Exploring Bahaism

[Servant19]

The bible sounds nothing like this cryptic language.

There’s plenty of symbolic, allegorical and “cryptic” language in the Bible.

As with all of these things, it requires a sincere willingness to ask for the meanings of phrases unfamiliar to you and also a willingness to keep reading.

As a general rule, if a phrase or word in the Baha’i Writings starts with a capital letter then it refers to the Manifestation of God.

.

 

[JimmyDFG]

There is nowhere in the Baha’i Writings that explores the why and what of an empty tomb. There is nothing in the Baha’i Writings that says we should not believe that Jesus could go through locked doors. There is nothing again stating that we should not believe that Jesus ate and was touched by the Apostles.

.

St. Paul summed it all up when he stated: “And if Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain … And if Christ be not risen again, your faith is vain, for you are yet in your sins.” (1 Cor. 15:14, 17). Thus the Resurrection of Christ is the basis of our faith. If it did not happen, Christianity is based on a lie and we have no hope of our own resurrection.

The Jews, telling Pilate of Jesus’ prediction that He would rise again after three days, asked for a guard to be stationed at the tomb, lest His disciples steal the body and say Jesus was raised from the dead. Pilate agreed, gave them a guard, and ordered a seal placed on the tomb.

The action of the Jews is one more illustration of how God makes use of the folly and evil intentions of men to confound their plans and further His own designs and glory. Here was established a guard composed of soldiers of the greatest and most famous human power in all history, the Roman Empire. Here, one might say, stood the power of the Roman Emperor-his soldiers, his seal. It was all there to assure that Jesus’ body would stay in that tomb and that there would be no human tampering with it.

How naive can men be! But there was indeed one thing that all these various men did know for sure: they were guarding a DEAD body.

But lo! On Sunday morning there was a mighty earthquake, and the angel of the Lord, resembling a flash of lightning with his garments as dazzling as snow, rolled the stone back and seated himself upon it. His action seemed to declare that the stone which was guarding death, as well as the power of the Roman government, was ingloriously sat upon and conquered.

At the appearance of this shining angel “the guards were struck with terror, and became as dead men.” The angel had not flashed down to let Jesus out; the angel came to show that He was already gone, already risen. Just as Jesus’ risen, spiritualized body would pass through the cenacle room with its locked doors later that day, so Our Lord had already passed through the sealed tomb with ease.

 

[Techno2000]

There’s plenty of symbolic, allegorical and “cryptic” language in the Bible.

As with all of these things, it requires a sincere willingness to ask for the meanings of phrases unfamiliar to you and also a willingness to keep reading.

As a general rule, if a phrase or word in the Baha’i Writings starts with a capital letter then it refers to the Manifestation of God.

.

Why should one even have to do that when the whole point “progressive revelation” was for modern man to better understand God in this age ?

 

[Servant19]

St. Paul summed it all up when he stated: “And if Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain … And if Christ be not risen again, your faith is vain, for you are yet in your sins.” (1 Cor. 15:14, 17). Thus the Resurrection of Christ is the basis of our faith. If it did not happen, Christianity is based on a lie and we have no hope of our own resurrection.

NO one has ever said it did not happen dear Jimmy.

It is AGAINST the Baha’i teachings to state that the resurrection did not happen.

What is important however, is to not overstep the bounds of Scripture which CLEARLY states it is not a natural physical body:

"It is planted a physical body but is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body." - 1Cor 15:44

Please note that the Baha’i Faith asserts this clear language as the most important aspect of the Resurrection. There is nothing that Abdu’l-Baha asserts that goes against what St. Paul has asserted in his letter to the Corinthians

.

 

[Servant19]

Why should one even have to do that when the whole point “progressive revelation” was for modern man to better understand God in this age ?

Because it assumes that modern man’s grasp of the English language is better than 2000 years ago

.

