Contact With Baha'is and the Baha'i Faith

[smaneck]

I believe in the real presence in so far as the promise of Christ is concerned and the interpretation of his church which is the pillar and ground of truth. As Ignatius said it is the same flesh that was crucified for us, as for how this miracle works I don’t seek to explain it scientifically like what some bahais in their vain imaginations have done in concern with the virgin birth.

Or like Catholics do with their reference to Aristotelian metaphysics?

Actually, I don’t know of any Baha’is who have tried to come up with scientific explanations of the virgin birth. I believe in it because Shoghi Effendi affirms it, period.

It is a miracle of God promised to his church.

That remains to be established.

Nor do I neccessarily accept the Catholic view of how the substance changes,

Oh, yeah, I just noticed you are Orthodox not Catholic.

That is the bahai view you obviously have God and as has been made clear the manifestations are of a different substance than that of God.

We speak of essences, not substances.

Since they are not of the substance of God which is eternal and seem to be caused by God it seems to me they are not eternal

If they emanate from God (instead of created ex nihilo) they can very well be eternal.

and it must be also asked, did these manifesations appear without the consent or knowledge of GOd?

I suggested nothing of the sort.

It seems to me safer to admit that the manifestations are angelic creatures perfectly reflecting the glory of God (though it seems they all go through a stage in their incarnation of having two wills a human and divine will

They are not angelica creatures but they do perfectly reflect all the names and attributes of God. They also have a human and a divine nature.

becuase obviously they are ignorant and grow in knowledge)

.

Baha’is believe that the Manifestations are omnipotent at will. I don’t know that this means they always will omnipotence.

Bahais have a problem

No we don’t. you do because you can’t fit us into your categories. Too bad.

But It seems we will get no where, I can try my best to argue in dfence of the sacred mystery, I won’t brow beat you into leaving me alone.

How am I bothering you? You are the one who offensively tells us we don’t believe what we say we believe.

But I want to ask a more basic question. Is Jesus your creator? Are you a creature, that is are you created?

I am created. And Jesus, in his universal aspect where he is one with all the Manifestations of God is the creator of all else.

Also I don’t believe I ever accused you of lying and if you got that impression please forgive me because that was not my intent.

Then stop saying we can’t believe what we say we believe. That is tantamount to accusing us of lying. If you agree to stop doing that, then apology accepted.

 

[smaneck]

I didn’t see any source that said he was excommunicated. I only saw your source about his execution.

Scroll up, I posted that first.

 

[PRmerger]

Scroll up, I posted that first.

I am sorry for being obtuse. But I cannot see any citation you offered for anyone being excommunicated and then being executed.

In fact, what I have is this comment from you, which is very curious, coming from someone who is, apparently, a professor?

Do you really need things like this documented?

Curious that this is a comment made by a professor, who later grouses about students not offering citations.

Now, please do not be offended, smaneck. I just hope you can see why I find it curious that you would even ask me why I want things documented.

 

[smaneck]

I am sorry for being obtuse. But I cannot see any citation you offered for anyone being excommunicated and then being executed.

I didn’t give you a citation, I gave you a source which is what you originally asked for.

Here it is again:
^ Brief of Pope Alexander VI excommunicating Savonarola: The History of Girolamo Savonarola and of His Times, Pasquale Villari, Leonard Horner, trans., London, Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts, & Green, 1863, Volume 2, pp.392-394.

In fact, what I have is this comment from you, which is very curious, coming from someone who is, apparently, a professor?

There is something in academia called ‘common knowledge.’

 

[PRmerger]

There is something in academia called ‘common knowledge.’

Haha! I have a feeling, just from my limited dialogue with you here, that you wouldn’t let your students get away with that, when asked for a citation.

I’m not buying it either, friend. :nope:

 

[PRmerger]

I didn’t give you a citation, I gave you a source which is what you originally asked for.

Here it is again:
^ Brief of Pope Alexander VI excommunicating Savonarola: The History of Girolamo Savonarola and of His Times, Pasquale Villari, Leonard Horner, trans., London, Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts, & Green, 1863, Volume 2, pp.392-394.

