F0uad
Well-Known Member
The Quran says otherwise.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Was Muhammad a good man?
- Thread starter kassault37
- Start date
The Quran says otherwise.
*Paul*
Jesus loves you
The most comical post I may ever have read :areyoucra
InvestigateTruth
Veteran Member
That's what I am talking about when I say, the Muslim Religious Leaders, after passing of the Prophet deviated from what Muhammad and Quran taught originally.
Quran is saying the People of the Book Misinterpreted their Book, taking the verses out of contexts. They corrupted the meaning of their Books by writing false interpretations and translations. It doesn't say, the actual Text is corrupted.
Upto 315 years after Muhammad, the recorded Historical evidence show that, the intention of Quran was to say that the Jews and Christians had misinterpreted the Text of their Book. For example:
Al-Bukhari reported that Ibn Abbas (Cousin of Muhammad) said [the Jews] alter and add although none among Allahs creation can remove the words from His book, they alter and distort their apparent meaning with this Hadith it is clear that those who walked with the Prophet (PBUH) believed the text of the Torah was original, while holding the view that the Jews perverted their interpretation.
In the year 796 Abu l-Rabi Muhammad ibn al-Layth (a courtier to Kalif Harun al-Rashid ) penned a letter to Constatine VI stating that the word tahrif should be read as the Jews had distorted their sense. Whoever looks in the books of the prophets will find Muhammad (PBUH) mentioned, but the people of the book have obscured these references by changing their interpretation. Ibn al-Layth categorically denies the possibility of passages having been added to, or omitted from, the scriptures, and he then goes on to use the text of the Torah as proof of the authenticity of the Torah (a belief both he and the kalif share).
300 year after Muhammad still, Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn al-Tayyib al-Baqillani was of the opinion that the words of Moses were still extant in their Hebrew original and that the Jews had inadvertently made mistakes in their translations.
It is only in later years, that some of Moslems started to say the actual text of the injil or Torah were corrupted.
Source:
http://www.judaism-islam.com/islam-teaches-torah-is-corrupted-tahrif-but-what-does-that-mean/
Thus as regards to the verses in Quran which Moslems often refer to as corruption of Bible, it seems to me, those verses of Quran are mistranslated.
For example the verse 5:41, here is the translation by Muhammad Asad correctly:
"O APOSTLE! Be not grieved by those who vie with one another in denying the truth: such as those who say with their mouths, "We believe," the while their hearts do not believe; and such of the Jewish faith as eagerly listen to any falsehood, eagerly listen to other people without having come to thee [for enlightenment]. They distort the meaning of the [revealed] words, taking them out of their context, saying [to themselves], "If such-and-such [teaching] is vouchsafed unto you, accept it; but if it is not vouchsafed unto you, be on your guard!" [Be not grieved by them-] for if God wills anyone to be tempted to evil, thou canst in no wise prevail with God in his behalf. It is they whose hearts God is not willing to cleanse. Theirs shall be ignominy in this world, and awesome suffering in the life to come-" 5:41
http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/5/41/default.htm
Whenever we do a Tafseer, we need to know the History, and reason why those verses are revealed. We need to know the story behind the revelation of each verse.
The Verses that Quran revealed regarding "Tahrif" It has to do with writing certain Books and Interpretations regarding Injil or Torah, at the time of Muhammad. You would know that if you do your research as to what was the reason those verses were revealed historically.
Yes, There are verses in Quran that talk about "Modification" and alteration by the Religious Leaders. however, those refer to misinterpretations of ONLY particular cases.
One of them is concerning the penalty of adultery, when the prophet was to explain the penalty of Adultry to some Jewish leaders.
Which the Quran reveals "They distort the meaning of the [revealed] words, taking them out of their context" See Quran 4:44-46
It is clear, in that instance, by perverting the Text is meant "Misinterpretation" and "twisting" as the Torah still contains the verse that says punishment for adultery is death by stone.
Another example is: "A part of them heard the Word of God, and then, after they had understood it, distorted it, and knew that they did so." Quran 2:75
This verse, also indicates that the meaning of the Word of God hath been perverted, not that the actual words in the Text of Bible are changed.
