Infallibility

[paarsurrey]

What do you mean by final in status?
What do you mean by not final in time?
Do you mean another Prophet will come?

"What do you mean by final in status?" Unquote.

The highest in rank among the prophets/messengers of G-d.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

What do you mean by final in status?
What do you mean by not final in time?
Do you mean another Prophet will come?

"What do you mean by not final in time?
Do you mean another Prophet will come?" Unquote.

Any prophet who comes after Muhammad has:

• To be a follower of the Law (Quran) revealed on Muhammad, and also deeds/acts/Sunnah of Muhammad.
• Has to have Seal of Authenticity from Muhammad.

Therefore any prophet after Muhammad cannot bring any new religion.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Infallibility

One may like to read my post #143 in another thread which is very relevant here also, please.

Regards

 

[Trailblazer]

"What do you mean by final in status?" Unquote.

The highest in rank among the prophets/messengers of G-d.

Regards

Every religion believes that their Prophet is the "best" and the "last." Baha'is do not believe there is a last Prophet and Baha'is do not rank the Prophets/Messengers of God, exalting one over the other. Baha'u'llah warned us never to to that for the following reason:

"Beware, O believers in the Unity of God, lest ye be tempted to make any distinction between any of the Manifestations of His Cause, or to discriminate against the signs that have accompanied and proclaimed their Revelation. This indeed is the true meaning of Divine Unity, if ye be of them that apprehend and believe this truth. Be ye assured, moreover, that the works and acts of each and every one of these Manifestations of God, nay whatever pertaineth unto them, and whatsoever they may manifest in the future, are all ordained by God, and are a reflection of His Will and Purpose. Whoso maketh the slightest possible difference between their persons, their words, their messages, their acts and manners, hath indeed disbelieved in God, hath repudiated His signs, and betrayed the Cause of His Messengers.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 59-60​

 

[Trailblazer]

"What do you mean by not final in time?
Do you mean another Prophet will come?" Unquote.

Any prophet who comes after Muhammad has:

• To be a follower of the Law (Quran) revealed on Muhammad, and also deeds/acts/Sunnah of Muhammad.
• Has to have Seal of Authenticity from Muhammad.

Therefore any prophet after Muhammad cannot bring any new religion.

Regards

Every religion believes that.... There can be no religion but their religion -- ever. There can be no holy book but their holy book -- ever. Theirs is the best and the last. But this makes no sense at all because it means all the other religions have to be inferior or false.

I find it ironic that people on this forum call the Bahai Faith arrogant. We do not claim to be the best or last religion, we are just newer, more current.

 

[paarsurrey]

Infallibility

One may like to read my post #189 in another thread that is very relevant here also.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Infallibility

One may like to read my post #76 in another thread that is very relevant here also.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Yes, Baha'u'llah did say that.

“Certain ones among you have said: “He it is Who hath laid claim to be God.” By God! This is a gross calumny. I am but a servant of God Who hath believed in Him and in His signs, and in His Prophets and in His angels. My tongue, and My heart, and My inner and My outer being testify that there is no God but Him, that all others have been created by His behest, and been fashioned through the operation of His Will. There is none other God but Him, the Creator, the Raiser from the dead, the Quickener, the Slayer. I am He that telleth abroad the favors with which God hath, through His bounty, favored Me. If this be My transgression, then I am truly the first of the transgressors. I and My kindred are at your mercy. Do ye as ye please, and be not of them that hesitate, that I might return to God My Lord, and reach the place where I can no longer behold your faces. This, indeed, is My dearest wish, My most ardent desire. Of My state God is, verily, sufficiently informed, observant.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 228​

Was this pronouncement because of Bahaullah's concealment of his actual faith out of fear from his enemies and following Shiaism's taqiyya concept , not based in Quran, from whom Bahaullah was influenced because of his living in Iran, please?

Also please give reference of the original Bahaullah's book from which this excerpt has been copied in the Gleanings, please.

Regards

 

[Trailblazer]

Was this pronouncement because of Bahaullah's concealment of his actual faith out of fear from his enemies and following Shiaism's taqiyya concept , not based in Quran, from whom Baha'u'llah was influenced because of his living in Iran, please?

I do not know what you mean by that. What Baha'u'llah wrote about not being God was what He meant. He was not trying to conceal anything. Throughout His Writings Baha'u'llah differentiates Himself from God and says that there is no way anyone can ever know the Essence of God, not even Himself. He also says that every way is barred from understanding the nature of a Manifestation of God. They are too far above us to understand. They are a different order of creation. Muhammad was a Messenger of God, but He was more than a Messenger.

