Baha'i V

[Red_Sox_1]

much of bahai belief is based upon misinterpreting the New Testament written by the RCC.

Hi Eddie,

I wouldn’t actually say it is necessary a misinterpretation, though perhaps Baha’is may be misinterpreting many things, but in this case – what we are currently discussion, I thing it is at **worst ** not a misinterpretation but a imposition to fill in the gaps intentionally left there by the author of the New Testament. Four “gaps” would be the Spirit of Truth, the cry from the Cross, the statement that the Father sent the Son, and John 17.

After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed:

“Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. 2 For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. 3 Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. 4 I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

Jesus Prays for His Disciples

6 “I have revealed you[a] to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. 7 Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. 8 For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me. 9 I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours. 10 All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them. 11 I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of** your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one. 12 While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by[c] that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.

13 “I am coming to you now, but I say these things while I am still in the world, so that they may have the full measure of my joy within them. 14 I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. 15 My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17 Sanctify them by[d] the truth; your word is truth. 18 As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. 19 For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.

Jesus Prays for All Believers

20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

24 “Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.

25 “Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. 26 I have made you[e] known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them.”**

 

[Red_Sox_1]

“And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.” - Jesus Christ

Dear Eddie,

Do you believe this is the human nature of Jesus speaking to the Divine Nature? Do you believe that the Human Nature of Jesus pre-existed the world?

 

[Red_Sox_1]

One more thought. If these “gaps” to which I refer didn’t actually exist, there would have been no need for the doctrine of the Trinity. I am not declaring the Trinity as false here, I am simply saying that the doctrine of Trinity itself bears testimony to the Gaps I refer. Jesus would simply be God and there would be no need for a Trinity. God would be One Person and One Substance.

 

[eddie_too]

relying on the New Testament alone for your theology is doomed to error from your first interpretation.

the RC faith existed before it wrote the New Testament. there was no question in the early Church that Jesus had a Divine Nature and a human nature. there was no question in the early Church that Jesus was not the Father and the Father was not the Holy Spirit.

for example, the early Church baptized new catholics in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

that would have been pretty pointless if the early Church taught that there was only one Person with the Divine Nature.

 

[Red_Sox_1]

relying on the New Testament alone for your theology is doomed to error from your first interpretation.

the RC faith existed before it wrote the New Testament. there was no question in the early Church that Jesus had a Divine Nature and a human nature. there was no question in the early Church that Jesus was not the Father and the Father was not the Holy Spirit.

for example, the early Church baptized new catholics in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

that would have been pretty pointless if the early Church taught that there was only one Person with the Divine Nature.

Dear Eddie,

Thanks, for discussion sake I’ll assume this is correct, my point wasn’t to say that the Trinity is false.

But can you please clarify:

“And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.” - Jesus Christ

Do you believe this is the human nature of Jesus speaking to the Divine Nature? Do you believe that the Human Nature of Jesus pre-existed the world?

 

[eddie_too]

the quotation you provide reveals that Jesus is fully aware that His human nature and Divine Nature are both real.

there are many bible commentaries where all of these verses are interpreted. if you are sincerely interested in the meaning of the New Testament, i would recommend you find a few of these, especially include at least one approved by the RCC, and read them.

when He speaks of those given to Him, He is referring to the salvific role of His human nature in mankind. when He speaks of His eternal relationship with the Father He is referring to His Divine Nature.

but this whole concept of selecting individual verses and then trying to interpret apart from the whole of revelation given to the RCC is fruitless and can only lead to confusion and error.

 

[Red_Sox_1]

the quotation you provide reveals that Jesus is fully aware that His human nature and Divine Nature are both real.

Sure, true that it may be, it isnt what we were discussing. If it is simultaneously the Human and Divine sides of Jesus speaking in John17, then it is both Jesus’s Divine and human nature that speak to the Father.

there are many bible commentaries where all of these verses are interpreted. if you are sincerely interested in the meaning of the New Testament, i would recommend you find a few of these, especially include at least one approved by the RCC, and read them.

Sure this may be a topic in many other threads, but here we are seeing what a non-Catholic and non-Christian religion thinks of the NT text.

when He speaks of those given to Him, He is referring to the salvific role of His human nature in mankind. when He speaks of His eternal relationship with the Father He is referring to His Divine Nature.

It is interesting that you are quick to read the resurrection and miracle stories literally but interpret the statements Jesus made instead of reading Jesus’s own words at their face value. I would think Jesus’s words would be easier to take at face vale than stories told about Jesus by the NT Gospel writers.

but this whole concept of selecting individual verses and then trying to interpret apart from the whole of revelation given to the RCC is fruitless and can only lead to confusion and error.

