“Did Jesus proclaim that he was raised from the dead?”

I started the above topic/thread for discussion on one of my favourite discussion forum:

Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Christianity and Apologetics

I think that the following was the best post in the topic. One may like to join the forum for more discussion, please.

Thanks to the forum and Mr.JerryMyers , please.

JerryMyers 

Post 56: Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:22 am

Like this post (1): paarsurrey1

tam wrote: And my point was that these ones were also put to death, as Christ was also put to death. Even in the parable of the wicked tenants foretells that the “tenants’ wanted to and would kill Him: JerryMyers  Yes, there are prophets who were put to death BUT that does not mean Jesus too must be put to death. Just as there are many soldiers who had died fighting for their country BUT that does not mean ALL soldiers must die for their country. The soldiers are fully aware of the risks and consequences of being a soldier just as Jesus was fully aware of the sufferings he will have to endure of being a prophet of God. As for the parable of the wicked tenants, well, it’s just one of the many parables told, meant to be taken as a lesson and NOT to be taken literally or as a prophecy. tam wrote: I am not a ‘unitarian’ Christian. I am a Christian. I belong to Christ. I do not belong to anyone or anything other than Christ; I do not follow anyone or anything other than Christ. So I do not take any other name, such as “unitarian, roman catholic, mormon, jehovahs witness, baptist, anglican, adventist, pentecostal, etc, etc.” JerryMyers  OK, I can respect that. tam wrote: No. Because no one who accepts Christ having been crucified and raised from the dead has to try and explain away His words. No one has to try and say that Christ did not mean what He said. No one has to try and suggest that He did not know what was going to happen to Him. The entire NT testifies to His death (on the cross), His having died (on the cross) and then Him being raised from the dead. He states clearly that He will be killed and raised from the dead. JerryMyers  The entire NT are narrations of events, what Jesus said and what other people said. I just chose to give priority to what Jesus said over what others said. tam wrote: The only people who have to explain His words away are those who believe a doctrine that contradicts what Christ said and did. JerryMyers  Well, I did explain Jesus’ words but it’s not what you want to hear so, you dismissed them. That’s OK. tam wrote: The point, Jerry, is that Christ used the term “the LAST day” to describe that day. He did not use the term “the third day” to describe that day. JerryMyers  Well, to your point – Jesus NEVER use the term ‘Christian’ to describe his followers and yet today, Christians say they are called ‘Christians’ because they follow Jesus ! tam wrote: First… you said that there was no verse in the Bible that states unequivocally that Christ was raised from the dead. This verse was given in response to your claim. JerryMyers  …And I will say it again – there’s not a single verse in the Bible that states unequivocally that Jesus was raised from the dead… and you claimed these verses John 2:20-22 state otherwise ?? Really ?? Well, lets see what transpired for Jesus to say what he said : As Jesus entered the temple courts, he became angry when he saw people exchanging money, selling cattle, sheep and doves in the temple courts. He then made a whip and cleared the temple courts, shouting “Stop making my Father’s House into a market place!”.. The people are, understandably, annoyed by his actions, so they asked him “What sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?” It was only then that Jesus said “Destroy the temple and I will raise it up in 3 days”. Now, lets ask ourselves honestly – does that sounds like Jesus was talking about his body ? No, what Jesus just said is an example of a hyperbole statement – an intentional exaggerated statement to emphasize a point – in response to the people who had just questioned him on whose authority gave him the rights to clear the temple courts. By saying ‘Destroy the temple and I will raise it up in 3 days’ Jesus was emphasizing that his authority came from God whose authority is so great that even if they destroy the temple, he can raise it up again in 3 days. Jesus, of course, was making a hyperbole statement to emphasize his authority. The people, of course, did not understand this and took it literally. tam wrote: Second… the false witnesses from Mark and Matthew testified falsely that Christ said HE would destroy the (physical) temple. But He never made that threat or spoke those words, as we can see from His words recorded in the book of John. He said to THEM (the pharisees and chief priests), “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it up in three days.” He never threatened to destroy their temple. He said what He would do (raise the temple up in 3 days) if they destroyed ‘this temple’. JerryMyers  Yes, but as I just explained above, that statement is a hyperbole statement. You need to understand the environment and the situation Jesus was in for him to say what he said and that was NOT the only time Jesus used hyperbole statements. Just to quote a couple of them : – “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” – Mark 10:25 – a hyperbole