Was Baha'u'llah a Saint ?

[GaryTaylor]

So we have a supernatural birth through the power of Holy Spirit, Nicaea was lost to the Arians, not so much due to scripture, as you see the topology of understanding scripture is consistent in the Church, and it is not separated from the doxology which is consistent historically. They were able to call on all the early fathers in the Church, in which we see the same testimony. Such as the Baptism formula of Father, Son, Holy Spirit, this is the profession of faith in its essence. In which case any innovation was suspect to begin with as its a silent understanding in the early Church. As with the Incarnation always contemplated, mysteries which since then the Creed outlines with scripture. The tradition is vast and to count what the Bible doesn’t tell you, would be too numerous. The Bible doesn’t tell you to cross yourself in the name of the Father, Son Holy Spirit either. But there you have the same.

 

[Servant19]

So we have a supernatural birth through the power of Holy Spirit, Nicaea was lost to the Arians, not so much due to scripture, as you see the topology of understanding scripture is consistent in the Church, and it is not separated from the doxology which is consistent historically. They were able to call on all the early fathers in the Church, in which we see the same testimony. Such as the Baptism formula of Father, Son, Holy Spirit, this is the profession of faith in its essence. In which case any innovation was suspect to begin with as its a silent understanding in the early Church. As with the Incarnation always contemplated, mysteries which since then the Creed outlines with scripture. The tradition is vast and to count what the Bible doesn’t tell you, would be too numerous. The Bible doesn’t tell you to cross yourself in the name of the Father, Son Holy Spirit either. But there you have the same.

So why not stick to what it DOES say in the Bible then?

Especially with Peter and Paul…

.

 

[eddie_too]

*So why not stick to what it DOES say in the Bible then?

Especially with Peter and Paul…*

follower of Bahaullah, so glad you asked.

the RCC does stick to what it DOES say in the bible.

it is the non-Christians who insist that their interpretations are better than the interpretations of those who did the actual writing of the bible.

when it comes to battle of bible interpretation, I will go along with the interpretations of the guys who wrote the bible over anyone else’s interpretations.

just because someone of limited knowledge and understanding throws out bible verses as though they understand them does not make those interpretations correct or true or sensible.

 

[Servant19]

*So why not stick to what it DOES say in the Bible then?

Especially with Peter and Paul…*

follower of Bahaullah, so glad you asked.

the RCC does stick to what it DOES say in the bible.

it is the non-Christians who insist that their interpretations are better than the interpretations of those who did the actual writing of the bible.

when it comes to battle of bible interpretation, I will go along with the interpretations of the guys who wrote the bible over anyone else’s interpretations.

just because someone of limited knowledge and understanding throws out bible verses as though they understand them does not make those interpretations correct or true or sensible.

The language in the Letters of Paul and Peter is not esoteric or mystical to require plain English interpretation…

It’s very easy. They would say Jesus is God. But they didn’t say that once. They always God AND the Son

Why would there be a need to interpret what is in clear written language?

.

 

[Techno2000]

The language in the Letters of Paul and Peter is not esoteric or mystical to require plain English interpretation…

It’s very easy. They would say Jesus is God. But they didn’t say that once. They always God AND the Son

Why would there be a need to interpret what is in clear written language?

.

http://www.ncregister.com/images/sized/images/uploads/transfiguration-255x336.jpgThe Transfiguration
After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.

Wasn’t this kinda of a clue Servant19 ?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

And who said that Christianity was a heretical sect of Judaism?Jewish Christians were amongst the earliest Christians. These were considered by Jews as a heresy.

Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they. And Muslims regard Ba’his as heretical don’t they? But the first converts to the Church Christ established were all Jews, so which group of Jews was right, which was wrong? But those Jews who rejected Christ had no excuse because it was clearly foretold in the Old Testament that the Christ, the ’ anointed of God , ’ the Messiah would come. And Jesus Christ fulfilled all the prophecies. And he did the works of God to prove who he was - he raised the dead to life, he cured the sick, the blind, the deaf, the lame, he drove out demons, he forgave sins, he read minds and souls, he commanded storms to be still? Can a mere man do these things? .

I have three questions for you.

1. Have you read the Bible? Yes

 

[GuyNextDoor]

It’s very easy. They would say Jesus is God. But they didn’t say that once. They always God AND the Son

They did. Who did you think shed his blood for all of mankind?

