Bahá'í

[daler]

Is that what you believe?
But do you believe he is true God from true God?
Christ said that.
Is that what you believe…that Jesus Christ is just a creature?
So, like the Muslims, you believe that He is merely a prophet?

Mickey, Feel like we’re goin’ sideways here. From my experience, there seems to be a certain way that a lot of Christian people use to phrase things, and that if somebody doesn’t answer them in a certain way, they get canned. My answer doesn’t come out of a can.
What I believe is that God is a whole lot bigger than can be put inside a human frame, whether that be Jesus, Moses, Buddha, Muhammad, or Baha’u’llah. God is not a bunch of molecules, or a person, or even the Prophets Who walk among us from time to time.
However, these Prophets, for Whom Baha’is use the term “Manifestations of God”, are more than people, like you and me. They are immortal, pre-existent, Holy Beings, and not like us mere mortals.
When Jesus was about to be crucified, He turned to his captors and said, “Beholdest thou not the Son of Man seated upon the throne of power and might?”
No… They did not behold the “Son of Man”, nor the “Son of God”, nor His Prophet, nor His Messenger, nor His Manifestation. They beheld a man, and they killed that man, but they did not kill God, because God is not a man.
That is what I believe.
“Is He “God” from God?”
Well, it seems like the wrong question and doesn’t make sense to me. Sorry.

Concerning the words, “Before Abraham was, I am.” to me, the One Who is speaking precedes not only the physical person we identify as Abraham, but it follows that since Abraham was before Jesus, the One Who is talking to humanity also precedes Jesus, although these Words proceed out of His (Jesus’s) mouth. Do you follow?
This answer does not come out of a box, or a can. So if its new to you, chew on it awhile, think about the logic of the meaning, and then be free to agree or disagree, neither of which will offend me.

You ask, is Christ a creature? Not that eternal Manifestation of God Who said, “Before Abraham was, I am.” No. That eternal Soul is not a creature, though He appear in human form for our benefit.
A creature refers to a physical body, like the one you or I, or Jesus had when we are referring to those qualities by which we identify a physical, biological being, with all the limitations that assumes, such as the need to breath, eat, or stay warm.
Jesus had a physical body with biological needs, the same as you and I.
But no,as in the way I think you are saying, I don’t think of “Him” as being limited to that physical body. I don’t identify myself as the temporary physical body that started out as one cell, and grew, and will someday die. That’s my “body”, not my soul, or eternal reality. “Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.” as Paul says.
So by no means do I think that Jesus Christ was “just a creature”. No! not at all…

I also think that the way in which your last question is phrased “merely” a prophet, does not allow for a sufficient answer. That reduces the options to: Is He or is He not God? and does not allow me to say that He was a Manifestation of God, and explain the meaning using those terms. But in the Quran, Muhammad does identify Jesus as a Messenger of God, even as Jesus identifies Himself as a Messenger of God when He plainly states that “These are not My words, but Him that sent Me.” (referring to God as the Source of His Words, which He says are not His own."

I certainly would not describe Jesus, the Christ, as “merely” anything…
and I would suggest that somehow the meaning conveyed in the phrase: “Manifestation of God” is not being comprehended adequately, for it well represents in verbal descriptive form the Station of Christ. It does not lessen His station, but defines it insofar as human language can properly do so.
If you wish, please take the time to read this link. I think it may help. and thank you for your courtesy and probing questions.

reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/WOB/wob-37.html

 

[Mickey]

My answer doesn’t come out of a can.

Sorry daler. This is not brain surgery here. I asked a simple straight forward question and I continue to receive long drawn out dissertations that go…kind of…well…side ways. Just answer the question. Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the messiah…the Son of the Living God? Do you believe that He is one in essence with the Father? Do you believe that He is true God from true God? It is a simple question. Yes or no will do.

“Is He “God” from God?”
Well, it seems like the wrong question and doesn’t make sense to me. Sorry.

I see. So then you will not answer the question. Fair enough.

So if its new to you, chew on it awhile

LOL! It’s not knew to me. Christ referred to Himself as “I Am.” That’s a big clue for you. Chew on that for a while.

Jesus had a physical body with biological needs, the same as you and I.

Indeed. He was fully human…and fully Divine…a wonderful mystery!

That reduces the options to: Is He or is He not God?

Yep. That’s the question. But you have already said you will not answer it.

Thank you for your time.

