One correct religion with the Truth (part 2)?

[peace_at_last]

Of course, dear brother. Muhammad’s proof was His Revelation of the Quran. I invite you to apply the same test on the Bab and Baha’u’llah.

Otherwise where in the Bible does it speak of Muhammad?



.

We are not discussing Islam and Christianity here. We are discussing Islam and Baha’i.

There are virtually hundreds and thousands of Islamic narrations that speak about the Mahdi and they are all available and at hand. The Bab claimed he was the Mahdi who has been mentioned countless times in Islamic scripture. But he fulfilled nearly nothing about the traits and characteristics of the Mahdi or his deeds and the prophecies.

If you believe he did it is up to you to prove it.

 

[SteveVH]

Dear brother, I am not stating any form of dishonesty from the Church. Please remember that I am not making things up as I am going along.

Servant, you absolutely reject that Jesus rose bodily from the grave, even when he, himself states that ."…a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”

This statement directly contradicts your position. I am not saying that you are making it up as you go along. You have held these beliefs from the beginning. But you are, in no uncertain terms, implying that either Christ was lying or that our Church just made it up and is therefore attempting to deceive the world as to the truth of Jesus Christ. Considering your accusation against me, this is absolute hypocrisy.

 

[Servant19]

Servant, you absolutely reject that Jesus rose bodily from the grave, even when he, himself states that ."…a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”

This statement directly contradicts your position. I am not saying that you are making it up as you go along. You have held these beliefs from the beginning. But you are, in no uncertain terms, implying that either Christ was lying or that our Church just made it up and is therefore attempting to deceive the world as to the truth of Jesus Christ. Considering your accusation against me, this is absolute hypocrisy.

I’m sorry you feel that way Steve. I guess my question is, how does Luke know what Jesus said??? He wasn’t there…one must use some reason at some point.

I’m not trying to be hypocritical dear friend, but this is different to an empirically easy to see allegation of schism in the Bahai Faith.

.

 

[Servant19]

We are not discussing Islam and Christianity here. We are discussing Islam and Baha’i.

There are virtually hundreds and thousands of Islamic narrations that speak about the Mahdi and they are all available and at hand. The Bab claimed he was the Mahdi who has been mentioned countless times in Islamic scripture. But he fulfilled nearly nothing about the traits and characteristics of the Mahdi or his deeds and the prophecies.

If you believe he did it is up to you to prove it.

No it is up to the Bab to prove it dear friend, who am I ??

I trust you, as a Muslim, will seek the Truth for yourself.

The history is pretty convincing

.

 

[peace_at_last]

No it is up to the Bab to prove it dear friend, who am I ??

I trust you, as a Muslim, will seek the Truth for yourself.

The history is pretty convincing

.

I see you have nothing to say

 

[Servant19]

I see you have nothing to say

I trust in your capacity. Shias are smart
(I’ll be honest, my knowledge of Islam is extremely limited)
.

 

[eddie_too]

perhaps a different approach might be useful.

why should a follower of Christ believe that some of the most important things taught by His Church are mistaken?

it seems to me that the Bahia answer is the Christian should believe that some of the most important things they were taught by the Successors to the Apostles are mistaken because some man in the middle east in the 19th century declared them mistaken.

the Bahia admit that almighty God could raise a human being from the dead.

the Bahia admit that almighty God could create a spiritual reality that primarily interacts with this world through the souls of human beings; and, that this spiritual reality could also serve as the home of the resurrected human body.

since the Bahia believe all things are possible for God, then there is nothing preposterous or incredible or unbelievable about the empty tomb and the multitude of appearances of Jesus in a physical (although glorified – altered) body that was proven physical by the five senses of those to whom He chose to reveal Himself.

on another point, earlier a Bahia asked why Mary Magdalene would not have recognized Jesus immediately. to me, that answer is quite obvious. what human being who was visiting the grave of a loved one would upon being approached by a person of the same sex would immediately recognize that person as the one they had buried three days earlier? this same phenomenon occurred with the disciples on the road to Emmaus.

to me, it is much more improbable that a human being, upon meeting someone they had recently buried, would go "oh, hi Jesus, glad to see you have arisen. that explains the empty tomb.