“Nay, forbid it, O my God, that I should have uttered such words as must of necessity imply the existence of any direct relationship between the Pen of Thy Revelation and the essence of all created things. Far, far are They Who are related to Thee above the conception of such relationship! All comparisons and likenesses fail to do justice to the Tree of Thy Revelation, and every way is barred to the comprehension of the Manifestation of Thy Self and the Day Spring of Thy Beauty.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 4​

Also please give reference of the original Bahaullah's book from which this excerpt has been copied in the Gleanings, please.

Regards

I am not sure what Tablet that is from.

 

[siti]

Shiasm and Bahaism following them as it was founded in Iran and also because it suits them believe in the racial succession in spiritual matters. This concept does not belong to Quran.

No apology required - I understand your point better now and I probably agree - but the point I was refuting was what one of the Baha'i posters had claimed - that Muslims and Christians did not have a line of succession of religious authority spelled out in writing. Of course the Qur'an says nothing about who would succeed Muhammad - and the Bible only vaguely indicates that Peter would "feed" the flock after Jesus' departure. But religious traditions in both cases developed a fairly clear line of authority. Baha'u'llah apparently did indicate in writing who would succeed him - his son Abdu'l Baha and AB in turn indicated his successor in his will. But I suspect the reason that they were so clear on that stems from the fractious shenanigans that ensued after the Bab's execution - there were, apparently, dozens of claimants to succession before Baha'u'llah managed to gain the top spot (unless you were a follower of his brother of course). And there was no end of intrigue and plotting on all sides. Baha'u'llah decided all that would be best avoided and picked his own son to be successor - the plan was to establish a dynasty but his grandson Shoghi Effendi upset that apple cart by dying childless - and thus - for want of any other indication, a provision that seemed to be a prophecy for the much later future - a Universal House of Justice - that was supposed to eventually rule the world (in the most benign and benevolent manner of course) became the central authority for a religion hardly anyone had heard of. And of course none of that is in the Qur'an.

 

[Milton Platt]

The farthest I can advance while attempting to make sense of the idea of infallibility is that it can be appealling for a certain mndset. It sort of promises a simpler life than one could otherwise expect.

Infallibility is not possible. You can trust me on that, because I'm never wrong.

 

[paarsurrey]

No apology required - I understand your point better now and I probably agree - but the point I was refuting was what one of the Baha'i posters had claimed - that Muslims and Christians did not have a line of succession of religious authority spelled out in writing. Of course the Qur'an says nothing about who would succeed Muhammad - and the Bible only vaguely indicates that Peter would "feed" the flock after Jesus' departure. But religious traditions in both cases developed a fairly clear line of authority. Baha'u'llah apparently did indicate in writing who would succeed him - his son Abdu'l Baha and AB in turn indicated his successor in his will. But I suspect the reason that they were so clear on that stems from the fractious shenanigans that ensued after the Bab's execution - there were, apparently, dozens of claimants to succession before Baha'u'llah managed to gain the top spot (unless you were a follower of his brother of course). And there was no end of intrigue and plotting on all sides. Baha'u'llah decided all that would be best avoided and picked his own son to be successor - the plan was to establish a dynasty but his grandson Shoghi Effendi upset that apple cart by dying childless - and thus - for want of any other indication, a provision that seemed to be a prophecy for the much later future - a Universal House of Justice - that was supposed to eventually rule the world (in the most benign and benevolent manner of course) became the central authority for a religion hardly anyone had heard of. And of course none of that is in the Qur'an.

So, in other words to establish a chain of infallibility by Bahaullah, is to establish fallibility of Bahaullah and the fallibility of the line/chain of succession he establish. Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I do not know what you mean by that. What Baha'u'llah wrote about not being God was what He meant. He was not trying to conceal anything. Throughout His Writings Baha'u'llah differentiates Himself from God and says that there is no way anyone can ever know the Essence of God, not even Himself. He also says that every way is barred from understanding the nature of a Manifestation of God. They are too far above us to understand. They are a different order of creation. Muhammad was a Messenger of God, but He was more than a Messenger.

“Nay, forbid it, O my God, that I should have uttered such words as must of necessity imply the existence of any direct relationship between the Pen of Thy Revelation and the essence of all created things. Far, far are They Who are related to Thee above the conception of such relationship! All comparisons and likenesses fail to do justice to the Tree of Thy Revelation, and every way is barred to the comprehension of the Manifestation of Thy Self and the Day Spring of Thy Beauty.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 4​

I am not sure what Tablet that is from.