 

[meltzerboy]

Mickey, Feel like we’re goin’ sideways here. From my experience, there seems to be a certain way that a lot of Christian people use to phrase things, and that if somebody doesn’t answer them in a certain way, they get canned. My answer doesn’t come out of a can.
What I believe is that God is a whole lot bigger than can be put inside a human frame, whether that be Jesus, Moses, Buddha, Muhammad, or Baha’u’llah. God is not a bunch of molecules, or a person, or even the Prophets Who walk among us from time to time.
However, these Prophets, for Whom Baha’is use the term “Manifestations of God”, are more than people, like you and me. They are immortal, pre-existent, Holy Beings, and not like us mere mortals.
When Jesus was about to be crucified, He turned to his captors and said, “Beholdest thou not the Son of Man seated upon the throne of power and might?”
No… They did not behold the “Son of Man”, nor the “Son of God”, nor His Prophet, nor His Messenger, nor His Manifestation. They beheld a man, and they killed that man, but they did not kill God, because God is not a man.
That is what I believe.
“Is He “God” from God?”
Well, it seems like the wrong question and doesn’t make sense to me. Sorry.

Concerning the words, “Before Abraham was, I am.” to me, the One Who is speaking precedes not only the physical person we identify as Abraham, but it follows that since Abraham was before Jesus, the One Who is talking to humanity also precedes Jesus, although these Words proceed out of His (Jesus’s) mouth. Do you follow?
This answer does not come out of a box, or a can. So if its new to you, chew on it awhile, think about the logic of the meaning, and then be free to agree or disagree, neither of which will offend me.

You ask, is Christ a creature? Not that eternal Manifestation of God Who said, “Before Abraham was, I am.” No. That eternal Soul is not a creature, though He appear in human form for our benefit.
A creature refers to a physical body, like the one you or I, or Jesus had when we are referring to those qualities by which we identify a physical, biological being, with all the limitations that assumes, such as the need to breath, eat, or stay warm.
Jesus had a physical body with biological needs, the same as you and I.
But no,as in the way I think you are saying, I don’t think of “Him” as being limited to that physical body. I don’t identify myself as the temporary physical body that started out as one cell, and grew, and will someday die. That’s my “body”, not my soul, or eternal reality. “Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.” as Paul says.
So by no means do I think that Jesus Christ was “just a creature”. No! not at all…

I also think that the way in which your last question is phrased “merely” a prophet, does not allow for a sufficient answer. That reduces the options to: Is He or is He not God? and does not allow me to say that He was a Manifestation of God, and explain the meaning using those terms. But in the Quran, Muhammad does identify Jesus as a Messenger of God, even as Jesus identifies Himself as a Messenger of God when He plainly states that “These are not My words, but Him that sent Me.” (referring to God as the Source of His Words, which He says are not His own."

I certainly would not describe Jesus, the Christ, as “merely” anything…
and I would suggest that somehow the meaning conveyed in the phrase: “Manifestation of God” is not being comprehended adequately, for it well represents in verbal descriptive form the Station of Christ. It does not lessen His station, but defines it insofar as human language can properly do so.
If you wish, please take the time to read this link. I think it may help. and thank you for your courtesy and probing questions.

reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/WOB/wob-37.html

It seems to me you equate Jesus to Moses, Mohammed, and the Bab, as all spiritual Manifestations of G-d. I would think this is different from the Christian conception of Jesus as one of the Persons of G-d Himself and, further, different from the Jewish conception of G-d as never manifested in any prophet, including Moses and the Messiah. Probably Muslims feel the same way regarding the relation between the prophet Mohammed and G-d as Jews do relative to Moses and G-d: that is, a holy man, to be sure, but not a Manifestation of G-d. Am I correct here, or have I missed something?

 

[daler]

Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the messiah…the Son of the Living God? Do you believe that He is one in essence with the Father?

Mickey, This is a different question, my friend. Yes, Jesus is the Messiah, and the (Spiritual) Son (not biological) of the Living God?
When God says “I Am” to humanity, It is God speaking through the Mouthpiece of God, which in this case, 2000 years ago, was Jesus, the Messiah, the One foretold by Daniel, who would be “cut off” at the end of 70 weeks, the same timeline of which sets 1844 AD, according to Adventist theology, Millerites, and others, as the fulfillment of the 2300 days, which coincides with the 1260 AH, and which Baha’is believe actually took place, in Elam, which is SW Persia, where Daniel had his vision.