 

[tonyfish58]

perhaps a different approach might be useful.

why should a follower of Christ believe that some of the most important things taught by His Church are mistaken?

it seems to me that the Bahia answer is the Christian should believe that some of the most important things they were taught by the Successors to the Apostles are mistaken because some man in the middle east in the 19th century declared them mistaken.

the Bahia admit that almighty God could raise a human being from the dead.

the Bahia admit that almighty God could create a spiritual reality that primarily interacts with this world through the souls of human beings; and, that this spiritual reality could also serve as the home of the resurrected human body.

since the Bahia believe all things are possible for God, then there is nothing preposterous or incredible or unbelievable about the empty tomb and the multitude of appearances of Jesus in a physical (although glorified – altered) body that was proven physical by the five senses of those to whom He chose to reveal Himself.

on another point, earlier a Bahia asked why Mary Magdalene would not have recognized Jesus immediately. to me, that answer is quite obvious. what human being who was visiting the grave of a loved one would upon being approached by a person of the same sex would immediately recognize that person as the one they had buried three days earlier? this same phenomenon occurred with the disciples on the road to Emmaus.

to me, it is much more improbable that a human being, upon meeting someone they had recently buried, would go "oh, hi Jesus, glad to see you have arisen. that explains the empty tomb.

Eddie Too - Good questions dear friend in God

The answer could be for the sake of Gods Love.

We are told God Doeth as He Willeth and to none is given the right to question.

IMHO - It is because we question Gods Ways, that the result is we shut ourselves away from the Love, that is we shut ourselves off from the Love by our attachment to worldly thoughts and worldly desires. We only question God because we are attached to the material world.

If we were to view God with our Spirit there is no need to question His Ways.

God Bless and Regards Tony

 

[tonyfish58]

We are not discussing Islam and Christianity here. We are discussing Islam and Baha’i.

There are virtually hundreds and thousands of Islamic narrations that speak about the Mahdi and they are all available and at hand. The Bab claimed he was the Mahdi who has been mentioned countless times in Islamic scripture. But he fulfilled nearly nothing about the traits and characteristics of the Mahdi or his deeds and the prophecies.

If you believe he did it is up to you to prove it.

Peace be with you Peace_at_last

As Servant Said - we do not know much re Islam but to know the Truth of the Prophet Muhummad and His Holy Koran.

I believe the Bab and Baha’u’llah did fulfill many Prophesies - I will provide a few links that discuss this aspect.

Please advise if they provide the information needed.

bahai-library.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5348

bci.org/prophecy-fulfilled/

bci.org/islam-bahai/ProofProphecy.htm

God Bless and Regards Tony

 

[peace_at_last]

Peace be with you Peace_at_last

As Servant Said - we do not know much re Islam but to know the Truth of the Prophet Muhummad and His Holy Koran.

I believe the Bab and Baha’u’llah did fulfill many Prophesies - I will provide a few links that discuss this aspect.

Please advise if they provide the information needed.

bahai-library.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5348

bci.org/prophecy-fulfilled/

bci.org/islam-bahai/ProofProphecy.htm

God Bless and Regards Tony

Thanks for the links.

There were mostly claims stating that: Baha’u’llah is who he claims he is because he is who he claims he is!

 

[eddie_too]

tonyfish,

you wrote, “IMHO - It is because we question Gods Ways, that the result is we shut ourselves away from the Love, that is we shut ourselves off from the Love by our attachment to worldly thoughts and worldly desires. We only question God because we are attached to the material world.”

a couple of comments: 1) we first must know God’s Ways before we can question them; and, 2) our discussion here has been about what are God’s Ways, not if we should follow God’s Ways.

at this point in the discussion, I am inclined to believe that most who have commented agree that human beings should not question God’s Ways.

does mankind know God’s Ways? those who place their faith and trust in Jesus Christ most certainly know God’s Ways. those who place their faith and trust in someone or something else besides Jesus Christ may have some limited knowledge of God’s ways (after all the Apostle writes that the pagans have God’s laws written in their hearts), but their ignorance of God’s Ways exceeds any knowledge of God’s Ways that the non-Christian might have.

so, I reiterate, this discussion, at least for me, has been primarily about what are God’s Ways and not whether or not we should try to follow them.

 

[SteveVH]

I’m sorry you feel that way Steve. I guess my question is, how does Luke know what Jesus said??? He wasn’t there…one must use some reason at some point.

Servant, the Catholic Church has determined, through the guidance and aid of the Holy Spirit, that the Gospel of Luke is the inerrant word of God, just as much so as the other Gospels, Paul’s epistles, Peter’s epistles and every other sacred text in the Bible. This is not a matter of one having more credibility than the other. I think you know that this is our belief and so I’m a little puzzled as to why you ask the question.

