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

[SteveVH]

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

The Father is the first Person of the Trinity.

“254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. “God is one but not solitary.” “Father”, “Son”, “Holy Spirit” are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: “He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son.” They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: “It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds.” The divine Unity is Triune.” (CCC par 254)

We believe what was revealed. It does not mean that we fully comprehend it or are even capable of comprehending it. Does it not make sense that we cannot comprehend the Author of creation, the eternal God who has no beginning and no end? We are not required to fully understand what God has revealed. We are, however, required to believe what God has revealed through faith in Him.

 

[Nick44]

The Father is the first Person of the Trinity.

“254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. “God is one but not solitary.” “Father”, “Son”, “Holy Spirit” are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: “He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son.” They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: “It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds.” The divine Unity is Triune.” (CCC par 254)

We believe what was revealed. It does not mean that we fully comprehend it or are even capable of comprehending it. Does it not make sense that we cannot comprehend the Author of creation, the eternal God who has no beginning and no end? We are not required to fully understand what God has revealed. We are, however, required to believe what God has revealed through faith in Him.

The Baha’l explanation of the trinity does not require mental contortions and also explains all of the seeming contradictions of the statements of Jesus:

1. God (like the physical sun)
2. Manifestations, like Jesus and Baha’u’llah (the perfectly polished mirror faithfully reflecting the rays, light and heat of the sun)
3. The rays of the sun (Holy Spirit)

 

[PRmerger]

I like the metaphor. Lumen Fidei states:

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

So tell me why, Sen, you aren’t a Catholic??? You seem to have embraced all of it, and seem to be one-step separated from the Bahai faith, at least as articulated by some members here on the CAFs.

Come into full communion with us, Sen!! Dine at the wedding feast of the Lamb! Join us in the One Flesh Union! You will never be the same!!

 

[frazelle09]

i always liked this quote from the Writings… Perhaps it will shine some more light on the discussion.

"And since there can be no tie of direct intercourse to bind the one true God with His creation, and no resemblance whatever can exist between the transient and the Eternal, the contingent and the Absolute, He hath ordained that in every age and dispensation a pure and stainless Soul be made manifest in the kingdoms of earth and heaven. Unto this subtle, this mysterious and ethereal Being He hath assigned a twofold nature; the physical, pertaining to the world of matter, and the spiritual, which is born of the substance of God Himself. He hath, moreover, conferred upon Him a double station. The first station, which is related to His innermost reality, representeth Him as One Whose voice is the voice of God Himself. To this testifieth the tradition: “Manifold and mysterious is My relationship with God. I am He, Himself, 67 and He is I, Myself, except that I am that I am, and He is that He is.”

reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/GWB/gwb-27.html

Have a great afternoon!

 

[Jaberwocky]

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

With all due respect, why should anyone believe that Baha’u’llah figured that out and is capable of knowing such knowledge?

 

[frazelle09]

"With all due respect, why should anyone believe that Baha’u’llah figured that out and is capable of knowing such knowledge? "

i suppose for the same reason that one believes that His Holiness Christ “… figured that out and is capable of knowing such knowledge…”

We believe He is animated by the same Holy Spirit which animated Christ.

Have a wonderful afternoon!

 

[Jaberwocky]

"With all due respect, why should anyone believe that Baha’u’llah figured that out and is capable of knowing such knowledge? "

i suppose for the same reason that one believes that His Holiness Christ “… figured that out and is capable of knowing such knowledge…”

We believe He is animated by the same Holy Spirit which animated Christ.

Have a wonderful afternoon!

Christians do not believe in Christ because he had “holiness” in his life. What does that even mean to say someone has holiness if one does not know apriori what it means to be holy?

So you do not answer the question. Therefore I am looking for an answer still if any Bahai follower would like to answer.

 

[daler]

Christians do not believe in Christ because he had “holiness” in his life. What does that even mean to say someone has holiness if one does not know apriori what it means to be holy?

So you do not answer the question. Therefore I am looking for an answer still if any Bahai follower would like to answer.

Jaber,
. I think that when it comes to the Manifestations of God, that They do not “figure” things out the way that humans do. They are much, much more than human. Their knowledge comes from God, and not from other men.

