Bahá'í

[arthra]

One of the questions that came up earlier was whether anyone before Baha’u’llah understood the Bible?

First we should recognize that the Bible is itself a text that has undergone many transformations from various languages and that various denominations have championed various versions of what is known as the Bible… there are also various canons of scripture and so on.

What Baha’u’llah revealed in one of the books we regard as among the Baha’i Writings known as the Kitab-i-Iqan was explanations of some verses in the Gospels…as well as the Qur’an. You can access the Kitab-i-Iqan at

reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/KI/

For us Baha’u’llah is not a mere commentator of the Bible and there is no work we have that comments on every verse in the Bible. We do feel the Bible is inspired but not wholly authentic. It should be noted here that the Bible or more specifically the Gospel is viewed by many Muslims as being corrupted… We do not share this belief.

But as to what has been revealed as say the Word of God over say the past thousands of years has been revealed through the Manifestations of God such as Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha’u’llah and has been preserved or recorded in various ways and in the context of various cultures.

 

[doormouse73]

One of the questions that came up earlier was whether anyone before Baha’u’llah understood the Bible?

First we should recognize that the Bible is itself a text that has undergone many transformations from various languages and that various denominations have championed various versions of what is known as the Bible… there are also various canons of scripture and so on.

What Baha’u’llah revealed in one of the books we regard as among the Baha’i Writings known as the Kitab-i-Iqan was explanations of some verses in the Gospels…as well as the Qur’an. You can access the Kitab-i-Iqan at

reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/KI/

For us Baha’u’llah is not a mere commentator of the Bible and there is no work we have that comments on every verse in the Bible. We do feel the Bible is inspired but not wholly authentic. It should be noted here that the Bible or more specifically the Gospel is viewed by many Muslims as being corrupted… We do not share this belief.

But as to what has been revealed as say the Word of God over say the past thousands of years has been revealed through the Manifestations of God such as Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha’u’llah and has been preserved or recorded in various ways and in the context of various cultures.

arthra…

if the muslims think that the bible is corrupted.

and you think that its not authentic…

then what is the difference in those two explanations?

because to me they say the same thing only in different words/ways…

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

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.

Actually they weren’t your words but the words of your prophet who insinuated that they were evil. I assume you are quoting him within the context of my question and that he isn’t talking about something different? Or did you grab a quote from anywhere and apply it tot he question I asked? Thats what I see in the text he responded to, and quite frankly I find it repugnent, the idea that only he has understood the bible and everyone else had malicious purposes. UNless you dissagree, or would like to answer for yourself?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I must also agree that I see little difference in the muslim saying it is corrupted and the bahai saying “well some of it is okay.” Are you asserting that the gospels we have in no way represent what was written on the original autographs? We have critical editions of the new testament and be more confident concerning what the new testament says than we can other works of patristic, secular or greco roman paganism. Why? Because we have vvarious manuscripts from multiple different places mostly agreeing. Its difficult to argue that it has been so drastically changed that it in no way bares on the original when we consider the bible one thing about the bible.

Never under any one groups control. The texts were spread to multiple different communties very early on as is evidenced by the quotations to the gospels and new testament text in the second century patristics which show it in various places. From Antioch in the east to Lyon in the west. Theres just simply no way it could have been corrupted on a level that we are to disregaurd it, any more so than we should disregaurd any other text. For instance you would have to do away with the Illiad and Oddyssy of which we have fewer copies existing which are no where near as close to the time that was written, unlike the new tetament.

Now you have all but tried get out of dodge by saying you think the gospels are not authentic yet are still inspired. By this you mean the original text and you believe the original text is mostly lost and only through the divine revelation of MIrza Hussain can we be sure what some verses mean and that those verses he quotes are authentic, the rest is a mystery. I dare say that Mirza hussain if he believed as you do, was quite ignorant about things like biblical scholarship. Don’t get me wrong I am too but I would suspect I know a whole lot more than he did and that you would know a whole lot more than he did.

But in the end the bahai idea of the bible has been exposed. Its only those parts which they like or agree with that they think are authentic.

 

[happyme]

Actually they weren’t your words but the words of your prophet who insinuated that they were evil. I assume you are quoting him within the context of my question and that he isn’t talking about something different? Or did you grab a quote from anywhere and apply it tot he question I asked? Thats what I see in the text he responded to, and quite frankly I find it repugnent, the idea that only he has understood the bible and everyone else had malicious purposes. UNless you dissagree, or would like to answer for yourself?

Quote: Thats what I see in the text he responded to, and quite frankly I find it repugnent, the idea that only he has understood the bible and everyone else had malicious purposes.End quote.

He as in The Prophet of God, you find His words re-pungent. Yes I am sure you do. Was the same in Christs day.

5:41 I receive not honour from men.
5:42 But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.
5:43 I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
5:44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only? 5:45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.
5:47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? 6:1 After these things Jesus went over the sea of Galilee, which is the sea of Tiberias.
King James Bible : John

So as I see the same can be said again, that as you do not recognize these Sacred words of Christ (as in fact Baha’u’llah is) then it could be said that if you recognized Christ then you would recognize Baha’u’llah. You walk your path and I will gladly walk mine.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

The same old bahai argument. “you are just like the jews who rejected christ?”

This appeal to emotion, that simply because you find ones words heavenly therefore they are of God is irrational in my opinion. People found Hitler’s words heavenly his way of speaking forceful and powerful, maybe he was a prophet? Im being facetious but you haven’t demonstrated the 19th century persian Mirza Hussain to be a prophet by quoting Jesus Christ of Nazereth. Nor have you addressed my initial question.

Could anyone have understood the bible (specifically the gospels/New testament) before Mirza Hussain? Its a simple thing to say “yes they could” or “no they couldn’t.” But you are not interested in discussing an important subject like this, you just want to fling little sayings and quotes and think you have answered an important subject.

 

[arthra]

arthra…

if the muslims think that the bible is corrupted.

and you think that its not authentic…

then what is the difference in those two explanations?

because to me they say the same thing only in different words/ways…

Thanks for you post doormouse…

I’ll do my best to explain as I see it…

Corruption of the text is what some Muslims believe…

that is the text they believe has been interpolated, altered or eliminated…so many Muslims will not even read the Bible.

I personally found this out years ago in college when I had a Syrian roommate and we were sharing Holy Books… I read the Qur’an and later suggested that he might read the Bible. He would not read the Bible.

Baha’is read the Bible and the Qur’an and our own Writings.

Here is what Baha’u’llah revealed about the issue…

*We have also heard a number of the foolish of the earth assert that the genuine text of the heavenly Gospel doth not exist amongst the Christians, that it hath ascended unto heaven. How grievously they have erred! How oblivious of the fact that such a statement imputeth the gravest injustice and tyranny to a gracious and loving Providence! How could God, when once the Day-star of the beauty of Jesus had disappeared from the sight of His people, and ascended unto the fourth heaven, cause His holy Book, His most great testimony amongst His creatures, to disappear also? What would be left to that people to cling to from the setting of the day-star of Jesus until the rise of the sun of the Muhammadan Dispensation? What law could be their stay and guide?

How could such people be made the victims of the avenging wrath of God, the omnipotent Avenger? How could they be afflicted with the scourge of chastisement by the heavenly King? Above all, how could the flow of the grace of the All-Bountiful be stayed? How could the ocean of His tender mercies be stilled? We take refuge with God, from that which His creatures have fancied about Him! Exalted is He above their comprehension!

~ Baha’u’llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 88
*
Even in the Quran it suggests that the Gospel has been a guidance:*

He has sent down to thee the Book, in truth, confirming what was before it, and has revealed the law, and the gospel before for the guidance of men, and has revealed the Discrimination.

(The Qur'an (E.H. Palmer tr), Sura   3 - Imran's Family)

And we followed up the footsteps of these (prophets) with Jesus the son of Mary, confirming that which was before him and the law, and we brought him the gospel, wherein is guidance and light, verifying what was before it of the law, and a guidance and an admonition unto those who fear.
Then let the people of the gospel judge by that which is revealed therein, for whoso will not judge by what God has revealed, these be the evildoers.

(The Qur'an (E.H. Palmer tr), Sura   5 - The Table)

So the Gospel we believe contains the truth and is inspired…The Baha’i view has been stated as follows:

***When 'Abdu’l-Bahá states we believe what is in the Bible, He means in substance. Not that we believe every word of it to be taken literally or that every word is the authentic saying of the Prophet **

(from a letter written to an individual on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, 11 February 1944).

*So we cannot say for sure that the Bible is word for word literally inerrant but that it contains truth and inspiration.

Baha’u’llah also cites verses from the Gospels so these verses for us are authentic.

Hope that helps!*

 

[Sen_McGlinn]

Could anyone have understood the bible (specifically the gospels/New testament) before Mirza Hussain? Its a simple thing to say “yes they could” or “no they couldn’t.” But you are not interested in discussing an important subject like this, you just want to fling little sayings and quotes and think you have answered an important subject.

