Believing in the True Jesus vs Baha'u'llah

[Nick44]

Would discrete adultery be something that would be tolerated?

That is, is it also your paradigm that as long as no one is hurt it’s permissible? If someone is discretely cheating on his wife, as long as no one knows, is it ok by your standards?

If you’re interested in the answer to your question, follow the link. It’s too long to post.

holy-writings.com/?a=SHOWTEXT&d=%2F%2Fen%2FBahai+Faith%2F1±+Primary+Sources%2FUniversal+House+of+Justice%2FLetters%2F12-9-91+Baha%27i+Laws.html

 

[Servant19]

Man is made in the image of God. All of creation reflects something of God, as a painting reflects something of the painter. But God breathed on man and made us different from every other creature. Only we are made in his image and likeness.

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

• Genesis1:26-27)

To which I say

You explained it very well

.

No, Servant, pantheism would be if one believed creation and God were one and the same. We believe only God is divine and uncreated; all else is created, including Muhammad and Baha’u’llah. Why would you believe that an omnipotent God could not “come into creation”? What could possibly stop him if that was his will? He did, in fact, come into creation.

Fair enough, I appreciate that clarification of pantheism.

However, how is a changeless God appearing in a physical body. Is God a changeless Spirit or not?

Jesus is “… the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.” (Hebrews 1:3)

Where your argument fails is that Jesus was not created. God assumed flesh while giving up none of his divinity. Neither Moses, nor Muhammad nor Baha’u’llah are divine. Jesus is. That is why he is different and why he and only he is the final and full revelation of God to mankind and why we have no need for another.

Dear Steve, this finality of revelation is simply not a reflection of reality. What is your response to the following emphatic statement in the Talmud?

"Since the death of the last prophets, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachai, the Holy Spirit departed from Israel."

 

[Servant19]

Man is made in the image of God. All of creation reflects something of God, as a painting reflects something of the painter. But God breathed on man and made us different from every other creature. Only we are made in his image and likeness.

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

• Genesis1:26-27)

To which I say

You explained it very well

.

No, Servant, pantheism would be if one believed creation and God were one and the same. We believe only God is divine and uncreated; all else is created, including Muhammad and Baha’u’llah. Why would you believe that an omnipotent God could not “come into creation”? What could possibly stop him if that was his will? He did, in fact, come into creation.

Fair enough, I appreciate that clarification of pantheism.

However, how is a changeless God appearing in a physical body. Is God a changeless Spirit or not?

Jesus is “… the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.” (Hebrews 1:3)

Where your argument fails is that Jesus was not created. God assumed flesh while giving up none of his divinity. Neither Moses, nor Muhammad nor Baha’u’llah are divine. Jesus is. That is why he is different and why he and only he is the final and full revelation of God to mankind and why we have no need for another.

Dear Steve, this finality of revelation is simply not a reflection of reality. What is your response to the following emphatic statement in the Talmud?

"Since the death of the last prophets, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachai, the Holy Spirit departed from Israel."

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

God assumed flesh while giving up none of his divinity.

Then how on Earth could He be “fully man?” To be human is to experience limitations, while to be God is to be free from any limitation, correct?

 

[PRmerger]

Then how on Earth could He be “fully man?” To be human is to experience limitations, while to be God is to be free from any limitation, correct?

And as a human Christ did experience limitations.

Although not always–recall that He did walk on water. He did, after all, rise from the dead.

 

[SteveVH]

Fair enough, I appreciate that clarification of pantheism.

However, how is a changeless God appearing in a physical body. Is God a changeless Spirit or not?

Being changeless does not translate into being limited. Jesus’ divinity never changed. He remained the same divine Being that he was from eternity. He remained fully God while humbling himself to become fully man. A mystery, to be sure, but a divinely revealed truth which we must believe regardless of our ability to grasp.

Dear Steve, this finality of revelation is simply not a reflection of reality. What is your response to the following emphatic statement in the Talmud?

"Since the death of the last prophets, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachai, the Holy Spirit departed from Israel."

Do you consider the Talmud to be Scripture? Yes, the Holy Spirit may very well have departed, for a time. Obviously the Holy Spirit came again and descended upon Jesus at his Baptism. Not sure I see your point.

