Gospel Harmony

[ByAnyOtherName]

As I continue my exploration of the Bible (slowly but surely, I'm technically still in Exodus but I've been skipping ahead), I've been reading and comparing the four canonical Evangels, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

These four books appear to be something of an anomaly in my study, as they are four copies of the same story. I have a few questions about how they are treated within the general Christian communities.

A brief online search suggests that Mark is perhaps the oldest of the four, and that Matthew and Luke borrow or reference much of the story from Mark, these three making up the Synoptic Gospels. John is somewhat more distinct, although I haven't dived deeply enough to highlight those differences. I'm assuming that portions of these accounts originate in oral traditions protected and passed on from the Apostles before being recorded.

I also learned that Mark originally ended at 16:9, and that someone else wrote a few different endings in the 2nd and 3rd century, that ending likely being based on those oral traditions or another source lost to the sands of time (e.g. Q theory).

My question is, when considering the story of the life and teachings of Christ, are there specific Gospels you prefer? Are some portions of the story better told by one author, and other portions by a different author? When certain details are added or omitted, such as the manner in which Mary and the Apostles recognized Christ after His resurrection, is it preferred to combine the accounts, such as in a Biblical Harmony, or do you have a favorite?

I think I see these as four literary perspectives, as four story tellers telling it in their own way, and any contradictions appear to be minor, not influencing the greater message. I do believe that these authors were inspired by God in their writing, so no issue there. My question comes from a desire to navigate these four versions in a way that makes sense and feels cohesive.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts and insights!

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

As I continue my exploration of the Bible (slowly but surely, I'm technically still in Exodus but I've been skipping ahead), I've been reading and comparing the four canonical Evangels, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

These four books appear to be something of an anomaly in my study, as they are four copies of the same story. I have a few questions about how they are treated within the general Christian communities.

A brief online search suggests that Mark is perhaps the oldest of the four, and that Matthew and Luke borrow or reference much of the story from Mark, these three making up the Synoptic Gospels. John is somewhat more distinct, although I haven't dived deeply enough to highlight those differences. I'm assuming that portions of these accounts originate in oral traditions protected and passed on from the Apostles before being recorded.

I also learned that Mark originally ended at 16:9, and that someone else wrote a few different endings in the 2nd and 3rd century, that ending likely being based on those oral traditions or another source lost to the sands of time (e.g. Q theory).

My question is, when considering the story of the life and teachings of Christ, are there specific Gospels you prefer? Are some portions of the story better told by one author, and other portions by a different author? When certain details are added or omitted, such as the manner in which Mary and the Apostles recognized Christ after His resurrection, is it preferred to combine the accounts, such as in a Biblical Harmony, or do you have a favorite?

I think I see these as four literary perspectives, as four story tellers telling it in their own way, and any contradictions appear to be minor, not influencing the greater message. I do believe that these authors were inspired by God in their writing, so no issue there. My question comes from a desire to navigate these four versions in a way that makes sense and cohesive.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts and insights!

There are many different ways of looking at that. Not so much many interpretatations but moreso different ways that the Father explains the coming of the Son, king, servant, man and one more that isn't on mind at the moment. The Father came in many ways before that, but now His Word is the Son and it's Him that the bible says to listen to, not the law of Moses or the prophesies that pointed to Him. When reading law or prophesy one needs to see the Word of the Son amist the mankind of circumstances, realising that the heart is what is now circumcised to His heart of flesh union.

 

[d taylor]

-​

Well, The Gospel of John tells the reader it's reason for being written. but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

The Gospel of John list 8 miracles that The Messiah did to prove that He was who He said He was. The only begotten Son of God, the promised Messiah from the prophecies of The Tanakh.

 

[public hermit]

My question is, when considering the story of the life and teachings of Christ, are there specific Gospels you prefer

Personally, I like John. Besides its high Christology, it is layered with meaning.

 

[ByAnyOtherName]

Besides its high Christology, it is layered with meaning.

Could you give an example of a passage that you felt was particularly layered with meaning in John's style?

 

[public hermit]

Could you give an example of a passage that you felt was particularly layered with meaning in John's style?

Oh, there is so much. One of my favorite things to do is compare Jesus meeting with Nicodemus to Jesus meeting with the Samaritan woman at the well. Each of those accounts are rich in their own right, and I would suggest exploring them on their own merits. But when you compare them, the contrast is astounding.

Nicodemus is Jewish, a Pharisee, elite, presumably righteous, a man. He comes to Jesus at night, in the darkness, because he is afraid. He's a teacher of the law, but he can't seem to grasp what Jesus is saying. He leaves in the dark not knowing what's up.

The woman at the well is Samaritan, an outcast among her own people, a known sinner, and (again) a woman. She meets Jesus in the heat of the noonday sun, i.e. in the light. Women went to the well in the morning and evening; she's a sinner and goes on her own in the heat of the day. She gets what Jesus is saying, and at one point even says "I see you're a prophet." Unlike Nicodemus who comes and goes in the dark, she leaves in broad daylight, she leaves her jar at the well (i.e. Jesus has already given her the water from which she will never thirst again- which she asked for) and goes to town; the town folk follow her to Jesus.

The power, beauty, and grace of the gospel is captured in that contrast.

Edit: John 3:1-15; John 4:5-42

 

[com7fy8]

are there specific Gospels you prefer?