**Acts 20:28

28 Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God,[a] which he bought with his own blood.**

Oh thats right. Jesus our Lord and God.

It’s very easy. They would say Jesus is God. But they didn’t say that once. They always God AND the Son

That has been addressed too earlier by me in post #179 in the link below:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=12565849#post12565849

Quote:
Originally Posted by Servant19 View Post
Exactly, I saw no logic. I am a scientist. Logic is applied to all teachings. It should follow reason and logic. I’m hoping that my science degree has not been given to me as a charity!

It’s very simple. For example, I share with you that the Apostles never used the words God the Son, they always use God AND the Son in the same sentence, a lot. Why is that? God IS the Son, not distinct from the Son, according to you. I get little to no response.
.

**1 Thessalonians 3:13

13 May he strengthen your hearts so that you will be blameless and holy in the presence of our God and Father when our Lord Jesus comes with all his holy ones.**

So why not stick to what it DOES say in the Bible then?

Especially with Peter and Paul…

This is from the Weymouth New Testament which is a direct translation from the Greek

Yes lets. I will even give you the exact words from the Greek manuscripts from the original writers. Will that satisfy you better? Go read the link above.

 

[eddie_too]

a follower of Bahaullah wrote this" "*The language in the Letters of Paul and Peter is not esoteric or mystical to require plain English interpretation…

It’s very easy. They would say Jesus is God. But they didn’t say that once. They always God AND the Son

Why would there be a need to interpret what is in clear written language*?"

I would just point out that if what this follower cites were clear written language there would be no reason to discuss the meaning of the written words and yet, that is exactly what we are doing here. we are discussing the correct interpretations of the sacred scriptures.

language does not have to be esoteric or mystical to need correct understanding and interpretation. that is a completely mistaken premise. for proof, simply look at the numbers of books it takes just to address the u.s. constitution and there is nothing mystical or esoteric about it.

it is equally mistaken to proclaim that the letters and words of peter and paul self-interpret. no written word does that. we human beings can see personal meanings that differ from each others in very simple sentences.

such mistaken concepts, such as the letters of paul and peter interpret themselves and only mystical and esoteric language needs to be correctly interpreted offer a partial explanation as to why some of these followers of Bahaullah experience so much confusion about the Incarnate Word. when they begin with mistaken premises they naturally produce mistaken conclusions.

until someone realizes that the written word by its very nature demands interpretation or explanation, they are unlikely to be successful in exegesis of any texts much less the texts of sacred scripture.

 

[eddie_too]

for example, the follower of Bahaullah pointed out that peter and paul always, when speaking of Jesus, write or say God and the Son. now whether or not that is accurate, that peter and paul ALWAYS say God and the Son, I cannot say because I have not committed all of the writings of peter and paul to memory.

I can say however what might be a reason they often use this expression, God and the Son.

it is because they wanted to emphasize the fact that God became man in the Person of Jesus, the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity. the Second Person of the Holy Trinity distinguishes Himself from the Father and the Holy Spirit in the Incarnation. perhaps, if they had anticipated how their words would be used against Jesus they might have added after saying God and the Son made Flesh(the bold is my addition). in other words, the way peter and paul use this phrase is for exactly the opposite reason the follower of Bahaullah understands. peter and paul wanted to make sure those reading their words knew that while God is by nature a spirit, in the Son God took on a second nature, a human nature, the Son. peter and paul wanted their readers to know that Jesus is the Son and no less God than the Father and the Holy Spirit who did not take on human nature.

but, we must forgive peter and paul for not being omniscient and for not knowing that those who seek to deny Jesus’ Divinity might use their words to confuse the Lord’s little ones. afterall, both peter and paul wrote for those who had already placed their faith in Jesus and His Gospel. they were not writing apologetic texts. they were writing exhortatory texts.

having to explain the above simply emphasizes my point that virtually all written words are subject to interpretation.

 

[GuyNextDoor]

for example, the follower of Bahaullah pointed out that peter and paul always, when speaking of Jesus, write or say God and the Son. now whether or not that is accurate, that peter and paul ALWAYS say God and the Son, I cannot say because I have not committed all of the writings of peter and paul to memory.

