Investigating Bahaullah's Book of Iqan

Tony Bristow-Stagg said:

Thank you for the question. I hope I do it justice as you know my english sucks

I see this is how Jesus explained his connection with God and all other Messengers. Muhammad has confirmed the connection, the Bab and Baha'u'llah have also confirmed the teaching and also explained it in greater detail. It is the sun in the mirror explanation of all God's Messengers. The Messengers are the mirror, born in each age and God is the Sun that shines from them, one and all. They are all born of the same Holy Spirit and it is this Spirit, which is all Gods Attributes, that are the rays reflected from the mirror.

Personally I can see no greater Atonement and this is why Christ can say I am the First Messenger and I am the Last Mesenger, the Beginning and the End, the Alhpa and Omega. Names become one of our veils to seeing the same One light shining from them, One and All.

The potential of this light can also shine from each of us to a certain level, but only after we Polish our mirror. We have been born of the human spirit, which means we are born at the end of darkness, yet to clean our mirror. This is also why many that have yet to accept God can shine with many attributes, even if they do not know of the source shining from them.

Click to expand...

You answered two of four of my questions. So Christ is the First and the Last? Who or what is the One? What is the Same Faith?

The rest of your answer made little sense to me. I just don't understand Baha'ispeak.

siti said:

You're right! I'm missing the bit where he says in the Iqan "one atonement"! Perhaps you can help me to find that.

Click to expand...

we have already quoted from Iqan, that All Manifestations made sacrifices, and through them, the world is saved. Then you said, the Bible says, only through Jesus's sacrifice one can be saved. Then we showed you this is reconcilible when you consider, all manifestations are in Reality the same and one person. It is the same spirit, that has appeared in different bodies, once in Jesus, another time in Buddha. To me it is clear, and done.

siti said:

So you say...but there is still not one word in the Iqan that specifically relates to the the once for all time sin atoning propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ in behalf of the whole world that is so clearly a central feature of the Christian Bible - is there? In his OP IT asked us for examples of teachings in other scriptures that cannot be found in the Iqan - if you can show me where the Biblical idea of propitiatory atonement appears in the Iqan then I will happily concede - all you guys have done so far is show me that you do not understand the Biblical doctrine of atonement at all. Atonement is not reconciliation - at least not from a scriptural viewpoint - it is a precursor to reconciliation (Romans 5:8; Colossians 1:22) - Christ had to die a sacrificial death (this is the atonement - the right act to correct the wrong) so that our reconciliation to God could be possible. Scripturally, this is very, very different from the sacrifices of Buddha or the Bab - and scripturally, it can only happen once (Hebrews 10:12-14). I know of no other scriptural tradition that makes such a claim. And I certainly don't see it in the general (not to say glib) discussion of the "sacrifices" of various "Manifestations" in the Iqan.

Click to expand...

No where in Bible says, atonement is a One Time event! It says, atonement is only through Christ.
Now, let me ask you. If this Spirit of Christ appeared in the Person of Buddha, or Krishna, would not atonement also be possible by Buddha or Krishna?
Let's remember, Jesus said, He came down from Heaven. If we think, Jesus was speaking of His physical body, it would be incorrect, because the body of Jesus did not come down from heaven, but was born from womb of Mary. Thus, it was the Spirit within Jesus who had come down from Heaven. Likewise, when Scripture says, only through Jesus, atonement is possible, this is the Spirit of Christ who does the atonement, not physical body of Jesus. Thus, when this same Spirit appears in any other Manifestations, it performs the same function. And Bahaullah does speak of Manifestations Sacrifices, in Iqan, does not He?

Vinayaka said:

What are? The First, the Last, the One, and the Same Faith. Can you translate this Baha'ispeak to modern English?

Click to expand...

Vinayaka said:

You answered two of four of my questions. So Christ is the First and the Last? Who or what is the One? What is the Same Faith? The rest of your answer made little sense to me. I just don't understand Baha'ispeak.

Click to expand...

Ok sorry, this is short version

The first - Spirit of Christ, Holy Spirit (The beginning)

The Last - Spirit of Christ, Holy Spirit (The end)

The One - Spirit of Christ, Holy Spirit in all the Names of God, who are all of Gods Mesengers since creation began and until the end.

Same Faith - Gods Messages to mankind, preparing us for this age, the 'Day of Jehovah' and on into the future.