The love meaning is the same, in all four Gospels and the letters and Revelation and the earlier scriptures.

The spiritual reality is the same, coming through every writing.

What can be interesting is why a person believes what he or she claims. There can be motives, even. So, if someone tells you something about the Bible, this can tell you something about that person

 

[timf]

You may wish to be cautious about the comments made by so-called bible "scholars". Many assertions are made that are speculative and even false.

The Mark 16 issue is one of a difference between those who accept the critical Greek text and those that accept the majority Greek text. Almost all bible translations are based on the critical text which is a combination of the Sinaticus and Vaticanus texts. These are purported to be older and assumed therefore to be superior.

The bulk of the majority texts are later than the two components of the critical text, but as the majority text consists of thousands of texts and fragments, this should be expected as only some are older than the critical text.

I see the majority text as superior and the critical text as inferior, but not cataclysmically so.

One might think of the four gospels as newspaper accounts of the incidents of the life of Jesus. The main reason for writing these was to get the word out to those of Israel that the Messiah had come and that the nation needed to accept the offered kingdom.

That Israel failed to receive the kingdom will be rectified in the future when a faithful remnant of Israel will finally accept the kingdom and Jesus will reign on earth from Jerusalem for 1000 years.

Rom 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
Rom 11:12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?

 

[Andrewn]

As I continue my exploration of the Bible (slowly but surely, I'm technically still in Exodus but I've been skipping ahead), I've been reading and comparing the four canonical Evangels, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

It is best to skip the OT until you've finished reading the NT (except Revelation).

A brief online search suggests that Mark is perhaps the oldest of the four, and that Matthew and Luke borrow or reference much of the story from Mark, these three making up the Synoptic Gospels. John is somewhat more distinct, although I haven't dived deeply enough to highlight those differences. I'm assuming that portions of these accounts originate in oral traditions protected and passed on from the Apostles before being recorded.

You're right. I believe the Gospels were written in the following order: Mark --- Matthew --- Luke --- John. Each Gospel adds information to the ones that preceded it.

My question is, when considering the story of the life and teachings of Christ, are there specific Gospels you prefer? Are some portions of the story better told by one author, and other portions by a different author?

Mark is a brief review of Jesus' life and teaching. Matthew is topically arranged and contains the most important section of Jesus' teachings in the Sermon on the Mount in chapters 5-7. Luke is arranged historically and is probably the best Gospel to start with. John should be read last.

When certain details are added or omitted, such as the manner in which Mary and the Apostles recognized Christ after His resurrection, is it preferred to combine the accounts, such as in a Biblical Harmony, or do you have a favorite?

A biblical harmony is useful, but at a later stage. Reading Luke + the Sermon on the Mount will give you a very good overview.

I think I see these as four literary perspectives, as four story tellers telling it in their own way, and any contradictions appear to be minor, not influencing the greater message. I do believe that these authors were inspired by God in their writing, so no issue there.

I agree.

Now is my turn to ask questions :

1) Which Bible translation do you use?
2) My understanding is that Baha'i is a peaceful religion. Do they have much in common w/ Sufis?
3) What is Baha'is view of Jesus and Christianity?
4) In Baha'i, how are people saved from eternal death? Do they follow the 5 pillars of Islam?

 

[ByAnyOtherName]

Nicodemus is Jewish, a Pharisee, elite, presumably righteous, a man. He comes to Jesus at night, in the darkness, because he is afraid. He's a teacher of the law, but he can't seem to grasp what Jesus is saying. He leaves in the dark not knowing what's up.

The woman at the well is Samaritan, an outcast among her own people, a known sinner, and (again) a woman. She meets Jesus in the heat of the noonday sun, i.e. in the light. Women went to the well in the morning and evening; she's a sinner and goes on her own in the heat of the day. She gets what Jesus is saying, and at one point even says "I see you're a prophet." Unlike Nicodemus who comes and goes in the dark, she leaves in broad daylight, she leaves her jar at the well (i.e. Jesus has already given her the water from which she will never thirst again- which she asked for) and goes to town; the town folk follow her to Jesus.

The power, beauty, and grace of the gospel is captured in that contrast.

Edit: John 3:1-15; John 4:5-42

Thank you for the reference! I just read John 3:1-15, I've heard some of these passages quoted before, but never read it in its entirety. The Bible I use was owned by my Great Grandmother, and she marked in pencil verses 14 and 15, they must have been particularly special to her. "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life." John 3:14-15

Truly beautiful.

It's a story we see play out today, that the humble person comes unashamed to the truth, while the learned seek it in secret, maybe even afraid. It's an important lesson for us all to be humble, we should be more like the woman of Samaria than like Nicodemus.

 

[ByAnyOtherName]

You may wish to be cautious about the comments made by so-called bible "scholars". Many assertions are made that are speculative and even false.

Point taken and heeded! It's challenging to sift through everything and know what is true and what is false, I try to look at these commentaries critically but from a position of good faith.

The Mark 16 issue is one of a difference between those who accept the critical Greek text and those that accept the majority Greek text. Almost all bible translations are based on the critical text which is a combination of the Sinaticus and Vaticanus texts. These are purported to be older and assumed therefore to be superior.

