Baha'i Vs Christ

[CG Didymus]

I'm immune to it too, because I celebrate diversity, and make no attempts to harmonise belief systems, just to get along, despite wide and obvious differences. Arguing history means living in the past, and you miss out on the present. Arguing theology is just ego.

Why do they try to harmonize them? And then do a bad job at trying to do it? But, it is better than some religions that just say they are right and all the others are wrong. But, as we've seen, it still is essentially saying the same thing... that they are right and everybody else is wrong, because they, the Baha'is, have the only "true" interpretation of everybody else's religion.

 

[Vinayaka]

Why do they try to harmonize them? And then do a bad job at trying to do it? But, it is better than some religions that just say they are right and all the others are wrong. But, as we've seen, it still is essentially saying the same thing... that they are right and everybody else is wrong, because they, the Baha'is, have the only "true" interpretation of everybody else's religion.

Yup. There is a lot of talk that isn't followed by action, it seems. Their take on homosexuality is a prime example. Personally, I'd rather have someone (like some of my former colleagues) just tell me flat out that I'm wrong. That only takes 10 seconds. This other way, to tell you you're right, but then follow that with a very long and convoluted discussion that is intended from the beginning to demonstrate that you're wrong ... well, it's a waste of everyone's time.

 

[CG Didymus]

Many of them are explained in Bahai Writings. You can find some in these Books:
- Some Answered Questions
- Book of Certitude

I've read SAQ explanation of the true meaning of the resurrection of Jesus. Sorry, but it's not that good. The followers of Jesus were all feeling down and then after three days quit feeling sorry for themselves and started living by the teachings that Jesus had given them? No, they were down in the dumps until they saw, allegedly, the risen Jesus. Then, they received the baptism of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Then, Saul/Paul had an encounter with Jesus.

All of that is not written as if it is "figurative". It is written as if it really happened. If it didn't, then what? For me, the easiest explanation is that they all made it up. But, how did they, and how could they get away with such a fabricated story? And, if it was "figurative", why did the early Church believe Jesus rose literally from the dead? The disciples didn't bother to tell them that it was symbolic? They didn't tell them that they were feeling so bad when Jesus had been killed, but once they got their act together and started living the true Christian life, then that's when they, the body of Christ, came to life again. But, they didn't tell them that. They let the people believe that Jesus had really come back to life.

But, they fooled the Jewish leaders and the Romans too? Baha'is here have said that the disciples hid the body? Why do that if it was all "figurative"? That is still a deception going on. Why hide the body and let the gospel writers make up a story about people having seen Jesus alive? And no where do those writers give any clues as to that story being anything but what really happened. No where do they make it clear that it is only "figurative".

 

[Marcion]

No where do they make it clear that it is only "figurative".

People in the past had no problem with mixing reality with mythical fiction. Even in quite recent times mythical thinking (floods and God placing fossils in certain places) was felt to be the norm. They had no idea that mythical stories could be replaced by historical or archaeological or geological realities.
And even today many religious people believe their own religious myths to be a reality.
Many Hindus e.g. believe that Rama was a historical God.
Of course in the myths themselves it is not mentioned that the authors made up most of the contents (or that they extended shorter versions of the story).

 

[arthra]

Bringing up the Resurrection of Jesus the Baha'i view is that there was an important transformation of the disciples and a rebirth or resurrection of their faith in our view...

I'll quote here:

As to the resurrection of the body of Christ three days subsequent to His departure: This signifies the divine teachings and spiritual religion of His Holiness Christ, which constitute His spiritual body, which is living and perpetual forevermore.
By the "three days' of His death is meant that after the great martyrdom, the penetration of the divine teachings and the spread of the spiritual law became relaxed on account of the crucifixion of Christ. For the disciples were somewhat troubled by the violence of divine tests. But when they become firm, that divine spirit resurrected and that body - which signifies the divine word - arose.
Likewise the address of the angels to the people of Galilee, "That this Christ will return in the same way and that He will descend from heaven," is a spiritual address. For when Christ appeared, he came from heaven, although He was outwardly born from the womb of Mary. For He said: "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven."
He said: "I came down from heaven and likewise will go to heaven." By "Heaven" is not meant this infinite phenomenal space, but "heaven" signifies the world of the divine kingdom which is the supreme station and seat of the Sun of Truth.

