Reload this Page BAHA'I thread IV - feel free to ask of Baha'i any questions

[daler]

My two questions have not been answered.

How do you establish that the early church was corrupted (by which a manifestation was needed)?

Ignatian,   I'm not sure I follow your logic here.   First, I don't think that the early church was "corrupted".   At least not to my understanding.

 

[SteveVH]

Steve,
. We believe that that God is the Origin of that Light which Christ brings in the context Jesus uses His own Words when He says: “These are not My words, but Him that sent Me.” So obviously we have a different sense of understanding as to the origin of the words given to humanity which Christ says are not His own.

. To “humanity”, the Manifestation of God “is” the origin of the Light, to “us”, for we cannot go to God but through His Manifestation, as in the words, “No man cometh to the Father but by Me”, which we regard as the station of the Manifestation. That is, no human can gain access to God but through Him Who is the Manifestation of God, and indeed He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

. God is not in competition with Himself. Nor are His Prophets, and there still seems to be a difference in understanding no matter how terms are used. We say that God sends forth the Manifestations of His Light, and when the words of God are “I am”, that these words spoken by the tongue of His Manifestation are certainly the words of God, but we do not refer to the Manifestation Himself as God. However, it is somewhat confusing, for depending on how you look at Him:

. “Were any of the all-embracing Manifestations of God to declare: “I am God”, He, verily, speaketh the truth, and no doubt attacheth thereto. For it hath been repeatedly demonstrated that through their Revelation, their attributes and names, the Revelation of God, His names and His attributes, are made manifest in the world…”

. So the One Who speaks these words, in my understanding, is God Himself, speaking to humanity through the One we call His Mouthpiece, while understanding at the same time that this created One (His Manifestation) is not the Creator. Either one understands this or does not, I suppose, but for Baha’is, in referring to God, we believe that “He doeth what He willeth”

. Concerning the uniqueness of Bahá’u’lláh’s station and the greatness of His Revelation, Shoghi Effendi affirms that the prophetic statements concerning the “Day of God”, found in the Sacred Scriptures of past Dispensations, are fulfilled by the advent of Bahá’u’lláh:

. “To Israel He was neither more nor less than the incarnation of the “Everlasting Father”, the “Lord of Hosts” come down “with ten thousands of saints”; to Christendom Christ returned “in the glory of the Father”; to Shí’ah Islám the return of the Imám Ḥusayn; to Sunní Islám the descent of the “Spirit of God” (Jesus Christ); to the Zoroastrians the promised Sháh-Bahrám; to the Hindus the reincarnation of Krishna; to the Buddhists the fifth Buddha.”

I can’t do this anymore. Christianity holds that Jesus is God; the great “I AM”. The Scriptures and the Church are very clear about this. You simply reject this claim of Jesus Christ and choose to apply your own version to fit your preconceived notion of the truth.

As this thread concerns Baha’i beliefs, I am happy to acknowledge that this is what you believe and I am just as happy to reject it. Let’s just leave it at that.

 

[SteveVH]

…except that Jesus said nothing about the salvation of society as a collective body.

That should tell you something.

 

[daler]

Why can’t we say the 1000 year prophecy was a metaphore? After all bahai declare when Jesus said “I am not a ghost, for ghosts do not eat,” a metaphore in the gospel of Luke. It seems to me perfectly reasonable that you have misunderstood your prophet just like Christians corrupted Chistianity (somehow).

Ignatian,
. I’m not sure I’m following your logic here either. The references of a 1000 years that I am familiar with which come to mind would have to do with something in Revelation and also the Quran. These tie in together with the year 1260 spoken of by Daniel, as well as in Revelation. According to history, the Imams appeared until the year 260 AH, and 1000 years later was the year 1260 AH, which is 1844 AD. You can confirm this on a Muslim Christian calendar link independently.

