Oral Torah, Sacred Tradition, Ahadith

Martin Harris?


Oh dear ..
Right? Yeah this was the same Martin Harris who actually talked with Jesus Christ in the form of a deer (none other) for over 2 miles on the way home one day... yeah, one of the 3 witnesses to the Book of Mormon. That's the guy.
 
Yes 100 percent so. I see that all the Messengers suffer to show us the Love of One God. Jesus showed us that it is a personal choice to take up the cross and follow him, but how many chose that path?

Now if we use Justice and be fair minded, we can look at all the Mesengers and see what they faced.

So have you read the life of the Bab and Baha'u'llah?

The story of the Bab is that of Jesus fate, except twice as long, six years of persecution before being executed.

You may like to look at the comparison of the life of Jesus and the Bab.

https://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/8471/

Regards Tony
I was re-reading portions of Thief in the Night and found this list of parallels drawn up by William Sears:The Remarkable Parallel

I began searching the libraries for all the available documents.
You can imagine my feelings of awe and wonder when I uncovered the
following facts.

The death of this young man occurred in July 1850. He was slain
publicly because of his words and his teaching. Everything I
learned about his life reminded me of Christ. In fact, after
carefully searching into his background, I could find but one
parallel in all recorded history to his brief, turbulent career;
only the moving story of the passion of Jesus Christ himself.

As part of my record of 'findings', I here set down the
remarkable similarity in the story of their lives:

1. They were both youthful.

2. They were both known for their meekness and loving kindness.

3. They both performed healing miracles.

4. The period of their ministry was very brief in each
case, and moved with dramatic swiftness to its climax.

5. Both of them boldly challenged the time-honoured conventions, laws, and
rites of the religions into which they had been born.

6. They courageously condemned the unbridled graft and corruption which
they saw on every side, both religious and secular.

7. The purity of their own lives shamed the people among whom they taught.


8. Their chief enemies were among the religious leaders of the
land. These officials were the instigators of the outrages they
were made to suffer.

9. They both had indignities heaped upon them.

10. They were both forcibly brought before the government
authorities and were subject to public interrogation.

11. They were both scourged following this interrogation.

12. They both went, first in triumph then in suffering, through the streets of
the city where they were to be slain.

13. They were both paraded publicly, and heaped with humiliation, on the way to their place
of martyrdom.

14. They both spoke words of hope and promise to
the one who was to die with them; in fact, almost the exact same
words: 'Thou shalt be with me in paradise.'

15. They were both martyred publicly before the hostile gaze of the onlookers who
crowded the scene.

16. A darkness covered the land following their slaying, in each
case beginning at noon.

17. Their bodies were both lacerated by soldiers at the time of their slaying.

18. They both remained in ignominious suspension before the eyes of an unfriendly
multitude.

19. Their bodies came finally into the hands of their
loving followers.

20. When their bodies, in each case, had vanished from the spot
where they had been placed, the religious leaders explained away
the fact.

21. Only a handful of their followers were with them
at the times of their deaths.

22. In each case, one of their chief disciples denied knowing them. This same disciple, in each case, later became a hero.

23. Each of them had an outstanding woman follower who played a dramatic part in making the disciples turn their faces from the past, and look toward the future.

24. Confusion, bewilderment and despair seized their followers in each
case, following their martyrdom.

25. Through their disciples (the Peters and Pauls of each age) their Faiths were carried to all
parts of the world.

26. They both replied with the same exact
words to the question: Are you the Promised One?

27. Each of them addressed their disciples, charging them to carry their
messages to the ends of the earth." (God Passes By, Shoghi Effendi)

From pp. 87-88 Thief in the Night by William Sears
Ok, but putting aside the obvious reservations:Why should the new universal saviour of the whole world, seem to manifest as and for Abrahamic understanding, keyed into life of Christ, etc -- to the extent of, and with all respect, even seeming by apologists rather desperately to even need to mimic the events of the life of Christ?

What about Krishna, Buddha, etc?

I wonder what the Pope made of this bit:
Give ear unto that which the Dove of Eternity warbleth upon the twigs of the Divine Lote-Tree

Sorry but you have entered the room here as an apologist?
 
Last edited:
Yeah, that could be. But just as a heads up, Joseph Smith saw Isaiah 29 prophesying of him, Martin Harris, and the Book of Mormon as a sealed book. Martin Harris was the unlearned man who asked the learned to read the script, and the scholar he visited was said to have said "I cannot read a sealed book," thus verifying in Mormons' minds Isaiah prophesied about a very important occurrence in their church history and to their prophet Joseph Smith with their singular most important book of scripture, and that right down to the nitty gritty details. So perhaps Isaiah was an ancient universal prophet prophesying everyone these days?! Who knows?

That is indeed the quandary we face with our choice as to what is from God and what is from our own selves.

We can only look at what is offered by the people that claim to be Messengers and make a choice.

The issue here is, many are not looking, even though they should be.

