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

[Little_Star_1]

I think dialogue and conversation can help establish what is true and what is false. I do think one needs to start from a position of respect and courtesy–Ignito Philo violates that by declining to use the appropriate title of Baha’u’llah. Also by some element of condescension in his responses at times.

Having said that: the Baha’i in places display perhaps a gentler yet very palpable condescension of their own. Getting the received teaching about what Christianity teaches regarding Christ, the Trinity, Heaven, etcetera correct isn’t that hard. Quoting sources fairly–rather than misappropriating isolated texts to surmise that historical persons of known Christian orthodoxy–is dirty pool.

Ignitio is attempting to engage in a fairly rigorous discourse, and he and a couple of the Baha’i have carried the conversation above my meager abilities at times. But I can see that in places there is a a slippage of decorum–shall the Baha’i pointedly refer to the Holy Father as “Bergoglio”?–or what feels like an almost obstinate determination to see Christianity only thru Baha’i-tinted spectacles.

It’s a good conversation. Please don’t drop out. But be mindful that good dialogue requires effort and patience. It requires good skills of “analysis” BEFORE “critique”.

My only comment to Little Star btw, is that both Baha’i and Christian believe there is something known as “final truth”: in skimming (not reading closely) your responses I was getting the impression that at times you almost believe that truth is relativistic, that there is no Absolute Truth but only a smorgasbord of truths to pick and choose from. Apologies if my quick overview does you an injustice. But it is in the cause of Truth that PhilIgnitio and the Baha’i contend so earnestly. I honor their zeal even if I hope they use more care in their efforts.

My latest observations.

No, I absolutely do not believe that Truth is relative. Not at all. To really explain myself, I would have to reveal things that are very personal to me, which I will not do in this forum. There is a Truth and it was spoken by Jesus. I think, know, that some Christians get so caught up in doctrine that they miss the living part of his teaching. They miss out in understanding what he really meant and that we can live with him in each breathe, each step that we take, that he is alive in us and lives through us.

This has always been part of my reality from my first memories. I was really taken aback when, as I grew older, I came to realize that most people did not see this that they really believe he is dead. They didn’t “see”. When I came to understand it, the world became a very spooky place. Because if you believe he is dead, what meaning does his word have in and on your life?

Easter at church when I was five was eye opening because all these folks were crying over Jesus’ death and I knew he was alive. I wanted to stand up and shout “are you people crazy?” I mean the Bible tells them that he is alive, and they still in truth believe he is dead. But they profess that they believe every word he spoke in the Bible.

I don’t expect Baha’i to reveal to me the absolute Truth contained in their scripture. I see it as my job to read it and to work with the presence of the Holy Spirit to make it clear to me. No one person has a complete understanding of the Truth, other than Jesus and that is because, as the Son of God, such an understanding was given to him, no better put, he was the understanding.

There is a huge difference in the tenor of your posts and that of Philo’s. I just don’t see any point in trying to open someone up to something, trying to explain something, to someone who obviously doesn’t really want to understand because he has already concluded that it is of no value. This is inherent in all of his posts. Your’s, on the other hand, made my heart sing.

 

[happyme]

So would it be correct to say, that bahai reject the idea of Jesus being superior to all other prophets? Hmmm? Take in mind the conception of Manifestationism is not present in the bible.

I feel I can’t allow this inaccuracy to pass:- Take in mind the conception of Manifestationism is not present in the bible.

Manifestation is mentioned as are examples of manifest, manifesting etc, all dealing with the same thoughts and meanings as found in the Baha’i Writings.

As here in Roman’s…
8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. King James Bible : Romans

The Manifestations of the sons of God, clearly showing that the messengers of God are Manifestations.
You appear to have a problem with the word, but then if you can ever accept as Jesus spoke of He who will bring more knowledge, everything becomes clear and easy to understand.

 

[Porknpie]

Hey Folks, This may be a stretch, but with all of the telescopes and knowledge of the universe being tapped, the astronomers have fully concluded that there are more planets out there than stars.
. Now let us drop the word stars for a minute, and just call them suns, for that is what they are, functioning as sources of light and heat for life’s processes.
. If only one in a hundred of these “solar systems” has achieved planetary life, that is a considerable amount of life out there - billions of planets in some stage of development, some ahead of us, some not yet where we are at.

