siti
Well-Known Member
Well there you go - you have found a mistake too! I knew you could do it if you tried. "He" quotes "Let the dead bury their dead" directly from the tradition he had said "He will refrain from quoting"...
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How are these Great Beings explained?
- Thread starter loverofhumanity
- Start date
siti
Well-Known Member
...well - it looks like I spoke too soon. This Baha'u'llah quote is not a mistake on his part - you were, of course, continuing in your disingenuous course of deliberately taking a a quote out of context to support your argument.
Here is the slightly fuller quote of the passage from Kitáb-i-Íqán: "...For this reason, in all chronicles and traditions reference hath been made unto these things, namely that iniquity shall cover the surface of the earth and darkness shall envelop mankind. As the traditions referred to are well known, and as the purpose of this servant is to be brief, He will refrain from quoting the text of these traditions."
So, in fact, it was the specific "chronicles and traditions" about the spiritual "darkness" that would "envelop mankind" that were so well known he felt no need to quote them.
He then goes on - on the very next page - to make a direct quotation from scripture "And now, concerning His words—“The sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give light, and the stars shall fall from heaven.”"
So you have a choice here: either you accept the perfectly sensible interpretation that Baha'u'llah was only refraining from quoting directly the specific traditions he referred to in the same paragraph - or he lied about his intention to make direct quotations from either the Qur'an or the Bible which he does scores if not hundreds of times in the Kitáb-i-Íqán.
Here is a little exercise for you to try: go to Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Íqán, Pages 3-41 and scroll to the bottom of the page. Click on each of the footnote references and see how many of the numbers are immediately following a passage enclosed in quotation marks ("...") and following a phrase like "it is written" or "He saith"...etc. These are called quotes. See how many you can find on the first page then go to the bottom and click where it says 'next' and do the same for the next page and so on. Let me know when you get past 100 quotes.
Last edited:
siti
Well-Known Member
BTW - I accidentally found another mistake...here Baha'u'llah very obviously quotes directly from Matthew's Gospel (Matthew 24:29-31):
"In the first Gospel according to Matthew it is recorded: And when they asked Jesus concerning the signs of His coming, He said unto them: “Immediately after the oppression of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the earth shall be shaken: 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.” Rendered into the Persian tongue, the purport of these words is as follows: When the oppression and afflictions that are to befall mankind will have come to pass, then shall the sun be withheld from shining, the moon from giving light, the stars of heaven shall fall upon the earth, and the pillars of the earth shall quake. At that time, the signs of the Son of man shall appear in heaven, that is, the promised Beauty and Substance of life shall, when these signs have appeared, step forth out of the realm of the invisible into the visible world. And He saith: at that time, all the peoples and kindreds that dwell on earth shall bewail and lament, and they shall see that divine Beauty coming from heaven, riding upon the clouds with power, grandeur, and magnificence, sending His angels with a great sound of a trumpet."
He then claims: "Similarly, in the three other Gospels, according to Luke, Mark, and John, the same statements are recorded."
There are, of course, parallel passages in Luke 21 and Mark 13 but nothing like it in John's Gospel. Oops!
I think you might have been right about Baha'u'llah anticipating that people might have trouble with the idea of him quoting scripture, in the very next sentence after making a mistake about what he thought might be in John's Gospel he openly declares twice in one sentence that he has selectively referred to these passages "at length":
"As We have referred at length to these in Our Tablets revealed in the Arabic tongue, We have made no mention of them in these pages, and have confined Ourselves to but one reference."
Now I agree that "the case is closed".
Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Íqán, Pages 3-41
"In the first Gospel according to Matthew it is recorded: And when they asked Jesus concerning the signs of His coming, He said unto them: “Immediately after the oppression of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the earth shall be shaken: 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.” Rendered into the Persian tongue, the purport of these words is as follows: When the oppression and afflictions that are to befall mankind will have come to pass, then shall the sun be withheld from shining, the moon from giving light, the stars of heaven shall fall upon the earth, and the pillars of the earth shall quake. At that time, the signs of the Son of man shall appear in heaven, that is, the promised Beauty and Substance of life shall, when these signs have appeared, step forth out of the realm of the invisible into the visible world. And He saith: at that time, all the peoples and kindreds that dwell on earth shall bewail and lament, and they shall see that divine Beauty coming from heaven, riding upon the clouds with power, grandeur, and magnificence, sending His angels with a great sound of a trumpet."
He then claims: "Similarly, in the three other Gospels, according to Luke, Mark, and John, the same statements are recorded."
There are, of course, parallel passages in Luke 21 and Mark 13 but nothing like it in John's Gospel. Oops!
I think you might have been right about Baha'u'llah anticipating that people might have trouble with the idea of him quoting scripture, in the very next sentence after making a mistake about what he thought might be in John's Gospel he openly declares twice in one sentence that he has selectively referred to these passages "at length":
"As We have referred at length to these in Our Tablets revealed in the Arabic tongue, We have made no mention of them in these pages, and have confined Ourselves to but one reference."
