Exploring Bahaism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tony,I would think everyone knows that science can’t prove that there is a God and the supernatural.Science will say that man can not walk on water, so going by Abdu’l-Bahá criteria this was just a ignorant superstition.
Best you read the talk in its full context reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/PT/pt-45.html

“It is impossible for religion to be contrary to science, even though some intellects are too weak or too immature to understand truth.
God made religion and science to be the measure, as it were, of our understanding. Take heed that you neglect not such a wonderful power. Weigh all things in this balance.
To him who has the power of comprehension religion is like an open book, but how can it be possible for a man devoid of reason and intellectuality to understand the Divine Realities of God?
Put all your beliefs into harmony with science; there can be no opposition, for truth is one. When religion, shorn of its superstitions, traditions, and unintelligent dogmas, shows its conformity with science, then will there be a great unifying, cleansing force in the world which will sweep before it all wars, disagreements, discords and struggles—and then will mankind be united in the power of the Love of God”.

Regards Tony
 
Techno, please note the words “If he believes in spite of his reason…”

Please also place those words next to the belief that the Baha’i Faith does not deny the miracles of a Manifestation of God as a reality.

What is your conclusion from what I say here therefore?

.
I know you are trying to spin this as always, but walking on water goes against human reason.
 
I know you are trying to spin this as always, but walking on water goes against human reason.
No it doesn’t 🙂

Because it is a Manifestation of God.

If God is the Creator of everything then He can do anything and empower His Manifestations to do so also 🙂

Nothing unreasonable.

No spinning…

I think you should read the whole link Tony gave you 🙂

.
 
Best you read the talk in its full context reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/PT/pt-45.html

“It is impossible for religion to be contrary to science, even though some intellects are too weak or too immature to understand truth.
God made religion and science to be the measure, as it were, of our understanding. Take heed that you neglect not such a wonderful power. Weigh all things in this balance. 146
To him who has the power of comprehension religion is like an open book, but how can it be possible for a man devoid of reason and intellectuality to understand the Divine Realities of God?
Put all your beliefs into harmony with science; there can be no opposition, for truth is one. When religion, shorn of its superstitions, traditions, and unintelligent dogmas, shows its conformity with science, then will there be a great unifying, cleansing force in the world which will sweep before it all wars, disagreements, discords and struggles—and then will mankind be united in the power of the Love of God”.

Regards Tony
There is a HUGE opposition between science and religion, and I wouldn’t want it any other way.
 
No it doesn’t 🙂

Because it is a Manifestation of God.

If God is the Creator of everything then He can do anything and empower His Manifestations to do so also 🙂

Nothing unreasonable.

No spinning…

I think you should read the whole link Tony gave you 🙂

.
I did read it, science can’t be in harmony with Jesus, because Jesus defies the laws of Nature.
 
David - personally I have not looked much into this subject, I have seen it quoted quite a bit, but I was not inclined at the time to look for the sources.

IMHO For it to hold any weight it will need a few external sources that showed this has happened. Should not be hard, but it is not my language. I have a friend that may be able to offer more links, I will contact and see what he Finds.

Regards Tony
This is the reply I got;

Khazeh is an excellent scholar, and what he says is correct: the 1833 translation has Baha’u’llah, and I presume the other does also. I compared six more recent Bible translations here: bible.com/bible/195/rev.21 and found five use Majd-u’llah and one uses Jalal’u’llah.

The claim that the change was made because of the coming of Baha’u’llah is weak. One would have to establish that even earlier translations did NOT use majd-ullah or Jalal-ullah (otherwise there is no “change”), then show that the translators could have known about Baha’u’llah (the man), and then eliminate the more likely explanation, that the translators felt Baha’u’llah was ambiguous (it can also mean the price of God), while majd-ullah and Jalal-ullah are unambiguous

كتابُ رُؤيا يُوحَنّا 21, الكتاب المقدس، الترجمة العربية المبسطة (SAT)
كتابُ رُؤيا يُوحَنّا 21, الكتاب المقدس، الترجمة العربية المبسطة (SAT) ثُمَّ رَأيتُ سَماءً جَدِيدَةً وَأرْضاً جَدِيدَةً. فَالسَّماءُ الأُولَى وَالأرْضُ الأُولَى قَدْ زالَتا، وَالبَحرُ لَمْ يَعُدْ…


Given the reply noted above, I would suggest much study would be needed before we could present this as being a fact.

Regards Tony
 
This is the reply I got;

Khazeh is an excellent scholar, and what he says is correct: the 1833 translation has Baha’u’llah, and I presume the other does also. I compared six more recent Bible translations here: bible.com/bible/195/rev.21 and found five use Majd-u’llah and one uses Jalal’u’llah.

