R
rinnie
Guest
Nick some of you say you demy sin some of you say you are simmers. My question to you is how are you free from your sin?
- Status
N
Nick44
Guest
???
- We’re talking about conditions of existence that we know next to nothing about. I did not say, or imply, that saint and sinner have the same life in the next world. Far from it. “God is not mocked; a man reaps what he sows.”
In this world, everything is coming into existence or going out of existence, nothing is static. In the next world, there is only progression, but it may be for certain souls a condition of stagnation…no movement, separated from God by choice, alone and in remorse…and remaining in that condition until God allows progress…after who knows how long?
Paraphrasing Baha’u’llah, if we knew what awaited in the next life, some would be so happy as to constantly pray for death and others would be so fearful as to die of fright.
S
SteveVH
Guest
The Baha’i and the Mormons would get along famously, I would suspect. This is very close to their theology; a theology of progression both in this life and the life to follow. The fact remains, Nick, that if there is no condemnation, only progression, then what I said is true. No matter how I live, I can progress to a higher state; i.e. eternal damnation is not part of the equation.
N
Nick44
Guest
I am somewhat familiar with LDS theology and I would disagree with your comparison.
LDS have 3 kingdoms, endless polygamous sex to populate their own worlds that they will rule over as Gods. That is 180 degrees from anything Baha’u’llah teaches.
S
SteveVH
Guest
I am speaking of the theology of progression. Yes, of course, you differ from them in many respects, although I believe Baha’u’llah was a polygamist himself, was he not?
N
Nick44
Guest
Thanks for the question, rinnie:
Bahá’u’lláh prohibits confession to, and seeking absolution of one’s sins from, a human being. Instead one should beg 194 forgiveness from God. In the Tablet of Bishárát, He states that “such confession before people results in one’s humiliation and abasement”, and He affirms that God “wisheth not the humiliation of His servants”.
Shoghi Effendi sets the prohibition into context. His secretary has written on his behalf that we
…are forbidden to confess to any person, as do the Catholics to their priests, our sins and shortcomings, or to do so in public, as some religious sects do. However, if we spontaneously desire to acknowledge we have been wrong in something, or that we have some fault of character, and ask another person’s forgiveness or pardon, we are quite free to do so.
The Universal House of Justice has also clarified that Bahá’u’lláh’s prohibition concerning the confession of sins does not prevent an individual from admitting transgressions in the course of consultations held under the aegis of Bahá’í institutions. Likewise, it does not preclude the possibility of seeking advice from a close friend or of a professional counsellor regarding such matters.
R
rinnie
Guest
So then you reject the bible more or less?
N
Nick44
Guest
Baha’u’llah had three wives, which were lawful under the laws of Islam at the time, and entered into before He received the Revelation of the new laws for this age. The Baha’i Faith limits marriage to one man and one woman only; strict monogamy.
N
Nick44
Guest
We no more ‘reject’ the Bible than you reject the OT. We recognize the Bible as sacred scripture but follow the laws as revealed by Baha’u’llah for this new day.
The question of interpretations of the Bible, and other scriptures, have been explained by Baha’u’llah, Abdu’l-Baha, and Shoghi Effendi. We never deny what the scripture ‘says’, although we may understand what it ‘means’ differently than you do. To each is the duty to investigate.
S
Servant19
Guest
Just a reminder Steve, that in Catholicism, “baptism by spirit” is considered de fide so it indicates to me that opening the “gateways” of grace can be attained by other means, and Baha’is would be the first to acknowledge that this is a spiritual act rather than a physical one
N
Nick44
Guest
rinnie, here is the answer Abdu’l-Baha gave to your question:
Question.—What is the manner, and what is the meaning, of the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles, as described in the Gospel?
Answer.—The descent of the Holy Spirit is not like the entrance of air into man; it is an expression and a simile, rather than an exact or a literal image. No, rather it is like the entrance of the image of the sun into the mirror—that is to say, its splendor becomes apparent in it.
After the death of Christ the disciples were troubled, and their ideas and thoughts were discordant and contradictory; later they became firm and united, and at the feast of Pentecost they gathered together and detached themselves from the things of this world. Disregarding themselves, they renounced their comfort and worldly happiness, sacrificing their body and soul to the Beloved, abandoning their houses, and becoming wanderers and homeless, even forgetting their own existence. Then they received the help of God, and the power of the Holy Spirit became manifested; the spirituality of Christ triumphed, and the love of God reigned. They were given help at that time and dispersed in different directions, teaching the Cause of God, and giving forth proofs and evidences.