. Ok. So the logical conclusion is that for those planets which are “alive”, and far along enough to have what we might term as “human counterparts”, or spiritual beings as well as physical, like ourselves, then it is logical to assume that “they” must also be taught about God, the Creator of the Universe and its billions of galaxies with billions of star systems per.

. So where does that take the idea of Manifestations of God on all or some of these developing planets? The universe is not only teeming with life, from simple to complex, but other “human” like creatures, regardless of their physical forms, which are merely the adaptive processes to their environments.

. What would count then, in all of this, would be that there is also progressive revelation happening out there in all the worlds which God has created. Is this a mind bender? We have more than sufficient evidence already to conclude that there is no longer a question of life “out there”, for to them, from any other star looking our way, we are the Martians.

. So they, too, will have their Genesis type creation stories, assorted Prophet Figures, whether Adam, Moses, Jesus, Buddha, or Baha’u’llah and beyond… A parallel to our own unfoldment as a spiritual species.

“Beam me up, Scotty”

“Kirk out.”

Daler,

Do you believe that the bible prophecies the coming of Baha’u’llah? If so, which verses?

Thanks

PORK

 

[flameburns623]

No, I absolutely do not believe that Truth is relative. Not at all. To really explain myself, I would have to reveal things that are very personal to me, which I will not do in this forum. There is a Truth and it was spoken by Jesus. I think, know, that some Christians get so caught up in doctrine that they miss the living part of his teaching. They miss out in understanding what he really meant and that we can live with him in each breathe, each step that we take, that he is alive in us and lives through us.

This has always been part of my reality from my first memories. I was really taken aback when, as I grew older, I came to realize that most people did not see this that they really believe he is dead. They didn’t “see”. When I came to understand it, the world became a very spooky place. Because if you believe he is dead, what meaning does his word have in and on your life?

Easter at church when I was five was eye opening because all these folks were crying over Jesus’ death and I knew he was alive. I wanted to stand up and shout “are you people crazy?” I mean the Bible tells them that he is alive, and they still in truth believe he is dead. But they profess that they believe every word he spoke in the Bible.

I don’t expect Baha’i to reveal to me the absolute Truth contained in their scripture. I see it as my job to read it and to work with the presence of the Holy Spirit to make it clear to me. No one person has a complete understanding of the Truth, other than Jesus and that is because, as the Son of God, such an understanding was given to him, no better put, he was the understanding.

There is a huge difference in the tenor of your posts and that of Philo’s. I just don’t see any point in trying to open someone up to something, trying to explain something, to someone who obviously doesn’t really want to understand because he has already concluded that it is of no value. This is inherent in all of his posts. Your’s, on the other hand, made my heart sing.

Some of what is happening, thinks I, is “paradigm dissonance”. From Thomas Kuhn’s “Structure of Scientific Revolution”. Years have passed since I read this but took a whole class on the book. Kuhn believed that certain meta-theories get so wrapped up in other things that it is very difficult to change those meta-theories–what he called “paradigms”.

Basically, he believed faulty scientific paradigms pretty much have to exhaust themselves in the minds of their proponents, and until they reach that point, those paradigms will not change. The proponents of Euclidian geometry or geocentrism or Larmarckian evolution will keep contending for those limited or mistaken views till forever. Partly because their careers are at stake, partly because they have shaped major aspects of their whole world around those paradigms. It has molded their family structure, their relationship to neighbors, to friends, to political leaders. To destroy the paradigm is to invite anarchy.

So when new paradigms arise, there is often a lot of talking past one another, of obstinacy, of assault of character–a lot of emotion-laden exchanges producing heat without light. Often it is the younger generation–Kuhn styled them “Young Turks”–most receptive to the new paradigm. The older paradigm is gripped bitterly and tenaciously by the “Old Guard”. And, with rare exceptions, few of the Old Guard defect to the new paradigm.

Popularly this is illustrated by distributing to a classroom one of two highly-simplifid pictures, one of an old crone, another of a lovely young woman. Half the class sees one picture, half sees the other. And then the whole class sees a more complex picture which superimposes both images. Leading to arguments between those who can see ONLY the crone and those who can ONLY perceive the young woman’s image. Sometimes one or two instantly see both, often the class ends with a few still only able to see in the complex image the simplified picture to which they were first exposed.

