Baha'i V

[arthra]

This evening after sunset (October 19th) begins the Baha’i Holy Day which commemorates the anniversary of the Birth of the Bab in 1819…

His name at birth was Siyyid Ali Muhammad as He was a descendent of the Prophet Muhammad He was a “Siyyid”. He was given the name “Muhammad” after the Prophet Muhammad and “Ali” after His Successor Ali.

The Bab was born in Shiraz, Persia (Iran) and it happened to fall on the first day of the new Islamic year.

Baha’is accept the Bab (meaning “Gate”) as a Manifestation of God that preceded Baha’u’llah. The Bab had a fairly short life and was martyred by a firing squad in Tabriz in 1850 but in HIs brief ministry of six years stirred up the society and led the combined weight of the clergy and political establishment to condemn Him.

Work and school are suspended for Baha’is and gatherings are held to commemorate the day

 

[Robyn_p]

From, my personal perspective, I can totally understand when reading the narrative in the Gospel of John for example, that this is indeed an incredibly convincing and detailed account proving beyond a shadow of doubt that the resurrection was a physical one. I am still not convinced that a glorified body is the same as a natural, physical body. I prefer to call it a resurrection into a glorified body myself, but I digress.

Glad you can see where we are coming from. Actually, you might be interested to know that the Catholic Church believes the glorified body is not exactly the same as our earthly body either. It does have different properties. But it is a real body, not a mere spirit. And that’s the key.

The Gospel of John, the 4th Gospel, contrasted with the narrative seen in the original Gospel of Mark shows marked differences, most specifically the amount of attention to detail to PROVE a physical resurrection seen in John, which is absent in the original Mark.

To me, what was some very private “subjective” visions of the Apostles, stooped in deep symbolism was collated towards the end of the first century and written up as “objective” accounts, and the development of a “resurrection” story came about. On the basis of this, stories were created regarding an empty tomb, etc etc.

No offense Servant, but this doesn’t prove anything. The Gospel of Mark is the shortest Gospel, and leaves out several things that the others contain in greater detail. (Jesus’ birth, the Sermon on the Mount etc…) But that doesn’t prove they didn’t happen.

Baha’i believe Jesus was born of a virgin (Correct??) But using this logic for rejecting the later accounts of the Resurrection, we should reject the accounts of the miraculous nature of Christ’s birth as well, because Mark doesn’t mention them. After all, the amount of attention to detail given to PROVE that Jesus was born of a virgin seen in Luke and Matthew, which are absent in the original Mark, demonstrate that they are subjective visions of the apostles to give Jesus more credibility.

See the problem?

…**
I truly believe that the Bible is a collection of spiritual Truths rather than historical facts. **At the very least, the majority of New Testament scholars would agree that the historicity of large parts of the Bible is “under review” and “a work in progress”

I object to reducing the Bible to a mere collection of spiritual truths. Yes, they are certainly that. Some books are not meant to be taken in a strict historical sense, this is true. But when the author of a book says something like this:

In as much as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us from those who** from the beginning were eyewitnesses** and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you,most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which have been revealed to us. (Lk 1:1-4)

Or this:

For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. (2 Pet 1:16)

They obviously intend their message to be taken as a real historical event. You don’t use that kind of language if that is not your intent.

Now, I realize this doesn’t PROVE that what the apostles wrote was true and accurate, (for that, other arguments are needed) but it does show that they at least meant it to be taken that way. Which leads us to two possibilities, 1. They were telling the truth. Or 2. They told outright lies or embellished and stretched the truth.

The Gospels being merely a collection of spiritual truths, but not relaying actual historical events is not a valid option, because their authors go to great pains to make sure their audience realizes these things really happened and are attested to by eyewitnesses. (Especially Luke, and it’s his gospel that contains the strongest account of the physical resurrection)

So, if that account in Luke didn’t happen, but Luke made sure to convince us that he was very diligent in his research, then I see no other choice but to conclude he lied. There’s no middle option. We have to make a choice.

The way I see the Baha’i position is ultimately one that is too afraid to take sides. They don’t want to say that the authors of the Gospels were liars or deluded, but they can’t accept the Resurrection. So this watered down middle option is given. But as we saw, it’s not a valid option.

Hope this is of some assistance on my personal views as a Baha’i. These are not “official” Baha’i views.
The official Baha’i view does not delve into so much detail as I have here, the focus of the Baha’i Faith is Baha’u’llah and His conveyance of the Will of God for humans in this age, not Moses, Jesus, Muhammad or any Founder of previous Major Global Religions.