statement to emphasize that it’s not easy and not every one can enter the kingdom of God and NOT as if a camel can go thru the eye of a needle. – “But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing” – Matthew 6:3 – a hyperbole statement to emphasize that when you give alms or charities, do it secretively and not as a show-off and NOT as if the left hand and the right hand have brains of their own to know what each other do. tam wrote: And no, the verse does not contradict itself. You are confusing the ‘agony of death’ with ‘agony of DYING’. Christ still died, but death could not hold (keep) Him. You can see from the verse that Peter believed and stated that Christ had been put to death on the cross, that God raised Him from the dead. This came AFTER Christ had appeared to His disciples. So even after that time, His apostles understood that He had been crucified and raised from the dead. JerryMyers  The point is – IF Jesus died, then, he would have gone thru the full agony of, as you said, dying before meeting his death. When he ‘died’, then there’s no more agony, no more sufferings for him, at least, not on this earth. The next stage of your life after-death would be the Day of Resurrection/Last Day where all the dead will be resurrected for Judgment Day. So, what is the difference between ‘agony of death’ and the ‘agony of dying’?? If you have experience in giving birth, is there a difference between ‘agony of labour’ and ‘agony of labouring’ ? So, I will say it again – The only way God released Jesus from the agony of death is to have Jesus SAVED from the crucifixion itself AND THAT’S what God did. tam wrote: For what purpose? JerryMyers  No one can tell you that for sure as only God will know that just as no one, not even Jesus, can know the Hour but only God will know that. tam wrote: He did save Him. Raising Him from the dead. JerryMyers  ‘Raising him from the dead’ can be a metaphorical statement meaning Jesus was saved from what is a sure certain death, that is, from the crucifixion which was for sure would be a certain death for him. Its not uncommon to hear people said that they came back from the dead after going thru or saved from certain death ordeals. tam wrote: Sure. After the parable of the sower in Matthew 13, His disciple asked Him why He spoke to the people in parables. His answer to them is in verses 11-15, beginning with, “…the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them…”. Then He explains to them the meaning of the parable in verse 18, “Listen then to what the parable of the sower means…” After this He speaks in more parables, and His disciples come and ask Him what he meant by the parable of the weeds in the field, and He explained it to them. (verses 36- 43) Second witness in Luke 8:9-15 JerryMyers  Thanks for the examples. What was clear here was that his disciples have no clues as to what he was talking and they HAD TO ASK him for the explanations – its not that for his disciples he would just explain to them WITHOUT having to be asked, which is the impression I got from you when you said for his disciples he would explain to them. I am sure that if other people, who are not his disciples, asked him for explanations, he would explain to them too. tam wrote: I am confused because you still have not answered my question. Are you saying that He never died at all? Ever? JerryMyers  I thought that was very clear and obvious. Yes, I am saying Jesus never die from the time he was born to the time he ascended to God. Why do you think I asked you “Did Jesus say he died and rose from the dead AFTER the supposedly crucifixion ??” ? tam wrote: As [Jesus] was going up to Jerusalem, He took the twelve disciples aside and said, “Look, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and scribes. They will condemn Him to death and will deliver Him to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. And on the third day He will be raised to life.” Matthew 20:17-19 JerryMyers  Of course, Jesus himself would not know for sure he will be saved so, under his circumstances, he can and did expect himself to be betrayed, tried unfairly and sentenced to death. tam wrote: He predicted it. Then it happened. Exactly as He had predicted. JerryMyers  On the contrary – he expected it, that is, he WILL be betrayed, falsely charged for blasphemy and sentenced to death. Then it happened, that is, he WAS betrayed, WAS falsely charged for blasphemy and WAS sentenced to death. Exactly as he expected. tam wrote: No, I am asking how was it made to appear so unto them and for what purpose. What exactly happened that it appeared to them that some other man was Christ? JerryMyers  ‘No’ would mean you would agree that it’s NOT impossible for God to make it ‘to appear so unto them’ and you are just asking how it was done and for what purpose – would that be a fair assessment of your statement above ?? JerryMyers  tam wrote: I clipped the rest of your response because it does not answer my question. Why did none of them mention the idea that He did not die and was not crucified, if that is what Christ told them afterward? JerryMyers  After the crucifixion and the supposedly resurrection, the Bible did not record Jesus explicitly saying he died and was resurrected nor did it record Jesus explicitly saying he did not die. So, we are left with what Jesus did say and the reactions of the people who saw him alive after the supposedly