Indeed. He was fully human…and fully Divine…a wonderful mystery!
Yep. That’s the question. But you have already said you will not answer it.

I have answered it, my friend, but you won’t acknowledge it. God is “not” human, fully or otherwise, while the Person of the Manifestation of the Ever Living God is more than His human, earthly form, which was crucified. Baha’is do not believe in the physical resurrection of that earthly form.

I think that is part of the distinction which is important to consider.

Thank you as well, for your time, Mickey.

 

[Mickey]

I have answered it, my friend, but you won’t acknowledge it.

Ha. You are the one dancing circles around the question.

God is “not” human,

Christ is God. He was fully human and fully divine.

Baha’is do not believe in the physical resurrection of that earthly form.

You do not believe in the Resurrection? This does not surprise me.

Good day chap. :tiphat:

 

[daler]

It seems to me you equate Jesus to Moses, Mohammed, and the Bab, as all spiritual Manifestations of G-d. I would think this is different from the Christian conception of Jesus as one of the Persons of G-d Himself and, further, different from the Jewish conception of G-d as never manifested in any prophet, including Moses and the Messiah. Probably Muslims feel the same way regarding the relation between the prophet Mohammed and G-d as Jews do relative to Moses and G-d: that is, a holy man, to be sure, but not a Manifestation of G-d. Am I correct here, or have I missed something?

Meltzer, Yes, the Manifestations of God possess the spiritual attributes of God. We do not compare them one to another, but rather see them as Instruments fashioned by God, if you will, as you might fashion a pen and write to someone. So if we can, within the limitations of language, call each of these Souls a “Pen” through Whom God speaks, or writes, to His creatures, that being ourselves, then we do not place one of Them above another, but rather see Them all as Divine Instruments (not like a technical term suggests…) Who impart the Word of God to us.
The emphasis or focus here is not the relative outpouring of the Divine Message, comparing one Messenger with the next. That misses the point somehow, when we start worshipping the “Pen”, or that Divine Instrument or Personage, rather than the God Who sends Him to us. We end up saying “My daddy is bigger than your daddy.” like little kids, or “My Prophet is bigger than your Prophet.” This reveals nothing about the kid or the believer except their own limited capacity to behold Them as Manifestations of One and the same God. To suggest the term “holy man” somehow puts them in a lesser category, in my opinion, although one could use such a description as well.
And yes, as is recorded in the Quran, Jesus was an Apostle, as was Moses, Abraham, etc, not “God in the flesh”, or begotten, or incarnate.
Each bears a Message which did not originate with themselves, but was given to them by God. Hope this helps a little.

 

[Mickey]

And yes, as is recorded in the Quran, Jesus was an Apostle, as was Moses, Abraham, etc, not “God in the flesh”, or begotten, or incarnate.

There ya go! You finally answered it. You believe very much like the Muslims. That’s all I wanted to know. Thanks.

 

[daler]

Ha. You are the one dancing circles around the question.

Mickey, Perhaps you are dancing around the answer…

Christ is God. He was fully human and fully divine.
You do not believe in the Resurrection? This does not surprise me.

I didn’t say that. I do not believe in the physical resurrection of the physical human body of Jesus, for He left that body behind. His Resurrection was not of the body:
“He entered the room, not using the door.”
and He “appeared” to believers only, meaning those “who had eyes to see”.
The Baha’i belief is that His true reality far transcends the mortal flesh and bones that a literal understanding of the resurrection implies, and which is the common interpretation among the literal minded, and that certain verses allude to this, ie, “Eyes they have, but see not.”

 

[flameburns623]

Mickey:

You seem satisfied that you have pigeonholed Baha’i beliefs as being “very much like the Muslims”. But you seem to have missed the point that Baha’i (and apparently at least some Muslims) think a Prophet of God to be something more than “an ordinary human being”.

I’m thinking that the Baha’i understanding of prophet-hood is shaped by Sufism and Islamic mysticism. I’ve heard it opined somewhere that Babism and the early Baha’u’llah were regarded more as Sufi sectaries than as progenitors of a new faith. Possibly someone’s misapprehension but it seems to resonate with me.

What is important to this dialogue, Mickey, seems to me to be the need to grasp that Baha’i do not necessarily pour Christian understandings into words like “prophet”. For Christians–prophets are mouthpieces of God, but otherwise purely-human beings. We even sermonize on the human foibles and failings of various prophets.