Yes they could, and no they couldn’t.

Could anyone understand the Torah and Prophets and Writings before Jesus?
Yes they could, and no, they couldn’t.

Yes, they could understand what became the “Old Testament,” and use it to live a good and holy life according to the teachings of Judaism. No, they could not understand it in the light of the Person and teachings of Jesus, because they didn’t know Jesus.

So yes, people who know nothing of Baha’u’llah and Abdu’l-Baha can understand the Old and New Testaments and the Quran: Jews will read mainly the first and see all three in the light of their Faith, Christians will read the Old and New Testaments in the light of Christ; Muslims will read all three in the light of Islam. Bahais read all of them in the light of the Bahai Faith.

There’s no point in getting upset with the Bahais or with individual Bahais, this is the nature of history.

 

[Mirza19]

**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. **

No, no doctrine is “clear.” Nothing is self-evident, everything is subject to human interpretations and therefore error. You can say it is “clear” because you believe in Catholic authority, which we Baha’is do not. If you remove the authority from the Catholic Church, the trinity no longer becomes “clear” because it is only “clear” because an authority is making it an authoritative interpretation. We do not believe Christ founded a specific order to carry on his message, but that later generations developed a necessity for the current understanding of the “Church.” Therefore, they subjected the teachings of Christ to the context of their time.

Our view of the “trinity” affirms the language of the Bible without the tradition of the Church. The Bible mentions Christ, the HS, and God as divine, and explains a relationship, which we agree with. However, the Christian interpretation takes this further and develops a Trinitarian Monotheism, which we reject.

I do not accept the Trinity as you understand it, no. But I do accept a divine relationship as outlined in the Bible.

**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?
**

Faith is revealed in stages. They had as much information as God intended for them to have. The Baha’i Faith is information relevant for today. Did they have specifics of our Faith then? Not the outward “Baha’i” parts, no. But since we believe it to be the same, evolving process, we do believe they had access and interpreted God in a context relevant to them, that at the time did not contradict what we have for our time.

There’s the inner “essence” of Faith and the outer dimensions, like “Christianity” and “Baha’i.” Both have the inner essence, but the out dimensions are exclusive to time and place. I do think Biblical prophecies point to Bahá’u’lláh, but I do not know if the authors would recognize Bahá’u’lláh today had they lived long enough to meet Him.

**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? **

No, I do not expect them to become Baha’is. As I said earlier in this post, I can’t make that claim. We are all limited by our cultural context. Who is to say they would have expected someone more Jewish and less Iranian, which prevented them from accepting Baha’i? It’s entirely possible they wouldn’t be Baha’is had they lived in the Baha’i age. But I do not want to make an authoritative statement either way, because I cannot. All I can say is that these are two different times, and they were Jewish Christians.

And how do I have assurance of Bahá’u’lláh?

1. All of my academic study consists of literary interpretation, comparative religion, philosophy, and theology. I am also familiar with Greek and German. My background leads me to conclude that only the Bahá’í Faith has a logically consistent “Theology of Religions,” and that Bahá’u’lláh’s claims stack up against both New Testament and Old Testament prophecies of the Savior and Return of Christ (even though, admittedly, the Old Testament does not literally speak of any Second coming).
2. Personal experience. I truly felt the Holy Spirit at every Feast I attended, and this was before discovering that 'Abdu’l-Bahá promised that very thing in His writings. Of course, I only use this to justify the Faith to myself, and do not expect anyone else to believe it
3. Because no other religion can claim authority, or has grounds for authority. Historically there is no evidence that Christ or the Disciples immediately founded a church - and it is historically verifiable that there were numerous competing Church groups, even during the first Seven Ecumenical councils. There were at least three “regional” Churches – African Latins, the European Latins, and the Easterners. They each created “myths” validated their claims to authority. The idea of “Peter as Pope” becomes central to Leo I of Rome, who was the first to claim that the Bishop of Rome is a Universal Patriarch. The East never thought such. They countered with their own claims. The early Church is entirely political. Claims today regarding the “truth church” are simply outgrowths from that era. With regards to Islam, what evidence there is that validates claims to authority is contradictory: contradictory Hadith, divisions between the Companions, and again politics.

I believe a central authority is essential for True Faith, since we are limited by our perspectives as innately prone to contradiction in discussion. Since there is no central authority that can interpret the texts of former eras, I must resort to reason, logic, and historical evidence. Since my academic background leads me to Bahá’u’lláh, I accept the authority He has clearly established as proper for interpretation.

 

[Mirza19]

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.”?

