Jesus in the Bahai & Christian faiths, reconciliation or conflict??

[Dawnofhope]

Jesus of course is probably the most discussed person in the world, yet different people discuss him in different ways. This is purely addressing the Bahai belief on Jesus and exploring if its reconciling or conflicting or lying in between.

Thanks for starting a new thread. The other one became derailed.

1. Bahai's say he is the Son of God, but they do not believe he is the biological son of God sired by the Holy Spirit.

Correct.

2. Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, Monogenis or one son, do the Bahai's have the same belief that he is the one son or do they conflict with the Christian faith and believe that all are sons of God or another derivation of it? To be clear, Christianity preaches that all are sons of God if they accept the righteousness as said in the New Testament clearly as adherents will have the seed of God, but they believe Jesus is not like that but Jesus is the sired son of God, the unique son of God.

As said by another, Christian belief is diverse and I have never heard any Christians where I live use words such as Monogenis and Sired when explaining the concept of Christ’s Sonship.

3. Bahai's believe the Jesus narration in the Bible is absolutely true but they also proclaim that the resurrection and appearances were dual or Muthasabih. Thus do they really believe the NT accounts are inspired and true accounts of Jesus or not, like or unlike Christians?

Baha’is while recognising the Divine origins of the Gospel accounts will be quick to highlight there are many verses we don’t take literally.

Obviously that brings us into conflict with biblical literalists. However many Christians take a less literal approach in line with modern Biblical scholarship.

The Universal House of Justice provided important clarification as to the Baha’i position based on the Baha’i writings in a letter to an individual believer during 1984:

The Bahá'ís believe what is in the Bible to be true in substance. This does not mean that every word recorded in that Book is to be taken literally and treated as the authentic saying of a Prophet. A striking example is given in the account of the sacrifice which Abraham was called upon to make. The Guardian of the Faith confirms that the record in the Qur'an and the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, namely that it was Ishmael, and not Isaac as stated in the Old Testament, whom Abraham was to sacrifice, is to be upheld. In one of His Tablets 'Abdu'l-Bahá refers to this discrepancy, and explains that, from a spiritual point of view, it is irrelevant which son was involved. The essential part of the story is that Abraham was willing to obey God's command to sacrifice His son. Thus, although the account in the Torah is inaccurate in detail, it is true in substance....

...The Bahá'ís believe that God's Revelation is under His care and protection and that the essence, or essential elements, of what His Manifestations intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in Their Holy Books. However, as the sayings of the ancient Prophets were written down some time later, we cannot categorically state, as we do in the case of the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, that the words and phrases attributed to Them are Their exact words
(9 August 1984 to an individual believer)

The Bible

4. Bahais seem to believe in the older Bibles without latter scholarship that identified interpolations based on older manuscripts. Thus, what is the clear belief of the Bahai's in the accounts of Jesus? Do they follow the masoretic text, vis a vis the older Bibles like the KJV or/and Tyndale or do they follow the latter critical texts? If Christians are open minded enough to move with scholarship and demarcate the interpolations how come it was not identified by Bab, Bahaullah, Abdul Baha, etc who are as we are told to be manifestations of God himself? If not their fault, is it the adherents fault? Which is the correct view of Jesus's ministry and teachings Bahai's believe in when they make their claims about the New Testament?

There are no definitive rules for which Biblical translations a Baha’i may use. Obviously we would prefer a translation that accurately and faithfully represents the earliest most authentic texts.

‘Abdu’l-Baha made an interesting comment in regards errors of translation:

As to thy question concerning the additions to the Old and New Testament: Know thou, verily, as people could not understand the words, nor could they apprehend the realities therein, therefore they have translated them according to their own understanding and interpreted the verses after their own ideas and thus the text fell into confusion. This is undoubtedly true. As to an intentional addition: This is something uncertain. But they have made great mistakes as to the understanding of the texts and the comprehending of the references and have therefore fallen into doubts, especially in regard to the symbolical verses.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Tablets of Abdul-Baha Abbas, Pages 609-610

There are many other questions, but I would like to ask these and it is not meant as a dismissal but a clarification.

That’s good to know.

 

[firedragon]

As said by another, Christian belief is diverse and I have never heard any Christians where I live use words such as Monogenis and Sired when explaining the concept of Christ’s Sonship.