"I am not sure what Tablet that is ('Gleaning') from". Unquote.

Does the "Gleanings" not mention from which book of Bahaullah and the relative page # they took a passage from, please?

Regards

 

[Trailblazer]

"I am not sure what Tablet that is ('Gleaning') from". Unquote.

Does the "Gleanings" not mention from which book of Bahaullah and the relative page # they took a passage from, please?

Regards

No, Gleanings does not reference the Tablets that the text is made up of but we know it is the original writings of Baha'u'llah.

 

[siti]

So, in other words to establish a chain of infallibility by Bahaullah, is to establish fallibility of Bahaullah and the fallibility of the line/chain of succession he establish.

Yes - well, nobody said it has to make sense.

 

[siti]

No, Gleanings does not reference the Tablets that the text is made up of but we know it is the original writings of Baha'u'llah.

That's a question I've been meaning to ask for some time - how do you know that the "quotations" in 'Gleanings' are genuine? Some are (I believe) from tablets that remain in private hands - i.e. only a very few individuals would be able to verify - even fewer, if any at all, would be able to confirm the accuracy of translation since those sufficiently expert in the original languages would not have access to the originals. So how do you know they are reliable transmissions of Baha'u'llah's original writings?

 

[Trailblazer]

That's a question I've been meaning to ask for some time - how do you know that the "quotations" in 'Gleanings' are genuine? Some are (I believe) from tablets that remain in private hands - i.e. only a very few individuals would be able to verify - even fewer, if any at all, would be able to confirm the accuracy of translation since those sufficiently expert in the original languages would not have access to the originals. So how do you know they are reliable transmissions of Baha'u'llah's original writings?

How could we know for certain? At some point we have to rely on our faith in the Baha'i institutions, that what we have been told about the translations is the truth.
The only way to know what the originals say is if we learned Persian and Arabic.

 

[siti]

At some point we have to rely on our faith in the Baha'i institutions, that what we have been told about the translations is the truth.

No - not "at some point" - in fact you are entirely dependent on what the "Baha'i institutions" tell you - aren't you? So much for an "independent investigation of truth"!

 

[Trailblazer]

No - not "at some point" - in fact you are entirely dependent on what the "Baha'i institutions" tell you - aren't you? So much for an "independent investigation of truth"!

Independent investigation of truth means the following. It is the polar opposite of believing the conspiracy theories just because someone who does not like the Baha'i Faith tells you they are true.

“The first principle Baha’u’llah urged was the independent investigation of truth. “Each individual,” He said, “is following the faith of his ancestors who themselves are lost in the maze of tradition. Reality is steeped in dogmas and doctrines. If each investigate for himself, he will find that Reality is one; does not admit of multiplicity; is not divisible. All will find the same foundation and all will be at peace.” – Abdu’l-Baha, Star of the West, Volume 3, p. 5.

“Bahá’u’lláh asked no one to accept His statements and His tokens blindly. On the contrary, He put in the very forefront of His teachings emphatic warnings against blind acceptance of authority, and urged all to open their eyes and ears, and use their own judgement, independently and fearlessly, in order to ascertain the truth. He enjoined the fullest investigation and never concealed Himself, offering, as the supreme proofs of His Prophethood, His words and works and their effects in transforming the lives and characters of men.”Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 8

“What does it mean to investigate reality? It means that man must forget all hearsay and examine truth himself, for he does not know whether statements he hears are in accordance with reality or not. Wherever he finds truth or reality, he must hold to it, forsaking, discarding all else; for outside of reality there is naught but superstition and imagination.” – Abdu’l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 62.​

NOW that I have independently investigated the truth and I believe in the Baha'i Faith, I believe that the UHJ is not misleading the Baha'is. Of course I depend upon what they tell me... What reason would I have to question their sincerity? What would be their motive? Sorry, I am not into the conspiracy theories. I am also not a control freak who questions the authority of the UHJ when I do not have the qualifications for holding that office. How arrogant would that make me to question them?

 

[siti]

Of course I depend upon what they tell me... What reason would I have to question their sincerity? What would be their motive?

But you can't see that this is exactly what others believe about the Vatican, the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, etc...all of which you denounce as the "traditions of men"? Yet your own "independent investigation of truth" is based on what a group of fallible men tell you is true. Its hard for a genuinely independent "investigator" not to detect a profound - and rather obvious - cognitive dissonance in this kind of "reasoning" - are you even allowed to question what the UHJ tells you (about what Baha'u'llah wrote) without falling into the trap of being labelled "covenant breaker"?