No. You’re thinking in terms of “present-only” time. Just because we have the True interpretation today does not require that this was intended to be true at the time of Revelation. In revealing the Bible and Qur’an, knowing that they’ve lasted the test of time, we can only deduce that God intended they be interpreted differently in different eras. Ethics are contextual, but theology evolves over time.

“Understanding” comes from accepting the Manifestation at the time. Since Bahá’u’lláh spoke of it today, His words about the Bible are the “true standard” for this age. Since He wasn’t writing before the 1800s, the “true standard” was socially constructed relevant to context. So, in a sense, No, there was no “infallible” understanding before Bahá’u’lláh, only understanding rooted in reason and structures like the Catholic Church claiming authority.

The authors are human vehicles, their understanding of what they write is irrelevant; what is relevant is its interpretation in the time, which is social.
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.

God, through Christ – Christ being the essence of the Manifestation - would be the cause for my creation, yes. Muhammad, Jesus, Moses, and Bahá’u’lláh are all equally the one Christ, because there is only one Christ reflected in different historical eras.

Thank you for this enlightening information about the Baha’i faith. Do you spend any time interpreting the Hebrew Bible and specifically the Torah?

I’ve read Isaiah a few times, and Genesis a number of times, but I haven’t picked up any Hebrew and have thus far restricted myself to Septuagint studies. But I can’t say I’ve looked intently at my copy of the Septuagint; I mostly concern myself with the New Testament, because I am a former Christian.

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?

'Abdu’l-Bahá calls it the “Bounty of God,” and compares it to the Rays of the Sun with God being the Sun. It is essentially everything that is Holy and Virtuous, and the source of “Good” in the world. The unforgivable sin is thus to Hate Virtue and Good, which the Holy Spirit Brings, because these are reflections of the Holy Spirit in People, and are equated with hating the Holy Spirit itself.

Islam links the Holy Spirit with the Angel Gabriel, using Gabriel as a metaphor for the Holy Spirit, and the Bahá’í Faith synthesizes that image with the Gospel accounts. The Holy Spirit is the force that connects God to Man, brought to us through the Manifestation. It is a source of empowerment, and the manner by which Baha’ullah protects the Faith and Universal House of Justice form error (in law, not in theology – we no longer have an infallible theologian with the death of the Guardian)

Personally, as I mentioned earlier in this post with my own example, the Holy Spirit is also something that can experienced during worship, and called upon for aid in daily life.

 

[meltzerboy]

Yes they could, and no they couldn’t.

Could anyone understand the Torah and Prophets and Writings before Jesus?
Yes they could, and no, they couldn’t.

Yes, they could understand what became the “Old Testament,” and use it to live a good and holy life according to the teachings of Judaism. No, they could not understand it in the light of the Person and teachings of Jesus, because they didn’t know Jesus.

So yes, people who know nothing of Baha’u’llah and Abdu’l-Baha can understand the Old and New Testaments and the Quran: Jews will read mainly the first and see all three in the light of their Faith, Christians will read the Old and New Testaments in the light of Christ; Muslims will read all three in the light of Islam. Bahais read all of them in the light of the Bahai Faith.

There’s no point in getting upset with the Bahais or with individual Bahais, this is the nature of history.

Yes, indeed. We all read and interpret these writings in light of our own faith. This is not only the nature of history but also the nature of the way the human mind functions.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

The interesting thing about those quranic quotes Arthra is that the quran or the hadith literature doesn’t seem to know what the gospels are, that is they are unable to form the distinction between the gospel of Jesus Christ and the gospels. The quran at one point seems to think it is a book revealed by Jesus yet Jesus had no book and we only have the writings of his apostles who recorded the message of Christ. That seems to me to be a bit of a problem.

Now at least one bahai (its sad to point out that only one bahai has tried to honestly answer the question by the way) has tried to answer this question. But there are problems still with this and we need to ask ourselves if the bahai interpretation of these things is at all acceptable. Sen, were the apostles and those who knew the apostles likely to have written the new testament be fully aware of the bahai interpretation? Did Luke fully believe there would be another manifestation called Muhammad? Did John think Muhammad would be the spirit of truth? What I’m asking, is did the authors of the new testament have the bahai theology? Was it their intent to write as a bahai or as a first century follower of Jesus of Nazereth? See unless you believe the bible is divinely dictated ( a view which is absurd in my opinion) then I cannot see how you can believe the gospels to pronounce a bahai world view.

