Contact With Baha'is and the Baha'i Faith

[smaneck]

Thank you for your kind responses. Respectfully, arthra, I have a few questions.

I hope you don’t mind if I answer some of these questions myself.

1. Who is Abdu’l-Baha, are his writings considered Scriptural by Baha’is, and where does he stand as regards the Authority of his utterances in relation to Mohammad, the Bab, and Baha’u’llah?

Baha’is believe that Abdu’l-Baha is the authorized interpreter of Baha’u’llah’s Writings. Normally we would consider them a part of our scriptures but we don’t yet have a closed canon.

1. If you would, could you sketch out your belief regarding the relative Authority of those mentioned, in particular as regards their relation to that Entity who appeared in the burning bush to Moses, and to Jesus?

I think the Burning Bush represents the Holy Spirit which is also an expression of the Manifestation of God in His universal aspect, an aspect which all the Manifestations share.

1. What is your view of the Authority of Saint John the Baptizer?

Not all Baha’is are in agreement regarding this subject. Some would regard him as a Manifestation and others as a lesser prophet.

1. Same question with regard to Krishna, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, Guru Nanak Dev and the line of Ten Gurus that began with him?

Krishna we regard as a Manifestation of God. Our Writings say nothing about Chaitanya or Guru Nanak, so I can’t really comment. In India Baha’is tend to treat Guru Nanak as a lesser prophet. I know when I take the Belief-O-Matic survey Sikhism always appear second.

1. Similar question with regard to the one known as Frater Perdurabo.

You mean Aleister Crowley?

1. Do you hold that there shall be no further Manifestation, at least in your lifetime?

1. If so, on what grounds?

Baha’u’llah says that the next Manifestation will not appear until the expiration of a thousand years.

 

[smaneck]

I believe that my friend Vouthon proffered some Magisterial documents that contravene your position that the Church advocated coercion.

I think in the interest of dialogue it is important to distinguish orthodoxy from heteropraxy.

What the Church taught ought not to be confused with how sinful practitioners behaved.

In the case of things like the Crusades and Inquisition, we are talking about how the Church (not merely sinful practitioners) behaved.

 

[PRmerger]

In the case of things like the Crusades and Inquisition, we are talking about how the Church (not merely sinful practitioners) behaved.

Certainly.

But not what she taught.

Again, the difference between orthodoxy and heteropraxy ought not be minimized.

 

[Vouthon]

1. What is your view of the Authority of Saint John the Baptizer?.

I am obviously not a Baha’i and do not want to steal Arthra’s chance to reply

Nonetheless the position of John the Baptist in the Baha’i Faith is a subject of some interest to me given that I have discussed it extensively with Baha’is in the past, particularly in relation to the Mandean religion which regards John the Baptist as its most recent and greatest prophet.

Traditionally, Baha’is in general seem to have considered John a “minor prophet”. This opinion of course conflicts with Christianity, in which according to Jesus he is the greatest of all the prophets indeed “higher” than a prophet.

Nevertheless I am not convinced that this popular view is necessarily reflective of Baha’i scripture, which seems to give a more prominent place to John - if not a Manifestation, then certainly at least not “minor”. One of the Baha’is agreed with my contention.

Consider Baha’u’llah’s words:

"…They that have turned aside from Me have spoken even as the followers of John (the Baptist) spoke. For they, too, protested against Him Who was the Spirit (Jesus) saying: `The dispensation of John hath not yet ended; wherefore hast thou come?’