Ah, yes, I see now where you posted it originally. You nested it inside my quote, and thus I didn’t see it.

Thank you for re-posting.

 

[smaneck]

Haha! I have a feeling, just from my limited dialogue with you here, that you wouldn’t let your students get away with that, when asked for a citation.

I don’t ask for a citation if something is common knowledge.

 

[flameburns623]

Typically there were secular penalties in many principalities whenever someone was excommunicated. This followed because political loyalty was often seen as tied to religious loyalty. The rise of nationalism in roughly the same period as the Reformation led to an eventual separation of the two, but this took several centuries to complete.

If heresy seemed egregious enough to warrant excommunication, a pope might call upon secular authorities to do their duty enforcing the secular penalties which follow upon excommunication. This would be an application of discipline, however, not a matter of faith or morals.

The death penalty did not automatically follow excommunication, and in any case penalties for heresy are not covered by the charism of infallibility.

 

[smaneck]

If heresy seemed egregious enough to warrant excommunication, a pope might call upon secular authorities to do their duty enforcing the secular penalties which follow upon excommunication. This would be an application of discipline, however, not a matter of faith or morals.

Yes, there are many papal bulls which do this. But as a non-Catholic is difficult for me to see how burning someone at the stake would not be an issue of morality.

 

[flameburns623]

Yes, there are many papal bulls which do this. But as a non-Catholic is difficult for me to see how burning someone at the stake would not be an issue of morality.

The sin of heresy is an issue of faith. The secular viewpoint that heresy is tantamont to treason is a matter of political philosophy. And in any case, temporal penalties for sin imposed in this life are matters of discipline, which is distinct from faith or morals.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I can tell you in some of my encounters with bahai, they have tried to explain the virgin birth via scientific explanation. They are probably the minority but still show I think a bahai instinct to want to become naturlists in their outlook of the world, that miracles can’t happen.
Now as far as the Eucharist is concerned in regards it being established, I think that’s evident in the new testament and certaintly it was the interpretation of those who immediately followed Christ and were in a position to more than any of us what the eucharist was. They were in the footsteps of the apostles and they did not agree with the bahai.
The Essence use instead of substance in this debate of the manifestations, is acceptable but take in mind when I use the term substance, I only refer to that which composes an entity. That is either physical or non physical. God has a substance of divinity. If we understand that, the terms essence and substance are interchangeable. Now since they (the manifestations) emanate from God and are most definitely not of the same substance as God we can conclude they are caused, they began to exist naturally growing and having their cause From God. Only if they are of the same substance as God does it seem possible they can be eternal. Compare this to the eternal procession of the son, this makes sense because he is of the exact same substance as God the father and does the will of his father, it makes sense to say he is eternal. But are the angels or us that bear the image of God or characteristics of God eternal? No we are caused. The suns rays are dependant on the sun and you need the sun in order to have the rays, they don’t exist immediately when the sun begins to exist.
Now, you say something interesting the manifestations are omnipotent, all powerful? Is this the case> Is this not something that belongs to God alone? Why did Moses need God if he was all powerful? No the prophets were men reliant on God, not pre existing entities. At least as far as the biblical and historic church witness is concerned. Event eh quran.

Now, you seem to want to keep thinking in an imaginary world of yours, that IM brow beating you. Telling you what to believe. IM so mean for critiquing your beliefs? Or is that bahais are just too thin skinned from actually being forbidden to debate like this? If you think I am being mean and if this is a debate, which it seems to be, then stop this for your own salvation.

But you have it seems contradicted the gospel of John. It was admitted earlier Jesus is the eternal Word or logos of God the father, and John says wihtou the word nothing that which was made was made. So Jesus is the cause of your existence, Jesus Created you, and we have Arthra’s text by his prophet that the bible has to be trusted.

Grow a back bone please and stop complaining. Its pathetic.

