Why Bahai

[firedragon]

I meant to say that the bahai faith to me is a philosophy. Not to the bahais. Of course not. Maybe I didnt word it right.

I also understand that bahaullah is not God himself but a manifestation.

And I tried to clarify from you what is meant by the phrase "akram rasool" in the kithab I akdhas. I did not get a response to that.

Not to offend you but I found that there are a lot of schism in the bahai scholarship about jesus and the so called older sacred text. In one of your links i read that the kathamun nabiyyin is Muhammed, but bahaullah is a rasool. Another respondent here denied that although your own source said that.

Anyway this thread was meant to understand your faith. Not to rebut it. One must understand a faith to rebut it. But I see a lot of people here refuting without even understanding it.

Thanks for your response. We will learn more.

 

[Moz]

T,

Hi

Following is a quote that was given in answer earlier on another topic

The Faith of Islám, the succeeding link in the chain of Divine Revelation, introduced, as Bahá’u’lláh Himself testifies, the conception of the nation as a unit and a vital stage in the organization of human society, and embodied it in its teaching. This indeed is what is meant by this brief yet highly significant and illuminating pronouncement of Bahá’u’lláh: “Of old [Islamic Dispensation] it hath been revealed: ‘Love of one’s country is an element of the Faith of God.’” This principle was established and stressed by the Apostle of God, inasmuch as the evolution of human society required it at that time. Nor could any stage above and beyond it have been envisaged, as world conditions preliminary to the establishment of a superior form of organization were as yet unobtainable. The conception of nationality, the attainment to the state of nationhood, may, therefore, be said to be the distinguishing characteristics of the MuHammadan Dispensation, in the course of which the nations and races of the world, and particularly in Europe and America, were unified and achieved political independence.....
The Promised Day Is Come, pp. 119-121
I know this was not you but this was what started me on this so i will respond as if it is part of our discussion and you can address it if you wish.

I really don't know how to frame a response though because i can not think of a single reason why anyone could argue that the islamic model of government, which was basically Roman/ Persian style imperial rule was in any way a superior form of organisation. Nor has it proved to be down to this day. The nation states came out of the treaty of Westphalia amongst the Christian world not the Islamic.
I can understand how this view could come from an 19th century Persian worldview though as a global phenomenon the islamic model is actually anti nation state and political independence.
..............................................................
It seems you are aware of the contradictory nature of the crucifixion belief between the two faiths. I am not sure how both faiths can be messages from the same God if they contradict each others core spiritual teachings.
I would have thought the Bahai would have rejected the violent message of Islam and claimed to be a progression of the original christian message of peace before it was corrupted by politics and greed rather than try and mesh the three.
Again the Persian influence seems more the reason than any truth of the islamic message.
....................................................................
On the historical
Their is no doubt that a warrior/prophet arose in the late 500's early 600's and preached a fierce mono-theism amongst the arabian tribes and launched them on a mission to conquer the lands that were now vunerable because of the great Persian war the Romans had just fought, lands they believed were their right through Ishmael. The actual details of the conquest and the interpretation of the foundational story seems to be mostly taken from authentic sources but has been reverse engineered by Abdul Malik during his Califate. Mostly the geography, which was a somewhat fluid thing in the minds of people of that time. The Holy Place is where the holy thing is... move the thing, the geography moves, but it is still The Holy Place in the mind of the believer so it never moved as well.

Heres one that just popped into my head. The Roaman Emperor Elagabalus was also the high priest of Elgabal and custodian of the Black stone of Emesa. Somewhere during the crisis of the third century, probably during Zenobia and Aurelians struggles in the late 200, the stone, or what was left of it, seems to have been taken to the Nabataen stronghold of Petra. An ancient well know city on the crossroads of major trade routes and a place of temples and pilgrimage from the arab peninsular for centuries. A place that fits the desciptions given of mecca/bekka far better than the place we have today.

Dan Gibson has shown that every Moslem prayer Niche was pointed at Petra until the time of Abdul Maliks Caliphate, from India to Africa to Persia, this is solid stuff. The Muslims used to explain it by saying the early niches were pointed at Jerusalem and this was changed when Malik built the Dome of the Rock and pointed its niche at what is today Mecca .But modern analysis has shown these early niches pointed a couple of degrees south of Jerusalem right at Petra. The civil war of Maliks, seems to have been when the stone was taken by the rebels to present day mecca and when victorious Malik liked the idea of the religious centre another 1000 miles south and out of his way.

It does not seem reasonable to believe that Mecca, which is only mentioned once by name in the koran,was an already 2000 year old trading city, not on the trade route by 100 miles, and holy site yet not recorded on a single map or mentioned in a single source until the 740's. It is a much better fit to place the origin of Islam amongst the arabian tribes on the periphery of the Nabataen kingdom 1000 miles north of present day mecca. All the actual koranic stories fit this better. it is the Haddiths that explain the foundation story as we have it today that point further south and they all are after proper Imperial control in the early 700's. Actually the majority are from the 800's onwars.

