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

[eddie_too]

surely if God were to send a manifestation, as the bahai claim of bahaullah, the manifestation would have something new to add to mankind’s reality.

the bahai claim that bahaullah was the first to speak of the oneness of mankind. as i pointed out, that is not true.

the bahai claim that bahaullah was the first to speak of a one world government. as i pointed out, that is not true.

so, one of many questions that remain is, what did bahaullah give the world that it did not already know or have?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

surely if God were to send a manifestation, as the bahai claim of bahaullah, the manifestation would have something new to add to mankind’s reality.

the bahai claim that bahaullah was the first to speak of the oneness of mankind. as i pointed out, that is not true.

the bahai claim that bahaullah was the first to speak of a one world government. as i pointed out, that is not true.

so, one of many questions that remain is, what did bahaullah give the world that it did not already know or have?

Don’t you remember he was the one that told us slavery was wrong, despite the british already being anti slavery before Hussain’s prophetic ministry and not hearing a single peep from this unknown persian.

 

[eddie_too]

the law frees no man because no man can follow the law perfectly.

surely it is not a bahai teaching that the law sets man free?

if it bahai teaching, we are forced to conclude that man will be eternally enslaved since no one follows the law perfectly.

 

[Sen_McGlinn]

You might recollect that Catholics teach that Mary was conceived without Original Sin – that Christ, being born without Original Sin was likewise without sin – that Christ’s Body did not see corruption but was resurrected – that, following His Resurection He ascended bodily into Heaven – and that upon Her death, the Blessed Virgin’s body also was Assumed into Heaven.

That’s how those doctrines fit together in the Catholic view of Heaven.

Does this help?

It sounds as if you are saying Christ and Mary had glorified bodies while on earth, which went straight to heaven. But don’t let me drag the thread off topic, I am sure the Apologists will have an answer for me

 

[flameburns623]

It sounds as if you are saying Christ and Mary had glorified bodies while on earth, which went straight to heaven. But don’t let me drag the thread off topic, I am sure the Apologists will have an answer for me

I’m not certain they had glorified bodies, except Christ in the forty days following His Resurrection. But they were free of the taint of Original Sin, more like the natural goodness of the bodies of Adam and Eve prior to the Fall.

So far as we know, Adam and Eve were destined to have a finite span of existence in the Garden, after which they would have likewise been translated up into Heaven with their natural bodies glorified without ever experiencing the corruption of death.

The Garden seems to have been a proving-grounds in that sense, a place for Adam and Eve to have learned of God in a state of innocent intimacy. That intimacy was shattered and that innocence lost by the Fall.

So what we see in the Ascension of Christ and in the Dormition and Assumption of Mary are models of what humanity would have experienced in the absence of the Fall.

 

[Porknpie]

Hi Pork,

As well as what Nick44 has offered above, which I think is an essential read, I may add that the examples that you gave reflect some of the signs or promises given by the Messengers of God. In this light I would say that Baha’u’llah brings the promise of the unification of mankind to the table in relation to salvation history

Servant,

Try filling in the blanks for Baha’u’llah as it would provide clarity to your thoughts on how God has revealed himself in a greater way than Jesus Christ (your words I believe). The theological thinking below is a common way to understand God’s revelation and relationship to man over time.

Covenant Type _________________
Covenant Promise ___________
Covenant Sign __________________

There have been lamps sent by God. And God has always made a covenant promise with each of them and a covenant sign. Below by covenant type, promise and sign

Adam … …marraige…promise of redemption …s abbath
Noah … …household …promise of no future flood … …the rainbow
Abraham…tribe…promise of the seed to outnumber the stars…circumcision
Moses…nation…promise of land for obediance…pas sover
David…kingdom…promise of eternal future kingdom & messiah…throne
Jesus… Catholic Church/world…promise of eternal life & resurrection…the Eucharist
Baha’u’llah …?..?.. … …?