This issue is what got me thinking about the four Gospels which lead to my original post in the first place. I'm reading the Scofield Reference Bible, which you may know is an annotated King James. Scofield notes of Mark 16:9-20, "The passage from verse 9 to the end is not found in the two most ancient manuscripts, the Sinaitic and Vatican, and others have it with partial omissions and variations. But it is quoted by Irenæus and Hippolytus in the second or third century." I'd never heard this before and found it interesting. I love learning history and was intrigued, leading me down a rabbit hole of "Q Theory," "Gospel Harmony," "Synoptic Gospels," etc. The claim is that this section appears to be literarily different from the rest of the book, suggesting a different author. Is this widely accepted within Christianity, refuted, or up in the air?

 

[ByAnyOtherName]

It is best to skip the OT until you've finished reading the NT (except Revelation).

Similar recommendations have been made to me on this forum, one, for example, that I at least take breaks from the OT to read the NT as it's an easier (iirc) read. Why do you think it's best to read the New Testament first? I'm enjoying Exodus, although I am definitely appreciating what I've been reading of Mark as well!

Mark is a brief review of Jesus' life and teaching. Matthew is topically arranged and contains the most important section of Jesus' teachings in the Sermon on the Mount in chapters 5-7. Luke is arranged historically and is probably the best Gospel to start with. John should be read last.

This is exactly what I was looking for when I posted, thank you! I'm taking a note for when I get more in-depth in the NT. Why do you recommend reading John last?

Now is my turn to ask questions :

1) Which Bible translation do you use?

A 1917 Scofield Reference Bible, King James Version. It belonged to my great grandmother who gave it to my grandfather's brother when he was little. It came to me when he passed, at my request. It's been very helpful, linking passages from the Old Testament to the New Testament, seeing similarities or references that the NT makes to the OT, or prophecies of the OT coming to pass in the NT.

Occasionally I'll look at a NIV if I'm struggling to understand the Old English, but there's a beauty to the KJV that I appreciate.

2) My understanding is that Baha'i is a peaceful religion. Do they have much in common w/ Sufis?

I've never known a Sufi, but the little I understand of it is that it is a branch of Islam that focuses on the mystical side of scripture. Bahá'u'lláh, the Founder of the Baha'i Faith, wrote some works in a Sufi style in response to letters recieved from Sufis, and they are quite beautiful; there's a strong focus on poetry and art in Sufism that I appreciate. I've read some of the poetry of Rumi and Hafez and see them as people who want to understand love and the relationships between souls, although they have more questions than answers. I appreciate their reflective nature. The Baha'i Faith has some similarities in that it appreciates the esoteric nature of the universe and has a maximalist take on Holy Scripture (e.g. that within any line of text there may be many hidden meanings), but it doesn't dwell in that world, as there have been authoritative interpreters of the Baha'i Writings that have left little room for argument on certain topics. The Baha'i Faith strives to be practical, and encourages following the Laws of God in a way that Sufism often dismisses (or so I've heard), such as the commandment to abstain from alcohol or drugs. All in all, I would say there is some commonality, but not a lot.

3) What is Baha'is view of Jesus and Christianity?

This is the authoritative view, quoted from the writings:
"As to the position of Christianity, let it be stated without any hesitation or equivocation that its divine origin is unconditionally acknowledged, that the Sonship and Divinity of Jesus Christ are fearlessly asserted, that the divine inspiration of the Gospel is fully recognized, that the reality of the mystery of the Immaculacy of the Virgin Mary is confessed, and the primacy of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, is upheld and defended. The Founder of the Christian Faith is designated by Bahá’u’lláh as the “Spirit of God,” is proclaimed as the One Who “appeared out of the breath of the Holy Ghost,” and is even extolled as the “Essence of the Spirit.” His mother is described as “that veiled and immortal, that most beauteous, countenance,” and the station of her Son eulogized as a “station which hath been exalted above the imaginings of all that dwell on earth,” whilst Peter is recognized as one whom God has caused “the mysteries of wisdom and of utterance to flow out of his mouth.” “Know thou,” Bahá’u’lláh has moreover testified, “that when the Son of Man yielded up His breath to God, the whole creation wept with a great weeping. By sacrificing Himself, however, a fresh capacity was infused into all created things. Its evidences, as witnessed in all the peoples of the earth, are now manifest before thee. The deepest wisdom which the sages have uttered, the profoundest learning which any mind hath unfolded, the arts which the ablest hands have produced, the influence exerted by the most potent of rulers, are but manifestations of the quickening power released by His transcendent, His all-pervasive and resplendent Spirit. We testify that when He came into the world, He shed the splendor of His glory upon all created things. Through Him the leper recovered from the leprosy of perversity and ignorance. Through Him the unchaste and wayward were healed. Through His power, born of Almighty God, the eyes of the blind were opened and the soul of the sinner sanctified.… He it is Who purified the world. Blessed is the man who, with a face beaming with light, hath turned towards Him.”"

4) In Baha'i, how are people saved from eternal death?