If the foundational story of Islam is actually totally different than the accepted tradition does that make a difference to whether they are a divine manifestation of a continuing message.

As an aside i think that is why the christian story is more believable. By the time Imperial political types got their hands on the the religion there were already so many copies of the different books spread over so many different nations and languages and so much commentary already done by the previous generations that they could not rewrite or do any substantial editing. I bet Constantine wished he could have edited the books at Nicaea but they were stuck with established stuff that went back centuries.
...........................................................................................................
We need to be careful not to dismiss Islam on the basis of bad behaviour of its followers anymore than we should dismiss Christianity for the same reasons.
.... i agree for the most part.... but it seems to me that the FIRST generation of followers of any of the great teachers gives a fair example of a proper manifestation of there beliefs through their actions.

I think that if we just did a side by side of the Twelve Apostles and the top 12 companions of the prophet, both groups held to be representative, by the followers of both faiths, of the living truth taught by their masters we would find diametrically opposed views on the subjects of, taking human life, sexual morays and practises, wealth, politics, inclusion and salvation and the list gets bigger as you go deeper.

Again if the two messages, as interpreted by their initial followers, are in contradiction then they can not be progression can they?
................................................................................
Peace

 

[firedragon]

Hi

Following is a quote that was given in answer earlier on another topic

The Faith of Islám, the succeeding link in the chain of Divine Revelation, introduced, as Bahá’u’lláh Himself testifies, the conception of the nation as a unit and a vital stage in the organization of human society, and embodied it in its teaching. This indeed is what is meant by this brief yet highly significant and illuminating pronouncement of Bahá’u’lláh: “Of old [Islamic Dispensation] it hath been revealed: ‘Love of one’s country is an element of the Faith of God.’” This principle was established and stressed by the Apostle of God, inasmuch as the evolution of human society required it at that time. Nor could any stage above and beyond it have been envisaged, as world conditions preliminary to the establishment of a superior form of organization were as yet unobtainable. The conception of nationality, the attainment to the state of nationhood, may, therefore, be said to be the distinguishing characteristics of the MuHammadan Dispensation, in the course of which the nations and races of the world, and particularly in Europe and America, were unified and achieved political independence.....
The Promised Day Is Come, pp. 119-121
I know this was not you but this was what started me on this so i will respond as if it is part of our discussion and you can address it if you wish.

I really don't know how to frame a response though because i can not think of a single reason why anyone could argue that the islamic model of government, which was basically Roman/ Persian style imperial rule was in any way a superior form of organisation. Nor has it proved to be down to this day. The nation states came out of the treaty of Westphalia amongst the Christian world not the Islamic.
I can understand how this view could come from an 19th century Persian worldview though as a global phenomenon the islamic model is actually anti nation state and political independence.
..............................................................
It seems you are aware of the contradictory nature of the crucifixion belief between the two faiths. I am not sure how both faiths can be messages from the same God if they contradict each others core spiritual teachings.
I would have thought the Bahai would have rejected the violent message of Islam and claimed to be a progression of the original christian message of peace before it was corrupted by politics and greed rather than try and mesh the three.
Again the Persian influence seems more the reason than any truth of the islamic message.
....................................................................
On the historical
Their is no doubt that a warrior/prophet arose in the late 500's early 600's and preached a fierce mono-theism amongst the arabian tribes and launched them on a mission to conquer the lands that were now vunerable because of the great Persian war the Romans had just fought, lands they believed were their right through Ishmael. The actual details of the conquest and the interpretation of the foundational story seems to be mostly taken from authentic sources but has been reverse engineered by Abdul Malik during his Califate. Mostly the geography, which was a somewhat fluid thing in the minds of people of that time. The Holy Place is where the holy thing is... move the thing, the geography moves, but it is still The Holy Place in the mind of the believer so it never moved as well.

Heres one that just popped into my head. The Roaman Emperor Elagabalus was also the high priest of Elgabal and custodian of the Black stone of Emesa. Somewhere during the crisis of the third century, probably during Zenobia and Aurelians struggles in the late 200, the stone, or what was left of it, seems to have been taken to the Nabataen stronghold of Petra. An ancient well know city on the crossroads of major trade routes and a place of temples and pilgrimage from the arab peninsular for centuries. A place that fits the desciptions given of mecca/bekka far better than the place we have today.

Dan Gibson has shown that every Moslem prayer Niche was pointed at Petra until the time of Abdul Maliks Caliphate, from India to Africa to Persia, this is solid stuff. The Muslims used to explain it by saying the early niches were pointed at Jerusalem and this was changed when Malik built the Dome of the Rock and pointed its niche at what is today Mecca .But modern analysis has shown these early niches pointed a couple of degrees south of Jerusalem right at Petra. The civil war of Maliks, seems to have been when the stone was taken by the rebels to present day mecca and when victorious Malik liked the idea of the religious centre another 1000 miles south and out of his way.