 

[smaneck]

I can tell you in some of my encounters with bahai, they have tried to explain the virgin birth via scientific explanation. They are probably the minority but still show I think a bahai instinct to want to become naturlists in their outlook of the world, that miracles can’t happen.

Baha’is tend to minimize the importance of miracles but we do not deny their existence. Shoghi Effendi very explicitly described the’ Virgin Birth as The Bahá’í scriptures single out Jesus’s virgin birth as “a miracle and a sign of His Prophethood” (Shoghi Effendi, High Endeavors, 68). Shoghi Effendi likewise describes the events surrounding martyrdom of the Báb as involving a “miracle” (God Passes By, 56).

Now as far as the Eucharist is concerned in regards it being established, I think that’s evident in the new testament and certaintly it was the interpretation of those who immediately followed Christ and were in a position to more than any of us what the eucharist was. They were in the footsteps of the apostles and they did not agree with the bahai.

I don’t know what you think the Baha’i position is on the eucharist. We certainly don’t believe in the doctrine of Transsubstantiation, but you already admitted you don’t either. I was raised Protestant in the Reform tradition so we always took the sacrament “in remembrance” which means we saw it as more symbolic than anything else. Baha’is don’t take the sacrament for the simple reason that Shoghi Effendi said taking it was tantamount to denying that Christ had returned. I always thought that this was a bit harsh until I read Paul’s statement that the eucharist should only be taken until Christ comes.

The Essence use instead of substance in this debate of the manifestations, is acceptable but take in mind when I use the term substance, I only refer to that which composes an entity. That is either physical or non physical. God has a substance of divinity.

I’m not sure I would agree that God has a substance. God has an essence, but that essence is unknowable.

If we understand that, the terms essence and substance are interchangeable. Now since they (the manifestations) emanate from God and are most definitely not of the same substance as God

Since substance is not a term used in my religion I’m not going to define it in those terms. If you want to understand my religion you will have to understand its own terms.

Now, you say something interesting the manifestations are omnipotent, all powerful? Is this the case> Is this not something that belongs to God alone?

The Manifestations of God are the embodiment of God’s Names and Attributes, but not His Essence.

Why did Moses need God if he was all powerful? No the prophets were men reliant on God, not pre existing entities.

That is the Christian position, not the Baha’i one.

Now, you seem to want to keep thinking in an imaginary world of yours, that IM brow beating you.

You are the one who introduced the subject of brow-beating. I just think you are being insufferably rude by insisting we can’t believe what we do believe.

Telling you what to believe. IM so mean for critiquing your beliefs?

Are you this dense that you still don’t get it? You can critique my beliefs all you want. What you can’t do is tell me what my beliefs are because I know what I believe and you don’t. The bottom line is you can’t fit my religion into your own categories of substance or whatever. Every religion has to be understood on its own terms. I will speak in terms of substance when I am discussing transsubstantiation with a Catholic or discussing some aspect of Aristotelian philosophy, but I will not force my religion into those categories. To rephrase a saying from Tertullian, ‘what has Haifa to do with Hellenism?’

Or is that bahais are just too thin skinned from actually being forbidden to debate like this?

We are certainly allowed to debate, but our religion discourages conflict and contention. And when someone tells you that you can’t possibly believe something they are obviously interested only in conflict and contention rather than the truth.

It was admitted earlier Jesus is the eternal Word or logos of God the father, and John says wihtou the word nothing that which was made was made. So Jesus is the cause of your existence, Jesus Created you, and we have Arthra’s text by his prophet that the bible has to be trusted.

And I told you that Baha’is take this to mean Jesus in his divine nature, a nature in which all the Manifestations are one.

Grow a back bone please and stop complaining. Its pathetic.

See, you are not interested in debate, you are interested in insults. That is why you are not worth talking to. I’d much rather spend my time discussing religion with someone like Vouthon who at least has some real spirituality to share and an ability to listen, something you clearly lack.

I answer your posts only because you deliberately distort what we believe and I wish to set the record straight.