Kuhn did not like it when social psychologists and social scientists coopted his ideas–which he intended to describe how scientific progress occurs–to describe how people become believers in political or religious movements. But it fits: it explains why religious dialogue is so difficult. So we grapple and we struggle and we stand for Truth as God gives us to see Truth–and we pray for the illumination of the Holy Ghost that we might all come to the fullness of that Truth.

 

[Porknpie]

From

bci.org/islam-bahai/SectIslam.htm

Before we go any further, it should be stated that the Baha’i Faith , unequivocally, and without any hesitation, teaches and asserts the divine origin of Islam. It affirms that the Holy Qur’an is God’s revelation, pure and unaltered, and that Muhammad (PBUH) is God’s Servant and Messenger and the Seal of the Prophets. People from every religious and ethnic background who embrace the Baha’i Faith, embrace this belief.

God being all Truth can not contradict himself. The Quran can not be God’s revelation as it contradicts the bible. One way it does so is that it denies that Christ was the Son of God, one with God in the Trinity. It also denies that Christ died on the cross.

Further, the bible warns of false prophets like Muhammad and Baha’u’llah, that they should not be followed. Being the Inspired Word of God and inerrant, we must follow the bible (and the Catholic Church that Christ established ) who’s teachings come from Christ.

Galatians 1:8 specifically says not to follow a contrary Gospel.

8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.

So my question are

1. how can God contradict himself by revealing contrary revelations to Christianity and Muslims?
2. Believing the bible is the inspired Word of God, should Baha’u’llah not be accursed?

Pork

 

[Jcc1960]

From

bci.org/islam-bahai/SectIslam.htm

Before we go any further, it should be stated that the Baha’i Faith , unequivocally, and without any hesitation, teaches and asserts the divine origin of Islam. It affirms that the Holy Qur’an is God’s revelation, pure and unaltered, and that Muhammad (PBUH) is God’s Servant and Messenger and the Seal of the Prophets. People from every religious and ethnic background who embrace the Baha’i Faith, embrace this belief.

God being all Truth can not contradict himself. The Quran can not be God’s revelation as it contradicts the bible. One way it does so is that it denies that Christ was the Son of God, one with God in the Trinity. It also denies that Christ died on the cross.

Further, the bible warns of false prophets like Muhammad and Baha’u’llah, that they should not be followed. Being the Inspired Word of God and inerrant, we must follow the bible (and the Catholic Church that Christ established ) who’s teachings come from Christ.

Galatians 1:8 specifically says not to follow a contrary Gospel.

8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.

So my question are

1. how can God contradict himself by revealing contrary revelations to Christianity and Muslims?
2. Believing the bible is the inspired Word of God, should Baha’u’llah not be accursed?

Pork

Pork,

The Quran is highly symbolic, especially prophecies concerning the end times, resurrection and judgement of men and return of Christ. Those parts are in a similar style to the Book of Revelation, which is also symbolic, not literal.

So, there are only contradictions between the two Holy Books for those who do not understand that the scriptures are symbolic. If you think the Book of Revelation will be fulfilled in literal detail, you will be disappointed, just as several sects were, like the Millerites, the Templars, etc.

I understand that the Catholic Church is “silent” on the timing of the end times, which is just as well. It won’t happen literally, but it is happening for those who have “eyes to see”.

 

[Servant19]

Either it is right to disparage Mirza Hussain as a false prophet who wanted to unite the world via evil means, or it is wrong to do this.

Via evil means???

Either you share what evil means the Baha’is are using to create unity or we dismiss you as a man of complete ill will.

Unless I’m given a list of evil means, I will simply no longer respond to your posts any more Ignatian.

Simple.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I feel I can’t allow this inaccuracy to pass:- Take in mind the conception of Manifestationism is not present in the bible.

Manifestation is mentioned as are examples of manifest, manifesting etc, all dealing with the same thoughts and meanings as found in the Baha’i Writings.

As here in Roman’s…
8:19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. King James Bible : Romans

The Manifestations of the sons of God, clearly showing that the messengers of God are Manifestations.
You appear to have a problem with the word, but then if you can ever accept as Jesus spoke of He who will bring more knowledge, everything becomes clear and easy to understand.

