Baha'i Returns Thread: Ask Any of Many Baha'i

[ChristIsTheWay]

As for ChristIsTheWay, I have no idea of his level of knowledge concerning the Catholic Church or his reasons for leaving. Yes, we do have Catholics who leave the Church

My level of knowledge is a bit off-topic but I thought I’d respond to this post. I’ve read the catechism and taken classes on Catholicism. I would rate my knowledge as above average. My reasons for leaving are simple: I came to believe that Baha’u’llah was who he said he was. It took some prayers and reading up to reach that belief but reach it I did. I miss being Catholic but I love being Baha’i. That is all I have to say. God bless.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Thanks for your post Stylteralmado! The change of name is important.

What do Baha’i faith teach regarding the fact that Jesus’ name was not changed?

I compare this to Bahá’u’lláh who’s name was changed. How did Bahá’u’lláh receive his new name?

You see, Jesus was not just the next prophet. He has the authority, as God, to change Simon’s name to Peter. It was God who changed Abrahm’s name to Abraham and it was God who changed Jacob’s name to Israel.

 

[SteveVH]

. Please get this part: The One Who said, “Before Abraham was, I am” cannot be put on a cross.

According to who?

That eternal Being is not mortal, nor confined to a mortal frame. That mortal frame in which He appears can be crucified. But “He” is not that mortal frame.

A human being is composed of both body and soul. If one is lacking either a body or a soul one is not human. Our bodies are not some temporary shell in which we hide. They are a part of what it means to be human. Christ became truly human. He is like us in everything but sin. And yes, at the same time Jesus is truly divine. He is absolutely unique in being one Person with two natures. As a man, Jesus was tortured and crucified and died. Through his power as God, he took his life up again. Because sin came into the world through a man, justice required that man pay the price for his sins. There was no sacrifice that could redeem man except the sacrifice of a man who was without sin. Out of his love for us, God himself became man in order to pay the price for our redemption and salvation. If he was not crucified, then the price has not been paid and our redemption has not been won.

This is central both to understanding the verse in the Quran and the ascension of Christ after His Resurrection. They both refer to the same thing. That eternal, transcendent Being existed before Abraham and before Jesus, the man.

Yes, Jesus is eternally the second Person of the Trinity. He is without beginning or end. But we cannot separate Christ’s two natures from his Person. That is who he is; both man and God.

We are not changing the words nor distorting the meaning.

You absolutely are changing the meaning otherwise, you would be either Muslim or Christian. You distort the meaning so that even though one says that Christ was crucified and one says that Christ was not crucified there is no conflict. You end up with the belief that Christ was crucified, but not really crucified. Both Islam and Christianity conflict with each other and the Baha’i faith conflicts with both.

We are interpreting what those words mean with rational understanding, using our intelligence and knowledge of cultural context.

If you are correct, then one would have to conclude that both the Muslim and the Christian are lacking in rational thought, intelligence and knowledge of cultural context. And you can believe this even though such great minds as Augustine,Thomas Aquinas and countless others would disagree with you, and even though our Sacred texts were written and understood within the culture and time in which Jesus lived. The only one who does not have a cultural context is the one who came on the scene barely 150 years ago and then proceeded to tell all the religions of the world that they all believe the same thing. Sorry, not very convincing.

 

[SteveVH]

My level of knowledge is a bit off-topic but I thought I’d respond to this post. I’ve read the catechism and taken classes on Catholicism. I would rate my knowledge as above average. My reasons for leaving are simple: I came to believe that Baha’u’llah was who he said he was. It took some prayers and reading up to reach that belief but reach it I did. I miss being Catholic but I love being Baha’i. That is all I have to say. God bless.

You are in my prayers.

 

[SteveVH]

Steve, you did not watch the “Frontiers of Learning” video I linked for you?

I watched most of it. Sorry, but I do not have the time to spend over an hour going through the entire thing. I am still wondering exactly how this answers my questions. Do the Baha’i believe that they are unique in trying to make the world a better place in which to live? The Catholic Church has led the world in this endeavor since it began, feeding the poor, caring for the sick, educating the ignorant and, most important of all, bringing the light of Christ to their lives.

