Bahá'í

[daler]

Before we continue, I want to make sure I understand the point you are trying to make. The Pharisees wanted a sign from Jesus that he was the Messiah. He told them that they will receive no sign except the sign of Jonah. The sign of Jonah, in Catholic understanding, is the resurrection. Just as Jonah was in the whale’s belly for three days, Jesus will be in the heart of the earth for three days. The resurrection would be the definitive sign of the Messiah.

How do you conclude from the verses you stated that this means that Jesus is pointing to someone else, such as Baha’u’lah?

Steve, This is very good. In Matthew 24:

As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”

… And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’[a] spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand—

I am, of course, leaving much out here, but briefly, all are awaiting what is called the "Return" of Christ, among the Christian community.    One of the keys many have looked at is the reference to Daniel the prophet, for he accurately foretold the coming of Jesus the Messiah, and when He would be "cut off", or crucified.  Numerous scholars of man walks have concluded that the 70 weeks (of years) = 490 years after the rebuilding of Jerusalem, which began from the decree of Artaxerxes in the year 457 BC.

. 490 - 457 = 33, but there was no year zero, and Jesus was crucified in 34 AD. The Adventist Movement, William Miller and many others, concluded that the 2300 days (years) spoken of by Daniel also had its beginning with that same decree in 457 BC.
. 2300 - 457 = 1843, but with no year zero, is 1844. This year 1844 also coincides with the year 1260, referred to in Daniel as well as Revelation. Thus, by the same proofs originating with Daniel which predicted the coming of the Messiah and the year of His crucifixion are pointing to the time of HIs return, in 1844 AD, which happens also to be the year 1260 AH of the Muslim calendar.

. As Jesus referred us to Daniel’s prophecy, it cannot be disregarded as insignificant. Indeed, it was given as one of the “signs” of His appearance. The other sign mentioned above is that the Gospel will be preached to all nations, which according to history, had been achieved universally by the mid-1800s.

. Numerous other proofs and evidences must be given before any reasonable person would be expected to give credence to any claims of the Return, and they are many which we could go into, but I don’t think that is the focus of your question, or is it?

. The logical point of the discussion seems to be that we must be able to somehow recognize the Messiah when He comes. For the Pharisees, as you say, what was important to them was the sign of Jonah. For the second coming, there are other signs.

 

[PRmerger]

Now if those Gospels, which bore record of His words, had been circulated, and I happened to come across them, and I still had “ears to hear”, then again I should hope that I would be attuned to the Voice of my Master, whether I knew of the existence of any Institution at the time or not.
For me, the next question would be to recognize the Institution, and its authority.

It appears as if you are saying that you just know Scripture when you see it?

If that is the case, could I give you a sampling of texts, some inspired, some not, and you’d be able to tell me if they are inspired or not (without, of course, consulting google)?

You would be able to tell, just from reading something, that it’s inspired?

That the Institution is dependent upon Him, and not the other way around, and that it is the recognition of Him that tells me that He is the Inspired Word of God.

This is exactly what the Catholic Church proclaims–that she is the servant of Scripture, not that Scripture is under the submission of the Church.

However, you are telling me that you do not submit to the authority of the Church, and just “know” what’s inspired and what’s not…

yet also telling me that you don’t allow Scientologists this same ability?

Am I giving a correct explication of your position?

 

[PRmerger]

Fair enough

If you want to classify the Catholic Church as the “true” Christianity, one must ask the question why so many other denominations have been allowed to remain organised and active for so long, and with such strong numbers?

Why are so many denominations allowed to remain organized and active for so long? Allowed by whom? God? The Catholic Church?

If you mean the latter, then I am wondering what it is you think the Church should be doing to stop so many other denominations from remaining organized?

If it is the former, well, one ought not confuse God allowing so many denominations with God willing so many denominations to exist.

That, clearly, is the work of the Evil One.

 

[Little_Star_1]

“Listen to them but do not do what they do.”

This is what Jesus said about the pharisees and while the pharisees came to teach wrong things eventually down the line Jesus still gave the people the admonition to listen to them and do what they say as opposed to what they do. The problem is this applies not only to the pharisees but to all humanity. If you want a perfect church, a perfect assembly with no imperfect people, no corruption, no anything then you will be alone because no such organisation exists because this lesson of Christ goes to apply to all of humanity.

But if the body of Christ is no where to be found over the centuries, if it has been truely broken by what you imply then we see that Hades has prevailed against the words of Jesus himself. His church has been engulfed when he said it would not and I cannot believe Jesus to be the liar, I can only believe you to be mistaken because Jesus is not wrong.

