One correct religion with the Truth (part 2)?

[Servant19]

Hello Servant19

I think the question(s) to be answered more accurately to help educate us about Baha’ullah are:

1. Did Baha’ullah teach that Christians are condemned without salvation if they do not recieve Baha’ullah?
2. If no, do Christians lose out in their glory if & when they do become victorious & attain entry into heaven as compared to those who receive Baha’ullah (lets say Baha’ullah is truly from God)?
3. How many Christ(s) are there according to Baha"ullah?

These are the 3 questions that I am really curious about and will greatly appreciate your time in answering them in detail so that I may understand them better.

Thank you.

Hello dear friend James.

Thankyou for your questions. It’s been a very busy few days for me. I have spent some considerable time meditating on some of the comments posted on this thread. I apologize for the delay in responding to your thoughtfully asked questions.

I will respond to these to the best of my ability within the next 24 hours

God bless you

.

 

[SteveVH]

Hahaha

I must say I’m still musing over your comment that I made a mistake in reading the words of Catholic teaching in English!

I guess we are all doomed

God bless you dear friend

.

And what is it that has you baffled? That we cannot read an ancient document, written in an ancient language, in an ancient culture, with its own unique idioms and modes of expression, as we would read a modern newspaper? Why is that strange? No language translates perfectly into another and this is abundantly true when speaking of Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek.

Even translating English to English from one period to another is a challenge. How many people today understand what is meant by: “The exception proves the rule”. We must first understand that the word “proves” did not mean to verify (as it does today), but rather to “test”. If we do not have this understanding (as if we were reading it at face value with the modern understanding) the statement makes no sense. How much more when we are speaking of Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek from a culture with which we are not familiar that existed thousand of years ago?

This is why Christ founded a Church that would teach all nations for all generations. We were to receive our faith from the Church, not to privately extract it from ancient texts; even ancient texts that we know are inerrant.

 

[Servant19]

And what is it that has you baffled? That we cannot read an ancient document, written in an ancient language, in an ancient culture, with its own unique idioms and modes of expression, as we would read a modern newspaper? Why is that strange?

It’s strange because it puts the very point of having a book into futility.

The Bible is a pointless book, and ONLY Tradition matters by this logic dear friend

.

 

[theCrow]

The only correct religion = All you need is love.

it’s easy

 

[Per_Crucem]

The only correct religion = All you need is love.

it’s easy

What is love?

 

[SteveVH]

It’s strange because it puts the very point of having a book into futility.

The Bible is a pointless book, and ONLY Tradition matters by this logic dear friend

.

Not at all. You don’t understand where the Bible came from and the purpose for which the ancient texts were canonized. The purpose of the book was never to be a complete compendium of the Christian faith. Remember, the Catholic Church existed and flourished for nearly 400 years before it even canonized the texts of the Bible.

As far as Sacred Tradition is concerned, the Bible is only that part of Sacred Tradition committed to writing. The books that make up the Bible were chosen based upon how they reflected the truth handed down by the Apostles who received it directly from Christ. They were specifically chosen to be used in our liturgies, not as the end all of Christian belief.

In fact, the Bible itself instructs us to go to the Church, “the pillar and foundation of truth”. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

[Servant19]

This is why Christ founded a Church that would teach all nations for all generations. We were to receive our faith from the Church, not to privately extract it from ancient texts; even ancient texts that we know are inerrant.

so which of the 20,000 churches is telling me the Truth?

The one which interprets for itself a certain verse of the Bible to mean that it has the Truth and authority invested in it by the Holy Spirit, at the disagreeance of the other 19,999, or the Church that tells me it has authority according to it’s own interpretation of the Bible from “another” verse, again, the interpretation was given by the Holy Spirit.

Confused much dear friend? I am…where is the Holy Spirit??

All interpretations from a Bible which was not to be interpreted by anyone but the Holy Spirit. But I have no idea which Holy Spirit is the real one.



.

 

[SteveVH]

so which of the 20,000 churches is telling me the Truth?

The one which interprets for itself a certain verse of the Bible to mean that it has the Truth and authority invested in it by the Holy Spirit, at the disagreeance of the other 19,999, or the Church that tells me it has authority according to it’s own interpretation of the Bible from “another” verse, again, the interpretation was given by the Holy Spirit.

Confused much dear friend? I am…where is the Holy Spirit??

All interpretations from a Bible which was not to be interpreted by anyone but the Holy Spirit. But I have no idea which Holy Spirit is the real one.

You make a valid point, Servant. This is the fruit of the so-called “Reformation” which based itself on private interpretation of the Scriptures. It can be very confusing to a non-Christian. All of these ecclesial communities claim that they have interpreted the Scriptures for themselves under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And yet they all disagree with one another. Rather than 20,000 denominations, the number is probably closer to several hundred thousand when one considers every “Bible Church” cropping up on every corner of every city in the country that answer to no one but themselves. What is a person to do?

