- Status
D
daler
Guest
It is also recognized that the accuracy of much of what is held to be authentic is questionable, and that reason and common sense can rule out some of the conclusions drawn and perpetuated, and even commonly believed over the course of time. One example of this would be the concept of reincarnation, or rebirths, attributed to Buddha and Krsna. In a very literal worldview, heaven was likely interpreted to be a physical place, or reduced within the limits of thinking to mean returning “here” on earth, the only reality they knew.
“Ye must be born again.” was a real challenge to literalist Jews at the time of Jesus. They had no ability to conceptualize what He was telling them, for their worldview did not encompass the abstract heavenly reality of which He spoke.
Most of what was finally written down centuries after their lives, cannot be regarded as definitely attributable to them. In this sense their is contrast.
But the Baha’i belief that the “essence” of all religion comes from the same Source is firm, and that “All of the Prophets proclaim the same Faith.”
Judaism recognizes the Prophets from Adam through Moses, and certain minor prophets following.
Christianity recognizes this from the appearance of Adam through and including Jesus.
Muslims accept all of these same Prophets but believe Muhammad to be yet one more.
Baha’is also accept all of the Prophets of the past, but believe that the Bab (Gate), and Baha’u’llah (Glory of God) are the most recent, and that another shall come, but not until at least a thousand years, and that God will always send His Prophets to mankind, as this is His method of providing us with divine guidance.
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
D
daler
Guest
D
daler
Guest
Bahai ultimately have to reject this passage. Now would it be possible that instead of quoting your manifestation and thinking it will resolve everything that you might offer an argument instead? Your prophet wasn’t criticized on these points and won’t be able to answer them for you.
You say there has been a long history of human injection into their own religions. You act as if you are somehow immune, that bahai alone have preserved the truth in their religion.
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
Daler who are such Christians that recognise Muhammad and Mirza Hussain? If they recognise such people they reject Christianity and are not counted along with historic Christianity. Which Christian recognises Krishna who claims more explicitely than Jesus to be God absolute? Or Budha who says God is not important? So please don’t make these condescending remarks as if we all actually agree, deal with the reality before you and recognise historic Christianity is antithetical to the claims of bahai. If you disagree, it can be demonstrated throughout all centuries and even further go on to show how big of a problem this is for you.
Now you have conveniently ignored the part concerning whether or not Jesus Christ is creator. I will ask again is Jesus Christ the creator and are you dependant on his act of creation for your existence? Now Jesus is the logos but what does that mean? Logos has its connotations in the old testament as wisdom and in greek philosophy. John Could be drawing from both, can God exist without his logos? His word? You would have to maintain yes, but why is only Jesus the word of God and not Mirza Hussain?
Now the point in Christ being eternal is that would necessarily be God. You introduce a strange thing when you say there are eternal entities beside God who are ultimately indistinct from God. You say they perfectly Mirror God but not in his actual substance, how do you know this? How do you reconcile their contradictory messages each time one comes?
With regaurds to resurrection, why yes you deny it in favour of spiritual post mortem existence. The word resurrection specifically in the first century and before it never referred to what the bahai mean, especially in the new testament. So you do deny resurrection, don’t muddle the term by injecting a different definition, it’s the same thing you do with trinity despite it having a long standing definition. Your doctrine is a life after death devoid of the body, a gnostic view if you will.
That being said, Luke is quite clear to establish the physical Christ, saying he ate fish. If you want to presuppose that this is a metaphor I implore you to explain how the virgin birth narrative must be taken as literal as opposed to the resurrection account.
As always you bahai love to reinterpret scripture. What does the phrase “Does not take pleasure in the destruction of the living. For he created all things that they might exist?” Why do you refuse to see genesis in these words? That God created something in which men were not prone to death and that by his and her sin death entered into the world? This is the very same argument that Paul makes. What standard is therefore this interpretation within the text itself? When you can redefine words irregaurdless of context or theme you can warp it to any interpretation you see fit. I will ask you this, is every death good? Was it good to be out of the garden as it were? Death which is described as so gloomy and dark in the Old Testament is a good thing? I beg to differ.
Jesus defined what it meant to be born again by water and spirit, which bahai do ignore mind you saying this is no longer necessary although Jesus begged to differ. But my point is not to expose your subjective interpretation of scripture as to anything which conforms with bahai is accepted literally and anything which contradicts it is a metaphor. This is the worst type of interpretation because it doesn’t at all take into account what the author meant, but what you think it means. You do the same thing with the gospels and its no surprise you do it here. Would you do it with the apostolic fathers and those Christians who immediately followed? Do you think Saint Paul actually believed and recognised Krishna as a manifestation?
Now a quote can be good don’t get me wrong but bahai have this habit of not being able to answer anything in of themselves. You ultimately before anything go to a source which is often vague and can be contested and given enough time you will go back to the original quote and we will be in a circle. That being said I recognise Christ who is not Just my prophet but My God (Bahai cannot accept this) didn’t respond to everything and thus I won’t use his words unless they are needed. Bahai are not like this and often answer with non sequitors or things that miss the point entirely.