. “Thou knowest full well that We perused not the books which men possess and We acquired not the learning current amongst them, and yet whenever We desire to quote the sayings of the learned and of the wise, presently there will appear before the face of thy Lord in the form of a tablet all that which hath appeared in the world and is revealed in the Holy Books and Scriptures. Thus do We set down in writing that which the eye perceiveth. Verily His knowledge encompasseth the earth and the heavens.
. Indeed My heart as it is in itself hath been purged by God from the concepts of the learned and is sanctified from the utterances of the wise. In truth naught doth it mirror forth but the revelations of God. Unto this beareth witness the Tongue of Grandeur in this perspicuous Book.”

 

[daler]

The Father is the first Person of the Trinity.

“254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. “God is one but not solitary.” “Father”, “Son”, “Holy Spirit” are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: “He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son.” They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: “It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds.” The divine Unity is Triune.” (CCC par 254)

We believe what was revealed. It does not mean that we fully comprehend it or are even capable of comprehending it. Does it not make sense that we cannot comprehend the Author of creation, the eternal God who has no beginning and no end? We are not required to fully understand what God has revealed. We are, however, required to believe what God has revealed through faith in Him.

. Steve,
. I think that God has given us the capacity to understand things and a questioning mind for when we do not. “Come, let us reason together” suggests that we are wired to reason and understand, and that it is not a one time deal. We think, we articulate, we posit our ideas, refine them, etc.
. I think that over time we refine, and redefine, our ideas and understanding in light of reason and with the help of the knowledge of God, which He bestows upon us through His Prophets. The Baha’is call this “Progressive Revelation”, and equate it to children going through school, advancing from one grade to the next, indefinitely.

. Most definitely we would agree that God is beyond our comprehension, and always will be, but that which He has revealed is in accordance with our capacity to understand. Why else would He reveal something to us?

. I would suggest that if instead of the Trinity, if a Quadrinity, or Pentinity had been offered as an explanation of the Godhead, such as a Grandfather, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or a Grandmother… Father, Mother, Son, Daughter, ad infinitum… there would be a whole lot of people who would never question it, had it simply been passed down to them from their ancestors.

. I believe that in order to believe, we need to understand the very beliefs we profess, and not simply echo our ancestors. This is no insult to anyone, but is simply a recognition that people “need to believe” something, anything to fill the void, and that what is common is blind imitation of our ancestors. Thus, Hindus tend to be children of other Hindus, Jews are children of Jews, Muslims believe what their Muslim parents taught, etc, etc, etc…

. We need to be more than mere imitators of doctrine which has been handed to us generationally, and come to reasoned understanding of whatever it is that we profess, regardless of our heritage. I expect my children to come to their own beliefs, and not simply echo mine, and to actually understand with their own minds whatever it is that they then profess.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Jaber,
. I think that when it comes to the Manifestations of God, that They do not “figure” things out the way that humans do. They are much, much more than human. Their knowledge comes from God, and not from other men.

To accept your claim, I must know apriori that

1. God manifests himself in the way people figure things out
2. There is such a sense of “figuring out” that is completely inhuman

Apart from the fact that none of the above are intuitively obvious or reasonable on their own, I wish to ask along the lines of (2) whether you think Albert Einstein or Frederich Nietzsche who proposed and understood things very differently to the consensus at the time are also spewing Divine revelation by your theory?

. “Thou knowest full well that We perused not the books which men possess and We acquired not the learning current amongst them, and yet whenever We desire to quote the sayings of the learned and of the wise, presently there will appear before the face of thy Lord in the form of a tablet all that which hath appeared in the world and is revealed in the Holy Books and Scriptures. Thus do We set down in writing that which the eye perceiveth. Verily His knowledge encompasseth the earth and the heavens.
. Indeed My heart as it is in itself hath been purged by God from the concepts of the learned and is sanctified from the utterances of the wise. In truth naught doth it mirror forth but the revelations of God. Unto this beareth witness the Tongue of Grandeur in this perspicuous Book.”

Look, if Christianity (lets say by some chance since you are not Christian yet) is true, it actually accuses the founder of Bahai and all other non-Christian religions (except Judaism) to be deceivers or false prophets.

So this whole idea of religious pluralism is not tenable for any Christian who actually knows their faith and practices it. That makes it the case that there is atleast one so called religious founder that must be rejected according to the Bahai faith: Jesus Christ. To chop what he taught to match the Bahai system is nonsensical because that presupposes the Bahai system to be above Christ. We can only do so if the founder of Bahai has given us more reason to think he is legitimately someone capable of knowing the things he said.