For Muslims, this isn’t commonly done, and I think the Baha’i have underscore why that is: for Muslims, and later for the Baha’i, a prophet apparently isn’t “a mere human”, even if Muslims and Baha’i do not believe that the transcendent God can incarnate into a Person who is both “True God and True Man”.

If you realize that for these believers, a prophet or a “Manifestation” isn’t a MERE human, in the way Christians think of prophets, it might help in furthering conversation with both Baha’i and Muslims.

By the same token, I think it helpful to realize that Muslims and Baha’i seem to feel that our Bible “contains” the Word of God, but is not, within itself, the unexpurgated Word of God–there is a basis for dialogue there. I think that Muslims–and from what I can tell, Baha’i, and Mormons, too–tend to feel the manuscript evidence for the Bible is much more corrupted and unreliable than it really is.

Discussing why we think that the Bible as we have it is substantially the same as when the various Books of that Bible were composed, discussing why we don’t believe the Church erred in excluding the Gospel of Thomas, the Protoevangelium of Mary or the Book of Jasher–or some other, yet-to-be discovered document–discussing these issues is time consuming. But, I think, ultimately profitable in helping non-Christians understand why we ultimately put trust in a visble Church as the forth-teller of God’s Word.

Just some thoughts.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Sen:

I would disagree that the quran is ambigious and that it has more of the idea of the gospel being some kind of book.

Verse 5:47

Despite muslim attempts to make this out to be the quran, I think the immediate context (one of which Jesus is given the gospel by God, which does contradict what the gospel is inside the four gospels, ie the gospel being Jesus himself and good news of salvation he provides) shows there is a book called the gospel according to the quran which Jesus received and that modern Christians (by the time of Muhammad) have access to by which to judge therein. This makes sense as Muhammad in this surah goes on to show the series of revelation, from Torah to Gospel to quran.

The problem for islam is that this shows a very bad understanding of what the gospel historically is, it is not any one given book, though the gospels are called that, it is the message of Jesus Christ that he himself Is the good news that brings about salvation. This is inherent to Christ himself who is the eternal word who brought this world into existence and who redeems this world according to the will of the father by his sacrifice as per what the gospels say.

I am glad that you consider the gospels to be first century works and works which do not exposit the bahai faith. I have nothing more to say on this point since it has been conceded. But your end suggestion of the gospels message being hidden or not fully understood carries with it an implication that no one has understood it. Why should bahai think they have understood the gospels when it might very well be the case when your next manifestation come he will say bahai were wrong and give a completely different understanding of the gospels? To me this isn’t revealing a truth of scripture that was there all along, this is simply different people interpreting it differently, nothing more. We should first and foremost interpret the gospels as they were intended by the people who wrote them, making use of the language and themes dominant in the text, seeing it along side Greco roman culture and first century Judaic culture and comparing between these. We should ask ourselves if Luke wanted to show Christ was not really resurrected in the flesh, why did he go out of his way to depict Jesus as not a spirit who was able to eat fish? This is a problem for bahai if you believe as I do that the gospels were not this divinely revealed thing but were written by men under the inspiration of God and this is an important distinction.

So far as the creeds are concerned and the definition of the trinity, I thought since you studied Christian theology you would recognise the great authority of Constantinople that is the council of Constantinople, which is unanimously accepted by all Christians. The Coptics accept its creed which further clarifies what Nicea said concerning the trinity. The Orthodox accept and recite it every Sunday along with the Roman Catholics ( I am not sure if Coptics recite it but I would not be surprised if they did). One cannot deny the authority which this creed has even in Protestantism who while they might not confess it to be true in of itself by the authority of the Bishops who ratified it, will nonetheless concede its biblical teaching, except for maybe the last part concerning the church and baptism.

Now why does it matter if it is not in the bible? Is authority limited to the bible alone? Or is there authority in the Bishops to decide matters of faith in council? Is there not a precedent in this regaurd by means of the council of Jeruselum? Where the apostles gathered and decided for the church that gentiles ought be accepted? If we limit our beliefs to the bible alone we actually end up with no bible, despite protestant objections. For we are at the mercy of church tradition for our canon of the old and new testament and also to the Jews I might add, who received no explicit divine revelation numbering the books of the bible, yet each church has its bible and this was by means of church tradition. The council is equal in authority to the bible I believe.

Now I believe the creed which Christendom has accepted to be quite clear in light of its illuminators and the people preceeding it and proceeding it here it is.

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible; And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all ages, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made: Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and was made man; And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried; And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; And ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; And He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, Whose kingdom shall have no end. And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke by the Prophets; And we believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins. We look for the Resurrection of the dead, And the Life of the age to come. Amen.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Cont: Sen

To argue that the trinity is subjective when universally, except for some small groups of heretics like Sebealianism and etc have appeared and been promptly dealt with, is a bit of exaggeration. But if you can give some examples of arrians using the term positively or an overriding reason as to say the trinity as a definition should not be defined based on what Christendom regaurdless of its form in the majority has defined it as over 2000 years, then please do so. But I believe you will be hard pressed for the task.

As far as the claim that Christ and the apostles didn’t start a church I was referring to the previous poster’s attempt to suggest the latter church (orthodox, Coptic and Roman catholic all have apostolic succession even if they are not in communion) wasn’t the church that Christ started. And I gave some historical reasons to suggest otherwise that we can find Christian presences in these various communions in virtually every century. Be the greek churches, the churches of Asia minor, the roman church, the Alexandrian and antiochian churches we see in these churches a unity and positive Christian teaching. Yes there were other groups, no one would argue that, but what I would argue is that they are not on par with the Orthodox faith, that gnostics have no claim to be from the apostles that can match the claims of the Orthodox. But since you don’t disagree with this that’s all I will say.

 

[meltzerboy]

Meltzer, Yes, the Manifestations of God possess the spiritual attributes of God. We do not compare them one to another, but rather see them as Instruments fashioned by God, if you will, as you might fashion a pen and write to someone. So if we can, within the limitations of language, call each of these Souls a “Pen” through Whom God speaks, or writes, to His creatures, that being ourselves, then we do not place one of Them above another, but rather see Them all as Divine Instruments (not like a technical term suggests…) Who impart the Word of God to us.
The emphasis or focus here is not the relative outpouring of the Divine Message, comparing one Messenger with the next. That misses the point somehow, when we start worshipping the “Pen”, or that Divine Instrument or Personage, rather than the God Who sends Him to us. We end up saying “My daddy is bigger than your daddy.” like little kids, or “My Prophet is bigger than your Prophet.” This reveals nothing about the kid or the believer except their own limited capacity to behold Them as Manifestations of One and the same God. To suggest the term “holy man” somehow puts them in a lesser category, in my opinion, although one could use such a description as well.
And yes, as is recorded in the Quran, Jesus was an Apostle, as was Moses, Abraham, etc, not “God in the flesh”, or begotten, or incarnate.
Each bears a Message which did not originate with themselves, but was given to them by God. Hope this helps a little.

It actually helps a lot. It is often challenging to translate concepts from one religion into another, but I appreciate your effort.

 

[meltzerboy]

Mickey:

You seem satisfied that you have pigeonholed Baha’i beliefs as being “very much like the Muslims”. But you seem to have missed the point that Baha’i (and apparently at least some Muslims) think a Prophet of God to be something more than “an ordinary human being”.

I’m thinking that the Baha’i understanding of prophet-hood is shaped by Sufism and Islamic mysticism. I’ve heard it opined somewhere that Babism and the early Baha’u’llah were regarded more as Sufi sectaries than as progenitors of a new faith. Possibly someone’s misapprehension but it seems to resonate with me.

What is important to this dialogue, Mickey, seems to me to be the need to grasp that Baha’i do not necessarily pour Christian understandings into words like “prophet”. For Christians–prophets are mouthpieces of God, but otherwise purely-human beings. We even sermonize on the human foibles and failings of various prophets.

For Muslims, this isn’t commonly done, and I think the Baha’i have underscore why that is: for Muslims, and later for the Baha’i, a prophet apparently isn’t “a mere human”, even if Muslims and Baha’i do not believe that the transcendent God can incarnate into a Person who is both “True God and True Man”.

If you realize that for these believers, a prophet or a “Manifestation” isn’t a MERE human, in the way Christians think of prophets, it might help in furthering conversation with both Baha’i and Muslims.

By the same token, I think it helpful to realize that Muslims and Baha’i seem to feel that our Bible “contains” the Word of God, but is not, within itself, the unexpurgated Word of God–there is a basis for dialogue there. I think that Muslims–and from what I can tell, Baha’i, and Mormons, too–tend to feel the manuscript evidence for the Bible is much more corrupted and unreliable than it really is.