God bless

Thank you for taking the time to address my question. While I don’t agree with your positions, I appreciate you being willing to dialogue.

 

[Robyn_p]

You nailed it. It is called doublethink; the capacity to hold two or more contradictory views simultaneously as true. Amazing what the human mind can accept. A = not A. It flies in the face of reason and rational thought.

What is really interesting is the view that not only is this mode of thinking acceptable, but that our inability to accept it is due our lack of enlightenment. We are a dull minded people who have settled for a religion that claims the fullness of truth and therefore have shut down our minds. Jesus was important, but is now passé. We have placed a veil between us and the Father of Jesus, Baha’u’llah, and are therefore blind to the wonders that have come about since he graced our presence 150 years ago.

The bottom line is that a human notion is accepted as true at the expense of reason and rational thought. It makes reasoned discourse nearly impossible, IMO.

Yes. When the only response to my post I got from a Baha’i was the universe can be both eternal and have a beginning, that became clear. :sad_yes:

 

[Servant19]

Yes, so we can establish that the Father enabled Peter to recognize Jesus as the Son of God. So was Jesus just another man that Peter was hanging out with before that moment?

Lets get to the crux of it

Why was Peter abandoning his entire life to be with Jesus? What did Peter recognize in Him?

Hi dear friends,

I was wondering if there is a response to this question at all please?

 

[Servant19]

Yes. When the only response to my post I got from a Baha’i was the universe can be both eternal and have a beginning, that became clear. :sad_yes:

Dear Robyn, it depends on what the definition of the universe is. Creation is a process, and eternity is a timeline. The creative process with the universe may have occured at a specific point in time, yet the existence of a universe may well have been there since the time that had no beginning.

There is a tradition within Islam which states:

---

‘God, exalted be He, fashioned one hundred thousand, thousand lamps and suspended the Throne, the earth, the heavens and whatsoever is between them, even Heaven and Hell – all of these in a single lamp. And only God knows what is in the rest of the lamps.’ ***

In Islamic tradition the “Throne” or 'Arsh is what is considered the ‘ceiling of the universe’. It really is mind boggling especially for a very very very finite mind like mine ,
…and to be truly honest, I really don’t believe that these sorts of cosmological statements have any real impact on me as a person and my relationship with God, why would it be so important for you?

The contradictions within some of the religions which you stated in your post (to which arthra also responded to btw) are really very specifically interpreted and, of course when focussed on with such closed minded interpretation, then naturally they will cause differences to arise.

Water is water. If we were to constantly focus on the cups that contain the water, we deprive ourselves of its thirst quenching effects. No-one is saying you have to follow Zoroaster for example, but a simple understanding that a God of good, and a God of evil (as Zoroaster pointed out) is essentially the same as God and the devil (as found in Christianity) is “thirst quenching” indeed, and suddenly you see Zoroastrians as people whom you can walk TOGETHER with in a path of common service towards our Creator rather than a “dirty, false cup, containing false, fake water”…

A simple exploration of Zoroastrianism will point to many many points of unity with Catholicism, implying a common Source, just using different terminologies, and applying those truths at a different time for a different community of peoples with different social problems

 

[Servant19]

Hi Randy,

When Jesus said "This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”, what does “life of the world” actually mean to you?

Would the entirety of the world have died had Jesus not given His flesh on the Cross?
Will those who do not partake of His flesh in the Eucharist die?

Hi Randy, I don’t think you explained what “I will give you the life of the world” means to you.

When you eat the bread, which is the flesh of Christ, HOW does it give you the life of the world? What does this look like if you were to write a biography of your life?

 

[Nick44]

You certaintly reject hebrews statement

For one thing you deny angels exist.

Actually, we don’t deny it at all:

And now, concerning His words [in the Qur’an]: “And He shall send His angels…” By “angels” is meant those who, reinforced by the power of the spirit, have consumed, with the fire of the love of God, all human traits and limitations, and have clothed themselves with the attributes of the most exalted Beings and of the Cherubim… And now, inasmuch as these holy beings have sanctified themselves from every human limitation, have become endowed with the attributes of the spiritual, and have been adorned with the noble traits of the blessed, they therefore have been designated as “angels.”
(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 78)

 

[Nick44]

If you accept your own premise then you must admit that every “new religion” subsequent to the Baha’i faith has the right to change the practices of the Baha’i faith.

