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

[arthra]

You are aware, arthra, that we don’t believe that immaculately conceived is the same as the virgin birth, right?

We don’t call the conception of Jesus the “immaculate conception”. That refers to Mary’s conception. Not Christ’s.

Yes I will concede that is what you call it…and it is your doctrine.

I think here the word immaculate is to be taken in the general sense that being:

“…free from moral blemish or impurity; pure; undefiled.”

My post related to the issue of the brothers and sisters of Jesus you’ll recall and it was a quote…

Regarding the Virgin Birth:

i1639. Bahá’í Teachings in Agreement with Doctrines of Catholic Church Concerning the Virgin Birth

“With regard to your question concerning the Virgin Birth of Jesus; on this point, as on several others, the Bahá’í Teachings are in full agreement with the doctrines of the Catholic Church. In the ‘Kitáb-i-Íqán’ (Book of Certitude) p. 56, and in a few other Tablets still unpublished, Bahá’u’lláh confirms, however, indirectly, the Catholic conception of the Virgin Birth. Also 'Abdu’l-Bahá in the ‘Some 490 Answered Questions’, Chap. XII, p.73, explicitly states that ‘Christ found existence through the Spirit of God’ which statement necessarily implies, when viewed in the light of the text, that Jesus was not the son of Joseph.”

From a letter dated October 14, 1945 written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer)
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 489)

 

[Sen_McGlinn]

… I am thinking in particular about whether Jesus had brothers and sisters who were children of Mary and Joseph. Specifically, James, Joses, Simon and Judah. The eldest being James the Just, who led the Christians in Jerusalem after Christ’s ascension, until he was stoned to death in 62 AD. …

As for James the Just, aka Jacob, Abdu’l-Baha believed his mother was not Mary the mother of Jesus, but another woman also called Mary. That gives us three Marys in total: He writes in a letter to some American Bahai women:

O ye maid-servants of God and leaves of the Tree of Eternal Life!
Blessed are ye for attaining to that which was the greatest hope of Mary the Magdalene and Mary the mother of Jacob! This gift was shining on the face of the Virgin Mary like unto a brilliant gem glistening on the great crown of glory.
(Tablets of Abdu’l-Baha, 662)

In some of his talks which were recorded in English, that is from the words of an interpreter, it is evident that the interpreter was not aware that there are three, not two, Marys and is caught out when Mary the Mother of Yakob is mentioned, making it Mary the mother of Jesus instead. I have discussed these cases on my blog under Mary, Mary and Mary.

 

[Jcc1960]

As for James the Just, aka Jacob, Abdu’l-Baha believed his mother was not Mary the mother of Jesus, but another woman also called Mary. That gives us three Marys in total: He writes in a letter to some American Bahai women:

In some of his talks which were recorded in English, that is from the words of an interpreter, it is evident that the interpreter was not aware that there are three, not two, Marys and is caught out when Mary the Mother of Yakob is mentioned, making it Mary the mother of Jesus instead. I have discussed these cases on my blog under Mary, Mary and Mary.

Sen, I was not aware of this. If Abdul-Baha mentions the mother of James and Joses as being different from the mother of Jesus, then I would consider that a primary source, and can be confident that it is correct. There is quite a bit of confusion on the matter among other historical sources, as I am sure you are aware.

That of course does not change the real issue I brought up, which was whether a Manifestation of God could only be born to a a woman who had not other children. The answer to that is no.

 

[Jcc1960]

Yup. You got it.

It is simply fitting that the womb which contained He Who Could Not Be Contained, contained no one else.

It speaks to the supremity of whom she carried.

Just like the Ark of the Covenant. It never carried anything except the Divine Word.

Bahaullah’s mother? What does the Bahai faith say about her? Was she set apart for your divine manifestation? Or was she mother for lots of brothers and sisters of the divine manifestation?

Baha’u’llah had brothers and sisters. He appeared fully within the context of Persian muslim society, which makes the Word of God that appears through Him even more miraculous.

 

[PRmerger]

Baha’u’llah had brothers and sisters. He appeared fully within the context of Persian muslim society, which makes the Word of God that appears through Him even more miraculous.

It makes it less believable that the womb which contained the Divine also contained something not Divine.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes I will concede that is what you call it…and it is your doctrine.

I think here the word immaculate is to be taken in the general sense that being:

“…free from moral blemish or impurity; pure; undefiled.”

Indeed.

So it seems odd that you would associate marital relations as defilement, or something that is NOT immaculate. That is, Jesus would be conceived, in the Bahai estimation, in a way that was “immaculate”, without sex, since you believe sex to be dirty?

