Zoroastrianism

[arabic99]

Too bad Mirza Al Hussain is proven decisively false.

What makes you say that?

I, having studied several religions, see no less falsehood from Baha’u’llah’s divinity to Jesus’ divinity.

Can you give me any reasons why you feel that way?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

What makes you say that?

I, having studied several religions, see no less falsehood from Baha’u’llah’s divinity to Jesus’ divinity.

Can you give me any reasons why you feel that way?

He directly taught a contradiction and false things. Such as Krishna and Buhda being in the same line of thought as any of the prophets.

He taught that Catholics were right on the immaculate conception but denied original sin.

He claimed to be prophesied in John 14 and that can’t be the case since Christ is speaking to the apostles about the coming of the Holy spirit unto them.

As for Mirza Hussain’s divinity. He had none. He was but a mere man who thought he was unto a God, he wanted to make the world a better place by lying.

 

[Hunter24]

What makes you say that?

I, having studied several religions, see no less falsehood from Baha’u’llah’s divinity to Jesus’ divinity.

Can you give me any reasons why you feel that way?

The reason is that he is christian, and in a position like this where neither side can be definitively proven wrong it comes down to faith. He has faith in Christ so he is going to side for him and fight for him.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

The reason is that he is christian, and in a position like this where neither side can be definitively proven wrong it comes down to faith. He has faith in Christ so he is going to side for him and fight for him.

I think it can be definitively proven that the bahai religion demands a reality which is a contradiction, and thus cannot exist. They would have us say all religions are right and that the ancient religions did not contradict each other on an ontological level (not that a bahai would ever use this terminology) but only on social basis. Jews couldn’t eat Bacon, Christians could, muslims can, Bahais… Well I don’t really know but you get the idea.

Mirza Al Hussain and his son Abbas effendi taught there were nine manifestations. Among which included Jesus and Mohommad. Herein lies a fundamental contradiction. The Sources are rife with positive mentions in both the quran and the bahai corpus of Christians during the early centuries, IE before islam. The quran which the bahai say is infallible and cannot be denied announces that the true followers of Christ would be victorius to the day of ressurection. Regaurdless of the fact that the bahais do not believe there will be a day of ressurection, instead an endless stream of manifestations coming every thousand or so years here lies a crucial problem.

Classical islamic commentators noted that the fulfillment of this verse, and no doubt it seemed obvious to the author of the quran at the time. It was of course the roman empire, the Byzantiums and the Western half of the Empire. They were the dominant empires at the time and they were by the time Muhammad came firmly Nicean in their theology. 200 years actually of firmly established Nicene-Constantinople theology. This destroys the quran and it destroys Bahai, as the the Nicene position is anti-thetical to the very being of the bahai. The Bahai could slightly agree with arrius (they would say all the manifestations are pre existent), but they could never agree with the Christians. Therein lies a fundamental contradiction. Both cannot be true. The christianity which was “Victorius” cannot be on the same level as the bahai religion, and the bahai know this and will not address these sorts of questions. At least on an indepth level.

This is just one example of a definite contradiction which I have yet to be substantially corrected on. But at the heart of the bahai I think underlies the hopes of a liberal at heart, who wanted the world to be united, for there there to be a one world government, where there was no poor and is no war. I honestly think Mirza Al Hussain did what he did, that is spread a hopelessly contradictory religion in order to maybe have that happen.

 

[arabic99]

I don’t mean to be argumentative sir, but IgnatianPhilo, there are numerous inaccuracies in your post above. If I may kindly suggest, you do more research into the Islamic and Baha’i holy writings before you pass judgement as to the Baha’i Faith as being false.

When you write:
“Classical islamic commentators noted that the fulfillment of this verse, and no doubt it seemed obvious to the author of the quran at the time”

which verse are you referring to?

 

[arabic99]

Do the Baha’i consider him a member of the line of prophets like Abraham, Jesus, and Mohammad?

From my understanding, yes they do Hunter24

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I don’t mean to be argumentative sir, but IgnatianPhilo, there are numerous inaccuracies in your post above. If I may kindly suggest, you do more research into the Islamic and Baha’i holy writings before you pass judgement as to the Baha’i Faith as being false.

When you write:
“Classical islamic commentators noted that the fulfillment of this verse, and no doubt it seemed obvious to the author of the quran at the time”

which verse are you referring to?

I have done enough to convince me, and if you can’t even deal with what else I said perhaps you need to do more research.

Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee SUPERIOR to those who reject faith, TO THE DAY OF RESURRECTION: Then shall ye all return unto Me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute." S. 3:55

O ye who believe! Be ye helpers of Allah: as said Jesus the son of Mary to the Disciples, "Who will be my helpers to (the work of) Allah?" Said the Disciples, "We are Allah's helpers!" then a portion of the Children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved: But We gave power to those who believed against their enemies, AND THEY BECAME THE ONES THAT PREVAILED. S. 61:14

Its hard to imagine a non existent group being victorius. That is there were no Bahais or Muslims before then.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Those who practice Zoroastrianism burn up their dead on funeral pyres. This is very different than the burial of the dead practiced by Judeo-Christians, and their concept of resurrection of the dead.

Zoroatrianism is distinct from Judaism in that they believe in the resurrection of all the dead and this will lead to universal purification and renewal of the world.

One of their premises is that “the salvation for the individual depended on the sum of that person’s thoughts, words and deeds, and there could be no intervention, whether compassionate or capricious, by any divine being to alter this.”

This is very different from the Judeo Christian concept of putting ones life in the hands of God, and knowing that the individual has no real individual power, save the Grace of God.

 

[BListon]

If I’m not mistaken, Zoroastrianism was considered one of the first monotheistic religions too.

 

[Hunter24]

I think it can be definitively proven that the bahai religion demands a reality which is a contradiction, and thus cannot exist. They would have us say all religions are right and that the ancient religions did not contradict each other on an ontological level (not that a bahai would ever use this terminology) but only on social basis. Jews couldn’t eat Bacon, Christians could, muslims can, Bahais… Well I don’t really know but you get the idea.

Mirza Al Hussain and his son Abbas effendi taught there were nine manifestations. Among which included Jesus and Mohommad. Herein lies a fundamental contradiction. The Sources are rife with positive mentions in both the quran and the bahai corpus of Christians during the early centuries, IE before islam. The quran which the bahai say is infallible and cannot be denied announces that the true followers of Christ would be victorius to the day of ressurection. Regaurdless of the fact that the bahais do not believe there will be a day of ressurection, instead an endless stream of manifestations coming every thousand or so years here lies a crucial problem.

Classical islamic commentators noted that the fulfillment of this verse, and no doubt it seemed obvious to the author of the quran at the time. It was of course the roman empire, the Byzantiums and the Western half of the Empire. They were the dominant empires at the time and they were by the time Muhammad came firmly Nicean in their theology. 200 years actually of firmly established Nicene-Constantinople theology. This destroys the quran and it destroys Bahai, as the the Nicene position is anti-thetical to the very being of the bahai. The Bahai could slightly agree with arrius (they would say all the manifestations are pre existent), but they could never agree with the Christians. Therein lies a fundamental contradiction. Both cannot be true. The christianity which was “Victorius” cannot be on the same level as the bahai religion, and the bahai know this and will not address these sorts of questions. At least on an indepth level.

This is just one example of a definite contradiction which I have yet to be substantially corrected on. But at the heart of the bahai I think underlies the hopes of a liberal at heart, who wanted the world to be united, for there there to be a one world government, where there was no poor and is no war. I honestly think Mirza Al Hussain did what he did, that is spread a hopelessly contradictory religion in order to maybe have that happen.

Well I know nothing but the barest basics of this religion, so I can’t continue any debate further, but of that’s true it’s a very strong arguement.

 

[Hunter24]

I have done enough to convince me, and if you can’t even deal with what else I said perhaps you need to do more research.

Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee SUPERIOR to those who reject faith, TO THE DAY OF RESURRECTION: Then shall ye all return unto Me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute." S. 3:55

O ye who believe! Be ye helpers of Allah: as said Jesus the son of Mary to the Disciples, "Who will be my helpers to (the work of) Allah?" Said the Disciples, "We are Allah's helpers!" then a portion of the Children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved: But We gave power to those who believed against their enemies, AND THEY BECAME THE ONES THAT PREVAILED. S. 61:14

Its hard to imagine a non existent group being victorius. That is there were no Bahais or Muslims before then.

I beleave this is a reference to Christian victory over Judeism, I don’t see how it involves any but those two.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I beleave this is a reference to Christian victory over Judeism, I don’t see how it involves any but those two.

They would be victorius to the day of ressurection. Notice that the victory here is a permenant thing. The true followers of Christ will exist for ever essentially till the end of the world. (Bahais do not think the world will end, only evolve and someday we will have a one world government and language and religion, literally). But we can consider your interpretation. Yes the Christians (the nicenes) beat the jews, they became completely and utterly superior to them. This was the Nicenes and they were the ones who prevailed. Thus we still have a contradiction in Bahai and also Islam.

 

[arabic99]

Well it seems to me anyway, that the unfolding drama and panorama of religious truth is pointing heavily towards the value of recognizing the importance of the human soul as the true identity of human beings.

Let me explain.

Bahai theology dictates strongly that true knowledge is spiritual, the true identity of a human being is spiritual, true eternal life is spiritual in nature. And so it is with the Day of Resurrection/ Judgement Day. Baha’i theology specifies that when God speaks through a revelation accorded to a Divine Being (and the Baha’i Faith talks about much more than 9 Divine Beings btw IgnatianPhilo), then there is a spiritual “wiping of the slate clean”, if you like.

Namely, all on earth are as “spiritually dead” and they are passed into judgement as to whether or not they recognize the new Voice from God/Divine Being. If they fail to recognize and adhere to the teachings of the new Divine Being, they are said to have “turned away from the Messengers of the past and showeth pride towards God from all eternity to all eternity”. Should they however recognize and adhere to Gods new teachings, they are deemed to have been resurrected (spiritually) and enjoy eternal union with the Lord.

This seems very compatible with the sentence you quoted from the Quran “I will make those who follow thee SUPERIOR to those who reject faith”, those who follow, and are resurrected (spiritually) “BECAME THE ONES THAT PREVAILED”

This also seems compatible with what CHRISTINE 77 mentions in her post where all are dead, and the spiritual resurrection of all the dead (having followed the new Divine Teachings) “will lead to universal purification and renewal of the world”
(c.f “new heaven and a new earth”, the spiritual resurrection (new heaven) will give rise to a new earth (a new civilization is born with application of the new teachings from God)

And so, it seems pretty clear, to me anyway, that with such an interpretation of religious scripture, one can unify all religions. It baffles me that with such a reasonable interpretation that anyone can categorically call any “Revelation-inspired” religion as being false.

Calling anything false requires categorical evidence and I fail to see any categorical evidence in your posts IgnatianPhilo, just speculative interpretation of scripture.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Well it seems to me anyway, that the unfolding drama and panorama of religious truth is pointing heavily towards the value of recognizing the importance of the human soul as the true identity of human beings.

Let me explain.

Bahai theology dictates strongly that true knowledge is spiritual, the true identity of a human being is spiritual, true eternal life is spiritual in nature. And so it is with the Day of Resurrection/ Judgement Day. Baha’i theology specifies that when God speaks through a revelation accorded to a Divine Being (and the Baha’i Faith talks about much more than 9 Divine Beings btw IgnatianPhilo), then there is a spiritual “wiping of the slate clean”, if you like.

Namely, all on earth are as “spiritually dead” and they are passed into judgement as to whether or not they recognize the new Voice from God/Divine Being. If they fail to recognize and adhere to the teachings of the new Divine Being, they are said to have “turned away from the Messengers of the past and showeth pride towards God from all eternity to all eternity”. Should they however recognize and adhere to Gods new teachings, they are deemed to have been resurrected (spiritually) and enjoy eternal union with the Lord.

This seems very compatible with the sentence you quoted from the Quran “I will make those who follow thee SUPERIOR to those who reject faith”, those who follow, and are resurrected (spiritually) “BECAME THE ONES THAT PREVAILED”

This also seems compatible with what CHRISTINE 77 mentions in her post where all are dead, and the spiritual resurrection of all the dead (having followed the new Divine Teachings) “will lead to universal purification and renewal of the world”
(c.f “new heaven and a new earth”, the spiritual resurrection (new heaven) will give rise to a new earth (a new civilization is born with application of the new teachings from God)

And so, it seems pretty clear, to me anyway, that with such an interpretation of religious scripture, one can unify all religions. It baffles me that with such a reasonable interpretation that anyone can categorically call any “Revelation-inspired” religion as being false.

Calling anything false requires categorical evidence and I fail to see any categorical evidence in your posts IgnatianPhilo, just speculative interpretation of scripture.

I understand the bahai view as a whole is a subjective entity. And I cannot but think you have misrepresented what the bahai consider true about these religions. They are quick to define that the only changes between each generation of religions is that of social change as I said earlier. This seems like a logical stance on but a first glance. There is however a major problem with this as I demonstrated, the bahai literature is quite clear to point out that Mirza Al Hussain considers the catholics the closest to the truth and said that he agreed with many catholic stances amongst them being doctrines such as the immaculate conception (which begs a doctrine of original sin they deny).
So it doesn’t do us any favour to look at the doctrines subjectively. The Nicenes understood what they were saying about the trinity, about the incarnation. They knew fully well, it did not suddenly and abruptly change when Muhammad came on the scene. Bahais recognise the logic of this though I think the bahais would be better off having your view, despite the logical contradictions it presents. They won’t admit Athanasius was wrong, but they won’t say he is right because they understand the implications of saying both as fundamentally destroying their faith.
The day of resurrection within the context of a first century jewish world view, especially a pharisaic world view was not one of spiritual assscension. They knew how to differentiate and describe that, NT wright proves this wonderfully in his (what should be famous but is well known and respected) on the resurrection of the son of God. The resurrection described in Daniel 12 was a single future event, Daniel and Paul did not consider it to have happened with Moses, Abraham, Krishna (they most likely had No knowledge of such a figure) or any other. Ressurection likewise in the New testament Gospels is treated as a specific event happening with Jesus as a preamble for what Christians will experience at the end times. This is fully in line with the pharisaic belief of the jews which is easy to see why Christianity and Judaism agree on this matter. So the meaning was set, and the scriptural meaning cannot be anachronistically be reread to mean spiritual ascension as so many try to do today. No, this is why the bahai insist that the resurrection was to be understood this way and Christians were simply misguided on this point (which begs the question, what might the bahai be misguided on if previous generations of ‘true’ religions got things wrong, lots of things wrong. The Budha’s outright refusal to acknowledge God as the source of all things and ultimate meaning, Or Muhammad advocating various attitudes to conquer the Arabic peninsula and convert the world under the flag of islam).
So taking this into consideration this is where my criticism becomes a deathnail for the bahai religion which has to respond to this. The Nicenes prevailed. They were the victorius Christians. They were Trinitarians. They were Eucharistic. They were worshippers of the Christ. They were Iconodules. Things Bahai and Muslims despise and think are deplorable to God. Yet by the reading of the bahai texts we must conclude these were the true Christians! And by the reading of the quran these were the true Christians! I brought up the most ancient interpretations for a reason, because the modern interpretations insist (knowing the problem with the earlier interpreters) that this was a spiritual victory. Even this has a problem as by the time Muhammad existed there were no groups which had Bahai theology that were before Muhammad. No groups with Muslim theology before Muhammad.

True this is one argument, but I think it is a substantive one which underplays the entire thesis of the religion. Mirza Al hussain wanted unity, and he invented a religion which focused heavily on unifying, by taking various religious figures without any knowledge of the inherent problems in doing this and made a new religion. Using the Bab’s writings as a foundation and finally leaving it with his son. The method of the bahai faith is inherently flawed like it or not.

 

[arabic99]

Bahai theology would respond as follows:

When I was in first grade learning about the nucleus of an atom having no electrons within it, that was my truth at that time. The teacher was advising me and was my true teacher. I was a “true first grader”

Suddenly when I arrived in fifth grade, my teacher advised me that ther ARE electrons in the nucleus of an atom. I am now a “true fifth grader”…does that mean my first grade teacher was not telling the truth?

One day I visited a different school which was designed for educating kids to become elite historians. In that school, the fifth grade teacher taught no science at all! ZERO, ZILCH! All he taught them was how to find historical facts and things in libraries and even denied the importance of a scientific education. Which fifth grade teacher is correct?

Both are! Each has a specifically designed mission, designed for a specific outcome. The purpose of Muhammad was to remove the world from idol worship and to encourage the existence of an Unknowable Deity. If that meant denying Christian truths to achieve His purpose then so be it, thats for God to decide.

This is Baha’i theology from my understanding and from my conversations with Baha’is

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

See Arabic that’s not a real example of a contradiction in the sense of A having and not having property B.