 

[arthra]

We see Covenant probably different than you do…

A Covenant is another word for an agreement:

*a usually formal, solemn, and binding agreement *2

• a : a written agreement or promise usually under seal between two or more parties especially for the performance of some action

Recognizing Who is the Messenger of God for this day and following His Commandments would be part of the Covenant…

Breaking the Covenant would be someone who first agrees then breaks it by fighting the Messenger of God in His day and not following His commandments intentionally…

So you could say that Judas broke the Covenant by turning on His Master and betraying Him…

Aaron could have broken the Covenant by instructing the people to fashion a calf to worship and so on…

The primal covenant would be:

They harkened to the voice of God, and to His cry of “Am I not your Lord?” they replied, “Yea, verily!”

~ Abdu’l-Baha, Memorials of the Faithful, p. 72

Violating the Covenant would be going back on your allegiance when you said “Yea verily”.

 

[Servant19]

Servant, may I ask you to give us a brief summary of your idea of the Christian dogma of the Trinity?

The answer to your question is very simple. Jesus is not the Father. Jesus is also not the Holy Spirit, but yes, he is God. The Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God. Three divine Persons in one God, distinct only in relationship with one another, but not separate in any way. The nature of the one God is a family. That is why we have a Father and a Son and a Holy Spirit. God is not like us. The eternal second Person of the Trinity became man. He was not created, but rather assumed human flesh, being born of a virgin with no human father.

You do not have to accept the dogma of the Trinity, but if you are going to discuss this subject you should at least know what it is that we really believe.

Thanks for this Steve

I am trying to understand this as best I can but what you typed here goes against Jesus’ own words of “I and the Father are One”

How is this reconciled?

I don’t believe He ever said that He is God, yet the Trinity states that He is. Can you appreciate this confusion?

 

[Servant19]

Lets define God shall we.

1. God is eternal, uncreated, all powerful, all knowing, beyond the material world.
2. God is immutable, he does not change.
3. God is the creator of all things that are created.
4. God alone is worthy of worship, that is opposed to mere veneration or less honour than someone or something else.

Now if you want to apply those things to Jesus Christ and say, well yes and no to my original question, feel free to. I don’t know why bahai oppose the Christian trinity then.

Iggy, can you please provide a similar list of definitions for the Father, and then I can tell you if I believe Jesus is God.

Thanks

 

[Jaberwocky]

Thanks for this Steve

I am trying to understand this as best I can but what you typed here goes against Jesus’ own words of “I and the Father are One”

How is this reconciled?

I don’t believe He ever said that He is God, yet the Trinity states that He is. Can you appreciate this confusion?

First, you have to realize that by the admittance of the gospel writers, many things were not written down in Scripture that Jesus said and did. Many things were passed down in Tradition. The Apostles were taught by Jesus after his resurrection as well and the Holy Spirit further provided them with a supernatural comprehension of what was taught by Jesus.

So what they write reflects what Jesus taught.

To best understand how Jesus always had called himself God, you only need to understand the confusion and anger of the Pharisees when he forgave sins. Forgiving sins was only possible for God. So every time Jesus uttered the words “your sins are forgiven”, it was basically him calling himself God.

There are also instances where he calls himself “I am”, the Title given to God.

So the fact that Jesus claimed himself to be God is really not an issue as far as Christians are concerned. The Tradition is clear and the Scripture is clear (if you know what to look for and can read the implications of what may seem innocent wording).

 

[Servant19]

First, you have to realize that by the admittance of the gospel writers, many things were not written down in Scripture that Jesus said and did. Many things were passed down in Tradition. The Apostles were taught by Jesus after his resurrection as well and the Holy Spirit further provided them with a supernatural comprehension of what was taught by Jesus.

So what they write reflects what Jesus taught.

To best understand how Jesus always had called himself God, you only need to understand the confusion and anger of the Pharisees when he forgave sins. Forgiving sins was only possible for God. So every time Jesus uttered the words “your sins are forgiven”, it was basically him calling himself God.

There are also instances where he calls himself “I am”, the Title given to God.

So the fact that Jesus claimed himself to be God is really not an issue as far as Christians are concerned. The Tradition is clear and the Scripture is clear (if you know what to look for and can read the implications of what may seem innocent wording).

Thankyou Jaberwocky, this is all well and good, but if Jesus is all of these things, then who is the Father?

This is critical to anyones understanding and acceptance of the Trinity doctrine.

Ignatian above, gave a list of definitions of God. I would like a similar list of definitions of the Father please

 

[daler]

There are also instances where he calls himself “I am”, the Title given to God.

So the fact that Jesus claimed himself to be God is really not an issue as far as Christians are concerned. The Tradition is clear and the Scripture is clear (if you know what to look for and can read the implications of what may seem innocent wording).

Jaber,
. In many places in the Old Testament, God, through His Prophets, declares: “I am God”.

. For me, that does not imply that the Prophet through whom God spoke is actually God, but rather that God is speaking through the mouths of those Prophets.

. When Jesus says: “The word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father that sent Me.” from John 14:24
. And “My Father is greater than I” in John 14:28

. So for me, even before I had heard of the Baha’i Faith, as a Christian born and raised, when I read these verses I necessarily had to distinguish between Jesus and God.

. My own thoughts are that God “fashions”, if you will, a Divine Instrument in the form of One like ourselves, through Whom He speaks to us and says: “I am God”

. The distinction then, for me, is that this Divine Instrument, whether Moses, Isaiah, or Jesus is still an Instrument of God, and not God Himself. Yet that being said, when God says “I am God”, that is God talking…

 

[daler]

There are also instances where he calls himself “I am”, the Title given to God.

So the fact that Jesus claimed himself to be God is really not an issue as far as Christians are concerned.

Jaber,
. Baha’is do not deny the Presence of God in the Presence of Jesus. That is, to be in the “Presence of Jesus”, as a Manifestation of God, was to be in the “Presence of God”. . The following may help, as it addresses “the Godhead”, from the Baha’i standpoint, as closely as can be related to the Trinity, as can be expressed in our understanding:

. "Regard thou the one true God as One Who is apart from, and immeasurably exalted above, all created things. The whole universe reflecteth His glory, while He is Himself independent of, and transcendeth His creatures. This is the true meaning of Divine unity.

. The essence of belief in Divine unity consisteth in regarding Him Who is the Manifestation of God and Him Who is the invisible, the inaccessible, the unknowable Essence as one and the same. By this is meant that whatever pertaineth to the former, all His acts and doings, whatever He ordaineth or forbiddeth, should be considered, in all their aspects, and under all circumstances, and without any reservation, as identical with the Will of God Himself. This is the loftiest station to which a true believer in the unity of God can ever hope to attain. Blessed is the man that reacheth this station, and is of them that are steadfast in their belief."

Baha’u’llah

 

[tonyfish58]

So up until Muhammad we were all good?

Muhammad Came because Faith in God was turning away from Gods Intended path.

Personally I can put no fixed date for you when this all started happening. Fortunately the question is fully addressed by Baha’u’llah, and

There is no better answer to this question than this book - The Kitáb-i-Íqán - Link - reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/KI/

I could post passages out of it, but to me it takes away from the whole. If one reads the book from the beginning it takes one through all that has happened in religion to date. It is a decisive Proof of all Religion.

If you are chasing an answer to your question, then this will do it. I leave that up to you.

Regards Tony

 

[Servant19]

surely if God were to send a manifestation, as the bahai claim of bahaullah, the manifestation would have something new to add to mankind’s reality.

Of course Jesus said He has much MORE to say unto us. More implies something new, I’m sure…however if we read on He says “but ye cannot bear it now”. Why couldn’t man bear it at the time of Jesus?

My understanding is that the spiritual principles are the same from one religion to another (Baha’u’llah said "this is the changeless Faith of God, eternal in the past, eternal in the future), but it is the APPLICATION of those spiritual principles which differs from age to age. Mankind evolves. What does the APPLICATION of the oneness of mankind look like in todays global environment?

the bahai claim that bahaullah was the first to speak of the oneness of mankind. as i pointed out, that is not true.

I’m not sure I have read anywhere on this thread anyone claim that Baha’u’llah was the first to say that mankind is one. But it’s the first time in history that this “spiritual principle” can finally reach its fruition. The world is more recognized as one global community more than ever before. The countries are like the organs of one human body. If the kidneys are sick, the whole body is affected. Similarly, if one country is in major strife and ruin, the whole world can be affected.

The principle of the oness of mankind has found its maturity in Baha’u’llah’s age, and Jesus referred to it 2000 years ago, when the world was flat and no-one had even heard of an Aboriginal Australian. Do you see the difference?

I pray that you do Eddie, because when you see that, when you truly see it, it becomes a Divine Springtime in your heart and soul

the bahai claim that bahaullah was the first to speak of a one world government. as i pointed out, that is not true.

Which other religion talks about a one world government?

so, one of many questions that remain is, what did bahaullah give the world that it did not already know or have?

The blueprint on how to apply the spiritual teachings of the religions of God in an age where it will bring forth the unification of the human race is what Baha’u’llah has brought mankind

 

[Servant19]

continued from above:

In regards to the oneness of mankind, there are many aspects to consider, one of which is the celebration of mixed marriages. I, in no way wish to judge the Catholic Church, simply because I see why it discourages mixed marriages…it is a bedrock of such theologies where the salvation of a soul is so reliant upon acceptance of Christ, and only Christ, yet this theology in its own right hampers the “oneness” principle.

Pope Gregory XVI wrote in Quas Vestro 30th April 1841:

“And yet what the church has always thought about marriages between Catholics and non-Catholics is more than abundantly clear. Indeed she has always considered such marriages to be illicit and destructive both because of the disgraceful sharing in sacramental matters involved and because of the ever present danger of the Catholic spouse and improper upbringing of offspring.”

“Nevertheless, it is no small consolation that at the same time as We were informed of this growing evil, We have likewise learned of your efforts and those of your colleagues to remedy it opportunely. We are joyful to learn with what zeal you are jointly inflamed to preserve intact the purity of the Catholic faith and with what reverence and devotion you support the Apostolic See, the leader and teacher of truth, which entrusted the exercise of the pastoral office to you. For when you realized that this practice, which had grown strong, was totally adverse to the laws and principles of the Church and therefore could no longer be tolerated without grave danger, you did not hesitate to insist on its removal and were fully prepared, if necessary, to endure danger for the sake of your eternal salvation and that of your flock. And completing Our joy are the abundant fruits which have emanated from your concern. Nor are we ignorant of how your pastors and other clergy have faithfully complied with your orders so that this illegitimate custom has been suppressed in many places out of regard for the ancient discipline of the sacred canons. And so we congratulate you all the more, venerable brothers, and render thanks to God who has endowed you with courage for the protection of the faith and its sacred teaching. We do not desist from exhorting you to continue to espouse the cause of the Church lest this evil usage ever revive, and that if any traces of it remain, it be totally eradicated.”

Mixed marriages were considered evil by Pope Gregory. Baha’u’llah has come to lovingly change such practices so that we may all flourish under His Divine Banner and Standard

 

[Sen_McGlinn]

So up until Muhammad we were all good?

The development of Christian doctrine is not a straight line, but a series of zigzags. No Christian today, for example, would say that Montanus, Prisca and Maximilla were speaking by the power of the Holy Spirit. Yet in the second and third century, many Christians in Asia Minor, Gaul and Africa did assert this, and it was very important to them. Tertullian was one of them (and it is no accident perhaps that the term trinity originates with him).