Therefore let me ask again. Do you or do you not have any reason apart from quoting the teaching of the Bahai faith to to justify assent to it’s founder? If not, as difficult as it may be for you to accept, the correct conclusion is that Bahai faith is unreasonable to assent to. It is very likely that the founder duped everyone who believes in him today.

 

[daler]

To accept your claim, I must know apriori that

1. God manifests himself in the way people figure things out
2. There is such a sense of “figuring out” that is completely inhuman

Apart from the fact that none of the above are intuitively obvious or reasonable on their own, I wish to ask along the lines of (2) whether you think Albert Einstein or Frederich Nietzsche who proposed and understood things very differently to the consensus at the time are also spewing Divine revelation by your theory?

Look, if Christianity (lets say by some chance since you are not Christian yet) is true, it actually accuses the founder of Bahai and all other non-Christian religions (except Judaism) to be deceivers or false prophets.

So this whole idea of religious pluralism is not tenable for any Christian who actually knows their faith and practices it. That makes it the case that there is atleast one so called religious founder that must be rejected according to the Bahai faith: Jesus Christ. To chop what he taught to match the Bahai system is nonsensical because that presupposes the Bahai system to be above Christ. We can only do so if the founder of Bahai has given us more reason to think he is legitimately someone capable of knowing the things he said.

Therefore let me ask again. Do you or do you not have any reason apart from quoting the teaching of the Bahai faith to to justify assent to it’s founder? If not, as difficult as it may be for you to accept, the correct conclusion is that Bahai faith is unreasonable to assent to. It is very likely that the founder duped everyone who believes in him today.

Jaber,
. I think that you would acknowledge that every Prophet of God has been denied by the most learned of men, particularly the Divines of the age, who were confounded by His Words, then arose to oppose Him and those who followed Him, whether Abraham, Moses, or Jesus, as well as Muhammad, the Bab, and Baha’u’llah. (Einstein and Nietzsche are not in the same category)

. If we look at a few comparisons:

. "The officers then came to the chief priests and Pharisees, and they said to them, “Why did you not bring Him?”
. The officers answered, “Never hath a man spoken the way this man speaks.”
. The Pharisees then answered them, “You have not also been led astray, have you?” John 7:46

. “No doubt is there that the verses of God are verses that shine
forth from this Tree, for the Eternal Essence has ever existed in His state
of singleness, whereas the verses are a matter for creativity, which is the
work of the Primal Will, in whom none can be seen save God alone.” The Bab

. “Thus doth the Nightingale utter His call unto you from this prison. He hath but to deliver this clear message. Whosoever desireth, let him turn aside from this counsel and whosoever desireth let him choose the path to his Lord.
. O people, if ye deny these verses, by what proof have ye believed in God? Produce it, O assemblage of false ones.
. Nay, by the One in Whose hand is my soul, they are not, and never shall be able to do this, even should they combine to assist one another.” Tablet of Ahmad - Baha’u’llah

continued… (as per your specific comments)

 

[daler]

To accept your claim, I must know apriori that

1. God manifests himself in the way people figure things out
2. There is such a sense of “figuring out” that is completely inhuman

Apart from the fact that none of the above are intuitively obvious or reasonable on their own, I wish to ask along the lines of (2) whether you think Albert Einstein or Frederich Nietzsche who proposed and understood things very differently to the consensus at the time are also spewing Divine revelation by your theory?

Look, if Christianity (lets say by some chance since you are not Christian yet) is true, it actually accuses the founder of Bahai and all other non-Christian religions (except Judaism) to be deceivers or false prophets.

So this whole idea of religious pluralism is not tenable for any Christian who actually knows their faith and practices it. That makes it the case that there is atleast one so called religious founder that must be rejected according to the Bahai faith: Jesus Christ. To chop what he taught to match the Bahai system is nonsensical because that presupposes the Bahai system to be above Christ. We can only do so if the founder of Bahai has given us more reason to think he is legitimately someone capable of knowing the things he said.

Therefore let me ask again. Do you or do you not have any reason apart from quoting the teaching of the Bahai faith to to justify assent to it’s founder? If not, as difficult as it may be for you to accept, the correct conclusion is that Bahai faith is unreasonable to assent to. It is very likely that the founder duped everyone who believes in him today.

