False Prophets the most used comeback!

[PeaceInChrist]

Which post of yours has not been answered?

I will try …

.

756 was answered by telling me I have to ‘understand in a new light’ without giving me any reason to do so. The similarities to divisions in Bahai and Catholicism were disregarded for no reason.

759-760 (in which I showed huge inconsistencies with the John the Baptist-Bab relationship) was never answered, either my paragraph responses or numbered positions.

 

[daler]

756 was answered by telling me I have to ‘understand in a new light’ without giving me any reason to do so. The similarities to divisions in Bahai and Catholicism were disregarded for no reason.

759-760 (in which I showed huge inconsistencies with the John the Baptist-Bab relationship) was never answered, either my paragraph responses or numbered positions.

PeaceinChrist,
. I think that I have adequately given an answer to your post 756, but that you do not accept the perspective from the Baha’is, and this is understandable. When people come from various religious backgrounds and training, there is a tendency to form a worldview according to the parameters they have been given.
. For example, whenever I have spoken, or listened, to a pair of young Mormon kids out doing their mission work, their entire frame of reference has been governed by their church and they seem to have no insight into the reality that had they been born into say, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, they would be knocking on doors giving out that message.
. I was raised Methodist simply because it was the nearest church to our house. No special doctrines much different than any other Protestant denominations that I know of, and really not that far of a departure from the Catholic Faith, other than the differences of historical hierarchy, etc.
. I also grew up on a Sioux Indian Reservation and came to appreciate that they had a valid belief in God, whom they called Wakan Tanka, long before white men showed up and began stealing their land and handing out Bibles in exchange, all the while telling them how superstitious they were, that their religion was from the devil, and so forth.
. So I mention this only to say that people “believe” generally what those around them believe as a sort of inheritance. Had you or I, for example, been born in Saudi Arabia to Muslim parents, we would certainly start out “believing” Islam, probably from a Sunni perspective, and insist that Muhammad was the Seal of the Prophets and that God hasn’t sent a Messenger since. Of course if we were raised Jewish, we’d have all the reasons why Moses was the last Prophet, right?

. As a Baha’i for over thirty years, I’ve associated with hundreds of people very closely from numerous religious backgrounds. Each entails a certain world view, a formed perspective, based upon traditions that have been handed down through the ages. There is a basic tenant of our Faith, which is called the independent investigation of truth. We all have that responsibility to use our God-given mind and spiritual heart to find our way and not merely mimic those around us, be they our parents, or whoever.

. Personally, when I read the Writings of Baha’u’llah, I am very much moved in my soul’s response to the Words coming from God. No ordinary men can ever compose such words.

O SON OF SPIRIT!
The best beloved of all things in My sight is Justice; turn not away therefrom if thou desirest Me, and neglect it not that I may confide in thee. By its aid thou shalt see with thine own eyes and not through the eyes of others, and shalt know of thine own knowledge and not through the knowledge of thy neighbor. Ponder this in thy heart; how it behooveth thee to be. Verily justice is My gift to thee and the sign of My loving-kindness. Set it then before thine eyes.

from the Hidden Words of Baha’u’llah

 

[vsedriver]

Ok thanks, and who decided this, and by what authority?

Is there any scriptural basis for this?

.

it is decided by the Bishops of the Church in Communion with the Pope (chair of Peter). The authority was given to the Church by Jesus Christ. Here are two verses that show the authority Christ is granting to Peter specifically and to the other apostles.

matthew 16: [18] And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

matthew 18: [18] Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

 

[openmind77]

it is decided by the Bishops of the Church in Communion with the Pope (chair of Peter). The authority was given to the Church by Jesus Christ. Here are two verses that show the authority Christ is granting to Peter specifically and to the other apostles.

matthew 16: [18] And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

matthew 18: [18] Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

But we already know that the Church is not perfect. They persecuted Galileo and made him recant his theory. He was under house arrest till his death. He was very lucky not be tortured and burnt at the stake.

Now if the Church says some one is not a Prophet, you believe that without a shadow of a doubt? And if the Church says he is a Prophet, then you follow him without question?

 

[PeaceInChrist]

But we already know that the Church is not perfect. They persecuted Galileo and made him recant his theory. He was under house arrest till his death. He was very lucky not be tortured and burnt at the stake.

Now if the Church says some one is not a Prophet, you believe that without a shadow of a doubt? And if the Church says he is a Prophet, then you follow him without question?

This is neither here nor there. The church officials told Galileo that he could teach his theory as a theory, because telescopes were not powerful enough to prove it at the time. Galileo instead began teaching it as fact, attacking Scripture, and wrote a book making fun of pope.