Regards Tony
 
Ok, but putting aside the obvious reservations:Why should the new universal saviour of the whole world, seem to manifest as and for Abrahamic understanding, keyed into life of Christ, etc -- to the extent of even appearing by apologists to even mimic the events of the life of Christ?

What about Krishna, Buddha, etc?

I wonder what the Pope made of this bit:


Sorry but you have entered the room here?

Please do not apologise, like you I choose to put myself in this room.

I personally see no Messengers mimics another, as they are God given missions. What happens to them is the Will of God, what we see is our test of Faith.

What it does show though, is that many prophecies about the Messiah may be more applicable to this age of the Bab and Baha'u'llah, than the age of Jesus the Christ. It may also show why the Jews did not accept Christ as the Messiah.

Baha'u'llah has explained that all the Mesengers are One, they all proceed from the same source, the Holy Spirit, wheras we are born of the human spirit. That is why Jesus said we must be born again. It also gives us a glimpse of what the virgin birth was showing us, that even though the Messenger is born from the womb, they are in reality already alive, wheras we need to find Faith to be born again.

So a Baha'i sees Abraham, Krishna, Moses, Zoroaster, Buddha, Jesus Christ, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah as One, we make no distinction in the Station of them all. God gives them a preordained message, which we see makes them different, until we look at the core Spiritual values, over the laws of the age.

The Pope did not respond to Baha'u'llah and Baha'u'llah had told him the power was seized from the church. The Catholic power was seized and was diminished to a Paple state, wheras not long before it had power in many nations.

Big topics, fun discussions.

Regards Tony
 
So a Baha'i sees Abraham, Krishna, Moses, Zoroaster, Buddha, Jesus Christ, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah as One, we make no distinction in the Station of them all. God gives them a preordained message, which we see makes them different, until we look at the core Spiritual values, over the laws of the age.

The Buddhist canon contains very detailed personal reports of his enlightenment, which was after his birth, he was not born enlightened or awake. I'm not aware of any passage where he claims divine nature, or a divine purpose. Rather, the Buddha praised the human condition as the most conducive to awakening. He claimed the title of "best teacher of gods and humans". There are numerous discourses delivered by him, where he says that even the highest being is subject to impermanence, and on top of that, misled into believing to be the creator of the universe due to having been the first one to witness it.

I think the claim that the Buddha taught the same kind of message as Baha'u'llah must be based on something other than familiarity with the Buddha's teachings.

Is there any indication that Baha'u'llah had access to Buddhist literature and actual, live Buddhists to come to his conclusion regarding the compatibility of his teachings with Buddhism? I know he spent time in the Kurdish mountains with Sufi recluses, but did he ever visit a Buddhist area?
 
Last edited:
Tone Bristow-Stagg
I see that all the Messengers suffer to show us the Love of One God.


SS
I don't need to see anyone suffer to see the love of the One God for us. I see this world, this magnificent universe. Suffering has nothing to do with seeing God's love, at least not so far as I can discern...
 
That is indeed the quandary we face with our choice as to what is from God and what is from our own selves.
The issue here is, many are not looking, even though they should be.
Why should they, when no evidence is advanced for God or messengers?
What about Krishna, Buddha, etc?
Theist Hindus believe that Krishna was Lord Vishnu, one of the many deities in Hinduism, and not a messenger of any God.
Buddha never answered silly questions, so never answered if God existed. He did not consider it relevant to a person's life (Arrow parable).
What happens to them is the Will of God, what we see is our test of Faith.
Allah was kind to Moses, Mohammad and Bahaollah. Bahaollah spent just 4 months in jail. Allah showered all his bounty on Mohammad, including 11 wives in the last years of his life (sort of compensated him to have spent years with his first wife who was 15 years older to him). But he was harsh on Jesus. :(
 
Last edited:
As a Muslim I reject hadith, in my view there is no support for them to be followed. I disagree that one is meaningless without the other, at least in the case of Islam.

The Quran claims that it is complete, fully detailed and nothing has been left out of it. Muslims who follow hadith claim for example that you cannot do your daily prayers properly without hadith as the full instructions are not in the Quran, which if they are correct proves the Quran wrong.

Circumcision is another point, there is absolutely no mention of it in the Quran. In fact the Quran states:

4:117-119 - They do not call besides Him on anything but idols, and they do not call on anything but a rebellious Shaitan. Allah has cursed him; and he said: Most certainly I will take of Thy servants an appointed portion: And most certainly I will lead them astray and excite in them vain desires, and bid them so that they shall slit the ears of the cattle, and most certainly I will bid them so that they shall alter Allah's creation; and whoever takes the Shaitan for a guardian rather than Allah he indeed shall suffer a manifest loss.
I don't think that this is correctly interpreted as referring to Hadith.

My opinion on hadith is a bit more differentiated:

I am critical towards the criterion to weigh the reliability of a hadith which is mainly based on the chain of transmission. It's soo easy to invent a chain, and I know that there has certainly been a big temptation to a scholar to just invent a plausible chain to whatever he thinks is right...

Besides, we find quite a lot of hadith with additions and variants; Muslim has been quite accurate to point out that fact, so that we know that the quality of the transmission is not better than what you can expect from 200 years of oral transmission.