"QUESTION: It is said in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas: “…whoso is deprived thereof, hath gone astray, though he be the author of every righteous deed”. What is the meaning of this verse?"
"Answer: The meaning of this blessed verse is that the foundation of success and salvation is the recognition of God, and that good deeds, which are the fruit of faith, derive from this recognition.
"When this recognition is not attained, man remains veiled from God and, as he is veiled, his good works fail to achieve their full and desired effect. This verse does not mean that those who are veiled from God are all equal, whether they be doers of good or workers of iniquity. It means only that the foundation is the recognition of God and that good deeds derive from this knowledge. Nevertheless, it is certain that among those who are veiled from God there is a difference between the doer of good and the sinner and malefactor. For the veiled soul who is endowed with good character and conduct merits the forgiveness of God, while the veiled sinner possessed of bad character and conduct will be deprived of the bounties and bestowals of God. Herein lies the difference.
"This blessed verse means, therefore, that good deeds alone, without the recognition of God, cannot lead to eternal redemption, to everlasting success and salvation, and to admittance into the Kingdom of God." - 'Abdu'l-Bahá

Do they follow the 5 pillars of Islam?

The Baha'i Faith is distinct from Islam and therefore does not follow the Five Pillars.

 

[public hermit]

The Bible I use was owned by my Great Grandmother, and she marked in pencil verses 14 and 15, they must have been particularly special to her. "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life

That is beautiful. You get to see some of her heart. I love that. God is good.

 

[public hermit]

It's a story we see play out today, that the humble person comes unashamed to the truth, while the learned seek it in secret, maybe even afraid. It's an important lesson for us all to be humble, we should be more like the woman of Samaria than like Nicodemus

I agree. Interestingly, Nicodemus is there at the end, too. He comes around, but he took the long way, maybe.

 

[Andrewn]

Similar recommendations have been made to me on this forum, one, for example, that I at least take breaks from the OT to read the NT as it's an easier (iirc) read. Why do you think it's best to read the New Testament first? I'm enjoying Exodus,

Most people enjoy reading Genesis and Exodus until they get to Exodus 25. Then they get to all the laws and construction of the Tabernacle. They get frustrated and skip to the next book, Leviticus. They get more frustrated there and stop reading the Bible. The OT is full of gems, but they are dispersed throughout and are difficult to find, especially before reading the NT.

This is exactly what I was looking for when I posted, thank you! I'm taking a note for when I get more in-depth in the NT. Why do you recommend reading John last?

I recommend reading Luke first, then Matthew, then Mark, then John. It is reasonable to cover the basics first before getting into the depth of John. It looks like you started with Mark and will be reading John next. This is absolutely fine. I personally like Mark's long ending as it summarizes what happened after the resurrection. More important than which Gospel to read first is to pray to God for understanding before reading.

A 1917 Scofield Reference Bible, King James Version. It belonged to my great grandmother who gave it to my grandfather's brother when he was little. It came to me when he passed, at my request. It's been very helpful, linking passages from the Old Testament to the New Testament, seeing similarities or references that the NT makes to the OT, or prophecies of the OT coming to pass in the NT.

Occasionally I'll look at a NIV if I'm struggling to understand the Old English, but there's a beauty to the KJV that I appreciate.

This sounds like a good approach.

The Baha'i Faith has some similarities in that it appreciates the esoteric nature of the universe and has a maximalist take on Holy Scripture (e.g. that within any line of text there may be many hidden meanings), but it doesn't dwell in that world, as there have been authoritative interpreters of the Baha'i Writings that have left little room for argument on certain topics. The Baha'i Faith strives to be practical, and encourages following the Laws of God

Thx for the summary. When I have a chance, I'll be searching online for more info.

This is the authoritative view, quoted from the writings:

I read the description carefully and really liked it. There is deep understanding of Christ in these statements. You seem to believe in Christ's divinity and his atonement. If you have these beliefs, why don't you consider yourself a Christian? Are there Christian beliefs that you object to?

It is said in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas: “…whoso is deprived thereof, hath gone astray, though he be the author of every righteous deed”.

Beside the laws, what insight about God that the Kitáb-i-Aqdas add that is not in the Bible?

The Baha'i Faith is distinct from Islam and therefore does not follow the Five Pillars.

I remember reading that Baha'is are persecuted by Sunni Muslims in the Middle East and was wondering how much in common they had, whether they were considered Muslim heretics (like Sufis and Shiites and Ahmadis) or non-Muslims.

 

[ByAnyOtherName]

Most people enjoy reading Genesis and Exodus until they get to Exodus 25. Then they get to all the laws and construction of the Tabernacle. They get frustrated and skip to the next book, Leviticus. They get more frustrated there and stop reading the Bible. The OT is full of gems, but they are dispersed throughout and are difficult to find, especially before reading the NT.

I can see that, parts have been very slow going and I'm thinking I might skim through Leviticus, it is DENSE! I'm familiar with most of Daniel and some of Isaiah, which I plan to read from front to back, but as you can probably tell, I do plan (and have already begun) to read more of the NT based on some of the recommendations in this forum. I've read portions of John and Revelation in the past, at one point a couple of years ago I was trying to reference where Revelation references Daniel to make better sense of it.

I recommend reading Luke first, then Matthew, then Mark, then John. It is reasonable to cover the basics first before getting into the depth of John. It looks like you started with Mark and will be reading John next. This is absolutely fine. I personally like Mark's long ending as it summarizes what happened after the resurrection. More important than which Gospel to read first is to pray to God for understanding before reading.