It does not seem reasonable to believe that Mecca, which is only mentioned once by name in the koran,was an already 2000 year old trading city, not on the trade route by 100 miles, and holy site yet not recorded on a single map or mentioned in a single source until the 740's. It is a much better fit to place the origin of Islam amongst the arabian tribes on the periphery of the Nabataen kingdom 1000 miles north of present day mecca. All the actual koranic stories fit this better. it is the Haddiths that explain the foundation story as we have it today that point further south and they all are after proper Imperial control in the early 700's. Actually the majority are from the 800's onwars.

If the foundational story of Islam is actually totally different than the accepted tradition does that make a difference to whether they are a divine manifestation of a continuing message.

As an aside i think that is why the christian story is more believable. By the time Imperial political types got their hands on the the religion there were already so many copies of the different books spread over so many different nations and languages and so much commentary already done by the previous generations that they could not rewrite or do any substantial editing. I bet Constantine wished he could have edited the books at Nicaea but they were stuck with established stuff that went back centuries.
...........................................................................................................
We need to be careful not to dismiss Islam on the basis of bad behaviour of its followers anymore than we should dismiss Christianity for the same reasons.
.... i agree for the most part.... but it seems to me that the FIRST generation of followers of any of the great teachers gives a fair example of a proper manifestation of there beliefs through their actions.

I think that if we just did a side by side of the Twelve Apostles and the top 12 companions of the prophet, both groups held to be representative, by the followers of both faiths, of the living truth taught by their masters we would find diametrically opposed views on the subjects of, taking human life, sexual morays and practises, wealth, politics, inclusion and salvation and the list gets bigger as you go deeper.

Again if the two messages, as interpreted by their initial followers, are in contradiction then they can not be progression can they?
................................................................................
Peace

How about their claim to Jesus?

 

[Dawnofhope]

I meant to say that the bahai faith to me is a philosophy. Not to the bahais. Of course not. Maybe I didnt word it right.

I also understand that bahaullah is not God himself but a manifestation.

And I tried to clarify from you what is meant by the phrase "akram rasool" in the kithab I akdhas. I did not get a response to that.

Not to offend you but I found that there are a lot of schism in the bahai scholarship about jesus and the so called older sacred text. In one of your links i read that the kathamun nabiyyin is Muhammed, but bahaullah is a rasool. Another respondent here denied that although your own source said that.

Anyway this thread was meant to understand your faith. Not to rebut it. One must understand a faith to rebut it. But I see a lot of people here refuting without even understanding it.

Thanks for your response. We will learn more.

Your English is generally excellent but I’m reminded that its not your first language. I personally believe we need more Muslims such as yourself on RF, especially with a broad knowledge of different religions and familiarity with at least some scholarship.

Thanks for acknowledging the corrections.

If you can provide a translation for the words ‘akram rasool’ or provide the English passage of the Kitab-I-Aqdas I’ll happily answer your question.

Schism is not the best word, rather differences of opinion in regards the Christian Bible. Both the Torah and Gospels are considered to have been under God’s protection and though we can not be certain if they contain the exact words Moses or Jesus spoke we can be confident the Torah and the Gospels contains all God wanted to communicate to humanity.

This point is clarified by the Universal House of Justice which has the authority to resolve differences of opinion in regards the Baha’i writings.

You ask for elucidation of the statement made on behalf of the Guardian in this letter of 11 February 1944, "When 'Abdu'l-Bahá states we believe what is in the Bible, He means in substance. Not that we believe every word of it to be taken literally or that every word is the authentic saying of the Prophet." Is it not clear that what Shoghi Effendi means here is that we cannot categorically state, as we do in the case of the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, that the words and phrases attributed to Moses and Christ in the Old and New Testaments are Their exact words, but that, in view of the general principle enunciated by Bahá'u'lláh in the "Kitab-i-Iqan" that God's Revelation is under His care and protection, we can be confident that the essence, or essential elements, of what these two Manifestations of God intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in these two Books?
(19 July 1981 to an individual believer)

The Bible

This perspective is very different from that of most Muslims who see the Bible as corrupted.

Most Muslims understand Muhammad to be the final Prophet for all time based on the widely accepted interpretation of the verse in the Quran

Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets: and Allah has full knowledge of all things.

— The Qur'an - Chapter 33 Verse 40

Therefore any claims to be a Prophet after Muhammad are seen as heretical. For that reason many Muslims regard the Baha’i Faith as an apostate religion. This has led to persecution in a number of Muslim countries.