Mirza, the doctrine of the trinity is clear because Christians have defined it for about lets say 1500 years at least, even though the core concept goes to the apostles. We are not to interpret things in a vacuume without history, unlike the bahai, but to realise since the first use of the term, what it meant was the historic understanding of trinity and it did not mean a revelation of the countless manifestations who eternally exist besides God. No one used the term trinity to describe anything else besides the ontological equal relationship between the father and the son. Now you audaciously want to redefine this word against 2000 years of history and bitter argument and definition of this. Arrius believed that the son was created and latter battles against the trinity would maintain odd disputes about the begottenness of Jesus and we must remind ourselves that by about 400 AD the trinitarian definition was settled. Can we just go back and take terms and redefine them? Can i take the term manifestation and simply redefine it for my own purposes in to something that contradicts the bahai understanding and say "look we believe in manifestations as well? I don’t think so. The creed is the ultimate definition of the trinity and to change that is well anachronistic to say the least.

You say one definition of trinity away from church tradition (which is the only context in which this word or the specific doctrine was discussed) talks about the relationship between the father the son and the spirit. Yes this is quite accurate in that it says they are totally equal of the same substance. Are you this ignorant as to history and the historic use of the term? We first have it used by Tertulian and he was no bahai. So no, you cannot redefine this word outside of its historic development and definition over the centuries without saying “well we’re only using this word to make it appear we agree” and that’s simply not honest.

Now insofar as to what was revealed to them, are you suggesting they (the new testament writers or these other trinitarians that had a totally different understanding of the word centuries later) would agree with bahai? That they held to the doctrine of an infinite amount of divine manifestations who were able to do everything God can do but are not of God and that the spirit of truth was actually Mirza hUssain? I suggest you will have a tough time proving that of the apostles. No this is something that you have read later only in light of your own doctrines and then have placed them anachronistically back on to the apostles and the new testament in order to say “we agree.”

Now I only want to address the claims of which you have said that Christ and the apostles did not start a church. First and foremost do you not accept the book of acts to be regaurding history? What about the second century ante Nicene fathers and the various information they give concerning the apostles? That most esteemable account ( a very realiable account I might add) of Iraneaus telling us that Peter and Paul were in rome to establish the Bishropric there? Why are all of these accounts wrong? Why is the book of acts wrong in recounting that Paul went and established communities? Did Peter never establish the community at Antioch? Now I would remind you that in so far as the different communions within the ancient church at that time, the tome of Leo was accepted by the bishops of the west and east because it agreed to the faith (they pretty much said “This is in line with the faith therefore I accept it”) Now I don’t recall Leo calling himself a universal patriarch, although later on one of the popes had a huge problem with the idea of the eastern patriarch calling himself the ecumenical patriarch, thought it was a very bad thing to do. And if the orthodox churches were not true, which was the apostolic true church? You unlike the modern secular historian is bound by the quran which says there would be a faithful party to the day of ressurection (the day of ressurection i might add never happens in bahai religion), so if you are going to disregaurd the Catholic/Orthodox/Oriental churches from being the one church (I include them all because at that early time we were in communion) where was the true remnant?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Cont

Now what of these competing churches do you want to defend as having apostolicity? Would you submit to the existence of an orthodox party in the second century which claimed apostolicity from the apostles of the first? Those of Iraneaus, Ignatius, Justin, clement and etc? That these men and churches were probably in communion with one another? Who do you suppose the actual church to be in which to make Christ’s words that the church would never fall to hades be? The Ebionites who rejected Paul and said the law was absolutely necessary? Bahai accept Paul (apparently) so that cannot be the case. The gnostics? You find me one gnostic group that agrees with bahai and can demonstrate a historical lineage to the apostles. Which group do you want to defend as the true church against the false churches of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental orthodoxy? You are all but saying we are in false churches right now.
Now you haven’t addressed my essential claim of how you can be assured you have the truth when you have examples in the past of everyone else failing. Your best response was that it’s a personal thing. But do you really believe in all of history that only the bahai have been able to preserve the faith? Not having it corrupted? You claim bahai is logically consistent with the new testament, well everyone else believed the same thing about their own, why can’t they be correct? Why does Ignatius of Antioch have to be a villain who lead people astray from the truth?

You also haven’t addressed my essential claim of how you can be assured you have the truth when you have examples in the past of everyone else failing. Your best response was that it’s a personal thing. But do you really believe in all of history that only the bahai have been able to preserve the faith? Not having it corrupted? You claim bahai is logically consistent with the new testament, well everyone else believed the same thing about their own, why can’t they be correct? Why does Ignatius of Antioch have to be a villain who lead people astray from the truth?