resurrection. Based on what we have in the Bible, that after the supposedly resurrection, his words and the reactions of those who saw him, tells us Jesus was not killed nor was he crucified. tam wrote: It is not up to us. JerryMyers  Correct. Then, why are you questioning God for what purpose He would make it appear so unto them in the case of Jesus’ crucifixion ?? tam wrote: this from happening, and TWICE Christ rebuked Him. From that time on Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and that He must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. “Far be it from You, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to You!” But Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me. For you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.” Matthew 16:21 – 23 JerryMyers  Peter was just reacting as any concerned man would do. Would you allow your father or loved one go to a place that you know will bring harm and will pose a grave danger to him ? tam wrote: “I told you that I am He,” Jesus replied. “So if you are looking for Me, let these men go.” This was to fulfill the word He had spoken: “I have not lost one of those You have given Me.” Then Simon Peter drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus. “Put your sword back in its sheath! Jesus said to Peter. “Shall I not drink” the cup the Father has given Me? Notice also His first words, “if you are looking for me, let these men go”. These are not the words of a man who would allow someone else to suffer and die in his place, being mistaken for Him. JerryMyers  You need to understand the circumstances and the environment Jesus was in. Here, Jesus knew the Jews were only interested to arrest him, NOT any of his disciples. So, instead of having all his disciples arrested or harmed, Jesus did the right thing and asked the soldiers who came to arrest him to leave the others alone since they came ONLY to arrest him, NOT his disciples. Again, Jesus did the right thing when Simon Peter drew his sword, he asked him to put back his sword in its sheath. WHY ? Because it was only ONE man who drew out his sword to fight NOT everyone and it would not be possible for one man to overcome the soldiers. Would Jesus do the same thing if all his followers had drawn their swords to defend him from being arrested ? The answer is NO, he would allow his followers to fight for him. So, your statement that Jesus will not allow anyone to suffer and die (as a possible outcome of fighting to defend him) is FALSE and BASELESS. tam wrote: How and for what purpose? And if that were true, why did none of His apostles state so (or believe it) after Christ supposedly came and told them He had not been crucified? JerryMyers  As I said it was only made to appear so unto them and as you said, its not up to us to know. I can only speculate as to for what purpose BUT its only God who will know His true purpose just as many people can speculate when will be the Hour BUT its only God who know the actual Hour. tam wrote: Actually, your reasoning lends even more credence to the fact that Christ was crucified. Because He would have proved that He would not give up on God, even during torture and suffering and death, even though He asked for the cup to be removed from Him (only if possible, though. He never wanted His will to usurp His Father’s will). JerryMyers  Not really. You are assuming that Jesus’ prayers for God to save him are not answered BUT you are wrong as even the scriptures said his prayers to save him from his ordeal will be answered by God. tam wrote: There is no contradiction. He was not dead when He appeared to His apostles. He had been raised from the dead. Raised to life. So He was alive when He appeared to His apostles and He was alive when He ascended into heaven. JerryMyers  Again, if he was not dead when he appeared to his apostles, that’s because he was never crucified. ‘Raised from the dead’ can be a metaphorical statement meaning he was saved from a sure and certain death. tam wrote: Are you not the son of your father? The son of a man? Would you then turn around and describe yourself as “a man, the son?” JerryMyers  Of course, I am the son of my father (a man), however, it would also not be wrong for me to say I am a man, the son, now would it ? Although that would be repetitive for a normal person as its understood that a son must be a man. tam wrote: I do not know why people say God the Son, except perhaps to indicate that God is a trinity (God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit). But Christ is the Son of His Father (God); like you are the son of your father (a man). JerryMyers  Well, on this matter, you just cannot equate Jesus to any normal man as Jesus do not have a biological father. So, when you said Jesus is the son of God, the correct understanding from the Bible is that he is the servant of God. It does not matter whether you capitalised the letter ‘s’ for ‘Son of God’ or not as the original manuscripts from which all the English Bibles you have today are translated from, are in a semitic language (Hebrew, Latin Greek, Aramaic) which do not make any distinction between capital letters and small letters. The impression I get from you is that Jesus was born out of God which would mean he is also God as say, the offspring of a leopard has to be a leopard too. However, you said Jesus is not God, which is rather confusing. Peace to you too, Tammy.

Advertisements

“Jesus in Japan”

Tomb of Jesus in Japan:

On the flat top of a steep hill in a distant corner of northern Japan lies the tomb of an itinerant shepherd who, two millennia ago, settled down there to grow garlic. He fell in love with a farmer’s daughter named Miyuko, fathered three kids and died at the ripe old age of 106. In the mountain hamlet of Shingo, he’s remembered by the name Daitenku Taro Jurai. The rest of the world knows him as Jesus Christ.
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-little-known-legend-of-jesus-in-japan-165354242/#DtWkHpDUlp534RrL.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

Mary was not the wife of God, so Jesus was never a “Son of God”

I joined the discussion at < https://redd.it/6p50zg&gt; topic Fundamental Flaw in Islam.

Just to share it with the viewers of this blog, please.

 TselKage wrote:

The Quran states that Jesus was a prophet of Allah and nothing more; however if we assume this to be true, why would he lie of being the son of God? It seems to me that Islam has given a position to Jesus that is evidently paradoxical. I find this to be the biggest flaw in Islam, and I can’t see any sensible justification for this contradiction.

EDIT:: My address has been resolved in the comments below by numerous people.

[–]paarsurrey 2 points 1 day ago

Jesus was a Jew and he believed in Torah. He claimed to be Son of God in the sense it was usually used in the Torah or the OT, which only meant being loved by God or a chosen one of God. It is wrong to take it in physical terms, please. It is out of context that the Christians take it in physical terms or literal terms. Please Regards

[–]paarsurrey 1 point 23 hours ago

This point is further elaborated by me. Jesus told to the mischievous Jews of his days that they were “sons of the devil”: John 8:39-43 39 “Abraham is our father,” they answered.

“If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would[c] do what Abraham did. 40 As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. 41 You are doing the works of your own father.”

“We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”

42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47 Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8

Regards

 

 

[–]TselKage[S] 0 points 22 hours ago

I have provided many proofs below on how Jesus equates himself to Godhood, I recommend you look into these points and warn you of the potential hypocrisy of a frivolous reversal of when Jesus was literal and when he was metaphorical. I only say this because I wish to avoid a debate where anyone would simply say he is being metaphorical when he states himself as the Son, and literal in any other occasion when it does not suit one’s belief. I concede the Bible is not without metaphors and the like, however, it would be dangerous to assume everything possible as such when interpreting the Bible; such a behavior would simply belittle the message of the word of God. Once again I urge you to look into my many examples of Jesus’ Godhood below.

 

[–]paarsurrey 1 point 11 minutes ago

Did Jesus ever mention that Mary was a wife unto God to take the literal and physical sense? If not, and Mary never mentioned it ever, then it is not to be taken in a literal and physical sense. Jesus was a son of God in the poetic sense and usage as per the OT. Right? Please.

Regards

O OOOOO

One may join the discussion on reddit/r/DebateReligion or here in this blog, please

“Arguments for the singularity of a deity”

Just to share the debate I have joined in “https://redd.it/6p8kyx&#8221; on the  topic “Arguments for the singularity of a deity”.

 Doombringer1000Norse Heathen

Hello all. I have realized lately that I have never seen an argument for the singularity of a deity. By this I mean that all arguments I have seen for the existence of any god works equally as well for the existence of many. Of course, you can’t make the leap from “there is a god/gods”, to “this/these god/gods are the only true god/gods because my holy book/elders/religious tradition says so”. I’m looking for logical arguments for either a singular god or a singular pantheon, as I can’t find any.

Of course, as a Norse Heathen, I am a polytheist myself, but I welcome any thought provoking answers to this question. So, if you think I missed some arguments let me know! after 4 UCT I will be at work, so it might take me awhile to respond; however, I will attempt to get back to every top level comment I receive.

Thank you in advance, and best wishes.

 

We see that the Universe works in a system, this is possible only if there is only one God, if there would be many gods then there would be no system and hence no sciences. Right? Please. Regards

[–]paarsurrey -1 points 2 hours ago 

 

Can you please explain your train of thought? As it is, your statement is incoherent.

[–]SadoBlasphemismanti-theist 

 

I don’t think my point is incoherent. Sciences are based on the system in the things or properties of them. If there won’t be any fixed properties or systems in the things there would be no sciences. This requires that some being has endowed these properties to the things in the universe. Right? Please Regards

[–]paarsurrey1 point8 minutes ago

If there won’t be any fixed properties or systems in the things there would be no sciences.

Correct. At least in the sense I think you mean, which is we must have unchanging physical laws in order for scientific predictions to be accurate.

This requires that some being has endowed these properties to the things in the universe.

The only rational answer to this is “I don’t know”, but let’s try and see if there’s anything that is favored, logically.

No one has ever observed “the universe” from the outside. We can make no claims to its nature. It doesn’t seem to follow that a god is necessary because if we introduce magic, then science is irrelevant and we’re all wasting our time.