 

[Techno2000]

St. Paul summed it all up when he stated: “And if Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain … And if Christ be not risen again, your faith is vain, for you are yet in your sins.” (1 Cor. 15:14, 17). Thus the Resurrection of Christ is the basis of our faith. If it did not happen, Christianity is based on a lie and we have no hope of our own resurrection.

The Jews, telling Pilate of Jesus’ prediction that He would rise again after three days, asked for a guard to be stationed at the tomb, lest His disciples steal the body and say Jesus was raised from the dead. Pilate agreed, gave them a guard, and ordered a seal placed on the tomb.

The action of the Jews is one more illustration of how God makes use of the folly and evil intentions of men to confound their plans and further His own designs and glory. Here was established a guard composed of soldiers of the greatest and most famous human power in all history, the Roman Empire. Here, one might say, stood the power of the Roman Emperor-his soldiers, his seal. It was all there to assure that Jesus’ body would stay in that tomb and that there would be no human tampering with it.

How naive can men be! But there was indeed one thing that all these various men did know for sure: they were guarding a DEAD body.

But lo! On Sunday morning there was a mighty earthquake, and the angel of the Lord, resembling a flash of lightning with his garments as dazzling as snow, rolled the stone back and seated himself upon it. His action seemed to declare that the stone which was guarding death, as well as the power of the Roman government, was ingloriously sat upon and conquered.

At the appearance of this shining angel “the guards were struck with terror, and became as dead men.” The angel had not flashed down to let Jesus out; the angel came to show that He was already gone, already risen. Just as Jesus’ risen, spiritualized body would pass through the cenacle room with its locked doors later that day, so Our Lord had already passed through the sealed tomb with ease.

And traditions says that some of those Soldiers ended up becoming Christians.

 

[Techno2000]

Because it assumes that modern man’s grasp of the English language is better than 2000 years ago

.

Is that your final answer.

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

From “Some Answered Questions:” Part 2, pgs 22-23:

“Thus if the Sacred Scriptures speak of raising the dead, the meaning is that they attained everlasting life. . .”

“The resurrection of the Manifestations of God is not of the body.” “His [Jesus’s] disappearance into the earth for three days must also have a mystical rather than a literal meaning. In the same manner, His resurrection from the bosom of he earth is a mystical matter and expresses a spiritual rather than a material condition.”

“We explain, therefore, the meaning of Christ’s resurrection in the following way: After the martyrdom of Christ, the Apostles were perplexed and dismayed. The reality of Christ which consists in His teachings, …[etc] was hidden and concealed for two or three days…After three days the Apostles became firm and steadfast, arose,…,resolved,… .and endeavoured to serve Him. Then did the reality of Christ become resplendent. . .and His teachings and admonitions become manifest and visible…”

“Such is the meaning of the Resurrection. . .”

For myself the real question has always been: “Is Mirzah Husayn Ali a legitimate Holy Teacher?”
Now If Mirzah had himself made the quoted statements, which (to Christians at least) clearly deny the physical reality of our Lord’s Resurrection, then I would have to say “No.”

But Mirzah did not make those explanations. What Mirzah did emphatically say was that Divine Certitude was reserved for himself alone, without partner.
Mirzah willed leadership of the Baha’i Church to his son, Abdul-Baha, and Tony has been kind enough to post the link. But that statement does not mention the additional inheritance of Divine Certitude.

I don’t know where the idea that Abdul-Baha’ was endowed with such Certitude came from. Perhaps our Baha’i friends will enlighten us.
But my point is that Christians should not see Abdul’s questionable statements as negating the legitimacy of Baha’u’llah’s teachings since, for us at least, Abdul was not gifted with Certitude.
For Baha’is, of course, it’s a different matter as they don’t have the privilege of negating or correcting any of Abdul’s teachings. I suggest that we recognise the conundrum that they are in and take it easy on them. Let’s look for the wonderful truths that are to be found in the Baha’i Faith and forget about what we see as Abdul-Baha’s error.

I personally believe that the Baha’i Faith has many important things to offer the Humanity. For instance, if we had a bona-fide world government, we would not find ourselves in this insane nuclear armed missile stand-off with Russia. It will come to no good, but that’s a different thread.