I am not randomly picking verses from the Bible, I am focusing on statements made in Bahaullah’s writings as they related to the NT

 

[daler]

Daler,

My take on this is that while it may seem impossible to convert 1.6 billion Muslims, there is also the principle that with God “all things are possible”. Rather than focus on whether it is possible that all or most Muslims could be convinced to abandon the Prophet Muhammad, I focus instead on whether that is actually God’s plan, and from the Baha’i perspective, of course it is not in God’s plan for this to happen, therefore it will not happen. The world will be united and it will happen by including all of the Divine Revelations, not by excluding all but one of them.

Very well said.

In order for there to be One Fold and One Shepherd, the Shepherd does not kill or condemn the “other folds”, but rather brings them all into a single great round-up.

As Baha’is, we believe this Round Up is happening now. A few Jews here, a few Christians there, some Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, American Indians, a Rodeo unlike the world has ever seen before.

Maybe somebody can write a book: “It Takes a Rodeo”

Yeeee Haawwww!!!

 

[daler]

The fact that it may be difficult for one to give up their previously held faith tradition does not necessarily mean, therefore, that they should not conform their lives to the truth that has been revealed to us. For a Muslim to discover Christ for who he truly is would be the fulfillment of their faith in the one, true God. Now I am sure that you understand what I mean as this is basically the Baha’i position as well; You believe Baha’u’llah, rather than Jesus, is the fulfillment and that we should abandon our outdated religion in favor of Baha’i.

Steve,
. There is a thing about “words”. Sometimes we can become so attached to a word as to forget the meaning of the word. For any person of any Faith to fully recognize and hold to the meaning of his/her Faith is a good thing which should never ever be abandoned.

. If by becoming a Baha’i, I abandoned Christ, or the meaning of Christianity, I would never have become a Baha’i. In fact, it would be impossible for a Baha’i to abandon Christ and still be a Baha’i.

. For a Jew to follow Jesus and become a “Christian” does not require him/her to abandon Moses, right? This is an important point, for in become a Christian, once Jesus appeared in fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies, the Jew became even more of a Jew, in the sense that what a Jew is is one who turns towards God and praises Him.

. Well, one can go down a road of words here and all the words do is get in the way at some point. If the words become a veil between anyone and God, then it is best to set the words down by the side of the road and keep on walking towards the light.

. The sun shines on flowers and weeds alike, none of which even know what a word is.

 

[tonyfish58]

tony,
what you propose could be done if everyone agreed to ignore God’s self-revelation throughout history, beginning with adam and eve, continuing through noah, abraham, isaac and jacob, then with joseph, moses, josuah, gideon, david, amos, et al, and culminating in the Word made Flesh, Jesus Christ.

but to some, it would be ignorant if not stupid to disregard all of that self-revelation, throw it all out and decide only the most recent self-proclaimed revelation is relevant.

it is true that God desires all men to live in harmony with each other. bahaullah is not the first nor i suspect the last human being to express that particular revelation.

however, the way to all men living in harmony does not pass through ignoring all that God has revealed about Himself since the time of adam and eve.

in the end, tharmony cannot be achieved without accepting the truth.

declaring the truth to be relative, as the bahais does not overcome this problem, primarily because truth cannot be both relative and truth.

truth is what is eternally true, not a generation to generation reiteration of relativity.

Eddie - Sorry will be of line for a while computer packed it in, my little tablet is not up to the task to give much of a reply. I would say that it did not stop at Jesus Christ, you can add Muhammad the Bab and Baha’ullah to the progression and we have a fuller picture of Gods purpose. May God bless and will catch you all when I again have a computer. Regards Tony

 

[eddie_too]

based on bahaullah’s writings it is obvious that he knew very little of what the RC authors of the New Testament meant when they wrote it.

bahaullah also picked and chose from the New Testament when he composed his teachings. virtually nothing that bahaullah wrote addressed the meaning of the New Testament that was intended by the RCs that wrote the New Testament.

knowing that bahaullah suffered from profound ignorance of the intentions and meanings of the RC authors of the New Tesatment can only increase a RC’s incredulity when encountering bahaullah’s writings.

since bahaullah addressed none of the authors of the New Testaments meanings and intentions, it is reasonable to conclude that the link between bahaullah and Jesus Christ is virtually non-existent.

it is fair to conclude that the only rational link between the New Testament and bahaullah is that bahaullah took the New Testament and change its meaning to make himself look better and more important.

it is the mark of a charlatan to take the writings of someone else and change the meaning from that intended by the original author and then to convince others, equally ignorant of the meanings of the ture authors that the charlatan’s interpretations are the correct interpretations.

 

[Red_Sox_1]

based on bahaullah’s writings it is obvious that he knew very little of what the RC authors of the New Testament meant when they wrote it.

Hi, this may be true, so let us take a look at a few examples. I read in a lot of places that Bahaullah interpreted the Bible, but i really do disagree with this. i dont think Bahaullah engaged in interpretation, must as Jesus did not interpret the Hebrew Tanakh.

i would be interested in seeing examples. There are a number of Tablets addressed to Christians, and the Kitab-i-Iqan is not one of them. The Iqan was written as a Babi in 1861 to the uncle of the Bab who was a Muslim.

There is the Tablet to the Pope, the Tablet of Aqdas, and other smaller Tablets.

Let us start with a small one:

"O CONCOURSE of Christians! We have, on a previous occasion, revealed Ourself unto you, and ye recognized Me not. This is yet another occasion vouchsafed unto you. This is the Day of God; turn ye unto Him… The Beloved One loveth not that ye be consumed with the fire of your desires. Were ye to be shut out as by a veil from Him, this would be for no other reason than your own waywardness and ignorance. Ye make mention of Me, and know Me not. Ye call upon Me, and are heedless of My Revelation…. O people of the Gospel! They who were not in the Kingdom have now entered it, whilst We behold you, in this day, tarrying at the gate. Rend the veils asunder by the power of your Lord, the Almighty, the All-Bounteous, and enter, then, in My name My Kingdom. Thus biddeth you He Who desireth for you everlasting life… We behold you, O children of the Kingdom, in darkness. This, verily, beseemeth you not. Are ye, in the face of the Light, fearful because of your deeds? Direct yourselves towards Him… Verily, He (Jesus) said: ‘Come ye after Me, and I will make you to become fishers of men.’ In this day, however, We say: ‘Come ye after Me, that We may make you to become quickeners of mankind.’"

 

[eddie_too]

saying the resurrection of Jesus was not a physical resurrection of Jesus’ human body is one example.

 

[Red_Sox_1]

saying the resurrection of Jesus was not a physical resurrection of Jesus’ human body is one example.

In which Tablet does Bahaullah say this?

 

[SteveVH]

Steve,
If by becoming a Baha’i, I abandoned Christ, or the meaning of Christianity, I would never have become a Baha’i. In fact, it would be impossible for a Baha’i to abandon Christ and still be a Baha’i.

You mean it would be impossible for a Baha’i to abandon the Baha’i idea of Christ, which is not the Christ of Christianity. One must deny the divinity of Christ and place him in a position of relative equality with Abraham and Moses, both of whom would reject this comparison outright.

For a Jew to follow Jesus and become a “Christian” does not require him/her to abandon Moses, right?

And why would it? Christianity has not abandoned Moses.

This is an important point, for in become a Christian, once Jesus appeared in fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies, the Jew became even more of a Jew, in the sense that what a Jew is is one who turns towards God and praises Him.

No. A Jew is one of God’s chosen people, first and foremost. As Christians we have been grafted onto the tree and therefore are children of Abraham, making us chosen as well, through adaption.

Well, one can go down a road of words here and all the words do is get in the way at some point. If the words become a veil between anyone and God, then it is best to set the words down by the side of the road and keep on walking towards the light.

It is not a matter of words getting in the way, daler. It is a matter of divinely revealed truth as opposed to the ideas of man.

 

[eddie_too]

are you saying bahaullah did not teach that Jesus’ resurrection was not the physical resurrection of His physical body?

 

[Red_Sox_1]

And why would it? Christianity has not abandoned Moses.

According to your logic, if Bahais reject the Christian Jesus, do Christians reject the Jewish Moses?

 

[eddie_too]

i have read numerous posts by various bahai here on the catholic answers bahai threads where the posters declared that bahaullah taught that Jesus did not raise His physical body from the dead.

 

[SteveVH]

In which Tablet does Bahaullah say this?

It has been stated more than a few times on this series of Baha’i threads. Do you disagree with this position? Do you believe that Jesus rose physically from the grave and ate food with his disciples and at the same time walked through locked doors and disappeared at will? Much time has been spent on this subject and the Baha’i consensus, following the Muslim, rather than the Christian view, was that Jesus only rose spiritually.

 

[Red_Sox_1]

are you saying bahaullah did not teach that Jesus’ resurrection was not the physical resurrection of His physical body?

I am saying that Bahaullah’s writings need to be reviewed, what does Bahaullah actually write that leads to this widespread conclusion? i am not saying it is true or false, i am investigating what Bahaullah founder of the Bahai faith actually wrote. Does Bahaullah actually interpret the Bible as say a preacher would, or are his writing somehow different in character (good or bad).