. What must be considered is whether there just “happened” to be a great coincidence in the convergence of these two calendars or whether there is something to it. You might enjoy studying the subject of time prophecies with some 7th Day Adventists as an independent source apart from Baha’i understanding of the subject matter. They very specifically connect the 2300 days (years) to 1844 AD as beginning with the rebuilding of Jerusalem in 457 BC, as confirmed by the fulfillment of the 70 weeks (of years) prophecy of the crucifixion of Christ.

. Where Baha’is differ with the Adventists is in the recognition of the conclusion of 1260, which they think has to do with some events ending in 1798. They do not seem to notice the significance of the rise of Islam, nor have they even considered the 1260 & 1844 connection. I spoke with the head theologian of Loma Linda University on this and he was totally unaware of it.

 

[Servant19]

Ignatian,
. I’m not sure I’m following your logic here either. The references of a 1000 years that I am familiar with which come to mind would have to do with something in Revelation and also the Quran. These tie in together with the year 1260 spoken of by Daniel, as well as in Revelation. According to history, the Imams appeared until the year 260 AH, and 1000 years later was the year 1260 AH, which is 1844 AD. You can confirm this on a Muslim Christian calendar link independently.

. What must be considered is whether there just “happened” to be a great coincidence in the convergence of these two calendars or whether there is something to it. You might enjoy studying the subject of time prophecies with some 7th Day Adventists as an independent source apart from Baha’i understanding of the subject matter. They very specifically connect the 2300 days (years) to 1844 AD as beginning with the rebuilding of Jerusalem in 457 BC, as confirmed by the fulfillment of the 70 weeks (of years) prophecy of the crucifixion of Christ.

. Where Baha’is differ with the Adventists is in the recognition of the conclusion of 1260, which they think has to do with some events ending in 1798. They do not seem to notice the significance of the rise of Islam, nor have they even considered the 1260 & 1844 connection. I spoke with the head theologian of Loma Linda University on this and he was totally unaware of it.

Dale, what Ignatian is referring to is Baha’u’llah’s reference to no more Manifestations of God for at least 1000 years. He is trying to (again I feel this is purely to argue and nothing else) say how we know that this is a “literal” thousand years.

Bizarre angle to take but we entertain all aspects it seems

 

[Servant19]

That should tell you something.

Of course, it tells me that there is NEED and a REQUIREMENT for each age.

There is a reason why in Matthew, Jesus says that through our works we attain salvation, it’s not just by sitting back and having faith in Jesus, and that’s it, all our sins are forgiven, and heaven here we come…

It’s faith AND works. “These twin duties are inseparable…” (Kitab-i-Aqdas)

Baha’u’llah has simply given us the guidance for the WORKS for this age, the age of reason, and collective advancement and salvation. There was no sense of the global collective 2000 years ago. Jesus needed to address individual salvation at that time.

Today we have collective salvation.

It is the WORKS that advances, the faith is the same, same sun shining the same light on MORE ADVANCED plants.
The clouds of obscurity have been removed and the splendour of the “I AM” can be seen with all it’s glory again

 

[SteveVH]

Dale, what Ignatian is referring to is Baha’u’llah’s reference to no more Manifestations of God for at least 1000 years. He is trying to (again I feel this is purely to argue and nothing else) say how we know that this is a “literal” thousand years.

Bizarre angle to take but we entertain all aspects it seems

It is no more bizarre than the Baha’i inserting metaphorical meanings in just about every aspect of the Christian Scriptures from the feeding of the five thousand to the Resurrection. Knowing this, how do we know when you are speaking literally or metaphorically? It is a fair question.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Ignatian, I’m not sure I follow your logic here. First, I don’t think that the early church was “corrupted”. At least not to my understanding.

A previous bahai member supposed the church corrupted and that each individual religion gets corrupted hence the need for a new manifestation every now and then. My question is directed against those whom would suppose the church has been corrupted. But I do not feel you can say the church was not corrupted, that is to say, that it didn;t keep to the true teaching of Jesus Christ. The problem for the bahai is that this happened pretty much immediately with the apostles.