Now, you can still be critical of them if you’d like, but you must know that the Church never claims authority on science, but rather faith and morals. So the cause of his recanting was his attack of scripture and the pope. Those in the church can certainly have opinions on science, but that doesn’t mean we’ve ever claimed authority on such matters.

Edit: this is all from memory. I could be off on some specific details.

 

[MartinJordan]

That’s a pretty week apologetic Martin…I expect more please

Why is the Holy Spirit exclusive to ONLY Catholicism?

(p.s you do know that the Holy Spirit was written of BEFORE Jesus, right?)

.

You are here at CAF to learn 2000 year old teachings. Get off your high horse first and show some respect for Catholicism. Of course we know the Holy Spirit existed before the Jesus (born of the Virgin Mary) became man. However Moses and Abraham waited for Jesus.

The Holy Spirit is a person. And the world learned this teaching from Catholicism. Fulfilled in law and through the Prophets by Jesus who through him, we Praise Thank and Worship God in Fullness.

MJ

 

[Servant19]

Here is my attempts at a response for you PeaceInChrist

daler has responded very well, and I hope that anything I add will enable you to find logic in the responses given.

Here is post #756:

My friend, you do exactly the same thing. You have rejected Catholic and Orthodox understanding of Scripture, and so whenever you pose an interpretation, it is automatically to prove your position or disprove another. This is the source of my frustration: not that you argue for your faith, but that you claim your arguments are above ours even though you do the same thing.

Baha’is do not argue above anyone else. We present a perspective and others present a different perspective. This is how truth is discerned.

There are certain elements of historicity within the Gospels which are disputed. Therefore all historicity (except that Jesus existed, was baptized and that He was crucified) cannot be verified categorically either way.

If you wish I can cite at least 5 New Testament scholar sources, highly respected, that question a large portion of the historicity of the Gospel narratives. The historical reliability therefore requires Faith.

Baha’is generally look at the almost historically undeniable life of Baha’u’llah, and the Bab, see how it is unique in religious history, and look at their Writings and determine that this has “more” reliability. What they revealed can therefore be deemed as “Gospel”…at least to Baha’is. Having said that, Baha’u’llah clearly identifies that there is a LOT of historical reliability in the NT, and that the Book is to be revered as Holy, and divinely inspired. Namely, and briefly, that Jesus was born, baptised, taught the Apostles, was tortured, and crucified upon the cross, and the primacy of Peter is FULLY acknowledged.

THIS is the perspective we present…you are welcome to take it or leave it

That, and the use of logic, reason, and primary sources are shunned in favor of quoting your prophet.

Yes, because, as I mentioned, the primary sources are unreliable, according to SCHOLARS, not by laymen like me and you, but by scholars …

Why do we take the quotes of Baha’u’llah as more reliable? Because if you can imagine JESUS Himself having lived not 2000 years ago, but 150 years ago and He provided mankind with a Revelation, then you too would probably take it as Gospel.

Baha’u’llah is that Person (in this imaginary scenario). His life and times, together with the Bab’s was phenomenally remarkable, amazing…so Baha’is conclude that their Revelation carries A LOT of weight, as much as Jesus’s Revelation.

Your explanations are based on stringing together select verses from different scriptures and your own prophet, and jumping from minute similarities to different manifestations of God. They are, needless to say, not quite up to the level that Jesus presented the Jews.

Baha’u’llah’s Revelation when viewed as a whole completely FULFILLS to unbelievable levels of love, the Revelation of Jesus Christ…I see Jesus in His Springtime, and I see Baha’u’llah today, and I see the same springtime, except that mankind has evolved so much, and the world is now one global community that Jesus’ expressions of love have found FULL expression in Baha’u’llahs Revelation:

“The earth is but one country and mankind its citizens”
“Let your heart BURN with loving-kindness for ALL who cross your path” (emphasis added)

And I would love to hear your explanation of how we’re saved under no other name than Jesus, but somehow are at the same time saved by every other prophet.

This is because God works according to age.

Mankind goes from age to age, just like a human body goes from age to age.

For each age, the human body requires physical food which differs, and is catered to its needs and its capacities, and sustains physical life, physical salvation

For each age, mankind also requires spiritual manna, which also differs, and is catered to its needs and its capacities, and sustains SPIRITUAL life, SPIRITUAL salvation.

Let there be no doubt, that at the time of writing and for the entire Christian age, there was no other name by which salvation could be achieved.

What do you think is the meaning of this verse dear friend?

Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.

• Matt 7:21

(cont…)

 

[Servant19]

Yes, you do seem a little scared to explore the claims made by Jesus and His apostles that He was God incarnate, and that He was, is, and will be. And His name is the only name by which we are saved. But that’s fine.

Jesus claimed that He was God Incarnate???

Where? Please provide a source…

This thread has consisted of Catholics and Orthodox putting forth historical Christianity,

…as long as it is acknowledged which parts of history require faith and which parts do not

and being met by claims of apostasy

No Baha’i has ever said that there was apostasy in Catholicism. I see the Holy Spirit working through the Catholic Church today and it is beautiful

God has simply provided new manna for the corresponding age of the body of mankind. And just like milk is different from a burger, the manna of today is different to the manna of yesteryear.

and quoted from some prophet.

Please, dear friend, let us try and avoid patronisation. You have not read the Quran fully and you made claims about Muhammad that had no historical basis. I ask you to fulfil your duty to study things more…

You present no evidence for these claims, except that there were ‘bad’ Christians, even though Jesus and His apostles never said that followers would be perfect. Jesus did say, however, that He’d never leave us. But of course, this is another matter of ‘interpretation’.

The evidence is the Person of the Bab and the Person of Baha’u’llah, you can take it or reject it. No skin off my back brother.

It is you and your right relationship with your Maker…I’ll happily help you but if you can’t even open a book and read, then I start making statements like “No skin off my back”

And when I level claims of disunity and apostasy in your faith, you laugh to off, even though the claim is just as ridiculous to Catholics and orthodox about their faith.

There is no apostasy in the Baha’i Faith just as I do not see any apostasy in the Catholic Faith.

Is that clear?
Can we please move on from this apostasy stuff, it gets boring…and its just slandering for the sake of slandering…

So allow me again to level the same claim that you’ve leveled without evidence:

sectsofbahais.com

This website shows different sects or divisions that have occurred in Bahai. Your claim of total unity fails if there is even one division. I can also claim that when Shoghi Effendi died without leaving a successor, the faith went into apostasy since it appointed members to the universal house of justice without a living successor to approve of the candidates. So you’re all apostate.

please read above…

Now here’s the thing: my argument is weak at best. But it’s just as strong as your argument for division and apostasy in Christianity. You have no evidence except conjecture. It’s just as clear to the catholic and orthodox who the rightful successors of the apostles are, as it to you that the universal house of justice is the rightful arbiter of the Bahai. Those who break away are cut off from both faiths. So please don’t claim that it’s not clear who the successors of the apostles are because people have broken away. You as much proof as I do for your faith.

And please don’t tell me my interpretation are incorrect, because mine are backed by 2,000 years of history. Yours are backed by a self proclaimed prophet (the Bab didn’t actually even attest to him directly and in person like John with Jesus, and this link is apparently the defense Bahai’s use thebabhistory.blogspot.com/2009/12/did-bab-and-bahaullah-physically-meet.html?m=1). Please don’t condescend to the historical Christian understanding of our own faith. Please?

Who was the official successor to Peter?

Did Peter appoint a single successor in writing?
(my Church history is not up to scratch)

.

 

[Vouthon]

Have you ever lived in a world that abides by a one world government?

On World Government from a Catholic perspective please read the quotes I put together on this old thread from 2012:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=643147

There are alternatives to a global government such as Cosmopolitan Democracy and the kind of quasi-federal, supranational institutions of the European Union. All these political philosophies are agreed nonetheless on the need for a transnational democracy, extended beyond the nation state, in the context of a globalized, interdependent world.

In Catholic thought, the idea of a one world government - while unpopular today among American Catholics influenced by their Evangelical neighbours and the overwhelmingly Protestant culture in the USA - has a long and complicated history.

Dante, the great Catholic poet, imagined a global Holy Roman Empire under an elected Caesar in his De Monarchia and Convivio.

Dante, incidentally, is greatly revered by Catholics and even has an encyclical from 1921 devoted solely to him and written by Pope Benedict XV:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xv/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xv_enc_30041921_in-praeclara-summorum_en.html

Among the many celebrated geniuses of whom the Catholic faith can boast who have left undying fruits in literature and art especially, besides other fields of learning, and to whom civilization and religion are ever in debt, highest stands the name of Dante Alighieri, the sixth centenary of whose death will soon be recorded

Read this, it is obviously not appropriate as a model for today but is fascinating in the context of the middle ages:

plato.stanford.edu/entries/world-government/

The Italian poet, philosopher, and statesperson, Dante (1265–1321), perhaps best articulated the Christian ideal of human unity and its expression through a world governed by a universal monarch. In The Banquet [Convivio], Dante argued that wars and all their causes would be eliminated if “the whole earth and all that humans can possess be a monarchy, that is, one government under one ruler. Because he possesses everything, the ruler would not desire to possess anything further, and thus, he would hold kings contentedly within the borders of their kingdoms, and keep peace among them” (Convivio, 169). In Monarchia [1309–13] (1995, 13), a full political treatise affirming universal monarchy, Dante draws on Aristotle to argue that human unity stems from a shared end, purpose or function, to develop and realize fully and constantly humanity’s distinct intellectual potential. In Book I, Dante argues that peace is a vital condition for realizing this end, and peace cannot be maintained if humanity is divided. Just as “[e]very kingdom divided against itself shall be laid waste” (15), since humankind shares one goal, “there must therefore be one person who directs and rules mankind, and he is properly called ‘Monarch’ or ‘Emperor’. **And thus it is apparent that the well-being of the world requires that there be a monarchy or empire” (15). Most importantly, when conflicts inevitably arise between two rulers who are equals, “there must be a third party of wider jurisdiction who rules over both of them by right”; a universal monarch is necessary as “a first and supreme judge, whose judgment resolves all disputes either directly or indirectly” **(21–2). In the absence of a universal monarch, humanity is “transformed into a many-headed beast,” striving after “conflicting things” (43–4); humankind ordered under a universal monarch, however, “will most closely resemble God, by mirroring the principle of oneness or unity of which he is the supreme example” (xvii and 19). Dante completes his treatise by extolling the Roman Empire as “a part of God’s providential plan for humanity” (xxxiii). And while Dante argued for a universal emperor whose temporal power was distinct from the pope’s religious power, and not derivative from the latter, he envisioned that God’s will must require pope and emperor to forge a cooperative and conciliatory, rather than competitive and antagonistic, relationship.

The idea of uniting humanity under one empire or monarch, however, became an ambivalent appeal by the seventeenth century with the entrenchment of the system of sovereign states after the Peace of Westphalia (1648).

 

[Vouthon]

On Catholicism and the Peace of Westphalia:

foreignaffairs.com/articles/137082/samuel-gregg/the-vaticans-calls-for-global-financial-reform

"…Once world leaders recognize, the Second Vatican Council argued, that increasing global interdependence is forcing countries to move beyond a Westphalian, or state-based, international order, they will be more prepared to cede their own sovereignty in the interests of global humanity’s common good.

On the one hand, the Church advocates a world authority that manages globalization in the interests of economic justice. Yet it is equally committed to open markets, also as a matter of economic justice …]

Considering the Church’s history and its social doctrine, its call for a supranational authority is hardly a surprise. The Church has long viewed nation-state sovereignty as a challenge to its autonomy. Historically, it was far more comfortable operating in more fluid internationalized settings, such as during the Holy Roman Empire or Medieval Christendom. The devastation of World War II convinced senior European Catholics that the power of nation-states had to be tamed. This helps to explain why the Church was such an advocate of European unification. Indeed, prominent Catholics such as the former French Prime Minister Robert Schuman were central players in the processes set in motion by the 1957 Treaty of Rome. Six years later, Pope John XXIII endorsed the idea of a world authority, a call reiterated in all subsequent popes’ social teachings. The Church has avoided identifying such a body specifically with the United Nations. And it has tended to describe such an authority’s functions in very general terms such as “coordination.” But the logic is that if the conditions that facilitate human flourishing increasingly transcend national boundaries, the modern state’s claim to be the highest political authority capable of coordinating such conditions is unwarranted. In practical terms, some Church officials calculate that a world authority would be easier for the Church to navigate than a global order of sovereign nation-states…

The Catholic Church is not in the business of exercising “hard power.” But it certainly shapes people’s minds, whether through the daily preaching of thousands of Catholic clergy, the formation imparted by its countless educational institutions, or the unique bully pulpit it possesses with the papacy. This is no guarantee that predominately Catholic countries will simply fall into line with the Church’s teaching on global economic governance issues. The Church is, however, in a position to shape millions of people’s attitudes. In an increasingly global public square, the influence exercised by a Church whose name means “universal” and which, as a religious organization, possesses an unrivaled worldwide presence means that when it makes pronouncements about global economic reforms, it should consider making requests that are consistent with its own future…"

***- Samuel Gregg, The Future of the Church in the Financial Order ***

Catholics however are pilgrims in this world. We will work to make it more just, however temporal progress can never be the “highest good” for us.