Steve, that is correct and we do admit it!:

“There are some laws which Bahá’u’lláh has not formulated in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas or other Tablets. He has deliberately left gaps in the structure of His laws and these will have to be filled by the Universal House of Justice, the supreme legislative body of the Faith, authorized by Bahá’u’lláh to enact laws which are not explicitly revealed by Him. The laws enacted by this body can be altered at a later time by the same body when conditions in society will have radically changed and this provision guarantees that laws which are temporary in nature may keep pace with humanity’s progress.
The laws that Bahá’u’lláh has formulated, however, are fundamental laws, fixed and unalterable during the entire period of His Dispensation. Only the next Manifestation of God can abrogate them” (Revelation of Baha’u’llah, Vol 3, pg:282)

 

[Nick44]

This is the worst sort of religion, in which eternal and unchanging truth is replaced with the need to get along with the world which is changing constantly. One of the principle ideas about God in Christianity is that he does not change, truth does not change, it is not relative, it is an absolute fact. If we embrace a theology which says that everyone 1000 years fundamental truths change (which is the only way I think bahai can interpret history and say they are all the same religion) we will only be embracing something which could be false tommorow if God so arbitrarily decides to change it.

God doesn’t ‘change His mind’ but provides further guidance as our capacity for truth increases and societal changes dictate. Baha’u’llah writes:

“The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and center your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements.
We can well perceive how the whole human race is encompassed with great, with incalculable afflictions. We see it languishing on its bed of sickness, sore-tried and disillusioned. They that are intoxicated by self-conceit have interposed themselves between it and the Divine and infallible Physician. Witness how they have entangled all men, themselves included, in the mesh of their devices. They can neither discover the cause of the disease, nor have they any knowledge of the remedy. They have conceived the straight to be crooked, and have imagined their friend an enemy.
Incline your ears to the sweet melody of this Prisoner. Arise, and lift up your voices, that haply they that are fast asleep may be awakened. Say: O ye who are as dead! The Hand of Divine bounty proffereth unto you the Water of Life. Hasten and drink your fill. Whoso hath been re-born in this Day, shall never die; whoso remaineth dead, shall never live.”
(Gleanings, pg: 213)

 

[Servant19]

Your’re deflecting. Jesus said, “The bread which I shall give is my flesh” - not “my words” or “my teaching” - “my flesh”.

How can this man give us his flesh to eat, Servant?

My question to you is, had Jesus said that “this tree is my flesh”, would you be eating this tree? Of course not? The bread symbolises nourishment of the body, it is used as an allegory to equate what is in reality the true meaning of the passage, and what is that? The nourishment of the spirit.

Bread = nourishment of the soul = physical life
Jesus’ Words = nourishment of the human soul = eternal spiritual life

So the question to you is, let us say that the bread that you eat is ACTUALLY the flesh of Jesus. What does that do to you? Why would eating the flesh of Jesus be so important?
Is that all you need to do to receive eternal life?

course they co-mingle. The joining of the Spirit with the Body creates what is called a human soul. I am not two things, I am one person. The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that “then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” Man, whole and entire, is therefore willed by God. In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human life or the entire human person. But “soul” also refers to the innermost.aspect of man, that which is of greatest value in him, that by which he is most especially in God’s image: “Soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man. The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit. Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity.

May I ask, therefore, what is the monophysite heresy?

Secondly, how is Jesus able to separate His spiritual and physical aspects?
He clearly says that when two or more gather in His name He is present in that meeting. Is He physically there therefore?

Sure. The words of Jesus give life in that through them we may be enlightened by the Holy Spirit and learn the way to the Father through His teaching. Contrast this with the idea that in our natural mind, we are unable to receive and understand the things of God.

I’m not really sure what you are meaning here? Can you please clarify?

However, you continue to ignore the fact that Jesus also specifically instructed us to eat His flesh and drink His blood in the Eucharist. The consecrated elements become the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus because Jesus cannot be divided; His body and blood cannot be separated from His soul and His Divinity. Receiving His body, blood, soul and divinity is commanded because:

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

That’s because you cannot understand it with your natural mind…your flesh. This is the meaning of John 6:63, and I supported this by referring your to 1 Corinthians 2 & 3 where Paul is distinguishing between fleshly or carnal Christians and those who are discern the things of God with their spirits.