Catholicism does not view marital relations as that which would defile us. Rather, it is holy.

 

[PRmerger]

I can hear a Jew saying to Paul: “The point is, you left a faith that you didn’t know.”

If St. Paul left Judaism believing that, say, man could say God’s name and live, or that man could worship other gods and remain a good Jew, or that Moses was not authorized to speak in the name of God…then what the Jews would accuse Paul of would be correct.

 

[eddie_too]

what do the bahai believe was lacking in the teachnigs of Jesus Christ?

what did Jesus not reveal about the nature of mankind and the divine that was subsequently revealed by mohammed and later added to by bab and after bab by bahaullah?

i would like details in the answer. be specific. what did Jesus leave unanswered that required further revelation or another manifestation?

 

[eddie_too]

on a totally separate point, why do the bahai believe they are qualified to comment upon catholic teachings of which their knowlege is miniscule?

 

[PRmerger]

I can hear a Jew saying to Paul: “The point is, you left a faith that you didn’t know.”

So the question arises, “Who really knows their faith?”

Did the Jew who remained a Jew really know his faith?

Or did Paul, who recognized Jesus to be the Messiah really know his faith?

So the matter really becomes one of recognition.

How does one come to “recognize” Jesus as the Messiah.

The answer is with spiritual eyes wide open.

How does one come to recognize Baha’u’llah, as Jcc has done?

With spiritual eyes …

And how does one know when someone proclaiming to be Divine is not?

Is it possible that there are those proclaiming to be Divine who are not? What do you say of those who reject this self-professed deity?

I think that this guyalso claims to be God Incarnate:

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/...pthSo4iXWEGMUmsyWsWSXszqLwtM_wucO__uMp_J4yJf4

I suppose that his followers may claim that you don’t have the spiritual eyes to see his divinity. (Assuming you accept that he is not divine, which he surely isn’t).

How would you respond?

 

[arthra]

Indeed.

So it seems odd that you would associate marital relations as defilement, or something that is NOT immaculate. That is, Jesus would be conceived, in the Bahai estimation, in a way that was “immaculate”, without sex, since you believe sex to be dirty?

Catholicism does not view marital relations as that which would defile us. Rather, it is holy.

I don’t associate “marital relations as defilement…”… The word immaculate comes in because in the context of the Qur’an… Mary was accused… She was innocent and immaculate.

*Then came she with the babe to her people, bearing him. They said, "O
Mary! now hast thou done a strange thing!

O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of wickedness, nor unchaste
thy mother."*

(The Qur'an (Rodwell tr), Sura  19 - Mary)

156 And because of their disbelief and of their speaking against Mary a tremendous calumny;
(The Qur'an (Pickthall tr), Sura 4 - Women)

 

[eddie_too]

it is quite illuminating that the bahai just like the mormons think that it is foolish for people to adhere to the interpretations of sacred scripture that they have received from the apostles.

of course, adherents to the mormon and bahai faith must reject the traditional interpretations to even exist. that, i guess, explains why they would have the audacity to proclaim all that the catholic church has taught for nearly 2,000 years to be wrong.

how they can conclude that the apostles did not know the true meaning of Jesus, after being personally instructed by Him for three years, is a true mystery that neither we nor they can adequately explain.

 

[SteveVH]

it is quite illuminating that the bahai just like the mormons think that it is foolish for people to adhere to the interpretations of sacred scripture that they have received from the apostles.

of course, adherents to the mormon and bahai faith must reject the traditional interpretations to even exist. that, i guess, explains why they would have the audacity to proclaim all that the catholic church has taught for nearly 2,000 years to be wrong.

how they can conclude that the apostles did not know the true meaning of Jesus, after being personally instructed by Him for three years, is a true mystery that neither we nor they can adequately explain.

Add to that the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. I could not agree more. One cannot take the Scriptures of any religion and then just ignore that religion’s interpretation and understanding of them.

I don’t claim that I have a better understanding of the Quran then do members of Islam. I simply claim that it is false. I do not claim to have a better understanding of the Book of Mormon than do Mormons. I simply claim it is false. They are false because they contradict Christian Scripture which I believe to be the truth.

The Baha’i, on the other hand, take conflicting “scriptures”, claim they are all true, and then change the meaning to their own liking, either implying or explicitly stating that neither Muslims or Christians nor any other faith tradition from which they have borrowed understood their own scriptures.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t associate “marital relations as defilement…”… The word immaculate comes in because in the context of the Qur’an… Mary was accused… She was innocent and immaculate.

