Why do you think that the Watchtower is similar in structure to the Baha’i Faith?
Like you have the House of Justice to sort of guide or decide how things are suppose to be understood. So does JW in the form of the Watchtower (Governing body) . I think that JW might go a bit further than the Bahai does, meaning that they have their own "trials" for members at whatever chapter they are part of. So for instance if someone does something not in according with the rules, they will be trialed and in worse case be shunned from JWs.
JWs have some really inhumane rules regarding how to treat former members, even their own children, if they reject God or does something that is not according to the rules. Which basically mean that if a JW is excluded, all former members including family are to stop or avoid any contact with them. In regards to how to treat children under 18 (I think it is) are equally absurd and requires them to live with the family but they have to be excluded from activities that involve God and bible studies etc. Which a lot of time is spend on. To me these rules border on the edge of abuse or even severe abuse. And obvious they have a whole lot of other rules like not being allowed to receive blood and so forth. Funny enough this rule have changed several times during history, sometimes including some forms, while not others etc.which I think most JWs are not really aware of.
But anyway, the main idea is that you have the governing body, who are chosen to lead JWs and their teachings, which to me seems a lot like how the House of Justice works, where you have X number of people deciding how things ought to be, how things should be understood and so forth. I don't know enough about Bahai to really know what the House of Justice does, but I believe I have heard that they have a huge saying both in publication of material regarding Bahai faith and what gets approved and what doesn't. But again that might be wrong.
I think you have a grave misconception regarding the Baha’i Faith. We do not rely upon either the Bible or the Qur’an, we have an independent revelation from God through Baha’u’llah, a new revelation from God. Baha’u’llah was the fulfillment of prophecies for the Messiah and the return of Christ, so that is really the only reason why Baha’is refer to older scriptures.
The moment you mention Jesus, Moses and all this, you rely on the bible, these characters come from here. Without the bible, Baha'u'llah wouldn't have been able to reference these in any meaningful way, people would have no idea what he would be talking about. I understand that, you might not quote as many verses as the others does, but the Bahai teachings does acknowledge the truth about Jesus and the other prophets. So even if Bahais think of Baha'u'llah as having an independent revelation, it still ultimately comes down to the bible.
I do not think they are all of equal quality. We do not know who the authors of the Bible were a and we do not know what the original writers of the Bible meant because it is not that easy to understand and it can mean many different things. It is easier to know what the writers of the Qur’an meant because it was dictated by scribes to Muhammad so at least we know who actually utter the words that ended up on paper.
I don't really think that matters anyway, even if we know that the Quran might be more accurate in what Muhammad said, a lot of it still relies on the bible. For instance when Muhammad first gets his revelation, this is by the Arch angel Gabriel, which is also a character in the bible. As I told you earlier, the bible and the Quran hold a lot of the same stories, so if these are considered wrong in the bible, then they would be in the Quran as well and vice versa.
And in the end, just because we know who wrote it, doesn't mean that it is true or even remotely true. You would still have to accept that Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged creature and spoke with an angel, along with all the other stories that comes from the bible. Also using such logic then the book of Mormon ought to be the most reliable of them all, as it is much later than the others and we know who wrote it. yet the majority of people doubt this to be true.
That is why, to me at least, the quality depends on the history and the examination and cross references that can be made. And also why I think a majority doesn't really buy Joseph Smith story.
I do not know what is in the Bible about the trial of Jesus but I know what Baha’u’llah wrote, which I would be inclined to believe more than the Bible:
None of what is written here is in the bible, and it seems to be more of a collection or rewriting of the trial in a new and maybe more consistence manner, but yet adds no new crucial information that would give us a better understanding of the trial it self. So to me it seems to be more like an explanation of it, that some people might prefer, rather than having to read through the different Gospels to get the story. My guess is that this version is also kind of vague, because so is it in the Gospels. The trial it self is not really that long in the Bible, especially the first 3 Gospels, if I recall correctly.
I don't personally see a huge problem with how it is described here, but also see little gained, compared to just reading it in the bible it self.