So actually, the negation of your argument seems to support your conclusion. Not the argument you actually made.

[–]SadoBlasphemismanti-theist | ex-christian

 

I don’t agree with you, please. Only One-True-God is outside of the Universe in the sense that He has created it when it never existed and He has claimed it and there is no other claimant. If there is some other claimant, please mention it. Regards

[–]paarsurrey

 

That’s fine. Until you make a supporting argument, I genuinely do not care.

[–]SadoBlasphemismanti-theist | ex-christian

 

[–]paarsurrey

The supporting evidence is the claim of One-True-God that He has created everything in the universe and assigned properties to the things: [6:2] All praise belongs to Allah Who created the heavens and the earth and brought into being every kind of darkness and light; yet those who disbelieve set up equals to their Lordhttps://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=6&verse=0 There is no compulsion for one to believe the above but unless one brings another claimant of having created the universe my arguments will remain valid. Right? Please. Thanks and regards.

OOOOOOOO

 

On may like to participate in the discussion at reddit  “https://redd.it/6p8kyx&#8221; on the  topic “Arguments for the singularity of a deity”””

“Wikipedia and Beyond”

About Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, useful information:

Jimmy Wales’ sprawling vision

Katherine Mangu-Ward from the June 2007 issue – view article in the Digital Edition

“Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, lives in a house fit for a grandmother. The progenitor and public face of one of the 10 most popular websites in the world beds down in a one-story bungalow on a cul-de-sac near St. Petersburg, Florida. The neighborhood, with its scrubby vegetation and plastic lawn furniture, screams “Bingo Night.” Inside the house, the décor is minimal, and the stucco and cool tile floors make the place echo. A few potted plants bravely attempt domesticity. Out front sits a cherry red Hyundai.”

One may like to read more @

http://reason.com/archives/2007/05/30/wikipedia-and-beyond

“Did Baha’ullah read and understand Quran correctly?”

 Blog Post # 2069

I started a thread at my favourite discussion forum  https://www.religiousforums.com/ . One could participate in the discussion by clicking post #3   or just view the discussion at the forum.

A Bahai wrote/said: ↑

Baha’u’llah well before he declared His station as a Manifestation of God, as a child of tender years, would amaze his audience with His explanations of the Koran.

He was much admired for His innate knowledge of the Message in the Koran and the ability to quote from it and any tradition in the course of a discussion.

The Bab also able to do this.

The question then is, who but the Bab and Baha’u’llah have Understood the Koran?

Regards To all Tony

#3 paarsurrey  wrote:

Unless one quotes a verse or verses of Quran which Baha’u’llah read and understood correctly from the context verses of Quran which others could not understand, this will be just a claim or a story. Please quote some examples.
Regards

In response to my above post the Bahai wrote the following post:

The Bahai wrote/said in Post #4 :

Both the Bab and Baha’u’llahs writings contain many many quotes from the Koran given in context and each are a book in its own right, so where could you start? It can not be posted here as it is far to much information.

Here is One passage of the Koran Baha’u’llah has explained

Qur’an 91, The Surah of the Sun
By the sun and its noonday brightness!
By the moon when it followeth it!
By the day when it revealeth its glory!
By the night when it enshroudeth it!
By the heaven and that which built it!
By the earth and that which spread it forth!
By a soul and Him who fashioned it!
And informed it of its wickedness and its piety;
Blessed now is he who hath kept it pure,
and undone is he who hath corrupted it!
Thamud in their insolence rejected their prophet,
When the greatest wretch among them rushed up:
Said the Apostle of God to them, “The Camel of God! Let her drink.”
But they treated him as an impostor and hamstrung her.
So their Lord destroyed them for their crime, and visited all alike:
Nor feared He the issue thereof.

Here is the explanation given by Baha’u’llah (Provisional Translation to English) – Commentary on the Surah of the Sun

A quote from it

“…Know that the sun mentioned in this blessed surah hath divers meanings. At the level of primacy and unity, and in the city of pre-existent divinity, it is one of God’s mysteries, one of his sanctuaries, stored away in His treasure hold, concealed in His knowledge, and sealed by God’s own seal. No one is informed thereof save the One, the Unique, the Omniscient. For in this station the sun signifieth the Primal Will and the illumination of divine oneness that by means of its Self sheddeth its effulgence upon the horizons. Whoever approached it was illumined thereby just as, when the sun riseth, its rays encompass the world, all save those surfaces that remain veiled from it by some obstacle….”