The minute you start talking about subtances, etc. you are no longer talking about my religion.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I’m glad you don’t diminish miracles, but I have run into bahais who have believed in this and have considered it. That is the virgin brith of Christ via the blessed Theotokos
.
As far as the bahai position of the eucharist, something I never had any pretense to talk about, only defend my position concerning the euchairst, it seems you have none. You consider it an outdated institution and I think the traditional Christian practice since the apostles is something you would have deny, that the flesh and blood truly changes from the wine and bread. But Christ has not come, we don’t take part in Muhammad or your prophet, we take of the live giving flesh of Jesus Christ. Unless you think Jesus was not himself speaking in the gospels and instead was being controlled by a figure called the Christ. Btw Muhammad denied being the Christ.

No in so far as the substance and essence distinction is being made I want to make it clear how I define these words. I prefer substance and what I mean by substance is that which composes and existent entity. So please, have no pretensions as to me considering God a physical creature. Divinity is not physical. Now you can use terms however you want, just clarify them. Is essence for you the substance which composes and existent entity? That an entity composes of something? Even If talking about the ultimately undefinable substance of divinity? Then we can get some where, I m quite happy to accomadate, so long as we understand each other.

You say that the manifestations are not the nature of God and this to me confirms they cannot be eternal. They cannot co-exist eternally with God. Because being of a different essence or substance, whatever term you prefer they necessarily have their origin, their cause from God. Or do you deny their creation? You have then endless essences which have existed from all eternity and one essence which I assume in the bahai understanding is all encompassing, everywhere, omnipresent. It’s a strange and very foreign concept to the traditional monotheism we all know and Love. God seems to be the first and he had created angels and then the physical world and then man.
Now again, you accuse me of being rude. When was I rude? Was it when I criticised your belief? Should I let up and just let you say what you want and not express my opinion on a free forum? This is one thing ive noticed with bahai, they cannot for the life them debate in seriousness without calling into question the methods of someone else. You have a choice, either debate or leave if this causes you so much grief. In fact is it not a sin to debate in bahai?

Now, im only giving my thoughts as to what I perceive the bahai religion must entail. Im not forcing you to accept these ideas, despite your vain imagination. You are free to correct me and respond to my critiques. Instead you are more or less spending half your time complaining against me, instead of making a decent argument.
Now a curious statement that is. That the manifestations all are the same nature. Do they all share the same substance? That is , Is the spirit of Jesus the spirit of Muhammad? Do they have individuality? But it still has to be stated you cannot respond to the objection that Jesus is the cause of your existence. Without the word, who John in a scripture which you cannot deny, calls Jesus God, the eternal word and logos of God the father, creates everything which begins to exist. None of the other manifestations did this. Why?

So you have a choice, instead of complaining, deal intelligently with criticism. Something you are obviously trying to avoid.

 

[smaneck]

You have obviously not listened to a word I said and continue to put words in my mouth, I didn’t say. Rather than respond to such nonsense, I’ll simply tell you what Baha’u’llah said about the twin stations of the Manifestations:

"We have already in the foregoing pages assigned two stations unto each of the Luminaries arising from the Daysprings of eternal holiness. One of these stations, the station of essential unity, We have already explained. “No distinction do We make between any of them.” The other is the station of distinction, and pertaineth to the world of creation and to the limitations thereof. In this respect, each Manifestation of God hath a distinct individuality, a definitely prescribed mission, a predestined Revelation, and specially designated limitations. Each one of them is known by a different name, is characterized by a special attribute, fulfils a definite Mission, and is entrusted with a particular Revelation. Even as He saith: “Some of the Apostles We have caused to excel the others. To some God hath spoken, some He hath raised and exalted. And to Jesus, Son of Mary, We gave manifest signs, and We strengthened Him with the Holy Spirit.” . . .
Thus, viewed from the standpoint of their oneness and sublime detachment, the attributes of Godhead, Divinity, Supreme Singleness, and Inmost Essence, have been and are applicable to those Essences of being, inasmuch as they all abide on the throne of divine Revelation, and are established upon the seat of divine Concealment. Through their appearance the Revelation of God is made manifest, and by their countenance the Beauty of God is revealed. Thus it is that the accents of God Himself have been heard uttered by these Manifestations of the divine Being.
Viewed in the light of their second station—the station of distinction, differentiation, temporal limitations, characteristics and standards,—they manifest absolute servitude, utter destitution and complete self-effacement. Even as He saith: “I am the servant of God. I am but a man like you.” … .