Another example,: "Woe unto those who, with their own hands, transcribe the Book corruptly, and then say: This is from God, that they may sell it for some mean price." Quran 2:79
This verse was revealed regarding the Jewish leaders who were living at the time of Muhammad. For they had written false interpretations to refute the claims of Muhammad.
As regrads to 5:13 and 5:14, I believe this is the correct translations, by Asad:
"Then, for having broken their solemn pledge, We rejected them and caused their hearts to harden-[so that now] they distort the meaning of the [re-vealed] words, taking them out of their context; and they have forgotten much of what they had been told to bear in mind; and from all but a few of them thou wilt always experience treachery. But pardon them, and forbear: verily, God loves the doers of good."
http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/5/13/default.htm
Thus again, Quran is saying they distorted the meaning of the Text. It does not say, the actual text was distorted. Forgetting the teachings, also does not indicate, it was ommited from the Text of Injil, it can only mean from their mind. They did not care to follow them anymore.
Moreover, Quran asks people of the Book who lived at the time of Muhammad to stay firm with their Scriptures:
Notice that Quran addresses the Christians that were living at the time of Muhammad to follow Gospel:
Say: "O People of the Book! ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord." Quran 5:68
It should be noted in the verse the Word Gospel is used, not "GospelS", even though, at that time there were the GospelS. The reason is all Four Gospels in Essence teach the same thing regarding the Revelation of Christ. If the Gospel did not exist in a legitimate form and was full of errors, the Quran would not ask the People of the Book to follow it.
InvestigateTruth
Veteran Member
No, I was specifically speaking about the life and character of Muhammad, that is described by many false and distorted hadithes.
I think, the answer would be to do an independent investigation of Truth. But in the case of History of Muhammad, investigating the history is very difficault, as there are many accounts that is uncertain, and inaccurate, or even false.
Well, Islam is about 1400 years. And almost right after the Passing of the Prophet the problems started. Mainly, the worst things that happend, was when the grand Sons of Muhammad were killed by muslim leaders. Specifically Hussain and Ali.
Who killed them? Muslims or Non-Muslims?
Baha'is only consider the Hadithes that Baha'u'llah confirmed to be authentic.
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
Why it is the most comical post that you have ever read ?
i'm presenting one fact and which is that now around 2 billions love Mohammed PBUH.
How many person will love you after your death ?
i think Zero lovers after just few years.
Last edited:
F0uad
Well-Known Member
To much text sorry, and your attacks on hadith have nothing to do with the Quranic verses i was talking about the Quran not the hadiths but have it your way.
F0uad
Well-Known Member
You know that Sunnis and Shia's have a certain criteria to check the authenticity of one's report, where we have none for the gospels.
You already mentioned this like 4 times and i still don't see how this is relevant like i said we use criteria to validate what is real or not like historians do.
Ill just leave you alone, because you have a hard time replying to your original statements.
So a guy who lived 1000 years after the events knows what happened? I am pretty sure Bahaullah just used hadiths that were in hes favor right? Therefore he had took take a look on what Islam already said, telling me that he has divine knowledge about Islam is silly he never rebuked or refuted any Authentic Hadiths because the same reports that were in hes favor had the same narrators, isnad and matn that the contradicting hadiths had.
Do 2 billion Muslims all love the same Muhammed,considering the difference of opinion on ahadith,whether its authentic or not and reliability of its chain and what you can glean from them ranging from murder to using a mortgaged Camel because you feed it,do these 2 billion Muslims really think the same way?.
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
Knowing the history of Arabs in the Jahiliya and how they treated females and worshiping idols then gradual changes from ignorance to the most advanced nation in the world at the time
the rest of the world was in darkness including Europe.
i don't have to believe the lies which have been said about him but i know how he had changed the history of the Arabs.
The love which have been transferred and inherited from one generation to the next till today is the proof against those lies.
The famous last sermon which the prophet had cared to say when he knew that he is going to leave the world i think is enough for the wise to understand.
[youtube]i3Xc1MfX9X8[/youtube]
The Prophet Muhammad's Last Sermon - YouTube
InvestigateTruth
Veteran Member
I know there are methods to decide if a Hadith is Authentic or not.
But the problem is it cannot garauntee.
Yet, the Sunnis and Shias do not agree with each other's hadithes. Why?
Yes, why do you think that's impossible?
