Baha'i V

[NoWings]

Dear Nowings, this kind of discussion is really getting us off track.

Translation: I have nothing to offer in rebuttal or defense of my beliefs, so I’d rather change the subject.

Gotcha.

By the by, for anyone interested, Wikipedia has an entire article devoted to divisions within the Baha’i faith:

Baha’i Divisions

 

[Red_Sox_1]

Translation: I have nothing to offer in rebuttal or defense of my beliefs, so I’d rather change the subject.

Gotcha.

By the by, for anyone interested, Wikipedia has an entire article devoted to divisions within the Baha’i faith:

Baha’i Divisions

It is clear from Baha’u’llah’s cries and despair and complaints that the people turned aside from Him notwithstanding His sovereignty.

 

[Servant19]

Translation: I have nothing to offer in rebuttal or defense of my beliefs, so I’d rather change the subject.

Gotcha.

By the by, for anyone interested, Wikipedia has an entire article devoted to divisions within the Baha’i faith:

Baha’i Divisions

Nope that’s not what it means at all. You want to discuss it, but the current area if conversation is on a different topic, plus we are delving quite deeply into it…

You can study these two links and go ahead and start a thread on the Bahai Covenant and we will be happy to answe any questions:

youtu.be/U9qt7xtcUcg

youtu.be/bPN22L-LphY

 

[fnr]

I guess my biggest problem with the Bahai faith is the doctrine of progressive revelation. Since it includes both Muhammad and Jesus, the concerns I have with Islam pertain to Bahai, it would seem that Bahai faces the same concerns.

I do not believe that Muhammad was introducing a new religion, but trying to bring the Hijaz to dyophysite/Nestorian Christianity. All of the extant biographical information we have for Muhammad dates to at least 200 years after the Hijra, and hadith have not been shown to be historically reliable. I believe the Quran is a pastiche assembled under scholars working for Uthman, based on some sayings of Muhammad, the compiled midrash of Rabbinical Judaism, (possibly) pre-Islamic Arabian poetry, and Christian scripture, liturgy, and apocrypha that were popular in folktales of the region. The Quran’s many references to Mary and Jesus, to me, probably reflect the widespread popularity of Marian devotion among the Christians of the lands conquered by in the 630s and 640s, plus the dyophysite/Nestorian emphasis on preventing a mixing of Jesus’ divine and human natures – which emphasized his human birth through Marian stories.

I think the Quran is a work of genius, both literary, philosophical, and linguistic (involving the invention of classical Arabic script) – but it is not divine revelation. It is doctrine meant to secure the exclusive claims of the Rashidun caliphate to legitimacy – which the events leading up to the First Fitna demonstrate as shaky. In that regard, it’s more like Virgil’s Aeneid, which was written to provide historical and moral legitimacy to the imperial reign of Augustus Caesar.

Christianity faces its own documentary challenges, largely as a result of the Gospels being written as works of theology and/or midrash, with references to historical traditions and now-lost documents (e.g., the Q gospel). However, it is impossible to make the claim that the earliest Christian history is the deliberate product of a single editorial process. If anything, Islam and Christianity face opposite problems: Islam claims to be unified and homogeneous from the time of Muhammad onward, a claim assisted by Uthman’s burning all extant documents on which his compilation was based. Christianity’s earliest documents show a far from homogeneous theological mix. For example, there are christological statements in the Bible that even modern Christians reject (e.g., Romans 1:4 appears to be part of a pre-Pauline creed that Paul cites that say that God adopted Jesus as his son through the resurrection).

It seems to me that the Bab’s teachings, and hence that of Baha’u’llah, are based on the Bab claiming to be the Mahdi. That’s a title borne of Muslim end-times prophecy, so hence my problem…

 

[Red_Sox_1]

I guess my biggest problem with the Bahai faith is the doctrine of progressive revelation.

I don’t have as “literal” an understanding of “Progressive Revelation” as you seem to have. As a result, I don’t see a problem with the historical narrative of the physical development of the Qur’an and the New Testament that you presented. I consider the Quran and New Testament to be spiritual books far surpassing the physical literal historical process of their development.

Islam claims to be unified and homogeneous from the time of Muhammad onward, a claim assisted by Uthman’s burning all extant documents on which his compilation was based. Christianity’s earliest documents show a far from homogeneous theological mix.

Yes I see what you mean from an historical perspective, but I don’t see why you consider this a problem. Can you elaborate how this is a problem for my spiritual, rather than literal, understanding of the concept of “Progressive Revelation”. For me, it even goes further than simply the New Testament and the Qur’an, as there are texts from Zoroastrian faith and some Eastern faiths that are incorporated in Baha’u’llah’s discussion of “Progressive Revelation” in the newly translated “RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS OF MÁNIKCHÍ SÁHIB FROM A TABLET TO MÍRZÁ ABU’L-FADL”.

