Bahá'í

[PRmerger]

PR Its been awhile since I read up on them, but what I seem to remember is that they confirmed the accuracy of what has been handed down to us which we have today. That is amazing in itself.

So then you are still affirming that which the Catholic Church discerned? Yes?

All I meant is that whoever preserved the texts is to be commended, whether they identified themselves as Catholic, in word or meaning. God bless them for doing God’s work.

Indeed.

I also think that I understand that you are saying that it was the work of the early believers, whom you identify as being of the original Catholic Church, whether Roman, Eastern, or otherwise, which is responsible for creating what we call “the Bible”.

It is the work of bishops. Catholic bishops.

Thus, this all started when Little Star was dismissive of “man-made institutions” while, curiously, also deferring to this “man-made institution” in claiming to know anything at all about what Jesus taught or said or did.

Please enlighten me, if you will, as to your understanding of what the Protestants have included or excluded in “their” Bible from what the Catholics include or exclude.

Their NT is 27 books, which they get from the Catholic Church.

They removed 7 books from the OT.

“Can’t we all just get along?” Rodney King James Version

Amen!

But not at the expense of truth.

 

[PRmerger]

Hello, everyone!

Let me introduce myself. My name is John, but you can call me jcc if you like. I am a Baha’i, and was invited to join this discussion by daler. That was last week, I spend the past several days reading all 60 pages of discussion on this thread. I feel like I have known you all for years!

Welcome!

I have been a Baha’i since age 18, but was raised a Catholic, attended parochial school for a few years, and had first Communion and Confirmation classes, etc. I have also had the opportunity to work closely with Catholic priests, nuns and laity when I was a Peace Corps volunteer back in the 1980s. I have to tell you, I do have a great respect for the Church, and I would not have left it for another Christian denomination or an older religion, but it is because I feel a profound spiritual connection not only with Jesus, but also with Moses, Krishna, Buddha, Muhammad, and when Iearned about them, with the Bab and Baha’u’llah.

I am curious about your catechesis in the Catholic Church, John. Did you understand what was happening at the Eucharist, and the profound One Flesh Union you were sharing with Christ?

 

[Jcc1960]

Welcome

I am curious about your catechesis in the Catholic Church, John. Did you understand what was happening at the Eucharist, and the profound One Flesh Union you were sharing with Christ?

Thanks! And yes I do think I understand what a Sacrament signifies, and the Eucharist as being, according to Catholic belief, the actual body of Christ, having been transubstantiated. I don’t share that belief now, I see it as a symbol. Jesus said “do this in memory of Me”. So,I would say that what is important is to remember Christ, and the redemption that He gave the world. Christian rite is to partake of that redemption in this literal way, believing that it is the actual body of Christ.

I would not try to argue that the Christian practice or belief is somehow wrong. There is a clear progress in both rite and symbolism between Jewish animal sacrifice at the temple, and the redemption from sin that Christ brought through His sacrifice on the cross. The celebration of the Eucharist is a religious innovation, a new form of worship that is entirely appropriate for the Christian dispensation.

I believe that the forms of communion with God that Baha’u’llah brought are appropriate for this age.

 

[Servant19]

What subjective interpretation can you give to Matthew 16:18 that also applies to Isaiah 22:22?

The interpretation of successorship may well be objectively clear but what is not clear at all is that the Word of God is incredibly weighty and authorized interpretation is often a necessity.

Compare it with the absolutely clear Words of Bahaullah that Abdul-Baha is the be referred to when anything requires further clarity:

“O people of the world! When the Mystic Dove will have winged its flight from its Sanctuary of Praise and sought its far-off goal, its hidden habitation, refer ye whatsoever ye understand not in the Book to Him Who hath branched from this mighty Stock.”
Baha’u’llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, paragraph 174

There is a clear and distinct difference between this paragraph and the clarity of the verses in Matthew/Isaiah

This is unique.

In fact because of this total clarity there is very often clear understanding of many weighty theological areas, this creates further unity amongst the Baha’is.

The Revelation of Bahaullah is vast, the body of interpretive Text is even vaster. There is little room for vacillation. Baha’is know exactly what they have to do to build the Kingdom of God

 

[daler]

So then you are still affirming that which the Catholic Church discerned? Yes?

