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

[Servant19]

…here’s the response Ignatian, lets hope you dont say that this response was not given 10 pages down the line

The reality is that although the Catholic Church collated the Gospels and gave us what is today termed the Bible, does not in any way give it any authority to interpret that collection of Books FOR God.

God provides us with Manifestations of God to do that authortatively, just as Jesus did with the Jews and their Scriptures.

And to clarify, never has a Baha’i ever stated that the catholic Church believes in EVIL THINGS, God forbid. We all acknowledge the purity of intent of the Catholic Church, and would never stoop to low levels of accusations of evil. I think some maturity is needed…

 

[daler]

Let me make it clear that I was formerly a Baha’i, had signed a declaration card and everything. This was 4 years ago and I have nothing against the Faith, the Administrative Order or any such thing. I’m still considered a “Friend of the Faith” officially by my Local Spiritual Assembly even though I no longer keep in touch with any of them unfortunately.

However, I posed a statement to Servant19 in the why Jews are adamant about Jesus being the Messiah. I previously did not know very much about Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. However, I started learning about the early church and began to understand the concepts of Holy Tradition and apostolic succession.

Do Baha’i’s believe that the Apostles somehow got it wrong, or were dishonest about what Jesus taught? Many of the early Bishops of the Church set at the hands and feet of the Apostles themselves. Using a similar argument to Irenaeus’ against the Gnostics, why would these Bishops withhold anything from us that we needed to know if that’s what the Apostles told them?

Do you believe the Bishops were being dishonest, or misunderstood, or were just not told the truth about the teachings of Christ? Surely they didn’t just create ideas like the Trinity out of their heads, but many of them were Greeks and using their language was the only way they knew to explain what they were taught. If someone tried to explain to St. Peter what words like “homoousios” and “hypostasis” meant he might not understand, but if you were to explain it to him in Hebrew or Aramaic then he might get it and agree that it was what he was taught also.

Surely they would have said that yes there really is no Trinity, and would have expressed Abdul Baha’s understanding which he spoke of in “Some Answered Questions”. He stated more or less that the Son and the Holy Spirit were reflections of the Father, which wasn’t what the Nicene or Athanasian Creeds stated at all.

I love the Baha’i Faith, and many Baha’i’s are some of the friendliest and warmest people I have ever met. I agreed with much of their way of thinking for a long time, attributing what seems like contradictions to a symbolic or spiritual interpretation – thereby resolving it. But this has been my main difficulty, and began the process of my unbelief in what Baha’u’llah was claiming. I certainly still think he was inspired about many things, for indeed no man can be wrong about everything for we all have the spermatikos Logos or seeds of truth within us, as St. Justin Martyr spoke of.

If anyone can help me understand this better, Baha’i or otherwise. I welcome your comments.

Ave,
. First, let me applaud you for your own “independent investigation of truth”. That you had “signed a card” did not make you a Baha’i. That is an Administrative procedure to allow formal participation in the Baha’i community for people who declare their belief in Baha’u’llah and wish to be enrolled. If you’re not “there” yet, thats ok, and to realize that you aren’t sure is a good thing, if thats where you’re at. The important thing is to figure out where you’re at. OK. Everything’s cool.
. It sounds like you’re still searching, and that is the most important thing for any soul to do. “Seek, and ye shall find. Knock, and it shall be opened unto you.” So keep on searching and knocking, brother.

. Did you ever play that game where you whisper something in somebody’s ear and they whisper it to the next, and the next, till if finally comes back around to you and you can’t fully recognize it?
. This is not intended to say that the Apostles got anything wrong, but to insert human reality into the equation. We humans are infallible. To my understanding, the Apostles were human beings, and were not infallible themselves. Christ was infallible.
. The Apostles were indeed moved by the Holy Spirit and the essential Truths which Jesus spoke were given to them, but by the time you translate not only from one language to another, but from one culture to another, things do get affected by the “human factor” at work. Thats why there are currently 6000 different versions of the Bible “For Sale”, i.e. $Dollar Signs$, and all kinds of human motivations at work.
. God gives each and every one of us a brain and, I think, wants us to use it, even where religion is concerned. Paul said: “Come, Let us “reason” together.”
. Let’s do that. What Paul said. You bring your reasons, and I bring my reasons, and Steve, and Servant, and … … … because that’s what we’re “supposed” to be doing.
. And I want to give a “Great Big Round of Applause” to Catholic Answers Forum for hosting this thread and allowing all of us underlings to speak freely about what our various beliefs are not be afraid to do so. That is wonderful. Just Wonderful!!! Yayyy!!

 

[daler]

In other words you defer to your own understanding above those that came before you carrying the truth you now believe.

From what I have read there are probably many things with which I would agree with Baha’u’lah. But if he claims to be a light greater than Jesus none of what he says matters. It only takes a little bit of poison in a large amount of good food to kill someone.

Steve,

. Our understanding, as a human species, comes according both to the amount of information we have and the time we have had to consider it. Human understanding at the time of Noah was very limited. Abraham a little less so. Moses brought us more Light from the same God. That Jesus brought more of that Light is a good thing. That Baha’u’llah brings more of that Light is a good thing.
. In over thirty years of reading the Words of Baha’u’llah I have never come across any poison. The Jews accused Jesus of being Beelzebub.

. He said: “Can Beelzebub cast out Beelzebub?”

. We “must” apply the same high standard when testing the Words and deeds of Baha’u’llah.

. Please indulge me in allowing another quote very pertinent to the amount of “Light” brought to us:

. "Know thou assuredly that the essence of all the Prophets of God is one and the same. Their unity is absolute. God, the Creator, saith: There is no distinction whatsoever among the Bearers of My Message. They all have but one purpose; their secret is the same secret. To prefer one in honor to another, to exalt certain ones above the rest, is in no wise to be permitted. Every true Prophet hath regarded His Message as fundamentally the same as the Revelation of every other Prophet gone before Him. …

The measure of the revelation of the Prophets of God in this world, however, must differ. Each and every one of them hath been the Bearer of a distinct Message, and hath been commissioned to reveal Himself through specific acts. It is for this reason that they appear to vary in their greatness. Their Revelation may be likened unto the light of the moon that sheddeth its radiance upon the earth. Though every time it appeareth, it revealeth a fresh measure of its brightness, yet its inherent splendor can never diminish, nor can its light suffer extinction.

It is clear and evident, therefore, that any apparent variation in the intensity of their light is not inherent in the light itself, but should rather be attributed to the varying receptivity of an ever-changing world. Every Prophet Whom the Almighty and Peerless Creator hath purposed to send to the peoples of the earth hath been entrusted with a Message, and charged to act in a manner that would best meet the requirements of the age in which He appeared. God’s purpose in sending His Prophets unto men is twofold. The first is to liberate the children of men from the darkness of ignorance, and guide them to the light of true understanding. The second is to ensure the peace and tranquillity of mankind, and provide all the means by which they can be established."

 

[daler]

Do you believe the Bishops were being dishonest, or misunderstood, or were just not told the truth about the teachings of Christ? Surely they didn’t just create ideas like the Trinity out of their heads, but many of them were Greeks and using their language was the only way they knew to explain what they were taught. If someone tried to explain to St. Peter what words like “homoousios” and “hypostasis” meant he might not understand, but if you were to explain it to him in Hebrew or Aramaic then he might get it and agree that it was what he was taught also.

Surely they would have said that yes there really is no Trinity, and would have expressed Abdul Baha’s understanding which he spoke of in “Some Answered Questions”. He stated more or less that the Son and the Holy Spirit were reflections of the Father, which wasn’t what the Nicene or Athanasian Creeds stated at all.
:

Ave,
. Certainly the Bishops were being honest and, as you said, were coming from Greek or other backgrounds which they brought with them to the table of their understanding, just as Paul did. Peter and Paul may have had different understandings, but that is a good thing. It proves that the Word is Alive, and not a dead thing to be handed down by rote.
. If a bunch of intellectuals start hauling in a donkey cart full of words like “homoousios” and “hypostasis”, most likely they would never pass the simple test that Peter did, who couldn’t even keep the days of the week straight. It was his pure heart which gained him entrance into the Kingdom (which was not of this “intellectual” world), not his knowledge of Greek.
. If, at the time, the Trinity concept was an elevation of their understanding, that is a good thing, too. The old way of looking at the universe had the earth in the center until Copernicus came around, and Galileo. All knowledge does not come to us compete, Presto, Bingo! God gave us neurons to stretch, and there’s a lot of stretching to do around some of these concepts.
. I think its good that you study Abdul Baha’s comments in Some Answered Questions. I think if He and Paul sat down together in the spirit of “Come, Let us reason together”, they would have been inseparable as friends.

 

[Servant19]

Let me make it clear that I was formerly a Baha’i, had signed a declaration card and everything. This was 4 years ago and I have nothing against the Faith, the Administrative Order or any such thing. I’m still considered a “Friend of the Faith” officially by my Local Spiritual Assembly even though I no longer keep in touch with any of them unfortunately.

However, I posed a statement to Servant19 in the why Jews are adamant about Jesus being the Messiah. I previously did not know very much about Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. However, I started learning about the early church and began to understand the concepts of Holy Tradition and apostolic succession.

Do Baha’i’s believe that the Apostles somehow got it wrong, or were dishonest about what Jesus taught? Many of the early Bishops of the Church set at the hands and feet of the Apostles themselves. Using a similar argument to Irenaeus’ against the Gnostics, why would these Bishops withhold anything from us that we needed to know if that’s what the Apostles told them?

Do you believe the Bishops were being dishonest, or misunderstood, or were just not told the truth about the teachings of Christ? Surely they didn’t just create ideas like the Trinity out of their heads, but many of them were Greeks and using their language was the only way they knew to explain what they were taught. If someone tried to explain to St. Peter what words like “homoousios” and “hypostasis” meant he might not understand, but if you were to explain it to him in Hebrew or Aramaic then he might get it and agree that it was what he was taught also.

Surely they would have said that yes there really is no Trinity, and would have expressed Abdul Baha’s understanding which he spoke of in “Some Answered Questions”. He stated more or less that the Son and the Holy Spirit were reflections of the Father, which wasn’t what the Nicene or Athanasian Creeds stated at all.

I love the Baha’i Faith, and many Baha’i’s are some of the friendliest and warmest people I have ever met. I agreed with much of their way of thinking for a long time, attributing what seems like contradictions to a symbolic or spiritual interpretation – thereby resolving it. But this has been my main difficulty, and began the process of my unbelief in what Baha’u’llah was claiming. I certainly still think he was inspired about many things, for indeed no man can be wrong about everything for we all have the spermatikos Logos or seeds of truth within us, as St. Justin Martyr spoke of.

If anyone can help me understand this better, Baha’i or otherwise. I welcome your comments.

In answer to your question comparing Catholic explanations and Abdu’l-Baha’s explanation of the nature of the relationship between Father, Holy Spirit and Son/Manifestation of God, may I offer to readers the words of St.Basil. I really do not believe there was a difference in understanding originally. Somewhere along the line, some Catholics may have “extended” the concepts beyond what was truth.

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

• St. Basil of Caesarea

 

[Servant19]

"Know thou assuredly that the essence of all the Prophets of God is one and the same. Their unity is absolute. God, the Creator, saith: There is no distinction whatsoever among the Bearers of My Message. They all have but one purpose; their secret is the same secret. To prefer one in honor to another, to exalt certain ones above the rest, is in no wise to be permitted. Every true Prophet hath regarded His Message as fundamentally the same as the Revelation of every other Prophet gone before Him. …

The measure of the revelation of the Prophets of God in this world, however, must differ. Each and every one of them hath been the Bearer of a distinct Message, and hath been commissioned to reveal Himself through specific acts. It is for this reason that they appear to vary in their greatness. Their Revelation may be likened unto the light of the moon that sheddeth its radiance upon the earth. Though every time it appeareth, it revealeth a fresh measure of its brightness, yet its inherent splendor can never diminish, nor can its light suffer extinction.