 

[Red_Sox_1]

It seems to me that the Bab’s teachings, and hence that of Baha’u’llah, are based on the Bab claiming to be the Mahdi. That’s a title borne of Muslim end-times prophecy, so hence my problem…

No, Baha’u’llah’s end-time claims span the entire range of Semitic, Iranic, and Eastern religions, not just confined to Islam. This is why the Baha’i Faith has been considered a “Meta-Religion” by some scholars and as a religion of “Cycle of Fulfillment”* in Shoghi Effendi’s writings, rather than a simple religion that comes “next” in a line progressive revelation as conceived by Islamic thought (i.e. Noah, Salih, Hud, Abraham, Moses, John, Jesus, then Muhammad).

(*Note: All the founders of all religions since the time of Adam are said to be part of the “Cycle of Prophecy”. The Bab is said to be the “Gate” between the Cycle of Prophecy and the Cycle of Fulfillment. Baha’u’llah is said to be the Supreme Manifestation of the Cycle of Fulfillment.)

 

[arthra]

Progressive Revelation:

To me progressive revelation spans all the dispensations…and represents meeting the challenges of the age… Issues that humanity has faced that are most cogent for the time…

So we have the same spiritual message but usually new social teachings… If you take the Bible as a whole you could find progressive revelation from Abraham to Moses to Jesus Christ… God progressively revealing Himself and teachings that are most cogent for their times.

Baha’is broaden this concept to include the dispensations and Revelators of the past ages.

See:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_revelation_%28Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD%29

…

Divisions:

Every Baha’i is aware of some of the challenges the Faith has faced in the past… enumerated above in nowing’s post. We’re aware of these issues. None of them have succeeded in dividing the Baha’is to any significant degree . Some are of historical interest.

Christianity has certainly had divisions and continues to have them. Islam is fractured certainly between Shiah and Sunni but they still share things in common such as the Qur’an and pilgrimage…

We don’t have various denominations of Baha’is. There are some groups that splintered off over time but their impact has not been very significant…

 

[eddie_too]

i can discern no sound reason for believing that bahaullah had any more special relationship with my Creator than that of every other human being.

bahaullah’s writings are quite voluminous. they are full of metaphor. they do not self-interpret. in my opinion, they are far less examples of literary genuis than are the writings of shakespeare. often, they appear to be based upon an erroneous understanding of christian scripture and christian teaching.

it is blatantly obvious that the bahai religion is based on the premise that the Roman Catholic authors of the New Testament had no idea what their writings meant.

this very premise is absurd to the nth degree.

why do i say this? because, the RC authors were quite definitive that the physical body of Jesus was raised from the dead, that the sepulcher was empty, that Jesus ate real food with His disciples, that His disciples touched His physical body, that His physical body was glorified and thus had changed from a mortal body to an immortal body.

this is what the RC authors of the New Testament wrote. this is what the early christian community believed prior to the writing of the New Testament. this is what the early christian community believed after the writing of the New Testament. this what the christian community believed for the past two millenium.

of course, anyone can come along and give whatever meaning they like to the words of the New Testament. however, if that meaning is unrelated to the meaning the authors of the New Testament intended, it is empty and worthless.

bahaullah employs the same tricky deceit that joseph smith practiced when he dictated the book of mormon. bahaullah’s motivation for deceiving was also similar to joseph smith’s in that he, like joseph smith, received worldly rewards as a result of deceiving people.

 

[eddie_too]

the very fact that the bahai reject the physical resurrection of Christ’s physical body is ample proof that what bahaullah had to offer mankind does not originate with almighty God, our Creator.

to believe what bahaullah taught, a person must accept that the RC authors of the New Testament wrote lies. a person must belief that the people who ate with and touched the resurrected Christ were lying when they testified to those encounters. a person must believe that these lies were put there to deceive.

if all of that were true, then the effect of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ was a gigantic fraud perpetrated by Jesus and His apostles.

if that were true, then it is totally absurd to accept that bahaullah built upon a fraudulent foundation and still provided divine guidance to us.

think about it. all that we know of Jesus Christ is wrong. those who gave us the information were participating in gigantic fraud. bahaullah justifies his own pre-eminence by relying on that fraud.

my advice is that everyone open their eyes and minds to the irrational and illogical conclusions that are the foundation of all religions except the RCC since the first Pentecost Sunday.

 

[Red_Sox_1]

to believe what bahaullah taught, a person must accept that the RC authors of the New Testament wrote lies. a person must belief that the people who ate with and touched the resurrected Christ were lying when they testified to those encounters. a person must believe that these lies were put there to deceive.

if all of that were true, then the effect of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ was a gigantic fraud perpetrated by Jesus and His apostles.

if that were true, then it is totally absurd to accept that bahaullah built upon a fraudulent foundation and still provided divine guidance to us.

think about it. all that we know of Jesus Christ is wrong. those who gave us the information were participating in gigantic fraud. bahaullah justifies his own pre-eminence by relying on that fraud.