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

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

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

 

[daler]

Again, is there some OTHER way that you know what belongs in the New Testament, save for giving tacit submission to the authority of the Catholic Church?

PR Please understand that I had never considered the context in which you phrase your point before. It is quite interesting for me to ponder, so allow me to ponder upon it awhile.

tic tock tic tock tic tock… Ok… I have pondered…

It seems to me that what you are saying is that originally, what you describe using the term “Catholic”, would apply. The Roman Catholic was the last one standing as the course of early church history played out, amidst the various wars in the first few centuries. Is this correct?

Then there was a break and the Eastern Orthodox Church was established, etc. I’m really not all that up on this history, for I was raised in the Methodist Church. But if the earliest Church managed to collect and salvage the oral traditions of the Gospels, later written down, then they deserve credit. (I’m really not that old - didn’t know any of those guys)

My current beliefs would certainly be contained in the following:

. "As to the position of Christianity, let it be stated without any hesitation or equivocation that its divine origin is unconditionally acknowledged, that the Sonship and Divinity of Jesus Christ are fearlessly asserted, that the divine inspiration of the Gospel is fully recognized, that the reality of the mystery of the Immaculacy of the Virgin Mary is confessed, and the primacy of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, is upheld and defended. The Founder of the Christian Faith is designated by Bahá’u’lláh as the “Spirit of God,” is proclaimed as the One Who “appeared out of the breath of the Holy Ghost,” and is even extolled as the “Essence of the Spirit.” His mother is described as “that veiled and immortal, that most beauteous, countenance,” and the station of her Son eulogized as a “station which hath been exalted above the imaginings of all that dwell on earth,” whilst Peter is recognized as one whom God has caused “the mysteries of wisdom and of utterance to flow out of his mouth.”

Shoghi Effendi

So while I am intrigued by the manner in which you phrase “tacit admission to the authority of the Catholic Church”, I would have to qualify that in the historical context of its day. And as I am a Baha’i, I derive all authority from that which applies to what we refer to as “This is the Day of God”, and whatsoever has appeared from the Pen of the Ancient of Days, the Lord of Hosts, Who has summoned mankind to His Presence.

 

[PRmerger]

It takes far more than going to church, following church rules, etc., to follow Christ in the manner in which I speak.

There is no other way to know how to follow Christ, except by doing what He told us.

And the only way to know what He told us…

is…

through the Catholic Church.

You have no other way of knowing what Christ told us we need to do except through submitting to the authority of the CC.

 

[PRmerger]

PR Please understand that I had never considered the context in which you phrase your point before. It is quite interesting for me to ponder, so allow me to ponder upon it awhile.

Yes. I think it is something that most people have never pondered.

I think they really just assume that the Bible fell down from heaven, leather bound, and in King James format.

tic tock tic tock tic tock… Ok… I have pondered…

It seems to me that what you are saying is that originally, what you describe using the term “Catholic”, would apply. The Roman Catholic was the last one standing as the course of early church history played out, amidst the various wars in the first few centuries. Is this correct?

Well, the Catholic Church is not Roman, daler, but with that nuance being understood, yes, what you say above is correct.

Then there was a break and the Eastern Orthodox Church was established, etc. I’m really not all that up on this history, for I was raised in the Methodist Church. But if the earliest Church managed to collect and salvage the oral traditions of the Gospels, later written down, then they deserve credit. (I’m really not that old - didn’t know any of those guys)

Yes. And not only credit, but acknowledgement of your own submission to this Church’s authority to tell you what was considered the Word of God.

 

[mek42]

In the early days of what would become the Church, were not men doing exactly that task of looking at texts and then knowing what was inspired and not?

As far as accepting this determination, I imagine that before all else, we have hope that their determination was, if not correct, then at least pleasing to He Who Is. Those who go on to trust this correctness, they can be said to be accepting a part of the authority of the Church, though not necessarily exclusively the See of Rome. Those who remain in hope, though, they cannot be said to accept this authority. Perhaps one could say they are hopeful that this portion of said authority is valid, but not much more.

 

[PRmerger]

In the early days of what would become the Church, were not men doing exactly that task of looking at texts and then knowing what was inspired and not?

Yes! And it was these men…Catholic men…Catholic bishops to be exact…

who discerned from the over 400 texts which was theopneustos and which was not.