Monogenis is the Greek term used in the New Testament brother. It means "one son" or "only child". Sired means sired as you probably know and is commonly used to refer to Jesus being a begotten son, not adopted, not made. But I get from your previous answer that you don't believe this. I don't know if Christians use these words very commonly but you speak to any student of New Testament studies and they will know this like knowing a toffee.

Baha’is while recognising the Divine origins of the Gospel accounts will be quick to highlight there are many verses we don’t take literally.

Obviously that brings us into conflict with biblical literalists. However many Christians take a less literal approach in line with modern Biblical scholarship.

The Universal House of Justice provided important clarification as to the Baha’i position based on the Baha’i writings in a letter to an individual believer during 1984:

The Bahá'ís believe what is in the Bible to be true in substance. This does not mean that every word recorded in that Book is to be taken literally and treated as the authentic saying of a Prophet. A striking example is given in the account of the sacrifice which Abraham was called upon to make. The Guardian of the Faith confirms that the record in the Qur'an and the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, namely that it was Ishmael, and not Isaac as stated in the Old Testament, whom Abraham was to sacrifice, is to be upheld. In one of His Tablets 'Abdu'l-Bahá refers to this discrepancy, and explains that, from a spiritual point of view, it is irrelevant which son was involved. The essential part of the story is that Abraham was willing to obey God's command to sacrifice His son. Thus, although the account in the Torah is inaccurate in detail, it is true in substance....

...The Bahá'ís believe that God's Revelation is under His care and protection and that the essence, or essential elements, of what His Manifestations intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in Their Holy Books. However, as the sayings of the ancient Prophets were written down some time later, we cannot categorically state, as we do in the case of the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, that the words and phrases attributed to Them are Their exact words
(9 August 1984 to an individual believer)

The Bible

I understand this and I have stated it in the question. Anyway, you have clarified it and if I ask another question it will derail the thread. I welcome your specific answer brother, and mind me telling you its a breath of fresh air. I may have reservations about this position and many questions but that is not really relevant to this specific question and the specific answer you provided.

There are no definitive rules for which Biblical translations a Baha’i may use. Obviously we would prefer a translation that accurately and faithfully represents the earliest most authentic texts.

‘Abdu’l-Baha made an interesting comment in regards errors of translation:

As to thy question concerning the additions to the Old and New Testament: Know thou, verily, as people could not understand the words, nor could they apprehend the realities therein, therefore they have translated them according to their own understanding and interpreted the verses after their own ideas and thus the text fell into confusion. This is undoubtedly true. As to an intentional addition: This is something uncertain. But they have made great mistakes as to the understanding of the texts and the comprehending of the references and have therefore fallen into doubts, especially in regard to the symbolical verses.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Tablets of Abdul-Baha Abbas, Pages 609-610

Sorry brother, I did not ask about a translation. I asked very specific information based on very specific statements I made. I made a distinction between the masoretic text that were used by Tyndale and the KJV vs the critical texts provided by lets say the arlands. I presume you misunderstood the question.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Actually that sentence is too vague to respond but if you mean that most Christians agree with the Bahai concept of Jesus I would say that's not right. Christians believe as I said that Jesus was the sired biological child of God unlike any other and sired by the Holy Spirit. Do Bahai's think the same?

I don't think most Christian's believe Jesus is a sired biological son of God.
I have been debating on RF and other forums for more than 10 years, including with many Christian's. It is the first time I am hearing the term "sired biological son". There is no such expression in the Bible either.

 

[George-ananda]

Okay, then what's the "liberal" in your statement?

A Christian who accepts that one can believe in other religions and prophets/teachers and go to heaven.

 

[firedragon]

I don't think most Christian's believe Jesus is a sired biological son of God.

Well, most do, and at least since recorded history of the Catholic Church through to the latter protestant church it has been the case sis.

I have been debating on RF and other forums for more than 10 years, including with many Christian's. It is the first time I am hearing the term "sired biological son". There is no such expression in the Bible either.

Hmm. So instead of "sired biological son" if I use "Only begotten son" how would you make those two statements conflict? Do you recognise the latter?

 

[firedragon]

A Christian who accepts that one can believe in other religions and prophets/teachers and go to heaven.