Also I do want to thank you for admitting that bahai interpret the new testament not according to what it says but according to the era in which it is revealed. There are problems with this first and foremost in that we must ask how are these works of God? I think the only way what you are saying can be true is if we believe the new testament to be a divinely dictated thing which it clearly is not. People wrote the new testament with individual perspectives on different subjects. Luke I would argue from the text was concerned with the history of Christ, he did not intend to write a mish mash of literal and figurative accoutns which can change in an instance without warning leaving the reader in an impossible position of being unable to interpret this. Your view only works if Luke had not written it but instead was dictating what God said. But on a deeper and much more scary level, this assumes a level in which truth can change. What was the true understanding of the gospel in the second century as opposed to the true understanding in the 21st century? Bahai say Christ doesn’t really become the eucharist, yet the early Christians that read it universally understood Christ to be in the eucharist. This must have been true then but is not true now? Now we can read something totally different into the text that wasn’t there before? This is a serious thing to claim, as if truth is now somehow changing every generation. In fact your view of your own writings will not be true in one thousand years, it will be radically different and you will have to admit in heaven once God changes its meaning “I am now wrong.” Does truth change every 1000 years? In bahai it seems to.

Now you say they are all equally Christ, yet why doesn’t the new testament ever call Moses the Christ? Or Krishna the Christ? Are you willing to admit the new testament authors didn’t believe as you do do concerning who Christ was? Also concerning Christ, what is Christ that every major manifestation is now Christ? Is Christ a substance which each manifestation has or is it an abstract definition each one has? This is an idea which is not of the new testament but instead of the bahai who have anacrhonistically put it on the new testament.

 

[Sen_McGlinn]

The interesting thing about those quranic quotes Arthra is that the quran or the hadith literature doesn’t seem to know what the gospels are, that is they are unable to form the distinction between the gospel of Jesus Christ and the gospels.

You are right about the Hadith, consider these two accounts:

Khadija then accompanied him to her cousin Waraqa bin Naufal bin Asad bin 'Abdul 'Uzza,
who, during the PreIslamic Period became a Christian and used to write the writing with
Hebrew letters. He would write from the Gospel in Hebrew as much as Allah wished him to write. (Bukhari Vol 1)

. She took him to Waraqa bin Naufal who was a Christian convert and used to
read the Gospels in Arabic (Bukhari Vol 4)

These accounts are not reliable, and reflect the limited knowledge of the people who composed them. As for what Muhammad understood by “gospel,” an example of what you mean would help. In general, Book in the Quran is ambiguous: it can mean a body of revelation which may not even be written, it can be the essential message of a revelation, it can be a written book. But the same can be said of the Quran, which is mentioned in the Quran, that is, it is mentioned before any written book existed, and it means a body of revelation, the essential message of that revelation, and the liturgical use of the oral form of the revelation.

were the apostles and those who knew the apostles likely to have written the new testament be fully aware of the bahai interpretation? Did Luke fully believe there would be another manifestation called Muhammad? Did John think Muhammad would be the spirit of truth? What I’m asking, is did the authors of the new testament have the bahai theology? Was it their intent to write as a bahai or as a first century follower of Jesus of Nazereth?

They were followers of Jesus, writing about events of that time. This has not limited the Church to considering only the meaning in the first-century context. Over the centuries the Church has considered both “what it meant then” and “what it means for us today.” I do not think the Gospels present a Bahai theology or world-view. That would be absurdly ahistorical, and it would make the Bahai revelation redundant. But I have also found that, while its message is now 2000 years old, the possibilities of “what it means now” have not been exhausted, neither for Christians, nor for Bahais.

Mirza, the doctrine of the trinity is clear because Christians have defined it for about lets say 1500 years at least, … by about 400 AD the trinitarian definition was settled.

As I recall (I studied Christian theology and early church history 30 years ago), every time a clear statement of the trinity was proposed, it was eventually declared incorrect. There was the economic trinity (God acting in 3 ways) and the 3-persons trinity (tritheism) and various others. If you are saying that the Church now has a clear formulation, what is it, and which major churches subscribe to it? If it’s one of the creeds, which one? And why that one, if it is not found in the Gospels?

Now I only want to address the claims of which you have said that Christ and the apostles did not start a church.