I think once I'm done with Mark, I'll move on to Luke based on your recommendation. Save the best for last with John, eh? The portions of John I've skimmed through are familiar to me, I'm sure I've read passages from them many times that have helped to shape my beliefs and understanding, but I've never read the whole thing. I agree whole heartedly in prayer for understanding, God opens our eyes to the truth but we have to ask, otherwise the book will remain confusing. James 1:5, yeah?

I read the description carefully and really liked it. There is deep understanding of Christ in these statements. You seem to believe in Christ's divinity and his atonement. If you have these beliefs, why don't you consider yourself a Christian? Are there Christian beliefs that you object to?

I'm glad you liked it! I found it very moving and beautiful, and of course, absolutely true. In many ways I do consider myself a Christian, recognizing the Truth and Divinity of Jesus and the Gospel, but I have some beliefs and interpretations of Scripture that fall outside of accepted Christian Theology. As such, I am not called a Christian, although I have deep respect and love for Christians and Christianity.

I don't wish to derail this thread, as this is a forum for exploring Christianity, not the Baha'i Faith, but to be brief, key among the divergent interpretations from Christian Theology that I hold is that of Matthew 24:15, "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place." I believe that Daniel's prophecies, particularly Daniel 9:24-27, which predicted the ascension of Christ (70 weeks = 490 days or years from 457BC = 33, the age of Christ when He was crucified), also pointed to the year 1844 (457BC + 2300 days/years [Daniel 8:14] = 1844, as there was no year 0 AD). 1844 is the year The Báb (Forerunner to Bahá'u'lláh) declared, which marks the beginning of the Baha'i Faith. For me, this is confirming and in conformity with the direction of Christ in Matthew. Further, my experience within the Baha'i Faith has lead me to believe that Matthew 7:16-20 applies ("Ye shall know them by their fruits").

Another is the 11th chapter of Revelation, which refers to two witnesses. I hold to the interpretation that these are in reference to Muhammad and Ali (Ali being his successor): the fire from their mouth [Revelation 11:5] was the Law Muhammad brought; He had power of prophecy and miracles like Moses [Revelation 11:6]; when Muhammad passed, the Umayyads arose and claimed Islam as theirs, becoming the first Caliphate, then proceeding to go to war with Ali and killing the descendants of Muhammad out of fear that one of His descendants would be the promised Mahdi [Revelation 11:7] to take their power away, the 10 names of the Ummayyad rulers represented as the ten horns of the beast [Revelation 13:1]; their dead bodies [Revelation 11:9] representing the diving teachings disappearing, leaving the religion dead and soulless during that time; the people rejoicing [Revelation 11:10] are those people of Europe, Africa and Asia who had suffered at the hands of the Umayyad caliphate and its torment, seeing these 'Musilms' immorality and cruelty, knew that they were not from God; and that after three and a half days [Revelation 11:9 and Revelation 11:11] they would be revived with the spirit of life from God. 3.5 days is a reference to 1260 [Daniel 7:25, Daniel 12:7, Revelation 12:6, Revelation 12:14], as 3.5 days are 3.5 prophetic years as recorded by the Flood in Genesis [Genesis 7:11, Genesis 7:24, Genesis 8:3-4], 360 days for a year. 3.5 x 360 = 1260. 1260 of the Islamic Calendar corresponds to 1844 AD, again, the year of the Declaration of the Báb.

I think I failed to be brief!

Beside the laws, what insight about God that the Kitáb-i-Aqdas add that is not in the Bible?

That's a big question! I would start by saying that I believe the Kitáb-i-Aqdas and the Kitáb-i-Iqan affirm the insights about God recorded in the Bible. My belief is that the Prophets all proclaim the same Truth of God, but primarily differ in the Law, as when Jesus broke the sabbath to heal the sick. Matthew 5:17, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

I remember reading that Baha'is are persecuted by Sunni Muslims in the Middle East and was wondering how much in common they had, whether they were considered Muslim heretics (like Sufis and Shiites and Ahmadis) or non-Muslims.

Sadly Baha'is are persecuted by both Sunni and Shia. The Baha'i Faith began in Persia in 1844, present day Iran; the Shia government of Iran is responsible for ongoing human rights violations that the UN and the US Congress regularly condemn. Baha'is hold that the Báb is the spiritual return of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi, and that both He and Baha'u'llah are Prophets of the station of Muhammad appearing after Muhammad. Baha'is and Muslims differ over the interpretation of the phrase "the Seal of the Prophets" [Quran 33:40], although most Muslims do not engage in persecution of Baha'is, nor would they likely call the Faith heretical, but would probably call it non-Muslim. One of my best friends is a sincere Muslim and we have wonderful conversations on religion; his family sees me as a member of their family. I've been to Mosque and prayed with them, eaten with them, and talked with them in kindness.

However, to answer your question, these oppressive Islamic governments and groups label Baha'is as Muslim Heretics, as they do declare their belief in Muhammad and the Quran, as a pretext for persecution and deprivation of human rights. Baha'is consider themselves as members of an independent religion, similar to how Christians view themselves in comparison to Judaism. That said, most Muslims likely respect our position or have no strong opinion and do not label the Baha'i Faith as heretical, they just don't accept the claims. EDIT: One last note on the subject. Sunni, Shia, Sufi, and even Ahmadis, which I had to look up, having never heard of them before, all consider themselves branches or sects of Islam, whereas the Baha'i Faith makes no such claim; it considers itself an independent religion from Islam.