*Then came she with the babe to her people, bearing him. They said, "O
Mary! now hast thou done a strange thing!

O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of wickedness, nor unchaste
thy mother."*

(The Qur'an (Rodwell tr), Sura  19 - Mary)

156 And because of their disbelief and of their speaking against Mary a tremendous calumny;

(The Qur'an (Pickthall tr), Sura   4 - Women)

So why would you call the conception of Christ in Mary’s womb “immaculate”?

I don’t understand why this would be called immaculate, per the Holy Spirit. The implication is that if it were done in the normative fashion it would NOT be immaculate? Yes?

 

[arthra]

So why would you call the conception of Christ in Mary’s womb “immaculate”?

I don’t understand why this would be called immaculate, per the Holy Spirit. The implication is that if it were done in the normative fashion it would NOT be immaculate? Yes?

I think the term “immaculate” is probably overused…and for so many has theological implications.but we accept that Jesus was birth was miraculous…

In the Qur’an Mary was accused by her neighbors and even in the Gospel Matthew 1:18-19 Joseph was thinking of quietly putting her aside… but she was nonetheless innocent and immaculate.

 

[PRmerger]

I think the term “immaculate” is probably overused…and for so many has theological implications.but we accept that Jesus was birth was miraculous…

In the Qur’an Mary was accused by her neighbors and even in the Gospel Matthew 1:18-19 Joseph was thinking of quietly putting her aside… but she was nonetheless innocent and immaculate.

You are speaking around the issue, but not addressing my question.

Why would you assign the surroundings of Jesus’ conception with the word “immaculate”?

Do you assume that the normative way to conceive is filthy?

 

[Jcc1960]

You are speaking around the issue, but not addressing my question.

Why would you assign the surroundings of Jesus’ conception with the word “immaculate”?

Do you assume that the normative way to conceive is filthy?

The issue was that Mary was unmarried at the time. That is what would have been considered as “defiled”, sexual relations outside of marriage.

Such accusations were made even centuries later by Jews that considered Jesus as a false Messiah and therefore wished to prove His falseness by making such accusations.

 

[PRmerger]

The issue was that Mary was unmarried at the time. That is what would have been considered as “defiled”, sexual relations outside of marriage.

Such accusations were made even centuries later by Jews that considered Jesus as a false Messiah and therefore wished to prove His falseness by making such accusations.

But the fact remains that if you posit that the conception of Jesus was “immaculate” it would mean that Jesus’ conception the natural way would have been dirty.

We do not view marital relations as dirty, but rather as holy.

And Mary and Joseph were betrothed, which means that they were already married. That’s the nature of “betrothal” in ancient Israel.

 

[Jcc1960]

But the fact remains that if you posit that the conception of Jesus was “immaculate” it would mean that Jesus’ conception the natural way would have been dirty.

We do not view marital relations as dirty, but rather as holy.

And Mary and Joseph were betrothed, which means that they were already married. That’s the nature of “betrothal” in ancient Israel.

“Immaculate” is a term used with a very specific meaning in Catholic teaching with reference to Mary’s own conception, which you are no doubt aware is very frequently misused by others, who apply the term to that of Jesus, conceived through the Holy Spirit.

What really happened here is that Athra quoted a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi which makes use of the term in the incorrect sense, but since that usage is so common it conveys the intended meaning.

Shoghi Effendi was always very precise in his wording, and it is unlikely he would have used the term in that way if he had written it himself, but since a secretary wrote it, and it conveyed the intended meaning to the recipient, it was left that way. Actually Sen would have an expert opinion about that, since he studies such things professionally.

But that is really a digression. I have to take exception with your premise. You state that “marital relations” are not sinful, and Baha’s agree completely with that. You question why we would have the idea that Jesus conception needed to be “immaculate” or without sin, if that were the case. But as I stated the issue was conception out of wedlock, not conception through “marital relations” so your point is invalid.

Furthermore, you should ask why the conception of Mary needed to be “immaculate” if she was conceived through normal “marital relations”, her parents being married according to Jewish law?

Furthermore, I highly doubt that Mary and Joseph being betrothed would have been considered as equivalent to being married, in fact, all evidence points to the fact that they were accused of improper relations. Where did you come up with that idea?

 

[SteveVH]

Shoghi Effendi was always very precise in his wording, and it is unlikely he would have used the term in that way if he had written it himself, but since a secretary wrote it, and it conveyed the intended meaning to the recipient, it was left that way.

But the point is that Shoghi Effendi didn’t have a clue as to the meaning of the word as used by the Church, therefore any comment he has concerning it is, objectively, meaningless.