Discussing why we think that the Bible as we have it is substantially the same as when the various Books of that Bible were composed, discussing why we don’t believe the Church erred in excluding the Gospel of Thomas, the Protoevangelium of Mary or the Book of Jasher–or some other, yet-to-be discovered document–discussing these issues is time consuming. But, I think, ultimately profitable in helping non-Christians understand why we ultimately put trust in a visble Church as the forth-teller of God’s Word.

Just some thoughts.

Interesting and informative thoughts. Thank you for the clarification.

 

[Sen_McGlinn]

Mickey:

You seem satisfied that you have pigeonholed Baha’i beliefs as being “very much like the Muslims”. But you seem to have missed the point that Baha’i (and apparently at least some Muslims) think a Prophet of God to be something more than “an ordinary human being”…

By the same token, I think it helpful to realize that Muslims and Baha’i seem to feel that our Bible “contains” the Word of God, but is not, within itself, the unexpurgated Word of God–there is a basis for dialogue there. I think that Muslims–and from what I can tell, Baha’i, and Mormons, too–tend to feel the manuscript evidence for the Bible is much more corrupted and unreliable than it really is.

Bahai prophetology is much closer to the Catholic tradition than to Islam. For example:

"… the Reality of Christ, Who is the Word of God, with regard to essence, attributes and glory, certainly precedes the creatures. Before appearing in the human form, the Word of God was in the utmost sanctity and glory, existing in perfect beauty and splendor in the height of its magnificence. When through the wisdom of God the Most High it shone from the heights of glory in the world of the body, the Word of God, through this body, became oppressed, so that it fell into the hands of the Jews, and became the captive of the tyrannical and ignorant, and at last was crucified. That is why He addressed God, saying: “Free Me from the bonds of the world of the body, and liberate Me from this cage, so that I may ascend to the heights of honor and glory, and attain unto the former grandeur and might which existed before the bodily world, that I may rejoice in the eternal world and may ascend to the original abode, the placeless world, the invisible kingdom.”
(Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 116)

A Christian would recognize this as kenotic theology. A Muslim might recognise it as the doctrine of “Muhammadan light” - but that is not a generally accepted doctrine, and the Bahai doctrine of the divine station of the Manifestations is a much higher theology than is commonly found in Islam. Baha’u’llah writes

Know that God … will never manifest Himself in His inmost Being, nor in His essence. He was ever hidden in the preexistence of His Essence and concealed in the eternality of His existence. When He desired to manifest His Beauty in the kingdom of names, and to show forth His Grandeur in the realm of attributes, He brought the Prophets forth from the realm of the invisible into that of the seen. This was so that His Name, the Manifest, might be distinguished from His Name, the Concealed, and His Name, the First, might appear from His Name, the Last – so as to fulfill the verse, “He is the First and the Last, the Manifest and the Concealed, and He encompasseth all things.” He made the Manifestations of His Self and the Mirrors of His Essence to be the epiphanies of these most great names and these most exalted words. Thus, it hath been established that all the names and attributes [of God] refer to these holy and sublime lights. Thou wilt find all names [of God] in their names and all attributes [of God] in their attributes. In this station, wert thou to call them by all the names, this would be the absolute truth, as true as their own existence.
(Jawahiru’l-Asrar)

The last sentence means in effect that to call Christ God is “absolute truth” - within a certain context. The Bahai writings and the thinking of Bahais is saturated with the relativity of religious truth, or a humility about the validity of our formulations in relation to metaphysical questions. Those with a naive faith in the absolute validity of certain formulations can find a discussion with Bahais quite frustrating.

In addition to the pre-existence of the Manifestation in relation to history, Bahais believe in the pre-existence of the “first mind” or “primal will” or “divine utterance” (logos) in relation to the act of creation, but without identifying the logos with Godself:

“Though the ‘First Mind’ is without beginning, it does not become a sharer in the preexistence of God, for the existence of the universal reality in relation to the existence of God is nothingness…” (Some Answered Questions, 203; original at Mufavadat 144-45)

The first mind / primal will is the origin of the creation, the Manifestations, and of the Holy Spirit. It is relational, as a Will is a Will to [something]. It is not Godself.

 

[Sen_McGlinn]

… continued.