It is the work of bishops. Catholic bishops.

Thus, this all started when Little Star was dismissive of “man-made institutions” while, curiously, also deferring to this “man-made institution” in claiming to know anything at all about what Jesus taught or said or did.

Their NT is 27 books, which they get from the Catholic Church.
They removed 7 books from the OT.
Amen!

But not at the expense of truth.

PR I had to do a little whittling in my brain on this one. I have no doubt that originally, the origins of the church were with Peter and the other Apostles. How this came to be called “Catholicism”, I do not know, but I accept that their faith was the foundation of the Catholic Church. This much makes sense to me.

I think, and this is trying to be both open and tactful, that many in the non-Catholic traditions have had some issues in regard to problems which arose within the Institutions of the Church, as centered in Rome, for various reasons which arose historically. There is probably some “half-life” remaining where trust has been eroded from past events, such as the Inquisitions and so forth.

I do not myself have any prejudices that I am aware of regarding Catholicism, for so many of my close friends and schoolmates were Catholic, and later in life friends and people at work, etc. When I lived in Pennsylvania for ten years or more, I was quite shocked at the prejudice I encountered against Catholics from non-Catholic Christians, who wouldn’t even admit them under the term of “Christian”. To me, that was as low as racism in all of its various disguises and forms, and was intolerable; quite beyond my comprehension.

I have a neighbor who is extremely racist, and I’ve tried to talk with him, but it does no good. He’s set in his ways, otherwise intelligent and upright, but sees the world as “white”. I still get along with him, but try to stay away from the subject, as it does no good to aggravate him. Still, I stand my ground when he expands his attitudes into my territory or concerns. I grew up seeing racism on the reservation, and elsewhere, and want no part of it, yet still try to understand people saddled with such views.

Well, I’ve whittled enough for one post. Gotta leave some wood on the post, right?

 

[SteveVH]

Thanks! And yes I do think I understand what a Sacrament signifies, and the Eucharist as being, according to Catholic belief, the actual body of Christ, having been transubstantiated. I don’t share that belief now, I see it as a symbol. Jesus said “do this in memory of Me”. So,I would say that what is important is to remember Christ, and the redemption that He gave the world. Christian rite is to partake of that redemption in this literal way, believing that it is the actual body of Christ.

I would not try to argue that the Christian practice or belief is somehow wrong. There is a clear progress in both rite and symbolism between Jewish animal sacrifice at the temple, and the redemption from sin that Christ brought through His sacrifice on the cross. The celebration of the Eucharist is a religious innovation, a new form of worship that is entirely appropriate for the Christian dispensation.

I believe that the forms of communion with God that Baha’u’llah brought are appropriate for this age.

First of all I would like to welcome you as well. Secondly, I would ask that you be very clear here. Are you saying that the Christian “dispensation” is over? Do you remember as a Catholic hearing about the “New and Everlasting Covenant” in His blood? Do you remember Jesus telling us that he would not leave us orphans, but would remain with us until the end of time; that is, until He comes again in glory and there is a new heaven and a new earth?

I would like you to consider something, and that is the fact that the Bible, the only canonized record of the life and words of Jesus Christ, is a product of the Catholic Church. Out of over 400 texts that were considered, only 27 of those made it into the new Testament. Their validity as to being inspired Scripture was measured against the already existing (for nearly 400 years) Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church; the deposit of faith handed down orally from the Apostles, as reflected in her early teachings and liturgies. The Bible is only that part of Sacred Tradition committed to writing ( i. e. Paul preached for thirty days straight in the Temple. Not a word of it is mentioned in Scripture).

My entire point in laying this out is that one cannot properly interpret Christian Scripture without looking through the lens of Catholic teaching. The sacred texts were chosen because they accurately reflected the truth that the Church already possessed. When they are interpreted in a manner that ignores the Sacred Tradition from which they came they cannot be properly understood.