Regards

OOOOOOOOOO

Paarsurrey says:

Baha’uallh did not explain the difficult portion of the Quran chapter. Why did God (Allah) swear (Qur’an 91, The Surah of the Sun)?

“By the sun and its noonday brightness!
By the moon when it followeth it!
By the day when it revealeth its glory!
By the night when it enshroudeth it!
By the heaven and that which built it!
By the earth and that which spread it forth!
By a soul and Him who fashioned it!”

Did Baha’ullah explain it?

He did not. If Baha’ullah did, then please quote from him.

This explanation is given by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad:

“The Philosophy of Allah’s Swearing by Various things Here one needs to be reminded that there is a deep philosophy in God’s calling the sun and the moon etc. to witness.

Some of our opponents, out of their lack of knowledge, criticise God for calling to witness created things. As their intelligence is earthly and not heavenly they fail to appreciate true insights. The purpose of taking an oath is that the one who takes an oath puts forward a testimony in support of his claim. A person who has no witness of his claim calls God to witness, for He knows what is hidden and He is the foremost witness in every controversy. Such a person puts forward the testimony of God by taking an oath in His name, meaning thereby that if  God does not thereafter chastise him, that would be proof that God has confirmed the truth of his claim.

It is, therefore, not permissible for a person to take the oath of any created thing, for no created thing possesses knowledge of the unseen, nor has it the power to punish one who takes a false oath. In these verses, God calling various phenomena to witness is not the same thing as a person taking an oath. Divine manifestations are of two types. One, those that are obvious and concerning which there is no controversy. Secondly, there are those Divine manifestations which are inferential concerning which people differ and can fall into error. By calling to witness the obvious phenomena, God Almighty’s purpose is to establish by their evidence His inferential manifestations.

It is obvious that the sun and the moon and the day and the night and the heaven and the earth, possess the respective characteristics that we have mentioned, but everyone is not aware of the characteristics possessed by the human soul. Thus, God has set forth His obvious manifestations as witnesses for the purpose of explaining His inferential manifestations. It is as if He says: If you are in doubt with regard to the qualities with which  the human soul is invested, then reflect upon the sun and the moon and the other phenomena cited which obviously possess these qualities.

You know that man is a microcosm that comprises a tiny representation of the pattern of the universe. As it is clear that the great bodies of the macrocosm possess these qualities and provide benefits for God’s creatures, then how can man, who ranks above all those bodies, be without those qualities? That is not so.

Indeed, like the sun, man possesses the light of knowledge and reason whereby he can illumine the world. Like the moon he receives the light of vision and revelation from the Divine and conveys it to others who have not yet arrived at the highest stage of human progress. Then how can you say that prophethood is a false notion and that all prophethoods and purported Divine laws and books are only the imposture and selfishness of certain human beings. You observe how all paths are lit up and the heights and depressions become distinct when the day dawns.

In the same way perfect man is the day of spiritual light, by his advent every path becomes clearly distinguishable. He points out the right path, for he himself is the bright day of truth and righteousness. Similarly, you observe how the night accommodates the weary and how the labourers, after working hard during the day, sleep in the gracious lap of the night and rest from their labours. The night also covers up all defects and imperfections.

In the same way, the perfect servants of God come to provide comfort for people and the recipients of revelation relieve all wise people of extreme effort. Through them great problems of insight are easily resolved. Also Divine revelation covers up the defects of human reason and, like the night, does not let its faults to become known, inasmuch as wise people correct their mistakes on their own in the light of revelation, and thus through the blessings of God’s holy revelation save themselves from being exposed.

That is the reason why no Muslim philosopher offered the sacrifice of a rooster to an idol as was done by Plato. Plato was misled as he was deprived of the light of revelation and despite being a great philosopher he perpetrated such a stupid and hateful act. The following of our lord and master the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, safeguarded the Muslim philosophers against such stupid and unholy practices. This shows how Divine revelation covers up, like the night, the deficiencies of the wise.

182-184 The Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam

https://www.alislam.org/library/books/Philosophy-of-Teachings-of-Islam.pdf

Any Bahai on the wordpress, please.

Regards

Multiple English translations of Quran

Blog Post # 2068

There are about 50+ English translations of Quran at the following website:

 Search IslamAwakened:

Just putting the chapter/verse in the Custom Search, one get all the translation at one page.
Amazing!

http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/54/50/default.htm

Thanks to Islam Awakened website.

Regards

 

“Did Baha’ullah read and understand Quran correctly?”

Blog Post # 2067

I started the above thread at my favourite discussion forum  (religiousforum.com). One could view/join the discussion by clicking Post #19 .