"Tablets of Abdul-Baha Abbas", Vol. 1 (Chicago: Bahá'í Publishing Society), p. 192

...Thou hast written concerning the meeting of His Highness Christ after the crucifixion and that some of the apostles perceived Him but did not recognize Him; but that they did recognize Him after the breaking of bread.
Know thou that the Messianic Spirit and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit is always manifest, but capacity and ability (to receive it) is more in some and less in others. After the crucifixion the apostles had not in the beginning the capacity and ability of witnessing the Messianic reality. For they were agitated. But when they found firmness and steadfastness, their inner sight became opened, and they saw the reality of the Messiah as manifest. For the body of Christ was crucified and vanished, but the Spirit of Christ is always pouring upon the contingent world, and is manifest before the insight of the people of assurance.

"Tablets of Abdul-Baha Abbas", Vol. 1 (Chicago: Bahá'í Publishing Society), p. 193-194

...The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body; and when after three days the disciples became assured and steadfast, and began to serve the Cause of Christ, and resolved to spread the divine teachings, putting His counsels into practice, and arising to serve Him, the Reality of Christ became resplendent and His bounty appeared; His religion found life; His teachings and His admonitions became evident and visible. In other words, the Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body until the life and the bounty of the Holy Spirit surrounded it. Such is the meaning of the resurrection of Christ, and this was a true resurrection....

"Some Answered Questions", rev. ed. (Wilmette: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1984), p. 104

From letters written on behalf of the Guardian

We do not believe that there was a bodily resurrection after the Crucifixion of Christ, but that there was a time after His Ascension when His disciples perceived spiritually His true greatness and realized He was eternal in being. This is what has been reported symbolically in the New Testament and been misunderstood. His eating with His disciples after resurrection is the same thing.

9 October 1947 to an individual believer

 

[Marcion]

Bringing up the Resurrection of Jesus the Baha'i view is that there was an important transformation of the disciples and a rebirth or resurrection of their faith in our view...

I'll quote here:

As to the resurrection of the body of Christ three days subsequent to His departure: This signifies the divine teachings and spiritual religion of His Holiness Christ, which constitute His spiritual body, which is living and perpetual forevermore.
By the "three days' of His death is meant that after the great martyrdom, the penetration of the divine teachings and the spread of the spiritual law became relaxed on account of the crucifixion of Christ. For the disciples were somewhat troubled by the violence of divine tests. But when they become firm, that divine spirit resurrected and that body - which signifies the divine word - arose.
Likewise the address of the angels to the people of Galilee, "That this Christ will return in the same way and that He will descend from heaven," is a spiritual address. For when Christ appeared, he came from heaven, although He was outwardly born from the womb of Mary. For He said: "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven."
He said: "I came down from heaven and likewise will go to heaven." By "Heaven" is not meant this infinite phenomenal space, but "heaven" signifies the world of the divine kingdom which is the supreme station and seat of the Sun of Truth.

"Tablets of Abdul-Baha Abbas", Vol. 1 (Chicago: Bahá'í Publishing Society), p. 192

...Thou hast written concerning the meeting of His Highness Christ after the crucifixion and that some of the apostles perceived Him but did not recognize Him; but that they did recognize Him after the breaking of bread.
Know thou that the Messianic Spirit and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit is always manifest, but capacity and ability (to receive it) is more in some and less in others. After the crucifixion the apostles had not in the beginning the capacity and ability of witnessing the Messianic reality. For they were agitated. But when they found firmness and steadfastness, their inner sight became opened, and they saw the reality of the Messiah as manifest. For the body of Christ was crucified and vanished, but the Spirit of Christ is always pouring upon the contingent world, and is manifest before the insight of the people of assurance.

