The sacraments were instituted by the Catholic Church hundreds of years after Christ died. There was no such thing as the sacraments when Christ was alive.
The sacraments of christ is all throughout the bible. The Church does not hold claims on the sacraments just the name itself. If you change the name, its: baptism, confirmation (saying jesus is lord), repentance, and communion. Repentance and communion are in the OT. The rest are in the gospels and Acts. It has nothing to do with The Church.
Belief in Christ as a Manifestation was acknowledged by Christ Hinself as the foundation of His religion.
Christ isn't an incarnation or manifestation of god. He is a human blessed by his father, does the work of his father, represents his father's
oral dictations: His-his father's-Words as The Word (play on words). He is no longer human once he is god.
When He asked Peter who He thought Christ was Peter replied He was the Son of the living God. It was then Christ stated that His religion was founded on this foundation rock.
The Church has nothing to do with what I am saying.
That was the foundation of Christianity according to Christ not any sacraments or traditions or customs Just acknowledgement that He was from God. That is the foundation of our Faith too, that Baha’u’llah was from God.
I think sacraments, traditions, and customs are trigger words for you. They are all there in the bible throughout the bible.
He is
from god not a manifestation as god.
Muhammad was from god too. That does not make them god. Muslims and Jews know this with their prophets. Most Christians and Bahai do not.
It’s impossible to divorce the Teacher from the religion unless time has lost the initial teachings. Buddhism identifies with Buddha. Take Buddha out and it’s no longer Buddhism. The same with Islam and Muhammad or the Jews and Moses.
Buddhism does not identify with The Buddha. It is about the Dharma. Seeing The Buddha as a "prophet" or manifestation is totally against The Buddha's teachings.
The majority of the worlds religions believe in a Teacher. There is not one country on earth that has its national religion based on a Faith that had no Manifestation or Great Teacher.
What? There are religions that have multiple gods with no head god. There are Pagan gods from Greek mythology. There is a female concept of a creator (one creator) in Africa where ancestors and other gods/spirits relate to their believers so they can relate to their god: no
deceased prophets and no teachers.
That is a total generalization. The Buddha is not "great." The Dharma is great. He
realized the teachings. He did not create them.
And the question arises as to those who say that there is no Manifestation where then did their first believers get their belief in God?
All god-religions? That's a mistake and generalization. Explain how Bahaullah and Pagan Zues relate to each other. They both are divine for lack of better words. Explain how the Pagan god(s) are not the same as the god of abraham?
Believe in a god does not qualify that deceased believer(s) must be manifestations of these gods yet the ones who are alive are pushed aside and told they are limited in knowledge when these two "people" who found god are only separated by time and whether one has passed or lives.
Just because we have no recorded history regarding Manifestations before Hinduism doesn’t mean there weren’t any. Going back billions of years when we had no recorded history how do we know that initially Hinduism was not founded by a Manifestation?
We cannot speak for Hinduism. We can make assumptions. We can guess. We can try to interpret their books from
our filters. That does not mean our opinions and beliefs are facts.
The Buddha spoke of the disappearance of the practice of the Dhamma and look at the changes in the past 100 years scientifically alone. So why future Buddhas or Christs if their religion is meant to last forever? Because it’s only meant for an age if you study their Books.
I mentioned this and you did not comment.
The Dharma: The
physical Dharma will decay. A lot of the Sangha (monastics) will stop practicing but The Dharma does not disappear just because people stop practicing and keeping it. It's natural that physical teachings and customs die out with the times.
The Dharma does not.
The religion does not last. What they teach lasts.
Are we saying things don’t get lost in time? That we know all past history?
You'd have to quote what you're referring to.
Can we be absolutely sure what we know now is all there is to know?
We say of course not. We believe that long ago Buddha taught about God, that Hinduism was initially founded by a Manifestation. Can we provide it?
No but neither can these things be conclusively disproven unless we are saying we know everything and we don’t so anything is possible and keeping an open mind is the best way to be with regard to things we just don’t know.
No. That is why we have beliefs. They are
facts to us but they are beliefs if talking universally. Facts are universal regardless who does not know it. Beliefs are not.
That is your belief. The Buddha taught that god (Brahma), who he believed existed-he is a theist-does not lead to enlightenment. He literally challenged the incarnation of Brahma (Mara) and said that there is nothing eternal; and, to say so is to go against the laws of nature: the nature of change and karma.
There are no manifestations in Buddhism. That is all bahai beliefs.
They don't need to be proven or disprove. You can hit someone and that person will hit you back or run away. That is karma. You made an action. The person either defended himself or fled. You were affected by your actions via consequences of them. Things change. What you believe now years later you may believe something else. Your perspective changes with time. Your mind changes. If not? Did you think the same way when you were a kid as you do now? We suffer. We have unsatisfactory events we go through in life. A woman with a dying child does not need The Buddha's teachings to know she is suffering.
You do not need god to know this.