I think it is wonderful that the Baha’i wish to join in this effort but I find nothing unique in what they are doing.

Why don’t you fill me in. What is so stupendous about what the Baha’i are doing relative to what other religious organizations are doing and have been doing for centuries? I saw nothing in the video that struck me as something new and the word “stupendous” was not one that came to mind.

Also, please give me your source for claiming that “innumerable” Catholic clerics have converted to the Baha’i faith.

Thanks.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Iggy,

You asked, when I stated that you were being spiteful and disrespectful to the Baha’i, what about Paul and Peter? Okay Iggy, let’s get real. Go to the mirror, look yourself straight in the eye and tell us–are you either Peter or Paul? Did it ever occur to any of you that Peter, Paul, and Jesus, had the authority to speak for God in a way that has not been given to you?

God makes it quite clear what is within His province and what is within our’s. I am sure you know all the spots where this is addressed in the Bible. If not, take the time to look for them. They are there. Yes, Peter and Paul were granted special authority. This is what sets them apart from every Tom, Dick, and Harry, you that is.

You come on here and insult the Baha’i and their leader for presuming too much for him. Yet, you are doing the same thing for yourselves. Believe what you believe and trust that God, within His mighty province, is addressing everything regarding that which is in His province. Leave them be Iggy. Love, Trust, Faith, and LOVE again. Get busy with it.

Keep in mind, if He can’t trust you to get what is within the province of man right, what else will He trust you with?

What is your problem with me exactly? That I am highly critical of what I consider a false religion? A religion that claims things which not only contradict the christian faith (which it does) but which contradicts reality? Am I insulting Mirza Hussain by calling him a false prophet? Or am I merely expressing how I sincerely see him? Why should I give a false prophet respect exactly?

I am neither Peter or Paul but something tells me that wouldn’t stop you from telling them they were wrong for being so mean to people, so critical and nasty to people. So if you want to maintain I have no authority to say the things I say concerning bahai i at least expect you to prove the bahai position then. You seem so eager and willing to speak against me and yet you won’t even be critical in your responces to me.

Heres one for you that I doubt you could explain. The quran tells us that the true followers of Jesus would be victorious to the day of ressurrection. Bahai have told me this simply means to the time of Muhammad, lets grant that. Where then were the victorious Christians who would agree with the bahai doctrines between the advent of Christ and the coming of the arabian prophet Muhammad? If we examine history we will find no group matching them at all, the only exception may be the beliefs of certain gnostic groups but even then the bahai could never say they were right. There is a descrepency when we look at history and what the bahai faith tells us, especially in regards to Christianity. That is there is a pattern if bahai faith is correct, every prophet failed miserably to even get a movement off the ground and have it last one generation.

Bahai will universally and almost completely reject the hadith traditions, for the obvious reason that most of them are absurd and for the more pratical reason they contradict the bahai faith. Yet these hadiths are sacred to muslims and are held as examples of the life of the prophet, something to be emulated and believed in. There is no critical examination of history. We can go now to early church as well, we know what those who followed the apostles taught and it is the things bahais admonish. Be it Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, Justin martyr, Iraneaus, Polycarp of Smyrna and all the ante nicene fathers we see nothing the bahai might agree with that is of substance. I’m sure the bahai could agree as tot he moral content (mostly) of these writings but not with what they actually taught concerning God. We must judge (for there is no other reasonable judgment despite bahai indecision on this matter) the apostles themselves were either bad teachers or had received the false faith.

Of course that doesn’t bode well for what their quran says, and bahai consider the quran absolute authority. This is just one reason why I reject the bahai and you want to say i’m mean and nasty for presenting it, please say that and please refute it. I want you to show me where the early bahai Christians were and I use that term “bahai Christian” only to indicate a group set apart from those I have mentioned, the orthodox and the gnostics.

