Zoroastrianism

  • Thread starter Thread starter TEPO
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
arabic99 said:
reference.bahai.org/en/

this might help your search 🙂

If its not in here then its not official Baha’i Text
Click to expand...
Already on it 😉 Looking through my wordpad notes.

Although it would seem that Some Bahai founders didn’t like the Christians.

Siyyid `Alí MuḼammad Shíråzí, or the Bab, Selections from the writings of the Bab. Pages 123-124
IT is recorded in a tradition that of the entire concourse of the Christians no more than seventy people embraced the Faith of the Apostle of God. The blame falleth upon their doctors, for if these had believed, they would have been followed by the mass of their countrymen. Behold, then, that which hath come to pass! The learned men of Christendom are held to be learned by virtue of their safeguarding the teaching of Christ, and yet consider how they themselves have been the cause of men’s failure to accept the Faith and attain unto salvation! Is it still thy wish to follow in their footsteps? The followers of Jesus submitted to their clerics to be saved on the Day of Resurrection, and as a result of this obedience they eventually entered into the fire, and on the Day when the Apostle of God appeared they shut themselves out from the recognition of His exalted Person. Dost thou desire to follow such divines?

Besides the hilerious assertion that the teachers corrupted the faith (Ignoring the great work of the saints). It seems we have a contradiction between the quran and the bahai on this matter. The believers, the apostles, were not victorius at all. Only the first seventy believed and no more.
 
IgnatianPhilo said:
We know what the concept was back in those days. During the Christian period (as a bahai might refer to it). It was trinity. It was the position of those victorius. Thats the point. You cannot reinterpret Ignatius or Athanasius or Basil the great to the bahai position it is insanity.
Click to expand...
I would love to hear a fully coherent explanation of the Trinity from any Catholic even today. I personally struggle to understand the meaning of the Trinity in the Catechism. So to say that the meaning of the trinity is conclusive and explicit is slightly shortsighted. In my understanding, it is still the same meaning as the monotheism dictated in Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and Hinduism.
 
IgnatianPhilo said:
Already on it 😉 Looking through my wordpad notes.

Although it would seem that Some Bahai founders didn’t like the Christians.

Siyyid `Alí MuḼammad Shíråzí, or the Bab, Selections from the writings of the Bab. Pages 123-124
IT is recorded in a tradition that of the entire concourse of the Christians no more than seventy people embraced the Faith of the Apostle of God. The blame falleth upon their doctors, for if these had believed, they would have been followed by the mass of their countrymen. Behold, then, that which hath come to pass! The learned men of Christendom are held to be learned by virtue of their safeguarding the teaching of Christ, and yet consider how they themselves have been the cause of men’s failure to accept the Faith and attain unto salvation! Is it still thy wish to follow in their footsteps? The followers of Jesus submitted to their clerics to be saved on the Day of Resurrection, and as a result of this obedience they eventually entered into the fire, and on the Day when the Apostle of God appeared they shut themselves out from the recognition of His exalted Person. Dost thou desire to follow such divines?

Besides the hilerious assertion that the teachers corrupted the faith (Ignoring the great work of the saints). It seems we have a contradiction between the quran and the bahai on this matter. The believers, the apostles, were not victorius at all. Only the first seventy believed and no more.
Click to expand...
I dont understand what contradiction you are referring to here?

This quote clearly outlines how many religious clerics have denied the masses from recognizing the Divine Beings. Was it not the Pharisees that hindered the masses from accepting Christ? It is simply saying that the same aws true with Muhammad’s coming. It does not in any way tarnish the work of the saints. I cant see how that conclusion can be made here.
 
arabic99 said:
I would love to hear a fully coherent explanation of the Trinity from any Catholic even today. I personally struggle to understand the meaning of the Trinity in the Catechism. So to say that the meaning of the trinity is conclusive and explicit is slightly shortsighted. In my understanding, it is still the same meaning as the monotheism dictated in Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and Hinduism.
Click to expand...
The trinity is to not be understood as Unitarian and the trinity is best understood I would argue in the words of Athanasius on the incarnation in which he takes an entire book to explain the divine and hte purpose for this world. But I think the creeds suffice in language to explain the basic form of the trinity.