Now I agree that "the case is closed".
Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Íqán, Pages 3-41
Last edited:
Yes it is about all of us.
I have always told you it is not about me, so why keep saying this?
Regards Tony
I don't have a problem with Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi stating that Baha'is don't believe in reincarnation and why, anymore than I have a problem with you saying you don't believe in prophets. Its simply a statement of what we do or don't believe in.
On the other hand, if I were to refute reincarnation by saying my prophet doesn't believe in it, that holds as much meaning and weight for you, as if you were to tell me you don't believe in prophets because your guru says so.
So as a Baha'i while I am clear what I believe in, I try to be respectful of beliefs that I don't believe in.
InvestigateTruth
Well-Known Member
It is not like, Bahaullah must either quote everything exactly word for word, or He completely sets aside quoting. From all these, His intention becomes clear that, He does not want to quote, unless it is necessary. And the part of the Book which I quoted, where Bahahllah refrains from quoting text is applicable through out the Book, but not in a black and white manner.
Baha'ullah in several places mentions that He wishes to be brief, and does not wish to narrate the stories of bygone ages, unless it is required for His arguments in the Book. Though it may appear that He is saying this with regards to particular traditions, it is a theme and style of writing that Bahaullah consistently uses throughout His Book.
The first one, I have already quoted was:
"As the traditions referred to are well known, and as the purpose of this servant is to be brief, He will refrain from quoting the text of these traditions."
Again in another passage He said:
"Although We did not intend to make mention of the traditions of a bygone age, yet, because of Our love for thee, We will cite a few which are applicable to Our argument. We do not feel their necessity, however, inasmuch as the things We have already mentioned suffice the world and all
that is therein"
This quote tells us, Bahaullah's purpose is not to mention old stories of past ages, however He mentions them, only when it is required for His argument.
In another passage, again He writes:
"By God! however great Our desire to be brief, yet We feel We cannot restrain Our pen"
It is then evident that throughout the Book, Bahaullah only refers to traditions when it is necessary for His argument, and whenever it is not necessary He would be either brief or does not mention them. This is the logic that He follows in His Book.
This is why you see, sometimes He quotes word for word of old Traditions, when it is necessary, and sometimes He omits the parts, which are not necessary. Again, going back to the example in Luke 9:
"Then he and his disciples went to another village.
As they were walking along the road, a man said to him, "I will follow you wherever you go."
Jesus replied, "Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head."
He said to another man, "Follow me." But he replied, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father."
Jesus said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God."
Bahaullah in order to teach the 'Dead' can be spiritually dead, or physically, refers to this tradition. It is obvious that, for instance it is not necessary He mentions the part of the passage which is not related for this purpose. For example part of the story says "Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.".
Why should Bahaullah quote this part at all, when it has nothing to do with His purpose which is to show Dead can mean Spiritually dead?
Therefore in order to be brief He omitted the part which does not serve a purpose. When He says this is written in Bible, why does that have to be taken literally, that these are word for word written? Can it not also mean, that this story is written in Bible, and Bahaullah describes it in His own style of writing to omit the parts which are not related to His argument?
If you look closely throughout His Book, you would see, He follows this logic; He quotes only when it is necessary, and provided a brief version elsewhere.
Baha'ullah in several places mentions that He wishes to be brief, and does not wish to narrate the stories of bygone ages, unless it is required for His arguments in the Book. Though it may appear that He is saying this with regards to particular traditions, it is a theme and style of writing that Bahaullah consistently uses throughout His Book.
The first one, I have already quoted was:
"As the traditions referred to are well known, and as the purpose of this servant is to be brief, He will refrain from quoting the text of these traditions."
Again in another passage He said:
"Although We did not intend to make mention of the traditions of a bygone age, yet, because of Our love for thee, We will cite a few which are applicable to Our argument. We do not feel their necessity, however, inasmuch as the things We have already mentioned suffice the world and all
that is therein"
This quote tells us, Bahaullah's purpose is not to mention old stories of past ages, however He mentions them, only when it is required for His argument.
In another passage, again He writes:
"By God! however great Our desire to be brief, yet We feel We cannot restrain Our pen"
It is then evident that throughout the Book, Bahaullah only refers to traditions when it is necessary for His argument, and whenever it is not necessary He would be either brief or does not mention them. This is the logic that He follows in His Book.
This is why you see, sometimes He quotes word for word of old Traditions, when it is necessary, and sometimes He omits the parts, which are not necessary. Again, going back to the example in Luke 9:
"Then he and his disciples went to another village.
As they were walking along the road, a man said to him, "I will follow you wherever you go."
Jesus replied, "Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head."
He said to another man, "Follow me." But he replied, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father."