 

[SteveVH]

What is your problem with me exactly? That I am highly critical of what I consider a false religion? A religion that claims things which not only contradict the christian faith (which it does) but which contradicts reality? Am I insulting Mirza Hussain by calling him a false prophet? Or am I merely expressing how I sincerely see him? Why should I give a false prophet respect exactly?

I am neither Peter or Paul but something tells me that wouldn’t stop you from telling them they were wrong for being so mean to people, so critical and nasty to people. So if you want to maintain I have no authority to say the things I say concerning bahai i at least expect you to prove the bahai position then. You seem so eager and willing to speak against me and yet you won’t even be critical in your responces to me.

Heres one for you that I doubt you could explain. The quran tells us that the true followers of Jesus would be victorious to the day of ressurrection. Bahai have told me this simply means to the time of Muhammad, lets grant that. Where then were the victorious Christians who would agree with the bahai doctrines between the advent of Christ and the coming of the arabian prophet Muhammad? If we examine history we will find no group matching them at all, the only exception may be the beliefs of certain gnostic groups but even then the bahai could never say they were right. There is a descrepency when we look at history and what the bahai faith tells us, especially in regards to Christianity. That is there is a pattern if bahai faith is correct, every prophet failed miserably to even get a movement off the ground and have it last one generation.

Bahai will universally and almost completely reject the hadith traditions, for the obvious reason that most of them are absurd and for the more pratical reason they contradict the bahai faith. Yet these hadiths are sacred to muslims and are held as examples of the life of the prophet, something to be emulated and believed in. There is no critical examination of history. We can go now to early church as well, we know what those who followed the apostles taught and it is the things bahais admonish. Be it Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, Justin martyr, Iraneaus, Polycarp of Smyrna and all the ante nicene fathers we see nothing the bahai might agree with that is of substance. I’m sure the bahai could agree as tot he moral content (mostly) of these writings but not with what they actually taught concerning God. We must judge (for there is no other reasonable judgment despite bahai indecision on this matter) the apostles themselves were either bad teachers or had received the false faith.

Of course that doesn’t bode well for what their quran says, and bahai consider the quran absolute authority. This is just one reason why I reject the bahai and you want to say i’m mean and nasty for presenting it, please say that and please refute it. I want you to show me where the early bahai Christians were and I use that term “bahai Christian” only to indicate a group set apart from those I have mentioned, the orthodox and the gnostics.

I couldn’t agree more. Challenging one to answer apparent inconsistencies in their faith, or to defend one’s own faith in the face of challenges from another is not being uncharitable.

 

[arthra]

What do Baha’i faith teach regarding the fact that Jesus’ name was not changed?

I compare this to Bahá’u’lláh who’s name was changed. How did Bahá’u’lláh receive his new name?

You see, Jesus was not just the next prophet. He has the authority, as God, to change Simon’s name to Peter. It was God who changed Abrahm’s name to Abraham and it was God who changed Jacob’s name to Israel.

Thanks stylteralmaldo for post! Good to hear from you so soon…

You ask:

“What do Baha’i faith teach regarding the fact that Jesus’ name was not changed?”

Personally I don’t really think that Baha’is have any issue or position with regard to Jesus name stylteralmaldo…

The Qur’an calls Him Isa ibn Maryam… Isa al Masih. Ruh’u’llah and Kalimatullah… I don;t think anyone has any problems with that… We accept Jesus as a Manifestation of God and of course He was the one who as you know assigned the name “rock” to Simon…or Cephas or Kefa in Aramaic… Jesus name would sound like Eshoo or Eashoo in Aramaic.