Thats what you meant by "I would say conciliation is possible with liberal Christians but conflict will occur with conservative Christians.". Now since you defined what liberal and conservative Christians means, can you tell me how liberal Christians would "conciliate" with liberal Christians on the topic of the OP? Please specifically refer to the questions of the OP and please explain. I am interested in understanding.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Well, most do, and at least since recorded history of the Catholic Church through to the latter protestant church it has been the case sis.



Hmm. So instead of "sired biological son" if I use "Only begotten son" how would you make those two statements conflict? Do you recognise the latter?

Yes, Christ is the only begotten Son of God. I recognize this.
To understand holy Book, I would try to interpret it with other verses (not just one verse by itself). Let me explain what i think:

First, I see, the Bible says, God is an invisible Spirit. That to means, He does not have a material body. He is Spirit, thus, the idea of having a biological son, cannot be reconciled, with God being Spirit, since biology denotes a physical body.
Now, I also note, another verse:
"I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.
John 3:6

This verse tells me, Spirit can give birth to Spirit, thus God being Spirit, can give birth to Spirit. This agrees with Jesus begotten son of God! But spiritual birth is not like a physical birth, that a woman gives birth. It is explained in Bible, as giving or manifesting spiritual qualities. This means, Jesus had same Spiritual qualities of God, who had come to existence through Spirit of God. I am not talking about physical body of Jesus here. I mean, the Spirit of Jesus was born from Spirit of God. Hence, even in Islamic Hadithes, Jesus is called Spirit of God.

 

[firedragon]

I don't think most Christian's believe Jesus is a sired biological son of God.
I have been debating on RF and other forums for more than 10 years, including with many Christian's. It is the first time I am hearing the term "sired biological son". There is no such expression in the Bible either.

You know I am curious to know why you got hooked onto a phrase like a recital of a mantra rather than finding out what that means? Is it because we religious people are drawn to mantra like phrases? Is it because we have been taught to have a recital of repetitive phrases as prayer or something? Why don't we look at the meaning of something someone says rather than looking to forums and discussions to see if someone else used the exact same phrase like a mantra?

Its a strange thing seriously. You are the second person to ask for a phrase. A Mantra. Is it for the sake of debate that you are speaking about "others didn't use that phrase" and "the bible doesn't have that phrase" etc etc? Did you even try and take a look at the meaning before making that kind of statement?

Please do some research, read from the patristic writings, Declaratory Creeds, and make an exploration prior to making statements that you don't understand. If you think this is disrespectful I don't intend it that way and I thought of refraining from saying this but what is this sis? Forums? Is that your source of study? Please do resort to better. Peace.

 

[George-ananda]

Thats what you meant by "I would say conciliation is possible with liberal Christians but conflict will occur with conservative Christians.". Now since you defined what liberal and conservative Christians means, can you tell me how liberal Christians would "conciliate" with liberal Christians on the topic of the OP? Please specifically refer to the questions of the OP and please explain. I am interested in understanding.

It seems clear to me. A liberal Christian would have little problem in accepting others acceptance of Jesus while following other prophets like Baha'u'llah of the Bahai Faith.

Liberal Christians would not necessarily have a problem with others believing Jesus was a manifestation of God missioned to teach his people of the time.

Now what I think is that all those more complex Theological/Biblical questions in your OP are not addressed in detail by the Baha'i Faith nor would any typical Baha'i know the answers. It is the message and spirit of Jesus that matters. Liberal Christians are typically not concerned with splitting doctrinal/Biblical and theological hairs as in the OP questions.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, Christ is the only begotten Son of God. I recognize this.
To understand holy Book, I would try to interpret it with other verses (not just one verse by itself). Let me explain what i think:

First, I see, the Bible says, God is an invisible Spirit. That to means, He does not have a material body. He is Spirit, thus, the idea of having a biological son, cannot be reconciled, with God being Spirit, since biology denotes a physical body.
Now, I also note, another verse:
"I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.
John 3:6

This verse tells me, Spirit can give birth to Spirit, thus God being Spirit, can give birth to Spirit. This agrees with Jesus begotten son of God! But spiritual birth is not like a physical birth, that a woman gives birth. It is explained in Bible, as giving or manifesting spiritual qualities. This means, Jesus had same Spiritual qualities of God, who had come to existence through Spirit of God. I am not talking about physical body of Jesus here. I mean, the Spirit of Jesus was born from Spirit of God. Hence, even in Islamic Hadithes, Jesus is called Spirit of God.