The quotation of a word in a setence that matches an ideology that developed later and that is specifically using the word is not proof of a concept in the original document. It would be like me saying that the ante Nicene fathers had a Nicene-constantinopolitan concept of the trinity because Origen and a few others used the term, it doesn’t work.

Manifestationism which I have called the bahai doctrine, that is the doctrine of a non human entity or entities whose relation to God is like that of the sun shining into a mirror is not speicifcally a biblical concept. Does saint Paul mean the same thing when he uses the term? That Christ is but one of these manifestations? I would argue now because Paul seems to think Christ is the greatest of all, greater than Moses, Greater than Abraham and not to mention Paul had no concept of Krishna and or Budha.

Try harder.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Via evil means???

Either you share what evil means the Baha’is are using to create unity or we dismiss you as a man of complete ill will.

Unless I’m given a list of evil means, I will simply no longer respond to your posts any more Ignatian.

Simple.

Deception for one thing, lying.

 

[Little_Star_1]

Some of what is happening, thinks I, is “paradigm dissonance”. From Thomas Kuhn’s “Structure of Scientific Revolution”. Years have passed since I read this but took a whole class on the book. Kuhn believed that certain meta-theories get so wrapped up in other things that it is very difficult to change those meta-theories–what he called “paradigms”.

Basically, he believed faulty scientific paradigms pretty much have to exhaust themselves in the minds of their proponents, and until they reach that point, those paradigms will not change. The proponents of Euclidian geometry or geocentrism or Larmarckian evolution will keep contending for those limited or mistaken views till forever. Partly because their careers are at stake, partly because they have shaped major aspects of their whole world around those paradigms. It has molded their family structure, their relationship to neighbors, to friends, to political leaders. To destroy the paradigm is to invite anarchy.

So when new paradigms arise, there is often a lot of talking past one another, of obstinacy, of assault of character–a lot of emotion-laden exchanges producing heat without light. Often it is the younger generation–Kuhn styled them “Young Turks”–most receptive to the new paradigm. The older paradigm is gripped bitterly and tenaciously by the “Old Guard”. And, with rare exceptions, few of the Old Guard defect to the new paradigm.

Popularly this is illustrated by distributing to a classroom one of two highly-simplifid pictures, one of an old crone, another of a lovely young woman. Half the class sees one picture, half sees the other. And then the whole class sees a more complex picture which superimposes both images. Leading to arguments between those who can see ONLY the crone and those who can ONLY perceive the young woman’s image. Sometimes one or two instantly see both, often the class ends with a few still only able to see in the complex image the simplified picture to which they were first exposed.

Kuhn did not like it when social psychologists and social scientists coopted his ideas–which he intended to describe how scientific progress occurs–to describe how people become believers in political or religious movements. But it fits: it explains why religious dialogue is so difficult. So we grapple and we struggle and we stand for Truth as God gives us to see Truth–and we pray for the illumination of the Holy Ghost that we might all come to the fullness of that Truth.

I get your point. This same thing is what occurred in Jesus’ time. I have a hard time understanding how anyone can find God simply by sticking to religious dogma. I did it the other way around, I was “found” and then I took the time to read up on the religion related to my experiences. Catholicism embraces the mystical. But, at least it seems as if, there is little room, or tolerance, of, a individual’s living from the personal guidance received from God, despite what their Saints have shown them. Now, when you get to sit down with a Catholic priest that is has knowledge of the Saints and mystics, you get another story altogether. If you find one that believes in a truly living Word, they understand exactly what I am trying to explain. But, just because I don’t get them any more than they get me doesn’t mean that they can’t benefit from approaching things in their way. It is a matter that is between them and God.

I read Baha’i Scripture and because I see the Word as living, I can see connections between their beliefs and what is in the Bible. But, someone starting out from a viewpoint of there can be no other Truth than what is revealed in the Catechism wont get this. However, there are Saints whose views of God and His workings in our lives did not completely match what was the current stance of the church of their time. Then, and now, by some who want to stick to dogma, could easily have been labeled heretics. She isn’t a Saint, but is highly regarded, have you read the writings of Julian of Norwich? How about her saying there is no sin and that all is of God, the good and the bad, as a way of calling us higher. In the end, they, the sin and the good, are the same as they lead to God. I haven’t read it but what about the “Seven Mansions”, by Teresa of Avila, which discusses the progress of the soul in a way not touched upon in the Bible?