How did Baha’u’llah receive His “new name” is a good question…

I believe it was around the Conference of Badasht in 1848 that His new name Baha’u’llah the Glory of God first appeared in the form of Jinab-i-Baha and that the Bab (the Gate) who was His Forerunner had first mentioned it in His revealed book the Persian Bayan…

THE Conference of Badasht was unique and unparalleled in the religious annals of mankind. Never before, in the lifetime of a Manifestation of God, had His followers gathered to take counsel together, as one body, regarding the nature of their Faith and their future course of action. The moving Genius and the Convener of that unprecedented conference was no less a person than Mirza Husayn-'Aliy-i-Nuri, Who subsequently became known in the Bábí community as Jinab-i-Baha.[1] As the Guardian of the Bahá’í Faith has particularly remarked: 'The primary purpose of that gathering was to implement the revelation of the Bayan by a sudden, a complete and dramatic break with the past - with its order, its ecclesiasticism, its traditions, and ceremonials. The subsidiary purpose of the conference was to consider the means of emancipating the Báb from His cruel confinement in Chihriq. The first was eminently successful; the second was destined from the outset to fail.'1

[1** It ought to be noted that the name 'Bahá’u’lláh was first mentioned by the Báb in His Book, the Persian Bayan; and that it was as ‘Jinab-i-Baha’ that Mirza Husayn-'Aliy-i-Nuri became known in the Bábí community, after the Conference of Badasht.]

(H.M. Balyuzi, Baha'u'llah - The King of Glory, p. 43)

The Founder of the Bahá’í Faith, Mirza Husayn `Ali Nuri assumed the title Jinab-i-Baha (= “His Holiness Baha”; subsequently Bahá’u’lláh = Baha’+ Allah]) at the Babi conference of Badasht in 1848 – the application of this title to him was ratified by the Bab (GPB:32). He subsequently identified the Arabic word Baha as the “Greatest Name” =GN] and claimed to be its personification.

bahai-library.com/lambden_encyclopedia_greatest_name

Bestowing names on people was a common occurrence among the early Baha’is and Babis

The name of the follower of the Bab who was martyred with Him was Mirza Muhammad-’ Ali and He is known as Anis or Companion of the Bab.

A young follower of Baha’u’llah was Khurasani Aqa Buzurg (c. 1852-1869), and he was given the title Badi` ( wondrous, new) by Bahá’u’lláh, was the bearer of Bahá’u’lláh’s tablet to Nasiru’d- Din and for that Badi martyred.

Quddus was among the first nineteen disciples of the Bab known as a Letter of the Living. His actual name was Moḥammad-ʿAli Bārforuši. Quddus means the “most Holy”…

So you could say that the action of Jesus in naming Simon Peter was something carried out by the Bab and Baha’u’llah.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

You are in my prayers.

Thanks. I will include you my prayers.

 

[Little_Star_1]

What is your problem with me exactly? That I am highly critical of what I consider a false religion? A religion that claims things which not only contradict the christian faith (which it does) but which contradicts reality? Am I insulting Mirza Hussain by calling him a false prophet? Or am I merely expressing how I sincerely see him? Why should I give a false prophet respect exactly?

I am neither Peter or Paul but something tells me that wouldn’t stop you from telling them they were wrong for being so mean to people, so critical and nasty to people. So if you want to maintain I have no authority to say the things I say concerning bahai i at least expect you to prove the bahai position then. You seem so eager and willing to speak against me and yet you won’t even be critical in your responces to me.

Heres one for you that I doubt you could explain. The quran tells us that the true followers of Jesus would be victorious to the day of ressurrection. Bahai have told me this simply means to the time of Muhammad, lets grant that. Where then were the victorious Christians who would agree with the bahai doctrines between the advent of Christ and the coming of the arabian prophet Muhammad? If we examine history we will find no group matching them at all, the only exception may be the beliefs of certain gnostic groups but even then the bahai could never say they were right. There is a descrepency when we look at history and what the bahai faith tells us, especially in regards to Christianity. That is there is a pattern if bahai faith is correct, every prophet failed miserably to even get a movement off the ground and have it last one generation.

Bahai will universally and almost completely reject the hadith traditions, for the obvious reason that most of them are absurd and for the more pratical reason they contradict the bahai faith. Yet these hadiths are sacred to muslims and are held as examples of the life of the prophet, something to be emulated and believed in. There is no critical examination of history. We can go now to early church as well, we know what those who followed the apostles taught and it is the things bahais admonish. Be it Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, Justin martyr, Iraneaus, Polycarp of Smyrna and all the ante nicene fathers we see nothing the bahai might agree with that is of substance. I’m sure the bahai could agree as tot he moral content (mostly) of these writings but not with what they actually taught concerning God. We must judge (for there is no other reasonable judgment despite bahai indecision on this matter) the apostles themselves were either bad teachers or had received the false faith.