An alternative view of the Khatam an-Nabiyyin

The Bahá'í Faith regards Muhammad as a Manifestation of God and as the Seal of the Prophets,[56] but does not believe Revelation or Scripture from God has ended. In particular, Bahá'ís regard the end-times prophecies of Islam (and other faiths) as being both metaphorical and literal,[57] and see the Báb and Bahá'u'lláh as fulfilling these prophetic expectations. The latter of these is the founder of the Bahá'í religion, which considers Islamic law as secondary or tertiary to its own. Muhammad is seen as ending the Adamic cycle, also known as the Prophetic cycle, which is stated to have begun approximately 6,000 years ago,[58][59]and the Báb and Bahá'u'lláh as starting the Bahá'í cycle, or Cycle of Fulfillment, which will last at least five hundred thousand years with numerous Manifestations of God appearing throughout this time.[60][61] Moreover, Mirza Husayn 'Ali Nuri Bahá'u'lláh gave the Title "King of the Messengers" (sultán al-rusul) to the Báb, and the "Sender of the Messengers" (mursil al-rusul) to himself. Additionally, the Kitáb-i-Íqán shows the Islamic concept of the oneness of the prophets and the Hadith, "knowledge is a single point, which the foolish have multipied,"[62] to reveal that the term "Seal of the Prophets", like Alpha and Omega, apply to all the prophets: "Whilst established upon the seat of the “first,” they occupy the throne of the “last.”."[63] In summary, these interpretive and legal differences have caused the Bahá'ís to be seen as heretics and apostates by some Muslims, which has led to their persecution in different countries.

Khatam an-Nabiyyin - Wikipedia

Of those on this thread that have taken the time to rebut the Baha’i Faith, each have their reasons. They are free to have their opinions as the Baha’is are free to have ours.

Hope that helps.

 

[Moz]

How about their claim to Jesus?

Hi.
I am not sure how they link themselves to the christian message other than in some fuzzy cuddly way that doesn't address what Jesus actually taught. I read some stuff that was applying scriptures from Revelations to their prophet but i really did not understand what it was getting at other than borrowing poetic phraseology it seemed to me. The symbolism of Revelation is deeply Jewish and can't really be applied the way it was in what i read. I'd like to explore that next but the Islamic thing came up first so here i am.

I am also not sure how much diversity of belief or understanding is allowed amongst Bahai's so i'm wading through that as well trying to get a feel for it.
Peace.

 

[firedragon]

Their is no doubt that a warrior/prophet arose in the late 500's early 600's and preached a fierce mono-theism amongst the arabian tribes and launched them on a mission to conquer the lands

how come you are 100% sure of this whole sentence?

1. There is non doubt the prophet arose in the time period you stipulated?
2. What evidence do you have that he preached a "fierce" monotheism?
3. What evidence do you have that he "launched the arabs on a mission to conquer"?

What are the historical evidences? You are quoting several people. Don Holland doubts a lot of things about Muhammed, including his thesis that there were no coins with his name at the time. This is what you quoted. Then what is your evidence that you have no doubt about the three questions based on one single sentence of yours? Lets hear them.

Dan Gibson has shown that every Moslem prayer Niche was pointed at Petra until the time of Abdul Maliks Caliphate

You seem to have taken Dan Gibsons ideas wholeheartedly. This is why I asked if you have researched this. His thesis does not prove what he believes at all. He loves Petra and wants everything to point towards it. Wrong.

first you must analyse why Dan doubts early Islamic writings claiming that they are not so early when he pleases and then quotes Atthabari, Masoodhi? Dan has easily approached this thesis with the presupposition that the Kibla follows the Black Stone, which is one of the reasons you yourself have quoted this Roman ancestry of the stone. Very big mistake brother. Dan Gibson is mistaken, in error, though he himself quotes early Islamic writings (contrary his own thesis they cant be trusted) erroneously. He has misunderstood the Maghriba asshamshi to be the stone. It is one of the most unsophisticated mistakes one could make. He should have asked a simple arabic reader. Maghriba Asshamsi means "Setting place of the sun", not the stone. And it is very evident that the early Muslims whoever they are could not calculate the directions exactly and he makes one Kibla which is around 8to 9% away from the Kibla to be pointing towards Petra, which has been refuted simply because Dan made mistakes in his trigonometry. You should follow through. He erred with his understanding of Mathliasshamshi which in arabic means the rising place of the sun. His scholarship is not upto. the mark. Which is why I told you not to put these people along with Professor Crone, though she is a historian she has scholarship, not like Holland and Dan who are both amateurish in the field. Also, this is completely irrelevant to this topic, and your attempt to discredit Muhammed for whatever reason.

Your whole reliance on the "Not Mecca" theory is not valid to this discussion. And you should also study those who made mathematical advancements in the early societies and later corrected their directions to Mecca, that is just for your scholarship, not for the sake of this argument. You should know that some Muslims around the world, even in Europe, Asia, America etc are using the same old folk astronomy of the 7th century to determine the Kibla. And they differ even now. But their core belief is that "Waillahil mashriku wal maghribu". Study the subject deeper, not to the level of Dan Gibson because he is not very well versed.