Again, my apologies for a such a long response. As you can hopefully see, Jesus and the Bible are very dear to me and my beliefs, and as such, I wish to understand The Bible better.

 

[Andrewn]

I think once I'm done with Mark, I'll move on to Luke based on your recommendation. Save the best for last with John, eh? The portions of John I've skimmed through are familiar to me, I'm sure I've read passages from them many times that have helped to shape my beliefs and understanding, but I've never read the whole thing. I agree whole heartedly in prayer for understanding, God opens our eyes to the truth but we have to ask, otherwise the book will remain confusing. James 1:5, yeah?

It sounds like you're familiar with the Bible. Excellent. Also, when you get to the epistles, I suggest reading Galatians before Romans. They address the same issues and Galatians is more straight-forward and easier to understand. BTW, I love the book of Daniel.

In many ways I do consider myself a Christian, recognizing the Truth and Divinity of Jesus and the Gospel, but I have some beliefs and interpretations of Scripture that fall outside of accepted Christian Theology.

Yesterday, I did some reading about Baha'i faith and came across statements like, "Throughout the ages, God has sent Divine Messengers known as Manifestations of God—among them Abraham, Krishna, Zoroaster, Moses, Buddha, Jesus Christ, Muhammad." Now it would be one thing if you consider those mentioned on the list Apostles (even though Christians do not typically believe they are) but a totally different thing if you consider them Divine and equal to Christ. Of course you know that Christ is the only begotten Son of God, the only Word of God. So, making others equal to Him is totally unacceptable. Also, He is the only redeemer of humankind, which is most important for Christians, and this was nicely expressed in the statement you quoted before.

I hold is that of Matthew 24:15, "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place." I believe that Daniel's prophecies, particularly Daniel 9:24-27, which predicted the ascension of Christ (70 weeks = 490 days or years from 457BC = 33, the age of Christ when He was crucified), also pointed to the year 1844 (457BC + 2300 days/years [Daniel 8:14] = 1844, as there was no year 0 AD). 1844 is the year The Báb (Forerunner to Bahá'u'lláh) declared, which marks the beginning of the Baha'i Faith.

Around 1844, 4 new religious movements were being formed: Mormonism, Adventism, Baha'i, and Ahmadiyya (more on this in a separate post). In the US, William Miller came up with the calculation you mentioned, declared that Christ would return in 1844, and gathered a large following. When Christ did not return in 1844, this event became known in history as the Great Disappointment. Meanwhile, Bahá'u'lláh announced that he was the returning Christ. But he had no proof. Obviously, the resurrection of the dead and end of the world did not take place at that time.

Great Disappointment - Wikipedia

Sunni, Shia, Sufi, and even Ahmadis, which I had to look up, having never heard of them before, all consider themselves branches or sects of Islam, whereas the Baha'i Faith makes no such claim; it considers itself an independent religion from Islam.

This makes sense.

 

[Andrewn]

Around 1844, 4 new religious movements were being formed: Mormonism, Adventism, Baha'i, and Ahmadiyya (more on this in a separate post).

Mormonism:

Founded by: Joseph Smith (1805-1844)
Following leader: Brigham Young (1801-1877)

Adventism:

Founded by: William Miller (1782-1849)
Following leader: Ellen G. White (1827-1915)

Baha'i:

Founded by: Baha'allah (1817-1892)
Following leader: Abdul-Baha' (1844-1921)

Ahmadiya:

Founded by: Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835-1908)
Following leader: Hakeem Noor-ud Din (1841-1914)

 

[ByAnyOtherName]

It sounds like you're familiar with the Bible.

I'm familiar with some portions of the Bible, but often I'm simply familiar with certain concepts, I search on google for the quote and reference it. If we were talking in person, I wouldn't be able to throw out verses as well as I do on the internet. I seek to become more familiar, but I see it as a lifelong quest. It is a beautiful Book of deep and complex meaning on the nature of God's creation and the purpose of our souls, as well as a history of the relationship between man and his creator.

Yesterday, I did some reading about Baha'i faith and came across statements like, "Throughout the ages, God has sent Divine Messengers known as Manifestations of God—among them Abraham, Krishna, Zoroaster, Moses, Buddha, Jesus Christ, Muhammad." Now it would be one thing if you consider those mentioned on the list Apostles (even though Christians do not typically believe they are) but a totally different thing if you consider them Divine and equal to Christ. Of course you know that Christ is the only begotten Son of God, the only Word of God. So, making others equal to Him is totally unacceptable. Also, He is the only redeemer of humankind, which is most important for Christians, and this was nicely expressed in the statement you quoted before.

Obviously, this is another place where my belief differs from accepted Christian Theology, and another reason why I am not called a Christian. However, it does not change my deep love and appreciation for Christ, nor my understanding that the only way to God and Eternal Life includes requires accepting Him and His claims.

I have Jewish members of my family, and we discuss Christianity occasionally. To them, Jesus was a man, perhaps a Rabbi, someone learned and a teacher of Judaism. They are of the belief that Christianity became "Pauline," which is to say, Jesus taught Judaism, and then Paul ran with it and taught something else. I, on the other hand, believe that Jesus was far more than a man, He was the Son of God, Divine, and that the Word He spoke was the Word of God. I believe in the divinity of the Torah, and also hold that Adam (The Father of Mankind), Abraham (The Friend of God) and Moses (He Who held converse with God) were Divine, more than mere men. As such, I am not called a Jew, because I hold the Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God.