***- Baha’u’llah (1971a:157; 1982:102) ***

 

[Vouthon]

Another example of ambiguity regarding John the Baptist, although this time not from Baha’i scripture:

“…Shoghi Effendi feels that the Unity of the Bahá’í revelation as one complete whole embracing the Faith of the Báb should be emphasised… The Faith of the Báb should not be divorced from that of Bahá’u’lláh. Though the teachings of the Bayán have been abrogated and superseded by the laws of Aqdas, yet due to the fact that the Báb considered Himself as the forerunner of Bahá’u’lláh we should regard His dispensation together with that of Bahá’u’lláh as forming one entity, the former being an introductory to the advent of the latter. Just as the advent of John the Baptist—who according to various authorities was Himself the originator of laws which abrogated the teachings current among the Jews—forms part of the Christian revelation, the advent of the Báb likewise forms an integral part of the Bahá’í Faith. That is why Shoghi Effendi feels justified to call Nabíl’s narrative a narrative of the early days of the Bahá’í revelation…”

- Unfolding Destiny (Letters and Cables of Shoghi Effendi), Letter of 30 November 1930

Another interesting one is this from Abdu’l-Baha:

“…Consider to what extent the love of God makes itself manifest. Among the signs of His love which appear in the world are the dawning-point of His Manifestations. What an infinite degree of love is reflected by the divine Manifestations toward mankind! For the sake of guiding the people they have willingly forfeited their lives to resuscitate human hearts. They have accepted the cross. To enable human souls to attain the supreme degree of advancement, they have suffered during their limited years extreme ordeals and difficulties. If His Holiness Jesus Christ had not possessed love for the world of humanity, surely he would not have welcomed the cross. He was crucified for the love of mankind. Consider the infinite degree of that love. Without love for humanity John the Baptist would not have offered his life. It has been likewise with all the prophets and holy souls. If His Holiness the Bab had not manifested love for mankind, surely he would not have offered his breast for a thousand bullets. If His Holiness Bahá’u’lláh had not been aflame with love for humanity he would not have willingly accepted forty years’ imprisonment…”

- Abdu’l-Baha, Foundations of World Unity, pp86-91

John is in the middle of a list solely comprised apart from him of Manifestations.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Actually we do. We believe that all creation comes from the Manifestation in His Universal aspect. Abdu’l-Baha says:

“In the Gospel it is said, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God.” 3 Then it is evident and clear that Christ did not reach to the station of Messiahship and its perfections at the time of baptism, when the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in the likeness of a dove. Nay, the Word of God from all eternity has always been, and will be, in the exaltation of sanctification.”

Oh dear what an interpretation. The word was with God and was God, the word created all existence and then the word dwelt among us. It is clear in that the word was Jesus Christ who was made incarnate for the sake of salvation.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth.

This is not talking about the spirit descending upon Christ it it is talking about the son who was made flesh, he took upon himself FLesh. Physical matter. Your prophet’s son was mistaken. And in case the instance of the word flesh you think can mean anything else.

sarx is the word used here according to Blue letter bible. σάρξ

1. flesh (the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood) of both man and beasts
2. the body

a) the body of a man

b) used of natural or physical origin, generation or relationship

1. born of natural generation

c) the sensuous nature of man, “the animal nature”

1. without any suggestion of depravity
2. the animal nature with cravings which incite to sin
3. the physical nature of man as subject to suffering
4. a living creature (because possessed of a body of flesh) whether man or beast
5. the flesh, denotes mere human nature, the earthly nature of man apart from divine influence, and therefore prone to sin and opposed to God
   Jesus Christ as the eternal Logos created the universe according to John’s gospel. And it is clear from yuor responce as a bahai you must deny this, along with his pre existence. Though I have heard bahai say all the manifestations are eternally existent which I think is absurd.

Nonetheless, many of its concepts come from this milieu including the prologue of John’s Gospel. Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish philosopher and near-contemporary of Christ, viewed
the Logos as God’s thought, as His eternally generated first-born son. Do you really think that was an accident?

Do you have to be so patronizing? Of Course John is borrowing the concept of the Logos for the wisdom of God, this has long since been recgonised. The Logos is a greek concept which some hellenized Jews also used, like Philo. But heres what John did thats different. None of the greek philosophers or philo would say that the word, the eternal Logos of God became a man. That was contrary the hellenized idea of spiriutal being greater than the physical. But John said it and bahai have to deny it.

Personally, I think the differences are rooted in human interpretations.

Yes human interpertaion from your prophet, a man who did not have the tradition of the church, the same church I would argue which the quran neccessarily tells us is the true church.