The foundations of the European Union, nevertheless, which is the world’s first true supranational union of states, were laid by devout Catholics:

Read:

“…The Schuman Declaration is somewhat akin to Europe’s ‘Declaration of Independence’ in its combination of vision and blueprint…The Schuman plan was, in this sense, evocative…of the Christian belief in the power of repentance…This evocation is not particularly astonishing given the personal backgrounds of the founding fathers [of the European Union) - Adenauer, De Gaspari, Schuman, Monnet himself - all seriously committed Catholics…”

- J.H.H. Weiler, The Political and legal culture of European Integration (2011)**

 

[daler]

Catholics however are pilgrims in this world. We will work to make it more just, however temporal progress can never be the “highest good” for us.

The foundations of the European Union, nevertheless, which is the world’s first true supranational union of states, were laid by devout Catholics:

Read:

Vouthon,
. What you have presented is very good, in that it demonstrates a broadening worldview in which the nations progress towards some form of a world commonwealth which is not dominated by either a single powerful nation or specific religion.
. I would think that most Baha’is are in agreement with the essence, or spirit, of what is being said, although I don’t think a single Monarch would be the conclusion drawn, rather, in the Lawh-i-Maqsud, Baha’u’llah says (as recorded through His amanuensis):

. “The Great Being, wishing to reveal the prerequisites of the peace and tranquillity of the world and the advancement of its peoples, hath written: The time must come when the imperative necessity for the holding of a vast, an all-embracing assemblage of men will be universally realized. The rulers and kings of the earth must needs attend it, and, participating in its deliberations, must consider such ways and means as will lay the foundations of the world’s Great Peace amongst men. Such a peace demandeth that the Great Powers should resolve, for the sake of the tranquillity of the peoples of the earth, to be fully reconciled among themselves. Should any king take up arms against another, all should unitedly arise and prevent him. If this be done, the nations of the world will no longer require any armaments, except for the purpose of preserving the security of their realms and of maintaining internal order within their territories. This will ensure the peace and composure of every people, government and nation. We fain would hope that the kings and rulers of the earth, the mirrors of the gracious and almighty name of God, may attain unto this station, and shield mankind from the onslaught of tyranny.”

. Were this to be adequately applied, for example, to the current situation in the Crimea, it would set a far reaching precedent for future blatant aggression upon the sovereignty of any nation against its neighbor.

. A further elaboration on this theme has been articulated by Shoghi Effendi in 1936:

. “The unity of the human race, as envisaged by Bahá’u’lláh, implies the establishment of a world commonwealth in which all nations, races, creeds and classes are closely and permanently united, and in which the autonomy of its state members and the personal freedom and initiative of the individuals that compose them are definitely and completely safeguarded. This commonwealth must, as far as we can visualize it, consist of a world legislature, whose members will, as the trustees of the whole of mankind, ultimately control the entire resources of all the component nations, and will enact such laws as shall be required to regulate the life, satisfy the needs and adjust the relationships of all races and peoples. A world executive, backed by an international Force, will carry out the decisions arrived at, and apply the laws enacted by, this world legislature, and will safeguard the organic unity of the whole commonwealth. A world tribunal will adjudicate and deliver its compulsory and final verdict in all and any disputes that may arise between the various elements constituting this universal system. A mechanism of world inter-communication will be devised, embracing the whole planet, freed from national hindrances and restrictions, and functioning with marvellous swiftness and perfect regularity.”

reference.bahai.org/en/t/se/WOB/wob-56.html
.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Here is my attempts at a response for you PeaceInChrist

daler has responded very well, and I hope that anything I add will enable you to find logic in the responses given.

Here is post #756:

Baha’is do not argue above anyone else. We present a perspective and others present a different perspective. This is how truth is discerned.

There are certain elements of historicity within the Gospels which are disputed. Therefore all historicity (except that Jesus existed, was baptized and that He was crucified) cannot be verified categorically either way.

If you wish I can cite at least 5 New Testament scholar sources, highly respected, that question a large portion of the historicity of the Gospel narratives. The historical reliability therefore requires Faith.

Baha’is generally look at the almost historically undeniable life of Baha’u’llah, and the Bab, see how it is unique in religious history, and look at their Writings and determine that this has “more” reliability. What they revealed can therefore be deemed as “Gospel”…at least to Baha’is. Having said that, Baha’u’llah clearly identifies that there is a LOT of historical reliability in the NT, and that the Book is to be revered as Holy, and divinely inspired. Namely, and briefly, that Jesus was born, baptised, taught the Apostles, was tortured, and crucified upon the cross, and the primacy of Peter is FULLY acknowledged.

THIS is the perspective we present…you are welcome to take it or leave it

Yes, because, as I mentioned, the primary sources are unreliable, according to SCHOLARS, not by laymen like me and you, but by scholars …

Why do we take the quotes of Baha’u’llah as more reliable? Because if you can imagine JESUS Himself having lived not 2000 years ago, but 150 years ago and He provided mankind with a Revelation, then you too would probably take it as Gospel.

Baha’u’llah is that Person (in this imaginary scenario). His life and times, together with the Bab’s was phenomenally remarkable, amazing…so Baha’is conclude that their Revelation carries A LOT of weight, as much as Jesus’s Revelation.

Baha’u’llah’s Revelation when viewed as a whole completely FULFILLS to unbelievable levels of love, the Revelation of Jesus Christ…I see Jesus in His Springtime, and I see Baha’u’llah today, and I see the same springtime, except that mankind has evolved so much, and the world is now one global community that Jesus’ expressions of love have found FULL expression in Baha’u’llahs Revelation:

“The earth is but one country and mankind its citizens”
“Let your heart BURN with loving-kindness for ALL who cross your path” (emphasis added)

This is because God works according to age.

Mankind goes from age to age, just like a human body goes from age to age.

For each age, the human body requires physical food which differs, and is catered to its needs and its capacities, and sustains physical life, physical salvation

For each age, mankind also requires spiritual manna, which also differs, and is catered to its needs and its capacities, and sustains SPIRITUAL life, SPIRITUAL salvation.

Let there be no doubt, that at the time of writing and for the entire Christian age, there was no other name by which salvation could be achieved.

What do you think is the meaning of this verse dear friend?

Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.

• Matt 7:21

(cont…)

So let me get this straight… you are relying on scholars that claim the NT is historically incorrect to prove that it is incorrect (while disregarding ‘highly respected’ scholars who say the opposite), while you reject catholic tradition because it happened too long ago, and then claim you’re right because Mirza appeared only 150 years ago?

150 years after Jesus, we have the writings of the CHURCH FATHERS. They proclaim the same faith we do today. Tell me why your reinterpretation of history is not subject to the successors of the apostles? You do know we have writings of church fathers from the first and second centuries attesting to apostolic succession, the Eucharist, the second coming/parousia, ect? Read them.

But I guess what is true becomes false when ‘better’ truths come along…

Also, his own disciples went to their deaths claiming that Jesus rose. They gained NOTHING from making that claim, but they made it anyway. They died in horrible ways making that claim, and they never took it back. Why would they lie about something like that and then get tortured for it? Obviously if you don’t believe in the Ressirection, you can’t take the bible as inspired. It’s one of the main claims of the NT. If it’s false, then it’s a large collection of ancient lies about a traveling rabbi that got himself killed.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Jesus claimed that He was God Incarnate???

Where? Please provide a source…

…as long as it is acknowledged which parts of history require faith and which parts do not

No Baha’i has ever said that there was apostasy in Catholicism. I see the Holy Spirit working through the Catholic Church today and it is beautiful

God has simply provided new manna for the corresponding age of the body of mankind. And just like milk is different from a burger, the manna of today is different to the manna of yesteryear.

Please, dear friend, let us try and avoid patronisation. You have not read the Quran fully and you made claims about Muhammad that had no historical basis. I ask you to fulfil your duty to study things more…

The evidence is the Person of the Bab and the Person of Baha’u’llah, you can take it or reject it. No skin off my back brother.

It is you and your right relationship with your Maker…I’ll happily help you but if you can’t even open a book and read, then I start making statements like “No skin off my back”

There is no apostasy in the Baha’i Faith just as I do not see any apostasy in the Catholic Faith.

Is that clear?
Can we please move on from this apostasy stuff, it gets boring…and its just slandering for the sake of slandering…

please read above…

Who was the official successor to Peter?

Did Peter appoint a single successor in writing?
(my Church history is not up to scratch)

.

You are limited to either appealing to apostasy, or acknowledging that the authority given to the apostles was granted until the end of the world. Why? Because the apostles of Jesus, and those they left in their places, taught this.

The first successor to Peter was Linus. It was very important for the apostles and their successors to keep track of their succession (at least in Rome), because heretical groups like the Gnostics and judaisers claimed they were true successors. Ireneaus, in 180 AD (about 150 years after Jesus, imagine that) wrote that Apostolic Succession was the true measure of the apostolic Church (and he even cited all the successors at Rome up to his time).

See ‘Against Heresies’ book 3, chapter 3. Google it. Good read.

So you see, this is why I am indignant at your proclaimed knowledge of our scriptures. The fathers of our church (who lived very close to Jesus’s time) have a very different opinion than you and Mirza.

Also, you didn’t answer my numbered sections. But thank you for what you did write.