So when you decide on your own personal authority that the Eucharist, the source and summit of the Catholic faith, is a mere symbol, please keep in mind that you are disagreeing with all of the early Church Fathers, students of the Apostles such as Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch; Church doctors such as Ambrose, Jerome, Basil, Athanasius; incredible minds such as Augustine and Aquinas. I could go on and on and on. The point is that this belief has been examined by each succeeding generation for 2000 years. As a former Catholic, I would ask you to re-examine your position on this most important question. It is so important, in fact, that if you are correct, that it is merely a symbol, then the Catholic Church would cease to exist.

 

[SteveVH]

Steve, my friend, there’s something you are not quite understanding about the use of the term “Manifestation” of God. It occurred to me the other day that there is a phrase which is used, similar to what I think is meant by the Trinity. It is called Divine Unity. This is very important, I think, to help our conversation move forward, so indulge me a little if you don’t mind, and read and study the following.
Then, please, let us discuss our understanding of God and His Manifestation, whether applied to Christ or Baha’u’llah. The last paragraph is especially important. Thanks!

. "Regard thou the one true God as One Who is apart from, and immeasurably exalted above, all created things. The whole universe reflecteth His glory, while He is Himself independent of, and transcendeth His creatures. This is the true meaning of Divine unity. He Who is the Eternal Truth is the one Power Who exerciseth undisputed sovereignty over the world of being, Whose image is reflected in the mirror of the entire creation. All existence is dependent upon Him, and from Him is derived the source of the sustenance of all things. This is what is meant by Divine unity; this is its fundamental principle.
Some, deluded by their idle fancies, have conceived all created things as associates and partners of God, and imagined themselves to be the exponents of His unity. By Him Who is the one true God! Such men have been, and will continue to remain, the victims of blind imitation, and are to be numbered with them that have restricted and limited the conception of God.

He is a true believer in Divine unity who, far from confusing duality with oneness, refuseth to allow any notion of multiplicity to becloud his conception of the singleness of God, who will regard the Divine Being as One Who, by His very nature, transcendeth the limitations of numbers.

I find nothing here with which I disagree.

The essence of belief in Divine unity consisteth in regarding Him Who is the Manifestation of God and Him Who is the invisible, the inaccessible, the unknowable Essence as one and the same.

We prefer to say that God became incarnate, but I think you mean the same thing. Jesus is the image, the exact representation of the invisible God. He is more than an image, however, he is God made flesh, not flesh made God.

By this is meant that whatever pertaineth to the former, all His acts and doings, whatever He ordaineth or forbiddeth, should be considered, in all their aspects, and under all circumstances, and without any reservation, as identical with the Will of God Himself.

Agreed, because it is the will of God himself.

This is the loftiest station to which a true believer in the unity of God can ever hope to attain. Blessed is the man that reacheth this station, and is of them that are steadfast in their belief."

I am a little confused here. Is this saying that holding the belief in God as described above is the loftiest station one can attain or is it saying that one can become a “manifestation of God” themselves and this is the loftiest station one can attain?

In any event, we certainly agree that there is only one God and that he is eternally above all other things that exist and is the author of all creation, sustaining it with his hand. Where we will disagree is on the nature of this one God (Trinity), but that is another conversation.

Thanks for the quotes.

 

[Servant19]

Hello, everyone!

Let me introduce myself. My name is John, but you can call me jcc if you like. I am a Baha’i, and was invited to join this discussion by daler. That was last week, I spend the past several days reading all 60 pages of discussion on this thread. I feel like I have known you all for years!

I have been a Baha’i since age 18, but was raised a Catholic, attended parochial school for a few years, and had first Communion and Confirmation classes, etc. I have also had the opportunity to work closely with Catholic priests, nuns and laity when I was a Peace Corps volunteer back in the 1980s. I have to tell you, I do have a great respect for the Church, and I would not have left it for another Christian denomination or an older religion, but it is because I feel a profound spiritual connection not only with Jesus, but also with Moses, Krishna, Buddha, Muhammad, and when Iearned about them, with the Bab and Baha’u’llah.

There is a strong tradition in the Church (Latin and Greek) to profess both faith and reason as the means to know God, and I respect and embrace that fully, as it is also a Baha’i teaching. Let us reason together, though belief may come later.

Welcome indeed John. Allah’u’Abha!

God is great and your presence here is cherished.

I always have a sense of longing to truly belong to another religion, and having found Baha’u’llah through an independent search.