Yet there is no infallible interpretator within the bahai faith, and there is still no garuntee despite you being so close that you truly understand the words of your supposed prophet. Do you think the apostles didn’t appoint leaders and teachers and spiritually capable men in positions of authority? Yet according to the bahai (and I would like you to address this specifically, don’t just ignore it because it is important to my overall point) you must say the early church failed. But these men were not neglecters of God, they loved God and were willing to die for him, Ignatius of Antioch being perhaps the greatest example of the second century and Stephan the first of all time in the first century.
You say you have preserved unity but why does that mean you have the true understanding? There was unity in the first century as well yet they still failed and taught abominable things (according to bahai). The Jewish rebellion also does not help you in this regaurd, they failed. The Muslims show also according to bahai, they failed. The Hindus and Buhdists as well obviously failed. Zoroastrians well they simply nearly don’t exist and have no idea as to your prophet. Human history is marked by failure if bahai is true, not merely on our account but on the account of God who cannot hold anyone except by the presence of Manifestations alone and then only a very select few people.
Please address the points I have requested you address.
Now you have conveniently ignored the part concerning whether or not Jesus Christ is creator. I will ask again is Jesus Christ the creator and are you dependant on his act of creation for your existence? Now Jesus is the logos but what does that mean? Logos has its connotations in the old testament as wisdom and in greek philosophy. John Could be drawing from both, can God exist without his logos? His word? You would have to maintain yes, but why is only Jesus the word of God and not Mirza Hussain?
Now the point in Christ being eternal is that would necessarily be God. You introduce a strange thing when you say there are eternal entities beside God who are ultimately indistinct from God. You say they perfectly Mirror God but not in his actual substance, how do you know this? How do you reconcile their contradictory messages each time one comes?
With regaurds to resurrection, why yes you deny it in favour of spiritual post mortem existence. The word resurrection specifically in the first century and before it never referred to what the bahai mean, especially in the new testament. So you do deny resurrection, don’t muddle the term by injecting a different definition, it’s the same thing you do with trinity despite it having a long standing definition. Your doctrine is a life after death devoid of the body, a gnostic view if you will.
That being said, Luke is quite clear to establish the physical Christ, saying he ate fish. If you want to presuppose that this is a metaphor I implore you to explain how the virgin birth narrative must be taken as literal as opposed to the resurrection account.
As always you bahai love to reinterpret scripture. What does the phrase “Does not take pleasure in the destruction of the living. For he created all things that they might exist?” Why do you refuse to see genesis in these words? That God created something in which men were not prone to death and that by his and her sin death entered into the world? This is the very same argument that Paul makes. What standard is therefore this interpretation within the text itself? When you can redefine words irregaurdless of context or theme you can warp it to any interpretation you see fit. I will ask you this, is every death good? Was it good to be out of the garden as it were? Death which is described as so gloomy and dark in the Old Testament is a good thing? I beg to differ.
Jesus defined what it meant to be born again by water and spirit, which bahai do ignore mind you saying this is no longer necessary although Jesus begged to differ. But my point is not to expose your subjective interpretation of scripture as to anything which conforms with bahai is accepted literally and anything which contradicts it is a metaphor. This is the worst type of interpretation because it doesn’t at all take into account what the author meant, but what you think it means. You do the same thing with the gospels and its no surprise you do it here. Would you do it with the apostolic fathers and those Christians who immediately followed? Do you think Saint Paul actually believed and recognised Krishna as a manifestation?
Now a quote can be good don’t get me wrong but bahai have this habit of not being able to answer anything in of themselves. You ultimately before anything go to a source which is often vague and can be contested and given enough time you will go back to the original quote and we will be in a circle. That being said I recognise Christ who is not Just my prophet but My God (Bahai cannot accept this) didn’t respond to everything and thus I won’t use his words unless they are needed. Bahai are not like this and often answer with non sequitors or things that miss the point entirely.
Yet there is no infallible interpretator within the bahai faith, and there is still no garuntee despite you being so close that you truly understand the words of your supposed prophet. Do you think the apostles didn’t appoint leaders and teachers and spiritually capable men in positions of authority? Yet according to the bahai (and I would like you to address this specifically, don’t just ignore it because it is important to my overall point) you must say the early church failed. But these men were not neglecters of God, they loved God and were willing to die for him, Ignatius of Antioch being perhaps the greatest example of the second century and Stephan the first of all time in the first century.
You say you have preserved unity but why does that mean you have the true understanding? There was unity in the first century as well yet they still failed and taught abominable things (according to bahai). The Jewish rebellion also does not help you in this regaurd, they failed. The Muslims show also according to bahai, they failed. The Hindus and Buhdists as well obviously failed. Zoroastrians well they simply nearly don’t exist and have no idea as to your prophet. Human history is marked by failure if bahai is true, not merely on our account but on the account of God who cannot hold anyone except by the presence of Manifestations alone and then only a very select few people.
Please address the points I have requested you address.
M
Mirza19
Guest
I am a former Christian and a convert to the Bahá’í Faith, as well as a university student about to enter into graduate theological studies. First, I address a lot of Christian topics in my blog (arationalfaith.wordpress. com) and I’ve responded to Bahá’í understandings of the Bible, Christ, and the Christian Church.
