BAHA'I thread III - feel free to ask of Baha'i any questions

[tonyfish58]

Hmmm…this is all conjecture and your own interpretation…so the question is …why is your interpretation to be believed as true?

And how can you be sure they apply to the bahai?

How about the SDA…who read the same verses and interpret them to mean differently than you do? so…who is correct?

pablope - This is actually not a true statement - Most of these numbers were first brought up by early Christians waiting for the return of Christ in the early 1800’s. There were many people predicting the time and a lot of them came up with the mid 1800’s. Seven Day Adventists, Jehovah Witnesses etc are where these numbers actually started. This same 1260 is part of Koran Scripture as well.

One group of Christians, the German Templers even moved to the Holy land and set up there houses at thew base of Mount Carmel, as they believed Christ would return and Carmel would see the Glory of the Lord.

The Fact that an event happened that actually fulfilled these dates according to Biblical Scripture is now a matter of History and well, down right amazing. We can now use them in an Historical sense!

Who is correct? Well that is up to each person to search and decide upon, but all are at least obligated to search.

Regards Tony

 

[tonyfish58]

How can you discount what the Church believed, from the earliest days, by those who knew and lived with the Apostles? Would not any reasonable person agree that those who were closest to the original human authors, people like Polycarp who was a student of John, most likely understand what they meant? The belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus was foundational, from the beginning of the Church, both in Scripture and Tradition and is attested to by the earliest Church fathers.

This is where the Baha’i faith goes completely off the rails. It ignores what the Church, from the beginning, believed and simply borrows what it chooses to support its position and twists it in any way necessary in order to fit the Baha’i paradigm. The Gospels were written as testimonies, not visions or prophecies.

SteveVH - Would have the Jews make these same accusation re the Christians? Why would the early Christian know more than the religious leaders of that age?

Did not and would not God do as He Willeth?

Regards Tony

 

[arthra]

Regarding the prophecies there were two movements simultaneously in separate parts of the globe…

So in America there were Millerites …followers of William Miller who believed Christ would return in 1844

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Miller_%28preacher%29

and

in Iran there was a movement following a Shaykh Ahmad anticipated the appearance of the Mahdi or Qa’im …

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaykh_Ahmad

Both movements coincided we believe with the Declaration of the Bab in Shiraz on May 22nd - 23rd 1844

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mull%C3%A1_Husayn

and also His later declaration while He was on pilgrimage to Mecca later in the year.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_B%C3%A1b#Proclamation

 

[Jcc1960]

Who cares whether Thomas touched them or not? Are we suppose to believe that when Jesus said “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side.” that he didn’t really mean it? And further, are we to imagine that Thomas is speaking to all of those gathered there who make up the body of Christ or are we to assume that he is speaking to one Person to whom he proclaims “My Lord and my God!”?

Of course Thomas saw Jesus, wounds and all, or why in the world would Jesus have said “Because you have seen me, you have believed;"?

Read what is there and believe it. Jesus is risen! That is the Good News.

Good point in the first sentence, who cares indeed. There must be a reason why it doesn’t matter if Thomas touched Christ’s wounds or not. Why should it not matter? The only reasonable explanation is that the meaning of the Ressurrection is not physical. If the true significance were that Christ resurrected physically, then it would matter if Thomas or anyone else touched them or not. Jesus made the point of emphasizing belief without even seeing Him, so then neither is the visual experience important, the significance is spiritual, not something that you can touch or see.

Does that make logical sense to you? It does to me.

 

[Servant19]

And it was infallibly declared by Peter…

 

[Servant19]

And it was infallibly declared by Peter…

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

"daler:

I think that is missing the point somehow. The emphasis being on God, Who sends Messengers. Even Jesus said, “These are not My words, but Him that sent Me.”

Well, the point I was making is that the Quran very specifically denounces polytheism, but the Christian understanding of the Trinity is not polytheism…

I see.

daler: I agree with how Jcc1960 expresses this. It appears that the emphasis in that passage isn’t so much being on God, but an emphasis of what is not God. The passage is defining the blasphemy of the Trinity and it’s emphasis (wrongly) that it is the worship of three gods.

Jcc1960:

…So, if Muslims think of it as such, they are misinterpreting Christian belief. There may have been heretical Christian beliefs in the past that tended towards polytheism, and those were denounced by Muhammad.

The problem I have with this part of your response is that the Trinity is a Christian term. Why would God’s messanger use a term in sacred scripture that could be so easily misconstrued to cause Muslims to view Christians as blasphemers? The Quran wasn’t attacking polytheism in general, it was attacking the concept of three gods.

 

[Bballer32]

It is hardly out of thin air, unless you discard the visions of Daniel and in Revelations.
For you, it may not be relevant, as apparently you are unfamiliar with the time prophecies.
That is ok if it is not your interest, but for me, because I had a certain fascination with prophecies and particularly the time prophecies which pointed to the coming of Jesus, they are of interest.

For those who are familiar with the time, and place, prophecies, such things are of definite interest because the provide further proofs for the fulfillment of prophetic utterances contained within the text of the Bible itself.

As to mathematics, children are taught very elementary concepts at first, such as the numbers and fractions, using apples and pie charts. Later, when they have comprehended these basic concepts, their knowledge is extended further through the use of symbols such as algebraic equations. The use of letters does not mean that simple numbers are no longer valid. This truth is relative, and understood in accordance with the capacity of the students, not their teachers.

“I have many equations to teach you, but you cannot comprehend it now. Howbeit, when you get to College, your Professor will teach you all those equations.”

It is the same for the Prophets of God. Abraham taught simple truths of the One God. Moses gave the Ten Commandments. By doing so, he did not nullify the Oneness of God, but confirmed it. Similarly, Jesus elevated human understanding of God in accordance with the ability of the disciples and others to understand, or bare it. This was 2000 years ago - a very long time for God to be silent, considering the history of the Old and New Testament, when God spoke to mankind at least every few centuries.

What Baha’is are saying is that God did not remain silent for 2000 years. That he further revealed His will to mankind through Muhammad, the Bab, and most recently, Baha’u’llah. One can dismiss this without investigation, as the Jews did Jesus, or take advantage of the vast resources so easily available on the Internet and study the Baha’i Writings. Then, after having independently investigated the truth for one’s self, speak with some semblance of integrity upon the subject matter, rather than simply rejecting that which is not immediately apparent.

Even though the prophecy from Daniel said 2,300, we need to realize that the vision came from God. This is significant because of 2 Peter 3:8:

8 But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day.

This could mean that this prophecy means eternity. It could mean one day. It could mean anything God wanted it to be, but it’s not what you said it was.

 

[Servant19]

This could mean that this prophecy means eternity. It could mean one day. It could mean anything God wanted it to be, but it’s not what you said it was.

I mean no disrespect at all Bballer, but this paragraph must well be the funniest post I’ve read all year

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH - Would have the Jews make these same accusation re the Christians? Why would the early Christian know more than the religious leaders of that age?

Did not and would not God do as He Willeth?

Regards Tony

Yes, the Apostles, who walked and lived with Jesus for three years and who were then anointed with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost knew more than the religious leaders who had not walked with Christ and had not been anointed with the Holy Spirit. Christ had started to build his Church based upon the New Covenant in his blood. This was the culmination of Salvation History; the time for which everyone had waited since Adam and Eve.

But that is all beside the point. The point I am making is that the Baha’i take the words of the Gospel and twist and turn them to give it their own meaning while completely disregarding what those early Christians believed concerning the resurrection of Christ’s body. Any scholarly attempt at discerning the meaning of an ancient text would take into account what the people of that time and culture understood about their own writings and beliefs. Rather than accepting or rejecting that meaning, the Baha’i simply give it a new meaning which was never intended.

In other words, we have testimonies of those who witnessed the resurrection and an early Church who made the physical resurrection of Jesus a founding doctrine of the faith. This would not be the case if they had understood Christ’s appearances as merely symbolic of Christ dwelling within his followers as stated by some of the Baha’i posters on this thread. This is a complete fabrication originating in a false prophet who seeks to remove your eyes from the Lamb of God, the Creator, and place them on a human being; the created.

 

[SteveVH]

Good point in the first sentence, who cares indeed. There must be a reason why it doesn’t matter if Thomas touched Christ’s wounds or not. Why should it not matter? The only reasonable explanation is that the meaning of the Ressurrection is not physical.

Really? The only reasonable explanation? First of all we don’t know that he did not touch the wounds of Christ. If he did not, is it possible that he didn’t have to? When he finally saw the Lord and saw the wounds which Christ invited him to touch the only thing he could say was “My Lord and my God”. The point is that the risen Christ was standing in front of him in his own body which is evident from Thomas’ reaction.

If the true significance were that Christ resurrected physically, then it would matter if Thomas or anyone else touched them or not. Jesus made the point of emphasizing belief without even seeing Him, so then neither is the visual experience important, the significance is spiritual, not something that you can touch or see.

Does that make logical sense to you? It does to me.

But the point was made based upon the doubts of Thomas prior to his witnessing the risen Christ. If Thomas had not really seen him then his statement “blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” would make no sense. Indeed, he says “you believe because you have seen…” So no, your conclusion is completely without logic and makes no sense to me at all.

 

[Servant19]

With all due respect Steve, there is tremendous twisting, turning and intermingling of what is a spiritual body, a physical body and a glorified body, by the Catholic Faith.

The whole resurrection concept is totally mysterious, and to assign Baha’is to the task of twisting and turning is unfair to say the least.

No absolute statements can be made regarding this matter.

I think some respect and courtesy is required, rather than accusations of twisting and turning

Just some thoughts to consider…

 

[SteveVH]

You, pablope, are SURE that Jesus is the Messiah because Peter declared it to be so?
I’m not sure why you would take Peters word for it over Jesus’

And when did Jesus contradict Peter’s answer? Jesus stated, very clearly, that this knowledge (that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of the living God) had come from the Father. That sounds pretty infallible to me.

 

[Servant19]

And when did Jesus contradict Peter’s answer? Jesus stated, very clearly, that this knowledge (that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of the living God) had come from the Father. That sounds pretty infallible to me.

Yes that’s exactly my point Steve

Baha’u’llah has stated very clearly, that this knowledge (that He is the Return of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God) has come from the Father.

In fact, Bahaullah has come in the Glory of the Father. This sounds pretty infallible too.

 

[SteveVH]

With all due respect Steve, there is tremendous twisting, turning and intermingling of what is a spiritual body, a physical body and a glorified body, by the Catholic Faith.

Not at all. What we believe has been held since the Church began and has been very well defined. We don’t twist anything. We believe what Christ demonstrated. That a glorified body can eat food and simultaneously walk through solid objects; a body unknown in the natural world. Maybe if you would take the time to actually find out what the Church believes and when it believed it and why it believes it you would have greater insight as to why we reject, completely, the false prophet Baha’u’llah.

The whole resurrection concept is totally mysterious, and to assign Baha’is to the task of twisting and turning is unfair to say the least.

The Baha’i would have us believe that something termed a “mystery” means that it is anyone’s guess as to the truth of that mystery. Christ gave the Church his own authority to discern truth. So while we may not be able to humanly grasp the entirety of a mystery we can, nevertheless, believe it because it was given to us by Christ and the Apostles. For instance, we don’t have to grasp the mystery of the Eucharist in order to believe that it is the real presence of Christ; body, blood, soul and divinity, which we consume. And we don’t have to fully grasp the nature of a glorified body in order to believe that we will have one.

These are truths given to us by Christ himself and preserved through the centuries by his Church in which he remains and to which he gave the Holy Spirit to lead it into all truth.

No absolute statements can be made regarding this matter.
I think some respect and courtesy is required, rather than accusations of twisting and turning

Just some thoughts to consider…

Please don’t pull out the persecution card. You come to a Catholic forum and directly challenge the foundational doctrines of the Christian faith and then complain when we tell you that the meaning of the words of Scripture have been twisted to fit the Baha’i paradigm. Please. On the contrary, we have been more than charitable to those who would have us deny our faith in Jesus Christ and place our allegiance with an impostor claiming to be His second coming.

 

[SteveVH]

Yes that’s exactly my point Steve

Baha’u’llah has stated very clearly, that this knowledge (that He is the Return of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God) has come from the Father.

In fact, Bahaullah has come in the Glory of the Father. This sounds pretty infallible too.

Hold on a second. Are you telling me that Baha’u’llah’s self-proclamation that he is second coming of Christ is as credible as Jesus telling Peter that the knowledge he received has come from the Father? The Father, through Peter, revealed who Christ was. Baha’u’llah, on the other hand had to make this claim about himself. How is one’s claim about themselves infallible? I could make the same claim and who are you to tell me any different?

But Christ gave sight to the blind, made the lame walk, commanded the wind and sea, and most importantly rose, bodily, from the dead. He did this so that we would know. He backed up his claims so that we might believe. The only thing we have from Baha’u’llah is his own claim about himself. Sorry, it is about as far from “infallible”, not to mention credible, as one can be.

 

[doormouse73]

:tiphat:

Hold on a second. Are you telling me that Baha’u’llah’s self-proclamation that he is second coming of Christ is as credible as Jesus telling Peter that the knowledge he received has come from the Father? The Father, through Peter, revealed who Christ was. Baha’u’llah, on the other hand had to make this claim about himself. How is one’s claim about themselves infallible? I could make the same claim and who are you to tell me any different?

But Christ gave sight to the blind, made the lame walk, commanded the wind and sea, and most importantly rose, bodily, from the dead. He did this so that we would know. He backed up his claims so that we might believe. The only thing we have from Baha’u’llah is his own claim about himself. Sorry, it is about as far from “infallible”, not to mention credible, as one can be.

:tiphat:

 

[daler]

Hmmm…this is all conjecture and your own interpretation…so the question is …why is your interpretation to be believed as true?

And how can you be sure they apply to the bahai?

How about the SDA…who read the same verses and interpret them to mean differently than you do? so…who is correct?

The Adventist Movement and the Millerites, plus scores of other scholars, all conclude, and maintain to this day, that they have the time prophecies down correctly. The Baha’is are in agreement and of one accord on that note.

The SDA, etc looked into the physical heavens expecting Jesus to come to them on a literal cloud and as he did not appear in this way, concocted a notion of the Sanctuary being cleansed in Heaven, and that nothing happened on earth with regard to the Lord’s return. Having spent over a year studying with them, I’m quite familiar with their theology.

What they, and others, have overlooked is the place prophecies which, put next to the time prophecies, intersect “exactly” and are historically proven. Daniel’s great vision appeared to him while he was in Susa, the capitol of Elam, which is not far from Shiraz, where the Bab appeared in 1844 AD, or 1260 AH, which was 2300 years after Artaxerxes decree for the rebuilding of Jerusalem as recorded in the book of Ezra.

In the 49th Chapter of Jeremiah is found a similar reference: “The Lord shall set His throne in Elam”, which is today SW Iran, which has been turned upside down ever since the coming of the Bab in 1844, due to the reaction to and opposition of the clergy and their fanatic counterparts and stooges within the government. Even as what happened in the Holy Land after the crucifixion of Christ, such has happened in Persia.

Such time and place prophecies are not incidental, they are numerous. Then people say, “Well, if this happened, why didn’t I know about it?” The answer is that the news is being spread from one soul to the next even as in the time of Jesus, for centuries, one soul to the next. How each soul responds is up to them.

This is the meaning of Matthew 24:40 “Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.”

 

[daler]

Yet He did…and respected them…and also submitted Himself for crucifixion.

 

[daler]

I see.

daler: I agree with how Jcc1960 expresses this. It appears that the emphasis in that passage isn’t so much being on God, but an emphasis of what is not God. The passage is defining the blasphemy of the Trinity and it’s emphasis (wrongly) that it is the worship of three gods.

The problem I have with this part of your response is that the Trinity is a Christian term. Why would God’s messanger use a term in sacred scripture that could be so easily misconstrued to cause Muslims to view Christians as blasphemers? The Quran wasn’t attacking polytheism in general, it was attacking the concept of three gods.

Stylter,
. There are parallels between the religions of the Jews, Christians, and Islam. Abraham destroyed the idols which His own father made and sold. Jesus trashed the money tables in the Temple, saying 'Not in My Father’s House" Muhammad went to the Ka’aba and destroyed the idols.
. There is a recurrence, or descent, into idolatry, which appears in human history. Manasseh returned to idolatry, even has his own grandfather, the prophet Isaiah, sawn in half!! Thus, the Prophets must deal again and again with the rebellious nature of man, like Moses coming down the mountain and the episode of the golden calf.

. With this in mind, my sense is that Muhammad was viewing the multiplication of God into three Gods as a departure from what God intended. “They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three…” His emphasis was always solely on the One God of Abraham and getting the warring idolatrous polytheistic tribes of Arabia to return to the religion of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus.