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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Not bad, just #56.Glad to share views.
It was the unlearned Peter who recognised the true station of Christ not the learned Caiaphas.
. Baha’u’llah defines true knowledge as compared to acquired learning thus...
Consider, how can he that faileth in the day of God’s Revelation to attain unto the grace of the “Divine Presence” and to recognize His Manifestation, be justly called learned, though he may have spent aeons in the pursuit of knowledge, and acquired all the limited and material learning of men? It is surely evident that he can in no wise be regarded as possessed of true knowledge.
Whereas, the most unlettered of all men, if he be honoured with this supreme distinction, he verily is accounted as one of those divinely-learned men whose knowledge is of God; for such a man hath attained the acme of knowledge, and hath reached the furthermost summit of learning.
the problem with the I AM statement is taking it in vain. god is not a respecter of persons, tribes, nations. that is the problem; when people inflate their importance against some other aspect that the Absolute created.Yeshua warns in all 3 Synoptic Gospels (Luke 21:8, Mark 13:5-6, Matthew 24:4-5) that the deception will happen by the "I Am" statements.
Luke 21:8 He said, “Watch out that you don’t get led astray, for many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am (G1473 G1510) ,’ and, ‘The time is at hand.’ Therefore don’t follow them.
John is made up, first and last paragraph of Revelation are additions.
In my opinion.
Like saying because the Baha'i don't do exegesis properly, and have fallen for the antichrist's texts just the same as the rest; they're counted guilty like the rest for accepting the "I Am" consciousness ideologies.The Baha'i view would reject the ancient religious perspective of the anthropomorphization of the 'Source' some call God(s).
I think their teaching if that is what's preserved in scriptures both common and rare, is more similar than some admit, but also the dissimilarities remain.
From the historical point of view, we don't have evidence. So it comes down to a matter of belief.But how do we know that? I'm not saying it's a wrong belief, but neither am I saying it's a right belief. If there is so much we do not know, then how can we make such claims? It seems to me that people project what they wist to be true on to the situation, rather than just saying, "I don't know." Personally, I don't know. But I guess if people do feel that they somehow do know, that is their right too.
Like saying because the Baha'i don't do exegesis properly, and have fallen for the antichrist's texts just the same as the rest; they're counted guilty like the rest for accepting the "I Am" consciousness ideologies.
Since a Baha'i has made this post on this specific contradiction as a way to correlate Buddha (who taught complete selflessness (Anattā) to the point of Nirvana being the ultimate goal (Øneness)), and Yeshua (teaching to hate self, and that the world would be deceived by "I Am" statements (Luke 21:8, Mark 13:5-6, Matthew 24:4-5)), it shows your confusion theologically.
In my opinion.
Yes, thanks. It's refreshing to hear.From the historical point of view, we don't have evidence. So it comes down to a matter of belief.
From the historical point of view, we don't have evidence. So it comes down to a matter of belief.
"I Am" is something spoken by those relaying a message from the CPU speaking with authority to mankind, not a title.the problem with the I AM statement is taking it in vain.
"I Am" is something spoken by those relaying a message from the CPU speaking with authority to mankind, not a title.
In my opinion.
Harmony exists, when we understand musical composition - which is all complex mathematics.The confusion lies in whether one believes in the harmony and unity of the evolution of the spiritual nature of humanity
The CPU's relationship just is; whereas some of the statements in the religious texts have mandates, the idea Baha'i just ignore them is part of the problem.the relationship with God
The "I Am" statements are contextual of God speaking, Yeshua uses it specifically in the Synoptic Gospels in parables to state the father.No confusion on my part, and "I am" statements remain a human ancient perspective of God, and not the 'Source' some call God(s).
Like saying because the Baha'i don't do exegesis properly, and have fallen for the antichrist's texts just the same as the rest; they're counted guilty like the rest for accepting the "I Am" consciousness ideologies.
Since a Baha'i has made this post on this specific contradiction as a way to correlate Buddha (who taught complete selflessness (Anattā) to the point of Nirvana being the ultimate goal (Øneness)), and Yeshua (teaching to hate self, and that the world would be deceived by "I Am" statements (Luke 21:8, Mark 13:5-6, Matthew 24:4-5)), it shows your confusion theologically.
In my opinion.
Our perspective can be shown from the many different religions around the world.It remains the fallible human perspective regardless of whether the God, God(s) or the CPU? exists or nothing at all.
There's no other perspective that can be presented than human.Ancient scripture by the evidence reflect what the believers believed from the human perspective of the time.
To each other.Similar or dissimilar to what?
There you go. You response demonstrates that your beliefs are based on an attachment to and glorification of ignorance. Little discussion is possible when one has turned one's face away from learning and knowledge as a means to truth.
Why do you think, the recorded traditions about Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, all say they said 'i am the first and the last', if that is not what They actually have said? I guess, you think, other people made it up, and attributed an identical expression to each One of Them. It is hard for you to prove that. People who lived at the time and place of Jesus, were thousands of years and miles away from the Hindus, and you think somehow they made up myth with similar false story that Jesus and Krishna or Buddha said "I am 'first and last'!!!I don't know if they actually said that. I wasn't there to hear them. Apparently you were. You are a time traveler?
Guru. I think you can do better than just picking on typo it is like, i pick on your time traveler spelling. . Are you trying to show that because I have typos, i am wrong about other things as well?I don't know what a grue is.
Look at the statement of Buddha about Himself:
"I am chief of the world,
Eldest am I in the world,
Foremost am I in the world.
This is the last birth.
There is now no more coming to be."
Miracles of Gautama Buddha - Wikipedia
Now, compare and see how those statements are the same as what Jesus said about Himself:
1.
Jesus said, I am the first, before Abraham I was
Buddha said, Eldest am I in the world,
2.
Jesus said I am the Last.
Buddha said, This is the last birth, There is now no more coming to be."
3.
Jesus said, He is the King, as Messiah is the King by definition.
Buddha said I am chief of the world,
And in the words of Bahaullah:
"They are at the same time the Exponents of both the “first” and the “last.” Whilst established upon the seat of the “first,” they occupy the throne of the “last.” Were a discerning eye to be found, it will readily perceive that the exponents of the “first” and the “last,” of the “manifest” and the “hidden,” of the “beginning” and the “seal” are none other than these holy Beings, these Essences of Detachment, these divine Souls. " Bahaullah, Book of Iqan