I do think that Jesus was crucified and that did make Him special; I mean that is the centerpiece around which Christianity revolves. Baha’is also believe Jesus was crucified and offered Himself as a sacrifice but not for original sin:
Yes Jesus dying for our sins and being resurrected is the core element of Christianity. But lots of people were crucified, so it basically comes down to the resurrection, had he not done so, then Christianity would have died out I think.
Just wondering what does Bahai believe the purpose of Jesus crucifixion were then?
No, that is not what it means. He meant that Jesus accomplished a lot considering He did not have any armies or legions and considering He was oppressed. Again, Abdu’l-Baha tends to blow things a little out of proportion in order to make a point.
Ok, I see. Then I find his writing confusing, when he say that "no other proof is needed" having used these things as examples. Why not use the exact things one should believe is special about Jesus instead. Because if what you say is true, then nothing he wrote before leading to the statement "No other proof is needed" makes no sense at all, as I have no clue what he is referring to then, since it weren't really what he meant, but he leaves no other alternatives. Maybe as you say if you read it all, but still, very confusing way to write, I think.
So maybe Abdu’l-Baha embellished that part about oppression in order to make a point.
Yeah maybe, don't know. It could also be because its assumed that oppression is playing a huge part, but it really doesn't in the stories.
That is a HUGE difference. Why do you think they did not survive and Christianity survived the test of time? From a believer standpoint it is because Jesus was a Manifestation of the one true God and those other religion and their gods were false. Only in their stories did they share the same capabilities as the God that Jesus revealed.
Personally I think the reason Christianity made it, Judaism or even Islam for that matter, is mainly due to Constantine the Great and because of changes that Paul made, when talking about Christianity in particular, which allowed it to be spread to the gentiles. But also because they were very successful in spreading the word and maybe that is key factor as well, that the scriptures encourage people to spread the word. Whereas I think a lot of the earlier religions, didn't really go on these religious crusades. Taking the Norse mythology for instance, I don't really recall or having heard that even though they were widely spread around the world, that they were really all that interested or caring about, whether or not others believed or ought to believe what they did. As mentioned earlier, like the Romans had lots of Gods as well, but were also very loose in how they behaved towards other people's religions, like giving offerings to them and so forth, so maybe they had no real issue with there being lots of gods. But I can only imagine how it would have turned out had the Romans not been, lets say, that they would not tolerate other religions than their own, then I doubt we know much about Judaism and obviously neither Christianity or Islam.
But there is a lot more to it, than just what I wrote, but in general I think these things are the very foundation of why these made it and not the others. And in general have little to do with what is considered more likely to be true or not. Maybe from a modern point of view, but there is no reason to assume that the Norse, the Egyptians, Greeks etc. Did not believe in their gods just as much as the Jews did. They did after all build lots of buildings to worth ship them.
I understand the point you are making if you only look at the stories and you cannot see beyond the stories in the Bible (many of which were metaphorical) to see the truth that was revealed about God through Jesus and Moses and the other lesser prophets in the OT.
I get what you mean, but I think a lot of this metaphorical understanding of the scriptures have been added later on. I see no reason for instance why the Jews and early Christians wouldn't believe that the world was created as the bible say. Also why we find references to it in Luke (I think it is) which tells us all of the fathers from Jesus to Adam. If they did not believe it, then why write all the names, knowing that this was not what they believed. So to me, it seems that this metaphorical understanding of Adam and Eve is something that have been normalized later on as a more correct way of understanding it. Rather than what the Jews actually believed. And to me as I mentioned earlier is what I think is the most interesting, what did they original believe and how much did we make up and misunderstand. It seems that a lot of people prefer to read these text as if they were more metaphorically than I think they originally were.
It sort of makes it fit slightly better with what we know about how things actually work, and its somewhat difficult, even for believers, I think, to accept the Adam and Eve story as being true, so claiming that its metaphorically sort of pushes it to the side, as it wasn't really meant to be taken literally. And im not really sure I buy that, when reading the bible and seeing the references that is made to these stories.