 

[Servant19]

For myself the real question has always been: “Is Mirzah Husayn Ali a legitimate Holy Teacher?”
Now If Mirzah had himself made the quoted statements, which (to Christians at least) clearly deny the physical reality of our Lord’s Resurrection, then I would have to say “No.”

But Mirzah did not make those explanations. What Mirzah did emphatically say was that Divine Certitude was reserved for himself alone, without partner.
Mirzah willed leadership of the Baha’i Church to his son, Abdul-Baha, and Tony has been kind enough to post the link. But that statement does not mention the additional inheritance of Divine Certitude.

I don’t know where the idea that Abdul-Baha’ was endowed with such Certitude came from. Perhaps our Baha’i friends will enlighten us.
But my point is that Christians should not see Abdul’s questionable statements as negating the legitimacy of Baha’u’llah’s teachings since, for us at least, Abdul was not gifted with Certitude.
For Baha’is, of course, it’s a different matter as they don’t have the privilege of negating or correcting any of Abdul’s teachings. I suggest that we recognise the conundrum that they are in and take it easy on them. Let’s look for the wonderful truths that are to be found in the Baha’i Faith and forget about what we see as Abdul-Baha’s error.

I personally believe that the Baha’i Faith has many important things to offer the Humanity. For instance, if we had a bona-fide world government, we would not find ourselves in this insane nuclear armed missile stand-off with Russia. It will come to no good, but that’s a different thread.

Thankyou Jeffrey.

I am still yet to hear of any evidence that makes Abdu’l-Baha’s assertions any different to St. Pauls assertions. Why does no-one state that St. Paul was in error by asserting that it is raised a “spiritual body”?? St. Paul even goes on to say that there are two types of bodies, a spiritual body which is NOT a physical body…

Sincerity is in question with those who assert such things. Be just, be fair, be sincere

IN regards to Abdu’l-Baha, Baha’u’llah stated emphatically in His Most Holy Book, the Kitab-i-Aqdas the following:

"O people of the world! When the Mystic Dove will have winged its flight from its Sanctuary of Praise and sought its far-off goal, its hidden habitation, refer ye whatsoever ye understand not in the Book to Him Who hath branched from this mighty Stock."
Baha’u’llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, paragraph 174

The question of the resurrection was a subject which many could “understand not” and was referred to Abdu’l-Baha, so His authority to explain these things which we understand not was given him by Baha’u’llah, the Lord of the Age

.

 

[Servant19]

The Dawning Places of Unity, the Daysprings of Singleness and the Suns of Holiness are also sanctified beyond the bounds of number, and the luminous spiritual worlds are exalted above limits and restrictions. In like manner the worlds of bodily existence the mind of no man can reckon nor the understanding of the learned comprehend.

bahai-library.com/abdulbaha_lawh_aflakiyyih

Any words in the Baha’i Writings which begin with a capital letter are in reference to the Manifestation of God, the Word.

.

 

[TonyBS]

For myself the real question has always been: “Is Mirzah Husayn Ali a legitimate Holy Teacher?”
Now If Mirzah had himself made the quoted statements, which (to Christians at least) clearly deny the physical reality of our Lord’s Resurrection, then I would have to say “No.”

But Mirzah did not make those explanations. What Mirzah did emphatically say was that Divine Certitude was reserved for himself alone, without partner.
Mirzah willed leadership of the Baha’i Church to his son, Abdul-Baha, and Tony has been kind enough to post the link. But that statement does not mention the additional inheritance of Divine Certitude.

I don’t know where the idea that Abdul-Baha’ was endowed with such Certitude came from. Perhaps our Baha’i friends will enlighten us.
But my point is that Christians should not see Abdul’s questionable statements as negating the legitimacy of Baha’u’llah’s teachings since, for us at least, Abdul was not gifted with Certitude.
For Baha’is, of course, it’s a different matter as they don’t have the privilege of negating or correcting any of Abdul’s teachings. I suggest that we recognise the conundrum that they are in and take it easy on them. Let’s look for the wonderful truths that are to be found in the Baha’i Faith and forget about what we see as Abdul-Baha’s error.