It is clear and evident, therefore, that any apparent variation in the intensity of their light is not inherent in the light itself, but should rather be attributed to the varying receptivity of an ever-changing world. Every Prophet Whom the Almighty and Peerless Creator hath purposed to send to the peoples of the earth hath been entrusted with a Message, and charged to act in a manner that would best meet the requirements of the age in which He appeared. God’s purpose in sending His Prophets unto men is twofold. The first is to liberate the children of men from the darkness of ignorance, and guide them to the light of true understanding. The second is to ensure the peace and tranquillity of mankind, and provide all the means by which they can be established."

This quote from Baha’u’llah must be read again and again…and again

…and again

…and one last time

…before you do this again tomorrow

It is a CRITICAL Message from God…for it brings tranquillity of heart and mind, and universal unity for all peoples

 

[pablope]

Ave,

.
. Did you ever play that game where you whisper something in somebody’s ear and they whisper it to the next, and the next, till if finally comes back around to you and you can’t fully recognize it?

 

[daler]

So how do you know your leaders have not erred?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

No, His name is Baha’u’llah

Baha’u’llah said that all of the Greater Prophets (not the Minor Prophets) were equal in station.

The intensity of their Revelation was different, and varied from age to age.

You can start a thread for me and I will be more than happy to contribute to it.
If I start a thread challenging Catholic beliefs here, I may get banned, so you can start one and direct us there.

Where did your prophet teach this? Also Jesus Christ created the world, he was the being by which God the father created the world, Jesus Christ will judge all humanity, Jesus Christ laid down the foundation of that which saves every man (not Mirza Hussain), so how then do you say your prophet is greater than the very word of God himself? Take in mind, John does not start his gospel saying the word became flesh when Abraham was born, no. The word was light and that light was the truth and he became specifically incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ, the son of God. But how would you get banned? I’m not a Catholic, but I do agree with the catholics as to the need for apostolic bearing and credentials. Please ask an admin and start this thread and demonstrate how catholics, orthodox and all traditional Christians, even protestants are wrong in their beliefs. I would love to see this.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

If the fullness of faith was given, where then is the Kingdom of God? Why would Jesus lie to us and promise us the Kingdom of God and nothing happens?

The Jews have been rightfully retirned to their Promised Land and the Kingdom of God still alludes us. Where is this fullness of faith?

The kingdom of God is in heaven and will be established on earth, there will be a new heaven and a new earth when Christ actually returns in the manner in which he left, that is according to the angels who told this to the apostles (and I trust them more than I trust the bahai). And jews have rightfully returned to their land? That is not true israel,t he jews are not true israel, true israel is the church and that is where the kingdom of God is, in the sacraments the liturgy and the faith.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

…here’s the response Ignatian, lets hope you dont say that this response was not given 10 pages down the line

The reality is that although the Catholic Church collated the Gospels and gave us what is today termed the Bible, does not in any way give it any authority to interpret that collection of Books FOR God.

God provides us with Manifestations of God to do that authortatively, just as Jesus did with the Jews and their Scriptures.

The fact that those who collected the bible apparently had the authority to do so (because you accept it) must be troubling to the bahai because they did not believe what the bahai believed. In fact no early group that could be obstensibly called “Christian” believed what hte bahai did. That is you are willing to trust the Catholic/Orthodox church in defining a bible for you, as inspired and God breathed scripture but you are not willing to approve of our creeds, of practices and beliefs? I must ask why? We have had the bible longer than the bahai have existed, ten times longer actually and you think you have the right to interpret these books that have been with the church since the begining? The church preserved these books? The church upon whose authority and tradition is the only reason we even trust some of these books in light of modern scholarship. It just reeks of something, some word I am unable to come up with.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

And to clarify, never has a Baha’i ever stated that the catholic Church believes in EVIL THINGS, God forbid. We all acknowledge the purity of intent of the Catholic Church, and would never stoop to low levels of accusations of evil. I think some maturity is needed…

You don’t have to say it, (im not roman catholic btw) we believe in things which are fundamentally evil to bahai. What other word is there to describe a people (according to you) who give worship to an entity as if he were actually God? The quran doesn’t hesitate to call out Christians, so why should you? I believe the bahai need to recognise Christians are practicing evil things and believing evil things, just as they should believe pagans believe and practice evil things.