We are not even certain who authored the Letter to the Hebrews, yet we know that it is the word of God as certainly as we know any other text in the canon is the word of God. It is the Holy Spirit who is important here, not necessarily the individual who was divinely inspired to write down the words. We are not depending upon anyone’s human ability (thank God.)

I’m not trying to be hypocritical dear friend, but this is different to an empirically easy to see allegation of schism in the Bahai Faith.

And you ended up admitting that at least one schism has occurred, did you not? You expect me to just accept what you have said because the leaders of your faith have said it is true. Yet you do not afford me the same courtesy.

Our Church teaches that Christ rose bodily from the grave. Jesus states that he has a body of flesh and bone. You continue to deny that this is the truth. The only logical conclusion, if you are correct, is that either Jesus lied or that the Church has deceived the world by putting words in Jesus’s mouth. So which is it?

 

[SteveVH]

I guess my question is, how does Luke know what Jesus said???

One last point on this. The Church believed everything Luke wrote before he wrote it and long before what he wrote (Gospel of Luke & Acts) was known for certain to be the divinely inspired word of God. He was a disciple of Paul and therefore was a contemporary of the Apostles and of Christ, and certainly one of the most educated of Christ’s disciples. In canonizing his writings the Church declared that they were completely in line with the unwritten deposit of faith given to the Apostles and were God-breathed, containing no error.

As I have told you repeatedly, the Catholic Church does not extract its doctrine from the Bible. Christianity has always, since the beginning, held that Christ rose bodily from the grave on the third day. It has never taught anything different. We do not weight the value of our sacred texts on who might have known the Lord better or was better qualified to write. If this was the case we would have to toss Peter out right away. He denied the Lord three times.

Steve

 

[Servant19]

One last point on this. The Church believed everything Luke wrote before he wrote it and long before what he wrote (Gospel of Luke & Acts) was known for certain to be the divinely inspired word of God. He was a disciple of Paul and therefore was a contemporary of the Apostles and of Christ, and certainly one of the most educated of Christ’s disciples. In canonizing his writings the Church declared that they were completely in line with the unwritten deposit of faith given to the Apostles and were God-breathed, containing no error.

As I have told you repeatedly, the Catholic Church does not extract its doctrine from the Bible. Christianity has always, since the beginning, held that Christ rose bodily from the grave on the third day. It has never taught anything different. We do not weight the value of our sacred texts on who might have known the Lord better or was better qualified to write. If this was the case we would have to toss Peter out right away. He denied the Lord three times.

Steve

Hi Steve, hope you had a great weekend

In regards to this, I really believe that Peter was given authority to teach with the Holy Spirit on His side. If you do not believe this, by what justification are you Catholic??

Its not about who was better as a Apostle, who lived the life, its about who was given Authority, and Peter (fully acknowledged in the Baha’i Writings) was given that Authority and Primacy.

I do not personally think the argument of, “Tradition was “prior” to the Bible”, is a strong position here. The Writings of Paul and Peter shaped Tradition initially (simply because they were written first, especially Paul) and if we were to look at the Christian communities which were formed initially “prior” to the collation of the Books and Letters which formed the Bible, we will see a physical resurrection was not mentioned once in the Teachings at the time of these Apostles.

It is a reconciliation that is impossible to make when reading the clear words of Peter and Paul.

I understand Luke was a close assistant to Paul, which begs the question, why would he contradict everything that Paul wrote in his 24th chapter? (or did he?)

I am not familiar with how the Gospel of Luke is dated. I am aware of Papyrus 75 being the earliest known manuscript of Luke 24, and that is dated between 175-225 BCE. Maybe you can fill me in as to how we know when Luke’s Gospel was written and also if the entirety of it is attributed to Luke or if some parts (like the final parts of Mark 16) things were added? I would appreciate some links to educate me please

God bless you

.

 

[SteveVH]

Hi Steve, hope you had a great weekend

In regards to this, I really believe that Peter was given authority to teach with the Holy Spirit on His side. If you do not believe this, by what justification are you Catholic?

The point, Servant, is that you were questioning the validity of Luke’s Gospel by asking:

Originally Posted by Servant19
I’m sorry you feel that way Steve. I guess my question is, how does Luke know what Jesus said??? He wasn’t there…one must use some reason at some point.