How did Muhammad know, that Jesus had said: "After Me a Prophet shall come whose name will be Ahmad"
What do you mean by His favour?
Why is it silly? Cannot God inspire a Messenger?
Everyone who is interested to investigate claimes of Baha'u'llah, my suggestion is this: you should investigate Baha'u'llah's knowledge in His Books, then think fairly how long would take a smart person to have learned all that. then investigate Baha'u'llah's life which is well recoreded to see how long He spent time on learning and studying.
So, with my investigation, the knoweledge that Baha'u'llah revealed in His writings, would take hundereds of years of studying. and yet, when we study the history of Baha'u'llah, we see He even didn't go to school and most of His life was in prison. How ironic people cannot see such clear evidences for divine inspiration. Baha'u'llah's works are more than 17000 works. during His 40 years of Prophethood, that is more than a work per day. By the way, have you read the Hadith that when Christ returns, He will Rule on earth for 40 years? and that Mahdi will Rule 6 or 9 years? How come both match with the Bab and Baha'u'llah?
Last edited:
InvestigateTruth
Veteran Member
james bond
Well-Known Member
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.
Thanks, arthra. For enjoying my movies and explaining how the recitations were written. I'm reading the Qur'an now. Which parts were recited and which ones were written after Muhammad's death? I see five parts and some seem self-explanatory, but was not sure. Also, do you attribute the writing (context) to Muhammad or others, i.e. such as an author or is Allah considered the author?
As for something to compare with, I have read about 60% of the OT and 30% of the NT.
F0uad
Well-Known Member
Then use your own criteria or refute the "Method" and tell us why its not a valid.
Not all of them we can agree on certain hadiths, its because Shia's don't belief that the companions were righteous people because Ali(ra) wasn't the Khalipah if i am correct.
True god?
The ones that do not contradict hes comings and speak after a person after Mohammed(saws)?
I am pretty sure God doesn't tell hes previous Messenger lies about what will happen in the future.
First you said he did not learn and study and knew it and now your saying he did learn and study.
So you want to have a debate about Bahaullah and Hadiths that contradict hes coming? Just to name several were did he lead the Muslim army, when did he fight the Dajall and so forth? In my eyes the Bahai religion is just the same as the Amahiday religion.
InvestigateTruth
Veteran Member
Because, not all the companions of the prophet may have been trustworthy.
Even if they were, the Hadith goes through a chain of people. We do not know if all those people within the chain were trustworthy.
Even if they were, they could still make mistakes. Add their own words, or forget some words. Add their own interpretations. We don't know for sure what happened. Even if this didn't happen and everything went perfectly, the Islam from 1400 years ago had fallen in the hands of many religious rulers. These people could fabricate hadithes, including fabricating chains. We don't know for sure. So it is not guarantee these Hadithes are Authentic or not.
Yes, the same true God, revealed to Baha'u'llah.
Give one or two examples that you think it contradicts His coming.
Please quote the actual Hadith with reference.
Off course not!
No, I am saying He did not study or go to school. But if you are in doubt read the history about Him.
Baha'u'llah's life is well-documented. To the point that we almost know where He was, and what was He doing in a particular year, month or even day.
There is absolutely no evidence for Him that He went to school to learn all these.
He was not a clergy man. Neither His father was a clergy. Most of His life in prison and exile with many difficulties. No access to library, or teacher. He was Persian, with no studies in Arabic. Yet He wrote verses in Quranic Arabic very fast. Thousands of verses. Even if a person goes to school or had the best teachers in that time, how could any one teach all these? His knowledge was not limited to a particular religion. He knew Islam, Christianity, Jewish, Zoroasterism and Hinduism scriptures. His knowledge was not only about religions. He knew for example any substance can turn into another substance (something that was probably NOT known in His time). He did not go to school to learn sciences, or even have teachers to teach these details.
He knew the universe was much much older than what people at His time thought. and many many more.
I wouldn't mind about that. But before doing that, I need you to read prophecies about Messiah, and how Jesus fulfilled them. Because in that, there is a lesson!
If you investigate Jewish Traditions, and Torah, there are signs given for Messiah.Theses signs are:
"The Messiah will arise out of an unknown city. He shall sit upon the throne of David, and behold, He shall come with a sword of steel, and with a sceptre of iron shall He rule! He shall fulfill the law of the Prophets, He shall conquer the East and the West, and shall glorify His chosen people the Jews. He shall bring with Him a reign of peace, during which even the animals shall cease to be at enmity with man. For behold the wolf and the lamb shall drink from the same spring, and the lion and the doe shall lie down in the same pasture, the serpent and the mouse shall share the same nest, and all God’s creatures shall be at rest’."
According to the Jews, Jesus the Christ fulfilled none of these conditions. Because:
"He came from Nazareth, no unknown place. He carried no sword in His hand, nor even a stick. He did not sit upon the Throne of David, He was a poor man. He reformed the Law of Moses, and broke the Sabbath Day. He did not conquer the East and the West, but was Himself subject to the Roman Law. He did not exalt the Jews, but taught equality and brotherhood, and rebuked the Scribes and Pharisees. He brought in no reign of peace, for during His lifetime injustice and cruelty reached such a height that even He Himself fell a victim to it...."
Why the Jews did not think Jesus fulfilled these prophecies? Because, they interpreted these signs literally and "outwardly" (similar to our Muslim friends!)
But Jesus did fulfill these Prophecies, in a spiritual sense:
"Although He came from Nazareth, which was a known place, He also came from Heaven. His body was born of Mary, but His Spirit came from Heaven [an unknown place]. The sword He carried was the sword of His tongue, with which He divided the good from the evil, the true from the false, the faithful from the unfaithful, and the light from the darkness. His Word was indeed a sharp sword! The Throne upon which He sat is the Eternal Throne from which Christ reigns for ever, a heavenly throne, not an earthly one, for the things of earth pass away but heavenly things pass not away. He re-interpreted and completed the Law of Moses and fulfilled the Law of the Prophets. His word conquered the East and the West. His Kingdom is everlasting. He exalted those Jews who recognized Him. They were men and women of humble birth, but contact with Him made them great and gave them everlasting dignity. The animals who were to live with one another signified the different sects and races, who, once having been at war, were now to dwell in love and charity, drinking together the water of life from Christ the Eternal Spring.
Thus, all the spiritual prophecies concerning the coming of Christ were fulfilled, but the Jews shut their eyes that they should not see, and their ears that they should not hear, and the Divine Reality of Christ passed through their midst unheard, unloved and unrecognized.
It is easy to read the Holy Scriptures, but it is only with a clean heart and a pure mind that one may understand their true meaning. Let us ask God’s help to enable us to understand the Holy Books. Let us pray for eyes to see and ears to hear, and for hearts that long for peace."
Bahá'í Reference Library - Paris Talks, Pages 54-57
Last edited:
1robin
Christian/Baptist
You may call the Bible whatever title you wish but whether it's claims are historically accurate will never be affected in the slightest. In historical tests it passes with flying colors and usually embarrasses its critics regardless of any category you place it in.
I am unaware of a single claim it makes that it intends as historically accurate that isn't. This is much ado about nothing. When it says Jesus rose from the dead. It means he was literally dead and he literally came back to life and all evidence that exists is consistent with that claim. I think this is an effort to allow the obfuscation with what it claims as literal with what it claims as allegory to allow confusion to exist and justification to be found in that confusion. It is well understood what it claims as literal and what it claims as allegory and has been for over a thousand years. You may call it whatever you wish and it remains clear it is historically accurate when intended to be and where it intends to be is well understood for the NT especially.
That is simply wrong in every way possible. I have already included at least two of histories greatest experts in what constitutes reliable testimony and evidence. The Bible meets every standard. It is not only a historical source it has PROVEN to be the most reliable source of any kind.
Even if you cannot technically call the Bible a historical book (and that is not possible) that says nothing about it's historicity. It has 25,000 historical facts that have been confirmed, and I am unaware of a single mistake it ever made historically. To not allow it to be a reliable historical record is silly and only the result of BIAS. It demonstrates it's reliability with every test that exists within historical studies.
They in fact said exactly that they were recording history. Many went way out of their way to state just such.
1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
http://biblehub.com/niv/luke/1.htm
That does not sound like winging it to me. However even if it were God dictating these events then what historical basis could possibly be better? Is any man made historical account better than that of the author of history himself?
This is certainly a lot of very inaccurate and complex work to simply even allow your faith to redact contemporary historical works.
And we arrive at the same place we started. You and the Baha'i on one side and most scholars on the other, with a bunch of insufficient and no authorities assumptions in between. In fact most scholars agree that the historicity of the three main facts I gave you is true but most of even the ones who think they are false think they are claimed to be literally true. IOW Baha'i has forced you into a minority of a minority of scholarship.
Yes.
1. He claimed to be the first fruits and evidence of resurrection. Your story renders this mute.
2. The post resurrection appearances by thousands are simply ignored by that interpretation.
3. The complete switch in faith from cowards to men ready to die is ignored by this.
4. All the teachings he gave after resurrection are now unexplainable.
5. His demonstration to Thomas (as an example of our doubt and his reassurance) is no longer accounted for.
6. This interpretation disagrees with all evidence that exists.
7. It makes a mockery of all messianic prophecy.
8. It makes Jesus own predictions inaccurate.
9. It is based on pure assumption in opposition to scholarship.
I can go on but it won't make any difference. IOW, yes his example loses most of its affect and assurance in your interpretation. Your dedication is worthy of a better cause than employed to undermine the greatest news mankind ever received from God.
InvestigateTruth
Veteran Member
Just read chapter of John, specially 14, 15 and 16, which is all about Jesus going to Father and come back and taking them up, etc.
Then Note that at the end of Jesus' speech, He says:
"Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father." John 16:25
That means, when Jesus said He is going to Father, He did not mean literally with a physical body. He was using Figures to explain. Hence a literal interpretation is rejected by Jesus!
1robin, is it that you didn't understand my position, or you purposely pretending that you misunderstood me?
I said many times, that I believe that Bible is inspired by God. Moreover, I also tell you plainly that I 'believe' the Bible is a HISTORICAL account, inspired by God.
However those historical accounts are written in symbolic language in many places in Bible, including Resurrection.
If you tell me, Bible is a historical account of Jesus and disciples, I certainly agree.
However if you tell me, in writing these historical events only literal language is used, i disagree.
Therefore this debate is reduced to this: "How do you know which part of Bible is literal and which part is symbolic?"
Note, I am asking "YOU", not what traditionally christian mainstream understood. It is time to look back at previous generations, and ask ourselves: "How do I know they did not misinterpret the Bible?"
Not so according to the Scholars. I quote from Wikipidia, that expresses different views without bias:
"While there is widespread scholarly agreement on the existence of Jesus as a historical figure, the portraits of Jesus constructed during the three quests have often differed from each other, and from the dogmatic image portrayed in the gospel accounts.[12][9][10][51] Amy-Jill Levine states that despite the differing portraits, there is a general scholarly consensus on the basic outline of Jesus' life in that most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, debated Jewish authorities on the subject of God, performed some healings, taught in parables, gathered followers, and was crucified by Roman prefect Pontius Pilate.[11]"
Quest for the historical Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That's not necessarily true. that is a self interpretation.
In fact it is written in Bible, after the Crucifixion, the Disciples were called: "Now you are the Body of Christ"
Since the Disciples were "raised" on the third day to teach the cause of Jesus, it is symbolically said: "Jesus body is raised on the third"
Not according to scholars. I quote Wikipidia:
"Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that a historical Jesus existed,[8] although there is little agreement on the reliability of the gospel narratives and their assertions of his divinity.[9]"
Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The belief on Bible is based on faith, not proven historical evidence!.
Yes, I also believe Bible is inspired by God, because Baha'u'llah confirms. But I don't claim Bible is a literal Historical Book.
except Luke is not saying I will describe everything with "literal words"
He is narrating events but in many places he uses symbolism, as even Jesus used many parables and figurative language.
Last edited:
1robin
Christian/Baptist
No it doesn't mean that. This is just more of the same. It is well understood this refers back to the times he spoke in allegory as in:
New International Version (©2011)
When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger's voice."
Jesus used this figure of speech, but the Pharisees did not understand what he was telling them.
This is allegory and everyone knows it is allegory.
As well as:
New International Version (©2011)
Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying:
"The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son.
This is allegory and everyone knows it is allegory.
New International Version (©2011)
Then Jesus told his disciples a parable to show them that they should always pray and not give up.