Sure I acknowledge that Christians were asked to eat the flesh and blood of Christ, but what does the flesh and blood mean? What is the flesh of Jesus? He says the bread comes from heaven, not from the local supermarket.

It still boils down to the question, what does all this mean to me? What does it mean to my children, my neighbours, my community and the world at large?

 

[Servant19]

And a dog has four legs, and a horse has four legs, but a dog is not a horse. You absolutely refuse to acknowledge the blatant contradictions which even the various religions you claim to espouse recognize amongst each other. Why do you feel the need to claim all things as true when they clearly, by the laws of logic and reason, cannot be true?

Yes, but a dog was created to herd the sheep together, it had a specific use at a specific time. The horse was created to enable the farmer to move large distances to inspect the farm. Hey!! They also have 4 legs each and you know what? They both were created by the One God. The fact that the One God created both of them to assist the advancement of the FARM, then they are both from God, which is the truth.

Why don’t we look at other animals that may be able to assist the farm to progress. There was once an animal called a cow. It too had 4 legs. WOWEEEEE!!
It was used to pull the plough so the soil may be turned.
Today we have a farm that has all these different animals living on it wondering what’s next on the agenda.
The Minister for Agriculture has just arrived and organised the farm to unite together so that it can fulfil that for which it was purposed and created

Meanwhile the dogs refuse to listen to the new owner of the land and continue to look for new sheep to herd, since this is their tradition and they just cannot let it go. They don’t believe in the value of horses, or cows, because although they have 4 legs, they just speak a different language, and thats too big a contradiction…

• Christ died for our sins upon the cross.
• Christ did not die for our sins upon the cross.

They cannot both be true! :nope:

We’ve already addressed this Steve. There are many verses in the Quran which refer to the martyrs of Islam not really dying either.

Are you saying that the martyrs of Islam were also a con game?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

God doesn’t ‘change His mind’ but provides further guidance as our capacity for truth increases and societal changes dictate. Baha’u’llah writes:

“The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and center your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements.
We can well perceive how the whole human race is encompassed with great, with incalculable afflictions. We see it languishing on its bed of sickness, sore-tried and disillusioned. They that are intoxicated by self-conceit have interposed themselves between it and the Divine and infallible Physician. Witness how they have entangled all men, themselves included, in the mesh of their devices. They can neither discover the cause of the disease, nor have they any knowledge of the remedy. They have conceived the straight to be crooked, and have imagined their friend an enemy.
Incline your ears to the sweet melody of this Prisoner. Arise, and lift up your voices, that haply they that are fast asleep may be awakened. Say: O ye who are as dead! The Hand of Divine bounty proffereth unto you the Water of Life. Hasten and drink your fill. Whoso hath been re-born in this Day, shall never die; whoso remaineth dead, shall never live.”
(Gleanings, pg: 213)

Heres the problem nick, I could accept the idea that God changes certain rules in each generation, after all we as Christians do not live under the old covenant but rather the new covenant, but that’s simply not how it can be in bahai. It isn’t a mere change in practice between these religions if we look at the history, it is total redefinition of doctrine and contradiction on the most important things. Till bahai can tell us why we Christians should accept Muhammad who denied Jesus as God which the new testament and the church has told us so very clearly since the beginning, I don’t think I have to take this claim too seriously because bahai don’t take it too seriously. Merely thinking on it shows it is impossible.

 

[SteveVH]

Yes, but a dog was created to herd the sheep together, it had a specific use at a specific time. The horse was created to enable the farmer to move large distances to inspect the farm. Hey!! They also have 4 legs each and you know what? They both were created by the One God. The fact that the One God created both of them to assist the advancement of the FARM, then they are both from God, which is the truth.

Why don’t we look at other animals that may be able to assist the farm to progress. There was once an animal called a cow. It too had 4 legs. WOWEEEEE!!
It was used to pull the plough so the soil may be turned.
Today we have a farm that has all these different animals living on it wondering what’s next on the agenda.
The Minister for Agriculture has just arrived and organised the farm to unite together so that it can fulfil that for which it was purposed and created

Meanwhile the dogs refuse to listen to the new owner of the land and continue to look for new sheep to herd, since this is their tradition and they just cannot let it go. They don’t believe in the value of horses, or cows, because although they have 4 legs, they just speak a different language, and thats too big a contradiction…

I am without words.