Of course that doesn’t bode well for what their quran says, and bahai consider the quran absolute authority. This is just one reason why I reject the bahai and you want to say i’m mean and nasty for presenting it, please say that and please refute it. I want you to show me where the early bahai Christians were and I use that term “bahai Christian” only to indicate a group set apart from those I have mentioned, the orthodox and the gnostics.

I can’t answer for the Baha’i or Muslims. I am a Christian and am only beginning to learn about the Baha’i faith. I do not speak to the truth of their religion. What I am speaking to is another Christian that is consistently being disrespectful of a another group’s religion. This is not Christian.

Other Christians that are involved in the discussion are able to do so without being disrespectful. You seem as if your whole purpose is to be disrespectful and negative, even hateful, not to have an on going discussion comparing and contrasting the faiths.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I can’t answer for the Baha’i or Muslims. I am a Christian and am only beginning to learn about the Baha’i faith. I do not speak to the truth of their religion. What I am speaking to is another Christian that is consistently being disrespectful of a another group’s religion. This is not Christian.

Other Christians that are involved in the discussion are able to do so without being disrespectful. You seem as if your whole purpose is to be disrespectful and negative, even hateful, not to have an on going discussion comparing and contrasting the faiths.

Disrespectful how? By calling mirza Hussain a false prophet? Why yes this is disrespectful insofar as the bahai are concerened but their beliefs are equally disrespectful to Christians. That is apparently Christians have had it all wrong since the begining and no bahai can challange that statement. That this mere material world is unimportant to bahai is an insult on actual inherent value in the material world is an insult to God’s creation. There will always be disrespect and I will not call Mirza Hussain by the name htey call him because it is a false name. He is not the Glory of God, as I said (and I don’t take this back) I would rather call him “Baha’u’shaitan” than “Baha’u’llah.” Assuming that is the correct way to say “the glory of Satan,” for I wouldn’t know cause I don’t speak arabic. Corrections anyone? As far as I’m concerned its no worse than waht the early saints did in pointing out things about marcion or the gnostics, bahais are on their level.

THough that rhetoric is hardly the essence of what I say and I don’t always speak like that.

 

[Servant19]

Hi Steve,

In a previous post you stated that Jesus did not float into space, He “ascended up to the Father”

Can you explain what this means please? Where is the Father?

 

[Servant19]

Hi Steve, my apologies for my oversight…

I would be delighted to answer your questions. If you wouldn’t mind, may I open a dialogue with you on this matter so we can provide some context? If you are uncomfortable with the question I propose (which will provide a good foundation to answer your question) then please tell me and I will just answer your question (if that makes sense??) ( ) ))

So here’s the question:
How did Jesus fulfil the following criteria required to be entitled the Messiah?

1. have the correct genealogy by being descended from King David and king Solomon
   (I Chonicles 17, 11 and 22, 10 / Jeremiah 33, 17)
2. be anointed King of Israel
   (Deuteronomy 17, 15)
3. return the Jewish people to Israel
   (Isaiah 27, 12)
   (Isaiah 11, 12)
4. rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem
   (Micah 4, 1)
5. bring peace to the world and end all war
   (Micah 4, 3)
   (Isaiah 2, 4)
   (Isaiah 11, 6)
6. bring knowledge of God to the world
7. The criteria pointed out in Ezehiel chapter 37 24-28

24 “My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd; and they will walk in My ordinances and keep My statutes and observe them. 25 They will live on the land that I gave to Jacob My servant, in which your fathers lived; and they will live on it, they, and their sons and their sons’ sons, forever; and David My servant will be their prince forever. 26 I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will [a]place them and multiply them, and will set My sanctuary in their midst forever. 27 My dwelling place also will be with them; and I will be their Gd, and they will be My people. 28 And the nations will know that I am the L.rd who sanctifies Israel, when My sanctuary is in their midst forever.”