Dear Eddie, you make a strong point here. I will consider your words. But you too should please consider, although you are focused on the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ, Baha’u’llah never comes out saying something like “everything you know of Jesus Christ is wrong”, neither does Baha’u’llah come out saying “Jesus Christ did not resurrect physically”. To the contrary, Baha’u’llah seems to confirm Jesus Christ and uses much powerful imagery to convey this message.

This is a point I am trying very hard to convey, but unfortunately you are continuously inundated with the Interpretations of the Master Abdu’l-Baha, who had His own reasons and a wider scope of wisdom than I, this servant of yours, does. For this reason, I am attempting to focus us on the Words of Baha’u’llah Himself. Then, ONLY AFTER, the Words of Baha’u’llah have sparked a creation of a New Man (Badi’) is man capable of comprehending the Divine Wisdom in the Interpretations of Abdu’l-Baha !!

Now please SHOW ME where Baha’u’llah says that JESUS CHRIST did NOT resurrect from the DEAD.

To the contrary, Baha’u’llah says:

Jesus Said:
"The kingdom of God circleth around Him and it is because of His Love that I adorned the cross with my body. Verily, I rose from the dead to complete my mention of His Name amongst men. "

 

[eddie_too]

red sox,

i understand your point. in response, i point to the fact that the universal house of justice (the bahai’s elected body with final say on what the bahai teach) have reiterated that the New Testament authors got it wrong.

i can see why you try to use only the writings of bahaullah in your apologetics, but that is not how the bahai religion teaches.

we have many christians through the last millenium that have used your technique to develop the doctrine of “sola scriptura” (meaning that only the bible can provide christian truth). such a doctrine has led to the fragmentation of christianity in to over, reportedly, 38,000 separate protestant christian sects. this occurs because the written word is, virtually always, subject to as many interpretations as there are people who read it.

while private interpretations are not always erroneous or need to be avoided, they are not the foundation for a comprehensive and objective understanding of the sacred scriptures.

in other words, private interpretations can provide grace to the people who have them, but they are necessarily not required to be believed of all, nor do they necessarily contain truths that benefit all.

 

[Red_Sox_1]

red sox,

i understand your point. in response, i point to the fact that the universal house of justice (the bahai’s elected body with final say on what the bahai teach) have reiterated that the New Testament authors got it wrong.

i can see why you try to use only the writings of bahaullah in your apologetics, but that is not how the bahai religion teaches.

we have many christians through the last millenium that have used your technique to develop the doctrine of “sola scriptura” (meaning that only the bible can provide christian truth). such a doctrine has led to the fragmentation of christianity in to over, reportedly, 38,000 separate protestant christian sects. this occurs because the written word is, virtually always, subject to as many interpretations as there are people who read it.

while private interpretations are not always erroneous or need to be avoided, they are not the foundation for a comprehensive and objective understanding of the sacred scriptures.

in other words, private interpretations can provide grace to the people who have them, but they are necessarily not required to be believed of all, nor do they necessarily contain truths that benefit all.

Dearest Eddie!

This is beautiful. We are on the same page.

 

[Red_Sox_1]

i can see why you try to use only the writings of bahaullah in your apologetics, but that is not how the bahai religion teaches.

Dear Brilliant and Smart Eddie,

You do not use punctuations and capital letters in your writings, but I can see beyond that to the brightness and the brilliance of your mind!

Is this really how the Baha’i faith teach. Do Baha’is really simply pull quotes from the writings without considering the context they were written in, without considering who the original Tablets or Letters were written to, as if the meaning that Baha’is derive from those words should convey the same exact message that is equally applicable to anyone else that reads it? I really do not think this is how Abdu’l-Baha behaved.

To the Atheist congregations, He made it a point to demonstrate the Truth of God’s existence, while validating the truth of the scientific method.

To the Jews, He conveyed the Message of Jesus, while validating the universal scope of Moses.

To the Christians, He presented the Truth of Muhammad, while confirming the Salvific nature of Jesus’s sacrifice.

And to the Muslims, He focused on the appearance of the Bab, while affirming the Divinity of the Qur’an.