My defintion however involves the meaningless distinction between substance and person, which especially in the case of God must be understood that there is no such distinction. That the divinity can at all be seperated from the persons is ludicrous on a basic level. So please do not read in it that understanding.

There is one substance of divinity, possessing the properties of eternality, immense power (Omnipotence), All encompassing presence (Omnipresence) and all seeing and knowning.

Sharing this substance are three distinct fully equal persons, made known to us as the father, the son and the spirit. The trinity is to be contrasted with heretical views such as Modalism, which would have us understand that each person is really a different form of the one entity, that is there is never three persons at once, only one person and they shift at various points. It is also to be contrasted with tritheism, or Triad gods and goddesses. Each usually representing the stronger or strongest gods in that Pantheon, Zeus Hades Poseidon. Or Shiva, Brhama and Vishnu. But in both cases it cannot be said that each of these persons shares a unique substance which belongs only to them. Epsecially in the case of the Greek pantheon. Zeus’s body is not the divine body of Hades, and nor is his body the divine body of Poseidon. Each are individials each with their own substance which is contrasted with the trinity. Jesus exists as the exact same substance of the father, but is not the father, and the exact same substance as the spirit but is not the son. Nor even in the pantheistic sense of hinduism could it be said that this is a trinity since everything is but a mere aspect of the divine so the Trimutri is neither unique in this regard like the trinity nor is it an example of the trinity.

So the father and the spirit and the son share the substance. This is a basic concept to understand. We cannot imagine the complete unity of this trinity only but consider this most basic concept. The operation of the trinity, fully conceiving it within the mind of ours is impossible.
 
arabic99 said:
I dont understand what contradiction you are referring to here?

This quote clearly outlines how many religious clerics have denied the masses from recognizing the Divine Beings. Was it not the Pharisees that hindered the masses from accepting Christ? It is simply saying that the same aws true with Muhammad’s coming. It does not in any way tarnish the work of the saints. I cant see how that conclusion can be made here.
Click to expand...
It makes clear that doctors, or the teachers of the church beside the first seventy (I think he was confused between the seventy desciples of Christ and the rest of the early Christians but whatever) were not true. I can see no room to allow the authorities whom were often the saints (ignatius, Athanasius, John Chrysostom and thousands more) to be anything but false in what they taught.

But herein lies the contradiction with the quran which the bahai claim to believe. I believe Mirza Hussain has already identified in his tablet to Pope Pius, that the people of the book included the Catholics, who existed at the time before Muhammad. We are told that the true followers of Christ would be victorius. The Catholics were victorius at that time and the early islamic commentators believed the Orthodox Catholic empires were the fulfillment of this. There is no other group which is to be considered as no group had the theology of the bahai. None. So at one time the victorius Christians, followers of the desciples worshipped Christ and it was good, but now that has changed with muhammad and now it is bad. There is a messy discontinuity between the manifestations it would seem.
 
Thankyou Ignatio, thats a nice explanation.

I do think however, that the same principles are present in waht Christians may call “monotheistic” religions, so I cannot see any contrast or contradiction.
 
IgnatianPhilo said:
The trinity is to not be understood as Unitarian and the trinity is best understood I would argue in the words of Athanasius on the incarnation in which he takes an entire book to explain the divine and hte purpose for this world. But I think the creeds suffice in language to explain the basic form of the trinity.

My defintion however involves the meaningless distinction between substance and person, which especially in the case of God must be understood that there is no such distinction. That the divinity can at all be seperated from the persons is ludicrous on a basic level. So please do not read in it that understanding.

There is one substance of divinity, possessing the properties of eternality, immense power (Omnipotence), All encompassing presence (Omnipresence) and all seeing and knowning.