Regards Tony

Tony Bristow-Stagg said:

Ok sorry, this is short version

The first - Spirit of Christ, Holy Spirit (The beginning)

The Last - Spirit of Christ, Holy Spirit (The end)

The One - Spirit of Christ, Holy Spirit in all the Names of God, who are all of Gods Mesengers since creation began and until the end.

Same Faith - Gods Messages to mankind, preparing us for this age, the 'Day of Jehovah' and on into the future.

Regards Tony

Click to expand...

Thanks.

InvestigateTruth said:

No where in Bible says, atonement is a One Time event!

Click to expand...

Hebrews 10:12 says (referring to Christ) "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever" - how can "one sacrifice for sins for ever" not be a "one time event"? And that verse was in the post you were responding to. Did you read it and fail to understand - or is your denial of plain fact deliberately deceitful? Were you just hoping no one would notice? I am now beginning to wonder whether truth(fulness) has to be sacrificed in order to achieve religious "unity"? Which is more important to a Baha'i - truth or unity?

Vinayaka said:

Who or what is the One?

Click to expand...

Wait, I got this...its Neo isn't it?

siti said:

Hebrews 10:12 says (referring to Christ) "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever" - how can "one sacrifice for sins for ever" not be a "one time event"?

Click to expand...

"And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever"

If we read the verse within context, it does not say, there will be only one sacrifice for ever. It says, by the sacrifice of Christ, your sins will be taken away and forgiven forever. Do you see the difference?
It is like, a doctor says, if you take this medication just Once, your illness will be cured forever, whereas other fake doctors everyday prescribe a medication, which will never cure. It does not mean, that, there will never be another perfect doctor who can also prescribe perfect medication. Moreover, if the doctor prescribes a perfect medication, but the sick does not take the medication, shouldn't the Doctor remind again?! This is the reason, Christ is not a one time event!

InvestigateTruth said:

If we read the verse within context, it does not say, there will be only one sacrifice for ever.

Click to expand...

Yes it does - take verses 8 through 14 and read carefully - I have emphasized the key phrases to make it easier for you...

8...when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; 9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

siti said:

Yes it does - take verses 8 through 14 and read carefully - I have emphasized the key phrases to make it easier for you...

8...when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; 9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

Click to expand...

By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

'Once for all', is the sacrifice of Jesus for all the people of His Time. These passages of Bible seem to give a comparison with the Rites of daily sacrifice or burn offerings which used to be done repeatedly. Until Time of Jesus people believed that in order for God to forgive sins, they need to give sacrifices. The Author of the new Testament has the goal of abolishing the older religious customes with the Teachings of Jesus. He says with coming of Christ and His Sacrifice, they no longer need to give burn offerings and sacrifices.
Why? Because through Sacrifice of Jesus, He established a new Religious teachings, by which whoever follows them, can be guided to live a saintly and righteous life.
Thus, the idea of burn offering and daily sacrifice is replaced with a newer teachings of Jesus 'forever'.
It has no contradiction that if Spirit of Christ appears in Buddha, He had to Sacrifice Himself to establish true Religion among Buddhists.

And yes, I can agree, the sacrifice of Christ would have been enough forever to forgive sins. But this is conditional upon how successfully people follow His teachings, and if His teachings is not misinterpreted by false teachers. It is like the Sun. One Sun is enough forever to give light to earth. But when today, the sun rises, tomorrow will rise again. So is with the Revelation of Christ. It is like the Day that follows Night. Jesus said, at the End, the Sun shall not give Light anymore. These words are figurative, but their meaning is, the Light that Christ brought, eventually will be faded.

I see the idea of Sacrifice of Christ within the whole Biblical story. It is not like, literally, when Jesus was killed, all sins are forgiven. It all depends on following teachings of Christ. The idea is, Christ appeared at a time when the Jews were committing cruelty, adultery, stealing and other sins. Christ brought a set of spiritual teachings so, if they follow and practise they will no longer commit sins, and thus all their previous sins is forgiven, as long as they remorse, and practise christ teachings. But for Christ to establish His teachings, He had to be sacrificed, since He had to face the Religious leaders of His time, who plotted against Him and got Him killed. It is not like, just because Jesus was killed everyone magically will be saved.

InvestigateTruth said:

And yes, I can agree, the sacrifice of Christ would have been enough forever to forgive sins. But this is conditional upon how successfully people follow His teachings, and if His teachings is not misinterpreted...

Click to expand...

Oh dear!

Well lets see how we are doing in that regard shall we?

1. You are of course correct in saying that the writer of Hebrews was contrasting the daily ritual sacrifices with the superlative value of the "once for all" propitiatory sin-atoning sacrifice of Christ...you get a tick for that - but you did not get this understanding of "all scriptures" from the Iqan, did you? And if you're right it does seem to be a rather important point to grasp - one would have thought it worthy of at least a sentence or two in the condensed version of "all scriptures". So sorry, Baha'u'llah misses out on this one. Well done IT!

2. So what do you mean by saying that this was a "once for all" sacrifice for "all the people of his time"? Given that Jesus seems to have died in the first half of the first century, and as far as we know never travelled outside Palestine during his "Ministry" but was sent only to "the lost sheep of the House of Israel", are we to conclude that you are suggesting that his sacrifice was only for the forgiveness of the sins of the Jews who disowned him and had him put to death - and no-one else? That doesn't really add up does it? Or are you suggesting that it was valid only until the next dispensation - the advent of Islam - so everyone in that dark period of history between the 1st and the 6th century could have their sins forgiven on the basis of Jesus' sacrifice but thereafter no more? Did you get that from the Iqan? We ought really to have been advised that our tickets to heaven were no longer valid after a certain date don't you think?

3.

InvestigateTruth said:

It is not like, literally, when Jesus was killed, all sins are forgiven.

Click to expand...

No, not when he was killed, when he entered the "Holy of Holies" as High Priest and presented the value of his sacrifice to God - read the passage carefully. And it does mean that "all sins are forgiven" - I mean that IS what it says. I don't actually believe it myself, but it is what it says. Read the Book of Hebrews very carefully.

4. Your last paragraph is a very significant re-intepretation of what is actually written in the Gospel and the rest of the NT. Its fine by me that you re-interpret it...but you can't then claim that it is the same as the "Christian Bible". And you certainly didn't get any of that re-intepretation directly from the Iqan.

The reality is that Baha'u'llah did not write much about the once for all sin-atoning propitiatory sacrifice of Christ not because he thought it was very similar to the sacrifices of the Bab and Buddha (for example), but because he didn't understand it very well. And neither do you - it seems. So if forgiveness of sins depends on "how successfully people follow His teachings, and if His teachings is not misinterpreted...", both you and Baha'u'llah might be in trouble here - at least as far as the Biblical teaching of atonement is concerned. Well, "the Lord trieth the hearts" I suppose - not the intellect so much - so you might be OK (Proverbs 17:3)

siti said:

Oh dear!

Well lets see how we are doing in that regard shall we?

1. You are of course correct in saying that the writer of Hebrews was contrasting the daily ritual sacrifices with the superlative value of the "once for all" propitiatory sin-atoning sacrifice of Christ...you get a tick for that - but you did not get this understanding of "all scriptures" from the Iqan, did you? And if you're right it does seem to be a rather important point to grasp - one would have thought it worthy of at least a sentence or two in the condensed version of "all scriptures". So sorry, Baha'u'llah misses out on this one. Well done IT!

Click to expand...

The concept of Sacrifice of Manifestations, and the eternal Salvation is in the Iqan, and to me that is the evidence that atonement is in in Iqan in the form of allusion:

"Leaders of religion, in every age, have hindered their people from attaining the shores of eternal Salvation, inasmuch as they held the reins of authority in their mighty grasp. Some for the lust of leadership, others through want of knowledge and understanding, have been the cause of the deprivation of the people. By their sanction and authority, every Prophet of God hath drunk from the chalice of sacrifice, and winged His flight unto the heights of glory. What unspeakable cruelties they that have occupied the seats of authority and learning have inflicted upon the true Monarchs of the world, those Gems of divine virtue! "

2. So what do you mean by saying that this was a "once for all" sacrifice for "all the people of his time"?....

Click to expand...

The Bible typically uses the term 'generations', and these are all the people who lived between Two Subsequent Manifestations. For example, all the people who lived from the time of Covenant of Noah till the Manifestation of Abraham were bounded to obey the Laws of Noah. All these people would attain salvation through the Laws of Noah. Once Abraham appeared, He had a new covenant and some new Laws or teachings. All people who lived from the time Abraham till Manifestation of Moses were to obey the Covenant of Abraham. Likewise, the teachings and laws of Jesus are the cause of salvation for All His people, meaning from the Time of Revelation of Jesus till the time of next manifestation when the Sun of Christian Laws is darkened and no longer give its light!
And yes, all these are in Iqan!

InvestigateTruth said:

The Bible typically uses the term 'generations', and these are all the people who lived between Two Subsequent Manifestations. For example, all the people who lived from the time of Covenant of Noah till the Manifestation of Abraham were bounded to obey the Laws of Noah. All these people would attain salvation through the Laws of Noah. Once Abraham appeared, He had a new covenant and some new Laws or teachings. All people who lived from the time Abraham till Manifestation of Moses were to obey the Covenant of Abraham. Likewise, the teachings and laws of Jesus are the cause of salvation for All His people, meaning from the Time of Revelation of Jesus till the time of next manifestation when the Sun of Christian Laws is darkened and no longer give its light!
And yes, all these are in Iqan!

Click to expand...

Well frankly IT that just doesn't work does it?

OK from Noah (if he existed at all) to Abraham (if he existed at all)...but once you go past Moses, you have the Zoroaster, Buddha and then Jesus (chronologically) - although it is possible that Zoroaster even predated Moses (assuming that either of them actually existed)...but "Moses" never mentions anything about Zoroaster and neither Jesus nor any of his disciples seems to have had any inkling of either Buddhism or Zoroastrianism even though - according to your interpretation - these dispensations intervened between those of Abraham and Moses. If you're right, the Jews should have abandoned the Mosaic Law almost as soon as it was handed down because Zoroaster and then Buddha had effectively annulled it long before Jesus appeared - and yet Jesus says absolutely nothing about this? And neither does Baha'u'llah as far as I am aware.

The more you try to explain it, the more bizarre these Baha'i notions of Manifestations and dispensations appears.

Anyway, to your first paragraph, you are just rolling out the same claim again regarding the equivalence of the glibly generalized idea of sacrifice with the universally unique atonement based on the once for all sacrifice of Christ - they are just not the same thing at all...and your claim does not become truer by repetition.

siti said:

The more you try to explain it, the more bizarre these Baha'i notions of Manifestations and dispensations appear

Click to expand...

I see It just takes more understanding of what Baha'u'ah offered.

The Kitab-i-iqan also explains the twofold aspect of the Message. The potential of all the Messages are for a United humanity under one God. If we read those books, it is obvious it is foretold they will not reach this level of acceptance, as each Faith tells of a Day in the future when a universal Manifestation is to come.

Up to the Bab, the messages was suited to the age and to the people it was to reach, they had a specific purpose, even if the potential was Universal.

Thus in this age the Message is the promised universal Message, the issue being is that people expect that Message to vindicate only their Faith to an exclusion of all other Faiths.

The best explanation is simply, that there is only One God and all God given Messengers are from that One source. That is to me, the Essence of the Kitab-i-iqan.

Regards Tony

Tony Bristow-Stagg said:

The best explanation is simply, that there is only One God and all God given Messengers are from that One source. That is to me, the Essence of the Kitab-i-iqan.

Click to expand...

I absolutely agree that that is the essential message of the Iqan but that certainly is not a condensation of ALL the scriptures related to the other "Manifestations" some of which are not even genuinely monotheistic - or even necessarily theistic - at all. That is what I am challenging here based on the OP which claims that any teaching (of sufficient import) that is found in any of the other scriptural traditions is found in condensed form in the Iqan. Clearly that is not true and you have inadvertently provided another example - where is polytheism or non-theism espoused or at least condoned in the Iqan?

siti said:

I absolutely agree that that is the essential message of the Iqan but that certainly is not a condensation of ALL the scriptures related to the other "Manifestations" some of which are not even genuinely monotheistic - or even necessarily theistic - at all. That is what I am challenging here based on the OP which claims that any teaching (of sufficient import) that is found in any of the other scriptural traditions is found in condensed form in the Iqan. Clearly that is not true and you have inadvertently provided another example - where is polytheism or non-theism espoused or at least condoned in the Iqan?

Click to expand...

Siti I think it is important to note that I see we are not offering that what we will find is the 'Same' understanding that people are used to.

I see what is being offered in the Kitabi-iqan, is the correct understanding of what was given in past scriptures.

Thus as per your example of Atonement and all the passages in the Bible on this subject that were used to formed a doctrine of thought on this subject, they now have the correct meaning explained in the Kitab-i-iqan.

One does not have to agree, but the new explanation, on the same passages is available.

Regards Tony

Tony Bristow-Stagg said:

One does not have to agree

Click to expand...