 

[SteveVH]

Steve, This is very good. In Matthew 24:

As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”

… And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’[a] spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand—

I am, of course, leaving much out here, but briefly, all are awaiting what is called the "Return" of Christ, among the Christian community.    One of the keys many have looked at is the reference to Daniel the prophet, for he accurately foretold the coming of Jesus the Messiah, and when He would be "cut off", or crucified.  Numerous scholars of man walks have concluded that the 70 weeks (of years) = 490 years after the rebuilding of Jerusalem, which began from the decree of Artaxerxes in the year 457 BC.

From the Catholic view, we believe what Jesus said: “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Mark 13:32). We also believe that when He comes the second and final time, that there will be no doubt as to who He is. “Look, he is coming with the clouds,” and “every eye will see him, even those who pierced him”; and all peoples on earth “will mourn because of him.” So shall it be! Amen. (Rev 1:7) There are a lot of people who love to play with dates and numbers in an effort to accomplish that which Jesus said could never be accomplished; predicting the second coming of Jesus.

So we have no idea when he will come but we do know that we will not have to wonder if it is really Him when He does come. We will not have to worry that we have not recognized him.

I still see nothing in anything you have stated that even implies that Jesus was foretelling another “manifestation”. Can you please point me to this verse?

Thanks.

 

[PRmerger]

As far as accepting this determination, I imagine that before all else, we have hope that their determination was, if not correct, then at least pleasing to He Who Is.

If you have any doubts about their “correctness”, then I suppose that each and every time you say, “Jesus said…” or “Jesus did…” or “Jesus wouldn’t…”

we have to challenge you and say, “But you don’t really know if he really wouldn’t do this, or really said this, or really did this.”

Am I right?

 

[daler]

It appears as if you are saying that you just know Scripture when you see it?

If that is the case, could I give you a sampling of texts, some inspired, some not, and you’d be able to tell me if they are inspired or not (without, of course, consulting google)?

You would be able to tell, just from reading something, that it’s inspired?

This is exactly what the Catholic Church proclaims–that she is the servant of Scripture, not that Scripture is under the submission of the Church.

However, you are telling me that you do not submit to the authority of the Church, and just “know” what’s inspired and what’s not…

yet also telling me that you don’t allow Scientologists this same ability?

Am I giving a correct explication of your position?

PR My experience growing up was that there was “something rotten in Denmark”, so I started sniffing around. In this process, I walked entirely away from my “Little church on the reservation prairie.” In other words, I did my own independent investigation of truth.

Part of that was the study of science, philosophy, logic, and religions of the world, including Buddhism, Hindu, Muslim, and Native American.

I huffed and puffed and blew down every house made of cards I came across. The only one I couldn’t blow down was the Baha’i Faith, which does recognize that the other religions are part of “Progressive Revelation” of
“This is the changeless Faith of God, eternal in the past, eternal in the future.”

I even looked into Scientology in the 70s. Hell, I even looked into the Moonies! And I kept on looking, into Zen, into the Hare Krsnas, and even the Sweat Lodge, which I totally dig, and I kept on sniffing and sniffing until the Baha’i Faith found me!!

Everyone “Must” use their own sniffer, and their own intelligence. Otherwise, it is all “blind imitation”. Would that be what you would have people do? All blindly imitate their forefathers (and three mothers… ?

You see, to me, that is invalid, even among the Baha’is, who will tell you that blind imitation is invalid, even among the Baha’is. My children must discover reality for themselves, including spiritual reality. Otherwise, they do not have a grasp on reality!

What never ceases to amaze me anymore is that anyone can read the Hidden Words of Baha’u’llah and not recognize that it is from God.
However, it is also true that “He is the most hidden of the hidden and the most manifest of the manifest”

PR I ask you to bear witness to the truth or falsity of the following words:

. "O Náṣir, O My servant! God, the Eternal Truth, beareth Me witness. The Celestial Youth hath, in this Day, raised above the heads of men the glorious Chalice of Immortality, and is standing expectant upon His seat, wondering what eye will recognize His glory, and what arm will, unhesitatingly, be stretched forth to seize the Cup from His snow-white Hand and drain it. Only a few have as yet quaffed from this peerless, this soft-flowing grace of the Ancient King. These occupy the loftiest mansions of Paradise, and are firmly established upon the seats of authority. By the righteousness of God! Neither the mirrors of His glory, nor the revealers of His names, nor any created thing, that hath been or will ever be, can ever excel them, if ye be of them that comprehend this truth.

O Náṣir! The excellence of this Day is immensely exalted above the comprehension of men, however extensive their knowledge, however profound their understanding. How much more must it transcend the imaginations of them that have strayed from its light, and been shut out from its glory! Shouldst thou rend asunder the grievous veil that blindeth thy vision, thou wouldst behold such a bounty as naught, from the beginning that hath no beginning till the end that hath no end, can either resemble or equal. What language should He Who is the Mouthpiece of God choose to speak, so that they who are shut out as by a veil from Him can recognize His glory? The righteous, inmates of the Kingdom on high, shall drink deep from the Wine of Holiness, in My name, the all-glorious. None other besides them will share such benefits."

 

[PRmerger]

Those who go on to trust this correctness, they can be said to be accepting a part of the authority of the Church, though not necessarily exclusively the See of Rome.

This prompts 2 questions:

-can those who “go on to trust this correctness” be said to have accepted that the charism of infallibility has been given to the Church?

-why do you say that they can be accepting of the authority of the Church apart from the See of Rome?

Those who remain in hope, though, they cannot be said to accept this authority. Perhaps one could say they are hopeful that this portion of said authority is valid, but not much more.

Then, again, you can never offer any arguments here that begin with, “Jesus wouldn’t…” or “But didn’t Jesus say…”

This inability will greatly diminish any Christian (or Baha’i)'s ability to offer apologia for their point of view.

 

[PRmerger]

PR My experience growing up was that there was “something rotten in Denmark”, so I started sniffing around. In this process, I walked entirely away from my “Little church on the reservation prairie.” In other words, I did my own independent investigation of truth.

Part of that was the study of science, philosophy, logic, and religions of the world, including Buddhism, Hindu, Muslim, and Native American.

I huffed and puffed and blew down every house made of cards I came across. The only one I couldn’t blow down was the Baha’i Faith, which does recognize that the other religions are part of “Progressive Revelation” of
“This is the changeless Faith of God, eternal in the past, eternal in the future.”

I even looked into Scientology in the 70s. Hell, I even looked into the Moonies! And I kept on looking, into Zen, into the Hare Krsnas, and even the Sweat Lodge, which I totally dig, and I kept on sniffing and sniffing until the Baha’i Faith found me!!

Everyone “Must” use their own sniffer, and their own intelligence. Otherwise, it is all “blind imitation”. Would that be what you would have people do? All blindly imitate their forefathers (and three mothers… ?

You see, to me, that is invalid, even among the Baha’is, who will tell you that blind imitation is invalid, even among the Baha’is. My children must discover reality for themselves, including spiritual reality. Otherwise, they do not have a grasp on reality!

What never ceases to amaze me anymore is that anyone can read the Hidden Words of Baha’u’llah and not recognize that it is from God.
However, it is also true that “He is the most hidden of the hidden and the most manifest of the manifest”

PR I ask you to bear witness to the truth or falsity of the following words:

. "O Náṣir, O My servant! God, the Eternal Truth, beareth Me witness. The Celestial Youth hath, in this Day, raised above the heads of men the glorious Chalice of Immortality, and is standing expectant upon His seat, wondering what eye will recognize His glory, and what arm will, unhesitatingly, be stretched forth to seize the Cup from His snow-white Hand and drain it. Only a few have as yet quaffed from this peerless, this soft-flowing grace of the Ancient King. These occupy the loftiest mansions of Paradise, and are firmly established upon the seats of authority. By the righteousness of God! Neither the mirrors of His glory, nor the revealers of His names, nor any created thing, that hath been or will ever be, can ever excel them, if ye be of them that comprehend this truth.

O Náṣir! The excellence of this Day is immensely exalted above the comprehension of men, however extensive their knowledge, however profound their understanding. How much more must it transcend the imaginations of them that have strayed from its light, and been shut out from its glory! Shouldst thou rend asunder the grievous veil that blindeth thy vision, thou wouldst behold such a bounty as naught, from the beginning that hath no beginning till the end that hath no end, can either resemble or equal. What language should He Who is the Mouthpiece of God choose to speak, so that they who are shut out as by a veil from Him can recognize His glory? The righteous, inmates of the Kingdom on high, shall drink deep from the Wine of Holiness, in My name, the all-glorious. None other besides them will share such benefits."

Friend, you still have not addressed my questions. Are you saying that you are able to read a text and can tell if it’s inspired or not?

Will I be able to offer you a list of texts and you will be able to tell me if it comes from an inspired writer, and that these are the words of God (without consulting google or any other source?)

Really?

(And remember, the verse, “Saul went into a cave to relieve himself” is indeed the inspired Word of God. You believe that, too.)

 

[mek42]

If you have any doubts about their “correctness”, then I suppose that each and every time you say, “Jesus said…” or “Jesus did…” or “Jesus wouldn’t…”

we have to challenge you and say, “But you don’t really know if he really wouldn’t do this, or really said this, or really did this.”