We’ve already addressed this Steve. There are many verses in the Quran which refer to the martyrs of Islam not really dying either.

Are you saying that the martyrs of Islam were also a con game?

If they didn’t really die then they are not really martyrs, are they? If they were not really martyrs but presented to the world as martyrs then yes, it is a con game.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Actually, we don’t deny it at all:

And now, concerning His words [in the Qur’an]: “And He shall send His angels…” By “angels” is meant those who, reinforced by the power of the spirit, have consumed, with the fire of the love of God, all human traits and limitations, and have clothed themselves with the attributes of the most exalted Beings and of the Cherubim… And now, inasmuch as these holy beings have sanctified themselves from every human limitation, have become endowed with the attributes of the spiritual, and have been adorned with the noble traits of the blessed, they therefore have been designated as “angels.”

(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 78)

Hence you reject the existence of angels. Unlike in bahai in the bible angels are real, they are personal and think and act and do God’s will. I believe the angel came to mary and explained things to her and I believe the angel came to Joseph and explained things to him. I believe Jesus could have called fourth an army of angels from heaven to destroy the roman empire should he have so desired it. I believe Satan works every day to make us fall from God’s grace. But thats not my main point. My main point was, that central to the epistle of the hebrews is the unique salvation found in Jesus the Christ. He is the high priest of the order of Melchizedech to whom God says “thy throne o God is forever,” whom has descended in order to make the once and for all sacrifice required for the forgiveness of sins. he was the only one without sin, everyone else has sinned and fallen short. Each of your manifestations besides Christ sinned and it won’t help you to simply ignore their sin.

 

[SteveVH]

Dear Robyn, it depends on what the definition of the universe is. Creation is a process, and eternity is a timeline. The creative process with the universe may have occured at a specific point in time, yet the existence of a universe may well have been there since the time that had no beginning.

You have the false impression that eternity is just a long, long time. Eternity is outside of and beyond time, for even time is a creation. God lives in eternity not in time. All of history unfolds at once before his eyes. So God existed before there was even time.

 

[Nick44]

Heres the problem nick, I could accept the idea that God changes certain rules in each generation, after all we as Christians do not live under the old covenant but rather the new covenant, but that’s simply not how it can be in bahai. It isn’t a mere change in practice between these religions if we look at the history, it is total redefinition of doctrine and contradiction on the most important things. Till bahai can tell us why we Christians should accept Muhammad who denied Jesus as God which the new testament and the church has told us so very clearly since the beginning, I don’t think I have to take this claim too seriously because bahai don’t take it too seriously. Merely thinking on it shows it is impossible.

I agree that the ‘contradictions’ can appear to be unresolvable unless one accepts the explanations of the latest Manifestation (Baha’u’llah) who, in a sense, unties the knot. The lamps are many but the light is one. We acknowledge the lamps appear different but we believe that the same Light of God shines in each.

We have history as a guide. Had the Jews in the time of Christ asked Jesus to resolve the problems of the OT that they couldn’t reconcile, He would have patiently explained their true inner meanings and their fulfillment in Him. Sadly, they were set in their understanding and totally deprived themselves of the Beauty of Jesus.

Most of us here were not born to Baha’i parents. We have previously been all manner of religions, and some no religion at all, and we each undertook an ‘independent investigation’ to accept or reject Baha’i beliefs. It is not a snap decision or one undertaken lightly. In the final analysis, we are each responsible for our own spiritual journey as we came in alone and will leave the same way.

We know what the Bible ‘says’, but we accept Baha’u’llah’s explanations of what the true inner meaning of the outward literal expression, is.

May you be the very best Catholic that you can.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I agree that the ‘contradictions’ can appear to be unresolvable unless one accepts the explanations of the latest Manifestation (Baha’u’llah) who, in a sense, unties the knot. The lamps are many but the light is one. We acknowledge the lamps appear different but we believe that the same Light of God shines in each.

We have history as a guide. Had the Jews in the time of Christ asked Jesus to resolve the problems of the OT that they couldn’t reconcile, He would have patiently explained their true inner meanings and their fulfillment in Him. Sadly, they were set in their understanding and totally deprived themselves of the Beauty of Jesus.

Most of us here were not born to Baha’i parents. We have previously been all manner of religions, and some no religion at all, and we each undertook an ‘independent investigation’ to accept or reject Baha’i beliefs. It is not a snap decision or one undertaken lightly. In the final analysis, we are each responsible for our own spiritual journey as we came in alone and will leave the same way.