What was true then is true at every stage of history, and applies in the Bahai community as well: it is not a question of a monolithic community which at some point collectively takes a wrong turn, but of internally diverse communities that, over time, sometimes discern the truth and “grow in wisdom and understanding” in an organic way, and sometimes hold fast to an error until something or someone, inside or outside the community, provides sufficient shock to re-start the process of internal organic development. The impact of source criticism on Protestant bibliolatry, and of history-of-doctrine studies on Catholic understandings of the role of the Church, are examples. In general, modernity has been such a shock to the older religious traditions. Shoghi Effendi envisions that the development of the World Order of Baha’u’llah (ie, of a postmodern world order) will give the same kind of impetus to change in the Church:

as the embryonic World Order of Bahá’u’lláh takes shape and unfolds, … The indwelling Spirit of God which, in the Apostolic Age of the Church, animated its members, the pristine purity of its teachings, the primitive brilliancy of its light, will, no doubt, be reborn and revived as the inevitable consequence of this redefinition of its fundamental verities, and the clarification of its original purpose.
(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha’u’llah, p. 185)

I think, and sincerely hope, that we are seeing just such a rebirth in the Catholic Church today, not exclusively thanks to Pope Francis (since Vatican II did a great deal), but with his encouragement.

 

[PRmerger]

The development of Christian doctrine is not a straight line, but a series of zigzags. No Christian today, for example, would say that Montanus, Prisca and Maximilla were speaking by the power of the Holy Spirit. Yet in the second and third century, many Christians in Asia Minor, Gaul and Africa did assert this, and it was very important to them. Tertullian was one of them (and it is no accident perhaps that the term trinity originates with him).

One ought not confuse what “many Christians” believed with Christian doctrine, Sen.

While our understanding of doctrine does indeed develop, the entirety of our Catholic faith was complete and whole, given once for all to the Apostles, from the 1st century.

So, rather than the metaphor of a zigzag, a better image would be that of a straight hallway, where once you reach a particular point in the hallway, you realize that there is more hallway to investigate.

 

[Sen_McGlinn]

While our understanding of doctrine does indeed develop, the entirety of our Catholic faith was complete and whole, given once for all to the Apostles, from the 1st century.

So, rather than the metaphor of a zigzag, a better image would be that of a straight hallway, where once you reach a particular point in the hallway, you realize that there is more hallway to investigate.

I like the metaphor. Lumen Fidei states:

The unity of faith, then, is the unity of a living body; this was clearly brought out by Blessed John Henry Newman when he listed among the characteristic notes for distinguishing the continuity of doctrine over time its power to assimilate everything that it meets in the various settings in which it becomes present and in the diverse cultures which it encounters, purifying all things and bringing them to their finest expression. Faith is thus shown to be universal, catholic, because** its light expands** in order to illumine the entire cosmos and all of history.

The reference is to Newman’s essay, The Development of Doctrine.

 

[SteveVH]

Thanks for this Steve

I am trying to understand this as best I can but what you typed here goes against Jesus’ own words of “I and the Father are One”

How is this reconciled?

I don’t believe He ever said that He is God, yet the Trinity states that He is. Can you appreciate this confusion?

You are trying to understand the great “I AM”, the Creator of the universe, with a human mind. Jesus and the Father are one because there is only one God, not three. Where the Father is, there also is the Son and the Holy Spirit. Where the Son is, there also are the Father and the Holy Spirit. Where the Holy Spirit is, there also are the Father and the Son. They cannot be separated because they are the one God.

We are dealing with a revealed truth beyond the limits of human understanding. Three divine “Persons” in one divine Being. This is the difference between objective truth; that which can be observed through human experience, and divinely revealed truth, that which is beyond human experience.

And, as others have stated, Jesus certainly did claim to be God on more than a few occasions. That is why he was crucified, after all.