See, the point is not about how you analyse the Bible and make your case about Jesus, its about Christianity.

You have no clue what you just treaded on sis. Its seriously gonna derail any thread. You have not even attempted to answer the OP in a proper manner but this is a completely different topic altogether. If you wish to discuss the biblical analysis of Jesus being either the sired son or a spiritual son and defy Christianity altogether, its your prerogative.

Are you saying that the Bahai view of Jesus is that he is a Spirit and born to God? Thus if the Holy Spirit gave seed to Jesus is Jesus a spirit altogether? So is that the Bahai's official position? If you say Jesus was a man or man/God or whatever with flesh, then how did the spirit give birth fo flesh? Aren't you contradicting yourself?

Also this verse John 3:6 is speaking about salvation of humanity and is saying this is how a human being can seek salvation.

Plus, its strange that you don't notice your conflict. Jesus is "Monogenis" according to the Bible. It comes from the same word used in the verse you quoted above from John 3 which is gegennemon, both are the same. How do you reconcile your contradiction? Do you understand?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

See, the point is not about how you analyse the Bible and make your case about Jesus, its about Christianity.

You have no clue what you just treaded on sis. Its seriously gonna derail any thread. You have not even attempted to answer the OP in a proper manner but this is a completely different topic altogether. If you wish to discuss the biblical analysis of Jesus being either the sired son or a spiritual son and defy Christianity altogether, its your prerogative.

Are you saying that the Bahai view of Jesus is that he is a Spirit and born to God? Thus if the Holy Spirit gave seed to Jesus is Jesus a spirit altogether? So is that the Bahai's official position? If you say Jesus was a man or man/God or whatever with flesh, then how did the spirit give birth fo flesh? Aren't you contradicting yourself?

Also this verse John 3:6 is speaking about salvation of humanity and is saying this is how a human being can seek salvation.

Plus, its strange that you don't notice your conflict. Jesus is "Monogenis" according to the Bible. It comes from the same word used in the verse you quoted above from John 3 which is gegennemon, both are the same. How do you reconcile your contradiction? Do you understand?

I only said whatever is in the bible. The Bahais accept the verses of Bible as truth. I already answered your question. Yes, Christ is the only begotten son of God.
You said, Chrsitians say Jesus is a biological son of God. I told you Bahais don't believe Jesus is a biological son of God, as there is not such a thing said in the Bible. In the Bible, there are two aspects of everything: natural or spiritual. So, the physical body of Jesus, is not different than any other human beings. It is His Spirit that is different than other human beings. His Spirit found existence through the Spirit of God. But His physical body, was naturally born from Mary. He was in the womb of Mary and then was born. But, His embryo was not made through normal intercourse of a male and female. Mary got pregnant through the Will of God. That doesnt make Jesus physical body any different than other body. There is notheing in the Bible, that contredicts what I wrote here. If you think, there is, please quote the verse. But I think, if your goal is to know if Bahai Faith and Chrisitian Faith can be reconciled, it depends on the individual. As you see, there are many Bahais on RF who used to be Christians. What can you conclude from this?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Agreed. The Christian and Baha’i concepts of Jesus being the ‘Son of God’ are based on a mutual recognition of the NT being Divinely Inspired. Obviously there is considerable variation from both Baha’is and Christians as to how to interpret and understand the Christian Bible, particularly with references to Jesus being the Son of God. However we immediately have a shared foundation in the Bible for dialogue and finding agreement.



A Baha’i by definition is one who recognises Bahá’u’lláh has being a Prophet of God and follows His Teachings. Baha’is are enjoined to associate with peoples of all faiths in a spirit of love and fellowship. Anyone can attend Baha’i meetings and worship in our temples. Likewise Baha’is would be comfortable attending a church service.



Interfaith dialogue, fellowship, working and worshiping together can be easy or difficult depending on your perspective. I’m pretty chilled about it all and for the most part won’t see barriers between myself and Christians unless its a fundamentalist Christian trying to argue what is and isn’t a Christian based on narrow criteria.



What Christians, Muslims and Baha’is have in common are their beliefs in the God of Abraham, their faith founded on a Revelation from that God as recorded in scriptures, and succession of leadership whether based on Apostolic Succession, the twelve Imams, the Caliphate, Hadiths or ‘Abdu’l-Baha.