The claim that the change was made because of the coming of Baha’u’llah is weak. One would have to establish that even earlier translations did NOT use majd-ullah or Jalal-ullah (otherwise there is no “change”), then show that the translators could have known about Baha’u’llah (the man), and then eliminate the more likely explanation, that the translators felt Baha’u’llah was ambiguous (it can also mean the price of God), while majd-ullah and Jalal-ullah are unambiguous

كتابُ رُؤيا يُوحَنّا 21, الكتاب المقدس، الترجمة العربية المبسطة (SAT)
كتابُ رُؤيا يُوحَنّا 21, الكتاب المقدس، الترجمة العربية المبسطة (SAT) ثُمَّ رَأيتُ سَماءً جَدِيدَةً وَأرْضاً جَدِيدَةً. فَالسَّماءُ الأُولَى وَالأرْضُ الأُولَى قَدْ زالَتا، وَالبَحرُ لَمْ يَعُدْ…
bible.com

Given the reply noted above, I would suggest much study would be needed before we could present this as being a fact.

Regards Tony
I’m glad you confirmed that there were versions with Baha’u’llah used which shows that it was from non Bahai sources.

Do you know the names of the versions that had it? To me these things are precious. There’s an 1865 version online by Eli SMITH
 
Miracles are Always Possible

"Again with regard to your question relative to the birth of Jesus: He wishes me to inform you that there is nothing further he can add to the explanation he gave you in his previous communication regarding this point. One thing, however, he wishes again to bring to your attention, namely that miracles are always possible, even though they do not constitute a regular channel whereby God reveals His power to mankind. To reject miracles on the ground that they imply a breach of the laws of nature is a very shallow, well-nigh a stupid argument, inasmuch as God Who is the Author of the universe can, in His Wisdom and Omnipotence, bring any change, no matter how temporary, in the operation of the laws which He Himself has created.

“The Teachings do not tell us of any miraculous birth besides that of Jesus.”

(From a letter dated February 27, 1938 written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer)
 
The thing is Tony these efforts to prevent people from seeing that their own Bible’s had clearly foretold both Muhammad and Baha’u’llah was done because there’s a lot to lose here like a few billion followers and we wouldn’t want that to happen would we thus the efforts to ‘hide’ these Two Manifestations of God from the entire Christian world.

As they put out more and ‘newer’ translations expect more whitewashing.
Which Bibles clearly foretold Muhammad and Baha’u’llah?

MJ
 
Which Bibles clearly foretold Muhammad and Baha’u’llah?

MJ
The name Bahá’u’lláh is Arabic and means "The Glory of God.( Bahai International Community)

Some Arabic Bible’s around 1833 and 1858 had the correct translation Baha’u’llah in Revelation & Isaiah prophecies but after He had proclaimed Himself in later translations they substituted different names.

fananapazir.co.nr/bibles.html
 
Dear brother Vouthon,

Why would the Apostles eat and drink WITH the glorified, risen Jesus when this sort of activity (eating etc) is frowned upon by St.Thomas as he studied the Islamic concept of eating and drinking practices of Muslims in the afterlife?

Can you see my confusion dear brother?

.
Oh, I certainly can in that respect 🙂

We believe he did this to prove the corporeality of his Resurrection Body. Read:

newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/did-jesus-really-eat-after-resurrection.html
The Fathers of the Church affirm that our Lord had no need of this food, but used the act of eating only as a means for the manifestation of the truth of the Resurrection. The eating of fish was given as a proof to his disciples that he had a true body, and that this body contained within it all the normal organs which human bodies possess.
That our Lord could eat proves that his risen body was neither a ghostly phantasm nor a mere exterior shell (hallow on the inside), but was a true and physical human body…
St. Thomas Aquinas (cf. Commentary on John 21 lecture 2; ST III, q.45, a.6) and St. Augustine affirm that this food was not transformed into Christ’s body by the natural process of digestion, but was rather dissolved into pre-existing matter by the divine power.
Thus writes St. Augustine (as quoted by Fr. Cornelius a’ Lapide), “The thirsty earth, and the burning rays of the sun absorb water, each in a different way; the one because of its need; the other by its power.”
And so, although Christ did not take the food into his glorified body as nourishment (for the risen have no need of food), yet did he truly dissolve the food by his divine power.
Neither would it have been becoming for our Lord to digest food, since this process implies a certain bodily imperfection or defect – namely, the reliance upon external matter for strength.
My dear brother Servant, I understand and respect the Baha’i position but I think you will just have to accept that ours differs…🙂

You see, His glorified body was not yet in “eternity” but on earth. So he decided to manifest himself in a manner that would prove His true corporeality.