Similarly, popular Muslim Theology also holds that Jesus was a man. This theology teaches that the Torah and the Bible were literally corrupted, meaning that the words on the page were altered to control people and turn them away from God. They do not believe that Christ was crucified, but rather that He was replaced with someone who looked like Him; in doing so they contradict certain prophecies of the Torah, which Muslims defend by saying the text was corrupted. I do not agree with this Muslim Theology. Rather, I believe “that when the Son of Man yielded up His breath to God, the whole creation wept with a great weeping. By sacrificing Himself, however, a fresh capacity was infused into all created things." [Bahá'u'lláh]. As such, I am not called a Muslim, because I hold that Jesus was more than a man, he was a Manifestation of God, infinitely above the station of man.

You have noted what appears to be a contradiction in my belief: If Jesus is the only Word of God, the Only Begotten Son, how can I also believe that these others are divine? This is my answer, taken from the Baha'i Writings:

"Were any of the all-embracing Manifestations of God to declare: “I am God,” He, verily, speaketh the truth, and no doubt attacheth thereto. For it hath been repeatedly demonstrated that through their Revelation, their attributes and names, the Revelation of God, His names and His attributes, are made manifest in the world. Thus, He hath revealed: “Those shafts were God’s, not Thine.” And also He saith: “In truth, they who plighted fealty unto Thee, really plighted that fealty unto God.” And were any of them to voice the utterance, “I am the Messenger of God,” He, also, speaketh the truth, the indubitable truth. Even as He saith: “Muḥammad is not the father of any man among you, but He is the Messenger of God.” Viewed in this light, they are all but Messengers of that ideal King, that unchangeable Essence. And were they all to proclaim, “I am the Seal of the Prophets,” they, verily, utter but the truth, beyond the faintest shadow of doubt. For they are all but one person, one soul, one spirit, one being, one revelation. They are all the manifestation of the “Beginning” and the “End,” the “First” and the “Last,” the “Seen” and the “Hidden”—all of which pertain to Him Who is the Innermost Spirit of Spirits and Eternal Essence of Essences. And were they to say, “We are the Servants of God,” this also is a manifest and indisputable fact. For they have been made manifest in the uttermost state of servitude, a servitude the like of which no man can possibly attain. Thus in moments in which these Essences of Being were deep immersed beneath the oceans of ancient and everlasting holiness, or when they soared to the loftiest summits of Divine mysteries, they claimed their utterances to be the Voice of Divinity, the Call of God Himself." [Bahá'u'lláh]

This is the interpretation of both John 14:6 and Quran 33:40 that I hold. Please know that I am not asking you to accept this, merely explaining my own belief. So much fighting has occurred over differences in interpretation, such as the interpretation of Matthew 16:18, which the Catholics hold as proof of the authority of the Popes. I believe, like many Protestants, that this is response to Peter's affirmation of his faith in Christ: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." [Matthew 16:16] and not a reason to become Catholic. That is my personal belief. I have many Catholic friends and I do not fault them for a difference of interpretation, instead I celebrate what we do share: a deep love of Christ as savior, leading the way to Eternal Life. Perhaps they are right and I am wrong, but my heart and my mind lead me elsewhere. I believe that religion should be a cause of unity, love, and common cause, not the source of contention and strife. As such, I strive to respect different points of view on belief, and offer my own as a gift, not a burden, God willing. I am more than happy to talk about those differences of interpretation or belief as long as what I say does not cause offense.

Around 1844, 4 new religious movements were being formed: Mormonism, Adventism, Baha'i, and Ahmadiyya (more on this in a separate post). In the US, William Miller came up with the calculation you mentioned, declared that Christ would return in 1844, and gathered a large following. When Christ did not return in 1844, this event became known in history as the Great Disappointment. Meanwhile, Bahá'u'lláh announced that he was the returning Christ. But he had no proof. Obviously, the resurrection of the dead and end of the world did not take place at that time.

Great Disappointment - Wikipedia

To add to this, there were also four 19th Century claimants to the Mahdi promised in Islam at the End of the World:

Siyyid Ali Muhammad (The Báb) (1819-1850), declared to be Mahdi in 1844
Muhammad Ahmad (1844-1885), declared to be Mahdi in 1881
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835-1908), declared to be Mahdi in 1882
Wallace Fard Muhammad (1877-1934?), founded the Nation of Islam in 1930, not sure when he made the claim of Mahdi

I am very familiar with the Great Disappointment, what an incredible period of history! My great great great great Grandfather was alive during that time and kept a journal. He didn't appear to hold to the belief that Jesus would return in 1844, but he commented on the meteor showers in 1843 and how it had excited and terrified many as a sign in the heavens of the approaching End of Days. People sold their properties and moved to Israel to await His coming. 4th Great Grandpa John was on a ferry in Lake Michigan and heard someone, whom he called "the Advent Man," telling everyone what William Miller taught was about to happen; the dead rising from the grave, the battle between Angels and Demons, Christ descending from the clouds, the stars falling from heaven, and so on, as is recorded in Matthew 24:29-31 and in Revelation. They didn't listen, and my grandfather commented that the Advent Man left the passengers of that ferry to their fate like Jonah, waiting for the destruction of Nineveh. The guy had a dry sense of humor.