This is allegory and everyone knows it is allegory. Jesus almost always said "hey guys this is an allegory" to contrast it from the other 80% that was literal. You are once again using a verse that refers to obvious allegory and applying it to obvious literals because it suites your purpose.
Hear the Word of God in Luke 18 beginning in verse 31:
And taking the twelve, He said to them, See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written about the Son of Man by the prophets will be accomplished. For He will be delivered over to the Gentiles and will be mocked and shamefully treated and spit upon. And after flogging Him, they will kill Him, and on the third day He will rise. But they understood none of these things. This saying was hidden from them, and they did not grasp what was said.
No allegory mentioned.
· "Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 20 The Jews therefore said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" 21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body," (John 2:19-21).
· "When therefore it was evening, on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst, and said to them, "Peace be with you." 20 And when He had said this, He showed them both His hands and His side. The disciples therefore rejoiced when they saw the Lord," (John 20:19-20).
· "And He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." (Luke 24:38-39).
http://carm.org/christianity/christian-doctrine/objections-jesus-physical-resurrection-answered
These have a little allegory but it is clears it's self up by stating what the allegories mean. 95% of all scholars and Christians understand which of these verses are allegory and which are literal why are you comfortable in the 5% that don't?
Continued:
1robin
Christian/Baptist
If it is historical that means it is historically accurate. Luke 24:38-39 among many others seems to written specifically to stop people from arriving at the exact conclusion you have arrived at yet it does not even phase you. Preference is over riding everything. It is impossible to have a scripture refute a point as directly and sufficiently than Luke did above but I will bet it will have no effect on you and therefor nothing will. You may claim verses like this wrong (I believe they are true and all the evidence supports this) but you can't even begin to claim they are symbolic. They were written apparently to destroy that very idea.
I have said over and over and over that the Bible contains literal history and also contains allegory. 95% of which is known as to which it is and has been for over a thousand years. Bahaullah cannot make the literal symbolic and the symbolic literal because it suites some presumption that would not even be true if his mixed up exegesis was true.
Almost all Christ allegory is claimed by him to be such or by the one narrating it. Almost all the literal verses have no sign of allegory within them. Professionals have been determining which is which for 1800 hundred years and a teenager would know most of them on his first reading.
What I claim is not that Baptists, Protestants, or Catholic tradition says X. I reject most Catholic tradition and hate the idea of tradition superseding scripture at all. I am saying that virtually all the scholars whose jobs depend on professional and accurate exegesis almost all arrive at the same understandings no matter what denomination they are from or in what period they are in or what scholastic training they have. That is how these things are solved and dismissing it up front because academia is 95% against your views changes that. Not to mention a casual reading by anyone not preconditioned is consistent with their understandings and internal consistency, prophecy, and language use makes most allegories and literals apparent and unavoidable.
You are going to get quite a bit better than Wikipedia to challenge Greenleaf and Lyndhurst or any of the other absolute experts in history and law. Of course people disagree that is exactly why I use experts with credentials that no one else can exceed. We can't take turns listing a hundred scholars each on either side so I went straight to the top and far far above Wikipedia. No one in history is better qualified to examine the reliability of the Gospels than the names I have given. You have three choices.
1. Go with the conclusions of the best scholars and evidence available. Both are on my side.
2. Go against the best scholars and evidence (using second and third tier scholars and the Wikipedia pages that agree with you written by people like us) because the latest prophet that could not demonstrate in any way his prophet hood told you to.
3. Or conclude the matter unresolvable.
Is that not exactly what I have claimed from day one? Historical agreement exists that Christ was crucified and the tomb was found empty and the apostles recorded meeting Jesus afterwards and they died to defend that truth. I take that evidence and conclude that the spiritual claim that he rose from the dead bodily is true. Your conclusion flies in the face of the evidence we do have. I have stated over and over no historical claim is absolute but we must determine the conclusions that fit the most facts. Mine does your does not.
That is one very very bad reason to believe. However the Bible has DEMONSTRATED that it is composed primarily of literal historical facts and in 95% of the cases it is allegorical it is obvious and well known.