Goodness, what must some of them think of Pope Francis?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Philo,

Why are you here on the Baha’i thread? To confront them? To insult them? Isn’t there enough of this going on in the physical world? Can you not see the difference between the approach you take and that in earlier posts by other Christians?

You want to prove them wrong because you see contradictions in their faith. Sir, folks have seen the same types of contradictions within Christianity for centuries. You want to use more words to dismiss these. But, you can’t for those that will not accept your explanations. Go correct some atheists why don’t you? You might do some real good there. Here you have only disrupted a lovely exchange. What is your purpose sir? Can you go and be alone with God and determine that? Or, will you pull out a book and let the book tell you? Jesus called us to find out by actually communing with him and the Father.

Good luck to you. I will not respond any further to your posts.

Since most of what you said in your previous post has nothing to do with bahai but merely your gripes with the historical Christendom which you fundamentally reject for some reason I don’t feel the need to respond to it here. Would you be willing to discuss it in another thread? You could not have missed my question I have asked three times and you have responded to each of my posts while ignoring that question? Do you want to compare your Lazy spiritual experience to the historical experience of Christians throughout the centuries you seem to want to do away with? Or are you content doing it here where you know I won’t respond to you because I want to talk about bahai? Last time I’ll ask or else I’ll just focus on anything relevent you have to say.

And I fully admit I take a harsher view and approach to bahai than other Christians, thats just my nature and I do not believe it to be wrong. That doesn’t justify what I see certain bahai do in these conversations however, nor does it excuse them from answering some tough questions and forcing them to define themselves when they say “You got it wrong.” But if you don’t want to have a real discussion then leave, don’t cry at people who have negative opinions of what others believe it is not dignified nor is it befitting of anyone.

 

[daler]

Daler,

Do you believe that the bible prophecies the coming of Baha’u’llah? If so, which verses?

Thanks

PORK

Porknpie,

. I wish to acknowledge your post. I just got home from a full day spent with some fine members of the 7th Day Adventist Church, who fully subscribe to the belief that according to the visions of Daniel, Christ was to return in 1844, for this was the year of the fulfillment of the 2300 days prophecy (each day for a year), which began in 457 BC with the rebuilding of Jerusalem. The same starting point of 457 BC began the 70 weeks (of years) prophecy, or 490 years, ending in the Messiah being “cut off” or crucified, thus confirming the starting point of the visions.
Daniel had his great vision in “Elam”, which is SW Persia. Please read the book of Daniel, as a preparatory to discussion.
Also, please look at Jeremiah Chapter 49: 34 to 39, as he states clearly that “The Lord shall set His throne in Elam.” This will be a good starting point.
There are numerous “time and place” prophecies which come into play, not to be taken as some vague reference here or there to be widely interpreted, but intersections again and again which tie together and accumulate.

Please forgive me for not continuing further tonight, as it is past 11 pm here tonight, and I am quite exhausted. I wish to honor your request with a rested mind beginning in the next day or two and continuing from there. Thank you for your patience and courtesy.

God bless, daler

 

[daler]

Some of what is happening, thinks I, is “paradigm dissonance”. From Thomas Kuhn’s “Structure of Scientific Revolution”. Years have passed since I read this but took a whole class on the book. Kuhn believed that certain meta-theories get so wrapped up in other things that it is very difficult to change those meta-theories–what he called “paradigms”.

Basically, he believed faulty scientific paradigms pretty much have to exhaust themselves in the minds of their proponents, and until they reach that point, those paradigms will not change. The proponents of Euclidian geometry or geocentrism or Larmarckian evolution will keep contending for those limited or mistaken views till forever. Partly because their careers are at stake, partly because they have shaped major aspects of their whole world around those paradigms. It has molded their family structure, their relationship to neighbors, to friends, to political leaders. To destroy the paradigm is to invite anarchy.

So when new paradigms arise, there is often a lot of talking past one another, of obstinacy, of assault of character–a lot of emotion-laden exchanges producing heat without light. Often it is the younger generation–Kuhn styled them “Young Turks”–most receptive to the new paradigm. The older paradigm is gripped bitterly and tenaciously by the “Old Guard”. And, with rare exceptions, few of the Old Guard defect to the new paradigm.