As I have said before, anyone can make a claim, but not all can back it up. Christ started one Church, not many. The authority of the Apostles was handed down by the laying on of hands (as can be demonstrated biblically), beginning with the Apostles and continuing through their successors. There is only one Church that can historically demonstrate apostolic succession back to Peter, the leader of the Apostles, and that is the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox also have valid apostolic succession which is recognized by our Church and the differences in our dogmas and doctrines are negligible. I would be happy if you accepted either as a basis for true Christian doctrine which was formed from Sacred Tradition, not extracted from written texts. The written texts, divinely inspired as they are, only reflect the faith already held by the Church as received from the Apostles.

Peace

Steve

 

[SteveVH]

The only correct religion = All you need is love.

it’s easy

Thank you, John Lennon.

This all really depends on how you define love. Jesus defines those that love him by those who follow his commandments.

“If you love me, keep my commandments.” (John 14:15)

So we would need to know those commandments in order to keep them and we need to keep them in order to demonstrate our love for him. Yes?

 

[Robyn_p]

What is love?

“Baby don’t hurt me. Don’t hurt me. No more.”

Ahem. Sorry. That was too perfect for me to pass up.

Anyways…Carry on, people, carry on.

 

[SteveVH]

“Baby don’t hurt me. Don’t hurt me. No more.”

Ahem. Sorry. That was too perfect for me to pass up.

Anyways…Carry on, people, carry on.

 

[Per_Crucem]

“Baby don’t hurt me. Don’t hurt me. No more.”

Ahem. Sorry. That was too perfect for me to pass up.

Anyways…Carry on, people, carry on.

:clapping:

At least you didn’t go the Tina Turner route

 

[MartinJordan]

:clapping:

At least you didn’t go the Tina Turner route

Or Howard Jones’…

MJ

 

[MartinJordan]

This is the fruit of the so-called “Reformation” which based itself on private interpretation of the Scriptures. It can be very confusing to a non-Christian.
Peace

Steve

Steve, how many of these “fruit of Reformation” churches, believe other religions are also Godsent? To be exact, accept Buddha and Rama and the rest are also equally sent by God?

MJ

 

[SteveVH]

Steve, how many of these “fruit of Reformation” churches, believe other religions are also Godsent? To be exact, accept Buddha and Rama and the rest are also equally sent by God?

MJ

Not sure I understand what you are asking exactly? I would say that few, if any, “Reformation churches” believe other religions are also God sent.

 

[MartinJordan]

Not sure I understand what you are asking exactly? I would say that few, if any, “Reformation churches” believe other religions are also God sent.

What I was asking is that do any Christian church believe in Rama, and Buddha, etc are manifestations of God? Or put it this way, they believe that the Holy Spirit has revealed to them these things?

MJ

 

[Servant19]

You make a valid point, Servant. This is the fruit of the so-called “Reformation” which based itself on private interpretation of the Scriptures. It can be very confusing to a non-Christian. All of these ecclesial communities claim that they have interpreted the Scriptures for themselves under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And yet they all disagree with one another. Rather than 20,000 denominations, the number is probably closer to several hundred thousand when one considers every “Bible Church” cropping up on every corner of every city in the country that answer to no one but themselves. What is a person to do?

As I have said before, anyone can make a claim, but not all can back it up. Christ started one Church, not many. The authority of the Apostles was handed down by the laying on of hands (as can be demonstrated biblically), beginning with the Apostles and continuing through their successors. There is only one Church that can historically demonstrate apostolic succession back to Peter, the leader of the Apostles, and that is the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox also have valid apostolic succession which is recognized by our Church and the differences in our dogmas and doctrines are negligible. I would be happy if you accepted either as a basis for true Christian doctrine which was formed from Sacred Tradition, not extracted from written texts. The written texts, divinely inspired as they are, only reflect the faith already held by the Church as received from the Apostles.

Peace

Steve

Hi Steve, thankyou for this informative post. I am aware of the Apostolic Succession and how wonderfully well it has worked within Catholicism and the Orthodox Church

I also understand what you are saying in that Tradition “precedes” the Book.

My perspective I wish to present for you to consider is that an educator does not teach kindergarten children university material. Likewise, an All-Wise Educator surpasses the wisdom of us mere mortals within our establishments and establishes the Tabernacle of Revelation to be progressive also. This principle was clearly outlined by Paul.

In the pagan climate, Revelation was catered to draw and attract the souls of men to the Citadel of God. As I have mentioned, there is nothing wrong and incorrect with asking the peoples of the world at that time to worship Jesus as God. This was the “milk” that was required for the pagan populations to be drawn towards the One True God, and that was the man Jesus Christ.