I can say however what might be a reason they often use this expression, God and the Son.

it is because they wanted to emphasize the fact that God became man in the Person of Jesus, the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity. the Second Person of the Holy Trinity distinguishes Himself from the Father and the Holy Spirit in the Incarnation. perhaps, if they had anticipated how their words would be used against Jesus they might have added after saying God and the Son made Flesh(the bold is my addition). in other words, the way peter and paul use this phrase is for exactly the opposite reason the follower of Bahaullah understands. peter and paul wanted to make sure those reading their words knew that while God is by nature a spirit, in the Son God took on a second nature, a human nature, the Son. peter and paul wanted their readers to know that Jesus is the Son and no less God than the Father and the Holy Spirit who did not take on human nature.

but, we must forgive peter and paul for not being omniscient and for not knowing that those who seek to deny Jesus’ Divinity might use their words to confuse the Lord’s little ones. afterall, both peter and paul wrote for those who had already placed their faith in Jesus and His Gospel. they were not writing apologetic texts. they were writing exhortatory texts.

having to explain the above simply emphasizes my point that virtually all written words are subject to interpretation.

I am starting to think Servant is right, eddie. Simply because…
**
1 Thessalonians 3:13

13 May he strengthen your hearts so that you will be blameless and holy in the presence of our God and Father when our Lord Jesus comes with all his holy ones.**

God and Father appeared in the same sentence and thus they are not the same. It is official, the Father isn’t God either.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Lots of men have women living with them. I have one myself.

She is my wife AND my friend. :hug3:

But for some, the woman is their friend but not their wife. :tsktsk:

For others, the woman might be their wife but not their friend. :nope:

My point is that you cannot infer anything from the fact that Jesus is referred to as God AND Savior since it is true that He is both.

 

[GuyNextDoor]

Originally Posted by Servant19 View Post
Exactly, I saw no logic. I am a scientist. Logic is applied to all teachings. It should follow reason and logic. I’m hoping that my science degree has not been given to me as a charity!

Try telling that to the scientist with the degree (that did not come from charity) who has all the logic and reasoning which we don’t.

 

[eddie_too]

guy next door, re: post 129,

 

[Servant19]

I am starting to think Servant is right, eddie. Simply because…
**
1 Thessalonians 3:13

13 May he strengthen your hearts so that you will be blameless and holy in the presence of our God and Father when our Lord Jesus comes with all his holy ones.**

God and Father appeared in the same sentence and thus they are not the same. It is official, the Father isn’t God either.

My time is short on weekends. Most Bahais are involved in building Gods Kingdom.

But this…

I’m not sure if English is your mother tongue dear friend, but this is very basic grammar. I’m comfortable with the Father being God. This sentence does not say God and THE Father as if they are two Entities, this sentence says simply God and Father, meaning they are one and the same.

The references I am making all state God and THE Son:

Romans 1:7 God our Father AND THE Lord Jesus Christ

2Cor 1:3. Blessed be the God and Father OF OUR Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort…
(Here Paul asserts that God the Father is the God OF Jesus Christ)

Again I am only reading with precision.

The word “and” followed by the word “the” when referring to the Son, clearly assures us that God and Son are two separate Entities.

There is however one verse and one verse only written by Paul which goes against this argument, and it is only because I have read Paul with a fine toothed comb and studied Paul with Professor Luke Timothy Johnson, that I am aware of this verse. Prizes if you can guess which verse that is.

This one verse is the reason why I believe that God, through the Holy Spirit guided the Church Fathers leading to Nicea to conclude that Jesus is God and this was, for that age, a perfectly fine relationship for people to have with Jesus. I honestly believe that this teaching that “Jesus is God”, although only epistemologically true, was given ONLY in preparation for the coming of Bahaullah.

I sincerely believe that…

God bless you!

.

 

[Randy_Carson]

My time is short on weekends. Most Bahais are involved in building Gods Kingdom.

Matthew 6:1-6
6 “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

2 “So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

5 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

I’m not sure if English is your mother tongue dear friend, but this is very basic grammar. I’m comfortable with the Father being God. This sentence does not say God and THE Father as if they are two Entities, this sentence says simply God and Father, meaning they are one and the same.

…

The word “and” followed by the word “the” when referring to the Son, clearly assures us that God and Son are two separate Entities.

I’m not sure if Christianity was your first religion, dear friend, but this is very basic trinitarian doctrine. One God - three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So, you’re close: God and Son are two separate PERSONS - not “Entities” - in the One Godhead.