 

[daler]

So let me get this straight… you are relying on scholars that claim the NT is historically incorrect to prove that it is incorrect (while disregarding ‘highly respected’ scholars who say the opposite), while you reject catholic tradition because it happened too long ago, and then claim you’re right because Mirza appeared only 150 years ago?

150 years after Jesus, we have the writings of the CHURCH FATHERS. They proclaim the same faith we do today. Tell me why your reinterpretation of history is not subject to the successors of the apostles? You do know we have writings of church fathers from the first and second centuries attesting to apostolic succession, the Eucharist, the second coming/parousia, ect? Read them.

But I guess what is true becomes false when ‘better’ truths come along…

PeaceinChrist,
. Respectfully, when we objectively consider the positions of various religious Institutions and the basis of their dogma, the Jews will certainly uphold that their “Fathers” had it right and hold to it, even as your position is stated. Add to this the position of the Muslims insistence upon being the final authority based upon what their “Fathers” said to them in the first and second centuries AH.

. The fundamental belief of the Baha’is is something called “Progressive Revelation”, in which “All of the Prophets proclaim the same Faith”, as previously stated some posts ago. In this view, humanity is educated by a series of Divine Educators at each stage of existence, even as a child progresses through school while being taught by various teachers who all obtained their diplomas at the same University.

. In this present day, we are no longer subject to the limited knowledge supplied by Noah, for example, or Abraham, or even Jesus and Muhammad (which is relevant to this thread’s theme), for we have progressed “because” we have digested the lessons formerly taught by these Divine Educators as parts of a single continuing process, and have been given new Teachers according to the Divine Plan.

. That which They reveal is not according to Their capacity to give it, but to our capacity to receive it over time. We do not learn about calculus at the same period as we are taught simple mathematics, although the teacher may be well versed in all sciences.

. I am not asking you to accept this view, but simply articulating what the Baha’i position is, that they are Teachers in the same school.

. “Know thou assuredly that the essence of all the Prophets of God is one and the same. Their unity is absolute. God, the Creator, saith: There is no distinction whatsoever among the Bearers of My Message. They all have but one purpose; their secret is the same secret. To prefer one in honor to another, to exalt certain ones above the rest, is in no wise to be permitted. Every true Prophet hath regarded His Message as fundamentally the same as the Revelation of every other Prophet gone before Him. If any man, therefore, should fail to comprehend this truth, and should consequently indulge in vain and unseemly language, no one whose sight is keen and whose understanding is enlightened would ever allow such idle talk to cause him to waver in his belief.”

In context, for a better understanding, please read

reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/GWB/gwb-34.html

(about two pages in length)
.

 

[daler]

So you see, this is why I am indignant at your proclaimed knowledge of our scriptures. The fathers of our church (who lived very close to Jesus’s time) have a very different opinion than you and Mirza.

Also, you didn’t answer my numbered sections. But thank you for what you did write.

. The challenge, you see, for Baha’is is to attempt to be knowledgeable in the Scriptures not only of Christianity, but Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Native American, etc, etc, etc (including their various subsets, sects, and so on, ad infinitum…)

. This is quite a burden, you may admit. Then, from the perspective of coming from the position held that the Great Light promised in all the Sacred Scriptures of the World has indeed appeared, those who have seen this Light are now in the challenging position of going back to their various religious backgrounds and demonstrating the proofs foretold and prophecies fulfilled in all of them, to which resistance (often vehement) is formidable from whichever tradition is being tenaciously held onto.
.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

. The challenge, you see, for Baha’is is to attempt to be knowledgeable in the Scriptures not only of Christianity, but Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Native American, etc, etc, etc (including their various subsets, sects, and so on, ad infinitum…)

. This is quite a burden, you may admit. Then, from the perspective of coming from the position held that the Great Light promised in all the Sacred Scriptures of the World has indeed appeared, those who have seen this Light are now in the challenging position of going back to their various religious backgrounds and demonstrating the proofs foretold and prophecies fulfilled in all of them, to which resistance (often vehement) is formidable from whichever tradition is being tenaciously held onto.
.

That really doesn’t answer his valid objection. Why should we reject the Christian tradition which has known the new testament and Old testament for far longer than bahai and has a consistent historical connection to it and the apostles? Why should we reject for instance Saint Ignatius who taught many things contrary to bahai? The only reason to reject him is to assume bahai is correct prior to investigating the earliest sources because to do so would lead one away from the the understanding the bahai idea of Jesus is correct.

 

[tonyfish58]

Servant19;11821321:

I had never even heard of Bahai till this thread. Can you point me to a current, well respected theologian who has written extensively on the validity of The Bab and Bah’u’llah’s claims? Someone on the same level as say, GK Chesterton?