Well that's just as well because one doesn't. But the point of your post - which is, frankly, the height of religious conceit - is quite a different point to the one IT was making in the OP. In fact, it bears out my argument entirely - that what is in the Iqan is not a condensed form of what was in earlier scriptural traditions at all - but a complete reinterpretation of earlier scriptural traditions. And that is my main objection to these kind of claims - the claim (in order to support the proposed "unifying" of religion) is that it is "the same" as what the earlier "Manifestations" meant and/or said - but it is not the same at all - is it? Not at all! And as you say, one does not have to agree, but one's not agreeing does not change one fact of the matter one iota.

siti said:

that what is in the Iqan is not a condensed form of what was in earlier scriptural traditions at all - but a complete reinterpretation of earlier scriptural traditions.

Click to expand...

The Kitab-i-iqan does not say it condensed form of scriptural traditions, that is your understanding, this was what the OP was based upon.

"In fact, all the Scriptures and the mysteries thereof are condensed into this brief account. "

That means the Word as recorded, not as interpreted by man. Baha'u'llah has given us the key to understanding.

Again, you do not have to see that is so, but it is good if you ackowledge the difference of thought that we are basing or argument upon.

Less confusion.

Regards Tony

Tony Bristow-Stagg said:

The Kitab-i-iqan does not say it condensed form of scriptural traditions, that is your understanding, this was what the OP was based upon.

"In fact, all the Scriptures and the mysteries thereof are condensed into this brief account. "

That means the Word as recorded, not as interpreted by man. Baha'u'llah has given us the key to understanding.

Again, you do not have to see that is so, but it is good if you ackowledge the difference of thought that we are basing or argument upon.

Less confusion.

Click to expand...

No Tony, that is not the argument of the OP - here is the argument of the OP:

InvestigateTruth said:

Here, 'this brief account', is the Book of Iqan. This means, that All scriptures of the past, such as Quran, Bible, Buddhism, Hinduism and Zoroasterism Scriptures are included in this Book, in a 'condensed' form.
If you add all those scriptures, you end up with probably several tens of thousands of pages or more. Condensing them in 60 pages, would mean that, in principle, all scriptures are briefly available in the Book, albeit, mostly in the form of mentioning or allusions.

To investigate this, I suggest, all those who believe or are familiar with the Scriptures, quote a principle teaching. Then we will see if from this Book, we can bring the same teaching in the 'condensed' form or not, thereby we investigated the claim of Bahaullah about this Book.

Click to expand...

I agree that it would be accurate to suggest that most likely Baha'u'llah meant that he was providing the "key" to unlocking the understanding of other scriptural traditions - in fact I offered that very explanation much earlier in the thread - but that is not what was claimed in the OP. The OP is essentially claiming that the Iqan says the same as what you call the "correct" understanding of the other scriptures and that simply cannot be true...as I have clearly demonstrated in regard to atonement - what the Iqan itself says and what the Bible itself says are quite different. And there is absolutely no question that atonement is a principal teaching of the Bible - not an interpretation - its as plain as the nose on your face in the Bible whether you believe the doctrine or not, you can't deny that it is there - and it is very clearly not in the Iqan.

And since you have raised another objection to the OP argument, perhaps you and IT (and anyone?) might care to reconcile Bhagavad Gita 7:21 which translates "Whatever celestial form a devotee seeks to worship with faith, I steady the faith of such a devotee in that form." with the essential monotheism of the Iqan. There is no teaching in Iqan that corresponds to this condoning of polytheistic idolatry - is there?

InvestigateTruth said:

Here, 'this brief account', is the Book of Iqan. This means, that All scriptures of the past, such as Quran, Bible, Buddhism, Hinduism and Zoroasterism Scriptures are included in this Book, in a 'condensed' form.

Click to expand...

Tony Bristow-Stagg said:

"In fact, all the Scriptures and the mysteries thereof are condensed into this brief account. "

Click to expand...

siti said:

No Tony, that is not the argument of the OP - here is the argument of the OP:

Click to expand...

Those 2 quotes above are compatiable.

Thus what you have read into this following quote, is more than that;

InvestigateTruth said:

To investigate this, I suggest, all those who believe or are familiar with the Scriptures, quote a principle teaching. Then we will see if from this Book, we can bring the same teaching in the 'condensed' form or not, thereby we investigated the claim of Bahaullah about this Book.

Click to expand...

It is not mans ideas of, but the teaching.

Thus I see if we quote a biblical passage and then we can see if there is an answer given in the Kitab-i-iqan.

Regards Tony