Yet today, we can reasonably and logically deduce that it is impossible for mortal man to “deduce” such things. In order for man to say someone is God, there are only two options:

1. Jesus said the words “I am God, true God from true God, you worship me and me alone, there is nothing and no-one higher than I”…categorically and explicitly. No room to maneuver. Jesus did not say that, otherwise it would have been recorded amongst all the other recorded sayings.

OR

1. Man knows and can define God. If man knows and can define God, then they can logically deduce that Jesus was God, since He fits all the defined parameters. In order for man to define God, he would need to be greater than God. Impossible.

So, today, we have moved forward from the milk that Paul fed the masses during the Christian Era, we are able to partake of the “solid food”, and that has been bountifully provided by Baha’u’llah

Hope that helps in the understanding of our position.



.

 

[Servant19]

Thank you, John Lennon.

This all really depends on how you define love. Jesus defines those that love him by those who follow his commandments.

“If you love me, keep my commandments.” (John 14:15)

So we would need to know those commandments in order to keep them and we need to keep them in order to demonstrate our love for him. Yes?

What is the commandment of Jesus towards a serial rapist of children in your neighbourhood?

What does love look like in this case?

.

 

[JamesCarr]

Hello dear friend James.

Thankyou for your questions. It’s been a very busy few days for me. I have spent some considerable time meditating on some of the comments posted on this thread. I apologize for the delay in responding to your thoughtfully asked questions.

I will respond to these to the best of my ability within the next 24 hours

God bless you

.

Hi Servant19. Its alright I understand. I look forward to hearing from you soon in regards to those questions I posted so that I or we may understand better about Bahai. I will paste the questions over here once more so you won’t have to look back.

1. Did Baha’ullah teach that Christians are condemned without salvation if they do not recieve Baha’ullah?
2. If no, do Christians lose out in their glory if & when they do become victorious & attain entry into heaven as compared to those who receive Baha’ullah (lets say Baha’ullah is truly from God)?
3. How many Christ(s) or Messiah(s) are there according to Baha"ullah? Name them if possible please?

Thanks again Servant19

 

[Servant19]

Hi Servant19. Its alright I understand. I look forward to hearing from you soon in regards to those questions I posted so that I or we may understand better about Bahai. I will paste the questions over here once more so you won’t have to look back.

Thankyou kindly for your patience dear James
Sometimes contributing to a new heaven and a new earth is time consuming and when the Holy Spirit consumes you it can be a few days away

I will attempt to offer my own understandings from my study of the Baha’i Writings to your questions below.

1. Did Baha’ullah teach that Christians are condemned without salvation if they do not recieve Baha’ullah?

Dear friend, let me try to explain that Baha’u’llah is Jesus and Jesus is Baha’u’llah. They are manifested in different human Temples, at different periods in human history, but in the realm of Divinity and in the Realm of the Word, they are one and the same Being.

So, I think the answer to this question is deducible by reason alone. Would Christians be condemned (I despise that word btw ) if they rejected Christ?

Hence Baha’u’llah’s emphatic statement:

“Be thou assured in thyself that verily, he who turns away from this Beauty hath also turned away from the Messengers of the past and showeth pride towards God from all eternity to all eternity.”*

• Baha’u’llah, Tablet of Ahmad

Now please note that the word “Beauty” here refers to the Divinity of Baha’u’llah which is one and the same as the Divinity of Christ. So if you have recognized Christ correctly and according to His original teachings and REvelation, one cannot fail to recognize the fulfillment in Christs teachings and commandments that Baha’u’llah provides in His Revelation.

Please go ahead and study the teachings of Baha’u’llah…it cannot fail to inspire and in my opinion is faultless in its abounding love and mercy for humanity as a whole

info.bahai.org/bahaullah-basic-teachings.html

1. If no, do Christians lose out in their glory if & when they do become victorious & attain entry into heaven as compared to those who receive Baha’ullah (lets say Baha’ullah is truly from God)?

Dear beloved friend, I feel I am not in a position to judge who will “lose out in their glory”, and who will “attain entry into heaven”

What I described above in terms of Jesus and Baha’u’llah being one and the same and sharing the same “Beauty” may be something you can fast and pray about, study, meditate and beg God to show you the Truth. Hopefully then you can at least say that you were genuine and sincere in your “intent” towards God’s Beauty. Your decisions from there are whats correct for your relationship and righteousness before God

1. How many Christ(s) or Messiah(s) are there according to Baha"ullah? Name them if possible please?

Thanks again Servant19

There was only one Christ, and one Messiah, Jesus Christ. These are “titles” which reflect a specific station held by Jesus.

If you look at Abraham, Moses, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha’u’llah, they all had “titles”, Baha’u’llah’s being the “Glory of the Lord”

Thankyou and God bless you dear friend

.