"Tablets of Abdul-Baha Abbas", Vol. 1 (Chicago: Bahá'í Publishing Society), p. 193-194

...The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body; and when after three days the disciples became assured and steadfast, and began to serve the Cause of Christ, and resolved to spread the divine teachings, putting His counsels into practice, and arising to serve Him, the Reality of Christ became resplendent and His bounty appeared; His religion found life; His teachings and His admonitions became evident and visible. In other words, the Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body until the life and the bounty of the Holy Spirit surrounded it. Such is the meaning of the resurrection of Christ, and this was a true resurrection....

"Some Answered Questions", rev. ed. (Wilmette: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1984), p. 104

From letters written on behalf of the Guardian

We do not believe that there was a bodily resurrection after the Crucifixion of Christ, but that there was a time after His Ascension when His disciples perceived spiritually His true greatness and realized He was eternal in being. This is what has been reported symbolically in the New Testament and been misunderstood. His eating with His disciples after resurrection is the same thing.

9 October 1947 to an individual believer

This is a good example of changing or twisting a mythical story in such a way that it fits better with your own (Bahai) theology. By adding things you change the interpretation of a text. This was also done by Christians when they extended their gospel stories by adjusting older versions.
In this sense Bahai is still moving within the same mythically inspired paradigm.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I've read SAQ explanation of the true meaning of the resurrection of Jesus. Sorry, but it's not that good. The followers of Jesus were all feeling down and then after three days quit feeling sorry for themselves and started living by the teachings that Jesus had given them? No, they were down in the dumps until they saw, allegedly, the risen Jesus. Then, they received the baptism of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Then, Saul/Paul had an encounter with Jesus.

All of that is not written as if it is "figurative". It is written as if it really happened. If it didn't, then what? For me, the easiest explanation is that they all made it up. But, how did they, and how could they get away with such a fabricated story? And, if it was "figurative", why did the early Church believe Jesus rose literally from the dead? The disciples didn't bother to tell them that it was symbolic? They didn't tell them that they were feeling so bad when Jesus had been killed, but once they got their act together and started living the true Christian life, then that's when they, the body of Christ, came to life again. But, they didn't tell them that. They let the people believe that Jesus had really come back to life.

But, they fooled the Jewish leaders and the Romans too? Baha'is here have said that the disciples hid the body? Why do that if it was all "figurative"? That is still a deception going on. Why hide the body and let the gospel writers make up a story about people having seen Jesus alive? And no where do those writers give any clues as to that story being anything but what really happened. No where do they make it clear that it is only "figurative".

The story of Resurrection of Jesus, was expressed by the disciples symbolically. They did not reveal the secret. It was supposed to remain sealed and hidden until return of Christ. God does not owe to anyone to say everything plainly, but He tests mankind by these stories.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

This is a good example of changing or twisting a mythical story in such a way that it fits better with your own (Bahai) theology. By adding things you change the interpretation of a text. This was also done by Christians when they extended their gospel stories by adjusting older versions.
In this sense Bahai is still moving within the same mythically inspired paradigm.

I would say, conceptually the Bible teaches, this type of stories are symbolic. The story of appearence of Moses and Elijah to the disciples is not taken literally by many Christians. Moses signifies the Law, and Elijah signifies, Prophets. They do not believe they physically were present.

 

[shunyadragon]

Like lets take this to pieces exegetically, how many points the Baha'i overwrite of prophecies, and theologies...

So some basics:

• Christ brings the Tribulation, and Judgement on mankind. Vs The Tribulation is metaphoric, and Judgement is miles away, because Baha'i brought world peace.
  
  
• We're down nearer to Hell, and some people can be evil. Vs There is no Hell, and people need to learn to be saints.
  
  
• Christ came to set a Snare & a Curse to test mankind; not to be a martyr. Vs Christ came to die to fulfill a plan of salvation, and martyrism.
  
  
• Heaven and Hell exist, and people will be removed into the Lake of Fire/Gehenna. Vs There is no Heaven and Hell, and since we have world peace, the fire comes much later.
  