 

[eddie_too]

red sox,

maybe bahaullah was trying to reconcile all of the various world faith traditions. however, the fruits of his efforts have been diminished by the ones who followed him.

i have read where the universal house of justice teaches that Jesus’ resurrection was not physical, that the tomb was not empty, that the disiciples did not eat with or touch Jesus.

even if bahaullah never stated that the resurrection was not physical, the denial of the physical resurrection is now a doctrine preached by his followers.

there is no doubt, at least in my mind, that all religions have elements that are consistent with the glory of almighty God.

however, such a reality does not make all religions divinely revealed (in the sense that divinely revealed goes beyond every man’s intellect and will that can naturally identify and acknowledge God’s existence and His goodness).

these elements of the world’s religions that conincide with the glory and nature of God are natural results of being a human being. they do not require divine revelation to be acquired or recognized.

on the other hand, both the jewish faith and the christian faith believe in the direct intervention of God in a supernatural manner in to the history of mankind.

bahaullah’s writings indicate to me that they are derived naturally from bahaullah’s life experiences, his knowledge of other faith traditions and his profound desire to understand and know his Creator. bahaullah’s analysis of all of these factors led him to conclude that a Good God would not will that His creatures be divided amongst themselves. i accept that as true. however, i do not see this as anything unique or new brought to us by bahaullah. i believe this truth can be arrived at naturally. this desire to know and understand our Creator is present in every human being. we were created with this desire. bahaullah’s and many others may have encouraged and explored this desire to a far larger extent than most people, but it remained and remains a natural phenomena, not a supernatural phenomena.

 

[Red_Sox_1]

even if bahaullah never stated that the resurrection was not physical, the denial of the physical resurrection is now a doctrine preached by his followers.

Hi Eddie, You made a number of points I wanted to respond to, but as my time is running short I have to be brief and will only focus on one of your sentences.

The insistence that you feel is preached by the followers of the Baha’i Faith, I believe, does not stem from the resurrection of Jesus. What I mean is that when Baha’is say that Jesus did not resurrect physically, they are not basing this belief on the person or the resurrection story. In fact, it is the opposite case if you think about it. (Yes please take a deep breath and see if you can understand what I am saying). Baha’is are insisting that the New Testament gospel is **correct **not false.

The insistence that you hear from Baha’is has **nothing **to do with resurrection, but has everything to do with the Baha’i view of reality, physical reality, and spiritual reality.

The Baha’i idea that you hear is that physical reality itself in not real, but is only a shadow of real reality which is said to be spiritual.

 

[eddie_too]

red sox,

physical reality is very real to me. when i have surgery, even a tooth extraction, the pain that accompanies it is very real and i must take very real actions to counter it.

on the other hand, if by real, you really mean never ending, then who could argue since everyone dies.

but that is not what i mean by real. i do not mean never coming to an end when i say this world is real. yes, the human soul is immortal (never goes out of existence). the message of christianity is that the human body will be resurrected in a glorified state (a state we do not now fully comprehend) and will never go out of existence.

for the christian, human beings are body and soul, and to be fully human is to have both a body and a soul. therefore, after our deaths in this world, if we are to be fully human, our souls must be united with our bodies.

it sounds as though you are saying that the bahai accept that the sepulcher was empty, that Jesus was touched by His followers after the tomb was found to be empty, that Jesus did eat food after His resurrection, but that such truths are not relevant to the story.

for me, and for another billion + catholics, the most relevant part of salvation history is that Jesus overcame this world’s death. through His resurrection, Jesus proves that death in this world is not the end of the individual’s body or soul.

when i use the word real, i intend it to mean that it is an event or action that is not imaginary. a flying purple people eater is imaginary; the suffering of people in this life is not imaginary. the suffering is real.

 

[Red_Sox_1]

for the christian, human beings are body and soul, and to be fully human is to have both a body and a soul. therefore, after our deaths in this world, if we are to be fully human, our souls must be united with our bodies.

Then this seems to be core of the difference. Baha’u’llah insisted on the Resurrection of Christ.

However, Baha’u’llah taught that man is fully man when he separates from the body. This is the opposite of what you seem to be saying. Baha’u’llah taught that the Body is the source of human sin and error, and when the soul separates from the body, man is able to live free of sin and error.

 

[eddie_too]

red sox,

maybe i can be more succinct. for the christian, the life of the spirit and the physical life of this world are two aspects of one and the same reality. neither one is more real than the other. both are integral and essential parts of being a human creature. you cannot have one without the other.

 

[Red_Sox_1]

red sox,

maybe i can be more succinct. for the christian, the life of the spirit and the physical life of this world are two aspects of one and the same reality. neither one is more real than the other. both are integral and essential parts of being a human creature. you cannot have one without the other.

Yes I see. Baha’u’llah, to the contrary, I believe, taught that the physical is only temporary, and that we should try our hardest to ignore and minimize the importance of our physical bodies, that soon it will end for each one of us. But Baha’u’llah made it a law for humans to interaction with nature and with the physical world to make this temporary place a better place and to establish Heavenly qualities on the physical earth.

 

[eddie_too]

red sox,

why does it seem irrational for the bahai to declare this world illusory and then simultaneously turn around and place most of the emphasis of its teachings on the desire and need to transform this illusion?