We explain this subject as follows: By the “word” we mean that creation with its infinite forms is like unto letters and the individual members of humanity are likewise like unto letters. A letter individually has no meaning, no independent significance, but the station of Christ is the station of the word. That is why we say Christ is the “word” — a complete significance. The universal bestowal of divinity is manifest in Christ. It is obvious that the evolution of other souls is approximate, or only a part of the whole, but the perfections of the Christ are universal, or the whole. The reality of Christ is the collective center of all the independent virtues and infinite significances.

Such a concept is not the biblical or historic understanding of Jesus being the word. Let me ask some follow up questions.

Are Jesus and Mirza Hussain the exact same word?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Ignatian,
. I’m not sure I’m following your logic here either. The references of a 1000 years that I am familiar with which come to mind would have to do with something in Revelation and also the Quran. These tie in together with the year 1260 spoken of by Daniel, as well as in Revelation. According to history, the Imams appeared until the year 260 AH, and 1000 years later was the year 1260 AH, which is 1844 AD. You can confirm this on a Muslim Christian calendar link independently.

. What must be considered is whether there just “happened” to be a great coincidence in the convergence of these two calendars or whether there is something to it. You might enjoy studying the subject of time prophecies with some 7th Day Adventists as an independent source apart from Baha’i understanding of the subject matter. They very specifically connect the 2300 days (years) to 1844 AD as beginning with the rebuilding of Jerusalem in 457 BC, as confirmed by the fulfillment of the 70 weeks (of years) prophecy of the crucifixion of Christ.

. Where Baha’is differ with the Adventists is in the recognition of the conclusion of 1260, which they think has to do with some events ending in 1798. They do not seem to notice the significance of the rise of Islam, nor have they even considered the 1260 & 1844 connection. I spoke with the head theologian of Loma Linda University on this and he was totally unaware of it.

I don’t care for bahai numerology which seems totally arbitrary and made only to fit with your idea. My sole point is to say that bahais believe on the word of Mirza Hussain (although i have never seen teh quotation) that it will be a thousand years until the next manifestation. Why must we take such statements with absolute certain literalism when you will interpret the most literal remarks in the gospels concerning the physically raised Jesus christ, (I am not a ghost) as symbolic of something no bahai has bothered to explain or interpret in these threads as of yet. If any statement which is so literal in the gospels can be taken as metaphorical why must we accept it being a literal 1000 years to the coming of a supposed manifestation?

Also in view of this, another question of mine has been completely ignored by bahai constantly. How do you have assurance you have kept the faith when every other religion before you has corrupted the faith? That is they have all distorted the message of their prophets. There is no garuntee it seems that you will hold to the true understanding untill a new manifestation comes, there is no garuntee that you have the correct understanding right now it seems.

 

[Servant19]

It is no more bizarre than the Baha’i inserting metaphorical meanings in just about every aspect of the Christian Scriptures from the feeding of the five thousand to the Resurrection. Knowing this, how do we know when you are speaking literally or metaphorically? It is a fair question.

I think when the Manifestation of God Himself says that this should be taken literally, then generally people know.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I think when the Manifestation of God Himself says that this should be taken literally, then generally people know.

Luke 28:36 While they were speaking of this, he himself stood in the midst of them, and said, Peace be upon you; it is myself, do not be afraid.[5] 37 They cowered down, full of terror, thinking that they were seeing an apparition. 38 What, he said to them, are you dismayed? Whence come these surmises in your hearts? 39 Look at my hands and my feet, to be assured that it is myself; touch me, and look; a spirit has not flesh and bones, as you see that I have. 40 And as he spoke thus, he shewed them his hands and his feet. 41 Then, while they were still doubtful, and bewildered with joy, he asked them, Have you anything here to eat? 42 So they put before him a piece of roast fish, and a honeycomb; 43 and he took these and ate in their presence and shared his meal with them.[6] 44

But this is all a metaphore right?