Much like what I witnessed with my Muslim friend who recognized Baha’u’llah after having cried through the Arabic chanting of a Tablet, I always sense that a different feeling is evoked when the Light of God is recognized via a new Lantern.

Welcome again dear friend

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Just a quick note:

Absolute Infallibility is given to the Manifestation of God ONLY

Inferred infallibility which has been authoritatively given to the Institutions DOES NOT, I repeat DOES NOT mean that an Institution can develop entire belief systems based on an interpretation of the Words of God. Jesus cannot say A and the Catholic Church says ABCDEF… Baha’u’llah cannot say A, and the Universal House of Justice says ABCDEF.

When an Interpreter of the Word of God has been authoritatively appointed by the Manifestation of God, then they can do that. So when Baha’u’llah says A, and then (in written form) appoints Abdul-Baha to be His Interpreter, then Abdul-Baha has the authority to say ABCDEFGHIJKL whatever

This is unique in religious history…

But a manifestation can say A is B then another manifestation can come alonge as say A is not B according to bahai. Popes may say another thing but they try not to contradict themselves.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Well, if you believe the Catholic church is the body of Christ, then you have a problem. If you don’t, then there is no problem. I do not believe he was talking about an institution at all. Instead, he was talking about those that follow and love Him. I don’t think it ever was “his” church. Those that follow and love him will not be prevailed against by Hades church or no church. It takes far more than going to church, following church rules, etc., to follow Christ in the manner in which I speak. Most people have little understanding of this and this is understood by Christ. It does not make them any less perfect than those that do. They are perfect for the purposes God has chosen for them to serve.

See, I don’t believe, no I know, that he does not need a “church” building or organization to reach his people. I believe they serve a purpose for those that cannot find direction on their own. As you don’t understand how it is possible, or appear not to, to follow Jesus without ascribing to particular dogma, then you will find fault in what I just wrote.

This is just the way it is. We all have our own ways. The thing is not to think you occupy a superior place just because you call yourself Catholic. As far as listening to what the Pharisee say but not doing what they do, from what I have read of your responses to some members, you need to give it a try. Study each time it comes up in the NT and think back on some of the things you have said to others and where you are mirroring their behavior. If you are honest in doing this, you will grow.

If you look under my name it should be obvious and clear that I am not roman catholic, bahais please learn the difference between orthodox Christianity and Roman Catholic Christianity, there is a difference. But what we would agree on is that hte body of Christ is a community, that there are members to that body of the assembly of Christ and we compose that body (that is the orthodox). If you want to think there is no institution, no authority, no collective body, no communion in the early church it just means you have not read the epistles or the gospel or acts or early church history enough. Obey your elders and defer to them, the author of hebrews says, Paul writes admonition, advice and instruction to churches he is not overseeing at the time of his writing those letters (as if he had authority to do so), the apostles go around and put their hands on people giving them authority of the deaconship or presbyrate, they collect donations, they travel to places often and at one point Peter and Paul together go so far as to go to rome and die for the faith (while establishing the Bishopric there).

This strawman of attacking people who believe in church, as if they believed in only a church building (doubtless if the aposltes had the oppurtunity they would have their own actual buildings dedicated to worship for is that forbidden now?) i’m quite tired of it. NO ONE EDUCATED who knows what they are talking about thinks the church is just a building, just a collection of people. Go read the fathers, go read paul to see what the church is instead of generalising it to a degree it is unrecognisable to me. What you describe is not what I believe but the false image of church you have and you should realise the difference. Bahai may not have the sacramental reality of Orthodox Christians but they have a community, it may amount to nothing more than a social club (judging from the way they advertise on their websites) but its something I guess.