As regards the Bahai attitude to the authenticity of the Bible, there is no official position on the various theories of higher criticism. Abdu’l-Baha writes

As to thy question concerning the additions to the Old and New Testament: Know thou, verily, as people could not understand the words, nor could they apprehend the realities therein, therefore they have translated them according to their own understanding and interpreted the verses after their own ideas and thus the text fell into confusion. This is undoubtedly true. As to an intentional addition: This is something uncertain. But they have made great mistakes as to the understanding of the texts and the comprehending of the references and have therefore fallen into doubts, especially in regard to the symbolical verses.
(Tablets of Abdu’l-Baha v3, p. 609)

Stephen Lambden has tracked down the original of this and says that the relevant sentence reads “This is a matter which is other than established” ({ghair al-mathbut};
(Michael Sours, Understanding Christian Beliefs, p. 53)

I understand that as meaning, it is a matter to be established according to the evidence. When I studied Christian theology and higher criticism, some Bahais in my community felt it was blasphemous, citing the verse: “Say: O leaders of religion! Weigh not the Book of God with such standards and sciences as are current amongst you, for the Book itself is the unerring Balance established amongst men.” (Baha’u’llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, para 99). But you will also find Bahais, typically those who have studied the Bible in an academic context, who are a long way from belief in the inerrancy of the text.

 

[Sen_McGlinn]

Sen:

I would disagree that the quran is ambigious and that it has more of the idea of the gospel being some kind of book.

Verse 5:47 … Muhammad in this surah goes on to show the series of revelation, from Torah to Gospel to quran.

You are reading “book” into the text. Bear in mind that the context is a largely illiterate people, whose traditions were oral and living, and you will see the ambiguity. “The Torah” did not so far as I know exist as a physical book then, it was “books” or more accurately scrolls. We are used to thinking of it as a physical book, but that does not mean that Muhammad did so. Certainly he did not think of the Quran as a physical book, because it hadn’t been written down.

… Why should bahai think they have understood the gospels when it might very well be the case when your next manifestation come he will say bahai were wrong and give a completely different understanding of the gospels? To me this isn’t revealing a truth of scripture that was there all along, this is simply different people interpreting it differently, nothing more. We should first and foremost interpret the gospels as they were intended by the people who wrote them, making use of the language and themes dominant in the text, seeing it along side Greco roman culture and first century Judaic culture and comparing between these.

You are preaching to the choir here. In a review of Rigg’s “The Apocalypse Unsealed” I said that “a certain tactlessness in appropriating the Bible is much more prevalent [in the Bahai community].” And more extensively:

Leaving aside the weakness of method in the book, I think we should also ask whether the goal of the interpretation is a good one, for it is directed to achieving an interpretation in which the Christian (and Jewish) content of Revelation is reduced to a minimum. For example, the sacrificed lamb of Rev 5:6 is interpreted as “The constellation Aries, the Ram or Lamb … because of the Precession of the Equinoxes, the Lamb is ‘slain’ for a new constellation at each zodiacal age … there are two Lambs in this new Age … the Bab and 'Abdul-Baha.” (p 100) Anyone at all familiar with early Christian writing, and the Johannine literature in particular, can be in no doubt that the “lamb who was slain” refers, quite simply, to Jesus. A Baha’i might wish to persuade Christians that the truth concerning the value of sacrifice to which their symbol refers has a wider application than they have thought, but I can’t see that any good purpose is served by attempting to deny the plain meaning of the text. This amounts to taking Christians’ symbols and book from them, to install them, stripped of Christ, in the midst of a curiosity-shop full of old and new esotera. Instead of asking Christians to extend and enlarge the truths they hold, this approach asks them to begin by conceding that they never held any truths, that Revelation was not a Christian book at all, but rather a Baha’i book in disguise.

Having said that, you wrote " We should first and **foremost **interpret the gospels as they were intended by the people who wrote them."

I disagree with the “foremost.” To me, the word of God is living, and what it means for us today is foremost. It is also quite interesting to see how the message takes new forms and expands (think of the muzzled ox)! If you want to see what Christ, the gospel and the biblical books mean for Bahais today, undertake it in that spirit.

So far as the creeds are concerned and the definition of the trinity, I thought since you studied Christian theology you would recognise the great authority of Constantinople that is the council of Constantinople, which is unanimously accepted by all Christians.