What part of the Qur’an do we say are wrong? One might well argue that we don’t believe in the entirety of the Bible because not all of it claims to be revelation. I tend to accept the findings of higher criticism, for instance. But Qur’an is a very different sort of text. Unlike the Bible, in its entirety it is directly associated with a Manifestation of God. It would be as though Jesus personally wrote the entirety of New Testament.

I believe in the bible. And yes the quran is a very different text. It is random, lacking context often to the point where it is incoherent without a recourse to the hadiths to explain the context of the verses in question. And the quran is no more written by a manifestation than your bahai books are. But thats besides the point.

Some verse I think you must neccessarily dismiss would surah 98. Specifically Surah 6

Indeed, they who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the worst of creatures.

The whole theme of this surah is the supremecy of Muslims and how the people of the book were once ignorant but hwen Muhammad has been revealed to them and they reject Muhammad they are worthy of Hell. Because we have rejected the truth. Bahai do not accept this idea of Hell in any meaningful way, the descriptions of it in the quran and the hadith do not coincide with the bahai idea. Also you must reject that Muslims are the best of peoples. You are not Muslim. Of course the typical bahai responce to a verse like this is progressive revelation and that it no longer applies but then we must as a deeper question.

At one time, specifically before you prophet revealed himself and after Muhammad supposebly revealed his surah. Were Christians and jews the worst of all creatures because we disbelieved? Condemned to hell, As this surah assures me, Did God have a change of heart when it comes to shirk being not so unforgivable, or it seems rejecting his prophet not being so offensive?

 

[smaneck]

Nonetheless the position of John the Baptist in the Baha’i Faith is a subject of some interest to me given that I have discussed it extensively with Baha’is in the past, particularly in relation to the Mandean religion which regards John the Baptist as its most recent and greatest prophet.

Traditionally, Baha’is in general seem to have considered John a “minor prophet”. This opinion of course conflicts with Christianity, in which according to Jesus he is the greatest of all the prophets indeed “higher” than a prophet.

Nevertheless I am not convinced that this popular view is necessarily reflective of Baha’i scripture, which seems to give a more prominent place to John - if not a Manifestation, then certainly at least not “minor”. One of the Baha’is agreed with my contention.

Dear Voulthon,

Years ago there was a debate regarding this in the editorial pages of American Baha’i between someone who insisted that John the Baptist was a Manifestation and those who insisted he was just a lesser prophet. I tend to side with the former over the latter interpretation. Certainly the Qur’an appears to make him equal with the other prophets. Part of the problem, though is that the meaning of Manifestation appears to shift somewhat within our own scriptures. The term is derived from Shi’ite Islam which applied it primarily to the Imams, who obviously have a lesser station than the Prophets. At times Baha’u’llah appears to be using the term in that fashion. But eventually for Baha’is Manifestation comes to carry the connotation of “a Prophet endowed with constancy” meaning they are not merely sinless but that the revelation they impart defines right and wrong.

warmest, Susan

 

[smaneck]

Oh dear what an interpretation. The word was with God and was God, the word created all existence and then the word dwelt among us.

Abdu’l-Baha is not denying any of that.

It is clear in that the word was Jesus Christ who was made incarnate for the sake of salvation.

He is not denying that Jesus is the Word either. Even the Qur’an affirms that.

This is not talking about the spirit descending upon Christ

And that is what Abdu’l-Baha is saying. We are not adoptionists.

sarx is the word used here according to Blue letter bible. σάρξ

I’m well aware of that.

Jesus Christ as the eternal Logos created the universe according to John’s gospel. And it is clear from yuor responce as a bahai you must deny this, along with his pre existence.

That’s where you are wrong. We do not deny this.

Though I have heard bahai say all the manifestations are eternally existent which I think is absurd.

You may think it is absurd but that doesn’t mean we don’t believe it. I think the Trinity is absurd an unbiblical. So what? It doesn’t mean Christians don’t believe in it.