So, I am critical to found basic principles of religion on hadith alone.

Nevertheless, it gives good insight into the frame of the Message of the Quran and the teachings of Muhammad (p.b.u.h). At minimum, it helps to understand early Islam.
 
It is through the oral tradition the the Holy Quran and hadith has been preserved

Whereas writings can get distorted, preservation in from of memory by many people that can corroborate with another is the undistortable form of preservation

And to this day there continue to be thousands of Hafiz (those who have memorized the entire Quran) and Muhaddithin (those who have memorized tens of thousands of hadith).

Oral form of carry this religion is considered the way true knowledge enters one's heart. A story is a prime example:

This great pious Scholar used to carry his hundreds of books around on his cart. One day a robber started to rob him.. he said, 'take what you like but please don't take my knowledge', the robber laughed and replied, 'stupid man, people carry knowledge in their hearts and not in books'. The Scholar realised this is true and that if that robber robs all his books then away goes his knowledge too, so after this incident, he memorized every single book he had and became a true scholar!
We have very little criteria to evaluate the quality of the preservation of the Quran. However, I see one "objectve" criterion to opt for a high reliability of its preservation, which is that there's been no major opposition to the edition assembled under Uthman; in particular, even the Shia, which has already been formed (but not openly separated) in this time, accepted this version. I think that there has been quite a quite a large part of it sketched on parchments or whatever surface during the lifetime of Muhammad (p.b.u.h) in parallel to memorization, which was necessary anyway because the Arabic writing of the time was too imprecise to fix the text in an unambiguous form.
 
But the Quran was written down by, collated by, edited by, the tradition.

As for hadith, in the Christian Tradition we have the 'Patristic Fathers'. Their writings provide the first commentaries, exegesis, etc., but they are not 'gospel', rather they're guides.

It's said that where all the Fathers are in accord, you can pretty well rely on what they say. Where they differ, you can make your choices. Only one, as far as I know, is agreed to be entirely without fault in everything he wrote.

Same with popes. Only when a teaching is delivered ex cathedra is it regarded as doctrine. That's why Pope Francis makes the off-the-cuff statements he does — they won't change anything.
In fact, the Gospel accounts are also a tradition, as Jesus didn't write anything down. Nevertheless , the chain of transmission from the eye witness to the writer is short (1-3 narrators) in comparison to the Mishnah (even if only counted from the Rabbis cited) or the Islamic Hadith, which both count about 6 generations of oral tradition.
 
If specifics of Salah are missing from the Quran then the Quran is incomplete...no?
Yes, the Quran is "incomplete" in the sense that it only contains what Muhammad (p.b.u.h) uttered as inspired speech (revelation). His teachings went beyond this. The so-called Ahadith Qudsiya as such should be expected to be part of the Quran. This does imo not put the Quran in question but rather the reliability of those Ahadith.
 
Interesting... what is the name?
St John Damascene (St John of Damascus)

He wrote, among other things, "An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith" which was the first systematic approach to theology in Eastern Christianity, so as such – a complete commentary – to be regarded as without error throughout is something of an achievement.

Generally, where the Fathers are all in agreement, you can 'take it to the bank', as it were, but they're human, and not infallible.
 
As a Muslim I reject hadith, in my view there is no support for them to be followed. I disagree that one is meaningless without the other, at least in the case of Islam.

The Quran claims that it is complete, fully detailed and nothing has been left out of it. Muslims who follow hadith claim for example that you cannot do your daily prayers properly without hadith as the full instructions are not in the Quran, which if they are correct proves the Quran wrong.

Circumcision is another point, there is absolutely no mention of it in the Quran. In fact the Quran states:

4:117-119 - They do not call besides Him on anything but idols, and they do not call on anything but a rebellious Shaitan. Allah has cursed him; and he said: Most certainly I will take of Thy servants an appointed portion: And most certainly I will lead them astray and excite in them vain desires, and bid them so that they shall slit the ears of the cattle, and most certainly I will bid them so that they shall alter Allah's creation; and whoever takes the Shaitan for a guardian rather than Allah he indeed shall suffer a manifest loss.
Circumcision is for sure much older than the Quran. Josephos, Antiqities 1:14:214 mentioned c 100CE) that the the Arabs cicumcise in the 13th year, as Ishmail was circumcised at the age of 13 (Genesis 17:25).

The same tradition is seen in East Africa in the old monotheistic religion of Ngai.

Circumcision may be an original Arabic tradition of Ishmail, or even be older. For sure, it existed before Muhammad (p.b.u.h).
 
St John Damascene (St John of Damascus)

He wrote, among other things, "An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith" which was the first systematic approach to theology in Eastern Christianity, so as such – a complete commentary – to be regarded as without error throughout is something of an achievement.

Generally, where the Fathers are all in agreement, you can 'take it to the bank', as it were, but they're human, and not infallible.
Thanks, I found a Kindle book that contains a 4 book collection for one low price... I acquired it right away. 😇
 
Back
Top