I personally believe that the Baha’i Faith has many important things to offer the Humanity. For instance, if we had a bona-fide world government, we would not find ourselves in this insane nuclear armed missile stand-off with Russia. It will come to no good, but that’s a different thread.

Thank you for your balanced thoughts Jeffery.

One has to look at all the Talks Given by Abdul’Baha, he gave many of hundreds, if not thousands. Each talk gave a little of or a great deal of the story. Sometimes it was brief to stress a particular point, sometimes detailed to give understanding to the whole subject.

The work load of Abdul’Baha was more than Amazing, but that is another story. I will give you the Station of Abdul,Baha as seen by Baha’is.

Abdul’Baha gives that Himself. He says no matter what Station His Father has bestowed upon Him, He interprets them all to meaning Abdul’Baha (Means Servant of Baha)

“I am according to the explicit texts of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas and the Kitáb-i-’Ahd the manifest Interpreter of the Word of God… Whoso deviates from my interpretation is a victim of his own fancy… I affirm that the true meaning, the real significance, the innermost secret of these verses*, of these very words, is my own servitude to the sacred Threshold of the Abha Beauty, my complete self-effacement, my utter nothingness before Him. This is my resplendent crown, my most precious adorning. On this I pride myself in the kingdom of earth and heaven. Therein I glory among the company of the well-favoured!”

and

“As to my station, it is that of the servant of Baha; Abdu’l-Bahá, the visible expression of servitude to the Threshold of the Abha Beauty”.

Thus as a Baha’i I do not see anything wrong with Abdul’Baha explanations, what I see is that I have to look at it another way. But that is me

Regards Tony

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

Thankyou Jeffrey.

I am still yet to hear of any evidence that makes Abdu’l-Baha’s assertions any different to St. Pauls assertions. Why does no-one state that St. Paul was in error by asserting that it is raised a “spiritual body”?? St. Paul even goes on to say that there are two types of bodies, a spiritual body which is NOT a physical body…
.

**I don’t dispute any of St. Paul’s teachings here because this is a Catholic site, and those teachings are considered Gospel by the Church.
Servant, you may talk all day long, if you wish, but you are never going to convince me that Abdul-Baha’s statements about our Lord’s resurrection do not deny that resurrection as Christians understand it. That doesn’t mean that I think that you should change your view on the matter. I understand your position.

It is a tradition that a king may not countermand his own directive. Baha’u’llah clearly stated that his gift of Divine Certitude would not be shared with anyone.
Now if the Baha’i Faith wants to make some other interpretation, that’s up to them. For me Abdul-Baha’ does not have that certitude, and I move on from there. **

 

[Servant19]

**I don’t dispute any of St. Paul’s teachings here because this is a Catholic site, and those teachings are considered Gospel by the Church.
Servant, you may talk all day long, if you wish, but you are never going to convince me that Abdul-Baha’s statements about our Lord’s resurrection do not deny that resurrection as Christians understand it. That doesn’t mean that I think that you should change your view on the matter. I understand your position.

It is a tradition that a king may not countermand his own directive. Baha’u’llah clearly stated that his gift of Divine Certitude would not be shared with anyone.
Now if the Baha’i Faith wants to make some other interpretation, that’s up to them. For me Abdul-Baha’ does not have that certitude, and I move on from there. **

So, if you were to visit an atheist forum, you would not dispute that God does not exist?

Let us seek truth at all times, with respect and with pure motives, and sincerity dear Jeffrey

.

 

[JimmyDFG]

I am still yet to hear of any evidence that makes Abdu’l-Baha’s assertions any different to St. Pauls assertions. Why does no-one state that St. Paul was in error by asserting that it is raised a “spiritual body”?? St. Paul even goes on to say that there are two types of bodies, a spiritual body which is NOT a physical body…

.

