Where you brought up in the Baha'i faith or were you a convert? I have been assuming you were a convert. I need to start with one piece of evidence at a time. As a Christian I hold to the gospel of Christ as true. As a Baptist I hold to the Christian New Testament as the sole Apostolic authority - so by default rejecting the claims of the Baha'i scriptures. I need stepping stones, so to speak, some kind of evidence to change may mind, or at the very least to understand why you cannot change yours. Some starting evidence, one piece at a time.
I was not brought up in any religion or believing in God. I became a Baha’i during my first year of college. I was not searching for God or a religion at that time; I simply stumbled upon it, looked into it, and came to believe it was true. That was over 50 years ago, and I have never questioned my belief in Baha’u’llah. Although I have had issues with God, I think that I because I was not raised as a believer.
How about you, were you raised as a Christian?
You said: “As a Baptist I hold to the Christian New Testament as the sole Apostolic authority - so by default rejecting the claims of the Baha'i scriptures.” I see no contradictions between the two but that is no doubt because Baha’is interpret the New Testament differently than Christians – not all of it, but come of it. There are contradictions between some Christians doctrines and what Baha’is believe but we believe those Christian doctrines were derived from an incorrect understanding of the Bible, moreover they are man-made, not the words of Jesus.
I posted the claims of Baha’u’llah and the evidence that supports these claims on this thread:
Questions for knowledgeable Bahai / followers of Baha'u'llah
However that is a lot of information, so maybe it would be best to ask me what you want to know, or tell me what would constitute evidence for you. For me it was the teachings of the Baha’i Faith and the logic behind progressive revelation that convinced me it was true, and at that time I was not searching for God, so that was a secondary consideration. Much later in life it was the Writings of Baha’u’llah and that became the best evidence for me, and more recently the Bible prophecies that were fulfilled by the coming of Bahaullah because an important piece of evidence.
If I understand that to contradict the Apostolic authority how am I to accept what I think is not true?
First read it and tell me what you think is not true. Please bear in mind that you might simply have a misunderstanding of what has been presented because it is not what you are accustomed to reading in your scriptures. I never had that issue; my issue has been trying to understand the Bible since it is very different from what I am used to reading.
Right here are two problems. First Jesus Christ as the Word "was God,"
John 1:1. That He as the Word is the uncaused Cause on behalf of the Father,
John 1:2-3 and
Colossians 1:15-18,
Ephesians 3:9, ". . . the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: . . ." That mystery is that non-Jews can share in the New Covenant, Epehsians 2:12,
Ephesians 3:3-6, ". . . That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: . . ."
No, it is not the same meaning. As the chapter said “The second meaning of sacrifice is this: Christ was like a seed, and this seed sacrificed its own form so that the tree might grow and develop. Although the form of the seed was destroyed, its reality became apparent in perfect majesty and beauty in the form of a tree.” So that essentially says that Christ died so we could have eternal life, Christ gave His life so we could grow and develop spiritually, like a seed disappears and grows into a beautiful tree.
Whoa! That is a lot of information to take in, but since you mentioned the Word I will post what I had already written up, because I have to explain what I believe about the Word all the time
Most Christians believe that John 1:1-3 and John 1:14 mean that Jesus was God. I do not believe that those verses mean that Jesus is God. God cannot become a man because God is
everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men. We know Jesus was not God because Jesus said that no man has seen God at any time.
John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
I believe that God can never be known except through Manifestations of God which are sent by God. God sent Jesus and Jesus
manifested God in the flesh.
John 1 King James Version (KJV)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
The Holy Spirit and the Word are the appearance of God. The Spirit and the Word mean the divine perfections that appeared in Jesus Christ, and these perfections were with God. The Word does not mean the body of Jesus but rather the divine perfections manifested in Jesus. Jesus was like a clear mirror and the divine perfections were visible and apparent in this mirror. Therefore, the Word and the Holy Spirit, which signify the perfections of God, are the divine appearance. This is the meaning of the verse which says: “The Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
When God sent Jesus, Jesus was “manifested” in the flesh and Jesus dwelt among us. God did not become flesh, but rather the divine perfections of God were
manifested in Jesus who came in the flesh and revealed the Word of God to humanity.
1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
You can't get it any plainer than that.
God was manifest in the flesh, not incarnated in the flesh. If God had been incarnated in the flesh then God would have become flesh and we would be able to see God; but Jesus said no man has ever seen God.
This is not, I am sure the same "esoteric meaning" which you refer to.
This is the esoteric meaning: “The second meaning of sacrifice is this: Christ was like a seed, and this seed sacrificed its own form so that the tree might grow and develop. Although the form of the seed was destroyed, its reality became apparent in perfect majesty and beauty in the form of a tree.” So what that means is that Christ sacrificed Himself so we could have eternal life. He sacrificed His life so we could grow and develop spiritually, like a seed becomes a beautiful tree.
Of course if the bodily resurrection of Christ is not true then 1 Timothy 2:5 would not be true either and all would have no basis to believe in any of that, in that case, then the so called holy writings. The New Testament documents are the evidence of the bodily resurrection along with the new birth,
Romans 8:16,
2 Corinthians 5:17.
1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
I see absolutely no connection between what Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:5 and the bodily resurrection of Christ. What that verse means to me is what it says: There is one God and one mediator between God and men, and Jesus Christ is that mediator. A mediator is a go-between. Since God is too great for humans to understand directly, Jesus acted as a mediator on humanity’s behalf. The reason that Jesus could perform that role is because he had a two-fold nature; since He was both divine and human, He could bridge the gap between God and humans.
I see no need for the bodily resurrection of Jesus because it accomplished nothing. It has nothing to do with the mission of Jesus and served no purpose whatsoever. I believe the resurrection stories are fictional stories
written about Jesus long after He died, so Jesus was just a character in a story. The New Testament documents are the evidence of the bodily resurrection because a story is not proof that anything in the story ever happened. Other than the alleged witnesses in the stories there is no evidence that Jesus ever rose from the dead.
It is absolutely unnecessary to believe in the bodily resurrection on order to be a Christian. Moreover, when Jesus died on the cross he said
“It is finished.”
John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
What was finished was His mission on earth, which was bearing witness to the truth about God which culminated in dying on the cross as a sacrifice.
John 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
AFTER THAT, the gospel writers wrote stories saying that Jesus rose from the dead and brought Jesus back to life by writing these stories. Christians never questioned this belief because it was what they were raised to believe, down through the generations, but some modern-day Christians reject the bodily resurrection, yet they have retained their faith in Jesus.
What many liberal theologians believe about Jesus' death
I believe that the soul of Jesus was raised to heaven when he died on the cross and in heaven he took on a spiritual body, just like all humans. No doubt His spiritual body was mi=ore glorified than the bodies of ordinary humans, but it has no “physical” component, since there is nothing physical in heaven, which is a spiritual world.