 

[Servant19]

The kingdom of God is in heaven and will be established on earth, there will be a new heaven and a new earth when Christ actually returns in the manner in which he left, that is according to the angels who told this to the apostles (and I trust them more than I trust the bahai). And jews have rightfully returned to their land? That is not true israel,t he jews are not true israel, true israel is the church and that is where the kingdom of God is, in the sacraments the liturgy and the faith.

So, is heaven a place, or a condition?

 

[Servant19]

You don’t have to say it, (im not roman catholic btw) we believe in things which are fundamentally evil to bahai. What other word is there to describe a people (according to you) who give worship to an entity as if he were actually God?

I call these people Baha’is

(I worship, my children worship, and all Baha’is worship Jesus, Moses, Baha’u’llah, the Bab etc etc as if He were actually God)

The quran doesn’t hesitate to call out Christians, so why should you? I believe the bahai need to recognise Christians are practicing evil things and believing evil things, just as they should believe pagans believe and practice evil things.

This shows immature understandings of the nature of Revelation.

Its not worth my time to answer

God bless

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

So, is heaven a place, or a condition?

It seems to be both.

 

[Servant19]

We have had the bible longer than the bahai have existed, ten times longer actually and you think you have the right to interpret these books that have been with the church since the begining?

I have asked before, and will ask again, but I dont expect an answer.

What is Basil the Great talking about in the quote I just gave above?

Why is there an Archetype and a Prototype. Why not just one Archetype and thats IT???

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I call these people Baha’is

(I worship, my children worship, and all Baha’is worship Jesus, Moses, Baha’u’llah, the Bab etc etc as if He were actually God)

This shows immature understandings of the nature of Revelation.

Its not worth my time to answer

God bless

You offer the same worship to God, as you would to a mere manifestation? That is if we could picture God as standing before us and we could also picture Mirza Hussain standing next to him. Would you in front of God honour Mirza Hussain as perfect, uncreated, infallible, beyond all comprehension, all powerful and all great? If so, this is polytheism, you just think the Father has a greater role and greater authority.

 

[Servant19]

It seems to be both.

So in the original Greek, there are 2 different words for heaven?

 

[Servant19]

You offer the same worship to God, as you would to a mere manifestation? That is if we could picture God as standing before us and we could also picture Mirza Hussain standing next to him. Would you in front of God honour Mirza Hussain as perfect, uncreated, infallible, beyond all comprehension, all powerful and all great? If so, this is polytheism, you just think the Father has a greater role and greater authority.

No this is not polytheism, its ontology and epistemology…

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I have asked before, and will ask again, but I dont expect an answer.

What is Basil the Great talking about in the quote I just gave above?

Why is there an Archetype and a Prototype. Why not just one Archetype and thats IT???

Do you think Basil the great would actually agree with the bahai? Have you read anything beyond his works? About his works? The works of brother perhaps Gregory of Nyssa? How great of an importance he was to trinitarian debate (bahai deny the trinity and don’t say your view of it is the same as our view) and discussion during this time? I won’t pretend to know what saint Basil was saying, but he certaintly did not believe there would a greater being than Jesus coming, that Moses was on any level equal to Christ. I’ll offer it to you again, there is an introduction to Saint Basil in a translation by the Catholic University of America, its called “Against Eunomious” and believe me you would hate Basil for the things he says concerning Eunomius. The orthodox and Catholic and protestant and enemies of Christendom have read Basil since he was alive (well not protestants anyway) and we consider him one the greatest defenders of Orthodoxy for the time, and you think one quote that appears to be like something you believe is good enough to convince me otherwise?