Sharing this substance are three distinct fully equal persons, made known to us as the father, the son and the spirit. The trinity is to be contrasted with heretical views such as Modalism, which would have us understand that each person is really a different form of the one entity, that is there is never three persons at once, only one person and they shift at various points. It is also to be contrasted with tritheism, or Triad gods and goddesses. Each usually representing the stronger or strongest gods in that Pantheon, Zeus Hades Poseidon. Or Shiva, Brhama and Vishnu. But in both cases it cannot be said that each of these persons shares a unique substance which belongs only to them. Epsecially in the case of the Greek pantheon. Zeus’s body is not the divine body of Hades, and nor is his body the divine body of Poseidon. Each are individials each with their own substance which is contrasted with the trinity. Jesus exists as the exact same substance of the father, but is not the father, and the exact same substance as the spirit but is not the son. Nor even in the pantheistic sense of hinduism could it be said that this is a trinity since everything is but a mere aspect of the divine so the Trimutri is neither unique in this regard like the trinity nor is it an example of the trinity.

So the father and the spirit and the son share the substance. This is a basic concept to understand. We cannot imagine the complete unity of this trinity only but consider this most basic concept. The operation of the trinity, fully conceiving it within the mind of ours is impossible.
Click to expand...
Brother Ignatian Philo, you mean “Jesus exists as exact same substance of the Father, but is not the Father, and the same substance as the Spirit, but is not the Spirit”

MJ
 
Ignatio,

when you say “We are told that the true followers of Christ would be victorius.” what do you think this means?

I assume you are referring to the Quran reference here right? What does victory mean for you?
 
arabic99 said:
Ignatio,

when you say “We are told that the true followers of Christ would be victorius.” what do you think this means?

I assume you are referring to the Quran reference here right? What does victory mean for you?
Click to expand...
Given historical context and general islamic commentators on it it means victorius as by war. It seems to be but a modern interpretation that realsies the flaw of this verse if this is the original meaning. How could Christians who did not believe in the God allah but instead clearly violate what allah has revealed by worshipping Christ possible be the true followers of Christ who would be victorius? I have had Muslims run around in circles to avoid this conclusion and I won’t share some of the responses here but they failed to impress. The most prominent now days seems to be the spiritually victorius intepretation which I am sure bahai are more than eager to believe but the bahai can’t believe that as Mirza Al hussain has already identified the People of the book as teh catholics and they existed at that time. And there was simply no other “Christian” group at that time that had the beliefs we would associate with bahai today. There is a serious problem here and I don’t think the bahai can address it. Of course the bahai could go the Bab’s route and say Christians got it wrong from the start but that goes against their “all religions are right, only socially dissagree policy.”
 
Ignation, it might be me, but I am really struggling to understand what you are saying in your posts on this issue.

If you re-read the post above, for example, it reads very incoherently (for me anyway), and I really do want to discuss this matter with you so, maybe it will resolve this internal conflict for you.

If I may provide my understanding, then where I am wrong you may correct me.

Here are the points I think I understand:
  1. Baha’is believe the Quran is infallible (true, I am sure they do)
  2. Baha’is believe that the Catholics are true followers of Christ (I have yet to see your evidence of this in a quote)
  3. You reference a quote from the Quran that says the Catholics will “prevail” or be victorious in a war with the unbleievers.
  4. This has not happened, therefore the Quran and the Baha’i Faith are false.
Is that a correct understanding of the argument you are presenting here?
 
No.
1- The Bahai accept the quran.
2- THe Bahai identify the people of the book as at least having catholics.
3- The quran says the people of the book would be victorius,
4- THose victorius would be the true followers of Christ.
5- This implies that trinitarians were at one point the true followers of Christ because they were the ones victorius.
6- Therefore it seems that either there is a contradiction between manifestations or God doesn’t care about people knowing who he is.

Its not hard to understand the problem arabic.
 
I’m sorry Ignatian, as I said, it was probably my misunderstandings…

But I feel that the answers I gave to you in regards to the teachers are sufficient to respond to your dilemma.

According to Baha’i theology, every religious dispensation has its specific purpose and the Message contained within its Holy Scripture is intended to “educate” the audience of that Message and advance their understanding of who God is.