How did Jesus fulfil some or all of these prophecies?

Hi Steve, would you mind addressing this question now please?
I think it provides some understanding about “interpretation” of Sacred Texts

Thankyou

 

[daler]

What do Baha’i faith teach regarding the fact that Jesus’ name was not changed?

I compare this to Bahá’u’lláh who’s name was changed. How did Bahá’u’lláh receive his new name?

You see, Jesus was not just the next prophet. He has the authority, as God, to change Simon’s name to Peter. It was God who changed Abrahm’s name to Abraham and it was God who changed Jacob’s name to Israel.

Stylter,

It may be of interest to note a couple of quotes from the Bible regarding "names"

. “And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name.” Isaiah 62:2

. “Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.” Revelation 3:12

. Baha’u’llah did give many people a new name with a spiritual meaning. Also, some Baha’is interpret these verses to mean the new name of “Baha” or Glory, or that those who were formerly known as Jew, Christian, Muslim, are now called Baha’i, which means “follower of the Glory (of God)”

 

[daler]

According to who?

A human being is composed of both body and soul. If one is lacking either a body or a soul one is not human. Our bodies are not some temporary shell in which we hide. They are a part of what it means to be human. Christ became truly human.

Yes, Jesus is eternally the second Person of the Trinity. He is without beginning or end. But we cannot separate Christ’s two natures from his Person. That is who he is; both man and God.

You absolutely are changing the meaning otherwise, you would be either Muslim or Christian. You distort the meaning so that even though one says that Christ was crucified and one says that Christ was not crucified there is no conflict. You end up with the belief that Christ was crucified, but not really crucified. Both Islam and Christianity conflict with each other and the Baha’i faith conflicts with both.

Steve,
. Lets try to tackle this one more time. Referring to Jesus, you rightly say: “He is without beginning or end.”

. I believe that you would also agree that He was before the world was formed.

. Baha’is believe that “Jesus” was crucified. Baha’is also believe that the Manifestations of God appear in human form.
. When Jesus assumed human form, He was crucified. That is, His human form was crucified.
. I would liken this to my coat being hung out to dry. Now I may have been in my coat when they hung it out to dry, but I am not my coat.
. A coat is made out of the elements of the earth. It cannot exist without those elements.
. A human body, or form, is formed from the elements of the earth. When Jesus assumed human form, his body, like a coat, was composed of the elements of the earth.
. What is being stated is that “He” existed prior to, and after, the composition and decomposition of this human form, or body.
. Such a powerful spiritual Being is not dependent upon elements for survival. He exists independently of protons, neutrons, electrons, and quarks.
. When He (Jesus) assumed human form and that form was crucified, this refers to His elemental body, in which He appeared physically and visibly to men.
. That men do such things as behead John the Baptist, or crucify Jesus, or saw Isaiah in half is horrible. We all agree that humanity tends to be cruel and horrible in its reception of the Divine Messengers.
. The Baha’i position is that these Eternal Manifestations exist independently of the physical body which is the means or mechanism by which humanity perceives Them.
. The statement: “I am the Alpha and the Omega” appears in many religious Scriptures, from Christian to Buddhist, Hindu to the Bab.
. The Baha’i belief is that this “Alpha and Omega” is the Manifestation of God Who appears from age to age.
. He does this by “manifesting” Himself in physical human form, or as Christians state: “God became flesh and dwelt among us.”
. Baha’is do not believe that the Essence of God “incarnates” Himself, but rather that His attributes appear in what we term His “Manifestations”
. I think you understand the Baha’i position on this, but you can’t accept it. That is fine. It is simply being stated.

. A few threads back I proposed the hypothesis that affirming what science demonstrates, there are billions of galaxies with trillions of stars and planets.
. For the sake of discussion, let us assume that many of these planets evolve as does our own, with spiritual creatures, or “men”, similar to ourselves, the purpose of their creation and its fulfillment being “to know and love God”.