I didn’t see where that was claimed, but I think it would be a very odd thing to say, and it is not Bahai teachings. Abdu’l-Baha wrote (in refutation I think of certain western Bahais who thought neither a structure nor organisation was necessary):

"The Mashriqu’l-Adhkár is the most important matter and the greatest divine Institute. Consider how the first institute of His holiness Moses, after his exodus from Egypt, was the “Tent of Martyrdom,” which lie raised and which was the traveling Temple. It was a tent which they pitched in the desert wherever they abode and worshiped in it. Likewise, after His holiness Christ - - May the spirit of the world be a sacrifice to Him! - - the first institute by the disciples was a Temple. They planned a Church in every country. Consider the Gospel (read it) and the importance of the Mashriqu’l-Adhkár will become evident.
Abdu’l-Bahá, from a tablet translated February 4, 1908 and published in Star of the West, Vol. 6, No. 17, p. 134

And Shoghi Effendi refers to Peter as “His [Jesus’] successor and the founder of His Church.” (The Advent of Divine Justice, p. 46)

 

[Sen_McGlinn]

Now you say they are all equally Christ, yet why doesn’t the new testament ever call Moses the Christ? .

Acts 3:22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.

On the general topic of the application of scripture to the needs of the time, consider this:

9:3 Mine answer to them that do examine me {Paul, apparently regarding his receiving money and keep as a gospel teacher] is this, Have we not power to eat and to drink? …9:7 Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges (expense)? …saith not the law the same also? For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn.
(From 1 Corinthians 9: 3-9)

Does anyone imagine that the Torah writers and redactors had this application in mind when they prepared the Torah text? It’s from Deuteronomy, 25:4: “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.” It is quote obviously meant literally, about the big beasts called oxen. Paul applies it imaginatively and effectively, in a way that convinces me, and in all the history of European Christianity the principle he established that the gospel teacher may live from his teaching applied, while when I think back at paintings of everyday rural life, I cannot recall seeing that the oxen were left unmuzzled. Nor do I recall any of the true-gospel sects or reformers making a point of this.

 

[Servant19]

Not sure if this is of any relevance to this thread?

“Since then, as says the Lord in the Gospels, John 14:9 he that has seen the Son sees the Father also; on this account he says that the Only-begotten is the express image of His Father’s person. That this may be made still plainer I will quote also other passages of the apostle in which he calls the Son “the image of the invisible God,” Colossians 1:15 and again “image of His goodness;” not because the image differs from the Archetype according to the definition of indivisibility and goodness, but that it may be shown that it is the same as the prototype, even though it be different. For the idea of the image would be lost were it not to preserve throughout the plain and invariable likeness. He therefore that has perception of the beauty of the image is made perceptive of the Archetype. So he, who has, as it were mental apprehension of the form of the Son, prints the express image of the Father’s hypostasis, beholding the latter in the former, not beholding in the reflection the unbegotten being of the Father (for thus there would be complete identity and no distinction), but gazing at the unbegotten beauty in the Begotten. Just as he who in a polished mirror beholds the reflection of the form as plain knowledge of the represented face, so he, who has knowledge of the Son, through his knowledge of the Son receives in his heart the express image of the Father’s Person. For all things that are the Father’s are beheld in the Son, and all things that are the Son’s are the Father’s; because the whole Son is in the Father and has all the Father in Himself. Thus the hypostasis of the Son becomes as it were form and face of the knowledge of the Father, and the hypostasis of the Father is known in the form of the Son, while the proper quality which is contemplated therein remains for the plain distinction of the hypostases.”

• St. Basil of Caesarea

 

[daler]

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

Mickey,
Baha’is use this term “Manifestation” of God to describe Who Jesus is, and Moses, and Abraham, etc. The distinction, or part if it, is this.
God is the Creator, Whose full essence none can see or know: “No man hath seen God and lived.”
God is the Creator, not the creation, or any part of it. The creature, any “creature”, is not God.
We have to allow for what Jesus Himself says: “The Father is greater than I.”
and “Why callest thou Me good? There is none good, but one. That is, God.”
and “I can say nothing of Myself, but that which I hear My Father say unto you, I speak.”
and again, “No man knoweth the hour. Neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son.”

While next to this, we also have to explain, “He who hath seen Me hath seen the Father.”
and “I am in the Father and the Father is in Me.”