Agreed

Thank you for those comments. I agree mostly, although there is something I should point out about succession and Christians, and I hope this is not some sticking point. Not everybody thinks succession works the same way.

There is another form of succession of leadership that Christians look to which to some people may seem like none at all. Paul the apostle argues in a letter in support of himself that he is a true apostle only based upon on the evidence that he has brought people to Christ. He does not claim succession from Peter or any other apostle. He says that the people are his letter of recommendation.

Also, anybody might say "I'm a priest in the order of Melchizedek," and how could I say that they weren't? In Hebrews it is argued that Jesus priesthood is like that of Melchizedek, and the author explains that by saying this they are emphasizing that anyone (and specifically Jesus) can have a priesthood without lineage just like Melchizedek does. I'm personally not sure why they feel the need to point this out, but they do point it out. The argument is not supposed to be complicated which is why they don't thoroughly explain, making it complicated for us to read, today.

By the way, are you a priest in the order of Melchizedek?

 

[firedragon]

Yes, Christ is the only begotten Son of God. I recognize this.

Sired means begotten. So I seriously can't understand the conundrum. I am surprised at the kind of rejection based on a word that you have heard like a magical word but its still just an English word. Anyway, if you think Jesus is the "only begotten son of God" the way Christians believe you have conflicted with mainstream Bahai views. Thats fine with me.

You said, Chrsitians say Jesus is a biological son of God. I told you Bahais don't believe Jesus is a biological son of God

You just contradicted yourself. Look at the above comment, and this comment.

Impossible sis. So Peace.

 

[firedragon]

It seems clear to me. A liberal Christian would have little problem in accepting others acceptance of Jesus while following other prophets like Baha'u'llah of the Bahai Faith.

The OP has nothing to do with who accepts whom. So since this is irrelevant, I shall rest. Cheers.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Jesus of course is probably the most discussed person in the world, yet different people discuss him in different ways. This is purely addressing the Bahai belief on Jesus and exploring if its reconciling or conflicting or lying in between.

1. Bahai's say he is the Son of God, but they do not believe he is the biological son of God sired by the Holy Spirit.

2. Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, Monogenis or one son, do the Bahai's have the same belief that he is the one son or do they conflict with the Christian faith and believe that all are sons of God or another derivation of it? To be clear, Christianity preaches that all are sons of God if they accept the righteousness as said in the New Testament clearly as adherents will have the seed of God, but they believe Jesus is not like that but Jesus is the sired son of God, the unique son of God.

3. Bahai's believe the Jesus narration in the Bible is absolutely true but they also proclaim that the resurrection and appearances were dual or Muthasabih. Thus do they really believe the NT accounts are inspired and true accounts of Jesus or not, like or unlike Christians?

4. Bahais seem to believe in the older Bibles without latter scholarship that identified interpolations based on older manuscripts. Thus, what is the clear belief of the Bahai's in the accounts of Jesus? Do they follow the masoretic text, vis a vis the older Bibles like the KJV or/and Tyndale or do they follow the latter critical texts? If Christians are open minded enough to move with scholarship and demarcate the interpolations how come it was not identified by Bab, Bahaullah, Abdul Baha, etc who are as we are told to be manifestations of God himself? If not their fault, is it the adherents fault? Which is the correct view of Jesus's ministry and teachings Bahai's believe in when they make their claims about the New Testament?

There are many other questions, but I would like to ask these and it is not meant as a dismissal but a clarification.

My understanding is that it’s not a case of reconciliation because Baha’is already accept all the Manifestations of God including Jesus as well as Their Holy Books as the Word of God. By Manifestation of God we mean a Great Spiritual Being with perfect infallible innate knowledge that comes direct from God.

Now if a Manifestation of God Who is infallible states anything - for instance that the Resurrection was symbolical but the Virgin Mary was truth then for us Baha’is there can be absolutely no doubt He speaks the truth as we believe He is God’s Representative on earth. This is what we believe.

Baha’is say absolutely nothing about the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection of Jesus. It is a Manifestation of God, we claim that states these things, namely Baha’u’llah. We have no opinion on these things ourselves. It is the Manifestation of God we say Who has related this to us in His Books and Tablets and we accept it is truth because of Who we believe Him to be.

So the real issue here I believe is “Is Baha’u’llah the Voice of God for today or not”.?