  
• Christ told us he was the Lord, and that his father God was the Source of reality. Vs Baha'u'llah was Christ's father here on earth, and Christ is made into the son of the Lord.
  
  
• Christ fulfilled & taught reincarnation. Vs Reincarnation doesn't exist, and prophecy isn't properly examined to make things fit.
  
  
• etc...?

Please list anymore points missed.

In my opinion.

Goog thing you described these assertions as "In my opinion."
. . . because concerning the Baha'i Faith you missed the boat on all counts as to what the Baha'i scripture describes.

 

[arthra]

This is a good example of changing or twisting a mythical story in such a way that it fits better with your own (Bahai) theology. By adding things you change the interpretation of a text. This was also done by Christians when they extended their gospel stories by adjusting older versions.
In this sense Bahai is still moving within the same mythically inspired paradigm.

Since topic was brought up I wanted to cite the Baha'i view.

In an earlier post I had shared that Abdul-Baha and later Shoghi Effendi had been designated as authorized interpreters of the Baha'i teachings. It's now lost to history but consider if James the brother of Jesus had a recognized authority as the head of the Church in Jerusalem which he apparently had and that influence molded the doctrines and preserved the message of Jesus to a greater degree than they did... The original teachings in Aramaic as well as the historical events could have been better preserved.

 

[Marcion]

Since topic was brought up I wanted to cite the Baha'i view.

In an earlier post I had shared that Abdul-Baha and later Shoghi Effendi had been designated as authorized interpreters of the Baha'i teachings. It's now lost to history but consider if James the brother of Jesus had a recognized authority as the head of the Church in Jerusalem which he apparently had and that influence molded the doctrines and preserved the message of Jesus to a greater degree than they did... The original teachings in Aramaic as well as the historical events could have been better preserved.

I'm not sure that James, the brother of Jesus, would have done a better job at preserving the original teachings than the Christians did. We simply have no scriptures that could have shown that.
So this parallel is based on too little.
But I am sure that the Bahai interpretation of the Christian gospel story has very little to do with the original teachings. It was made especially to support the Bahai religious viewpoint.
Similar things were done by movements like the Jehova Witnesses and Mormons. Thinking they were getting closer to Christian origins, they just got yet further away from it.

 

[wizanda]

Goog thing you described these assertions as "In my opinion."
. . . because concerning the Baha'i Faith you missed the boat on all counts as to what the Baha'i scripture describes.

So far the only point we've seen challenged is Baha'u'llah didn't claim to be God...

Yet this is where the error is, he claimed he was Yeshua's father, when the God Most High (El Elyon) is his father.

Yeshua Elohim stated he was Yahavah Elohim in multiple places, and thus for Baha'u'llah to not know this is a problem.

The idea Baha'u'llah didn't then know "I Am" consciousness is part of the deception (Luke 21:8, Mark 13:5-6, Matthew 24:4-5), and claims to be the image of God on earth is also problematic; yet mankind likes idolatry.

In my opinion.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Yet this is where the error is, he claimed he was Yeshua's father, when the God Most High (El Elyon) is his father.

No that is wrong as well.

Bahaullah is the one promised by all scriptures of the past that would bring in the Golden Age of Peace under One God.

It is worded in many ways in each Holy book.

Shoghi Effendi has compiled all the Names and Titles that are reference to Baha'u'llah.

"...To Israel He was neither more nor less than the incarnation of the “Everlasting Father,” the “Lord of Hosts” come down “with ten thousands of saints”; to Christendom Christ returned “in the glory of the Father,” to Shí’ah Islám the return of the Imám Husayn; to Sunní Islám the descent of the “Spirit of God” (Jesus Christ); to the Zoroastrians the promised Sháh-Bahrám; to the Hindus the reincarnation of Krishna; to the Buddhists the fifth Buddha...."

From.page 94 at this link you can read all the references that are attributed to Baha'u'llah;

Bahá'í Reference Library - God Passes By, Pages 89-103

There are over 4 pages of references.

Regards Tony

 

[wizanda]

Bahaullah is the one promised by all scriptures of the past that would bring in the Golden Age of Peace under One God.

We don't have world peace, and everyone is hardly united, the religious divides were not fixed, and if anything Baha'i makes it worse for fixing, which is why this original post...

The Baha'i stand against the prophetic line indicated in the prophecies about the Messiah.

Baha'i don't seem to exegete properly, and thus instead of solve problems it creates another religious movement, away from examining the overlooked contexts in the previous revelations.

the “Lord of Hosts” come down

The Lord of Host is the CPU that manifests our reality; it can not come down.

come down “with ten thousands of saints”

This hasn't happened yet, and occurs at the Resurrection.

“in the glory of the Father,”

Literally is with angels at Judgement day, not some man made event.

to Shí’ah Islám the return of the Imám Husayn; to Sunní Islám the descent of the “Spirit of God” (Jesus Christ);

That being should know the "I Am" statements are false from birth, not build theology on it.

Zoroastrians the promised Sháh-Bahrám

To be the Saoshyant and bringer of truth, we'd expect the person to know the blood thirsty are removed by the Snare in many of the texts... Not build a form of matryrism upon it.

Hindus the reincarnation of Krishna

Hindu's built on what Krishna stated, should be waiting for a form of Skanda as a White Horse/being (Kalki), that fights Adharmic behavior just before Satya Yuga...

Plus the person would be Dharmic, meaning they recognize the errors of modern Hinduism; Baha'u'llah emphasizes the same faults Hindus make.

the Buddhists the fifth Buddha

Since Baha'u'llah taught Oneness, and not 0neness (Nirvana), claiming him to be a Buddha is naive...

This realm we exist within it is not real (Maya), and is a constructed reality inside something that enlightened minds create (CPU)...

Applying that we only find Oneness here, and ignore Heaven and Hell is not Buddhi (Discernment); it is denial like many humans do.

To be ultimately a Buddha is to let go of all physical attachment, and recognize the Universal Mind is all that exists.

In my opinion.

 

[Marcion]

No that is wrong as well.

Bahaullah is the one promised by all scriptures of the past that would bring in the Golden Age of Peace under One God.

I remember some yoga teachers saying that about my own preceptor in a very similar way in the previous century.
And there will be other great teachers who are associated with those religious predictions.
I'm glad my preceptor himself never made such associations in his talks and writings.

 

[shunyadragon]

So far the only point we've seen challenged is Baha'u'llah didn't claim to be God...

Yet this is where the error is, he claimed he was Yeshua's father, when the God Most High (El Elyon) is his father.

Yeshua Elohim stated he was Yahavah Elohim in multiple places, and thus for Baha'u'llah to not know this is a problem.

The idea Baha'u'llah didn't then know "I Am" consciousness is part of the deception (Luke 21:8, Mark 13:5-6, Matthew 24:4-5), and claims to be the image of God on earth is also problematic; yet mankind likes idolatry.

In my opinion.

Again . . . Good thing you 'claim' it is 'your opinion,' because Baha'u'llah did not claim to be God.

 

[Vinayaka]

Bahaullah is the one promised by all scriptures of the past that would bring in the Golden Age of Peace under One God.

It is worded in many ways in each Holy book.

In your opinion.

 

[Vinayaka]

I'm glad my preceptor himself never made such associations in his talks and writings.

That would be such a red flag.

 

[wizanda]

because Baha'u'llah did not claim to be God.

Since you're not qualified on exegesis to even notice what has already been said, and debate it, then guess the case is close.

Good thing you 'claim' it is 'your opinion,'

Since my opinion happens to be an archangel with the name exegesis (Zand); before what is possibly the end of time - it is interesting when a Baha'i rejects their own faith...

Do take into account prophetic timelines of a thousand years, could mean 100; which makes the Baha'i on here in violation of their own religion, for rejecting a manifestation from God.

In my opinion.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

In your opinion.

No, my opinion matters not.

It is Baha'u'llahs claim and message, it can now be read by all.

Regards Tony