Am I right?

Today is the anniversary of the civil wedding ceremony my wife and I partook in some years ago. I am out of town for work, though I did have lunch with her before leaving town. First I hope that she is not off sleeping around. That we have been together some time and know each other accordingly well I also trust and faith that she is not. From this trivial separation on this special day to us I can only begin to imagine the separation a married soldier at war experiences. If such a soldier was at war for his first anniversary and expressed hope that his wife was faithful, or vice versa, I think it would be very cruel for someone to say, but you don’t know, do you?

If you really feel the need to challenge those in doubt, who simply hope that they are living a life pleasing to the Almighty, then I have concern for you, that you not find yourself wrapped to a millstone one day.

 

[PRmerger]

Today is the anniversary of the civil wedding ceremony my wife and I partook in some years ago. I am out of town for work, though I did have lunch with her before leaving town. First I hope that she is not off sleeping around. That we have been together some time and know each other accordingly well I also trust and faith that she is not. From this trivial separation on this special day to us I can only begin to imagine the separation a married soldier at war experiences. If such a soldier was at war for his first anniversary and expressed hope that his wife was faithful, or vice versa, I think it would be very cruel for someone to say, but you don’t know, do you?

If you really feel the need to challenge those in doubt, who simply hope that they are living a life pleasing to the Almighty, then I have concern for you, that you not find yourself wrapped to a millstone one day.

Well, if you have faith (or hope) that the CC got it right in discerning the canon of the NT for you, how is it that you don’t have faith (or hope) that the CC got it right in other things?

How would you respond to a poster, who challenges you when you said this (in another thread): “In the Gospels, Jesus struck a perfect balance between loving people and counseling against sin. Would it maybe help to read how he spoke to the prostitute?”

What if this poster says, “mek42, you can only hope that Jesus really said this”.

How would you respond?

 

[PRmerger]

Well, if you have faith (or hope) that the CC got it right in discerning the canon of the NT for you, how is it that you don’t have faith (or hope) that the CC got it right in other things?

How would you respond to a poster, who challenges you when you said this (in another thread): “In the Gospels, Jesus struck a perfect balance between loving people and counseling against sin. Would it maybe help to read how he spoke to the prostitute?”

What if this poster says, “mek42, you can only hope that Jesus really said this”.

How would you respond?

Also, your paradigm allows Mickey to respond to you when you said: Does “deny” mean “failure to accept upon becoming aware of the possibility” or “renouncing after accepting” or even “pretending otherwise when convenient (such as when Simon Peter denied knowing Jesus)”?

He can say: Actually, you’re not that sure that Simon Peter denied knowing Jesus. You can hope that he did, but you don’t really know, do you?

 

[Little_Star_1]

If you have any doubts about their “correctness”, then I suppose that each and every time you say, “Jesus said…” or “Jesus did…” or “Jesus wouldn’t…”

we have to challenge you and say, “But you don’t really know if he really wouldn’t do this, or really said this, or really did this.”

Am I right?

No, you aren’t. There is a thing called faith. Also, if you seek God, Christ, only through church attendance, you are limited to basing your beliefs off of what you are told of him in church. This is also why so many people, maybe not on this site, will argue the point of the body of Christ being the Catholic church. To many, many people this is a fallacy. It is an impossibility. Personally, I would like to see the Catholic church prevail, as another poster quoted, against Hades. If you are keeping score right now, it doesn’t look so good. The new Pope is a ray of hope though. But, I don’t believe this is what was meant by the Body of Christ. Just guess I would like to see good conquer evil in all things. But, really, he was talking about the hearts of all men.

 

[SteveVH]

No, you aren’t. There is a thing called faith. Also, if you seek God, Christ, only through church attendance, you are limited to basing your beliefs off of what you are told of him in church.

Yes, the Church, founded and built by Christ himself, which is "the pillar and foundation of the truth (1Tim 3:15) according to Scripture. Why would we go anywhere else to seek the truth? That is exactly why Christ founded the Church and sent the Holy Spirit to guide it into all truth.

This is also why so many people, maybe not on this site, will argue the point of the body of Christ being the Catholic church. To many, many people this is a fallacy.

So what? To at least three quarters of the population of the earth Christianity itself is a fallacy.
Again, Scripture tells us “And he is the head of the body, the church”.

 

[Servant19]

Just a quick note:

Absolute Infallibility is given to the Manifestation of God ONLY

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

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

This is unique in religious history…