. How would God “manifest” Himself to them? Hypothetically, and for the sake of discussion. Would it be the same single identity of Jesus, for example, physically and biologically adapted to earth’s gravity, atmosphere, etc?
. What happens when the variables change? If gravity is twice that on earth? Would the body of that Manifestation or Prophet not be adapted accordingly?

. This is a spiritual question, insofar as the appearance of a Christ Figure would appear to those individuals as one of themselves.
. Would that same single “Jesus” identity go flying about, flitting from planet to planet, being born to a “Mary”, perpetually ascending to the Father?

. Just food for thought. Anybody want to throw their thoughts into the ring?

 

[SteveVH]

Hi Steve,

In a previous post you stated that Jesus did not float into space, He “ascended up to the Father”

Can you explain what this means please? Where is the Father?

The Father is in heaven, which does not occupy physical space. Again, it is important to understand what the Jews of that time and culture understood. Acts 1:9 describes the Ascension as follows:

“And when he had said these things, as they were looking, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.”

As I have already explained, the use of “clouds” in describing Jesus ascension as well as his second coming means “the dwelling place of God”. So it could very well be read that “he was taken up and the dwelling place of God received him…” It does not mean that Jesus floated into physical space and we have no idea where he is. It means he ascended into heaven, with his glorified body and soul.

 

[SteveVH]

Steve,
. Lets try to tackle this one more time. Referring to Jesus, you rightly say: “He is without beginning or end.”

. I believe that you would also agree that He was before the world was formed.

Agreed.

Baha’is believe that “Jesus” was crucified. Baha’is also believe that the Manifestations of God appear in human form.
. When Jesus assumed human form, He was crucified. That is, His human form was crucified.
. I would liken this to my coat being hung out to dry. Now I may have been in my coat when they hung it out to dry, but I am not my coat.

We can stop right here, for the time being. You assume a false premise; that our bodies are not really part of us, but rather a shell in which we live. Christ, in no uncertain terms tells us that we will be reunited with our bodies. Why? Because that is part of who we are as human beings. The human body was given unprecedented dignity when Jesus became incarnate. That is why we take great care and respect toward the bodies of those who have died; why we don’t just throw them into a dumpster and forget about it.

The human body is intrinsic to the human person; not just a shell in which our true identities dwell. When Christ was crucified, he truly suffered and he truly died because he was truly human, not just pretending to be human. He did not shed his body as one would shed a coat. When he was resurrected he made a point of eating and drinking with his disciples and even allowed them to touch his body, now glorified. This is a part of Scripture which is either ignored or denied by the Baha’i.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I might say that if the bahai truely consider the material body worthless we must ask they they have preserved the body of their prophet in a shrine. If the being of the person is independant of the body, that is the soul is where the true person resides why do we bury people? To show respect to the person? But the person has left the body which was not his true self so how in showing respect to nothing but a rotting husk showing respect to the actual person’s soul? I think there is an implicit contradiction in bahai practice (mind you I think it is good to bury the dead) and teaching.

 

[daler]

We can stop right here, for the time being. You assume a false premise; that our bodies are not really part of us, but rather a shell in which we live. Christ, in no uncertain terms tells us that we will be reunited with our bodies. .

Steve,
Please allow me, for clarification, to quote the Baha’i views “accurately”. There seems to be some misunderstanding, and as this is a sensitive issue, quite important.

The Human Body - The Throne of the Inner Temple

  .     "As this physical frame is the throne of the inner temple, whatever occurs to the former is felt by the latter.  In reality that which takes delight in joy or is saddened by pain is the inner temple of the body, not the body itself. Since this physical body is the throne whereon the inner temple is established, God hath ordained that the body be preserved to the extent possible, so that nothing that causeth repugnance may be experienced.  The inner temple beholdeth its physical frame, which is its throne.  Thus, if the latter is accorded respect, it is as if the former is the recipient. The converse is likewise true. Therefore, it hath been ordained that the dead body should be treated with the utmost honor and respect."