The term Body of Christ has two separate connotations: it may refer to Jesus’ statement about the Eucharist at the Last Supper that “This is my body” in Luke 22:19-20, or the explicit usage of the term by the Apostle Paul in I Corinthians to refer to the Christian Church.

Of all the books of Scripture and of all the writings of the early Church Fathers, it is St. Paul who first uses the concept of and writes about the “body of Christ” in those specific words. Although the various gospel narratives of the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper recount Jesus’s declarations that “this is my body” and “this is my blood,” the gospels do not include the phrase “the body of Christ.” St. John, in the Last Supper Discourses, reports Jesus as saying several things about unity with Him and remaining in Him, but there is no mention of “the body of Christ”.

This “body of Christ” idea as it appears in St. Paul is not an easy concept to understand – how can my physical body be “in Christ” and all of our bodies be “in each other”? I can see two clouds flow together and you get one cloud. But two bodies? Or pour a glass of water into a glass of wine and you get one glass – a glass of water in wine – one glass of watered down wine. How can my body be in Christ’s body? How can I be “in” someone else’s body?

…let me make it quite clear that when Christians say the Christ-life is in them, they do not mean simply something mental or moral. When they speak of being ‘in Christ’ or of Christ being ‘in them’, this is not simply a way of saying that they are thinking about Christ or copying Him. They mean that Christ is actually operating through them; that the whole mass of Christians are the physical organism through which Christ acts – that we are His fingers and muscles, the cells of His body.”

St. Paul tries to explain this to the early Christians: “Now the body is not a single part but many . . .Now you are Christ’s body, and individually parts of it” (1 Cor 12:14,27). “Rather living the truth in love, we should grow in every way into him who is the head, Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, with the proper functioning of each part, brings about the body’s growth and builds itself up in love.” (Eph 4:15,16). “For as in one body we have many parts, and all the parts do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ and individually parts of one another.” (Rom 12:4,5)

In a long discussion in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, St. Paul refers to many parts of one body – foot, hand, nose, ear, eye – and he says that each has its own particular, and necessary function. He then goes on to make his point that we are, each of us, an individual part of Christ’s body, but each of us has a particular, special, unique function, as do parts of a physical body (1 Cor 12:27-31).

catholicstand.com/st-paul-original-theology-body/

 

[JimmyDFG]

Thankyou Jeffrey.

I am still yet to hear of any evidence that makes Abdu’l-Baha’s assertions any different to St. Pauls assertions. Why does no-one state that St. Paul was in error by asserting that it is raised a “spiritual body”?? St. Paul even goes on to say that there are two types of bodies, a spiritual body which is NOT a physical body…

Sincerity is in question with those who assert such things. Be just, be fair, be sincere

IN regards to Abdu’l-Baha, Baha’u’llah stated emphatically in His Most Holy Book, the Kitab-i-Aqdas the following:

The question of the resurrection was a subject which many could “understand not” and was referred to Abdu’l-Baha, so His authority to explain these things which we understand not was given him by Baha’u’llah, the Lord of the Age

.

I am still yet to hear from my question in #95

Didn’t Abdu’l Baha, taught that the resurrection of Jesus from the dead “…is a spiritual and divine fact, and not material…,” even though the Bible is clear about it being a physical event (John 2:19-21; 20:20; Luke 24:15; Acts 2:32). If Jesus was resurrected physically from the dead, that would place Him in a position superior to Baha’u’llah, and nullify all Baha’i claims. My question is, on what authority are the co-founders, Baha’u’llah and Abdu’l Baha, able to change the clear teaching of the Bible–other than their claim to have such authority? Anyone can make such claims.

---

 

[Techno2000]

The term Body of Christ has two separate connotations: it may refer to Jesus’ statement about the Eucharist at the Last Supper that “This is my body” in Luke 22:19-20, or the explicit usage of the term by the Apostle Paul in I Corinthians to refer to the Christian Church.