If the foundational story of Islam is actually totally different than the accepted tradition does that make a difference to whether they are a divine manifestation of a continuing message.

Not really. You are making a very sophomore mistake in the theology. Nothing is a divine manifestation in Islam. Nothing. La ilaaha illaahuwa. Nothing is divine. And the Quran is the only book Muslims consider infallible. So your arguments are all exterior to the central Muslim tenets you picked from Dan Gibsons Petra thesis, and Don Hollands doubtful Muhammed thesis. But you also have not followed through with your prof Crone because she herself declared some of her earlier views in Hagarism has been wrong. And do you really agree with Don Hollands idea about coins? Don't you know that it was established that the earlier coins were used even after Muhammed? Do you know that he is no scholar and has not done the due diligence? Now I know for a fact you will not follow all. I have seen it enough brother, with all due respect, that is why I did not wish to discuss this subject.

As an aside i think that is why the christian story is more believable. By the time Imperial political types got their hands on the the religion there were already so many copies of the different books spread over so many different nations and languages and so much commentary already done by the previous generations that they could not rewrite or do any substantial editing. I bet Constantine wished he could have edited the books at Nicaea but they were stuck with established stuff that went back centuries.

What centuries? Brother. Please don't make this another thread about Bibles and manuscripts etc. Lets not. You are making vague statements. Show me one single manuscript of the New Testament dating to anything before a 100 years to Jesus's life. You will not find one. So lets hear it brother. Quote me a manuscript. Open another thread if you like.

And if you believe that the whole of the canon was established by the time the council of Nicea happened, where did the epistle of Barnabas, books of clement, Shepard of Hermes etc come into the Bible (New Testament) after the council?

I know that there was Biblie canon since Athanasius but your statements are just vague and extremely unscholarly. You are just driving this into a complete different subject, one after another because you are making snippets of statements rather than following one single little subject to deep levels.

I said so much with respect to your comments. Not inn favour of the subject at hand. Apologies to whoever tried to stick to theOP.

Peace.

 

[firedragon]

Hi.
I am not sure how they link themselves to the christian message other than in some fuzzy cuddly way that doesn't address what Jesus actually taught. I read some stuff that was applying scriptures from Revelations to their prophet but i really did not understand what it was getting at other than borrowing poetic phraseology it seemed to me. The symbolism of Revelation is deeply Jewish and can't really be applied the way it was in what i read. I'd like to explore that next but the Islamic thing came up first so here i am.

I am also not sure how much diversity of belief or understanding is allowed amongst Bahai's so i'm wading through that as well trying to get a feel for it.
Peace.

I asked you because you should as a critical person apply the same standard you applied to Muhammed, to Jesus.

Lets see how you apply the same standard. Historicity to historicity. Word to word.

 

[Moz]

how come you are 100% sure of this whole sentence?

1. There is non doubt the prophet arose in the time period you stipulated?
2. What evidence do you have that he preached a "fierce" monotheism?
3. What evidence do you have that he "launched the arabs on a mission to conquer"?

What are the historical evidences? You are quoting several people. Don Holland doubts a lot of things about Muhammed, including his thesis that there were no coins with his name at the time. This is what you quoted. Then what is your evidence that you have no doubt about the three questions based on one single sentence of yours? Lets hear them.



You seem to have taken Dan Gibsons ideas wholeheartedly. This is why I asked if you have researched this. His thesis does not prove what he believes at all. He loves Petra and wants everything to point towards it. Wrong.

first you must analyse why Dan doubts early Islamic writings claiming that they are not so early when he pleases and then quotes Atthabari, Masoodhi? Dan has easily approached this thesis with the presupposition that the Kibla follows the Black Stone, which is one of the reasons you yourself have quoted this Roman ancestry of the stone. Very big mistake brother. Dan Gibson is mistaken, in error, though he himself quotes early Islamic writings (contrary his own thesis they cant be trusted) erroneously. He has misunderstood the Maghriba asshamshi to be the stone. It is one of the most unsophisticated mistakes one could make. He should have asked a simple arabic reader. Maghriba Asshamsi means "Setting place of the sun", not the stone. And it is very evident that the early Muslims whoever they are could not calculate the directions exactly and he makes one Kibla which is around 8to 9% away from the Kibla to be pointing towards Petra, which has been refuted simply because Dan made mistakes in his trigonometry. You should follow through. He erred with his understanding of Mathliasshamshi which in arabic means the rising place of the sun. His scholarship is not upto. the mark. Which is why I told you not to put these people along with Professor Crone, though she is a historian she has scholarship, not like Holland and Dan who are both amateurish in the field. Also, this is completely irrelevant to this topic, and your attempt to discredit Muhammed for whatever reason.