Baha’i theology stresses the importance of “advancing” the recipients’ understanding of God, and the purpose behind creation. This may naturally bring contradictions from Message to Message depending on what the baseline understanding of the audience is

As I have also said to you in previous posts, I, having studied several religious concepts regarding monotheism, see very little, if any contradiction between Christian trinitarianism and the montheistic concepts shared in previous religious dispensations going back as far as Zoroaster. It all is a matter of how the teachings are interpreted by us mere mortals. Interpretation is where differences lie within religions, there is no difference ontologically, just as there is no difference, ontologically, between a fifth grade teacher and a tenth grade teacher. They all know the materials required for the education of a class whether its first grade or tenth grade, yet they modify their teaching according to the level of understanding of their class, so that they may advance the audiences (or pupil’s) understanding of any particular subject matter. In the case of the Divine Beings, this subject matter is spirituality and God and His relationship with His creation.

There is no contradiction, and I think, personally, to call any religion false on such a misunderstood premise is sad indeed.
 
There is a fundamental contradiction sir. The true followers of Christ believed him to be God. And the quran demands those be the true followers of Christ. Even if we do not accept this as a contradiction it is a serious stain it is on the quran and to what it says that both Muslims and bahai adhere to.

That those who have violated one of the worst things in the quran are called the true Christians is something truely staggering. That one who has committed shirk, unforgivable (so the true Christians whom were victorius never had salvation) are somehow truely following God?

No, its too incoherent and I think you know this.
 
When you say this Ignatio:

“5- This implies that trinitarians were at one point the true followers of Christ because they were the ones victorius.”

…the Baha’i Faith does not disagree with you. The Baha’i Faith re-defines the station of Muhammad and Jesus to be in agreement and in alignment.

The contradiction you are pondering on relates to how the Muslims (incorrectly) interpret the concept of the Trinity and Jesus’ relationship to God, and at the same time the Catholic Church’s (incorrect) interpretation of who the Prophet Muhammad was.

The Baha’i Writings clarifies these misunderstandings and makes the differences very rational and reasonable.

I think you may need to study the Baha’i concept of the station of the Divine Beings a bit more deeply. In my opinion, it comes across as very unifying.
 
Thats the problem they have to redefine things which are not hte case. THeir redefintion of trinity does not rewrite history to change the Nicene creed or the statements of the church at the time which was victorius. You cannot anacrhonise on to history in such a manner so the problem still persists despite redefining the problem away. The problem is still there. That actual triniatairans were the true followers at one point, people who fundamentally denied whom God is, and Bahai admit this, they say the trinity is false (press them hard enough and they will, don’t budge on the defintiion of the trinity, dont let them redefine it onto the historical church).

Your reply I think didn’t actually address the problem. Of course the muslims misunderstood trinity but the Bahai have to redefine into a position that no one would have defended at the time of the Muslims or Muhammad. So what are we left with? Not much it seems in the way of defence.
 
Maybe “redefine” was too strong a term.

I would actually say “elucidate” is a better term as to how the Baha’i Faith views the Trinity as well as how it explains the reasons why Muhammad “seemed” to contradict it.

It elucidates further for modern Christians what the relationship is. It does not redefine in any way, as the Baha’i Faith most certainly does not deny that Jesus is God.
 
p.s no where have I seen the Baha’i Faith DENY the Trinity.

It elucidates it further in an ontological/epistemological framework
 
arabic99 said:
Maybe “redefine” was too strong a term.

I would actually say “elucidate” is a better term as to how the Baha’i Faith views the Trinity as well as how it explains the reasons why Muhammad “seemed” to contradict it.

It elucidates further for modern Christians what the relationship is. It does not redefine in any way, as the Baha’i Faith most certainly does not deny that Jesus is God.
Click to expand...
Now thats a bahai responce if I ever heard one.

And yes at its most essential the bahai faith denies the statements of, of the fathers who say Christ is God, of one substance with the father together united in that same substance.

The bahai do not believe in the trinity as, Father, son and spirit, free distinct persons in one substance of divinity. They thoroughly reject this idea and instead go for a more arrianistic view in which teh manifestations however many there are, were the first creations and have been sent at various times.

So the bahai contradict that very same church that the quran which they believe demands be true. And I would suggest as an issue like this, on God’s identity one cannot be wrong otherwise one cannot worship that God without knowing him.

I hope you see my criticism now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top