Of all the books of Scripture and of all the writings of the early Church Fathers, it is St. Paul who first uses the concept of and writes about the “body of Christ” in those specific words. Although the various gospel narratives of the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper recount Jesus’s declarations that “this is my body” and “this is my blood,” the gospels do not include the phrase “the body of Christ.” St. John, in the Last Supper Discourses, reports Jesus as saying several things about unity with Him and remaining in Him, but there is no mention of “the body of Christ”.

This “body of Christ” idea as it appears in St. Paul is not an easy concept to understand – how can my physical body be “in Christ” and all of our bodies be “in each other”? I can see two clouds flow together and you get one cloud. But two bodies? Or pour a glass of water into a glass of wine and you get one glass – a glass of water in wine – one glass of watered down wine. How can my body be in Christ’s body? How can I be “in” someone else’s body?

…let me make it quite clear that when Christians say the Christ-life is in them, they do not mean simply something mental or moral. When they speak of being ‘in Christ’ or of Christ being ‘in them’, this is not simply a way of saying that they are thinking about Christ or copying Him. They mean that Christ is actually operating through them; that the whole mass of Christians are the physical organism through which Christ acts – that we are His fingers and muscles, the cells of His body.”

St. Paul tries to explain this to the early Christians: “Now the body is not a single part but many . . .Now you are Christ’s body, and individually parts of it” (1 Cor 12:14,27). “Rather living the truth in love, we should grow in every way into him who is the head, Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, with the proper functioning of each part, brings about the body’s growth and builds itself up in love.” (Eph 4:15,16). “For as in one body we have many parts, and all the parts do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ and individually parts of one another.” (Rom 12:4,5)

In a long discussion in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, St. Paul refers to many parts of one body – foot, hand, nose, ear, eye – and he says that each has its own particular, and necessary function. He then goes on to make his point that we are, each of us, an individual part of Christ’s body, but each of us has a particular, special, unique function, as do parts of a physical body (1 Cor 12:27-31).

catholicstand.com/st-paul-original-theology-body/

He’s talking about you are either a flesh body or a Ghost there is no middle ground .

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

So, if you were to visit an atheist forum, you would not dispute that God does not exist?
.

**As I said, Servant, I move on from there. I think that you should too.
And yes, if I visited an Atheist forum I would respect their beliefs. BTW, my dad was an Atheist. In my childhood I noticed that he would stop his car when he saw a beggar with a cup of pencils sitting on the sidewalk, get out, and pay a dollar for one of those pencils. This was in the 1950’s when a pencil cost one cent and an icecream cone was a nickle. **

 

[Techno2000]

**As I said, Servant, I move on from there. I think that you should too.
And yes, if I visited an Atheist forum I would respect their beliefs. BTW, my dad was an Atheist. In my childhood I noticed that he would stop his car when he saw a beggar with a cup of pencils sitting on the sidewalk, get out, and pay a dollar for one of those pencils. This was in the 1950’s when a pencil cost one cent and an icecream cone was a nickle. **

I don’t think he meant it that way, and I know Servant 19 would definitely respect those people’s beliefs.

 

[TonyBS]

The term Body of Christ has two separate connotations: it may refer to Jesus’ statement about the Eucharist at the Last Supper that “This is my body” in Luke 22:19-20, or the explicit usage of the term by the Apostle Paul in I Corinthians to refer to the Christian Church.

Of all the books of Scripture and of all the writings of the early Church Fathers, it is St. Paul who first uses the concept of and writes about the “body of Christ” in those specific words. Although the various gospel narratives of the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper recount Jesus’s declarations that “this is my body” and “this is my blood,” the gospels do not include the phrase “the body of Christ.” St. John, in the Last Supper Discourses, reports Jesus as saying several things about unity with Him and remaining in Him, but there is no mention of “the body of Christ”.

This “body of Christ” idea as it appears in St. Paul is not an easy concept to understand – how can my physical body be “in Christ” and all of our bodies be “in each other”? I can see two clouds flow together and you get one cloud. But two bodies? Or pour a glass of water into a glass of wine and you get one glass – a glass of water in wine – one glass of watered down wine. How can my body be in Christ’s body? How can I be “in” someone else’s body?