Here we go again. Luke's unavoidable and obvious meaning is so inconvenient that a false standard that he must use certain words in a certain order that you have decided upon is no test he must pass. I have stated elsewhere that the bizarre claim that unless a tree claims it is a tree, I claim I am a Human, or Tiger woods states he is a golfer those facts are not obvious and unavoidable is one of the worst arguments for anything I have ever seen. You are maximizing the slightest uncertainties, applying verses completely out of context for convenience, dismissing and distorting others, or simply inventing uncertainties as needed, where none exist. Doing this means you may make the Bible say anything you wish.
InvestigateTruth
Veteran Member
Here is the difference:
You rely on the interpretations of Scholars, with no proof they were lead by Holy Spirit to give you correct interpretation. While the Bible says it was sealed, hence there is no way you scholars could unsead the mysteries of God in it. As it was written: "The Book is sealed, the learned and unlearned cannot read it" and again: "who is worthy to unseal the Book?....the Promised One"
While I rely on Baha'u'llah who is Manifestation of God, the Promised One, with divinely inspire knowledge. The proof of Him is His knowledge in His 17000 Works, while He did not go to school or had a teacher, and all the time in prison. There is no other way for Him to knew all that except by having divine knowledge and the time that was alluded to calculate the End time, has passed, as the year was 1844.
Anyways, I feel we should let this thread be about Prophet Muhammad, we got too far from OP. So, that is my last post in this thread about Bible, Jesus and His return. While I can continue with Muhammad.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
No I don't. I use scholars as for argumentation purposes. When I was born again (personal but tangible proof my doctrine was correct) I did not know a scholar from a post hole. I spent a year and read the entire Bible. I then threw my TV in the lake and spent another in study and prayer. I determined what I think God said (the core anyway). Then I started reading what scholars had concluded. They matched. The fact that 90% of the thousands all arrived at the same conclusions independently is an argument for their correctness. No I can't guarantee their spiritual guidance, No more than you can guarantee Bahaullahs. It goes like this.
1. The spiritual guidance of scholars of leaders is unverifiable and therefor a tie and is thrown out for each side.
2. Personal spiritual experience is on my side. Bahaullah does not even offer anything like what the Bible does spiritually. There are billions that testify to the spiritual gift received using the Bible as Christians in general interpret it.
3. Scholarly conclusion is on my arguments side.
4. Length of time studied is on my side.
5. Archeological evidence is on my side.
6. Historical evidence is on my side.
7. Internal consistency is on my side.
8. Overall narrative is on my side.
9. The spirit claims of the apostles and countless martyrs is on my side.
10. Miracles not only in the Bible but throughout history are on my side.
11. The conclusion of historys greatest evidential and testimonial experts is on my side.
In fact everything is on my side. You have only Bahaullahs unverified and more importantly un justified (by scholarship, history, or any miracles he performed) claims on yours. My evidence does not equal proof but in every category is better substantiated than yours.
Once again you are misinterpreting "sealed" in not only an incorrect way but an irrational way. If scholars can't figure out what simple words mean then no one could and the Bible is pointless. Not to mention that "sealed" means (when not stripped of context): The word used is actually
sphragizō
and it means
1) to set a seal upon, mark with a seal, to seal
a) for security: from Satan
2) in order to prove, confirm, or attest a thing
3) to confirm authenticate, place beyond doubt
a) of a written document
b) to prove one's testimony to a person that he is what he professes to be
The word "sealed" only appears in textual definition in revelations and only applies to some of that books prophecies. It never ever implies some kind of secrecy over the entire Bibles contents. We have already covered this several times. Have we reached the end of Bahaullahs methodology and are starting over? We are also not even discussing cryptically, apocalyptic, mysterious teaching. We are discussing point blank obvious words (most even specifically identified as to literal or symbolic).
Have you any idea how many books were written by prisoners? There is an entire type of literature called "Prison literature". Some very great works on Philosophy were written as early as 524 AD. Nothing about writing a book from prison (what else is there to do) makes anyone a prophet. The only undeniable signs of prophet hood are accurate and prolific prophecy and miracles. The Biblical prophets did countless of each. Bahaullah did almost none of either and that is why he must minimize what actual prophets did. BTW everything you said above is the same assumption you dismissed in your first statement. Baha'i seems to be cyclical.
Agreed and remember my problems and exasperation is with your claims not you. You seem a descent enough person, and very civil.