Beyond space and time, the glorified body need not assume the properties that we are familiar with, that is the biological structure as it is in this life of three dimensions and spacetime.
 
The name Bahá’u’lláh is Arabic and means "The Glory of God.( Bahai International Community)

Some Arabic Bible’s around 1833 and 1858 had the correct translation Baha’u’llah in Revelation & Isaiah prophecies but after He had proclaimed Himself in later translations they substituted different names.

fananapazir.co.nr/bibles.html
But his name is …Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí Núrí

If I call myself Jesus, does that make me Jesus ?
 
Beyond space and time, the glorified body need not assume the properties that we are familiar with, that is the biological structure as it is in this life of three dimensions and spacetime.
If Jesus rose from the Dead with his same body, but now Glorified, it would show that he is not (Abraham, Krishna, Zoroaster, Moses,and Buddha ) . Now if he isn’t these people then the whole idea of "Manifestations of God " is bogus which in turn makes Bahaism bogus.So we can see how they desperately try to twist the scriptures to fit into their theology.
 
My dear brother Servant, I understand and respect the Baha’i position but I think you will just have to accept that ours differs…🙂
It cant differ, if it differs that means can’t come from the same God, all the Catholic mysteries of religion are in perfect harmony with each other.

**For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

1 Corinthians 14:33**
 
E.G. Browne was not a Baha’i.

Regards Tony
" He is perhaps best known for his documentation and historical narratives of the Bábí movement as relayed by Count Gobineau. He published two translations of Bábí histories, and wrote several of the few Western accounts of early Bábí and Bahá’í history.
Browne was not a Bahá’í, but rather an orientalist. His interest in the Bábí movement was piqued by a book by the Comte de Gobineau, found while he was looking for materials on the Sufi movement. The history A Traveller’s Narrative was written by `Abdu’l-Bahá and translated by Browne, who added a large introduction and appendices. Browne was fascinated by the development of the written historical perspectives of the Bahá’ís regarding successorship after the Báb including their idea of an independent dispensation of Bahá’u’lláh. These Bahá’í-authored works emphasized Bahá’u’lláh to a greater extent than the Báb and took a critical view against"

It would be fair to say that E.G Browne was heavily influenced by the Baha’i faith
 
There are other sources, have to track them down - hurqalya.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ABSTRACT-Baha’u’llah%20Bible.htm

In these Bibles the “Gate” is written as the Bab and the “Glory of the Lord”, or “The Glory of God” is written as Baha’u’llah

It was during the period of his decade or so exile in Iraq (1853-1863; the Iraq or Baghdad period') that Baha'u'llah, the founder of the Baha'i religion, began to cite Islamo-biblical then canonical biblical texts in a sometimes paraphrased Arabic or Persian version. During this period he was propagating the religion established by Sayyid Ali Muhammad Shirazi, the Bab (1819-1850) which was suffering persecution and decline after the execution of its Persian founder in 1850 CE. While the Bab drew on Isra’iliyyat or Islamo-biblical and related qisas al-anbiya’ (Stories of the Prophets) materials, he seldom, if at all, quoted the canonical Bible. Baha’u’llah not only quoted the New Testament in his Arabic Jawahir al-asrar (The Gems [Essence] of the Mysteries', c.1861 CE) and the closely related, slightly later, Kitab-i Iqan (The Book of Certitude’, c. 1862 CE), he also strongly argued against the developed Islamic notion of the scriptural tahrif (“corruption”, “falsification”…) of the Bible or New Testament. This in the context of underlining the non-literal fulfillment of Biblical predictions surrounding the person and mission of the Prophet Muhammad (d. 632 CE) as well as those predictive of the messianic status of the Bab and the veracity of his new Babi religion. When understood spiritually, it was argued, biblical texts contain deep mysteries. New Testament predictions of Jesus recorded in the Gospels can be seen to have been fulfilled.

Cornelius Van Dyck (1819-1895)

The biblical proof texts cited in the two above-mentioned, major apologetic writings (istidlaliyya) of Baha’u’llah during the late 1860s are largely in accordance with Christian printed Arabic New Testament texts dating to the 17th century, most notably the Paris and London Polyglot Bibles and related Biblical texts printed during the 18th and 19th centuries. During the later decades of his mission prior to his ascension in Acre (Ottoman Palestine) in 1892 CE., Baha’u’llah continued to quote and comment upon both the Hebrew Bible and New Testament texts again largely in accordance with later Protestant translations, most notably those of the American Protestant missionaries Eli Smith (1801-1857) and Cornelius van Dyck (1819-1895), whose Arabic Bible version began to appear in print in Beirut from the mid. 1860s. Baha’u’llah and `Abdu’l-Baha often cited this Arabic translation as well other Arabic and Persian Bible translations several of which remain in print or widely circulated throughout the Middle East today.