That would be the reputed revision of the Nicean creed at the first council of Constantinople in 381AD? The one that was rejected at the Council of Ephesus in 431? Yes, that is now very widely accepted. But it is not acceptance but rather clarity that you claimed:

The trinity is a pretty clear doctrine that Christ’s substance is exactly the same substance as that of the father [and in another post] Now I believe the creed which Christendom has accepted to be quite clear in light of its illuminators and the people preceeding it and proceeding it here it is.

As I recall, various attempts at clarifying this and other formulations in the creeds over the centuries have eventually been declared heretical. Again as I recall (it’s a long time ago), Rahner contemplated the various attempts at clarification and concluded that the trinity was a limit concept, one that could not be used for further thinking. That seems more satisfactory to me than calling it a mystery.

The creed you quote says Christ is “of one essence with the Father.” You amend that in the form “Christ’s substance is exactly the same substance as that of the father.” Is an essence the same as a substance? The thing is, what is a ‘substance.’ Not a material thing, apparently. Have you seen one? Have you got one? Is there biblical evidence of the existence and nature of a substance? Can someone who does not believe in essences and substances be a Christian? Did Jesus believe in essences and substances? Did he know enough Greek to even understand the ideas? (Incidentally, I have a pet idea that he did know Greek, from his time in the decapolis, and that some of the hellenisms of the NT might not be later additions).

There is a difference between having a definite formulation, and having clarity.

 

[Mickey]

Mickey, Perhaps you are dancing around the answer

Not at all. You provided your answer. Thank you.

“He entered the room, not using the door.”

He was not some kind of suprenatural ghost. That is why He asked St Thomas to touch His wounds.

May you have eyes to see and ears to hear.

 

[Mickey]

You seem satisfied that you have pigeonholed Baha’i beliefs as being “very much like the Muslims”.

No. I am not so naive. They have much in common with the Muslim beliefs…that’s for sure. But I also know that they are very syncretic.

I’m thinking that the Baha’i understanding of prophet-hood is shaped by Sufism and Islamic mysticism.

Yes…and mohammedism.

I’ve heard it opined somewhere that Babism and the early Baha’u’llah were regarded more as Sufi sectaries than as progenitors of a new faith.

You could be correct. They do seem to project an esoteric dimension of Islam.%between%

What is important to this dialogue, Mickey, seems to me to be the need to grasp that Baha’i do not necessarily pour Christian understandings into words like “prophet”.

I am merely trying to get a simple answer without a long dissertation which does not answer the question.

If you realize that for these believers, a prophet or a “Manifestation” isn’t a MERE human, in the way Christians think of prophets, it might help in furthering conversation with both Baha’i and Muslims.

So to them, Christ is not merely human…and not the incanate Son of the living God. This is why they can’t answer the question…because they know not who He is?

I think that Muslims–and from what I can tell, Baha’i, and Mormons, too–tend to feel the manuscript evidence for the Bible is much more corrupted and unreliable than it really is.

Sorry my friend. I cannot dialogue with a presupposition of the corruption of Sacred Scriptures.

discussing these issues is time consuming. But, I think, ultimately profitable in helping non-Christians understand why we ultimately put trust in a visble Church as the forth-teller of God’s Word.

Just some thoughts.

I understand. But in the end, it will be the Holy Spirit who moves their hearts toward metanoia…not something that I write. That goes especially for me because my writing style often sounds harsher than I mean it to be.

Slava Isusu Christu!

 

[Servant19]

Mickey, (or anyone for that matter) how then do you explain that Jesus walked into the room, but not through the door?

It’s easy to pick the parts of Scripture to back your interpretations, however, it would assist our understanding if you could provide a coherent understanding to explain the components of Scripture that seem to go against your interpretation …

 

[Mickey]

It’s easy to pick the parts of Scripture to back your interpretations

I never do like the Bahai’s and cherry pick Sacred Scriptures with my own interpretations in order to prove a false point.

The holy fathers of the Church through great councils and consensus compiled the New Testament Canons…and they give us proper interpretations.

Cyril of Jerusalem
“This body shall be raised, not remaining weak as it is now, but this same body shall be raised. By putting on incorruption, it shall be altered, as iron blending with fire becomes fire—or rather, in a manner the Lord who raises us knows. However it will be, this body shall be raised, but it shall not remain such as it is. Rather, it shall abide as an eternal body. It shall no longer require for its life such nourishment as now, nor shall it require a ladder for its ascent; for it shall be made a spiritual body, a marvelous thing, such as we have not the ability to describe” (*Catechetical Lectures *18:18 [A.D. 350]).