 

The Bahai said: ↑

al-Qamar 54:50
The word (Amr), means, ‘Cause of God’, or Command.

Post #19 paarsurrey wrote:

I don’t agree with one.
Even the link given by one does not translate it ”Cause of God”. So one’s point is not correct. Kindly understand the Quranic verse correctly, however, there is no compulsion whatsoever for one to make one’s understanding correct. Please
Regards

Note # 1

We get from the above fairly and reasonably that either Baha’ullah did not study Quran intently or he simply misunderstood Quran. Or he wanted to mislead his followers. We could certainly conclude from the above that Baha’ullah was never a god, he was not even a prophet/messenger of God. His son Abdul Baha was never a son of god.

OOOOOOOOO

Note # 2 :

One could view from the website quoted by the Bahai that “amrunā” has been translated as “Our Command” and not “Cause” as done by the Bahais or Bahaullah.

http://islamawakened.com/quran/54/50/w4wcv.html

Arabic وَمَا أَمْرُنَا إِلَّا وَاحِدَةٌ كَلَمْحٍ بِالْبَصَرِ English Transliteration Arabic Arabic Root Audio And not wamā وَمَا م ا (is) Our Command amrunā أَمْرُنَا ا م ر but illā إِلَّا ا ل ل ا one, wāḥidatun وَاحِدَةٌ و ح د like the twinkling kalamḥin كَلَمْحٍ ل م ح (of) the eye. bil-baṣari بِالْبَصَرِ ب ص ر

Note # 3:

The website http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/54/50/default.htm gives about forty English translation of the Quran verse 54:50 by Muslims and Non-Muslims, none of these has translated the expression “amrunā” as “Cause of God” as held by the Bahai/s.

Arabic Source and Roman Transliteration Arabic وَمَا أَمْرُنَا إِلَّا وَاحِدَةٌ كَلَمْحٍ بِالْبَصَرِ Transliteration Wama amruna illa wahidatun kalamhin bialbasari Literal (Word by Word) And not (is) Our Command but one, like the twinkling (of) the eye. Generally Accepted Translations of the Meaning Muhammad Asad and Our ordaining [a thing and its coming into being] is but one [act], like the twinkling of an eye. M. M. Pickthall And Our commandment is but one (commandment), as the twinkling of an eye. Yusuf Ali (Saudi Rev. 1985) And Our Command is but a single (Act),- like the twinkling of an eye. Yusuf Ali (Orig. 1938) And Our Command is but a single (Act),- like the twinkling of an eye. Shakir And Our command is but one, as the twinkling of an eye. Wahiduddin Khan We command but once: Our will is done in the twinkling of an eye; Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar and Our command is not but one as the twinkling of the eye. T.B.Irving Our command comes only once, in the twinkling of an eye! The Clear Quran, Dr. Mustafa Khattab Our command is but a single word, done in the blink of an eye. Safi Kaskas Our command is but one word, like a twinkling of an eye. [Al-Muntakhab] Thus, Our command to bring into being anything, spiritual animate or inanimate, or to bring into effect any proceedings is but a single act executed instantaneously, like the twinkle of an eye. [The Monotheist Group] (2011 Edition) And Our commands are done at once with the blink of an eye. Abdel Haleem when We ordain something it happens at once, in the blink of an eye; Abdul Majid Daryabadi And Our commandment shall be but one, as the twinkling of an eye. Ahmed Ali And Our command is but one (word) swift as the winking of an eye. Aisha Bewley Our command is only one word, like the blinking of an eye. Ali Ünal And Our commanding is not other than a single (command), like the twinkling of an eye. Ali Quli Qara’i and Our command is but a single [word], like the twinkling of an eye. Hamid S. Aziz And Our command is but one, as the twinkling of an eye. Muhammad Mahmoud Ghali And in no way is Our Command anything except one (Word), as the twinkling of the eye. (Literally: the power of beholding) Muhammad Sarwar It takes only a single command from Us (to bring the Day of Judgment) and that can be achieved within the twinkling of an eye. Muhammad Taqi Usmani And (implementation of) Our command is no more than a single act like the twinkling of an eye. Shabbir Ahmed And Our Command is but a single Word, like the twinkling of an eye. Syed Vickar Ahamed And Our Command is but a single (Act)— Like the twinkle of an eye. Umm Muhammad (Sahih International) And Our command is but one, like a glance of the eye. Farook Malik We command but once and Our will is done in the twinkling of an eye. Dr. Munir Munshey Our command (and its execution) is just one, (a single event). It comes about in a flash of an eye. Dr. Mohammad Tahir-ul-Qadri And Our command comes into action once and for all as the twinkling of an eye. Dr. Kamal Omar And Our Command is not but (just) a single (decree) like a twinkling of the eye. Talal A. Itani (new translation) And Our command is but once, like the twinkling of an eye. Bilal Muhammad (2013 Edition) And Our command is only a single act, like the blink of an eye. Maududi Our command consists of only one Word which is carried out in the twinkling of an eye. Ali Bakhtiari Nejad And Our command is only once, like a blink of an eye. [The Monotheist Group] (2013 Edition) And Our commands are done at once with the blink of an eye. Mohammad Shafi And Our Command is just one! Like the twinkling of an eye! Controversial, deprecated, or status undetermined works Bijan Moeinian It will take only a twinkle of an eye for My (God’s) command to be fulfilled. Faridul Haque And Our command is only a fleeting one – like the batting of an eyelid. Hasan Al-Fatih Qaribullah And Our Order is but one word like the flashing of an eye. Maulana Muhammad Ali Surely We have created everything according to a measure. Muhammad Ahmed – Samira And Our order/command (is) except one as/like a twinkling/quick glance with the eye sight. Sher Ali And Our command is carried out by only one Word as the twinkling of an eye. Rashad Khalifa Our commands are done within the blink of an eye. Ahmed Raza Khan (Barelvi) And Our work is only a matter as the twinkling of an eye. Amatul Rahman Omar Our command is (at once carried out by) only one (word) as quickly as the twinkling of an eye. Muhsin Khan & Muhammad al-Hilali And Our Commandment is but one, as the twinkling of an eye. Non-Muslim and/or Orientalist works Arthur John Arberry Our commandment is but one word, as the twinkling of an eye. Edward Henry Palmer and our bidding is but one (word), like the twinkling of an eye! George Sale And our command is no more than a single word, like the twinkling of an eye. John Medows Rodwell Our command was but one word, swift as the twinkling of an eye. N J Dawood (draft) We command but once: Our will is done in the twinkling of an eye. New and/or Partial Translations, and works in progress Mir Aneesuddin And Our command is but one, like the twinkling of an eye.