 

[Servant19]

Luke 28:36 While they were speaking of this, he himself stood in the midst of them, and said, Peace be upon you; it is myself, do not be afraid.[5] 37 They cowered down, full of terror, thinking that they were seeing an apparition. 38 What, he said to them, are you dismayed? Whence come these surmises in your hearts? 39 Look at my hands and my feet, to be assured that it is myself; touch me, and look; a spirit has not flesh and bones, as you see that I have. 40 And as he spoke thus, he shewed them his hands and his feet. 41 Then, while they were still doubtful, and bewildered with joy, he asked them, Have you anything here to eat? 42 So they put before him a piece of roast fish, and a honeycomb; 43 and he took these and ate in their presence and shared his meal with them.[6] 44

But this is all a metaphore right?

As I have pointed out in the past and continue to believe, and this is not necessarily a Bahai standpoint, but I understand the Bible as not necessarily the recounting of historical facts, but rather the rendering of spiritual Truths

This is a point shared by many Biblical scholars

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

As I have pointed out in the past and continue to believe, and this is not necessarily a Bahai standpoint, but I understand the Bible as not necessarily the recounting of historical facts, but rather the rendering of spiritual Truths

This is a point shared by many Biblical scholars

Part of the bahai belief is denial in ressurection (that is in the classical and traditional sense of the word not the gnostic or modern reinterpretation of the word). This cannot be literal for the bahai, this verse must be some sort of metaphore or symbolic gesture despite its absolutely very plain and literal language which seems to go to every extreme to point out “Christ really rose from the dead.”

So reworking this back to my point about the 1000 year promise of a manifestation, why should we, even if your manifestation said this “Look I mean this absolutely for real, there will be no manifestation before 1000 years are passed.” Why are we bound to take that literally if such a statement like Christ’s in the gospels can be taken as a metaphore?

 

[arthra]

Luke 28:36 While they were speaking of this, he himself stood in the midst of them, and said, Peace be upon you; it is myself, do not be afraid.[5] 37 They cowered down, full of terror, thinking that they were seeing an apparition. 38 What, he said to them, are you dismayed? Whence come these surmises in your hearts? 39 Look at my hands and my feet, to be assured that it is myself; touch me, and look; a spirit has not flesh and bones, as you see that I have. 40 And as he spoke thus, he shewed them his hands and his feet. 41 Then, while they were still doubtful, and bewildered with joy, he asked them, Have you anything here to eat? 42 So they put before him a piece of roast fish, and a honeycomb; 43 and he took these and ate in their presence and shared his meal with them.[6] 44

But this is all a metaphore right?

Uhhh Ignation… The Gospel of Luke only has twenty four chapters…and uhhh do a spell check on your spelling … It’s resurrection not “ressurection.”

 

[Sen_McGlinn]

Uhhh Ignation… The Gospel of Luke only has twenty four chapters…and uhhh do a spell check on your spelling … It’s resurrection not “ressurection.”

I am ashamed for you Arthra. That was unworthy

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Uhhh Ignation… The Gospel of Luke only has twenty four chapters…and uhhh do a spell check on your spelling … It’s resurrection not “ressurection.”

Why thank you Arthur, but that very literal description is most certainly a metaphore right? So why can’t I read the 1000 year promise as being a metaphore? No matter how literal the text might indicate? In trying to mock what I admit is my very poor spelling and often times very poor grammar you cannot address the purely arbitrary nature of interpreting a text which lays before you. You will insist beyond all reasonable doubt that Luke must be describing a metaphore, that Jesus Christ did not raise from the dead despite Luke presenting Christ as very physical, not a ghost, eating with his apostles, proving to his aposltes he is real. But with absolute dogmatic certitude every bahai must believe the 1000 year thing is literal. This is a problem for bahai and ignoring it, like you have done with so many of our criticisms doesn’t help you in the end.

 

[Sen_McGlinn]

i guess if you discard the notion of justice the concept of atonement is unnecessary.

I take it you are referring to the atonement of Christ, and not for example the duty of the repentant sinner to atone for wrongs he has done. The language of “atonement” in relation to Christ’s work is common to a number of Christian theologies that, collectively, can be called “satisfaction” theories of Christ’s work on the Cross. These theories stem from a common root: Anselm’s theory that Christ suffered as a substitute on behalf of humankind, satisfying the demands of God’s honor by his infinite merit. The penal or legalistic view of atonement is analogous, arguing that Christ was punished in the place of sinners, thus satisfying the demands of God’s justice so that God could justly forgive the sins. An implication of all the Anselmian views is that God was unable to forgive sins before Christ’s sacrifice.

When you say " if you discard the notion of justice the concept of atonement is unnecessary" I understand you (correct me if I am wrong) as assuming as a given the legalistic variant of Anselm’s satisfaction theory, and asking, if Bahais don’t have a legalistic view of Christ’s sacrifice, is there no need for an understanding of atonement?

Bahais are not heirs to the theological tradition that begins with Anselm. However, Christianity got along just fine without Anselm’s theory for a thousand years, and eastern Christianity still manages without it. That is, there are views of Christ and his sacrifice which are not legalistic, but which nevertheless embrace the atonement achieved by Christ, understood in a non-legalistic sense. The Bahai understanding of the effectiveness of Christ’s self-sacrifice resembles an older Christian theology, the moral influence view, of which Wikipedia says,

The moral influence view of the atonement teaches that** the purpose and work of Jesus Christ was to bring positive moral change to humanity. This moral change came through the teachings and example of Jesus, the Christian movement he founded, and the inspiring effect of his martyrdom and resurrection**. It is one of the oldest views of the atonement in Christian theology and a prevalent view for most of Christian history … leading some scholars to claim that the moral influence theory was universally taught in the second and third centuries. See, for example: the Epistle to Diognetus, The Shepherd of Hermas, and works by Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, Clement of Alexandria Hippolytus of Rome, Origen, Irenaeus, and Arnobius. Some writers also taught other atonement models in conjunction with it, but Wallace and Rusk claim that the majority of Christian writers in the second and third centuries AD expressed only the moral influence view.

Compare the bold words to Baha’u’llah’s words regarding Christ’s sacrifice:

Know thou that when the Son of Man yielded up His breath to God, the whole creation wept with a great weeping. By sacrificing Himself, however, a fresh capacity was infused into all created things. Its evidences, as witnessed in all the peoples of the earth, are now manifest before thee. The deepest wisdom which the sages have uttered, the profoundest learning which any mind hath unfolded, the arts which the ablest hands have produced, the influence exerted by the most potent of rulers, are but manifestations of** the quickening power released by His transcendent, His all-pervasive, and resplendent Spirit.**

We testify that when He came into the world, He shed the splendor of His glory upon all created things. Through Him the leper recovered from the leprosy of perversity and ignorance. Through Him, the unchaste and wayward were healed. Through His power, born of Almighty God, the eyes of the blind were opened, and the soul of the sinner sanctified.
(Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah, p. 85)

and Abdu’l-Baha’s more general explanation:

How can one solitary person without help and without support lay the foundations of such a noble construction? He must depend on the help of the spiritual and divine power to be able to undertake this mission. One Holy Soul gives life to the world of humanity, changes the aspect of the terrestrial globe, causes intelligence to progress, vivifies souls, lays the basis of a new life, establishes new foundations, organizes the world, brings nations and religions under the shadow of one standard, delivers man from the world of imperfections and vices, and inspires him with the desire and need of natural and acquired perfections. Certainly nothing short of a divine power could accomplish so great a work. We ought to consider this with justice, for this is the office of justice.
(Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 9)

Caveat: I do see a difference between what Baha’u’llah and Abdu’l-Baha are teaching, and some current watered-down versions of the moral influence view: Baha’u’llah and Abdu’l-Baha speak of an objective spiritual power that is released and which has an influence in the world and on souls: it is not simply a good example that Christ set which can ennoble those who know about it. However I would assume that the Church Fathers’ version of the moral influence theory also had an objective as well as a subjective element. Sadly, patristics was a course I missed in my studies, as it was taught only every second year, and practical considerations prevented me continuing my study.

 

[Servant19]

Part of the bahai belief is denial in ressurection (that is in the classical and traditional sense of the word not the gnostic or modern reinterpretation of the word). This cannot be literal for the bahai, this verse must be some sort of metaphore or symbolic gesture despite its absolutely very plain and literal language which seems to go to every extreme to point out “Christ really rose from the dead.”

So reworking this back to my point about the 1000 year promise of a manifestation, why should we, even if your manifestation said this “Look I mean this absolutely for real, there will be no manifestation before 1000 years are passed.” Why are we bound to take that literally if such a statement like Christ’s in the gospels can be taken as a metaphore?

I will give you again, my opinion.

I feel the Gospel stories were written partly to appeal to the religious, political and social climates surrounding Christianity at the time and were intended to impart the TRUTHS of Jesus Mission to the gentiles and the Jews at the time. They were written in a manner which would appeal to the reader, again, at the time of writing, and were intended, not necessarily for historical accuracy, but rather for spiritual accuracy.

The Baha’i Texts on the other hand have two components, history and Revelation. The Revelation component of Baha’u’llah’s Writings is as authentic as it comes in regards to the actual Words of the Manifestation of God. The majority of Baha’u’llah’s Writings impart spiritual truths and provide guidance for personal and collective salvation.

The historical component of the Baha’i Texts were predominantly written by Nabil (one of Baha’u’llahs most staunch disciples) and his narrative was authenticated and translated by the Centre of the Covenant.

The Baha’i Covenant is absolutely explicit. It is the mainstay of all truth found within the Baha’i Religion. It enables complete trust in the expositions of Abdu’l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi, and the Universal House of Justice, since all of these entities were explicitly expounded upon by Baha’u’llah Himself, in completely clear Writing in His Most Holy Book and His Will and Testament.

Other historical narratives were also authentically written by Abdu’l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi. There are a large amount of personal narratives to be found written by prominent Baha’is who kept very accurate records of events, during the Bab and Baha’u’llah’s life.

 

[Sen_McGlinn]

How do you have assurance you have kept the faith when every other religion before you has corrupted the faith? That is they have all distorted the message of their prophets. There is no garuntee it seems that you will hold to the true understanding untill a new manifestation comes, there is no garuntee that you have the correct understanding right now it seems.

That is correct: we have no guarantee. More than that, we know that we are constantly mixing and misunderstanding. That knowledge breeds humility, and a tendency to answer questions with screeds of quotes, because by answering with scripture, we avoid adding our own, possibly faulty, interpretations. It would be easy to give a list of things that some or many Bahais have at one time believed to be Bahai teachings, only to find that they were misunderstanding some point, or bringing some of their own religious and intellectual baggage into the Bahai teachings.

Church history too is full of interpretations and doctrines that were adopted for a while, perhaps in one province, and later discarded. To sort the wheat from the chaff over the passage of time, both Bahais and Christians have intellectual debate, the guidance of the holy spirit, and the rule of thumb, that a good tree bears good fruit. Bahais in addition have the interpretations of Abdu’l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi, which are voluminous; Catholics have the magisterium, ordinary and extraordinary, the Orthodox have the decisions and encyclicals of synods and important documents from the Patriarchs.

BUT - whatever sources we use, each individual’s understanding is in accordance with their own capacities. We say, “scripture says …” or “Shoghi Effendi says” or “the creed says…” but we mean, “my understanding of scripture is …” or “my understanding of the creed is …”

 

[PRmerger]

…except that Jesus said nothing about the salvation of society as a collective body.

THAT’S why I’m a Bahai, individual AND social salvation.

Well, if you believe in this collective “social salvation”, then I guess I’m already saved through your being a Bahai. And THAT’S why I don’t have to be one, nor believe that Bahaullah is divine.

And that’s great for me. That way, I get to continue to have the One Flesh Union with Christ in the Eucharist as well as enjoy this collective “social salvation”.