So one can require someone to submit a simple answer, such as to the question you ask, or one can look at these various verses and see the complexity of the Divine Identity of Jesus, Who cannot speak except what He hears the Father say, and does not know the Hour.
The Baha’is have a very workable explanation for the Divine Identity of Jesus. I’ll do my best to explain it for you. We are to consider a pure, polished mirror, which reflects the light of the sun perfectly, unlike any ordinary mirror, into a room which is dark. This mirror is composed of elements: sand into glass, silver which shines, wood for the frame, etc.
Now this physical body of the mirror is not the sun in the sky, but it perfectly reflects it. If someone breaks the mirror, the sun does not shine, but the room in which the light shone does not have the bounty of the light coming from the mirror.
This, of course, is metaphorical explanation to a much more meaningful purpose. Christ is the perfect Mirror reflecting the Light of God to humanity. The composition of His physical body, the calcium, carbon, water, etc, is the same as ours, but His Divine Identity precedes the composition of this physical body. “Before Abraham was, I am.”
Likewise, when the body of Jesus was crucified, was God crucified? To me, the answer is no. Still, the Light of God, which shone through this Mirror of Jesus, exists as the Holy Spirit. Our language sometimes gets in the way of our understanding. You know what you are talking about in your heart because of what you feel. I feel the same thing, and I know it is from God, and that God was in Christ, and He is in God. I know that. You know that. But there is still a certain mystery here.
Do you want me to say Jesus is God? and be done with it? Well, in one sense, God is clearly present in Him, and this is consistent with the Scripture. Yet in another, we have to deal with those statements made by Jesus Himself, where He speaks of Himself as essentially a Messenger of God, and not God Himself. Who am I to deny His Words and the statements He has made of His relationship to the One He calls the Father, Who alone knows the Hour, which He Himself did not know, and the One Whom He says is greater than Himself.
Is He the “Son” of God? Yes. That is the Title and the Station used, but does that mean physical “sonship”? That is a human relationship. So I believe that He and God do not share DNA, because that would mean that God is physical, and has DNA. No. This is a spiritual relationship of His connection to God, which is eternal, and His Voice which says, “Before Abraham was, I am”, is the Voice of God’s Word, speaking to humanity.
What we see in Jesus, the son of Mary, is a human being, a creature. God, the Creator, is not a creature, but His Voice is heard by us through Jesus, and that is His Word.

 

[daler]

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

Mickey,
Here is a much better answer that the one I attempted to give you in my earlier response. This comes from the Book of Certitude (Kitab-i-Iqan) written by Baha’u’llah:

[The] Manifestations of God have each a twofold station. One is the station of pure abstraction and essential unity. In this respect, if thou callest them all by one name, and dost ascribe to them the same attributes, thou hast not erred from the truth….
The other station is the station of distinction, and pertaineth to the world of creation, and to the limitations thereof. In this respect, each Manifestation of God hath a distinct individuality, a definitely prescribed mission, a predestined revelation, and specially designated limitations. Each one of them is known by a different name, is characterized by a special attribute, fulfills a definite mission…
Viewed in the light of their second station … they manifest absolute servitude, utter destitution, and complete self-effacement. Even as He saith: “I am the servant of God. I am but a man like you.”…
Were any of the all-embracing Manifestations of God to declare: “I am God,” He, verily, speaketh the truth, and no doubt attacheth thereto. For … through their Revelation, their attributes and names, the Revelation of God, His names and His attributes, are made manifest in the world…. And were any of them to voice the utterance, “I am the Messenger of God,” He, also, speaketh the truth, the indubitable truth…. Viewed in this light, they are all but Messengers of that ideal King, that unchangeable Essence…. And were they to say, “We are the Servants of God,” this also is a manifest and indisputable fact. For they have been made manifest in the uttermost state of servitude, a servitude the like of which no man can possibly attain…. 4
Thus it is that whatsoever be their utterance, whether it pertain to the realm of Divinity, Lordship, Prophethood, Messengership, Guardianship, Apostleship, or Servitude, all is true, beyond the shadow of a doubt. Therefore these sayings … must be attentively considered, that the divergent utterances of the Manifestations of the Unseen and Day Springs of Holiness may cease to agitate the soul and perplex the mind. 5

 

[Mickey]

Mickey,
Here is a much better answer that the one I attempted to give you in my earlier response. This comes from the Book of Certitude (Kitab-i-Iqan) written by Baha’u’llah:

This does not really answer the question. Can you please answer the question plainly?

 

[Mickey]

Do you want me to say Jesus is God? and be done with it?

Is that what you believe?

Well, in one sense, God is clearly present in Him,

But do you believe he is true God from true God?

This is a spiritual relationship of His connection to God, which is eternal, and His Voice which says, “Before Abraham was, I am”, is the Voice of God’s Word, speaking to humanity.

Christ said that.

What we see in Jesus, the son of Mary, is a human being, a creature.

Is that what you believe…that Jesus Christ is just a creature?

God, the Creator, is not a creature, but His Voice is heard by us through Jesus, and that is His Word.

So, like the Muslims, you believe that He is merely a prophet?