Do you have to be so patronizing? Of Course John is borrowing the concept of the Logos for the wisdom of God, this has long since been recgonised.

Then it is silly to argue that Christianity was not influenced by Platonism.

That was contrary the hellenized idea of spiriutal being greater than the physical. But John said it and bahai have to deny it.

But we don’t.

Yes human interpertaion from your prophet, a man who did not have the tradition of the church, the same church I would argue which the quran neccessarily tells us is the true church.

I don’t recall the Qur’an saying anything at all about Catholic Church.

I believe in the bible. And yes the quran is a very different text. It is random, lacking context often to the point where it is incoherent

I get it that you don’t understand it and missed my point.

Some verse I think you must neccessarily dismiss would surah 98. Specifically Surah 6

Sort of like Jesus railing at the Pharisees in Matthew’s Gospel. The term translated as ‘disbelieve’ btw literally means to reject. It is not simply a case of them being Jews and Christians rather than Muslims. It assumes they are actively opposing Islam. However, you are completely ignoring this verse which is mentioned not once, but repeatedly in the Qur’an:

“Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians – whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord. And there will be no fear for them, nor shall they grieve”

Were Christians and jews the worst of all creatures because we disbelieved?

No, no more than Catholics are required to believe this about all non-Christians. Most Christians and Jews have never been presented with the truth about Islam in a way they could either accept or reject. But there is an assumption that if one truly recognizes the light, one will see it in every lamp in which it appears.

 

[smaneck]

Once again, Vouthon, you put us to shame.

Another example of ambiguity regarding John the Baptist, although this time not from Baha’i scripture:

Another interesting one is this from Abdu’l-Baha:

John is in the middle of a list solely comprised apart from him of Manifestations.

 

[arthra]

Someone above asked what is Baha’i scripture?..and I realize there was a response but I wanted to further elucidate… We call our scripture the “Bahah’i Writings” and generally that means the Writings of Baha’u’llah, the Bab and Abdul-Baha and thse consist of Tablets, letters and books… most iof which were revealed in Farsi and Arabic. Only a portion of these Writings have been translated into English and these by the Guardian Shoghi Effendi…The translations by Shoghi Effendi are considered authoritative and are a model of translation and interpretation for us… so future translations are based on the work of Shoghi Effendi.

There is a good deal of recorded utterances as well but they do not have the authority of the actual Writings and there are what are called “Pilgrim” notes… by various individuals who went on pilgrimage to the Holy Land and heard various topics…thse have less authority than the above.

The interpretations of the above Writings by Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi the Guardian have weight and are also a model. Technically the Universal House of Justice our elected Center of the Cause continues to rely on the Writings noted above and the authoritative Interpretations of Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi. Any matters not covered in the Writings or that are designated as to be carried out in future by the Universal House of Justice fall in their provenence.

 

[arthra]

The question was asked above about the station of John the Baptist as regarded by Baha’is…In my view John the Baptist is not considered an independent Manifestation of God.

Baha’u’llah has revealed things about John the Baptist…such as:

John, son of Zacharias, said what My Forerunner hath said: “Saying, repent ye, for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He that cometh after Me is mightier than I, Whose shoes I am not worthy to bear.” Wherefore, hath My Forerunner, as a sign of submissiveness and humility, said: “The whole of the Bayan is only a leaf amongst the leaves of His Paradise.”

~ Baha’u’llah, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 156

John the Baptist role in heralding Jesus Christ is also considered similar to the of the Bab heralding Baha’u’llah.

Shoghi Effendi has also referred to John the Baptist:

"The names of those cited in Bahá’u’lláh’s Prayer in the Dispensation are quite correct as you gave them, (Abraham, Moses, Joseph, John the Baptist, Christ, Muhammad, Imam Husayn, the Báb and Bahá’u’lláh.)

"The Prophets ‘regarded as one and the same person’ include the lesser Prophets as well, and not merely those who bring a ‘Book’. The station is different, but They are Prophets and Their nature thus different from that of ours.

