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

  • Thread starter Thread starter flameburns623
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
IgnatianPhilo said:
Bahais deny the ressurection of the dead. WHat they call ressurection is something akin to ascending into heaven, that is the passage of the spirit to a greater realm. Bahais maintain that materiality is inherently worth less than a spiritual existence thus there was no need for Jesus to ressurect. On another level the ressurection for them seems to have been the regaining of faith in the apostles.
Click to expand...
The Baha’i view of resurrection generally follows:

…by “Resurrection” is meant the rise of the Manifestation of God to proclaim His Cause, and by “attainment unto the divine Presence” is meant attainment unto the presence of His Beauty in the person of His Manifestation.

~ Baha’u’llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 169

“… Concerning the meaning of 'Resurrection: although this term is often used by Bahá’u’lláh in His Writings, as in the passage quoted in your letter, its meaning is figurative. The tomb mentioned is also allegorical, i.e. the tomb of unbelief. The Day of Resurrection is according to Bahá’í interpretation, is the judgement Day, the Day when unbelievers will be called upon to give account of their actions, and whether the world has prevented them from acknowledging the new Revelation.”

(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, Dawn of a New Day, p. 79)
Code: 
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 481)
We do not accept a bodily resurrection:
  1. Bahá’ís do not believe in a Bodily Resurrection after the Crucifixion
*"…We do not believe that there was a bodily resurrection after the Crucifixion of Christ, but that there was a time after His Ascension when His disciples perceived spiritually His true greatness and realize He was eternal in being. This is what has been reported symbolically in the New Testament and has been misunderstood. His eating with His disciples after resurrection is the same thing."
*
(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, October 9, 1947)
Code: 
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 491)
🙂
 
"Concerning your comment that ‘…a contradiction appears to exist between the words of the beloved Guardian and the statements of scholars concerning his reference to the Tenth Avatar in the Bhagavad-Gita…’, it is essential to recognize that there is also wide disagreement among scholars about the authorship of the scriptures of the Hindu religion; and considerable difference of opinion exists between them as to the time the Bhagavad-Gita was written. Nevertheless, they do seem to agree that this poem contained in the Indian epic, the Mahabharata, is a great religious classic, and acknowledge its influence on the religious thought and life of Hinduism in its many branches.

"However, Shoghi Effendi has pointed out more than once that not all the scriptures of the divinely-revealed religions of the past can be relied upon as being the words of their respective Founders. For example, in a letter dated November 25, 1950 written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, there is this statement:

**‘We cannot be sure of the authenticity of the scriptures of Buddha and Krishna…’. **

Yet, exercising his special wisdom as Guardian, in GOD PASSES BY he applies to Bahá’u’lláh the several titles to which you refer in your letter. As Bahá’ís, we obviously accept as authoritative whatever he has enunciated in such matters."

(From a letter dated August 17, 1971 written by the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer)
Code: 
(The Universal House of Justice, 1981 Jan 01, Other Holy Scriptures)
🙂
 
arthra said:
"Concerning your comment that ‘…a contradiction appears to exist between the words of the beloved Guardian and the statements of scholars concerning his reference to the Tenth Avatar in the Bhagavad-Gita…’, it is essential to recognize that there is also wide disagreement among scholars about the authorship of the scriptures of the Hindu religion; and considerable difference of opinion exists between them as to the time the Bhagavad-Gita was written. Nevertheless, they do seem to agree that this poem contained in the Indian epic, the Mahabharata, is a great religious classic, and acknowledge its influence on the religious thought and life of Hinduism in its many branches.

"However, Shoghi Effendi has pointed out more than once that not all the scriptures of the divinely-revealed religions of the past can be relied upon as being the words of their respective Founders. For example, in a letter dated November 25, 1950 written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, there is this statement:

‘We cannot be sure of the authenticity of the scriptures of Buddha and Krishna…’.

Yet, exercising his special wisdom as Guardian, in GOD PASSES BY he applies to Bahá’u’lláh the several titles to which you refer in your letter. As Bahá’ís, we obviously accept as authoritative whatever he has enunciated in such matters."

(From a letter dated August 17, 1971 written by the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer)
Code: 
(The Universal House of Justice, 1981 Jan 01, Other Holy Scriptures)
🙂
Click to expand...
So basically if a primary source contradicts the bahai message it cannot be trusted? Lets be honest here.
 
arthra said:
The Baha’i view of resurrection generally follows:

…by “Resurrection” is meant the rise of the Manifestation of God to proclaim His Cause, and by “attainment unto the divine Presence” is meant attainment unto the presence of His Beauty in the person of His Manifestation.

~ Baha’u’llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 169

“… Concerning the meaning of 'Resurrection: although this term is often used by Bahá’u’lláh in His Writings, as in the passage quoted in your letter, its meaning is figurative. The tomb mentioned is also allegorical, i.e. the tomb of unbelief. The Day of Resurrection is according to Bahá’í interpretation, is the judgement Day, the Day when unbelievers will be called upon to give account of their actions, and whether the world has prevented them from acknowledging the new Revelation.”

(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, Dawn of a New Day, p. 79)
Code: 
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 481)
We do not accept a bodily resurrection:
  1. Bahá’ís do not believe in a Bodily Resurrection after the Crucifixion
*"…We do not believe that there was a bodily resurrection after the Crucifixion of Christ, but that there was a time after His Ascension when His disciples perceived spiritually His true greatness and realize He was eternal in being. This is what has been reported symbolically in the New Testament and has been misunderstood. His eating with His disciples after resurrection is the same thing."
*
(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, October 9, 1947)
Code: 
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 491)
🙂
Click to expand...
Thanks for giving the references, but do you really believe Luke wrote his narrative intending it to be read in this way?
 
IgnatianPhilo said:
So basically if a primary source contradicts the bahai message it cannot be trusted? Lets be honest here.
Click to expand...
Not a “primary source”…Consider the definition:

primary sources of information are those that provide first-hand accounts of the events, practices, or conditions you are researching. In general, these are documents that were created by the witnesses or first recorders of these events at about the time they occurred, and include diaries, letters, reports, photographs, creative works, financial records, memos, and newspaper articles (to name just a few types).

library.illinois.edu/village/primarysource/mod1/pg1.htm

Dating:

The date of composition of the text of the Bhagavad Gita is not known with certainty and has long been a topic of debate.
“As with almost every major religious text in India no firm date can be assigned to the G_t_. It seems certain, however, that it was written later than the ‘classical’ Upanishads with the possible exception of the Maitr_ and that it is post-Buddhistic. One would probably not be going far wrong if one dated it at some time between the fifth and the second centuries B. C.” R. C. Zaehner:[16]

newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Bhagavad_Gita#Dating_of_the_Bhagavad_Gita

🙂
 
arthra said:
Not a “primary source”…Consider the definition:

primary sources of information are those that provide first-hand accounts of the events, practices, or conditions you are researching. In general, these are documents that were created by the witnesses or first recorders of these events at about the time they occurred, and include diaries, letters, reports, photographs, creative works, financial records, memos, and newspaper articles (to name just a few types).

library.illinois.edu/village/primarysource/mod1/pg1.htm

Dating:

The date of composition of the text of the Bhagavad Gita is not known with certainty and has long been a topic of debate.
“As with almost every major religious text in India no firm date can be assigned to the G_t_. It seems certain, however, that it was written later than the ‘classical’ Upanishads with the possible exception of the Maitr_ and that it is post-Buddhistic. One would probably not be going far wrong if one dated it at some time between the fifth and the second centuries B. C.” R. C. Zaehner:[16]

newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Bhagavad_Gita#Dating_of_the_Bhagavad_Gita

🙂
Click to expand...
By that idea you could not trust the Old testament or the new testament nor even the quran.
 
IgnatianPhilo said:
Krishna is your Creator, he is the being by which you derive your existence, he is all and in all, he is the ultimate reality. His words not mine. He seems very much to be God almighty and yet you refuse to recognise what he says as such.
Click to expand...
Which follows very consistently with failing to recognize what any of the prophets they claim to follow have said; Krishna, Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad…
 
IgnatianPhilo said:
By that idea you could not trust the Old testament or the new testament nor even the quran.
Click to expand...
No that’s not what arthra quoted at all.

Go back and read it again WITHOUT drawing random conclusions and assuming this and that 🙂
 
SteveVH said:
Which follows very consistently with failing to recognize what any of the prophets they claim to follow have said; Krishna, Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad…
Click to expand...
I think Arthra stated their opinion concisely in that if a source differs with what bahai believe that source cannot be trusted. Reguardless of whether or not that saying can be legitimately attributed to Krishna ( I doubt he existed in the first place ), I don’t see any bahai distinguishing between God and the manifestations. What distinguishes the manifestations from God? Bahai maintain that the manifestations are eternal, all powerful, capable of judgding all humanity (Jesus, unless they are going to reject the new testament) and being the only ones capable of saving humanity (Jesus). My question to the bahais is what does God have which the manifestations do not?
 
SteveVH said:
Which follows very consistently with failing to recognize what any of the prophets they claim to follow have said; Krishna, Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad…
Click to expand...
Ignatian and Steve.

God has spoken in Baha’u’llah.

When Krishna says “I am God, I am your Creator” it is being said BY GOD, THROUGH KRISHNA to a specific population at a specific time.

When Jesus says “I and the Father are One” it is being said BY GOD, THROUGH JESUS, to a specific population at a specific time.

The same with Baha’u’llah and the Bab.

IT IS THE SAME GOD SPEAKING…

We do not look at the IDENTITIES.

Can you see past the physical identities and see BEYOND that and behold the face of God in the Word?
 
IgnatianPhilo said:
I think Arthra stated their opinion concisely in that if a source differs with what bahai believe that source cannot be trusted. Reguardless of whether or not that saying can be legitimately attributed to Krishna ( I doubt he existed in the first place ), I don’t see any bahai distinguishing between God and the manifestations. What distinguishes the manifestations from God? Bahai maintain that the manifestations are eternal, all powerful, capable of judgding all humanity (Jesus, unless they are going to reject the new testament) and being the only ones capable of saving humanity (Jesus). My question to the bahais is what does God have which the manifestations do not?
Click to expand...
Good question. And by the way, they must reject the New Testament if they reject the resurrection. That’s kind of what it’s all about.
 
Servant19 said:
No that’s not what arthra quoted at all.

Go back and read it again WITHOUT drawing random conclusions and assuming this and that 🙂
Click to expand...
The idea is that the hindu sources could not be trusted because they cannot be with any great certainty attributed to any author that legitimately knows the things in those sources. Take in mind these are your only sources and without them you are dependant on your own prophet and nothing more so you cannot really claim to believe what Krishna or I suspect even Budha or Zoroaster believed. Now the new testament, old testament and quran could all have these criticisms brought against them. The gospels are rejected by most scholars as being authentic to whom they are ascribed to, some of the epistles of Paul are rejected as being authentic and virtually all the Catholic epistles and revelations are not accepted. The old testament moreso than the Old has even more obscure origins as to it and there are little scholars that would seriously make a case that Moses wrote the actual torah, most preferring the multiple source hypothesis in that the torah is composed of different writings from different authors or some such a thing like that. The quran also I would suggest has a problem of establishing its authenticity, given we only have the uthmanic recension of the quran.

by all rights bahai should reject the old testament, new testament and quran but since you base alot of your arguments from them and your prophet quoted them you will give them mostly full credence, though implied in bahai is the idea that not all the bible can be trusted while all the quran can be trusted.
 