My point is that the Church declared Luke’s writings as the word of God. The decision was not based upon some human measure of credibility which is definitely implied in your statement, but rather on the guidance of the Holy Spirit, just as were Peter’s writings even though he denied the Lord three times. I am certainly not questioning that Peter had the protection of the Holy Spirit. I am only pointing out that this is the case regardless of how fit one may seem in human terms, therefore your statement is baseless as to “we must use reason at some point”.

I do not personally think the argument of, “Tradition was “prior” to the Bible”, is a strong position here. The Writings of Paul and Peter shaped Tradition initially (simply because they were written first, especially Paul) and if we were to look at the Christian communities which were formed initially “prior” to the collation of the Books and Letters which formed the Bible, we will see a physical resurrection was not mentioned once in the Teachings at the time of these Apostles.

You have little to no understanding of what is meant by Sacred Tradition. The deposit of faith was whole and entire before anything was put to writing. The Church did not depend upon Paul’s epistles for its Tradition. They accepted them and canonized them because they comported with the truth already held.

I understand Luke was a close assistant to Paul, which begs the question, why would he contradict everything that Paul wrote in his 24th chapter? (or did he?)

No, he did not. It is only your biased interpretation that contradicts because you do not understand. Do you really think that all the bishops involved in canonizing the New Testament just missed that fact that they included contradicting texts as the word of God? Do you think that you are more qualified than they to make this determination?

I am not familiar with how the Gospel of Luke is dated. I am aware of Papyrus 75 being the earliest known manuscript of Luke 24, and that is dated between 175-225 BCE. Maybe you can fill me in as to how we know when Luke’s Gospel was written and also if the entirety of it is attributed to Luke or if some parts (like the final parts of Mark 16) things were added? I would appreciate some links to educate me please

The dates given for Luke’s Gospel are between 59 - 100 AD.

I am not about to get into the nuances of the Gospel of Luke because it makes no difference to this conversation. He is attributed to the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles.

Steve

 

[Servant19]

The point, Servant, is that you were questioning the validity of Luke’s Gospel by asking:

My point is that the Church declared Luke’s writings as the word of God. The decision was not based upon some human measure of credibility which is definitely implied in your statement, but rather on the guidance of the Holy Spirit, just as were Peter’s writings even though he denied the Lord three times. I am certainly not questioning that Peter had the protection of the Holy Spirit. I am only pointing out that this is the case regardless of how fit one may seem in human terms, therefore your statement is baseless as to “we must use reason at some point”.

You have little to no understanding of what is meant by Sacred Tradition. The deposit of faith was whole and entire before anything was put to writing. The Church did not depend upon Paul’s epistles for its Tradition. They accepted them and canonized them because they comported with the truth already held.

No, he did not. It is only your biased interpretation that contradicts because you do not understand. Do you really think that all the bishops involved in canonizing the New Testament just missed that fact that they included contradicting texts as the word of God? Do you think that you are more qualified than they to make this determination?

The dates given for Luke’s Gospel are between 59 - 100 AD.

I am not about to get into the nuances of the Gospel of Luke because it makes no difference to this conversation. He is attributed to the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles.

Steve

Hi Steve, I am not questioning the Gospel of Luke. I am questioning the “interpretation” of the Gospel of Luke.

Symbolism is rife in the Bible. If Sacred Tradition dictates that there was a “physical” resurrection of Jesus, and it is the CORNERSTONE of Christian theology and Christian life, surely, this Sacred Tradition would have been recorded in the Writings of the chief Apostles of Jesus, Peter and Paul.

So the question is, why would the Church conclude that Sacred Tradition is correct when it is clearly not written, or ratified by the chief Authorities of Peter and Paul? In fact, Paul and Peter clearly say the opposite to Sacred Tradition in this case.

I am yet to hear a viable reasoning as to why Jesus in His flesh and blood (which is what He had according to Luke’s account) is in the Kingdom of heaven when Paul clearly states:

“Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot possess the kingdom of God”

God bless you dear brother



.

 

[Servant19]

No, he did not. It is only your biased interpretation that contradicts because you do not understand. Do you really think that all the bishops involved in canonizing the New Testament just missed that fact that they included contradicting texts as the word of God? Do you think that you are more qualified than they to make this determination?

Steve

I cannot speak for the bishops who canonized the NT, but what I do know is that the Letters of Paul were all critical to the development of Christian communities and the growth of the Church. The Christian Church could not afford to omit his Letters from the NT. That is my humble perspective.