Your whole reliance on the "Not Mecca" theory is not valid to this discussion. And you should also study those who made mathematical advancements in the early societies and later corrected their directions to Mecca, that is just for your scholarship, not for the sake of this argument. You should know that some Muslims around the world, even in Europe, Asia, America etc are using the same old folk astronomy of the 7th century to determine the Kibla. And they differ even now. But their core belief is that "Waillahil mashriku wal maghribu". Study the subject deeper, not to the level of Dan Gibson because he is not very well versed.



Not really. You are making a very sophomore mistake in the theology. Nothing is a divine manifestation in Islam. Nothing. La ilaaha illaahuwa. Nothing is divine. And the Quran is the only book Muslims consider infallible. So your arguments are all exterior to the central Muslim tenets you picked from Dan Gibsons Petra thesis, and Don Hollands doubtful Muhammed thesis. But you also have not followed through with your prof Crone because she herself declared some of her earlier views in Hagarism has been wrong. And do you really agree with Don Hollands idea about coins? Don't you know that it was established that the earlier coins were used even after Muhammed? Do you know that he is no scholar and has not done the due diligence? Now I know for a fact you will not follow all. I have seen it enough brother, with all due respect, that is why I did not wish to discuss this subject.



What centuries? Brother. Please don't make this another thread about Bibles and manuscripts etc. Lets not. You are making vague statements. Show me one single manuscript of the New Testament dating to anything before a 100 years to Jesus's life. You will not find one. So lets hear it brother. Quote me a manuscript. Open another thread if you like.

And if you believe that the whole of the canon was established by the time the council of Nicea happened, where did the epistle of Barnabas, books of clement, Shepard of Hermes etc come into the Bible (New Testament) after the council?

I know that there was Biblie canon since Athanasius but your statements are just vague and extremely unscholarly. You are just driving this into a complete different subject, one after another because you are making snippets of statements rather than following one single little subject to deep levels.

I said so much with respect to your comments. Not inn favour of the subject at hand. Apologies to whoever tried to stick to theOP.

Peace.

Hi.
I gave a thumbnail outline of some of the stuff that could be considered and all your comments have counter opinions. This stuff covers hundreds of pages and sources and was a very loose outline.
It is a shame that the Islamic world is not interested in verifying any of this stuff. They have the sites of the houses of the prophet homes of his wives and some of the early caliphs all safely concreted over in the last couple of decades WHY? They could have settled this stuff beyond any possible doubt.
Surely excavating the sites of these events before building Hilton hotels on them would have been helpful.
Anyway we all have to make our choices on what we view as reasonable.

Hollands stuff seems pretty good to me and is based in a deep understanding of the geo-political tensions of the times. It fits with every other picture of that world from the Persian and Roman sources. His stuff on the rise of the papacy in the 1000's was spot on. His stuff on the Persian wars was one of the best accounts i've read, so yes i have a lot of respect for the views he puts forth.
Peace.

 

[firedragon]

Hi.
I gave a thumbnail outline of some of the stuff that could be considered and all your comments have counter opinions. This stuff covers hundreds of pages and sources and was a very loose outline.
It is a shame that the Islamic world is not interested in verifying any of this stuff. They have the sites of the houses of the prophet homes of his wives and some of the early caliphs all safely concreted over in the last couple of decades WHY? They could have settled this stuff beyond any possible doubt.
Surely excavating the sites of these events before building Hilton hotels on them would have been helpful.
Anyway we all have to make our choices on what we view as reasonable.

Hollands stuff seems pretty good to me and is based in a deep understanding of the geo-political tensions of the times. It fits with every other picture of that world from the Persian and Roman sources. His stuff on the rise of the papacy in the 1000's was spot on. His stuff on the Persian wars was one of the best accounts i've read, so yes i have a lot of respect for the views he puts forth.
Peace.

Too vague. Stuff, good stuff, pretty good to me, based on deep understanding, etc etc are all vague statements. You have not given a single specific response because you have not studied the subject.

Thanks but definitely not interested.

Peace.

 

[Dawnofhope]

How about their claim to Jesus?

To be accurate the Baha’i claim is Bahá’u’lláh was the Return of the Christ or Messiah. In other words One who brings a Revelation from God to humanity as Jesus did. In that sense Muhammad clearly meets that criteria through the Quran. Baha’is believe Bahá’u’lláh did too but its early days for us. There will be no return of the physical Jesus who Baha’is believe died on the cross. So these are further theological differences that set the Baha’i Faith apart from both Christianity and Islam.

So should I take the opportunity to let our Christian friend know His Promised Messiah has returned? There is a prophecy in Matthew 24:30-31

"And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."

The clouds are the obscuring traditions and beliefs of the previous dispensation that prevents the seeker from beholding his Beloved. There is a saying how the wise do not speak until they obtain a hearing.

 

[firedragon]

Your English is generally excellent but I’m reminded that its not your first language.

Actually English is my first language brother.

If you can provide a translation for the words ‘akram rasool’ or provide the English passage of the Kitab-I-Aqdas I’ll happily answer your question.