Were any of the all-embracing Manifestations of God to declare: “I am God!” He verily speaketh the truth, and no doubt attacheth thereto. For it hath been repeatedly demonstrated that through their Revelation, their attributes and names, the Revelation of God, His name and His attributes, are made manifest in the world. . . . And were any of them to voice the utterance: “I am the Messenger of God,” He also speaketh the truth, the indubitable truth. . . .
For they are all but one person, one soul, one spirit, one being, one revelation. They are all the manifestation of the “Beginning” and the “End,” the “First” and the “Last,” the “Seen” and “Hidden”—all of which pertain to Him Who is the innermost Spirit of Spirits and eternal Essence of Essences. . . .
Thus it is that whatsoever be their utterance, whether it pertain to the realm of Divinity, Lordship, Prophethood, Messengership, Guardianship, Apostleship or Servitude, all is true, beyond the shadow of a doubt.
reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/KI/ki-6.html.utf8?query=divinity&action=highlight#gr198

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t ask for a citation if something is common knowledge.

I am certain about that.

But if you asked for one, and a student responded, "In academia we don’t cite ‘common knowledge’ " you’d put a great big red mark on that response, wouldn’t you?

And as for it being “common knowledge” that this person you referenced was excommunicated and then executed, here’s my response:

whatshouldwecallme.tumblr.com/post/32838114425/when-my-ex-pretends-like-he-doesnt-miss-me

 

[PRmerger]

The sin of heresy is an issue of faith.

Indeed.

In the past, in her zealous effort to combat heresy, the Church leaders erred in combating heretics.

Today, it appears, in a zealous effort to embrace heretics, some Church leaders err in embracing heresy.

 

[arthra]

ignationphilo wrote:

“As far as the bahai position of the eucharist, something I never had any pretense to talk about, only defend my position concerning the euchairst, it seems you have none. You consider it an outdated institution and I think the traditional Christian practice since the apostles is something you would have deny, that the flesh and blood truly changes from the wine and bread.”

Baha’is acknowledge the last supper but not in the way Orthodox/Catholics have held it…probably it would help if we allowed that our references and context differ from each other… our perspective differs from church tradition and doctrine because we are not Orthodox/Catholics and don’t claim to be.

Here is an example of the Baha’i perspective:

The disciples had taken many meals from the hand of Christ; why was the last supper distinguished from the others? It is evident that the heavenly bread did not signify this material bread, but rather the divine nourishment of the spiritual body of Christ, the divine graces and heavenly perfections of which His disciples partook, and with which they became filled.

In the same way, reflect that when Christ blessed the bread and gave it to His disciples, saying, “This is My body,”[1] and gave grace to them, He was with them in person, in presence, and form. He was not transformed into bread and wine; if He had been turned into bread and wine, He could not have remained with the disciples in body, in person and in presence.

[1 Matt. 26:26.]

Then it is clear that the bread and wine were symbols which signified: I have given you My bounties and perfections, and when you have received this bounty, you have gained eternal life and have partaken of your share and your portion of the heavenly nourishment.

~ Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 98

 

[smaneck]

And as for it being “common knowledge” that this person you referenced was excommunicated and then executed, here’s my response:

I gave you the reference to the bull that excommunicated him.

I also gave you the a source which reported his subsequent execution.

That wasn’t good enough for you.

Its good enough for any reasonable person.

Apparently you need evidence that the Pope lit the match.

Sorry I don’t have that. He was in Rome. Savonarola was in Florence.