IgnatianPhilo said:
I think Arthra stated their opinion concisely in that if a source differs with what bahai believe that source cannot be trusted. Reguardless of whether or not that saying can be legitimately attributed to Krishna ( I doubt he existed in the first place ), I don’t see any bahai distinguishing between God and the manifestations. What distinguishes the manifestations from God? Bahai maintain that the manifestations are eternal, all powerful, capable of judgding all humanity (Jesus, unless they are going to reject the new testament) and being the only ones capable of saving humanity (Jesus). My question to the bahais is what does God have which the manifestations do not?
Click to expand...
The Primal Will of God is not God Himself.

I like arthra’s style so here’s a study of immense interest to you both 🙂

bahai-library.com/brown_primal_will
 
SteveVH said:
Good question. And by the way, they must reject the New Testament if they reject the resurrection. That’s kind of what it’s all about.
Click to expand...
They interpret these passages to be but metaphors or non literal accounts. That is the actual story of Jesus which is not recorded in the gospel is that Jesus died and sometime after his apostles came to realise whom Christ actually was and preach his message. Origen might be proud of the bahai.
 
IgnatianPhilo said:
I think Arthra stated their opinion concisely in that if a source differs with what bahai believe that source cannot be trusted. Reguardless of whether or not that saying can be legitimately attributed to Krishna ( I doubt he existed in the first place ), I don’t see any bahai distinguishing between God and the manifestations. What distinguishes the manifestations from God? Bahai maintain that the manifestations are eternal, all powerful, capable of judgding all humanity (Jesus, unless they are going to reject the new testament) and being the only ones capable of saving humanity (Jesus). My question to the bahais is what does God have which the manifestations do not?
Click to expand...
IgnatianPhilo said:
The idea is that the hindu sources could not be trusted because they cannot be with any great certainty attributed to any author that legitimately knows the things in those sources. Take in mind these are your only sources and without them you are dependant on your own prophet and nothing more so you cannot really claim to believe what Krishna or I suspect even Budha or Zoroaster believed. Now the new testament, old testament and quran could all have these criticisms brought against them. The gospels are rejected by most scholars as being authentic to whom they are ascribed to, some of the epistles of Paul are rejected as being authentic and virtually all the Catholic epistles and revelations are not accepted. The old testament moreso than the Old has even more obscure origins as to it and there are little scholars that would seriously make a case that Moses wrote the actual torah, most preferring the multiple source hypothesis in that the torah is composed of different writings from different authors or some such a thing like that. The quran also I would suggest has a problem of establishing its authenticity, given we only have the uthmanic recension of the quran.

by all rights bahai should reject the old testament, new testament and quran but since you base alot of your arguments from them and your prophet quoted them you will give them mostly full credence, though implied in bahai is the idea that not all the bible can be trusted while all the quran can be trusted.
Click to expand...
Because of their incredible age, Hindu scripture cannot be trusted by Baha’is.

However if Hindu Scripture CONFORMS with more recent Scripture and especially Bahai Writings (for Baha’is at least) then the content becomes “more” reliable, logically speaking.

The Bible is regarded as the Word of God authentically, by Baha’is, however it has been INTERPRETED by humans who INTERPRET certain passages which they THINK gives them authority to interpret the whole bible.

Baha’u’llah says that only God has the authority to interpret His Word
 
Servant19 said:
Because of their incredible age, Hindu scripture cannot be trusted by Baha’is.

However if Hindu Scripture CONFORMS with more recent Scripture and especially Bahai Writings (for Baha’is at least) then the content becomes “more” reliable, logically speaking.

The Bible is regarded as the Word of God authentically, by Baha’is, however it has been INTERPRETED by humans who INTERPRET certain passages which they THINK gives them authority to interpret the whole bible.

Baha’u’llah says that only God has the authority to interpret His Word
Click to expand...
Here’s the problem, its not only age that renders a document unrealiable but its also the history of the work and how it was transmitted. What good reason do you have to trust a collection of texts that was handled by the church and that which modern scholars do not trust? Your bible is more or less my bible because without the church you would not have this and the church which put its contents together, its general and approximate contents has read it in a different light to bahai since the begining. And if bahaia maintain their interpretation of it is correct over and against those that have had it since the begining, I suppose we were given a book which we could not possibly understand.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top