Popularly this is illustrated by distributing to a classroom one of two highly-simplifid pictures, one of an old crone, another of a lovely young woman. Half the class sees one picture, half sees the other. And then the whole class sees a more complex picture which superimposes both images. Leading to arguments between those who can see ONLY the crone and those who can ONLY perceive the young woman’s image. Sometimes one or two instantly see both, often the class ends with a few still only able to see in the complex image the simplified picture to which they were first exposed.

Kuhn did not like it when social psychologists and social scientists coopted his ideas–which he intended to describe how scientific progress occurs–to describe how people become believers in political or religious movements. But it fits: it explains why religious dialogue is so difficult. So we grapple and we struggle and we stand for Truth as God gives us to see Truth–and we pray for the illumination of the Holy Ghost that we might all come to the fullness of that Truth.

Most excellent commentary in this Flame. The language of algebra necessitates the introduction of letters, as simple numbers cannot encompass the expanded concepts of higher order thought development. Those who restrict themselves to numbers close themselves off from conceptualizations of the new paradigms.

 

[daler]

Daler, the thing is we didn’t come up with the trinity; we were defining what we had always believed. The concept of the trinity has its predecessors in the ante Nicene church but I do not want to focus on that, only correct you.

Now my main point as to the identity of the Manifestation and or manifestations is to simply ask are you able to say whether there is one manifestation before incarnation or many manifestations before incarnation. Is yours either of these positions?

A There are numerous spiritual entities called Manifestations who at different times of earth history each incarnate, they are unique not only in their eartly identity but are unique in their pre-existent spiritual identity. That is Mirza Hussain was not literally and or actually on earth at the Time of Muhammad though they share the same role and or spirit and or substance?

B There is only one manifestation who at different times takes on different appearances and preaches different messages every so often? That is Mirza Hussain is literally Muhammad and if he so desired he could have recalled his existence as Muhammad and said “I did destroy the idols of Mecca and slaughter infidels”?
Or is your position another?

C There are physically born and conceived humans each with individual names and identities who receive into themselves at one point “the manifestation, the Christ, the word,” and excersise the will of such an entity?

These positions are not the same and they cannot all be true, one of them or none of them must correct.

. “Praise be to Thee, O Lord My God, for the wondrous revelations of Thy inscrutable decree and the manifold woes and trials Thou hast destined for Myself. At one time Thou didst deliver Me into the hands of Nimrod; at another Thou hast allowed Pharaoh’s rod to persecute Me. Thou, alone, canst estimate, through Thine all-encompassing knowledge and the operation of Thy Will, the incalculable afflictions I have suffered at their hands. Again Thou didst cast Me into the prison-cell of the ungodly, for no reason except that I was moved to whisper into the ears of the well-favored denizens of Thy Kingdom an intimation of the vision with which Thou hadst, through Thy knowledge, inspired Me, and revealed to Me its meaning through the potency of Thy might. And again Thou didst decree that I be beheaded by the sword of the infidel. Again I was crucified for having unveiled to men’s eyes the hidden gems of Thy glorious unity, for having revealed to them the wondrous signs of Thy sovereign and everlasting power. How bitter the humiliations heaped upon Me, in a subsequent age, on the plain of Karbilá! How lonely did I feel amidst Thy people! To what a state of helplessness I was reduced in that land! Unsatisfied with such indignities, My persecutors decapitated Me, and, carrying aloft My head from land to land paraded it before the gaze of the unbelieving multitude, and deposited it on the seats of the perverse and faithless. In a later age, I was suspended, and My breast was made a target to the darts of the malicious cruelty of My foes. My limbs were riddled with bullets, and My body was torn asunder. Finally, behold how, in this Day, My treacherous enemies have leagued themselves against Me, and are continually plotting to instill the venom of hate and malice into the souls of Thy servants. With all their might they are scheming to accomplish their purpose…. Grievous as is My plight, O God, My Well-Beloved, I render thanks unto Thee, and My Spirit is grateful for whatsoever hath befallen me in the path of Thy good-pleasure. I am well pleased with that which Thou didst ordain for Me, and welcome, however calamitous, the pains and sorrows I am made to suffer.”