 

[SteveVH]

Then how on Earth could He be “fully man?” To be human is to experience limitations, while to be God is to be free from any limitation, correct?

As PR has pointed out, Jesus did have to undergo the limitations of his humanity. He had to grow in knowledge just as every other human did. But, as PR also pointed out, he could walk on water, command the winds and the sea, raise people from the dead, make the blind see, heal the crippled, make a fig tree wilt immediately, and ultimately, raise himself from the dead. The mystery of the incarnation.

You are correct that God is free from any limitation, including becoming a true human being.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

As PR has pointed out, Jesus did have to undergo the limitations of his humanity. He had to grow in knowledge just as every other human did. But, as PR also pointed out, he could walk on water, command the winds and the sea, raise people from the dead, make the blind see, heal the crippled, make a fig tree wilt immediately, and ultimately, raise himself from the dead. The mystery of the incarnation.

I wouldn’t know what PR pointed out, as this individual is on my ignore list. The powers you mention Christ having aren’t those of any human being I know.

You are correct that God is free from any limitation, including becoming a true human being.

By your own admission, the powers He held were beyond those of a true human being. You can’t raise the dead and still consider yourself one of the guys. No appeals to “mystery” will do.

 

[PRmerger]

The powers you mention Christ having aren’t those of any human being I know.

And those powers are part of the reason we know He was God.

By your own admission, the powers He held were beyond those of a true human being. You can’t raise the dead and still consider yourself one of the guys. No appeals to “mystery” will do.

Right. He was God, clearly. God Incarnate. No mere human person could have rise from the dead of His own power.

QED.

 

[SteveVH]

I wouldn’t know what PR pointed out, as this individual is on my ignore list. The powers you mention Christ having aren’t those of any human being I know.

You should take her off of your ignore list. You could learn a lot from her.

In any case yes, you are absolutely correct. These are not powers of any human being anyone knows. Jesus was fully human and fully divine and he showed forth his divine powers so that we might believe that he is truly the Son of God. Do you think that all of the miracles Jesus performed that are recorded in the New Testament are just window dressing? They are recorded for a reason. Jesus was different than any other man before or since. He was God the Almighty in the flesh.

By your own admission, the powers He held were beyond those of a true human being. You can’t raise the dead and still consider yourself one of the guys. No appeals to “mystery” will do.

Correct, Jesus was much more than “one of the guys”. That is what separates him from mere humans such as Moses, Muhammad or Baha’u’llah. He was God in the flesh, God among us, and as such, is the final revelation of God to mankind. Who can trump God himself?

Peace.

Steve

 

[PRmerger]

You should take her off of your ignore list. You could learn a lot from her.

Awww…you’re so sweet, Brother! :flowers:

I think it’s a great shame when people attack the person when they cannot attack the argument.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

You should take her off of your ignore list. You could learn a lot from her.

Doubt it.

In any case yes, you are absolutely correct. These are not powers of any human being anyone knows. Jesus was fully human and fully divine and he showed forth his divine powers so that we might believe that he is truly the Son of God. Do you think that all of the miracles Jesus performed that are recorded in the New Testament are just window dressing? They are recorded for a reason. Jesus was different than any other man before or since. He was God the Almighty in the flesh.

If He really was God almighty in the flesh, He was no true human being. You can not be infinite and finite at the same time.

Correct, Jesus was much more than “one of the guys”. That is what separates him from mere humans such as Moses, Muhammad or Baha’u’llah. He was God in the flesh, God among us, and as such, is the final revelation of God to mankind. Who can trump God himself?

Peace.

Steve

If He was God in the flesh, He was no man at all. None. You can’t have it both ways. Regardless, it is not about “trumping” someone. All the Manifestations of God are equal.

 

[peace_at_last]

You don’t know how that law will eventually be implemented and neither do I. Baha’is believe that Baha’u’llah has revealed God’s Will for this new age of fulfillment, and that everything is working as planned to that end.

So, relax, no one here is asking you to accept our doctrines and explanations, or to change your beliefs, and what Baha’is believe is not in the least threatening to you,

Strange that you apparently recoil in horror over an arsonist possibly being punished by being burned, but have apparently no problem believing Qur’anic verses (literally) that God will send untold billions to burn for eternity.