http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/54/50/default.htm

 

“Problems with the Baha’i faith”

I contributed in the above thread.

A Bahai wrote:

1.4
As to thy question concerning the heavenly Scriptures: The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and centre your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements. 

paarsurrey wrote: ↑

Thanks for providing the reference.
I agree with the argument given in the passage given above.
But it is from a tabernacle not from a Kitab/book written by Baha’u’llah.
My question is/was about the “Manifestations of God” which is a term used by Bahais, often. Baha’u’llah has not reflected on this in the passage.
Please quote from a Kitab/book written by Baha’u’llah on this or where he has claimed of himself being a prophet/messenger of God, and not a god per se, in unequivocal terms.
Regards

paarsurrey wrote: ↑

To add further.
The argument has already been given in Quran:

[14:25] Dost thou not see how Allah sets forth the similitude of a good word? It is like a good tree, whose root is firm and whose branches reach into heaven.

[14:26] It brings forth its fruit at all times by the command of its Lord. And Allah sets forth similitudes for men that they may reflect.

[14:27] And the case of an evil word is like that of an evil tree, which is uprooted from above the earth and has no stability.

[14:28] Allah strengthens the believers with the word that is firmly established, both in the present life and in the Hereafter; and Allah lets the wrongdoers go astray. And Allah does what He wills.

The Holy Quran Arabic text with Translation in English text and Search Engine – Al Islam Online

So, as per these verses of Quran, Quran is for every age to come and there could no Revelation come to replace Quran. And if one claims to have Revelation that is to replace Quran, that would be only an evil tree, nothing to do with Quran. Please
Regards

#149 paarsurrey

A Bahai said: ↑

“O servant of God! The Tree which We had planted with the Hand of Providence hath borne its destined fruit, and the glad-tidings We had imparted in the Book have appeared in full effect.”

Bahá’í Reference Library – The Tabernacle of Unity, Pages 71-77

Paarsurrey wrote:

Which book Bahaullah means here? Kindly give name of the book and the verse with the context verses. Please
Regards

#160 paarsurrey

Please click the post  #160 to access the thread at the Forum.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Note: No Bahai could give the name of a book specifically as requested.

Can we remove the dogma from science?

#1 paarsurrey

Please
Regards

OOOOO
https://www.quora.com/Has-science-become-too-dogmatic