…let me make it quite clear that when Christians say the Christ-life is in them, they do not mean simply something mental or moral. When they speak of being ‘in Christ’ or of Christ being ‘in them’, this is not simply a way of saying that they are thinking about Christ or copying Him. They mean that Christ is actually operating through them; that the whole mass of Christians are the physical organism through which Christ acts – that we are His fingers and muscles, the cells of His body.”

St. Paul tries to explain this to the early Christians: “Now the body is not a single part but many . . .Now you are Christ’s body, and individually parts of it” (1 Cor 12:14,27). “Rather living the truth in love, we should grow in every way into him who is the head, Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, with the proper functioning of each part, brings about the body’s growth and builds itself up in love.” (Eph 4:15,16). “For as in one body we have many parts, and all the parts do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ and individually parts of one another.” (Rom 12:4,5)

In a long discussion in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, St. Paul refers to many parts of one body – foot, hand, nose, ear, eye – and he says that each has its own particular, and necessary function. He then goes on to make his point that we are, each of us, an individual part of Christ’s body, but each of us has a particular, special, unique function, as do parts of a physical body (1 Cor 12:27-31).

catholicstand.com/st-paul-original-theology-body/

JimmyDFG - I will offer this from the Baha’i Perspective

The Baha’i concept, as I see it, is seen that God is within all of us, with His Laws. In one of our obligatory daily prayers we ask for God to remain Unconstrained in His Bidding. This implies that for this to be done, all self needs to be overcome.

This power to acheive this is our God Given Spirit combined with our Rational Soul using our Free Will to choose what is of God and not to satisfy our animal self.

Consider this what if - If Christ returned, we recognized the return and Christ made eating unlawful, then **without question **we would not eat.

Regards Tony

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Iron Donkey:

Originally Posted by Iron Donkey View Post
Possible, for a broad sense of the word possible, but not what Christianity teaches, and it conflicts with what Christianity teaches.

I mean (a priori) all kinds of things could be true. But Christianity does not teach that nothing but Christ exists. Christianity teaches that all kinds of things exist, and that their existence as things that are themselves, and are distinct from other things, is actually good - rather than a sort of illusoryish thing that ought to be transcended. (Caveat: the God is Existence thing has sometimes been phrased “only God exists, others merely have existence,” but even under this phrasing, the other things are actually separate from God, and this fact is good, and they actually have the existence that they have - there is no “illusion of individuality” thing going on.)

Buddhism does not teach this.

Again, (leaving aside arguments showing one way or the other) either is a possible world view. But they can’t both be true, and so the people who taught them can’t both be right.

It’s certainly possible that humans misinterpret, and in fact I would say they do so all the time.

Nevertheless if Prophet Bob says X, and Prophet Fred says Not X, then one of them is wrong. If God actually spoke to both of them, then either one of them is being dishonest (and so his religion is false), or God isn’t a very good communicator, and so one of them gets the wrong idea and his religion is also false.

It is my position that God can communicate clearly if He so chooses, and that He can find honest prophets. Therefore, it seems reasonable that rather than there being lots of “true” religions that contradict each other (and so aren’t actually true but were revealed, at least), that there are lots of false (to varying degrees and for various reasons) religions and at most one true one.

Quiet often there are similarities - as there should be. We’re all grasping after truth, and there is one truth. To the extent that we don’t mess up when we approach it, we will find agreement.

But quiet often there are huge dissimilarities, like the one I mentioned between Buddhism and Christianity - that is not a false difference. At most one is true, the other is false. And so both can’t be the revelations of an honest God.

If we are taught to love our enemies then what is left to not love?

.

I’m… not exactly sure how this is a response to what I said. But, to answer your question: evil itself, just not the people who commit it (against us or otherwise).

That is, we don’t have to love the idea of murder, but we do have to love the murderer. But again… what is the relation?