Jesus said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God."
Bahaullah in order to teach the 'Dead' can be spiritually dead, or physically, refers to this tradition. It is obvious that, for instance it is not necessary He mentions the part of the passage which is not related for this purpose. For example part of the story says "Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.".
Why should Bahaullah quote this part at all, when it has nothing to do with His purpose which is to show Dead can mean Spiritually dead?
Therefore in order to be brief He omitted the part which does not serve a purpose. When He says this is written in Bible, why does that have to be taken literally, that these are word for word written? Can it not also mean, that this story is written in Bible, and Bahaullah describes it in His own style of writing to omit the parts which are not related to His argument?
If you look closely throughout His Book, you would see, He follows this logic; He quotes only when it is necessary, and provided a brief version elsewhere.
Last edited:
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Us does not include bahalluah when solving Our world's problems. As soon as you mention him is not about humanity's input anymore.
I repeat it so when we refer to a solution it cant be from god.
InvestigateTruth
Well-Known Member
Bahaullah says 'Similarly'. You are thinking as if He is saying same verses.
"Similarly, in the three other Gospels, according to Luke, Mark, and John, the same statements are recorded."
For instance see John 16.
A lot of it are allusions to the second coming of Christ. Even though you may not be familiar with those from that point of view.
siti
Well-Known Member
which apparently is numerous times on every page but OK we'll let you have that...
...i.e. when it doesn't fit the argument...
...yes - He obviously wouldn't want to quote bits of scripture that contradict the new theology he has just invented
Yes!
...and sometimes adds bits that are not really there - like the disciple's father being said to be dead already and the Gospel of John having a description of the "tribulation" etc.
siti
Well-Known Member
He was talking about the bits that say the "sun" will be darkened and the "moon" not give its light...read the passage carefully. Anyway, whatever - I am bored with this game - you make a false statement about what Baha'u'llah wrote, and when it is shown to be false you wriggle and squirm your way out of it and attempt to distract attention from the absurdity of your argument. The fact of the matter is that you claim that Baha'u'llah did not read books and yet he wrote a book that is essentially a confused commentary on often inaccurate recollections of scriptures which he had obviously read and occasionally took the trouble to check before quoting them directly. He does this hundreds of times in the Book of Certitude alone. You claim that he was infallible and yet it is patently obviously that he sometimes recalled scripture inaccurately and wrote it down wrongly. The evidence is plain to see - I honestly can't be bothered reading any more of it.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
If Joseph Smith has a similar station to, say, Abraham, then he would no doubt qualify as a Great Being, which this thread is all about.
We mostly have been discussing and debating about Bahai because a Bahai started the thread and several Bahais are posting at this time.
Yes...... I think of it as free-wheeling; I have a long list of jobs to do but the difference is that I can take as long as I like to finish them.
Well from my point of view Hummanity will have to find Baha'u'llah as He has the answers we are looking for. You ask me to rip my heart out to find temporary peace in this world by not including Baha'u'llah. I want no life without Baha'u'llah.
Thus I will continue serving my community implementing what I can of those solutions, as will many other millions.
You can help how you see you must. You can rest assured we will help you if you ever need help, just call.
Regards Tony
Last edited:
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
"....All religions of the present day have fallen into superstitious practices, out of harmony alike with the true principles of the teaching they represent..."
But Baha'is believe in the truth and harmony in all religions? Sorry, I'm with Vinayaka on this.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
Is there a link to that talk?Abdul'baha in America gave a talk in a synagogue.
In that talk He gave proofs of Christ and Muhammad. Knocked their socks off he did.
Imagine if Jews, Christains and Muslims in America had embraced that Unity in the early 1900's.
At times peole need thier foundations shaken, after all how many lives do you want to spend on this earth?
Regards Tony
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
So when Jews were stoned to death for breaking one of the Laws that carried the death penalty, these Laws that were given to Moses by God, it was only a "relative" truth?
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
No, I think some of it is foolishness. Remember L. Ron? Do you think Scientologists being duped?
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
Or, people made up their own gods... Like the Greeks, Romans and Egyptians and other ancient cultures. I don't think you believe Zeus is the real God do you?
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
You said the apostles didn't believe Jesus rose from the dead. Why do you think that is so?
And, if Jesus is the truth, as Protestant evangelicals say, then it does matter. Or, if it is all made up garbage about dying and rising god/men that it matters a lot also, because it has deceived a whole bunch of people and is still deceiving them.
Exactly. It was a law that was required to prepare and discipline the Hebrew people to take over the land of Canaan and eventually establish the nation/state based on God's law. So we are talking about laws that were 'relative' to that period of history for a particular people in unique circumstances, that are no longer relevant now.
Of course, but if I was conversing with a scientologist, I would hope to have the wisdom and tact to find common ground so as to establish a relationship first.
Last edited: