Baha'i Understanding of Islam v Christianity

  • Thread starter Thread starter charlesby
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Who exactly Baha’u’llah is, is a mystery.

Yes, He claimed to be the Father. Can you show me all the evidence you have to prove that His claim is unfounded?

Thanks 🙂

.
If you believed in Christ, you would know that God will not come again, till he comes in glory. It’s just not possible to pretend to worship Christ. You either do, or you don’t.

Mat 16:27 “For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.”
"At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it.
For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.
See, I have told you ahead of time.
“So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it.
For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man."
Matt 24:23-27
 
And they say they include remnants of the religion of Abraham, distorted by the passage of time.
The religion of Abraham was justification by faith, not law. The religion of Islam is justification by law, not faith. Mahomet just laid down a rule book, at the end of the day, and forbade faith in Christ.
The religions of a region are all related to one another in complex ways: they borrow myths and practices and even deities from one another; a new religion emerges as a reformation within an older religion; a religious tradition is itself transformed as it tries to resist influence from another religion.
It may be said of Islam, that Islam is a mixture of Judaism and Paganism, but the only true religion found in the bible is the religion of faith in God. See Hebrews Chapter 11.

Heb 11:1 “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.”

Heb 11:19 “Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death.”
 
If you believed in Christ, you would know that God will not come again, till he comes in glory.

Mat 16:27 “For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.”

Matt 24:23-27
Baha’is would agree with this. Baha’u’llah is Arabic for “The Glory of the Father”.

I will try to finish a longer response to your OP soon …
 
I’m not sure I quite understand what you mean here. Are you contending that non-Christians are incapable of love?
Not at all. Jesus allows that Gentiles can “love those who love them.” But he asks, what benefit or credit is that to you?

Luke 6:32 “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them."

The point Jesus was making was that if you love someone in order to get something back in return, then it is no more than natural love. But if you love people who cannot give anything back to you, you become a child of God.

But, the point is also that love must be done in the proper way. E.g Adultery is not loving, but hating. E.g. allowing a child the freedom to sin is not loving, but hating.
I’m not quite familiar enough with the Baha’i faith…
I think we can safely say that the Baha’is do not really believe in Jesus, or what he said.
This section is talking specifically about women during worship, and it doesn’t say anything about women in general being more irrational than men.
It’s all about deception. Both sinned, but for different reasons. Eve was deceived, but Adam sinned to please his wife, whilst remaining undeceived. Eve’s deception showed a weakness in women that is unacceptable for church leadership or teaching roles over men. That’s not to say women can’t be godly or bring up children. Yet I’ve seen it over and over again: women are easily led, easily led into sin, and easily deceived. Moreover Eve sinned first. Adam would not have sinned but for Eve. For this reason, man was appointed to rule over women as the weaker vessel more susceptible to sin. That’s the way its always been with Judaism and Christianity. But let’s not take it to extremes. Men can be evil too and act like women, but they are condemned.

1Cor 11:3 “But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man,fn and the head of Christ is God.”

