Bahá'í

[IgnatianPhilo]

In Deuteronomy, Moses warns the Jewish people that they should beware of false prophets who lead the people to worship other gods, though they dream dreams and perform signs of wonder, that is, miracles.

Therefore Jesus is a false prophet (Because he was born of a virgin)? Therefore every prophet (because the book of numbers in the torah says that God will no longer appear to men like he had to Moses or even Abraham but instead in dreams) is false? I know bahai are fond of making any narrative literal and figurative without the slightest justification except that it is convenient to your doctrine but the entire book preceeding it (exodus) goes through great lengths to show the glory and power of God to not only jews but disbelieving gentiles. Am I supposed to consider it as nothing that God destroyed all the first born? This is unimportant? Meaningless in the grand scheme of things? I don’t think I can do that.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

There are miracles which are defined articles of Catholic faith. The Immaculate Conception, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection of Christ. There are events of Scripture which may have naturalistic explanations–the multiplying of loaves, which COULD HAVE BEEN a case where Christ’s preaching might have broken down walls of selfishness among peoples accustomed to secreting away food. (I happen NOT to share this view, btw).

My point is: while the Baha’i Faith does not deny that miracles occur, these miracles are really only truly wondrous to those who experience them directly. As someone else said, overstating the case but with a good measure of truth–to everyone thereafter, the account of a miracle is nothing but hearsay.

You seem wont to make the Baha’i Faith something less than it is. Well, that is your privilege. You and I share the conclusion that it falls short of the Fullness of Divine Truth. That aside–it remains admirable, whether you personally admire that Baha’i Faith or not. God Bless, Ignitio!

Why do you limit God with your obsession to get as much naturalism as possible? Did the spit of Jesus contain some sort of natural biological information that healed the blind man? Maybe Lazurus wasn’t really dead for three days… Maybe the fig tree sponteanously combusted from the heat of the sun which I hear happens alot in israel and thus it died and withered. Sorry for being cynical but in attempting to naturalize everything except some core essentials I can’t help think you would have no objection to a figurative reading of every single one of these miracles. Why can Jesus be risen to higher ressurection from death but Lazurus cannot even but for a time briefly return from hades to the land of the living? Maybe Mary was a Chimera or had something wrong medically with her and didn’t really have a virgin birth, producing via biological function the semen and the egg herself without God (as some bahai have tried to tell me, putting the theotokos on a level equal to an animal which is reported to have done this)?.

Now my concern with the bahai faith is chiefly concerning the one miracle that really matters, the ressurection which they deny. They instead prefer a dualistic, platonist, originist interpretation of these verses refusing the idea of flesh becoming sanctified unto God. That is I present the case that the narratives of the New testament gospels are to be found literal accounts, maybe allowing for some exageration in certain cases (such as satan showing Christ the entire world, which even the ancients at this point of time would have found impossible because they fully believed in a spherical earth) but ultimately retaining a coherent literal narrative. But heres where the bahai err in following their expounder of the new testament. The virgin birth narrative which I do not think to any great degree can be much more unbelievable than the ressurection narrative is not figurative for them but instead literal. Jesus was literally born of a virgin and then immediately without warning in the text Luke and Mathew proceed to describe the ministry of Jesus and conveniently every other miracle he does (which I would contend he did for a purpose) is either unimportant or figurative in the bahai understanding. Jesus couldn’t have possibly risen Lazurus from the dead, that would infer that there might be something wrong with Lazurus being dead so this is figurative. Jesus couldn’t have possibly not been a spirit when he said to his apostles “Does a spirit eat?” and then proceeds to eat the fish as if he were a human being, as if Luke in writing this account was trying to show that Jesus actually physically returned from the dead. Jesus didn’t really let Thomas touch him, even though he invited him to do so, but thomas could never have really touched Jesus for he wasn’t really there, in fact this event never actually happened and is a metaphorical account of Thomas coming to believe in Christ despite there being every inclination to disbelieve this crucified Christ. Every time the new testament challanges a bahais belief they respond “its figurative.”