Suffice it to say that we do accept the Bible, we do not “reject” passages, and we accept Christ as Divine and see a use in Trinitarian language, though we don’t use it an reject the concept as defined by the Church Fathers. Shoghi Effendi and 'Abdu’l-Bahá are, to us, like the Christian Church Fathers, except we take all of their words to be infallible for interpreting Scripture. We thus interpret the Bible and Qur’an in light of Bahá’í Revelation.
A confusing issue on this forum seems to suggest we either accept all contradictions without warrant or must reject the Bible. I think this is a false dichotomy. The Biblical language is not self-evident - as demonstrated by the thousands of Christianities that exist posing different understandings. We like Catholics agree on the need for a central hierarchy, but unlike Catholics do not believe Christ instituted one. We thus accept the Bible as Scripture, but reject Christian interpretations of it. This does not mean we reject the “text,” only that our interpretation is different from any Christian one.
We are not “social liberals” who just accept all religions. We are not Unitarian Universalists. We have a codified theological system that accept certain figures as authoritative, and others as not. We have genuine reasons for believing as we do. To assume we accept all religions and ignore contradictions is to confuse cause and effect: we do not believe in religious tolerance first, and then go back and read that into history. We instead accept as certain Divine Story as revealed in the Kitab-I-Iqan that describes the purpose of religion and names certain holy figures: Moses, Christ, Muhammad, the Bab, and from this develop our “Theology of Religions.” We thus accept the Qur’an and Muhammad as a Prophet, but we do not accept his finality.
I think a difficulty people have in understanding this is that Christians think that the Bible = Their Understanding of the Bible, and Muslims think the Qur’an can only be interpreted within Islam. Muhammad, the Qur’an, Islam, the Bible, Christianity, and the Church are six separate entities that exist apart from each, while being related to one another. Our method of classifying this leads to our theological distinctiveness from both Muslims and Christians.
However, as one poster pointed out, I will cede that there are Bahá’í who became Bahá’ís because they mistakenly believe we are a Postmodern, touchy-feely religion that accepts everything. Many of these people leave when they realize that we have a Divinely Ordained hierarchical body, a core and developed set of theological principles, and an uncompromising set of ethics. Moreover, many are unable to relate to our form of “spirituality,” which is more individualistic and stems from a synthesis between Mosques and Sufi houses of worship, and is thus the opposite of intuitive to Christian audiences used to a Church service and congregation.
Suffice it to say that we do accept the Bible, we do not “reject” passages, and we accept Christ as Divine and see a use in Trinitarian language, though we don’t use it an reject the concept as defined by the Church Fathers. Shoghi Effendi and 'Abdu’l-Bahá are, to us, like the Christian Church Fathers, except we take all of their words to be infallible for interpreting Scripture. We thus interpret the Bible and Qur’an in light of Bahá’í Revelation.
A confusing issue on this forum seems to suggest we either accept all contradictions without warrant or must reject the Bible. I think this is a false dichotomy. The Biblical language is not self-evident - as demonstrated by the thousands of Christianities that exist posing different understandings. We like Catholics agree on the need for a central hierarchy, but unlike Catholics do not believe Christ instituted one. We thus accept the Bible as Scripture, but reject Christian interpretations of it. This does not mean we reject the “text,” only that our interpretation is different from any Christian one.
We are not “social liberals” who just accept all religions. We are not Unitarian Universalists. We have a codified theological system that accept certain figures as authoritative, and others as not. We have genuine reasons for believing as we do. To assume we accept all religions and ignore contradictions is to confuse cause and effect: we do not believe in religious tolerance first, and then go back and read that into history. We instead accept as certain Divine Story as revealed in the Kitab-I-Iqan that describes the purpose of religion and names certain holy figures: Moses, Christ, Muhammad, the Bab, and from this develop our “Theology of Religions.” We thus accept the Qur’an and Muhammad as a Prophet, but we do not accept his finality.
I think a difficulty people have in understanding this is that Christians think that the Bible = Their Understanding of the Bible, and Muslims think the Qur’an can only be interpreted within Islam. Muhammad, the Qur’an, Islam, the Bible, Christianity, and the Church are six separate entities that exist apart from each, while being related to one another. Our method of classifying this leads to our theological distinctiveness from both Muslims and Christians.
However, as one poster pointed out, I will cede that there are Bahá’í who became Bahá’ís because they mistakenly believe we are a Postmodern, touchy-feely religion that accepts everything. Many of these people leave when they realize that we have a Divinely Ordained hierarchical body, a core and developed set of theological principles, and an uncompromising set of ethics. Moreover, many are unable to relate to our form of “spirituality,” which is more individualistic and stems from a synthesis between Mosques and Sufi houses of worship, and is thus the opposite of intuitive to Christian audiences used to a Church service and congregation.
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
Mirza redefining the trinity doesn’t mean you believe in the trinity or say Christ is divine. The trinity is a pretty clear doctrine that Christ’s substance is exactly the same substance as that of the father and bahai reject this and the Trinitarian definitions. But I am glad you admit you interpret the bible in light of revelation, would concede that the authors of the bible had no conception as to the ideas of bahai then? But I suppose given what you say later you think the apostles would have been bahai and the early church corrupted what was meant, in which case I have to ask how do you have any assurance you have rightly divided the word of God according to mirza Hussain?
But I am glad also that you have actually maintained a position that other religions are wrong, as opposed to how bahai websites often advertise their religion and refuse to say some people are wrong when in reality they clearly believe that.
In so far as biblical interpretation is considered, you openly admit you interpret it in light of what was later revealed and I asked this question to those on another bahai forum and hopefully you will be able to answer. Was it possible for anyone to understand the gospel? That is before Mirza Hussain came about? Because I find the bahai interpretation so convoluted and specific that it seems utterly impossible that without directly being told what what means, and what something else means that anyone could understand it at all. That is Christians are expected to believe according to the bahai the virgin birth account to be literal and the ressurection account to spiritual in say Luke or mathew’s gospels. Did Luke who describes a risen Jesus eating fish and saying to them “Im not a ghost” by doing this write this with the intention, “Its a spiritual fish.”?
Also would you submit that Christ is the cause for your existence since you accept the bible? I would like an answer to these questions please.
But I am glad also that you have actually maintained a position that other religions are wrong, as opposed to how bahai websites often advertise their religion and refuse to say some people are wrong when in reality they clearly believe that.
In so far as biblical interpretation is considered, you openly admit you interpret it in light of what was later revealed and I asked this question to those on another bahai forum and hopefully you will be able to answer. Was it possible for anyone to understand the gospel? That is before Mirza Hussain came about? Because I find the bahai interpretation so convoluted and specific that it seems utterly impossible that without directly being told what what means, and what something else means that anyone could understand it at all. That is Christians are expected to believe according to the bahai the virgin birth account to be literal and the ressurection account to spiritual in say Luke or mathew’s gospels. Did Luke who describes a risen Jesus eating fish and saying to them “Im not a ghost” by doing this write this with the intention, “Its a spiritual fish.”?
Also would you submit that Christ is the cause for your existence since you accept the bible? I would like an answer to these questions please.
meltzerboy
New member
Thank you for this enlightening information about the Baha’i faith. Do you spend any time interpreting the Hebrew Bible and specifically the Torah?
D
daler
Guest
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
I’ve heard this supposed revealing of the bible’s locked mysteries before by others, Joseph smith and Muhammad and they are no more credible than mirza Hussain in my opinion. But what I would actually like is a response to my questions. You say 1844 is a biblical prophecy, why not include Joseph smith into that equation?
How can you be assured you actually understand what your own prophet said?
How do you determine the gospel of Luke to say the virgin birth narrative is literal and the resurrection narrative is figurative?
Do you submit that Jesus Christ is your creator? That without him there would be nothing that was made made?
Don’t dodge please.
How can you be assured you actually understand what your own prophet said?
How do you determine the gospel of Luke to say the virgin birth narrative is literal and the resurrection narrative is figurative?
Do you submit that Jesus Christ is your creator? That without him there would be nothing that was made made?
Don’t dodge please.
D
daler
Guest
revealing of the bible’s locked mysteries before by others, Joseph smith and Muhammad and they are no more credible than mirza Hussain in my opinion. But what I would actually like is a response to my questions. You say 1844 is a biblical prophecy, why not include Joseph smith into that equation?
How can you be assured you actually understand what your own prophet said?
How do you determine the gospel of Luke to say the virgin birth narrative is literal and the resurrection narrative is figurative?
Do you submit that Jesus Christ is your creator? That without him there would be nothing that was made made?
Don’t dodge please.
Dear friend, Thank you for writing to me here. You have many questions, sometimes too many for me to answer all at once. I will do my best to answer your questions here, but please understand that although I have been a Baha’i for many years, am firm in my Baha’i beliefs, that I am not an expert, and can only give you my own understanding of these weighty themes.
The “unsealing” of the Books is a very profound matter, one which is bound to be resisted, and is at the core of assessing whether or not the One Who has the power and authority given by God has at last come to “unseal” the mysteries which were not revealed to Daniel. I cannot go into J Smith, other than to suggest that he may have had some sort of vision. I don’t really know, but I sense that he imagined a great deal and was caught up in the spirit of the times with so many others. Others were greatly moved or inspired (but still had human imaginations and were fallible) in what became known as the Adventist Millennial Movement, centering around the belief that Christ was to return in 1844. Muslims also had a fervid expectation of the coming of the Mihdi and Isa (Jesus), or the Qa’im, in the year 1260 AH, which is 1844 AD, which numerous scholars regard as the fulfillment of the 2300 days (years) prophesied by Daniel, as well as the time (360) + times (720) + half a time (180) which equals 1260, which equals 42 months (times 30 = 1260), which equals 3 1/2 days, again 1260. Hence, the year 1260 AH is either totally coincidental to the fulfillment of these prophecies, and Islam is to be disregarded altogether, or it is to be considered in the equation.
As you know, Baha’is do regard Muhammad as a Prophet, but also believe that the Ummayyads usurped the Successorship given to Ali, creating immediate schism affecting Islam ever since. If you have access to Some Answered Questions by Abdul Baha, you will find sufficient explanation on this subject. He clearly states that the Ummayyads are the Beast, and the dragon, of Revelation, and that this figures in directly as to what transpired within Islam.
"How can you be assured you actually understand what your own prophet said? "
The same as I understand the Words of the Lord Christ: “My sheep know My voice.”
“How do you determine the gospel of Luke to say the virgin birth narrative is literal and the resurrection narrative is figurative?”
On the virgin birth, what is important to Baha’is is not whether or not Jesus had a physical father, pointing out that His greatness did not depend upon this, for Adam was without father or mother, and if this is the indication of greatness, then He (Adam) would be superior to Jesus.
On the Resurrection, I can tell you only that according to my rational mind, there are many inconsistencies in limiting the Resurrection to a literal understanding. First, “He entered the room, not using the door.” appears to suggest a spiritual component to the account.
Second, there exists no historical record of any Jews or “non-believers” who “saw” Him after the crucifixion. Rather, only “believers” “saw” Him.
Third, Jesus said: “If I have told you earthly things, and you believe not, how shall you believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? And no man has ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven”
Hence, His eternal reality, the One which said, “Before Abraham was, I am” descended from heaven, not referring to His physical from, which descended from the womb of Mary.
Again, He states that He “is” in heaven, although His physical form was on earth.
A Catholic Priest and scholar, told me that the same word was employed for “sky” and “heaven” at the time of Jesus.
Also, there is in human history a means of storytelling, where by certain meanings are hidden within parables or metaphors, which some take literally, while others comprehend the hidden truths.
“Do you submit that Jesus Christ is your creator? That without him there would be nothing that was made made?”
As I believe that I have explained to you before, I absolutely believe that as stated in the opening chapter of John, “All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made that was made.”
Do I “submit” to this? I do not submit to limiting that Eternal Identity solely to single, physical appearance of Jesus, the Son of Mary, for I believe that “Before Abraham was, I am.” existed prior to the birth of the infant Jesus, and that the physical person of Jesus, Who was the Christ, was crucified, but that the One Who spoke the words “Before Abraham was, I am”, can never be crucified. The mortal person of the flesh, being mortal, is not the Immortal One Whose voice I hear and know. That is the mystery.
It is as though a person speaking into a microphone at a radio station can be heard from any number of musical sound speakers. To destroy one of these speakers does not affect the one at the radio station. However crude this may sound, it has value, and is easily understood.
I have not “dodged” your questions, but answered them fully to the best of my ability, so help me God. There is nothing further to be said.
Thank you Dale
How can you be assured you actually understand what your own prophet said?
How do you determine the gospel of Luke to say the virgin birth narrative is literal and the resurrection narrative is figurative?
Do you submit that Jesus Christ is your creator? That without him there would be nothing that was made made?
Don’t dodge please.
Dear friend, Thank you for writing to me here. You have many questions, sometimes too many for me to answer all at once. I will do my best to answer your questions here, but please understand that although I have been a Baha’i for many years, am firm in my Baha’i beliefs, that I am not an expert, and can only give you my own understanding of these weighty themes.
The “unsealing” of the Books is a very profound matter, one which is bound to be resisted, and is at the core of assessing whether or not the One Who has the power and authority given by God has at last come to “unseal” the mysteries which were not revealed to Daniel. I cannot go into J Smith, other than to suggest that he may have had some sort of vision. I don’t really know, but I sense that he imagined a great deal and was caught up in the spirit of the times with so many others. Others were greatly moved or inspired (but still had human imaginations and were fallible) in what became known as the Adventist Millennial Movement, centering around the belief that Christ was to return in 1844. Muslims also had a fervid expectation of the coming of the Mihdi and Isa (Jesus), or the Qa’im, in the year 1260 AH, which is 1844 AD, which numerous scholars regard as the fulfillment of the 2300 days (years) prophesied by Daniel, as well as the time (360) + times (720) + half a time (180) which equals 1260, which equals 42 months (times 30 = 1260), which equals 3 1/2 days, again 1260. Hence, the year 1260 AH is either totally coincidental to the fulfillment of these prophecies, and Islam is to be disregarded altogether, or it is to be considered in the equation.
As you know, Baha’is do regard Muhammad as a Prophet, but also believe that the Ummayyads usurped the Successorship given to Ali, creating immediate schism affecting Islam ever since. If you have access to Some Answered Questions by Abdul Baha, you will find sufficient explanation on this subject. He clearly states that the Ummayyads are the Beast, and the dragon, of Revelation, and that this figures in directly as to what transpired within Islam.
"How can you be assured you actually understand what your own prophet said? "
The same as I understand the Words of the Lord Christ: “My sheep know My voice.”
“How do you determine the gospel of Luke to say the virgin birth narrative is literal and the resurrection narrative is figurative?”
On the virgin birth, what is important to Baha’is is not whether or not Jesus had a physical father, pointing out that His greatness did not depend upon this, for Adam was without father or mother, and if this is the indication of greatness, then He (Adam) would be superior to Jesus.
On the Resurrection, I can tell you only that according to my rational mind, there are many inconsistencies in limiting the Resurrection to a literal understanding. First, “He entered the room, not using the door.” appears to suggest a spiritual component to the account.
Second, there exists no historical record of any Jews or “non-believers” who “saw” Him after the crucifixion. Rather, only “believers” “saw” Him.
Third, Jesus said: “If I have told you earthly things, and you believe not, how shall you believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? And no man has ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven”
Hence, His eternal reality, the One which said, “Before Abraham was, I am” descended from heaven, not referring to His physical from, which descended from the womb of Mary.
Again, He states that He “is” in heaven, although His physical form was on earth.
A Catholic Priest and scholar, told me that the same word was employed for “sky” and “heaven” at the time of Jesus.
Also, there is in human history a means of storytelling, where by certain meanings are hidden within parables or metaphors, which some take literally, while others comprehend the hidden truths.
“Do you submit that Jesus Christ is your creator? That without him there would be nothing that was made made?”
As I believe that I have explained to you before, I absolutely believe that as stated in the opening chapter of John, “All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made that was made.”
Do I “submit” to this? I do not submit to limiting that Eternal Identity solely to single, physical appearance of Jesus, the Son of Mary, for I believe that “Before Abraham was, I am.” existed prior to the birth of the infant Jesus, and that the physical person of Jesus, Who was the Christ, was crucified, but that the One Who spoke the words “Before Abraham was, I am”, can never be crucified. The mortal person of the flesh, being mortal, is not the Immortal One Whose voice I hear and know. That is the mystery.
It is as though a person speaking into a microphone at a radio station can be heard from any number of musical sound speakers. To destroy one of these speakers does not affect the one at the radio station. However crude this may sound, it has value, and is easily understood.
I have not “dodged” your questions, but answered them fully to the best of my ability, so help me God. There is nothing further to be said.
Thank you Dale
H
happyme
Guest
Excellent response Daler 
The thing our friend needs to remember is, God does as He wishes, not as we feeble humans consider He must. That His (God’s) understanding is not our understanding.
When we talk together in a forum we should (I feel) as most here do, be polite and if we differ in belief OK, but to speak with disrespect of a Messenger of God, is never a wise thing to do, even if you may not believe. Because if a Messenger is false that will fall back on the follower, but if He is not false, then it will fall upon those who scoff.
The thing our friend needs to remember is, God does as He wishes, not as we feeble humans consider He must. That His (God’s) understanding is not our understanding.
When we talk together in a forum we should (I feel) as most here do, be polite and if we differ in belief OK, but to speak with disrespect of a Messenger of God, is never a wise thing to do, even if you may not believe. Because if a Messenger is false that will fall back on the follower, but if He is not false, then it will fall upon those who scoff.
S
Stylteralmaldo
Guest
Something that bothers me about the Baha’i faith is the apparent lack of the Holy Spirit interacting with the faithful. This may be mostly a perception I have however. Could someone of the Baha’i faith please explain how you view how the Holy Spirit works?
D
daler
Guest
Dear friend,
I think that I know what you mean, for with many Christians the link to the Holy Spirit is profound. It is the same Holy Spirit of God, the same rays of the spiritual Sun which we feel.
There are cultural traditions, ways of praying, etc, that may come into play with your perception, as you say. Baha’is are taught to use the prayers of the Manifestations of God, and there tends to be less of the praying in our own words, although we do that, too. My thoughts are that this is part of what you are referring to.
Also, the frame of reference seems to change when one is accustomed to traditions since childhood, or especially if for many generations. I would imagine that the shift of the early Jewish people, and others, towards Jesus Christ was challenging on several levels. I’m thinking of that movie, Fiddler on the Roof, with the song: “Tradition!”
I came from a farm, and on this one long hill there would appear what we called an artesian well right out of the ground, pure as could be, and cool. Sometimes it would shift and appear in another place. Same water, different well…
Hope this helps. Thank you
D
daler
Guest
The thing our friend needs to remember is, God does as He wishes, not as we feeble humans consider He must. That His (God’s) understanding is not our understanding.
When we talk together in a forum we should (I feel) as most here do, be polite and if we differ in belief OK, but to speak with disrespect of a Messenger of God, is never a wise thing to do, even if you may not believe. Because if a Messenger is false that will fall back on the follower, but if He is not false, then it will fall upon those who scoff.
Very true. It took me quite awhile as a Baha’i to get rid of my prejudices towards Muhammad. I would imagine there were some issues which many Jewish people had with Christ because of historical reasons when the followers of Christ weren’t really following Him.
“As ye have done to the least of these, ye have done unto Me…”
When we talk together in a forum we should (I feel) as most here do, be polite and if we differ in belief OK, but to speak with disrespect of a Messenger of God, is never a wise thing to do, even if you may not believe. Because if a Messenger is false that will fall back on the follower, but if He is not false, then it will fall upon those who scoff.
Very true. It took me quite awhile as a Baha’i to get rid of my prejudices towards Muhammad. I would imagine there were some issues which many Jewish people had with Christ because of historical reasons when the followers of Christ weren’t really following Him.
“As ye have done to the least of these, ye have done unto Me…”
S
Stylteralmaldo
Guest
I have conversed with some of the Baha’i faith before asking them to explain the presence of Muhammad in their faith tradition. This troubles me. When I asked about this, their explanation of this was that Muhammad was needed at that particular time in history - even the sometimes violent nature of spreading the message by Muhammad and his followers. This caused me to ponder further about why Bahá’u’lláh was needed at this particular time in history. The explanation given was that his teachings would remain for about 1000 years until his teachings too would be corrupted by the faithful and then another prophet of God would emerge to set us back on the right path. That response had me ponder further regarding the potential of another Muhammad-like prophet emerging as the next prophet. I am uneasy about this religion and it’s changing from the violence of Muhammad to the peace of Baha’u’llah to who knows what down the road about a 1000 years from now.
By the way…thank you for your previous response. Much appreciated.
H
happyme
Guest
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
he same as I understand the Words of the Lord Christ: “My sheep know My voice.”
And you know you are Jesus’s Sheep how exactly? You may believe that but there is no guarantee, there I no real trust just rather blind optimism. I won’t say faith because I believe faith has a basis, some impetus of belief but despite the examples I have given you from history you would still say you truly understand the words of your prophet? Why is progressive revelation so restricted? Bahai will constantly say that the Christians like the jews rejected Christ when he came but apparently you bahai are special, you alone out of humanity have been chosen. Why were the early and very pious Christians denied this truth? This revelation as to how to understand things as they actually are? You may not see it as a problem, but I do and it is one that I think damages bahai beyond all critical acceptance.
Now its interesting that you say adam was without a father as if he was created ex nihilo or dare I say by a special supernatural act by God? Most Bahai go through great lengths to say “Look we believe in evolution and modern science, we’re so modern!” That’s just my impression of course, are there bahai who deny evolution and instead believe in some sort of creation? How interesting. But I will say that it does matter to the bahai whether or not Jesus was born of a virgin, the quran testifies he was born of a virgin and you accept the quran more so in authority than the bible. Not to mention your prophet also affirmed his virgin birth. But you have not addressed the central point I have raised as to how to read the new testament. Yes you believe that Jesus ascended to a post mortem spiritual existence and that’s how you interpret the gospels despite them going through great lengths to show just the opposite. But how do you establish a mode of interpretation within the text itself which leads us to necessarily accept the virgin birth actually happened but the resurrection account was never meant to be literal? IN reading the gospels there are no disclaimers as to say “Every miracle I will mention in this gospel is figurative except for the virgin birth but an angel didn’t really appear to Mary, cause Angels don’t exist, despite what I write in the text.”
It seems to me the bahai understanding of the gospels is exactly the bahai understanding of the gospels. A product of a post enlightenment thinker and dualist and ultimately naturalist who read the gospels in a way which they were never intended. No father of the early church read them in this way and I find it hard to imagine those early Christian communities, who read it as Christians do today, which were established by the apostles could get it so wrong. How did Ignatius and Polycarp get things so wrong despite being so close to the apostles, being so great in martyrdom fro the church and having a historical connection to the apostle John? Were the apostles so incompetent? Or is this all on those who succeeded the apostles? And this ultimately goes back to my point first point, how did God allow his church to fall to the gate of hades? And how is the quran found wrong when it says there would be a faithful remnant to this day? This is important and bahai need to address it.
Now I’m sure that catholic priest would also tell you that in Luke’s account Jesus is physically with the apostles one of the key things here is that Jesus eats fish. Luke the author goes through great pains to present Jesus as a physical entity and this makes no sense if I were to read it as bahai. What is the figurative value in Luke having Jesus say “I am not a spirit” and he ate fish and honeycomb? I’m sure some sort of reading could be conjured up, that this was spiritual fish and honeycomb that represent something but that raises a whole lot of other issues. So when luke, the author of acts says Jesus ascended to the sky I am inclined to believe him, as I’m also inclined to believe in the same thing said of Elijah whose book is most certainly historic or written as such a genre, not prone to random metaphors.
So it doesn’t do one any good to suppose this part of the narrative is metaphorical. Indeed bahai seem to do this and this is again my central question, what cues are there in the text to show us that one part of the narrative is figurative and one part is literal? Bahai believe Jesus literally said the things he said but why should we interpret Jesus as actually saying these things? Maybe luke just meant he figuratively said these things. That’s the whole gospel, a narrative presented to the reader to convey something. What was Luke trying to convey? Gnostic wisdom which may or may not have actually happened? Or the truth of the account of the events of the Like of Jesus of Nazereth and the apostles? Or was Luke a 21st century bahai who alone could understand this until Mirza Hussain came onto the scene 1800 years later?
Now your response is a bit ambigious, as to the matter of whether or not Jesus is your creator. Do you believe you owe your existence to the person of Jesus Christ? That is by person we are meaning his identity in pre incarnation existence or post incarnation existence? Do you believe this of Jesus Christ? And please understand that I use the term Christ as being related to Jesus alone.
Also would you accept the idea as historically necessary for bahai that the early church necessarily became corrupt? I would hardly expect you to agree with Ignatius, Clement, Polycarp, Justin, Iraneaus and those other eminent ante Nicene fathers.
And you know you are Jesus’s Sheep how exactly? You may believe that but there is no guarantee, there I no real trust just rather blind optimism. I won’t say faith because I believe faith has a basis, some impetus of belief but despite the examples I have given you from history you would still say you truly understand the words of your prophet? Why is progressive revelation so restricted? Bahai will constantly say that the Christians like the jews rejected Christ when he came but apparently you bahai are special, you alone out of humanity have been chosen. Why were the early and very pious Christians denied this truth? This revelation as to how to understand things as they actually are? You may not see it as a problem, but I do and it is one that I think damages bahai beyond all critical acceptance.
Now its interesting that you say adam was without a father as if he was created ex nihilo or dare I say by a special supernatural act by God? Most Bahai go through great lengths to say “Look we believe in evolution and modern science, we’re so modern!” That’s just my impression of course, are there bahai who deny evolution and instead believe in some sort of creation? How interesting. But I will say that it does matter to the bahai whether or not Jesus was born of a virgin, the quran testifies he was born of a virgin and you accept the quran more so in authority than the bible. Not to mention your prophet also affirmed his virgin birth. But you have not addressed the central point I have raised as to how to read the new testament. Yes you believe that Jesus ascended to a post mortem spiritual existence and that’s how you interpret the gospels despite them going through great lengths to show just the opposite. But how do you establish a mode of interpretation within the text itself which leads us to necessarily accept the virgin birth actually happened but the resurrection account was never meant to be literal? IN reading the gospels there are no disclaimers as to say “Every miracle I will mention in this gospel is figurative except for the virgin birth but an angel didn’t really appear to Mary, cause Angels don’t exist, despite what I write in the text.”
It seems to me the bahai understanding of the gospels is exactly the bahai understanding of the gospels. A product of a post enlightenment thinker and dualist and ultimately naturalist who read the gospels in a way which they were never intended. No father of the early church read them in this way and I find it hard to imagine those early Christian communities, who read it as Christians do today, which were established by the apostles could get it so wrong. How did Ignatius and Polycarp get things so wrong despite being so close to the apostles, being so great in martyrdom fro the church and having a historical connection to the apostle John? Were the apostles so incompetent? Or is this all on those who succeeded the apostles? And this ultimately goes back to my point first point, how did God allow his church to fall to the gate of hades? And how is the quran found wrong when it says there would be a faithful remnant to this day? This is important and bahai need to address it.
Now I’m sure that catholic priest would also tell you that in Luke’s account Jesus is physically with the apostles one of the key things here is that Jesus eats fish. Luke the author goes through great pains to present Jesus as a physical entity and this makes no sense if I were to read it as bahai. What is the figurative value in Luke having Jesus say “I am not a spirit” and he ate fish and honeycomb? I’m sure some sort of reading could be conjured up, that this was spiritual fish and honeycomb that represent something but that raises a whole lot of other issues. So when luke, the author of acts says Jesus ascended to the sky I am inclined to believe him, as I’m also inclined to believe in the same thing said of Elijah whose book is most certainly historic or written as such a genre, not prone to random metaphors.
So it doesn’t do one any good to suppose this part of the narrative is metaphorical. Indeed bahai seem to do this and this is again my central question, what cues are there in the text to show us that one part of the narrative is figurative and one part is literal? Bahai believe Jesus literally said the things he said but why should we interpret Jesus as actually saying these things? Maybe luke just meant he figuratively said these things. That’s the whole gospel, a narrative presented to the reader to convey something. What was Luke trying to convey? Gnostic wisdom which may or may not have actually happened? Or the truth of the account of the events of the Like of Jesus of Nazereth and the apostles? Or was Luke a 21st century bahai who alone could understand this until Mirza Hussain came onto the scene 1800 years later?
Now your response is a bit ambigious, as to the matter of whether or not Jesus is your creator. Do you believe you owe your existence to the person of Jesus Christ? That is by person we are meaning his identity in pre incarnation existence or post incarnation existence? Do you believe this of Jesus Christ? And please understand that I use the term Christ as being related to Jesus alone.
Also would you accept the idea as historically necessary for bahai that the early church necessarily became corrupt? I would hardly expect you to agree with Ignatius, Clement, Polycarp, Justin, Iraneaus and those other eminent ante Nicene fathers.
G
grannymh
Guest
As a child, I remember my Dad taking me to the Baha’i Temple in Wilmette, Illinois. Only the lower level was accessible because construction had slowed during the Depression. There were tables with loads of information and gracious people who shared their faith. As Catholics, my Dad was very interested in what was to him, a new religion.Baha’i Faith has it’s own Writings and practices that are distinct but we also believe in the spiritual oneness of the major religions. Baha’is are also active in inter-faith activities in many communities and particpate in the Parliament of World Religions when it meets.
We do acknowledge that there are different social ordinances in the various religions and sometimes this is due to the various cultures and relative isolation over time…
I remember a very nice and patient person explaining the role of Jesus Christ. My memory has lost the details, but as I recall, Jesus was respected as a prophet.
Your comment “but we also believe in the spiritual oneness of the major religions” triggered that long ago time. Currently, I would like to know how Jesus Christ is considered today. Is He a prophet among prophets?
Thank you.
- Status