We know what the Bible ‘says’, but we accept Baha’u’llah’s explanations of what the true inner meaning of the outward literal expression, is.

May you be the very best Catholic that you can.

While I consider myself Catholic I should clarify I am not in communion wtih rome. Mere comparison to the jews (as if we could not do this to the bahai) doesn’t resolve the problem. I have brought this up time and again and have been ignored, the early church, the apostles and their successors taught things contrary to bahai. That Jesus is the creator of the entire universe, the cause of everything that began to exist, such a radically high christology is found in the gospel of John’s very first chapter. But muslims and bahais neccessarily deny this; muslims because God is the creator and bahai because they believe the universe is eternal (which means God could not be the creator of heaven and earth). These don’t merely appear to be contradictions, they are contradictions.

I also want to add something about Mirza Hussain’s explanations over and against the Christian explanations. Is that he was a 19th century persian born and bred in a place where islam was dominant and under the influence of the so called bab. He had his reasons for interpreting the bible the way he did, but we must ask ourselves first and foremost what did the authors of the new testament intend? What was luke setting out to do? I think he tells us in his introduction, to tell us the basic life of Jesus Christ, not set down a semi mystical text in which half or nearly all its contents is non literal, shifting in and out between a literal narrative and a mystical or non literal narrative without explanation or reason.

There were writings like that and certaintly if luke wanted to record dreams of the apostles he knew how to, as we see in acts he describes Peter going into a trance and describes his dream of God telling him to eat the pig, symbollic for the acceptance of gentiles in the church. But bahai would have us believe that Luke couldn’t have mentioned at the begining of chapter 28 (we should be reminded there were no chapters when luke wrote his gospel) that the apostles had entered a trance. Such interpretations are not done in any consideration of history or asking how luke was writing his Gospel and acts, it is an interpretation solely based on how your prophet personally understood these texts and how he tried to reconicle them with his theology. Interpretations of this nature shouldn’t be taken seriously and we should first and foremost try to understand these texts from the time they were written in. I in particular am learning about this still and also learn from the fathers of the church whom I believe were in that same church Luke was in and wrote too.

So whose explanation is stronger? The one that tries to take into account the context of the time and those immediately following? Or a rather detached reading of the bible from a 19th century persian with no specific knowledge in the history of the bible or times, languages and places and conventions of writing? I think the answer should be obvious.

 

[Nick44]

While I consider myself Catholic I should clarify I am not in communion wtih rome. Mere comparison to the jews (as if we could not do this to the bahai) doesn’t resolve the problem. I have brought this up time and again and have been ignored, the early church, the apostles and their successors taught things contrary to bahai. That Jesus is the creator of the entire universe, the cause of everything that began to exist, such a radically high christology is found in the gospel of John’s very first chapter. But muslims and bahais neccessarily deny this; muslims because God is the creator and bahai because they believe the universe is eternal (which means God could not be the creator of heaven and earth). These don’t merely appear to be contradictions, they are contradictions.

As you wish. They are not contradictions to me. A great deal of the NT concerns the return of Christ, in the Glory of the Father, to bring about the ‘one fold and one shepherd’ and peace on Earth. ALL religions, in their scriptures, have variations on the same theme.

We believe that that figure promised by all religions has appeared, that the promises are over, and the age of fulfillment has begun. Heavy stuff along with a great responsibility on each individual, of whatever religion, to investigate.

 

[Nick44]

You have the false impression that eternity is just a long, long time. Eternity is outside of and beyond time, for even time is a creation. God lives in eternity not in time. All of history unfolds at once before his eyes. So God existed before there was even time.

So true. Eternity is God’s creation. Baha’u’llah says in the Hidden Words (#64):

O SON OF MAN! My eternity is My creation, I have created it for thee. Make it the garment of thy temple. My unity 19 is My handiwork; I have wrought it for thee; clothe thyself therewith, that thou mayest be to all eternity the revelation of My everlasting being.

 

[SteveVH]

So true. Eternity is God’s creation. Baha’u’llah says in the Hidden Words (#64):

O SON OF MAN! My eternity is My creation, I have created it for thee. Make it the garment of thy temple. My unity 19 is My handiwork; I have wrought it for thee; clothe thyself therewith, that thou mayest be to all eternity the revelation of My everlasting being.

Then how do the Baha’i believe that creation is eternal?