But let us consider the ramifications of what is truly being said. You are literally saying that at one time God was a Unitarian entity who then decided to add onto himself another two persons and retroactively make them eternal by necessity so that they might be God. That is a created entity suddenly becomes an eternal entity that never began to exist. Both cannot happen.

Christians had their teachings and the bahai writings demand that they were right. They were true. They were victorius. How could people who have misunderstood God so much be possibly true? Be possibly victorius? This is a main issue. It is not but a social issue, it is a deep theological issue with outcomes which affect the entire religion.
And you know the contradiction here. You know that the Bahai are openly having to advocate a genuine contradiction which simply cannot exist in the real world and any other given world. Don’t defend them.

 

[arabic99]

See Arabic that’s not a real example of a contradiction in the sense of A having and not having property B.

But let us consider the ramifications of what is truly being said. You are literally saying that at one time God was a Unitarian entity who then decided to add onto himself another two persons and retroactively make them eternal by necessity so that they might be God. That is a created entity suddenly becomes an eternal entity that never began to exist. Both cannot happen.

No, I am saying that we just do not know the circumstances behind what the reasons for Gods messages throughout history have been. There was no concept of a world really in those times. In fact travel and communication to other parts of the globe was incredibly limited up until quite recently. So God’s message was often tailored to specific areas where there were significant sway from the truth. This is just one factor.

Modern interpretation of scripture is, I can assure you, significantly different to what the ontological meaning of the scripture was when it was revealed. This is a second factor.

There are several factors that contribute towards MODERN DAY perceptions that all religions may not be from God. It is these factors which Baha’i theology is trying to encourage the world to recognize and overcome them.

Christians had their teachings and the bahai writings demand that they were right. They were true. They were victorius.

Can you please provide a Baha’i quote that you are referring to here?

Thankyou

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

No, I am saying that we just do not know the circumstances behind what the reasons for Gods messages throughout history have been. There was no concept of a world really in those times. In fact travel and communication to other parts of the globe was incredibly limited up until quite recently. So God’s message was often tailored to specific areas where there were significant sway from the truth. This is just one factor.

Modern interpretation of scripture is, I can assure you, significantly different to what the ontological meaning of the scripture was when it was revealed. This is a second factor.

There are several factors that contribute towards MODERN DAY perceptions that all religions may not be from God. It is these factors which Baha’i theology is trying to encourage the world to recognize and overcome them.

Can you please provide a Baha’i quote that you are referring to here?

Thankyou

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.

 

[arabic99]

So can you provide the Baha’i quote you are referring to please?

I am a keen investigator…

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

So can you provide the Baha’i quote you are referring to please?

I am a keen investigator…

I wish I saved half of those quotes. Its literally a library I will go through but I will definetely attempt to find sources which place the Christians as teh followers of Christ. That establish the Orthodoxy of the roman catholic church on certain doctrines. Till then I do not expect you, in fact you should believe in what I say.

But I think I’ve found something indirect.

The King of Glory proclaimeth from the tabernacle of majesty and grandeur His call, saying: O people of the Gospel! They who were not in the Kingdom have now entered it, whilst We behold you, in this day, tarrying at the gate. Rend the veils asunder by the power of your Lord, the Almighty, the All-Bounteous, and enter, then, in My name My Kingdom. Thus biddeth you He Who desireth for you everlasting life. He, verily, is potent over all things. Blessed are those who have recognized the Light and hastened unto it. They, verily, dwell in the Kingdom, and partake of the food and drink of God’s chosen ones.

To the Pope, Mirza Al Hussain.

He calls the roman catholics the people of the book. This could hardly be different from the islamic concept of the people of the book, in which the Christians (who aren’t specifically defined) and the Jews are considered slightly better than the Pagans. Mirza Al hussain is either identifying the catholics as the sole people of the book, or part of hte general consensus of Christians as people of the book and thus we have a referent for the quran (in which the bahai consider infallible and more inspired than the gospels). The quran speaks of the people of the book, that book which was revealed was the gospel and those who obviously inherited the gospel (at least from the bahai viewpoint which is begging the case at this point) were those who followed the desciples. Were those who were victorius. Thus I think we must accept that at this point in time the victorius ones, as demanded by the quran and the further explanation by Mirza Al hussain on who the people of the book are. Were the Christians who were victorius, the Catholics and herein still lies that contradiction. They taught Christ as God. Muhammad denied it as did the Bab and Mirza Al hussain.

Of course we all know the Orthodox were the true Christians AMIRITE?