While the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) is hardly cited by Baha’u’llah before the Acre period (1868-1892 CE), there are hundreds, if not thousands of his scriptural alwah (Tablets) which cite the Hebrew Bible and/or the Christian New Testament during the last twenty-four years of his lifetime within the Ottoman dominions. A few biblically informed Tablets of Baha’u’llah dating from the late 1860s or subsequent decades have been translated into English and become well-known during the late 19th - early 20th centuries; including the Lawh-i Pap (Tablet to the Pope, c.1869) and Lawh-i Aqdas (Most Holy Tablet, mid 1870s?). Others such as the Lawh-i Hartik (Tablet to the Templar leader Hardegg, early 1872) remain little known. Many others await translation and publication.

Regards Tony
Tony, The site you gave is of a Baha’i source

hurqalya. ucmerced. edu
Extensive material in translation covering all aspects related to the rise and spread of the Baha’i movement.
 
Oh, I certainly can in that respect 🙂

We believe he did this to prove the corporeality of his Resurrection Body. Read:

newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/did-jesus-really-eat-after-resurrection.html

My dear brother Servant, I understand and respect the Baha’i position but I think you will just have to accept that ours differs…🙂

You see, His glorified body was not yet in “eternity” but on earth. So he decided to manifest himself in a manner that would prove His true corporeality.

Beyond space and time, the glorified body need not assume the properties that we are familiar with, that is the biological structure as it is in this life of three dimensions and spacetime.
Hello brother, I also understand and respect Catholic teaching on this matter.

Unfortunately, the Baha’i hand is tied in defending our position on the true meaning of resurrection, simply because it is a source of attack against the Divinity of Baha’u’llah, unopposed attack it seems here on CAF. I wonder what would happen on the Baha’i Forum if I attacked the Divinity of Christ, or worse, told Christians that Jesus was deceived by Satan?.
I would be humiliated for such disrespect 🙂

With this attack comes a necessity to defragment the entirety of Catholic teaching on the resurrection to expose where it has contradicted itself, and where it has strayed from Biblical teaching, for the Bahais believe in the simple reading of the Bible and recognising it for its “spiritual teaching” as St.Paul advises us to read it as.

The idea of an incorruptible body being a necessary adjunct to the incorruptible soul, otherwise the soul without body parts is “lost” as St. Thomas puts it, is a necessary concern of mine.

Would you mind sharing what the source of this conclusion is please?

I am yet to find a reason for us to have a glorified body in heaven. If corruptible activities do not happen, what do we do with our hands, feet and mouth there?

No one seems to be able to answer this question…if you don’t mind dear brother?

Frankly, I think it’s good for all Catholics to strengthen their Faith by contemplating these questions.

.
 
" He is perhaps best known for his documentation and historical narratives of the Bábí movement as relayed by Count Gobineau. He published two translations of Bábí histories, and wrote several of the few Western accounts of early Bábí and Bahá’í history.
Browne was not a Bahá’í, but rather an orientalist. His interest in the Bábí movement was piqued by a book by the Comte de Gobineau, found while he was looking for materials on the Sufi movement. The history A Traveller’s Narrative was written by `Abdu’l-Bahá and translated by Browne, who added a large introduction and appendices. Browne was fascinated by the development of the written historical perspectives of the Bahá’ís regarding successorship after the Báb including their idea of an independent dispensation of Bahá’u’lláh. These Bahá’í-authored works emphasized Bahá’u’lláh to a greater extent than the Báb and took a critical view against"

It would be fair to say that E.G Browne was heavily influenced by the Baha’i faith
He never became a Baha’i since he was a professional and objective historian.

It’s unfair to say that a Cambridge Professor was willing to lie about some things so that he could make a religion look good. If he was swayed, or liked the religion that much, it wasn’t hard for him to be Baha’u’llah’s disciple.

He didn’t.

Spending so many years studying a religion and a Holy Figure for the objective analysis of future students will naturally teach you a lot about what you are studying. It seems these objective sources still can’t please some 🙂

I suppose if someone who hated Baha’u’llah and was jealous of His influence would have been a better source of learning for you?

I pray for the hearts to find Christ in all things…

.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top