The bahai reading of the new testament is exactly that, the bahai reading of the new testament. It is theirs alone and only they have found the truth within this text which was impossible to discover in 2000 years of biblical study. Not even those who knew the apostles were privy to this, and suspect the apostles themselves had no intention of relaying the information of an infinite amount of divine manifestations coming to humanity for all eternity but that is clearly there in the new testament according to bahai. The profound arrogance of this statement (that only they understand the new testament) put aside, I will only say that I think their interpretation is seriously flawed, their views of miracle diminishing the actual power of God to do as he sees fit in this world. To hell be natural laws if God so desires something (like a virgin birth which I think they embarressingly believe).

In the end I think you are both wrong, that is I think you are wrong to deny the actual miracles of God on earth.

 

[flameburns623]

Ignition: I specifically said that I DO NOT share the views I described. I happen to believe that the water at the Wedding of Cana was transmuted to wine, that a few loaves and a few fishes were multiplied to feed multitudes.

But the Scriptures do not plainly say this, and the Church has not defined those as miracles which MUST be believed. Which goes off the topic a bit.

My point was to agree with Arthra, who was affirming some of the writings of the founder of his Faith: second-hand accounts of miracles, no matter how strong a case can be made for such accounts, tend to be faith-affirming for those who ALREADY HAVE FAITH. For those who do not yet have faith, no such benefit accrues. Which suggests that the benefits of trumpeting such accounts tends to be limited. OTOH, lives of even deeply skeptical persons are deeply touched by seeing persons of faith living out their religion in a humble, faithful way.

You’re still talking “direct experience” here: but miracles are by definition excdptional and most people will never have direct experience of a miracle.

On the other hand, many thousands of people will have direct experience of you and I as people, many hundreds of those thousands will have direct, albeit fleeting, experience of us as Christians, and hopefully many dozens will experience how we live our faith rather directly. Which suggests that the greater return-on-investment in encouraging faith in other will be found in each and every faithful Christian living out their Christian lives. Rather than in proclaiming miracles.

Which is all Arthra and the other adherents of the Baha’i Faith are saying: that although miracles have happened–it is holy living by the People of Faith which is more likely to change the greatest number of unconverted lives to the greatest degree.

 

[flameburns623]

Ignition: I specifically said that I DO NOT share the views I described. I happen to believe that the water at the Wedding of Cana was transmuted to wine, that a few loaves and a few fishes were multiplied to feed multitudes.

But the Scriptures do not plainly say this, and the Church has not defined those as miracles which MUST be believed. Which goes off the topic a bit.

My point was to agree with Arthra, who was affirming some of the writings of the founder of his Faith: second-hand accounts of miracles, no matter how strong a case can be made for such accounts, tend to be faith-affirming for those who ALREADY HAVE FAITH. For those who do not yet have faith, no such benefit accrues. Which suggests that the benefits of trumpeting such accounts tends to be limited. OTOH, lives of even deeply skeptical persons are deeply touched by seeing persons of faith living out their religion in a humble, faithful way.

You’re still talking “direct experience” here: but miracles are by definition excdptional and most people will never have direct experience of a miracle.

On the other hand, many thousands of people will have direct experience of you and I as people, many hundreds of those thousands will have direct, albeit fleeting, experience of us as Christians, and hopefully many dozens will experience how we live our faith rather directly. Which suggests that the greater return-on-investment in encouraging faith in other will be found in each and every faithful Christian living out their Christian lives. Rather than in proclaiming miracles.

Which is all Arthra and the other adherents of the Baha’i Faith are saying: that although miracles have happened–it is holy living by the People of Faith which is more likely to change the greatest number of unconverted lives to the greatest degree.

 

[grannymh]

It seems to me that one could truthfully say that in many religions, Jesus is considered a [worthy independent] prophet among prophets without implying anything negative. I would consider your religion as one of those which respect and follow the appropriate teachings of Jesus; yet, do not consider Jesus as God per se. Hopefully, I am only implying that His nature is human yet exulted.

Continuing from post 92.

As I think about the implications of implying that the nature of Jesus is human yet exulted, I am wondering if that underlying thought is why some Christians do not accept the Catholic Eucharist. It appears to be easy for the Baha’i faith and other groups to accept the teachings of Jesus as long as these are acceptable to themselves.

While we can love the human Jesus, we must not ignore the fact that He is truly God.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Ignition: I specifically said that I DO NOT share the views I described. I happen to believe that the water at the Wedding of Cana was transmuted to wine, that a few loaves and a few fishes were multiplied to feed multitudes.

But the Scriptures do not plainly say this, and the Church has not defined those as miracles which MUST be believed. Which goes off the topic a bit.

My point was to agree with Arthra, who was affirming some of the writings of the founder of his Faith: second-hand accounts of miracles, no matter how strong a case can be made for such accounts, tend to be faith-affirming for those who ALREADY HAVE FAITH. For those who do not yet have faith, no such benefit accrues. Which suggests that the benefits of trumpeting such accounts tends to be limited. OTOH, lives of even deeply skeptical persons are deeply touched by seeing persons of faith living out their religion in a humble, faithful way.

You’re still talking “direct experience” here: but miracles are by definition excdptional and most people will never have direct experience of a miracle.

On the other hand, many thousands of people will have direct experience of you and I as people, many hundreds of those thousands will have direct, albeit fleeting, experience of us as Christians, and hopefully many dozens will experience how we live our faith rather directly. Which suggests that the greater return-on-investment in encouraging faith in other will be found in each and every faithful Christian living out their Christian lives. Rather than in proclaiming miracles.

Which is all Arthra and the other adherents of the Baha’i Faith are saying: that although miracles have happened–it is holy living by the People of Faith which is more likely to change the greatest number of unconverted lives to the greatest degree.

The church doesn’t need to define something as literal in order us to interpret the bible. The tradition of biblical exegetes as far as I see has been to consider the gospels as actually recounting real events. My point in this was never to show the validity of miracles but to question the absurd bahai interpretation of miracles, that is bahai will make miracles which are clearly presented to be actual and important in scripture as non literal. Why is it even possible to think Lazurus wasn’t really dead as John tells us? Did John not know?

 

[flameburns623]

Owe you an apology: Ignatio: the autocorrect feature changed your name on me.

I tend toward an understanding of Scripture as literal as the context and literary style permits. I concur this is the normative, preferred way to read Scripture but don’t believe that to be the formally PRESCRIBED way which Catholics MUST read Scripture.

As for the rest of it, I Ieave that for you to discuss with our Baha’i friends.

 

[happyme]

Continuing from post 92.

As I think about the implications of implying that the nature of Jesus is human yet exulted, I am wondering if that underlying thought is why some Christians do not accept the Catholic Eucharist. It appears to be easy for the Baha’i faith and other groups to accept the teachings of Jesus as long as these are acceptable to themselves.

While we can love the human Jesus, we must not ignore the fact that He is truly God.

Dear friend, as a Baha’i (as I can’t speak for other groups) we fully believe in Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God, born of Mary by miraculous birth. (as stated in the Bible) We agree with the Bible and would defend it with our lives.

You see the only problem we have is with interpretation of certain passages of Christs Words, you have interpreted them one way, and we another confirmed by One we consider God’s Voice for this day. (Who is one and the same with Christ)
So yes we believe as you do, up to a certain point, beyond that point, we prefer not to accuse, judge, or place ourselves at variance with God’s teachings.

We wish you only love

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Owe you an apology: Ignatio: the autocorrect feature changed your name on me.

I tend toward an understanding of Scripture as literal as the context and literary style permits. I concur this is the normative, preferred way to read Scripture but don’t believe that to be the formally PRESCRIBED way which Catholics MUST read Scripture.

As for the rest of it, I Ieave that for you to discuss with our Baha’i friends.

We shouldn’t speak so broadly, Im speaking in terms of the gospels that they ought be regaurded as imparting a historical truth, that they don’t randomly become figurative at a moment’s notice. I’m not joking when it comes to this and the bahai understanding of the bible, the same chapter could at one point be literal and at another point be figurative, bahai don’t know because it has not been revealed to them.

But I will continue to ask the bahai this question which refuses to be answered. Could anyone before the advent of Mirza Hussain (their eternal non God man who perfectly reflects God and can do everything God can do but isn’t God, manifestation), could anyone understand the bible? Why was the bible revealed if its meaning was going to inspire so much falsehood? There was no one, not even the apostles who understood Christ? Bahai have no answer to this objection that doesn’t involve quoting their prophet who did not address this question.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Dear friend, as a Baha’i (as I can’t speak for other groups) we fully believe in Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God, born of Mary by miraculous birth. (as stated in the Bible) We agree with the Bible and would defend it with our lives.