… continued…

. The philosophers and scientists who appear following the appearance of a Prophet may be inspired by the Spirit of the Age, either pro or con, in reaction to His Message and the power released either directly or indirectly by the Creative Word.
. Einstein may be likened to a seed which, when finally warmed by the rays of the sun, emerges from the soil and responds to the light, facilitating a leap of advancement in his particular field.
. Nietzsche, on the other hand, opposed God and His Prophets, and was like a seed which was cast upon dry rock, issuing forth a dead philosophy bearing no fruit.

. As to following Christ, or being a Christian, it was His Spirit that led me to Baha’u’llah.

. The followers of each of the religions hold that no Prophet has succeeded “their” Prophet, while those who are followers of the next Prophets recognize the validity of the previous Prophets, as do Christians the Prophets of the Old Testament, and Muslims do both the Old Testament Prophets and Jesus, and Baha’is the previous Prophets.

. “All the Prophets proclaim the same Faith.” Baha’u’llah

. Although it may confuse the reasoning of one from your perspective, Christ and Baha’u’llah are One and the same Spirit, even as the sun which shone on Monday is the same sun which shone on Tuesday. Though we call each day by a different name, it is the same sun which reappears.
. The proof of the sun are its rays. The proof of the Manifestations are Their Words, or verses. That the Pharisees failed to accept the Words of Jesus as being from God was not due to Him, but their own blindness.

. Other proofs, such as prophecies, were clearly fulfilled by Jesus and by Baha’u’llah. The Jews, after 2000 years, still fail to recognize these prophecies, and similarly, there shall always be those who fail to even investigate the hundreds of prophecies fulfilled by the coming of Baha’u’llah, and proudly go on denying Him.
. In both cases, “pride” is the veil which prevents people from recognizing the Manifestation of God in the Day of His appearance. It is a spiritual “veil”. Saul was thus veiled until he had a vision, becoming Paul.

. As Jesus said, “Eyes they have, but see not” and “Ears they have, but hear not”

 

[flameburns623]

Jaber,
. I think that you would acknowledge that every Prophet of God has been denied by the most learned of men, particularly the Divines of the age, who were confounded by His Words, then arose to oppose Him and those who followed Him, whether Abraham, Moses, or Jesus, as well as Muhammad, the Bab, and Baha’u’llah. (Einstein and Nietzsche are not in the same category)

. If we look at a few comparisons:

. "The officers then came to the chief priests and Pharisees, and they said to them, “Why did you not bring Him?”
. The officers answered, “Never hath a man spoken the way this man speaks.”
. The Pharisees then answered them, “You have not also been led astray, have you?” John 7:46

. “No doubt is there that the verses of God are verses that shine
forth from this Tree, for the Eternal Essence has ever existed in His state
of singleness, whereas the verses are a matter for creativity, which is the
work of the Primal Will, in whom none can be seen save God alone.” The Bab

. “Thus doth the Nightingale utter His call unto you from this prison. He hath but to deliver this clear message. Whosoever desireth, let him turn aside from this counsel and whosoever desireth let him choose the path to his Lord.
. O people, if ye deny these verses, by what proof have ye believed in God? Produce it, O assemblage of false ones.
. Nay, by the One in Whose hand is my soul, they are not, and never shall be able to do this, even should they combine to assist one another.” Tablet of Ahmad - Baha’u’llah

continued… (as per your specific comments)

Daler:

I have indicated respect for Baha’u’llah and for Abdul Baha’ as each carrying a bit of natural inspiration, sublime in it’s expression: yet not of supernatural inspiration.

It is true that many of the prophets were rejected in their time. So were a great many self-professed prophets whom none, or at least none but a very few, have ever accepted. Some would-be prophets are simply ignored as they declaim on street-corners and byways. Some are secured in asylums for the sick-of-mind. Some are vastly abhorrent to remember: Charles Mason, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite, are some examples.

These extremes do NOT reflect upon the message of the Baha’i Faith, except as cautionary reminders that false prophets do arise. There are numerous modern examples of other more-or-less benign prophetic figures whom you reject yet who have devout followers: Makiguchi of the Soka Gakkai sect, Mary Baker Eddy of Christian Science, Ram Das, Mason Remey, Father Divine, L. Ron Hubbard, Mark L. And Elisabeth Clare Prophet, Ben Klassen, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad . . . .

Picked a mere handful of dozens from a Wiki article.

Why Baha’u’llah over any of those or unnamed others?

 

[Servant19]

Daler:

I have indicated respect for Baha’u’llah and for Abdul Baha’ as each carrying a bit of natural inspiration, sublime in it’s expression: yet not of supernatural inspiration.

It is true that many of the prophets were rejected in their time. So were a great many self-professed prophets whom none, or at least none but a very few, have ever accepted. Some would-be prophets are simply ignored as they declaim on street-corners and byways. Some are secured in asylums for the sick-of-mind. Some are vastly abhorrent to remember: Charles Mason, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite, are some examples.

These extremes do NOT reflect upon the message of the Baha’i Faith, except as cautionary reminders that false prophets do arise. There are numerous modern examples of other more-or-less benign prophetic figures whom you reject yet who have devout followers: Makiguchi of the Soka Gakkai sect, Mary Baker Eddy of Christian Science, Ram Das, Mason Remey, Father Divine, L. Ron Hubbard, Mark L. And Elisabeth Clare Prophet, Ben Klassen, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad . . . .

Picked a mere handful of dozens from a Wiki article.

Why Baha’u’llah over any of those or unnamed others?

Hi flame, very valid points you raise.

…since you have raised this concern, can you please elaborate as to why Jesus above these unnamed others?
(And please, in the interest of fairness and objectivity, try not to be specific tio Jesus, rather talk in terms of “concepts” so as to enable a like for like comparison to be made.)

I think it is fair that when we are trying to discern the validity of a claim, we don’t say, “He ate 5 apples a day for 3 monts” for example, since that is too specific. Similarly, I would say, rather than saying “He walked on water” we can categorize this under the “concept” of “miracles”

 

[flameburns623]

Hi flame, very valid points you raise.

…since you have raised this concern, can you please elaborate as to why Jesus above these unnamed others?
(And please, in the interest of fairness and objectivity, try not to be specific tio Jesus, rather talk in terms of “concepts” so as to enable a like for like comparison to be made.)

I think it is fair that when we are trying to discern the validity of a claim, we don’t say, “He ate 5 apples a day for 3 monts” for example, since that is too specific. Similarly, I would say, rather than saying “He walked on water” we can categorize this under the “concept” of “miracles”

Sheen put it best, and I am paraphrasing from memory: “All of the other great teachers who came with a message, came to proclaim that message so long as they lived. Death was ainterruption of their work. Jesus came preaching–BUT HE CAME TO DIE. Death did not interrupt His Mission: HIS DEATH WAS HIS MISSION, and the only message He really came to proclaim”.

Lousy rendition. Someone with access to an online version of Fulton Sheen’s Life of Christ can probably give you the exact quote. But there’s the flameburns623 paraphrased edition.

 

[daler]

Why Baha’u’llah over any of those or unnamed others?

Flame,
. Very valid question, and to the point. Let us suppose that have no other proofs to offer other than the verses to rely upon. If we agree, as in a Court of Law, to disallow miracles of which we are not present, and even the fulfillment of numerous prophecies, which may be subject to interpretation. Then we are left with the reason of the “Words of God” as supported solely by the Holy Texts.

. When we examine the Words of God (alleged) as spoken by Jesus, there is something striking about at least some of them, i.e. the Sermon on the Mount. We may accept or not accept that these words are inspired to such a high degree that they are above the normal ability of men to conceive.

. Similarly, if we examine the Words of God (alleged) as spoken by Baha’u’llah, there is something striking about at least some of them, i.e. The Surah of Haykal (the Temple). We may accept or not accept that these words are inspired to such a high degree that they are above the normal ability of men to conceive.

. How then, do we proceed, with justice and fairness, as we would hope for in a Court of Law. We might picture the statue of the blindfolded lady holding the scales of justice in her hand.

. It is then necessary for us to read the words from the Sermon on the Mount and the Surah of the Temple and form our own conclusions, this being the only evidence allowed to us, even as jurors, before the judge, who possesses the power of life or death over the defendant, whether Jesus or Baha’u’llah.

. For those who would continue with this experiment, forgoing all bias according to our inherited or assumed beliefs, there is no recourse but to examine the evidence, reading:

1. Refer to the Bible or Wikipedia:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sermon_on_the_Mount

1. Refer to Summons of the Lord of Hosts:

reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/SLH/slh-4.html

 

[daler]

Sheen put it best, and I am paraphrasing from memory: “All of the other great teachers who came with a message, came to proclaim that message so long as they lived. Death was ainterruption of their work. Jesus came preaching–BUT HE CAME TO DIE. Death did not interrupt His Mission: HIS DEATH WAS HIS MISSION, and the only message He really came to proclaim”.

Lousy rendition. Someone with access to an online version of Fulton Sheen’s Life of Christ can probably give you the exact quote. But there’s the flameburns623 paraphrased edition.

Flame,
. Thank you for your entry into this discussion. Always sooo good to have you amongst us, my friend.

. My thoughts as to your comments are that many of the Prophets of God have suffered, including death, but such as Isaiah, who was “sawed in half” !! by his grandson, Manasseh. John the Baptist was, or course, beheaded. The Bab was executed by a firing squad (by whatever number) in the barracks square of Tabriz. And of course, Jesus was crucified on Calvary.

. No offense to the sentiment, but where emotional bias must be set aside to reason logically, it would seem necessary to look beyond the suffering and sacrifice of each of these Holy Souls.

. I would absolutely agree that death did not interrupt the Mission of Jesus, nor the Others, in my humble opinion. God tests us with His Presence as well as His Absence, and leaves in our hands the (apparent) fate of those Who tend His Vineyard.

 

[flameburns623]

Isaiah was sawed in half–but his death does not redeem us.

John the Baptist was beheaded, but his death is not our Hope.

Had Christ preached not one iota of the Sermon on the Mount, had He perished not on Calvary, but among the Innocents of Bethlehem slain of Herod–had Jesus died a mere infant impaled on a sword–He would have fulfilled His Mission.

You are mistaking Christ’s message for His Mission.

 

[Servant19]

Isaiah was sawed in half–but his death does not redeem us.

John the Baptist was beheaded, but his death is not our Hope.

Had Christ preached not one iota of the Sermon on the Mount, had He perished not on Calvary, but among the Innocents of Bethlehem slain of Herod–had Jesus died a mere infant impaled on a sword–He would have fulfilled His Mission.

You are mistaking Christ’s message for His Mission.

Thankyou flame,

How did His disciples recognize Him BEFORE His death?

 

[Servant19]

For everything there is a sacrifice.

When the Son of Man drew His last breath, the doors of heaven were opened for the salvation of each individual on earth.

The sacrifice that was made in the Baha’i Dispensation is found in Mirza Mihdi (Baha’u’llah’s youngest son)

mirzamihdi.org/

"I have, O my Lord, offered up that which Thou hast given Me, that Thy servants may be quickened and all that dwell on earth be united." - Baha’u’llah

To the galling weight of these tribulations was now added the bitter grief of a sudden tragedy ― the premature loss of the noble, the pious Mirza Mihdi, the Purest Branch, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s twenty-two year old brother, an amanuensis of Bahá’u’lláh and a companion of His exile from the days when, as a child, he was brought from Tihran to Baghdad to join his Father after His return from Sulaymaniyyih. He was pacing the roof of the barracks in the twilight, one evening, wrapped in his customary devotions, when he fell through the unguarded skylight onto a wooden crate, standing on the floor beneath, which pierced his ribs, and caused, twenty-two hours later, his death, on the 23rd of Rabi’u’l-Avval 1287 A.H. (June 23, 1870). His dying supplication to a grieving Father was that his life might be accepted as a ransom for those who were prevented from attaining the presence of their Beloved.

In a highly significant prayer, revealed by Bahá’u’lláh in memory of His son ― a prayer that exalts his death to the rank of those great acts of atonement associated with Abraham’s intended sacrifice of His son, with the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and the martyrdom of the Imam Husayn ― we read the following: I have, O my Lord, offered up that which Thou hast given Me, that Thy servants may be quickened, and all that dwell on earth be united. And, likewise, these prophetic words, addressed to His martyred son: Thou art the Trust of God and His Treasure in this Land. Erelong will God reveal through thee that which He hath desired.

After he had been washed in the presence of Bahá’u’lláh, he “that was created of the light of Baha,” to whose “meekness” the Supreme Pen had testified, and of the “mysteries” of whose ascension that same Pen had made mention, was borne forth, escorted by the fortress guards, and laid to rest, beyond the city walls, in a spot adjacent to the shrine of Nabi Salih, from whence, seventy years later, his remains, simultaneously with those of his illustrious mother, were to be translated to the slopes of Mt. Carmel, in the precincts of the grave of his sister, and under the shadow of the Báb’s holy sepulcher.

mirzamihdi.org/the-great-sacrifice/