My belief is that physical death, like the physical world, is secondary to spiritual death, which is unbelief in God. Jesus came from Heaven, but the Jews denied Him by saying He came from Nazareth, so clearly He couldn't be the Messiah. To me, John 3:13 clarifies things. Even while Jesus walked on the Earth, He was in Heaven. As such, His physical descent into the womb of Mary was not something that could be physically witnessed, nor could His existence in Heaven as He walked among mankind. Jesus came to show people the path to Eternal Life, which is Faith and belief in Him who is the Truth. As such, I hold to the interpretation that death and the dead rising from their graves refers to the spiritually dead recognizing God and being blessed with True Life. There are still dead in this world so the process is not complete, but I believe it is happening; today things do appear to be deteriorating, but I trust in God that this is part of His Divine Plan. Additionally, I hold that the End of the World too was a spiritual End of an old World, and that this occurred in 1844 with the declaration of the Báb to Mullah Husayn in Shiraz. I believe that this world is changing, and that the process is not instantaneous but, like with the crucifixion of Christ, what occurred in 1844 endowed the world with new spiritual potential.

Baha'i:

Founded by: Baha'allah (1817-1892)
Following leader: Abdul-Baha' (1844-1921)

Small addition and clarification:

The Babi Faith:
Founded by: The Báb (Arabic for 'The Gate') (1819-1850), declared His mission in 1844

The Baha'i Faith:
Founded by: Bahá'u'lláh (Arabic for 'The Glory of God') (1817-1892), declared His mission in 1863, Baha'u'llah is referenced by the Báb as "Him Whom God Shall Make Manifest."
Successor of Bahá'u'lláh: 'Abdu'l-Bahá (Servent of the Glory) (1844-1921)

The Babi Faith and Baha'i Faith are linked. There are Babis who disagree and did not accept Baha'u'llah, and they are called Azalis. Anyway, the only faith that began in 1844 was the Babi faith. However, that to me is not sufficient proof of the Báb and Baha'u'llah's claim by itself, but it is foundational to my belief and my interpretation of Matthew 24:15.

All that is to say, in answer to your earlier question, I do not call myself a Christian because I have beliefs and interpretations that differ from generally accepted Christian Theology.

 

[ByAnyOtherName]

Of course you know that Christ is the only begotten Son of God, the only Word of God. So, making others equal to Him is totally unacceptable. Also, He is the only redeemer of humankind, which is most important for Christians, and this was nicely expressed in the statement you quoted before.

The statement I quoted before comes from "The Promised Day Is Come", considered authoritative within the Baha'i Faith. It can be found here: The Promised Day Is Come | Bahá’í Reference Library.

This is the paragraph I shared last time, accompanied by the paragraph that follows it within that book:

"As to the position of Christianity, let it be stated without any hesitation or equivocation that its divine origin is unconditionally acknowledged, that the Sonship and Divinity of Jesus Christ are fearlessly asserted, that the divine inspiration of the Gospel is fully recognized, that the reality of the mystery of the Immaculacy of the Virgin Mary is confessed, and the primacy of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, is upheld and defended. The Founder of the Christian Faith is designated by Bahá’u’lláh as the “Spirit of God,” is proclaimed as the One Who “appeared out of the breath of the Holy Ghost,” and is even extolled as the “Essence of the Spirit.” His mother is described as “that veiled and immortal, that most beauteous, countenance,” and the station of her Son eulogized as a “station which hath been exalted above the imaginings of all that dwell on earth,” whilst Peter is recognized as one whom God has caused “the mysteries of wisdom and of utterance to flow out of his mouth.” “Know thou,” Bahá’u’lláh has moreover testified, “that when the Son of Man yielded up His breath to God, the whole creation wept with a great weeping. By sacrificing Himself, however, a fresh capacity was infused into all created things. Its evidences, as witnessed in all the peoples of the earth, are now manifest before thee. The deepest wisdom which the sages have uttered, the profoundest learning which any mind hath unfolded, the arts which the ablest hands have produced, the influence exerted by the most potent of rulers, are but manifestations of the quickening power released by His transcendent, His all-pervasive and resplendent Spirit. We testify that when He came into the world, He shed the splendor of His glory upon all created things. Through Him the leper recovered from the leprosy of perversity and ignorance. Through Him the unchaste and wayward were healed. Through His power, born of Almighty God, the eyes of the blind were opened and the soul of the sinner sanctified.… He it is Who purified the world. Blessed is the man who, with a face beaming with light, hath turned towards Him.”

"Indeed, the essential prerequisites of admittance into the Bahá’í fold of Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, and the followers of other ancient faiths, as well as of agnostics and even atheists, is the wholehearted and unqualified acceptance by them all of the divine origin of both Islám and Christianity, of the Prophetic functions of both Muḥammad and Jesus Christ, of the legitimacy of the institution of the Imamate, and of the primacy of St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles. Such are the central, the solid, the incontrovertible principles that constitute the bedrock of Bahá’í belief, which the Faith of Bahá’u’lláh is proud to acknowledge, which its teachers proclaim, which its apologists defend, which its literature disseminates, which its summer schools expound, and which the rank and file of its followers attest by both word and deed."