.

vsedriver - I am currently reading works by George Townsend - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Townshend_%28Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD%29

His books are written based on His Knowledge of the Bible, there are great works! I recommend them.

He was once the “Canon St. Patrick’s Cathedral” - Both His books are available to be read at the above link.

God Bless and Regards Tony

 

[PeaceInChrist]

PeaceinChrist,
. Respectfully, when we objectively consider the positions of various religious Institutions and the basis of their dogma, the Jews will certainly uphold that their “Fathers” had it right and hold to it, even as your position is stated. Add to this the position of the Muslims insistence upon being the final authority based upon what their “Fathers” said to them in the first and second centuries AH.

Except we have no objection to Jewish fathers. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, even up to the Maccabees. So, since we take into account all the teachings of the Jewish fathers, shouldn’t you take into account the Church fathers?

Of course, you and I both know you can’t. If you do, you’ll be left with Catholic Christology and an authoritative Church.

 

[tonyfish58]

That really doesn’t answer his valid objection. Why should we reject the Christian tradition which has known the new testament and Old testament for far longer than bahai and has a consistent historical connection to it and the apostles? Why should we reject for instance Saint Ignatius who taught many things contrary to bahai? The only reason to reject him is to assume bahai is correct prior to investigating the earliest sources because to do so would lead one away from the the understanding the bahai idea of Jesus is correct.

I have been away and missed the last Couple of Days and see no need to further comment on what has been said up to date

I would like to respond to your question if I may.

To me it is not any thing to do with Rejection This has been our way in the past, that is looking to find fault and thus be vindicated in our Truth.

To me God has given us the free will to try to perfect it. To perfect it we must be 100% submissive to Gods Will. This aim knows no Rejection.

As we grow as Humans perfecting our Spiritual Connection to Gods Word within our limited knowledge, we will not always get it 100% right. As we are prone to this failure, do we look back and Reject what we have done, or do we look back learn and move on to do it better? I am sure you could find examples how the Catholic Church has applied this type of Reform, that is not Rejecting what has been done in the past but learning from, changing direction and doing it better in the Future.

Can we indeed actually Reject what has been done in the past? I think not, it has been done, but we can learn and move on in our mutual searches for the Love of God.

So if a Prophet has indeed come and told us how we can do it better, it is not what has been done in the past that is blameworthy and needs to be rejected, It is what we do in relation to that new message that becomes the issue.

Did not Christ portray this to the Jews? That is this is what you have done of old, but now you must follow me if you wish to be Fishers of Men! A new Word a new Way that is the fulfillment of past ways and not the rejection of.

Every effort and Love put into the Faith of Christ by all His Faithful Servants is to feed the obligation we all have to accept the greatness of Christ and His Revelation, who would we be to Reject any of that.

My dear friend, IMHO that is for God to decide, God doeth as He Willeth and to none is given the right to question

God bless and Regards Tony

 

[PeaceInChrist]

. The challenge, you see, for Baha’is is to attempt to be knowledgeable in the Scriptures not only of Christianity, but Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Native American, etc, etc, etc (including their various subsets, sects, and so on, ad infinitum…)

. This is quite a burden, you may admit. Then, from the perspective of coming from the position held that the Great Light promised in all the Sacred Scriptures of the World has indeed appeared, those who have seen this Light are now in the challenging position of going back to their various religious backgrounds and demonstrating the proofs foretold and prophecies fulfilled in all of them, to which resistance (often vehement) is formidable from whichever tradition is being tenaciously held onto.
.

Yes, that is quite a burden. So why not turn to the very first generations of Christians to understand better the Scriptures? You’ll read a lot about the authority of bishops, the Eucharist (real, physical presence), the resurrection of Jesus, him being God (not a manifestation, but actually God), and a lot of other Catholic doctrine.

You can even do the same with Islam. Read the writings of Muhammad’s first followers to gain a better understanding of Islam, and follow them. Oh, wait, if you do that, you’ll end up being Islamic. And if you follow the Fathers of the Church, you’ll end up Catholic (or Orthodox, because though I disagree with some of their theology, one would be blind not to see they have valid successors of the apostles).

So whom shall you listen to? Mirza, or the ones that Jesus and the apostles taught?

Side note, there are still lots of unanswered points about the dissimilarity between John and the Bab, the reference to Jesus as eternal, salvation coming from only Him (with no qualifiers), the conundrum of either apostasy or apostalicity, the divisions in Bahai and why this somehow doesn’t matter but divisions in Christianity do, the house of justice being appointed without a living successor to Mirza to approve…