Of course. Akram means "most honourable" but also has a meaning of "generosity" So Rasool Akram as in the book would mean honourable messenger. I dont know how to give you the reference in the English version brother because it doesn't seem to match. In the arabic version this begins with the 8th verse. Of course repeats many other times. And by the way, this same verse refers to the Quran.

Does Bahai (Bahaayin) mean Bahauallah? If it is, im pretty sure that he is addressed as Honourable Messenger or Rasool Al Akram.

By the way, is there any possibility that you could find a way for me to download the same English Kithab I Akdhas you are reading? I have two versions which are very different, and one doesn't have verses numbered. It goes on like a paragraph.

Schism is not the best word, rather differences of opinion in regards the Christian Bible.

Yes. You are right. I agree.

You ask for elucidation of the statement made on behalf of the Guardian in this letter of 11 February 1944, "When 'Abdu'l-Bahá states we believe what is in the Bible, He means in substance. Not that we believe every word of it to be taken literally or that every word is the authentic saying of the Prophet." Is it not clear that what Shoghi Effendi means here is that we cannot categorically state, as we do in the case of the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, that the words and phrases attributed to Moses and Christ in the Old and New Testaments are Their exact words, but that, in view of the general principle enunciated by Bahá'u'lláh in the "Kitab-i-Iqan" that God's Revelation is under His care and protection, we can be confident that the essence, or essential elements, of what these two Manifestations of God intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in these two Books?
(19 July 1981 to an individual believer)

Okay I get it.

Most Muslims understand Muhammad to be the final Prophet for all time based on the widely accepted interpretation of the verse in the Quran

Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets: and Allah has full knowledge of all things.

— The Qur'an - Chapter 33 Verse 40

Therefore any claims to be a Prophet after Muhammad are seen as heretical. For that reason many Muslims regard the Baha’i Faith as an apostate religion. This has led to persecution in a number of Muslim countries.

An alternative view of the Khatam an-Nabiyyin

The Bahá'í Faith regards Muhammad as a Manifestation of God and as the Seal of the Prophets,[56] but does not believe Revelation or Scripture from God has ended. In particular, Bahá'ís regard the end-times prophecies of Islam (and other faiths) as being both metaphorical and literal,[57] and see the Báb and Bahá'u'lláh as fulfilling these prophetic expectations. The latter of these is the founder of the Bahá'í religion, which considers Islamic law as secondary or tertiary to its own. Muhammad is seen as ending the Adamic cycle, also known as the Prophetic cycle, which is stated to have begun approximately 6,000 years ago,[58][59]and the Báb and Bahá'u'lláh as starting the Bahá'í cycle, or Cycle of Fulfillment, which will last at least five hundred thousand years with numerous Manifestations of God appearing throughout this time.[60][61] Moreover, Mirza Husayn 'Ali Nuri Bahá'u'lláh gave the Title "King of the Messengers" (sultán al-rusul) to the Báb, and the "Sender of the Messengers" (mursil al-rusul) to himself. Additionally, the Kitáb-i-Íqán shows the Islamic concept of the oneness of the prophets and the Hadith, "knowledge is a single point, which the foolish have multipied,"[62] to reveal that the term "Seal of the Prophets", like Alpha and Omega, apply to all the prophets: "Whilst established upon the seat of the “first,” they occupy the throne of the “last.”."[63] In summary, these interpretive and legal differences have caused the Bahá'ís to be seen as heretics and apostates by some Muslims, which has led to their persecution in different countries.

Khatam an-Nabiyyin - Wikipedia

Ive been saying the same thing over and over again brother. This is the justification of Bahaiullah as the rasool, not Nabi. Muhammed maybe the Kathamun Nabi but that doesn't mean Rasools ended at the time. Thats the Bahai argument about the theory that Muhammed is the last prophet. The problem is the prophet and messenger (Nonsensical English words) that represent Nabi and Rasool. This is why I have been trying to ask you about the rasool, not Nabi, which according to your sources respected Bahaulllah is. He is Rasool, not Nabi. (Thats the Bahai point of view, the same as the Ahmadhia point view).

Anyway, thanks for the response and patience.

 

[shunyadragon]

IMHO, closest to science is 'Advaita' Hinduism with its philosophy of 'non-duality'. Everything in the universe, living and non-living, arose from the same small bundle of physical energy. That alone is in play today and will be so in future also. Therefore, no God, no soul, no heaven, no hell, no birth, no death, no creation, no end of time, no rebirth, no resurrection. No prophets, no sons, no messengers, no manifestations, no mahdis. All clap-trap surgically removed. Buddhism also is close.

Even though the Baha'i Faith believes in God the Creator of all of the physical existence it also believes every thing in cosmos has natural origins including all possible universes. It supports the harmony of science and religion, where the evolving knowledge of science is accepted as the understanding of the nature of our physical existence and all the scripture including the Baha'i scripture must be understood in the light of the knowledge of science.