So if you are honest little star you will realise the communion, the authority of elders apostles and the like in the early church, the sacramental reality and the actual church consisting of People in one communion who participate in one eucharist. Bahai have none of these things. Protestants like yourself lack these things as well.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Yes, Iggy, and His Son said He would come back, too. He said look to Daniel the Prophet and stand in the Holy Place. I’ve been there, I know. And “He” was there.
But you don’t want to look into the many prophecies I could give you. You’d just twist them up anyway, cause its what you like to do. But others, who do look at them, see the patterns as they line up one by one, by the hundreds in fact. But I think that would require more than you have to give, so I’m not asking you to look into it. Why, as overwhelming as they are, we wouldn’t want you to be overwhelmed now would we Iggy. So you stay right there, down in your little comfort zone with your pile of rocks and I’ll change my name to Stephen and let you just rock on, Bubba. I’ll pray for you, that as hard-hearted and blind as you are, which is where you get your pride and fuel your juice bottle, and one day, when you get to meet Jesus, and He says, “Iggy, I never knew you.” You might just have a few of them rocks left for Him, too. He’ll be hard to miss, for He’ll be standing right there next to His Father, Baha’u’llah. And me? I’ll still be sittin’ here with a few hundred prophecies that I could offer one after another, bing, bing, bing…
So don’t ask, Iggy. And don’t bother to be courteous. We wouldn’t want to see you change. We like you just the way you are, buddy. God bless you, brother. God bless

Does anyone else see a responce to my actual point? That bahai propogate the lie they have maintained perfect unity since the begining of their short lived, not very populated Holy-less religion? I see him trying to insult me, calling me ignorent of the divine reality he has supposebly understood but what I do not see his him admitting that bahai have not maintained perfect unity with each other. What do we call this? Its a logical fallacy of some sort? A red Herring? Trying to get away from the actual subject? Stay focused please.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Actually Ignatian I can attest to have witnessed with my own eyes the transformation of an Arabic speaking Muslim after having read one of the Tablets of Baha’u’llah in its original Arabic.

He had never read this Tablet before and as he read it out aloud tears streamed down his face and he struggled to contain its melodious beauty and penetrating holiness.

Upon finishing the Tablet he attested to the fact that just this ONE Tablet alone had resolved nearly all the mysteries and struggles he had over decades of studying the Quran and Ingil (Bible).

I have very few Arab friends, but my wife is Jordanian, and her brother lives in the Middle East. He has told me that this sort of transformative and deeply moving effect of the Writings of Baha’u’llah are a very regular occurrence when read in their original language.

This so called “antique” English that you call it does not do it ANY justice…

I personally WISH I knew Arabic, those Words of God are my longing and my hearts desire.

Okay if it solves all mysterys of the quran show me where it solves the problem of their being a true group of followers of Jesus who would be victorius to the day of ressurection. Where were the true followers of Jesus between Jesus and Muhammad? Answer this mystery to me.

 

[Servant19]

But a manifestation can say A is B then another manifestation can come alonge as say A is not B according to bahai. Popes may say another thing but they try not to contradict themselves.

Show me an example of this Ignatian please

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Show me an example of this Ignatian please

Alright, did Mirza Hussain teach as Bahia believe that Manifestations are perfect mirrors of God? They are extra dimensional beings be it one or maybe an infinite amount of persons right?

 

[Servant19]

Does anyone else see a responce to my actual point? That bahai propogate the lie they have maintained perfect unity since the begining of their short lived, not very populated Holy-less religion? I see him trying to insult me, calling me ignorent of the divine reality he has supposebly understood but what I do not see his him admitting that bahai have not maintained perfect unity with each other. What do we call this? Its a logical fallacy of some sort? A red Herring? Trying to get away from the actual subject? Stay focused please.

No Ignatian, what you fail to see is that there are those that are Baha’is and those that are not. It’s really that simple.

When Baha’u’llah declared that He was the Promised One of all religions, there were those that believed and those that did not. You CAN’T call the ones that did not believe Him a sect of the Bahai Faith.

Again, when Baha’u’llah CLEARLY states that when He passes away ALL Baha’is must turn to Abdul-Baha, there are those that remain steadfast and those that think, “Oh OK I’ll start my own religion here and call it AbdulHater, whatever, (enter your own delusion in this space)”…what it’s not is a sect of the Bahai Faith.

With this logic, Scientology, Mormonism, and Rastafarianism can all be called sects of the Bahai Faith!

Your argument against the unity of the Bahai Faith is laughable and really bordering on childish. Time to look at the facts my friend.

 

[Servant19]

Alright, did Mirza Hussain teach as Bahia believe that Manifestations are perfect mirrors of God? They are extra dimensional beings be it one or maybe an infinite amount of persons right?