“In the prayer mentioned above Bahá’u’lláh identifies Himself with Imam Husayn. This does not make him a Prophet, but his position was very unique, and we know Bahá’u’lláh claims to be the ‘return’ of the Imam Husayn. He, in other words, identifies His Spirit with these Holy Souls gone before, that does not, of course, make Him in any way their re-incarnation. Nor does it mean all of them were Prophets.”

~ Shoghi Effendi, Directives from the Guardian, p. 58

In addition…

‘You of course also realize that the fact that John the Baptist has a community of followers, is no indication that He was an independent Manifestation
of God.’

Letter dated 24 August 1975 from the Universal House of Justice to an individual

Also to understand what we are referring to above we need to comprehend to a degree what is a Manifestation of God and what are Independent and dependent Prophets…

There is an excellent book “The Eternal Quest for God” by Julio Savi

bahai-library.com/books/quest/quest.06.html

that outlines this subject of the Manifestation.

 

[smaneck]

“In the prayer mentioned above Bahá’u’lláh identifies Himself with Imam Husayn. This does not make him a Prophet, but his position was very unique, and we know Bahá’u’lláh claims to be the ‘return’ of the Imam Husayn. He, in other words, identifies His Spirit with these Holy Souls gone before, that does not, of course, make Him in any way their re-incarnation. Nor does it mean all of them were Prophets.”

Here is the problem, Artha. The Kitab-i Iqan refers to the Imam Husayn as a Manifestation. As I indicated part of the problem is that the meaning of “Manifestation” has changed over time.

 

[arthra]

Susan,

Thanks for your post I was trying to PM you but you apparently have a backlog of messages on que…

• Art

 

[smaneck]

Ah, very good, then. Thanks.

Now for the Magisterial teachings that advocate coercion.

Papal bulls are considered at least ordinary magisterium, are they not? Papal bulls called for the Crusades, for Inquisition, authorized the conquest of the Americas, etc. Exurge Domine declared it heresy to say that “That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.”

 

[smaneck]

Susan,

Thanks for your post I was trying to PM you but you apparently have a backlog of messages on que…

• Art

Dang, five messages is a ridiculous quota. Anyhow, I have cleared my queue.

 

[PRmerger]

Papal bulls are considered at least ordinary magisterium, are they not? Papal bulls called for the Crusades, for Inquisition, authorized the conquest of the Americas, etc.

Sources, please.

Exurge Domine declared it heresy to say that “That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.”

I think the best answer to that can be found here, in an article by Jimmy Akin.

Quote from the article (although I encourage reading the entire thing)
“The most fundamental way of resolving the alleged dilemma is to examine the question of whether or not Exsurge Domine involves an infallible exercise of papal teaching. The answer is that it does not.”

 

[smaneck]

Sources, please.

I think the best answer to that can be found here, in an article by Jimmy Akin.

Quote from the article (although I encourage reading the entire thing)
“The most fundamental way of resolving the alleged dilemma is to examine the question of whether or not Exsurge Domine involves an infallible exercise of papal teaching. The answer is that it does not.”

Does Jimmy Akin have the authority to define what constitutes Magesterium?

 

[PRmerger]

Does Jimmy Akin have the authority to define what constitutes Magesterium?

Did you mean to define what constitutes infallibility?

For what constitutes the Magisterium is pretty straight forward: it is the teaching authority of the Church.

 

[smaneck]

Did you mean to define what constitutes infallibility?

I never mentioned infallibility.

For what constitutes the Magisterium is pretty straight forward: it is the teaching authority of the Church.

So you are saying that the Pope Leo did not have the authority to make this statement that it is heretical to say that burning heretics is contrary to the spirit?

 

[PRmerger]

I never mentioned infallibility.

Ok. So I am confused by your question as to whether Jimmy Akin has the authority to “define what constitutes Magisterium”.

That’s like asking, “Does Jimmy Akin have the authority to define what constitutes a gas station?” Sure he does. A gas station is any station that sells gas. And to the degree that what Akin says regarding a gas station being consonant with this definition, he has the authority to define it.