 

[loverofhumanity]

In a nutshell, the Bahai Faith takes the Islaamic idea of refinement of previous revelations and runs with it to the next step, claiming to be the most recent (and final? I am not sure on that point) of a series of Abrahamic revelations.

It arose in the 19th century in current day Iran, amidst a Shia Muslim society. There is an intermediate creed with an separate prophet, the Bab, that shortly preceeded the Bahai Faith's Baha'u'llah.

More recent speakers with authority over the Bahai Faith have since extended the Bahai claims in order to declare that somehow the creed, despite its very Abrahamic nature, is also a successor to Zoroastrism, Buddhism and Hinduism.

They are often accused of misrepresenting other creeds. I for one agree that they do indeed misrepresent the non-Abrahamics to a grave degree.

As you may easily imagine, most Muslims consider the Bahai Faith to misrepresent Islaam as well, mainly by presenting a new revelation and a new prophet in defiance of the Qur'an. Still, these days the Bahais are among the most motivated non-Muslim defenders of the validity and reputation of Islaam.

There is no misrepresentation of other creeds. Both Krishna and Buddha unequivocally, in their own Holy Scriptures, prophesy Their return just as Jesus did and in the Quran - the Great Announcement. The Zoroastrians also await their Saviour in end times

We believe these all refer to the same Person and that Person we believe to be Baha’u’llah.

Some examples of these prophecies are:

Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice, O descendant of Bharata, and a predominant rise of irreligion–at that time I descend Myself. To deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to reestablish the principles of religion, I Myself appear, millennium after millennium. (Bhagavad-Gita ch8)

Suppressing his tears, Ananda said to the Buddha, 'Who shall teach us when You are gone?' And the Buddha advised him to regard His Teaching as the Master.

The Buddha continued again:' I am not the first Buddha to come upon earth; nor shall I be the last. In due time, another Buddha will arise in this world, a Holy One, a Supremely Enlightened One, endowed with wisdom, in conduct auspicious, knowing the universe, an incomparable leader of men, a master of devas and men. He will reveal to you the same Eternal Truths which I have taught you. He will proclaim a religious life, wholly perfect and pure; such as I now proclaim.'

'How shall we know him?' asked Ananda. The Buddha replied, 'He will be known as Maitreya which means kindness or friendliness.'

What Buddhists Believe - The Future Buddha

 

[shunyadragon]

It's like every other faith. But if you really want answer stop looking outside of yourself. The answers you seek are within. Absolute authority comes from within. If you see the Buddha on the road kill him!

The first Buddha that needs to killed is ego Buddha within.

 

[firedragon]

Even though the Baha'i Faith believes in God the Creator of all of the physical existence it also believes every thing in cosmos has natural origins including all possible universes. It supports the harmony of science and religion, where the evolving knowledge of science is accepted as the understanding of the nature of our physical existence and all the scripture including the Baha'i scripture must be understood in the light of the knowledge of science.

Interesting. Do you mean that God created everything? Or there are somethings that evolved or came up naturally? Without divine intervention! Please be kind enough to clarify.

 

[Vinayaka]

No, we know miracles are fake news, serpent oil blurbs; like the 'Maid of Heaven' visiting Bahaullah in prison. It is the theists who believe in that.

Make it rain where there is drought. Make it so all soldiers miss their target. Revive the dead on an entire field. Then maybe I'd think differently.

 

[firedragon]

There is no misrepresentation of other creeds. Both Krishna and Buddha unequivocally, in their own Holy Scriptures, prophesy Their return just as Jesus did and in the Quran - the Great Announcement.

Could you quote which specific Buddhist scripture prophesies a "return"?

Just for your information brother there is no "return of Jesus" in the Quran.

 

[Vinayaka]

There is no misrepresentation of other creeds.

True, according to the Baha'is. Not true, according to other creeds. Therein lies a challenge, no?

 

[Aupmanyav]

It supports the harmony of science and religion, where the evolving knowledge of science is accepted as the understanding of the nature of our physical existence and all the scripture including the Baha'i scripture must be understood in the light of the knowledge of science.

They have not understood the main thing that there is no God or Soul. But they cannot accept that because Bahaism depends on the self-professed divine mission of Bahaullah (of course, there is that visit by 'Maid of Heaven', if someone wants to take that as a proof).

 

[Aupmanyav]

Make it rain where there is drought. Make it so all soldiers miss their target. Revive the dead on an entire field. Then maybe I'd think differently.

Also stop the rain when it is causing havoc. China, India, Spain and many other countries are reeling under floods (as also cyclones and earthquakes). The death count here exceeds 1,200. It is middle of September and it is still raining cats and dogs. That is what a loving God does. But then, the Muslims are right. Allah is testing people.
"Floods in India" - Google Search (Images for the last one month, even in the desert state of Rajasthan)

600mm/24 inches is like optimal. After that we start having problems - some natural, some man-made.