1Cor 6:9 “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,”
They probably have a totally different system of interpretation than Christians do…
Jews that are not Christians are far too bound up in their Mishnas and Talmuds. It is those two books of legalisms that keep the Jews from Christ. In the time of Jesus, it was human teachings that kept the Pharisees from Christ. Nothing has changed for the Jews, except that quite a lot of Jews are Christians now.
  1. I never said that Arabian paganism didn’t have a moon god. There was one, but it wasn’t the god Allah. It was the god Hubal.
Different tribes had different deities and those deities morphed over time. From what I read, Allah was the god of the local Quarish tribe in Muhammed’s day, which was Muhammed’s tribe before he invented Islam but Hubal was also there and an important and very old god. Allah was a moon god but also chief god. In Mecca Hubal was worshipped as the greatest of the 360 idols of the Kaaba. Hubal may have been the combination of Hu, meaning “spirit” or “god”, and the Moab god Baal meaning “master” or “lord”. If this is so, then Hubal was a very ancient god, and he may have been in the process of being transposed into Allah, as some scholars have supposed. Baal was ultimately derived from Babylon, as Allah may have been also. Baal worship had effectively ceased in Israel circa 587BC with the sack of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, so it shows how out of touch the Arabians actually were.
  1. There was a deity in the Arabian pantheon called Allah, but then again, in ancient Cananite pantheon there was a god called El, which was a sky god who lived on top of a mountain in a tent, and the normal Hebrew word for the God of the Hebrew Bible is the plural of that term, Elohim, so you could use the same reasoning to say that Christianity and Judaism developed out of Cananite Paganism.
The Ugaritic god El, father of the gods, was the father of Baal and married to Asherah. I agree adoption of El by the Hebrews might be evidence of their adoption of Canaanite religion, but they also had YHWH whose name was very holy and so probably needed a more generic name for God. YHWH and the Canaanite El don’t bear much comparison, but the moon god Allah and the Allah of the Koran I suspect are pretty similar, and blood thirsty. After all Muhammed did not change his spots much, did he, despite his new religion?
In fact, the Arabic word Allah is actually cognate with the Hebrew word Elloh, which also derives from the same root El.
I quote from letusreason.org/islam6.htm
“Allah, the paramount deity of PAGAN Arabia, was the target of worship in varying degrees of intensity from the southernmost tip of Arabia to the Mediterranean. To the Babylonians he was “Il” (god); to the Canaanites, and later the Israelites, he was “El”; the South Arabians worshiped him as “Ilah,” and the Bedouins as “al-Ilah” (the deity). With Muhammad he BECOMES Allah, God of the Worlds, of all believers, the one and only who admits of no associates or consorts in the worship of Him. Judaic and Christian concepts of God abetted the transformation of Allah FROM A PAGAN DEITY to the God of all monotheists. There is no reason, therefore, to accept the idea that “Allah” passed to the Muslims from Christians and Jews.” (Caesar E. Farah, Ph.D., Islam [Barron’s Educational Series, 2000, sixth edition paperback] p. 28; bold and capital emphasis ours)
From what I can gather Hubal, Allah and Baal were all synonyms for roughly equivalent pagan gods but neither bear any relation to YHWH or Christ,
 
Muhammad had a clearly defined purpose for a clearly defined region and population.

A teacher that is teaching autistic kids how to read using techniques which are incompatible and contradictory to modern day teaching methods cannot suddenly be called a false teacher.
.
The problem for Muhammed is that his god, Allah, was an adaption of the Canannite god Baal, who was not a new god, but one that predated Muhammed by thousands of years, and one which had already been overthrown by YHWH in Israel long before 500BC.

Muhammed. far from superseding Christ, was on a different, but much earlier evolutionary branch. Muhammed brought nothing new to religion, except a novel form of Baal worship.
 
In the Christian language I am familiar with, the Logos is pre-existent and divine, and empties himself of divinity (kenosis) to assume the form of Jesus. There is a distinction between the Person and the historical person. Perhaps not every Christian makes that distinction; my comments would be meaningful only to those who do.
It seems you do not understand Christianity. There are not two persons, Jesus and the Christ, the Logos and the man. There is one person Jesus in humanity and divinity. This is Christianity. What you describe, is heresy. Person means individual will, intellect and substance means that which composes a being or thing.
 
Who exactly Baha’u’llah is, is a mystery.

Yes, He claimed to be the Father. Can you show me all the evidence you have to prove that His claim is unfounded?

Thanks 🙂

.
I don’t care to. This thread isn’t about proving christianity true. Its about actually showing the differences between us. That unlike the bahais Christians know that we contradict the bahai religion. For instance we deny your position that the father, the fount of divinity become incarnate at any point. I don’t care how you will quote scripture to prove it, but i am simply stating the Christian position that your doctrine is denied. The Father does not incarnate, the son incarnates and the son alone is the one to be incarnate.
 
In the Christian language I am familiar with, the Logos is pre-existent and divine, and empties himself of divinity (kenosis) to assume the form of Jesus. There is a distinction between the Person and the historical person. Perhaps not every Christian makes that distinction; my comments would be meaningful only to those who do.
Thanks for sharing this Sen. Fascinating 🙂

.
 
The problem for Muhammed is that his god, Allah, was an adaption of the Canannite god Baal, who was not a new god, but one that predated Muhammed by thousands of years, and one which had already been overthrown by YHWH in Israel long before 500BC.

Muhammed. far from superseding Christ, was on a different, but much earlier evolutionary branch. Muhammed brought nothing new to religion, except a novel form of Baal worship.
That’s simply incorrect.

Allah is the Arabic cognate of the Hebrew El, one of the names of the Hebrew God. It is basically “The God” or “The El”.

El is the name which Jesus called God, crying out on the cross:

“eli eli lama sabachthani”

BTW, Arabic Christian bibles use the word “Allah” as the translation of God.
 
I don’t care to. This thread isn’t about proving christianity true. Its about actually showing the differences between us. That unlike the bahais Christians know that we contradict the bahai religion. For instance we deny your position that the father, the fount of divinity become incarnate at any point. I don’t care how you will quote scripture to prove it, but i am simply stating the Christian position that your doctrine is denied. The Father does not incarnate, the son incarnates and the son alone is the one to be incarnate.
Hello Ignatian. Making statements like “The Father does not incarnate” must be backed with reason and validity.

Do you have any reason for making such a statement please?

🙂

.
 
If you believed in Christ, you would know that God will not come again, till he comes in glory. It’s just not possible to pretend to worship Christ. You either do, or you don’t.

Mat 16:27 “For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.”

Matt 24:23-27
One of my favourite videos from Fr. Barron:
(The Glory of God is a Person)

youtu.be/Gx-s6zY9vP4

🙂

.
 
Member Matthew Light suggested I start a thread on the Baha’i approach to reconciling Islam with Christianity.
Hi Charles!

Thank you for starting another thread for this question. I will go ahead and give an intellectual explanation on how the Bible and New Testament can be compatible with each other. I’m not going to get into a long back-and-forth debate on this subject because I don’t find that productive.
I questioned how Baha’i could claim to love Christians, given that they acknowledge as a prophet one who denies that Jesus was the Son of God.
The Qur’an simply denies the idea that God physically sires children.

“It is not befitting to (the majesty of) God that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, “Be”, and it is. Verily God is my Lord and your Lord: therefore serve Him; this is the Straight Way.” - Qur’an 19:35-36

The high station of Jesus in Islam is unquestioned, He is called “The Word of God” and “The Spirit of God”. What is denied by the Qur’an is that God can be confined and limited to any created thing such as a human form. In the Qur’an, Jesus was and is the perfection of the truth of God who appeared among us on the planet.

The term “Son of God” is used throughout the Old and New Testament. In the Old Testament, it refers to those chosen by God, such as the descendents of Seth, and the Kings of Israel.

See:

newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm

So the title “Son of God” in the New Testament could be understood as meaning Jesus was chosen and anointed by God, that He was and is the Throne of God on this earth.

Jesus Himself stated that “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” - John 4:24

There are other passages where Jesus distinguishes Himself from God Himself:

"And when he was gone forth into the way, a certain man running up and kneeling before him, asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may receive life everlasting? And Jesus said to him, Why callest thou me good? None is good but one, that is God. " - Mark 10:17-18

(continued in part 2)
 
(continued from part 1)
My preliminary skirmishes with Baha’i web sites suggest that Baha’i is far more orientated towards Islam than Christianity…
The “last prophet” is always going to be the one with the most influence. Since the last prophet recognized by Baha’i is Muhammad then he is predictably going to trump Jesus,
Actually, the latest Manifestation of God is Baha’u’llah, not Muhammad.
whose son-ship he famously denies in the Koran, which was largely written by a non-Christian Jewish scribe with (name removed by moderator)ut from the illiterate Muhammad.
That’s a very unusual theory and not one generally accepted by scholars.
As with ‘enlightened’ Islam operating in Western countries, Baha’i also does not recognize the divine order in Christianity and Judaism of men over women (1 Cor 11;3) that is firmly grounded in Old Testament law (Gen 3:16). Men and women are said to be equal in Baha’i and ‘enlightened’ Islam with rights of divorce by the wife - something never granted by Judaism or allowed by Christ. This seems to be born out in peevish posts on some Baha’i www sites.
Yes, at one point in human history, slavery was condoned, women had to obey men, polygamy was acceptable, and other emblems of humanity’s spiritual immaturity were allowable.

In this day, God has enjoined on us the standards of spiritual maturity, which include the equality of men and women. As Paul so famously wrote:

“When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.”

In this Day of the coming of age of the human race, it is now time to put away the conditions of immaturity and don the garments of adulthood.
As a side note the Ishmael connection is misconceived. Whether Ishmael ever went to Arabia seems to be a matter of sheer conjecture, but more importantly, Islam is derived from contemporary Arabic paganism at the time of Muhammad, which was based on moon worship, as admixed during Muhammad’s life with contemporary Jewish monotheism, with new material from Muhammad.
Actually Islam is extraordinarily monotheistic.
Baha’i seems to preach justification by works, or blind faith in the value of ones own works.
No, in the Baha’i Faith works come from faith in the Good. Works without an internal relationship with God - that is - a relationship with what is beautiful, loving and true - are without power.

There is no question in the Faith that all power and grace comes from the True One and not from us. Here is a prayer from Abdu’l-Baha that embodies that understanding:

"O holy Lord! O Lord of loving-kindness! We stray about Thy dwelling, longing to behold Thy beauty, and loving all Thy ways. We are hapless, lowly, and of small account. We are paupers: show us mercy, give us bounty; look not upon our failings, hide Thou our endless sins. Whatever we are, still are we Thine, and what we speak and hear is praise of Thee, and it is Thy face we seek, Thy path we follow. Thou art the Lord of loving-kindness, we are sinners and astray and far from home. Wherefore, O Cloud of Mercy, grant us some drops of rain. O Flowering Bed of grace, send forth a fragrant breeze. O Sea of all bestowals, roll towards us a great wave. O Sun of Bounty, send down a shaft of light. Grant us pity, grant us grace. By Thy beauty, we come with no provision but our sins, with no good deeds to tell of, only hopes. Unless Thy concealing veil doth cover us, and Thy protection shield and cradle us, what power have these helpless souls to rise and serve Thee, what substance have these wretched ones to make a brave display? Thou Who art the Mighty, the All-Powerful, help us, favor us; withered as we are, revive us with showers from Thy clouds of grace; lowly as we are, illumine us with bright rays from the Day-Star of Thy oneness. Cast Thou these thirsty fish into the ocean of Thy mercy, guide Thou this lost caravan to the shelter of Thy singleness; to the wellspring of guidance lead Thou the ones who have wandered far astray, and grant to those who have missed the path a haven within the precincts of Thy might. Lift Thou to these parched lips the bounteous and soft-flowing waters of heaven, raise up these dead to everlasting life. Grant Thou to the blind eyes that will see. Make Thou the deaf to hear, the dumb to speak. Set Thou the dispirited ablaze, make Thou the heedless mindful, warn Thou the proud, awaken those who sleep.

Thou art the Mighty, Thou art the Bestower, Thou art the Loving. Verily Thou art the Beneficent, the Most Exalted."
 
Hello Ignatian. Making statements like “The Father does not incarnate” must be backed with reason and validity.

Do you have any reason for making such a statement please?

🙂

.
Stop trying to change the direction of the discussion. The point is this, bahai and Christianity contradict. One says one thing, the other another. Do you accept that this is a real contradiction which exists? I look forward to you avoiding the actual issue. If you want to make a case that the father, the fount of all divinity must be incarnate, open another thread and make that case. I am only concerned here with how bahai and Christianity contradict, do not have the same hope (Bahais hopes are in this world) nor the same God.
 
Stop trying to change the direction of the discussion. The point is this, bahai and Christianity contradict. One says one thing, the other another. Do you accept that this is a real contradiction which exists? I look forward to you avoiding the actual issue. If you want to make a case that the father, the fount of all divinity must be incarnate, open another thread and make that case. I am only concerned here with how bahai and Christianity contradict, do not have the same hope (Bahais hopes are in this world) nor the same God.
In my humble opinion, the Bahai Faith contradicts Christianity no more than Christianity contradicts Judaism.

Prayer? Check
Worship the one God? Check
Chaste and holy life? Check
Sanctity of the family unit? Check
Love all, serve all? Check
Fasting? Check

I could go on and on…

🙂

.
 
In my humble opinion, the Bahai Faith contradicts Christianity no more than Christianity contradicts Judaism.

Prayer? Check
Worship the one God? Check
Chaste and holy life? Check
Sanctity of the family unit? Check
Love all, serve all? Check
Fasting? Check

I could go on and on…

🙂

.
Lets explore each of those.

To whom do you pray? To the one God who is trinity? No you don’t, you pray to your God, your prophet. I assume you pray to your God your prophet as you want to call him the father and not clarify beyond that.

Now do we worship the one same God? Clearly we do not. The Christian faith is summed up in the creeds and ecumenical councils which bahais have to reject if they take them as intended. Yes I know you will say you believe them, but you will say it dishonestly, deliberately misinterpreting them so you can pretend we agree.

As in regards to chasteness and holiness, there are two radically opposing views. Bahais seem to think marriage is a must, Christians do not view marriage as a must but rather celibacy is the higher and greater path to choose. In regards to holiness, its difficult to understand what you consider truely holy. Right actions, right performance? Holiness in Christianity carries a sacramental character which bahais who regard the sacred as being far and above this world cannot truly accept. Can holiness be in an object for the bahai? Can a human body be holy for the bahai, worthy of veneration? I dare say it cannot with your Gnostic outlook.