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I assume that text is from your prophet and is proof of an Avatar like, Krishna like existence in which there is one manifestation who takes on different bodies at different times. If that is indeed the case, i might point out how odd it must be for you to encounter Jesus as being spoken of as greater than Moses. For we are told by the author of Hebrews that Jesus is greater because he made the foundation unlike Moses whom was merely loyal. It must also be odd to see Christ say Abraham looked forward to his day (christ’s) when Abraham was supposebly Jesus the entire time, his day was that day.

 

[daler]

I assume that text is from your prophet and is proof of an Avatar like, Krishna like existence in which there is one manifestation who takes on different bodies at different times. If that is indeed the case, i might point out how odd it must be for you to encounter Jesus as being spoken of as greater than Moses. For we are told by the author of Hebrews that Jesus is greater because he made the foundation unlike Moses whom was merely loyal. It must also be odd to see Christ say Abraham looked forward to his day (christ’s) when Abraham was supposebly Jesus the entire time, his day was that day.

Let us return briefly to allowing the analogy of the sun, which is the supreme symbol of the light of God, and use the term manifestation of the power and light of god in the physical world. It is beyond time, and shines day and night. It is a single manifestation.
From the perspective of the sun, there are no days, but from the perspective of the earth, there are days. Each day is different from the next, yet it is the single manifestation of the sun which manifest its light on these different days.
We can also use the term Monday as a time when the sun manifests its light to the earth. Hence, it is a manifestation of the sun.
We can also use the term Tuesday as a time when the sun manifests its light to the earth. Hence, it is a manifestation of the sun.
We can also use the term Wednesday as a time when the sun manifests its light to the earth. Hence, it is a manifestation of the sun.
We can also use the term Thursday as a time when the sun manifests its light to the earth. Hence, it is a manifestation of the sun.
ad Friday, etc.

Please be patient, Iggy, and follow the logic without further bias as to the use of terms familiar with the Baha’is and set aside your preference for words of your own choosing.

For a man living in the day called Monday, he will say that Monday is a “manifestation” of the sun, which is a symbol of God, bringing a measure of that Light.
For a man living in the day called Tuesday, he will say that Tuesday is a “manifestation” of the sun, which is a symbol of God, bringing a measure of that Light.
For a man living in the day called Wednesday, he will say that Wedneday is a “manifestation” of the sun, which is a symbol of God, bringing a measure of that Light.
. Yet although we term these individual days “manifestations” of the sun, there remains one sun. We may call each separate day a "manifestation, and when substituting in the analogy the symbol of Monday to mean Moses as a Manifestation of God, we are speaking of an individual Manifestation of the Universal Sun, or God.
Similarly, Tuesday brings the light of the single sun, which is the manifestation of the sun whose light returns from day to day, even as the Universal Manifestation appears from Age to Age. Monday equals Moses. Tuesday equals Jesus, Wednesday is Muhammad, Thursday is the Bab, Friday is Baha’u’llah.
. We speak of them as individual Manifestations of One and the Same God. Baha’u’llah refers to them as Souls, plural, for they have individual identity, even as Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, are separate “days” or in the case of the Manifestations, Souls, plural. Yet even as there is only one sun made manifest on each day of the week, which are identified as individual manifestation which individually say, “I am Monday”, I am Tuesday, I am Wednesday, all are speaking the truth as individual manifestations of the sun for the day of light.
These Holy Souls are like that. John the Baptist can say I am Sunday (John), not Saturday (Elijah) Yet Jesus says they are one and the same Manifestation of the Day of God, invested with an individual mission. When you can resolve these contradictory statements in the Bible regarding the identity of John the Baptist as both being Elijah and not Elijah, then we can proceed.
It has been repeated explained by the Baha’is as the reappearance of the true essence of the rose from season to season. The rose of this spring can say I am not the rose of last spring, for my petals are unique. Jesus can say this springs rose is last springs rose, for the beauty and fragrance of the rose of last year has indeed come.
Thus the Universal Manifestation of God can say I am Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab, Baha’u’llah, each a Holy Soul, each animated by the same Holy Spirit, each a Manifestation on Earth of the Universal Manifestation of God Who appears from age to age.
. AMEN!

 

[daler]

I assume that text is from your prophet and is proof of an Avatar like, Krishna like existence in which there is one manifestation who takes on different bodies at different times. If that is indeed the case, i might point out how odd it must be for you to encounter Jesus as being spoken of as greater than Moses. For we are told by the author of Hebrews that Jesus is greater because he made the foundation unlike Moses whom was merely loyal. It must also be odd to see Christ say Abraham looked forward to his day (christ’s) when Abraham was supposebly Jesus the entire time, his day was that day.

. "http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/GWB/gwb-34.html

Kindly read the above link and discern from it that each are commissioned to reveal a chapter in accordance with the will of God for that day and age. Fully study and digest the succinctness of the explanation, accept it as the Baha’i position, and speak no more to us on this matter. For the argument is complete, the explanation sufficient to men of learning, who tred the path of justice and pure reason and do not deny God and His Words.

 

[daler]

I assume that text is from your prophet and is proof of an Avatar like, Krishna like existence in which there is one manifestation who takes on different bodies at different times. If that is indeed the case, i might point out how odd it must be for you to encounter Jesus as being spoken of as greater than Moses. For we are told by the author of Hebrews that Jesus is greater because he made the foundation unlike Moses whom was merely loyal. It must also be odd to see Christ say Abraham looked forward to his day (christ’s) when Abraham was supposedly Jesus the entire time, his day was that day.

Further concision is given to address that God is above all things:

God is not confined to the words and phrases of men of learning, nor constrained to the best laid plans of men. “God is above their hands” “He doeth what He willeth” He is above the delineation of numbers and above all mention and praise. He is the Unconstrained, the All Glorious. No God is there but Him, the Ever Forgiving, the Compassionate.

These Holy Souls (plural) Who Manifest His Beauty and the Exponents of His Knowledge perfectly reflect His Will and Purpose. There is no distinction between Them.

. “The seeker… should regard all else but God as transient and count all things save Him, Who is the Object of all Adorations, as utter nothingness.”

Quoted from the Tablet of the True Seeker

reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/GWB/gwb-34.html

 

[Porknpie]

Daler, i’ll look forward to your response.

Porknpie, I wish to acknowledge your post. I just got home from a full day spent with some fine members of the 7th Day Adventist Church,

the 7th Day Adventist Church was started by Ellen Gould White in the 1800’s. She was no prophet and she was wrong on the return of Christ. She almost died at age of nine after getting hit in the head by a thrown rock. Many think this led to or contributed to her having mental illness with her having visions. From wiki article on her below.

During her lifetime Dudley M. Canright, a Seventh-day Adventist minister who left the church, claimed that she had a “complication of hysteria, epilepsy, catalepsy, and ecstasy” and stated that her “visions were merely the result of her early misfortune".[58] Some neurologists later commented that her early injuries may have caused partial complex seizures and hallucinations which led her to believe that she had visions of God.[59] Ellen White was posthumously diagnosed with temporal lobe epilepsy by the paediatrician Delbert H. Hodder in 1981 and again in 1984 by Molleurus Couperus, a retired dermatologist.[60][61] A symptom of temporal lobe epilepsy, as noted by Sachdev and Waxman in 1981, is the frequency and degree of hypergraphia which is said to be seen in her writings.[62]

who fully subscribe to the belief that according to the visions of Daniel, Christ was to return in 1844, for this was the year of the fulfillment of the 2300 days prophecy (each day for a year), which began in 457 BC with the rebuilding of Jerusalem. The same starting point of 457 BC began the 70 weeks (of years) prophecy, or 490 years, ending in the Messiah being “cut off” or crucified, thus confirming the starting point of the visions.
Daniel had his great vision in “Elam”, which is SW Persia. Please read the book of Daniel, as a preparatory to discussion.
Also, please look at Jeremiah Chapter 49: 34 to 39, as he states clearly that “The Lord shall set His throne in Elam.” This will be a good starting point.
There are numerous “time and place” prophecies which come into play, not to be taken as some vague reference here or there to be widely interpreted, but intersections again and again which tie together and accumulate.

Daler, obviously she was wrong. The bible says no one knows the day or hour of Christ’s return. Why in the world follow someone who conflicts with the bible, had wrong prophesy and suffered mental illness? Christ established his Catholic Church on earth and promised to lead it to all Truth and not a church started in the 1800s which conflicts with the truth he established 1800 years earlier. God again, can not contradict himself.

 

[Robin_des_Bois]

What’s the Baha’i view on same-sex “marriage” and abortion?