Your own analysis is incomplete and therefore flawed. Here’s an example of what you SHOULD have seen:

GOD IS BOTH GOD AND SAVIOR

Isaiah 45:15
Truly you are a God who has been hiding himself, the God and Savior of Israel.

There is one divine being who is both God and Savior.

Isaiah 45:21
Declare what is to be, present it— let them take counsel together. Who foretold this long ago, who declared it from the distant past? Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no God apart from me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me.

In this passage, there is still one divine being, but the distinction between “a…God” and “a Savior” appears stronger.

PAUL TEACHES THAT JESUS IS OUR SAVIOR AND GOD

Titus 1:4
To Titus, my true son in our common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.

After the Incarnation of Jesus, the distinction between “God the Father” and “Jesus our Savior” is complete; yet, as Isaiah illustrated, there is only one God who is both God and savior. Or does Paul understand God and Jesus to be two separate beings: 1) God the Father and 2) Christ Jesus our Savior?

Titus 2:10
and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.

In this verse, Paul refers to “God our Savior”, but just a few verses earlier, he had spoken of “Christ Jesus our Savior”. Thus, we see that Paul equated “God our Savior” with “Christ Jesus our Savior”. Placing these two passages side by side, we see that for Paul, “God” = “Christ Jesus”.

Paul taught that Jesus is God.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

My time is short on weekends. Most Bahais are involved in building Gods Kingdom.

But this…

I’m not sure if English is your mother tongue dear friend, but this is very basic grammar. I’m comfortable with the Father being God. This sentence does not say God and THE Father as if they are two Entities, this sentence says simply God and Father, meaning they are one and the same.

The references I am making all state God and THE Son:

Romans 1:7 God our Father AND THE Lord Jesus Christ

2Cor 1:3. Blessed be the God and Father OF OUR Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort…
(Here Paul asserts that God the Father is the God OF Jesus Christ)

Again I am only reading with precision.

The word “and” followed by the word “the” when referring to the Son, clearly assures us that God and Son are two separate Entities.

There is however one verse and one verse only written by Paul which goes against this argument, and it is only because I have read Paul with a fine toothed comb and studied Paul with Professor Luke Timothy Johnson, that I am aware of this verse. Prizes if you can guess which verse that is.

This one verse is the reason why I believe that God, through the Holy Spirit guided the Church Fathers leading to Nicea to conclude that Jesus is God and this was, for that age, a perfectly fine relationship for people to have with Jesus. I honestly believe that this teaching that “Jesus is God”, although only epistemologically true, was given ONLY in preparation for the coming of Bahaullah.

I sincerely believe that…

God bless you!

.

It stretches credulity to think that Paul was parsing words, that he was speaking only epistemologically. Paul was speaking of realities, he said what he meant. And there is this, one must consider Scripture as a whole. According to your way of thinking, the entire Scripture was given to us by God in such a way that no one, not even the Apostles and the Church Fathers could understand their essential meaning - until Bahaullah came along. That simply is not credible. It is the same as saying that God didn’t know what he was doing. Besides that we know that Jesus did things that only God could do, which I have already mentioned. This is not to say that Bahaullah was not a good man or was not a very intelligent man, it is to say merely that he was wrong. Did Bahaullah fulfill the prophesies of the Old Testament? No. Did Bahaullah do the works of God? No.

Linus2nd

 

[Techno2000]

These Manifestations of God have each a twofold station. One is the station of pure abstraction and essential unity. In this respect, if thou callest them all by one name, and dost ascribe to them the same attributes, thou hast not erred from the truth. Even as He hath revealed: “No distinction do We make between any of His Messengers.” For they, one and all, summon the people of the earth to acknowledge the unity of God, and herald unto them the Kawthar of an infinite grace and bounty. They are all invested with the robe of prophethood, and are honored with the mantle of glory. Thus hath Muḥammad, the Point of the Qur’án, revealed: “I am all the Prophets.” Likewise, He saith: “I am the first Adam, Noah, Moses, and Jesus.” Similar statements have been made by Imám ‘Alí. Sayings such as these, which indicate the essential unity of those Exponents of Oneness, have also emanated from the Channels of God’s immortal utterance, and the Treasuries of the gems of Divine knowledge, and have been recorded in the Scriptures. These Countenances are the recipients of the Divine Command, and the Day Springs of His Revelation. This Revelation is exalted above the veils of plurality and the exigencies of number. Thus He saith: “Our Cause is but One.” Inasmuch as the Cause is one and the same, the Exponents thereof also must needs be one and the same. Likewise, the Imáms of the Muḥammadan Faith, those lamps of certitude, have said: “Muḥammad is our first, Muḥammad is our last, Muḥammad our all.”
reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/GWB/gwb-22.html

Catholic.com Members… what is Baha’u’llah saying here ?