The punishment for arson is clear: for some death by burning for others life imprisonment. How it is implemented is not important, because the arsonist will be burnt to death one way or another.

I don’t remember recoiling in horror at this law. If you had paid attention, to my previous post you would have seen this:

Harsh punishments in Islam cannot be used to justify harsh punishments in Baha’ism becasue Baha’u’llah claims he has removed brutal dispositions and has replaced them with spiritual ones:
“The unbelievers and the faithless have set their minds on four things: first, the shedding of blood; second, the burning of books; third, the shunning of the followers of other religions; fourth, the extermination of other communities and groups. Now however, through the strengthening grace and potency of the Word of God these four barriers have been demolished, these clear injunctions have been obliterated from the Tablet and brutal dispositions have been transmuted into spiritual attributes.” Tablets of Baha’u’llah Revealed After the Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 91

That is the problem with your laws: your leader claims to have obliterated brutal dispositions and transmuted them into spiritual attributes, but at the same time orders his followers to punish arsonists with the most painful death imaginable.

 

[PRmerger]

That is the problem with your laws: your leader claims to have obliterated brutal dispositions and transmuted them into spiritual attributes, but at the same time orders his followers to punish arsonists with the most painful death imaginable.

It does indeed appear to be a problem. And a very big one.

 

[peace_at_last]

Again dear friend, I remind you, this is an abolition of shunning between the “children of men”. There is not one Bahai who shuns another by his/her own volition. It is Baha’u’llah, who is not considered one of the “children of men” who provides the directive and Bahais obey.

The gravity of going against the Holy Spirit is severe. If a man was to murder a hundred thousand Bahais, he is to be received with love, as was demonstrated in France by Abdu’l-Baha when he was met with such a person. Bahais will do likewise, but if God (not the children of men, but God) says shun those that commit crimes against the Holy Spirit, then Bahais, just like Christians and Muslims, obey.

It’s really not too hard to understand. Its a simple difference between me deciding to shun, and God deciding to shun.

The word “whatsoever” which you seem to be emphasising is a reference to whatsoever between one child of men and another child of men, not between the children of men and God.
.

Children of men can shun each other either because of their own volition or based on religious orders. Baha’u’llah says he has abolished WHATSOEVER is the cause for shunning. WHATSOEVER encompasses both religious orders and own volition. By claiming he only meant shunning based on ‘own volition,’ you are taking Baha’u’llah’s words out of context, interpreting them incorrectly, and limiting them to your own wishful desires.

 

[tonyfish58]

It does indeed appear to be a problem. And a very big one.

Dear PRmerger. The only problem with this is the issue of finding fault where there is none. One should be objective

Thus One more time - Firstly this law can not be implemented if it is contrary to the existing Laws of the Land.

And Again,this Law is not currently applicable and it is not known if it will ever been implemented. It has been left to the Decision of the Universal House of Justice. Thus if and when it is applied, society will have considered it to be a Just Law. It is also only applicable to a Baha’i.

The only person that should be really worried about this is the Baha’i Arsonist who would be well aware of the Law prior to committing the offense.

Also consider that, If it is implemented, Most of the World will most Likely be Baha’i and Have a new Vision of the Future, thus they will be objective on this issue.

God bless “objective” and may we all attain its Station - Regards Tony

 

[tonyfish58]

Children of men can shun each other either because of their own volition or based on religious orders. Baha’u’llah says he has abolished WHATSOEVER is the cause for shunning. WHATSOEVER encompasses both religious orders and own volition. By claiming he only meant shunning based on ‘own volition,’ you are taking Baha’u’llah’s words out of context, interpreting them incorrectly, and limiting them to your own wishful desires.

Dear peace_at_last - God Bless you and your Faith.

The Intent of this passage of Baha’u’llah is being wrongly “Interpreted” By you.

No more needed to be said.

Again God Bless and Regards Tony

 

[tonyfish58]

And those powers are part of the reason we know He was God.Right. He was God, clearly. God Incarnate. No mere human person could have rise from the dead of His own power.QED.

The argument will always remain circular and thus very tiring! As it could also mean He is “Of God” and the same result is possible.

God Bless and Regards Tony