Give me quotes Ignatian, not random snippets of ignatians mind

 

[happyme]

Welcome indeed John. Allah’u’Abha!

God is great and your presence here is cherished.

I always have a sense of longing to truly belong to another religion, and having found Baha’u’llah through an independent search.

Much like what I witnessed with my Muslim friend who recognized Baha’u’llah after having cried through the Arabic chanting of a Tablet, I always sense that a different feeling is evoked when the Light of God is recognized via a new Lantern.

Welcome again dear friend

Beloved friends
I also wish to welcome you here.
We all have different paths to faith. I being a strong Christian found the truth of Muhammad, before discovering Baha’u’llah, so now I am a stronger Christian than ever before, of course certain people have trouble understanding this. But there is only one God and his teachings are one, no matter that people may think, feel and say. People cause division not God, He (thankfully) teaches and is the cause of UNITY.

 

[SteveVH]

Beloved friends
I also wish to welcome you here.
We all have different paths to faith. I being a strong Christian found the truth of Muhammad, before discovering Baha’u’llah, so now I am a stronger Christian than ever before, of course certain people have trouble understanding this. But there is only one God and his teachings are one, no matter that people may think, feel and say. People cause division not God, He (thankfully) teaches and is the cause of UNITY.

And this is where we part ways. It seems that you believe that the differences and contradictions between different faiths are all just an illusion. In other words “we believe the same thing whether you think we do or not.” This flies in the face of objective truth and reason.

One cannot believe that Jesus is the second Person of the Trinity; God made flesh, who suffered, died and rose again on the third day; the Savior of the world, and at the same time believe that he is not the Son of God, that he did not die on the cross and that he certainly did not rise from the dead and therefore is not the Savior of the world. One cannot, therefore, be Christian and Muslim at the same time without creating some sort of confused conglomeration of the two that does neither justice. And then add Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster and who ever else you include in your list of “prophets” and “manifestations” and you have a religion unrecognizable by the very “prophets” you claim to follow. Surely you see the dilemma here.

You are very correct in saying that God does not cause division. We can agree that this is the truth. We also must recognize the fact that there is division. This is also the truth. So we can therefore conclude that where there is division (Christ rose from the dead / Christ did not rise from the dead) one must be in error. The erroneous belief causing the division, then, originates in man, not God, since he does not cause division and can never be in error. The point: The two conflicting religions cannot both be true and therefore cannot both be of God.

Just so we are very clear, I would have no problem in going through each of the religions that the Baha’i embrace as part of their own and make a long list of truths expressed in each of those religions, and I will say that there is much truth. The problem is not with the truth that exists in these religions, but rather the error. I have made the analogy before that I would not eat a cookie that was made with 99% good and healthy ingredients and 1% dog feces. It is the same with religion. It is the 1% that will make you sick.

 

[Servant19]

Dear Steve,

Surely what is interpretive conflict does not equate to ACTUAL conflict.

The Bible is prone to a whole host of interpretation. The theological verities held within are complex indeed. It is open to a whole host of interpretations.

Who has CLEAR, unopposed authority on the interpretation of the complex verses held therein?

 

[SteveVH]

Hi Steve, thank you for your response

Where did Jesus give this authority?

Glad you asked. Jesus gave incredible, awesome authority to his Church.

"Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Mt 16:17-19)

The Church, through its human leader, Peter, was given the authority to bind in heaven that which it binds on earth and to loose in heaven that which it looses on earth. This is Christ’s own authority. As he was sent from the Father, so he was sending the Church to preach the kingdom of God to the whole world. The power to bind and loose is legislative power. This is why the Church had the authority to determine the canon of Scripture and is the only authoritative interpreter of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. The Church was gifted with the divine assistance of the Holy Spirit who Christ promised to send, to lead it into all truth.

Now, to say that these words can be interpreted differently is much like a person from another country coming to the Supreme Court of the United States and arguing that the way we interpret our constitution is incorrect. The sacred texts making up the Bible were included because they were in agreement with what the Church already held to be true. To think that they would include texts that contradict what they held to be true is simply an unreasonable position.