 

[Randy_Carson]

It stretches credulity to think that Paul was parsing words, that he was speaking only epistemologically. Paul was speaking of realities, he said what he meant. And there is this, one must consider Scripture as a whole. According to your way of thinking, the entire Scripture was given to us by God in such a way that no one, not even the Apostles and the Church Fathers could understand their essential meaning - until Bahaullah came along. That simply is not credible. It is the same as saying that God didn’t know what he was doing. Besides that we know that Jesus did things that only God could do, which I have already mentioned. This is not to say that Bahaullah was not a good man or was not a very intelligent man, it is to say merely that he was wrong. Did Bahaullah fulfill the prophesies of the Old Testament? No. Did Bahaullah do the works of God? No.

Linus2nd

Linus-

Unfortunately, the clever Baha’i will skip over everything else you wrote to concentrate on the last question which is purely subjective in nature. He may quote huge paragraphs from the writings of Mr. Nuri as evidence of his concern for the poor, etc. He may go on about all of their charitable works and how they spend their weekends building the kingdom, etc.

Try to avoid subjective issues and focus on the facts of scripture, history and logic. This is where the Baha’i have little to support their beliefs.

 

[Techno2000]

These Manifestations of God have each a twofold station. One is the station of pure abstraction and essential unity. In this respect, if thou callest them all by one name, and dost ascribe to them the same attributes, thou hast not erred from the truth. Even as He hath revealed: “No distinction do We make between any of His Messengers.” For they, one and all, summon the people of the earth to acknowledge the unity of God, and herald unto them the Kawthar of an infinite grace and bounty. They are all invested with the robe of prophethood, and are honored with the mantle of glory. Thus hath Muḥammad, the Point of the Qur’án, revealed: “I am all the Prophets.” Likewise, He saith: “I am the first Adam, Noah, Moses, and Jesus.” Similar statements have been made by Imám ‘Alí. Sayings such as these, which indicate the essential unity of those Exponents of Oneness, have also emanated from the Channels of God’s immortal utterance, and the Treasuries of the gems of Divine knowledge, and have been recorded in the Scriptures. These Countenances are the recipients of the Divine Command, and the Day Springs of His Revelation. This Revelation is exalted above the veils of plurality and the exigencies of number. Thus He saith: “Our Cause is but One.” Inasmuch as the Cause is one and the same, the Exponents thereof also must needs be one and the same. Likewise, the Imáms of the Muḥammadan Faith, those lamps of certitude, have said: “Muḥammad is our first, Muḥammad is our last, Muḥammad our all.”
reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/GWB/gwb-22.html

Catholic.com Members… what is Baha’u’llah saying here ?

To me it looks like he is saying Jesus was just a prophet, like all the rest.

 

[eddie_too]

another point that the followers of bahuallah, who post here, do not understand is that NONE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT was written as apologetic texts, nor was any of it written as conversion texts.

unless the reader understands that the new testament was written for the edification of those people who had already accepted the teachings of the apostles and believed in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. the n.t. was not written to convert people. the writers of the n.t. knew that the people to and for whom they wrote already had received the teachings of the Divine Mysteries that the apostles had received from Jesus.

for that reason, it is completely nonsensical to take verses from the n.t. and act as though or treat them as though they were meant to be expositions of the dogmas of the Divine Mysteries the apostles had received from Jesus. the people whom the n.t. writers were addressing already knew about the Trinity and the Incarnation and the Physical Resurrection through their initial encounters with the apostles and their successors. it was the knowledge of the Divine Mysteries provided to them orally by the apostles that had introduced them to and brought them into the faith.

so, before even turning to sacred scripture, people should realize that whatever is in the n.t. is there for the edification of the faithful. it is not there for the purpose of defining dogmas.

will the followers of Bahaullah be able to comprehend the distinction I present above? probably not, none are so blind as those who will not see.