What does it mean to love all and serve all? The bahai conception is to unify, that this is the greatest thing one can do. The Christian conception while acknowledging unity, maintains that unity, true unity exists only in the body of Christ which is clearly divided against the body of this world. The bahai view of the world either views distinction or contention as an illsion, we really all agree in the end. That view ignores the reality, different bodies, different communities and different ideologies that actually seperate us from other people. To demonstrate this, it is important to note that bahai cannot condemn the israelites who refused to worship God in the temple but instead worship Pagan Gods on the hills. The bahai concept of unity involves compromising truth in order to preserve unity and this is why it is so hard to talk to you. Your motive is not actually convey truth to those who actually disagree, but only give the false impression that we actually agree. But when pushed enough, you will admit the reality, that you think “Christianity is false because it denies unity.” So I come to this in regards to love, yours is the liberal love which cannot condemn, cannot call evil evil or good good. The Christian love is to recognise God first and foremost as good and that because of the law we know what is evil and what is not. First of all, it is evil to serve other Gods. Bahais deny this essential commandment.

You can say we agree, but deep down you know we don’t. You will not admit this though.
 
The Qur’an simply denies the idea that God physically sires children.

"It is not befitting to (the majesty of) God that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! )
Matthew, Christians also accept ‘Son of God’ as a title, like ‘Son of Man’, ‘Word of God’, ‘Lamb of God’.

Christians also do not believe that God physically sires children.

The incarnation of Jesus was not the beginning of Jesus. It was an aspect of God united to humanity. It is the freely chosen ‘belittling’ of an aspect of God for a time which draws Christians to God. It is truly majestic in the eyes of Christians that God not only creates humanity but enters into his creation and suffers in solidarity with mankind in an effort to educate humanity on the true spirit of God. A spirit of humility, compassion, forbearance ahead of the spirit of arrogance and seeing others as beneath you.

Perhaps you may want to re-interpret this in an effort to unite Christians with the Islamic thinking about God. But you are arguing against what Christianity actually is and the understanding of God as Holy Trinity and worthy of respect and adulation because he showed us that by belittling himself we have no excuse for not doing the same towards our fellow men.

That is the basis of Christianity Matthew, it cannot change or be re-interpreted.
 
I think you have missed Matthew’s point: the Quran text shows that Muhammad was objecting specifically to the idea that God physically sired a son (on Mary), just as Zeus sired various heroes and gods through liaisons with mortals. Of course that is not official church teaching now, and it was not what Christians of the time in Athens or Rome would have been teaching. But evidently Muhammad and the people around him had encountered this twisted version of the Sonship doctrine, and naturally Muhammad says, “that’s not right.”

This is not to say that the Christians of Arabia were actually claiming that God sired Jesus on Mary – all the text tells us is that someone came to Muhammad with this account of Christian teachings, and he rejected it.
 
Matthew, Christians also accept ‘Son of God’ as a title, like ‘Son of Man’, ‘Word of God’, ‘Lamb of God’.
Human beings come up with all kinds of unjustifiable beliefs, religious and otherwise. There are all kinds of things that some or many Muslims believe which are incorrect. Rather than argue against what some Muslims might interpret, we should instead address what the Qur’an actually says.

The statement in the Qur’an is in solely in reference to an idea that God directly impregnated Mary through some kind of sexual act - as the Greek and Roman Gods were said to have impregnated mortals.
 
As I stated previously, Christians also do not think of God physically siring a Son. I know that this is in agreement with how you are interpreting the Koran above.

When you say though that there must have been some ‘other Christians’ in antiquity who thought God did physically sire a son, then you really need to show the historical evidence. It is not ‘evident’.

If you accept that there were these ‘other Christians’ then this throws open ambiguities every time the Koran mentions the term ‘Christians’.

It also raises the question as to why a book that is revealed by the all powerful God does not make this distinction clear and why it does not discuss and compare the doctrine of Christians that we do know about.

Also if the Koran is a great revelation from God, why does it not affirm the divinity of Jesus?

I think it is admirable that you seek to find a consensus between Christians and Muslims and I wish you well with that important quest. The Christian also seeks this. The Christian though cannot accept the Koran as a revealed Holy text and it cannot but see Jesus as anything less than the second person of the Trinity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top