You see the only problem we have is with interpretation of certain passages of Christs Words, you have interpreted them one way, and we another confirmed by One we consider God’s Voice for this day. (Who is one and the same with Christ)
So yes we believe as you do, up to a certain point, beyond that point, we prefer not to accuse, judge, or place ourselves at variance with God’s teachings.

We wish you only love

Yet you refuse to justify your interpretation or answer the question “could anyone before the advent of Mirza Hussain understand the bible?”

You don’t prefer to judge (because bahai will always do this when they think they can answer a point) but prefer to hide behind that monogram of non confrontation. Be like your prophet and condemn people as being wrong, be like your prophet and condemn the pope for being too rich.

 

[happyme]

Yet you refuse to justify your interpretation or answer the question “could anyone before the advent of Mirza Hussain understand the bible?”

You don’t prefer to judge (because bahai will always do this when they think they can answer a point) but prefer to hide behind that monogram of non confrontation. Be like your prophet and condemn people as being wrong, be like your prophet and condemn the pope for being too rich.

Oh I can respond to a person, no problem.
But yes I refuse to respond to someone who only spreads lies and hate speech.
And why do I have to justify anything to you, my only job so to speak, is answering people with a genuine interest, obviously that is not you.

So my friend you continue with your attacks upon my faith I will not respond, I leave that up to God, only He will be our judge. I refuse to play your game of division and hatred.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Oh I can respond to a person, no problem.
But yes I refuse to respond to someone who only spreads lies and hate speech.
And why do I have to justify anything to you, my only job so to speak, is answering people with a genuine interest, obviously that is not you.

So my friend you continue with your attacks upon my faith I will not respond, I leave that up to God, only He will be our judge. I refuse to play your game of division and hatred.

1. When did I ever lie?
2. WHen did I ever invoke hatred against bahai?
3. Where is the responce to my question?

Bahai cannot handle critics.

 

[Mickey]

Yet you refuse to justify your interpretation or answer the question “could anyone before the advent of Mirza Hussain understand the bible?”

I would like to see the Bahai answer to this question.

 

[happyme]

I would like to see the Bahai answer to this question.

Why ?
All you have to do is read the writings of Baha’u’llah, The Glory of God, The Father, to answer your questions.

But no your friend prefers to give half truths, and twist whatever is said to him.

1. O YE THAT ARE FOOLISH, YET HAVE A NAME TO BE WISE!
   Wherefore do ye wear the guise of shepherds, when inwardly ye have become wolves, intent upon My flock? Ye are even as the star, which riseth ere the dawn, and which, though it seem radiant and luminous, leadeth the wayfarers of My city astray into the paths of perdition.

Baha’u’llah : The Persian Hidden Words

 

[daler]

I would like to see the Bahai answer to this question.

Mickey,
I will be happy to respond to a pure hearted soul such as your good self.

“could anyone before the advent of Mirza Hussain understand the bible?”

Of course this is true. How could it be otherwise? But please recognize that any response will be attacked and turned upside down by the source of this question, and that is why the questioner is being dealt with in courteous silence. His questions have been answered thoroughly and with concision in the past.

As the Baha’i Faith has no clergy, and I can only give you my best understanding, what I think is being referred to has to do with the following

A The Books of Daniel being “sealed” till the time of the end, meaning that although he himself had the vision, it was not given to him to understand the full meaning.
Daniel 12:9 And he said, “Go thy way, Daniel: for the words [are] closed up and sealed till the time of the end. …”

B It is similarly sealed in Revelation until the time of the end. This is regarding specific visions only, not “understand the Bible”, which is absolutely without foundation to say, as the questioner himself is fully aware.

Revelation Chapter 5

1 And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals.
2 And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof?
3 And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon.
4 And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon.
5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.

C Jesus said: “But of that day or hour no man knoweth, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father.”

Hence, from a Biblical standpoint regarding the “time of the end”, it was not revealed to Daniel, nor to John the Revelator, nor even to the Son, Jesus.
This, in context, stands on its own merit. To disagree with that which is clearly written in the Bible concerning the matter must be taken up with God, not the Baha’is, for the Baha’is believe in God and the Bible.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Why ?
All you have to do is read the writings of Baha’u’llah, The Glory of God, The Father, to answer your questions.

But no your friend prefers to give half truths, and twist whatever is said to him.

1. O YE THAT ARE FOOLISH, YET HAVE A NAME TO BE WISE!
   Wherefore do ye wear the guise of shepherds, when inwardly ye have become wolves, intent upon My flock? Ye are even as the star, which riseth ere the dawn, and which, though it seem radiant and luminous, leadeth the wayfarers of My city astray into the paths of perdition.

Baha’u’llah : The Persian Hidden Words

So since you have applied this to the understanding of the bible before mirza Hussain, Im guessing that everyone before him was an evil person who tried to interpret the bible. Ignatius of Antioch, who marched to rome to die for Jesus Christ was evil. Justin martyr who likewise suffered martyrdom in the Arena and would not renounce Christ evil. Athanasius Bishop of Antioch and one of the greatest defenders of the trinity who was forcibly exiled from his see five times and faced constant persecution from arrians was totally evil.

All of our Chrisitan divines were wolves in sheeps clothing if you are applying this to biblical expositors. They were unable to perceive wisdom because the truth had not come and it was impossible and foolish for them to think they could understand a text which even the desciples couldn’t have understood. By the way, since when does perdition exist in bahai?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Please notice how the bahai constantly try to defame the character of the critic and refuse to deal on an intellectual level with difficult questions which challenge their beliefs first and foremost. Now I don’t know how a question can be true, when a question enquires into what is truth. Is it true no one could understand? Or is it false? Please clarify.
Now, in so far as Daniel and revelation are concerned, those are only two books out of a 76 book document. I will clarify my question to the gospels, was it possible anyone could understand the gospels? Indeed I have been more concerned with these than others. Lets consider if the bahai interpretation of the gospels are true how the narrative of the gospels (in all cases) are. Here are the rules for Bahai interpretation.

• Virgin birth account is actual to some degree (I suspect bahai would say, Gabriel the arch angel never really appeared to anyone in the bible because he isn’t real like all angels, despite the literal and graphic accounts of them)
• Miracles might have happened or might not have happened, they are unimportant.
• The resurrection narratives cannot be thought to be real.
• Everything else is quite possibly literal or figurative.

So basically the new testament is a text which one needs specific rules in which to interpret correctly according to bahai. Without Mirza Hussain you have no hope and I suggest that even the biblical authors didn’t understand what they were writing under this premise because they had no idea of bahai concepts like manifestations of God, or that Jesus wasn’t really ressurected but rather had a post mortem asscension into heaven. (I might just add in that case, that Paul’s idea that ressurection if it did not happen that Christianity is useless is then a worthless thing to say as it is not really a falsifiable thing given that could make Christianity wrong).

Now he wants to present the text as being clearly bahai, but that can be challenged, but bahai will simply insist that we are denying the text and nothing more. Consider that they call the comforter Mirza Hussain, completely ignoring the intimate teaching context to the apostles and which is later extended to the church in those famous verses of the gospel of John.

I would ask, where have I lied here? Where have made hatred against bahai? I have been critical yes, but not out of maliciousness. If you are going to say I have been hateful and a liar, then perhaps you ought apply this to your prophet as well for criticised Christian priests and Bishops as Lazy and not caring about people, being shut up in their churches ringing their annoying bells. Bahai of course don’t like to bring up the harsh language of Mirza Hussain to anyone who disagreed with him.

 

[Mickey]

I would ask, where have I lied here? Where have made hatred against bahai?

I have not seen lying and hatred from you. Your questions are valid.

 

[Mickey]

the Baha’is believe in God and the Bible.

Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God. Do you believe that He is true God from true God?

 

[happyme]

So since you have applied this to the understanding of the bible before mirza Hussain, Im guessing that everyone before him was an evil person who tried to interpret the bible. Ignatius of Antioch, who marched to rome to die for Jesus Christ was evil. Justin martyr who likewise suffered martyrdom in the Arena and would not renounce Christ evil. Athanasius Bishop of Antioch and one of the greatest defenders of the trinity who was forcibly exiled from his see five times and faced constant persecution from arrians was totally evil.

All of our Chrisitan divines were wolves in sheeps clothing if you are applying this to biblical expositors. They were unable to perceive wisdom because the truth had not come and it was impossible and foolish for them to think they could understand a text which even the desciples couldn’t have understood. By the way, since when does perdition exist in bahai?

Again as you show, you accuse and use words that are not my own.

You continue to twist my words for your own agenda, I think others on this forum are more intelligent, to understand your intent than you give them credit.