So the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles means their attraction by the Christ Spirit, whereby they acquired stability and firmness. Through the spirit of the love of God they gained a new life, and they saw Christ 107 living, helping and protecting them. They were like drops, and they became seas; they were like feeble insects, and they became majestic eagles; they were weak and became powerful. They were like mirrors facing the sun; verily, some of the light became manifest in them. (from Some Answered Questions)
S
Servant19
Guest
Actually, Steve, even in this life, this reality exists.
Look at the life of Paul. He was part of the stoning of Stephen one day and the next He was one of the most important protagonists of the Christian Era. Should He be condemned to hell forever for his stoning of Stephen, or would he have ended His life, not as a saint, but an Apostle.
Christianity cannot deny the reality that souls have the ability to go from the depths of hell to the heights of Union with God
Why would you deny this?
S
Servant19
Guest
No one really said that were we to live a life reflective of the Will of God for our age, that we would not see our Lord in the life to come.
I know several near death experiences, personally, who met Baha’u’llah face to face during their death experience.
You can look up Renee Pasarow’s documented experience if you like
R
Robyn_p
Guest
Interesting. But I would like to ask you the same question that Servant asked me earlier. Who interpreted the Resurrection of the body to not be a physical resurrection, and what authority did they have, and what exegetical technique do they use to come to this conclusion. Because so far, I still haven’t received any convincing reason from any Baha’i as to why I should accept their interpretation of the end times over the ancient and consistent Christian position. So far, all I’ve seen is eisegesis, which is invalid.
Also, correct me if I’m wrong, but are you saying matter is something corrupt and salvation consists of ridding our self of it for spiritual progress and knowledge? In other words, does the body not really matter much in the end?
Thanks.
R
Robyn_p
Guest
None taken.Not a problem. We had lengthy discussion on that very topic and what I saw were the same answers. It is not the only topic we have revisited over and over again. No offense was intended.
N
Nick44
Guest
Hi, Robyn. The body matters greatly as it is the vehicle that our souls use while on Earth. Keeping healthy and clean is highly regarded as is the avoidance of drugs and harmful habits.
We believe that Baha’u’llah, as the promised one of all major religions, has the right to abrogate, leave alone, or institute new laws and instructions in the belief that He is revealing to us God’s will for this age. He also has the right to interpret the true meaning and intent of all the sacred scriptures of the past. He appointed His son, Abdu’l-Baha, the authority of interpretation of His writings after His passing and said they would carry the same weight as His own words.
Here’s what Abdu’l-Baha said about the resurrection:
Question.—What is the meaning of Christ’s resurrection after three days?
Answer.—The resurrections of the Divine Manifestations are not of the body. All Their states, Their conditions, Their acts, the things They have established, Their teachings, Their expressions, Their parables and Their instructions have a spiritual and divine signification, and have no connection with material things. For example, there is the subject of Christ’s coming from heaven: it is clearly stated in many places in the Gospel that the Son of man came from heaven, He is in heaven, and He will go to heaven. So in chapter 6, verse 38, of the Gospel of John it is written: “For I came down from heaven”; and also in verse 42 we find: “And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?” Also in John, chapter 3, verse 13: “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.”
Observe that it is said, “The Son of man is in heaven,” while at that time Christ was on earth. Notice also that it is said that Christ came from heaven, though He came from the womb of Mary, and His body was born of Mary. It is clear, then, that when it is said that the Son of man is come from heaven, this has not an outward but an inward signification; it is a spiritual, not a material, fact. The meaning is that though, apparently, Christ was born from 104 the womb of Mary, in reality He came from heaven, from the center of the Sun of Reality, from the Divine World, and the Spiritual Kingdom. And as it has become evident that Christ came from the spiritual heaven of the Divine Kingdom, therefore, His disappearance under the earth for three days has an inner signification and is not an outward fact. In the same way, His resurrection from the interior of the earth is also symbolical; it is a spiritual and divine fact, and not material; and likewise His ascension to heaven is a spiritual and not material ascension.
Beside these explanations, it has been established and proved by science that the visible heaven is a limitless area, void and empty, where innumerable stars and planets revolve.
Therefore, we say that the meaning of Christ’s resurrection is as follows: the disciples were troubled and agitated after the martyrdom of Christ. The Reality of Christ, which signifies His teachings, His bounties, His perfections and His spiritual power, was hidden and concealed for two or three days after His martyrdom, and was not resplendent and manifest. No, rather it was lost, for the believers were few in number and were troubled and agitated. The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body; and when after three days the disciples became assured and steadfast, and began to serve the Cause of Christ, and resolved to spread the divine teachings, putting His counsels into practice, and arising to serve Him, the Reality of Christ became resplendent and His bounty appeared; His religion found life; His teachings and His admonitions became evident and visible. In other words, the Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body until the life and the bounty of the Holy Spirit surrounded it.
Such is the meaning of the resurrection of Christ, and this was a true resurrection. But as the clergy have neither understood the meaning of the Gospels nor comprehended 105 the symbols, therefore, it has been said that religion is in contradiction to science, and science in opposition to religion, as, for example, this subject of the ascension of Christ with an elemental body to the visible heaven is contrary to the science of mathematics. But when the truth of this subject becomes clear, and the symbol is explained, science in no way contradicts it; but, on the contrary, science and the intelligence affirm it. (from: Some Answered Questions)
S
Servant19
Guest
Hi Robyn
The authority is Baha’u’llah Himself, the Supreme Manifestation of God, the Return of Jesus Christ in the glory of the Father, the Promised One of All religions. I think that’s a pretty good authority to hang your hat on, don’t you?
The question now is, how do we know that Baha’u’llah is all of these things?
Well, in order to answer that, we need to ascertain Divinity, and for that we need to ask a specific question regarding Jesus. How did the Apostles recognize the Divinity of Jesus “during His lifetime”? How was Jesus different and worthy of serious attention to the point of shouting “Hosanah!” on the streets, from all the other “Son of God” claimants at the time?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
That is a common interpretation. However, Abdu’l-Baha is wrong for several reasons. First, the verse that he quoted (and I highlighted in red) is incomplete. The full text of John 6:51 reads:
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
Abdu’l-Baha omits the portion which I have bolded. Here, Jesus clearly tells us that the bread which he shall give is NOT “the heavenly food and divine perfections” as Abdu’l-Baha asserts, but it is really and truly the flesh of Jesus. How do we know this? Because Jesus gave His flesh for the life of the world upon the Cross where He died so that we might have eternal life.
Second, Jesus was fully God and fully man. He received his flesh from Mary (though obviously, the male sperm, etc. had to come from somewhere), but it was His body, His flesh to give as He pleased. So, He was both “from Mary” and “from Heaven”.
Third, Abdu’l-Baha completely misses a crucial element in verse 63, and since much is made of it, I will provide some detail.
“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken are spirit and they are life.” (John 6:63)
These words were spoken by Jesus shortly after delivering his teaching on the Eucharist, and some people claim that they indicate that Jesus was speaking figuratively when he commanded us to eat his body and drink his blood. However, this would be a misunderstanding of what Jesus meant when he said, “the flesh counts for nothing.”
First, notice that whenever Jesus referred to his own body and blood, he said “my flesh” or “the flesh of the Son of Man”. Here are the examples:
“This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” (John 6:51)
"Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.” (John 6:53-56)
At this point, the narrative explains that the disciples were on the verge of revolt over this teaching. Jesus tells them that they cannot understand this teaching with their natural minds. Here is the verse in context: “On hearing it, many of his disciples said, ‘This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?’ Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, ‘Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.’” (John 6:60-63)
In John 6:63, Jesus uses the phrase “the flesh” instead of “my flesh” or “the flesh of the Son of Man” because he is not talking about his own body; he is referring to natural man. Our flesh is that created, corruptible part of us; the spirit is that which is capable of relating to God and receiving his revelation, and the mind/soul is the union of spirit and body. Here are some scriptures that illustrate this:
“Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit, soul and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Thessalonians 5:23)
“And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being [nephesh – soul].” (Genesis 2:7) (dust is the body, breath of life - pneuma - is the spirit, living being is the soul).
Jesus tells the grumbling Jews (who can’t understand how he would give them his flesh to eat) that they cannot grasp it with their natural minds because it is a mystery beyond the ability of “the flesh” to understand. This is the same manner of speaking used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 2 & 3 when he is distinguishing between fleshly or carnal Christians and those who are discern the things of God with their spirits.
Second, it might be worth noting the obvious fact that Jesus cannot be saying that HIS own flesh “counts for nothing” otherwise his death upon the cross would be meaningless. Instead, we know that his own body, his flesh, was broken and pierced for our sake; no Christian would deny that. Therefore, since HIS flesh does count for something, he must have been referring to “flesh” other than his own in v. 63.
Thus, the one verse that many cling to as an argument against the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist does not mean what they falsely claim it means. Ironically, their “proof text” points out precisely why they cannot understand the Eucharist: they are using their flesh instead of their spirits to discern the things of God. Unfortunately, their flesh “counts for nothing”.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Is the Holy Spirit God just as the Father is God and the Son is God?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
In brief, there was no physical resurrection of Jesus and no physical ascension into heaven.
Instead, after a few days of mourning, the disciples managed to pull themselves together and set about proclaiming that Jesus had risen from the dead metaphorically as His teachings were spread throughout the world.
- Status