Abrahamic? (priests, ritual, Kingdom, tradition, followers)

[Colabomb]

I am an amateur student of comparative religion, but I admit being Ignorant of Bahai. I was under the impression that your faith was more of an Eastern faith than an abrahamic faith.

I take it im wrong? :P

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by Colabomb

I am an amateur student of comparative religion, but I admit being Ignorant of Bahai. I was under the impression that your faith was more of an Eastern faith than an abrahamic faith.

I take it im wrong? :P

In this instance, yes, you are wrong. The Baha`i Faith rose amidst Islam, so therefore is of the same Abrahamic tradition as the roots of the society in which it rose.

Baha`u'llah is the only Prophet of the Abrahamic cycle who ever set foot in the west, at Edirne in Europe.

Regards, Scott

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

Indeed, the Baha'i Faith is far more Abrahamic than this!

If you recall, Abraham had three wives: Sarah, Hagar, and Keturah.

The Bab (the forerunner of Baha'u'llah, our Founder), was descended from Abraham through Hagar and later Muhammad.

Baha'u'llah was descended from Abraham through both Sarah (via David) and Keturah.

(And in fact, Shoghi Effendi, who headed the Baha'i Faith from 1921 to 1957, was descended from both the family of the Bab and from Baha'u'llah, and was thus a descendant of Abraham through ALL THREE of His wives!)

Best, :-)

Bruce

[oneness]

While I understand the human tendency to categorize all things for easy access I wish to share a thought about categorizing Baha'i Faith as "Abrahamic".

Baha'u'llah, the prophet founder of the Baha'i Faith who rose from Persia, was also a descendant of ancient Persian Sassanian kings, and through them of Zoroaster Himself. As much as Baha'is believe Him to be the fulfillment of Biblical and Quranic prophecies, so too is He believed to be the fulfillment other prophecies including Zoroastrian "Shah Bahram" who was to free the Persian people from the indignity and abasement befallen them by Arabs. In lay terms, Baha'u'llah is the common denominator of "Semite" and "Aryan" religions and traditions and a source of solace and unity for All peoples.

Therefore, it would be unjust to rank Baha'i only as Abrahamic, whatever the meaning these days, for Baha'is believe it to be the bearer of glad tidings for unification and pacification of the entire planet and ALL its inhabitants; Although truthfully, ALL messengers of God are ONE in the essence of their spiritual message, but necessarily different in their social teachings due to the needs and challenges of the time and the comprehension of its people.

With all due respect to the forum staff for their dedicated service of providing means of dialogue among the servants of God and followers of His Word, it may be more befitting to group all revealed religions, including Baha'i and Zoroastrian together.

With Respect,

[kai]

i ask did zoroaster live before abraham, a genuine question?

[oneness]

There is substantial debate and "proof" for both sides of the arguments, some even believe they were the same. Suffice it to say that Zoroaster and Zoroastrianism are perhaps more shrouded in mystery than any other revelation, and it would be interesting to read unbiased research on the topic.

[Popeyesays]

Baha`u'llah is descended through the last of the Sassanid kings-Yezdigerd III, who traced lineage through Zoroaster. Bahau'llah also traces descent through Abraham through Katurah.

Zoroaster is hard to place, from the wiki:
"
Until the late 1800s, Zoroaster was generally dated to about the sixth century BCE, which coincided with both the “Traditional date” (see details below) and historiographic accounts (Ammianus Marcellinus xxiii.6.32, fourth c. CE). However, already at the time (late nineteenth century), the issue was far from settled, with James Darmesteter pleading for a later date (c. 100 BCE) and others pleading for dates as early as 6000 BCE.[e]
The “Traditional date” originates in the period immediately following Alexander’s conquest of the Achaemenid Empire in 330 BCE. The Seleucid kings who gained power following Alexander’s death instituted an “Age of Alexander” as the new calendrical epoch. This did not appeal to the Zoroastrian priesthood who then attempted to establish an “Age of Zoroaster.” To do so, they needed to establish when Zoroaster had lived, which they accomplished by counting back the length of successive generations[7] until they concluded that Zoroaster must have lived “258 years before Alexander.” This estimate then re-appeared in the ninth to twelfth century texts of Zoroastrian tradition,[c] which in turn gave the date doctrinal legitimacy.
In the twentieth century, this date (which may be any number of different years subject to when “Alexander” happened[d]) remained acceptable to a number of reputable scholars, among them Hasan Taqizadeh, a recognized authority on the various Iranian calendars and hence became the date cited by Henning and others.
However, already in the late nineteenth century scholars such as Bartholomea and Christensen noted problems with the “Traditional date,” namely in the linguistic difficulties that it presented. Since the Old Avestan language of Gathas (that are attributed to the prophet himself) is still very close to the Sanskrit of the Rigveda, it seemed plausible that the Gathas and Rigveda could not be more than a few centuries apart. Since the Rigvedic compositions could be fairly accurately dated to about the thirteenth/14th century BCE, and because the Old Avestan was less (but only slightly less) archaic than that of the Rigveda, it followed that the oldest surviving portions of the Avesta date to around 1000 BCE (+/- one century).
This tenth/11th century BCE date is now almost universally accepted among Iranists, who in recent decades have also found that the social customs described in the Gāthās roughly coincides with what is known of other pre-historical peoples of that period. Supported by this historical evidence, the “Traditional date” can be conclusively ruled out, and the discreditation can to some extent be supported by the texts themselves: The Gathas describe a society of bipartite (priests and herdsmen/farmers) nomadic pastoralists with tribal structures organized at most as small kingdoms. This contrasts sharply with the view of Zoroaster having lived in an empire, at which time society is attested to have had a tripartite structure (nobility/soldiers, priests, and farmers).
Although a slightly earlier date (a century or two) has been proposed on the grounds that the texts do not reflect the migration onto the Iranian Plateau, it is also possible that Zoroaster lived in one of the rural societies that remained where they were."

Regards,
Scott

[arthra]

Baha'u'llah revealed that His descent was from Abraham as well as Zoroaster. From Abraham it was through HIs wife Keturah and from Zoroaster through Bibi Sharbanu a daughter of Yazdigird III the last in the line of Sassanian monarchs who traced themselves back to Zoroaster. The family of Baha'u'llah was from the Mazendaran province which had been an old Zoroasterian area for many years...

So two current of inheritance from the Abrahamic as well as the descent from Zoroaster are believed by us Baha'is to be represented in Baha'u'llah!

- Art

[BruceDLimber]

Originally Posted by arthra

Baha'u'llah revealed that His descent was from Abraham as well as Zoroaster. From Abraham it was through HIs wife Keturah. . . .

In fact, Art, Baha'u'llah is descended from Abraham through both Keturah and Sarah (as the fact that David is in His lineage shows).

Regards, :-)

Bruce

[Booko]

Originally Posted by oneness

With all due respect to the forum staff for their dedicated service of providing means of dialogue among the servants of God and followers of His Word, it may be more befitting to group all revealed religions, including Baha'i and Zoroastrian together.

Some forums dedicated to religion have done exactly that and for the reasons you outline.