. (The Bab: Selections from the Writings of the Bab Page 95)

The Human Body - The Progress of Human Soul

. “And now concerning thy question regarding the soul of man and its survival after death. Know thou of a truth that the soul, after its separation from the body, will continue to progress until it attaineth the presence of God, in a state and condition which neither the revolution of ages and centuries, nor the changes and chances of this world, can alter.”

. (Baha’u’llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah, p. 155)

Now let us consider that while we do have different understandings of the death of the body, it might be good to go into our own thoughts a little more, if you wish. I will relate to you a personal experience.
. When my cousin Tom drowned 30 years ago, I was at the funeral standing next to his folks, my aunt and uncle. I remember turning and looking at Tom’s body, some 20 feet away, but distinctly feeling his “presence” right there next to my Aunt and Uncle and myself. What I saw when I looked over was a “suit on top of a suit”, that is, a suit of clothes adorning a suit of flesh, from which he was now free.

. When we dream, what is the nature of the reality to which we go? Is it physical, like in our daily lives? Or is it another dimension of reality which transcends normal experience.
. I don’t disagree with you that we will have some sort of “body” associated with our souls in heaven. I agree with you there, but I don’t see it as the same physical “body” that we lived in here.

. What you term as a glorified “body” of Christ to me speaks of this reality of the soul which is not composed of physical elements. That seems to be where the problem is, as well as what to do with the Gospel stories of Jesus appearing and disappearing, taking food and speaking, being seen by “believers”, and yet not being seen by non-believers.

. When you sat that Christ says we will be reunited with our bodies, how do you visualize this or make it acceptable to the rational mind with which we perceive reality?

. For example, after 9-11 and the total extermination of the physical bodies of 2000 souls (God bless each and every one of them and their beloved families), the atoms and molecules went into the ground and air and were dispersed, eventually absorbed by other living creatures, the same as “ashes to ashes and dust to dust”, whether by cremation or great grandpa buried under the apple tree, which absorbs those atoms into itself, part of which becomes apples, eaten by horses and people, etc.

. Clearly, the “same” physical body will not and cannot be reassembled. This does not mean that we will not have some sort of glorified, non-earthly body, but let us call it a “heavenly form” appropriate to our needs in what people sometimes term “the next world”.

. The fellow crucified with Christ was told by Him, “Today thou shalt be with me in paradise.” Yet Jesus’ body remained in the grave for 3 days and was then Resurrected, according to traditional literal interpretations. What happened to the “body” of the other fellow, and where was the “paradise” to which they both went “today”?

. Do you see the difficulties here with simplistic or apparent explanations? I’m not railing on you brother, just trying to understand with my rational mind what happens after death.

. Also, putting all of this in context with Enoch, Elijah, and Jesus “ascending” into heaven, John returning in the spirit of Elijah, and Jesus statement that He "came down from heaven, “is” in heaven, and would ascend to heaven.

. Please, respectfully, follow up on this, if you will. These are not naive considerations to be easily dismissed, but real head-scratchers…

God bless

 

[daler]

I might say that if the bahai truely consider the material body worthless we must ask they they have preserved the body of their prophet in a shrine. If the being of the person is independant of the body, that is the soul is where the true person resides why do we bury people? To show respect to the person? But the person has left the body which was not his true self so how in showing respect to nothing but a rotting husk showing respect to the actual person’s soul? I think there is an implicit contradiction in bahai practice (mind you I think it is good to bury the dead) and teaching.

Ignatian,
. Please review the previous post #378 and reassess your statement with courtesy and intellectual honesty.
. The Baha’is do not practice cremation unless exceptional circumstances require it, such as a mass death from the plague or cholera, for example, where health considerations of the living may be affected.
. Baha’i funerals are profoundly respectful of both the dead and the living. Please do not speak with ignorance and sarcasm on this subject matter. It is undignified and unbecoming of anyone who claims reverence for God and the believers in Him.

Thank you, daler