.

 

[SteveVH]

I cannot speak for the bishops who canonized the NT, but what I do know is that the Letters of Paul were all critical to the development of Christian communities and the growth of the Church. The Christian Church could not afford to omit his Letters from the NT. That is my humble perspective.

Paul’s letters were mainly to correct the actions of communities who had already received the Christian faith. He berates them for not holding to the truth already given to them. Yes, Paul’s letters were important, otherwise they would not have been included in the canon, but to say that they were critical to the development of Christian communities, as if they were dependent upon the written word, is going too far. They received the Gospel orally and the only reason Paul wrote his letters was because he could not be with them physically and had heard of the abuses taking place. One cannot abuse what one has not already received.

 

[SteveVH]

Hi Steve, I am not questioning the Gospel of Luke. I am questioning the “interpretation” of the Gospel of Luke.

I cannot imagine taking a writing of Baha’u’llah and telling you that I can interpret the document better than the leaders of the Baha’i faith. What qualifies you to make a better interpretation of the Christian Scriptures than those of the Church that produced them?

Symbolism is rife in the Bible.

Yes, there is certainly symbolism in the Bible. There is also true history and very literal statements. It is not an either/or situation here

If Sacred Tradition dictates that there was a “physical” resurrection of Jesus, and it is the CORNERSTONE of Christian theology and Christian life, surely, this Sacred Tradition would have been recorded in the Writings of the chief Apostles of Jesus, Peter and Paul.

We have the words of Christ himself, unless you believe that this portion of Sacred Scripture is a lie. That is the point I have been making all along. Either the words of Christ are a lie and the Church has been taken for a ride, or the Church is deceiving the world by putting words in Christ’s mouth that were never uttered, that is if we are to take your position. So which is it?

So the question is, why would the Church conclude that Sacred Tradition is correct when it is clearly not written, or ratified by the chief Authorities of Peter and Paul? In fact, Paul and Peter clearly say the opposite to Sacred Tradition in this case.

Nonsense. Peter and Paul have not come close to stating the opposite. Again, you read what you want to believe and completely discount the teaching of the Church on this matter.

How can you say that Sacred Tradition was not “ratified” by Peter and Paul? You are making the false assumption that the Bible is a complete compendium of the Christian faith and that if something is not specifically stated then it cannot be part of the Christian faith. Even so, we certainly have the words of Paul recorded in Scripture which refute your statement:

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.” (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

I am yet to hear a viable reasoning as to why Jesus in His flesh and blood (which is what He had according to Luke’s account) is in the Kingdom of heaven when Paul clearly states:

“Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot possess the kingdom of God”

I am not getting on this merry-go-round again, Servant. How man times has Jesus “glorified body” been explained to you? Either you have a very poor memory or you simply disregard what has been said repeatedly. Because it does not comport with what you wish to believe does not make it any less true.

Steve

 

[Servant19]

I cannot imagine taking a writing of Baha’u’llah and telling you that I can interpret the document better than the leaders of the Baha’i faith. What qualifies you to make a better interpretation of the Christian Scriptures than those of the Church that produced them?

Yes, there is certainly symbolism in the Bible. There is also true history and very literal statements. It is not an either/or situation here

We have the words of Christ himself, unless you believe that this portion of Sacred Scripture is a lie. That is the point I have been making all along. Either the words of Christ are a lie and the Church has been taken for a ride, or the Church is deceiving the world by putting words in Christ’s mouth that were never uttered, that is if we are to take your position. So which is it?

Nonsense. Peter and Paul have not come close to stating the opposite. Again, you read what you want to believe and completely discount the teaching of the Church on this matter.

How can you say that Sacred Tradition was not “ratified” by Peter and Paul? You are making the false assumption that the Bible is a complete compendium of the Christian faith and that if something is not specifically stated then it cannot be part of the Christian faith. Even so, we certainly have the words of Paul recorded in Scripture which refute your statement:

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us." (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

I am not getting on this merry-go-round again, Servant. How man times has Jesus “glorified body” been explained to you? Either you have a very poor memory or you simply disregard what has been said repeatedly. Because it does not comport with what you wish to believe does not make it any less true.

Steve

Hello there Steve

Do you consider word of mouth an accurate method to maintain the precise nature of Truth over the centuries?

Also, what is the explanation of St.Paul’s assertion that he had a resurrected body living in the new earth with Jesus as the Adam of the new earth?



.