christian scholars and could build my case from them alone, but why?

This is the equivalent of claiming no evolutionist is qualified to discuss evolution, No Baha'i can be trusted for Baha'i. No Muslim can be trusted for the Quran. Not to mention irrational, as those that found the Bible correct more than likely became Christians. You are basically saying that only those that did not believe are valid because that is what the end result is. This is also inapplicable. All of us started off as atheists and the evidence convinced these people the same as any evidence does for any subject. Everyone was initially a hostile witness. I came kicking and screaming. It also has little to do with those sources. Some were critics that set out as professionals to prove the Bible wrong and became convinced it was right and then became Christians. On what basis are they invalid? I also included non-Christians as well and my former claims have been on scholarship as a whole including a consensus from all sides, so that demand is not rational, not applicable, and not one that I make of scholarship. You are right that bias is an issue but it is proven not assumed. I have little time today and maybe a little short and blunt and I ask forgiveness if I seem offensive. I do not expect you to fully read all of what I provided but Greenleaf's paper is a must or should be. Do not confuse frustration or exasperation with dissrespect or rudeness.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I am, not sure where you’re going.
Both are on my side.
What is that supposed to mean?
Yes.
How does this help your argument and if fact it is false on top of irrelevant. Over 40 authors outside the Bible mention Christ, the witnesses of Christ, or even miracles. However apparently your criterion is one percent higher that whatever it is we actually have no matter how much. There is more textual evidence for Christ that any other figure of any type in ancient history. Colleges teach most of the others historical figures, why would the one with more evidence be left out. I know exactly why preference. All the evidence is on my side. You are arguing from silence.
So? Is the inclusion of the statement "I am a history" book an automatic justification of what it contains. That is not how historical research has ever been done. You compare claims to evidence and the Bible literally annihilates critics. Nothing in ancient history is even close.
Until Wikipedia resurrects from the dead I will go with the actual degreed scholars I gave. I can't believe you challenge Greenleaf and Lyndhurst with Wikipedia. Not to mention you "quote" only concerned the reason they were written not the accuracy. It is true that if the theology was not a factor then they would not have been written but that has nothing whatever to do with their accuracy.
You are grossly confusing evidence for the Historical Jesus with the evidence for the spiritual significance and evidence of his life and teaching.
It is funny you asked this even after I gave the opinions of histories finest lawyers?
Continued below:

I am not debating the accuracy or validity of Bible. in fact I believe it is well preserved, and is very accurate, and is valid.
What I have been trying to say, is that, Bible is not written as a history Book, therefore should not be treated as such.
The Bible is a Holy Book. It is not to be read outwardly, as one would read history Books.
If we want to discuss the History of Jesus, Bible is not the source that should be used as a literal historical facts.
If there are other history books which are NOT Holy Books, then those sources can be used as history Books.

Therefore the Authors of Bible did not claim that they were writing their own historical accounts on the life of Jesus. But they claimed they were writings what God had revealed to them.
Therefore, if the Bible is inspired by God, then it is not anymore a history Book with ONLY outward and literal sentences. Now the Book is open to spiritual interpretations as well. That means in addition to verses that are literal, there are other verses that are NOT to be taken literal.

Some may interpret the Resurrection of Jesus as a literal fact. I respect that view. But I believe that the story is mystical rather than a literal historical event.

Now, let me ask you this: Suppose, after Jesus was crucified, His Spirit went to Heaven. But His physical body died and never raised physically. Do you think that make Jesus any more less than who He was?

 

[F0uad]

When the historical sources about a person contradict each other, that means they are not reliable to be taken perfectly true.
Judgement must be fair. It is like there is a case and you go to court. There are various sources about the case that are contradictory to each other. How would the Fair Judge know which one is correct?

Like the gospels you mean?

This is the situation about Muslims. There are various sects. Each have their own Hadithes and Histories. How do you know which group is telling the Truth?

Use your own criteria to judge them?

Moreover, looking at history of Muslims 1000 years ago, they did not act properly. They killed many, as well as themselves. How could the History that is given by these people be trustworthy?

?? Do you even know anything about History 1000 years ago Muslims were pretty peaceful in comparison with now and historians, narrators and the science of Hadith is older then 1000 years ago.

In fact Baha'u'llah did not study Quran or Hadithes at all, but He just knew them. That is a proof of His divine knowledge.

Hahaha first you claim that the Hadiths are not trustworthy and now your saying that your Bahaullah knew the hadiths? Did he also know the unauthentic hadiths?