Because those here who believe He is have no discrepancy with Him saying the Resurrection was symbolical on the one hand yet the Virgin Birth was not because if He is the Voice of God then He should know these things but naturally, those who do not accept He speaks as the Voice of God will dispute whatever He says.

So for arguments sake if Baha’u’llah was the return of Jesus in the ‘Glory of the Father ‘ (which we believe Him to be) then wouldn’t He, as Jesus returned know full well what really transpired with regard to both the Resurrection and the Virgin birth as well as which of His Words were symbolical and which were literal?

To me it’s common sense that Christ returned would know all these things and if the most learned and astute scholar disagreed with Him? Well...

Baha’u’llah has this to say..

“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.” (Baha’u’llah- Book of Certitude)

 

[firedragon]

My understanding is that it’s not a case of reconciliation because Baha’is already accept all the Manifestations of God including Jesus as well as Their Holy Books as the Word of God. By Manifestation of God we mean a Great Spiritual Being with perfect infallible innate knowledge that comes direct from God.

Now if a Manifestation of God Who is infallible states anything - for instance that the Resurrection was symbolical but the Virgin Mary was truth then for us Baha’is there can be absolutely no doubt He speaks the truth as we believe He is God’s Representative on earth. This is what we believe.

Baha’is say absolutely nothing about the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection of Jesus. It is a Manifestation of God, we claim that states these things, namely Baha’u’llah. We have no opinion on these things ourselves. It is the Manifestation of God we say Who has related this to us in His Books and Tablets and we accept it is truth because of Who we believe Him to be.

So the real issue here I believe is “Is Baha’u’llah the Voice of God for today or not”.?

Because those here who believe He is have no discrepancy with Him saying the Resurrection was symbolical on the one hand yet the Virgin Birth was not because if He is the Voice of God then He should know these things but naturally, those who do not accept He speaks as the Voice of God will dispute whatever He says.

So for arguments sake if Baha’u’llah was the return of Jesus in the ‘Glory of the Father ‘ (which we believe Him to be) then wouldn’t He, as Jesus returned know full well what really transpired with regard to both the Resurrection and the Virgin birth as well as which of His Words were symbolical and which were literal?

To me it’s common sense that Christ returned would know all these things and if the most learned and astute scholar disagreed with Him? Well...

Baha’u’llah has this to say..

“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.” (Baha’u’llah- Book of Certitude)

You spoke from a Bahai perspective, and I accept it. I understand what you say. I of course don't believe in Bab, Bahaullah or any other person you believe are manifestations of God. But my belief is not relevant to the topic, and as you say if Bahaullah was the manifestation of God he knows exactly what happened, who Jesus is, and what he says is absolute truth for you. Thats perfectly put.

Yet brother, you have not really responded to the OP. What you must understand is brother I am not questioning your faith. I am questioning specific matters that I wish to clarify and discuss in-depth and its in the OP. I do hope you understand. I respect your post.

 

[firedragon]

My understanding is that it’s not a case of reconciliation because Baha’is already accept all the Manifestations of God including Jesus as well as Their Holy Books as the Word of God. By Manifestation of God we mean a Great Spiritual Being with perfect infallible innate knowledge that comes direct from God.

Now if a Manifestation of God Who is infallible states anything - for instance that the Resurrection was symbolical but the Virgin Mary was truth then for us Baha’is there can be absolutely no doubt He speaks the truth as we believe He is God’s Representative on earth. This is what we believe.

Baha’is say absolutely nothing about the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection of Jesus. It is a Manifestation of God, we claim that states these things, namely Baha’u’llah. We have no opinion on these things ourselves. It is the Manifestation of God we say Who has related this to us in His Books and Tablets and we accept it is truth because of Who we believe Him to be.

So the real issue here I believe is “Is Baha’u’llah the Voice of God for today or not”.?

Because those here who believe He is have no discrepancy with Him saying the Resurrection was symbolical on the one hand yet the Virgin Birth was not because if He is the Voice of God then He should know these things but naturally, those who do not accept He speaks as the Voice of God will dispute whatever He says.

So for arguments sake if Baha’u’llah was the return of Jesus in the ‘Glory of the Father ‘ (which we believe Him to be) then wouldn’t He, as Jesus returned know full well what really transpired with regard to both the Resurrection and the Virgin birth as well as which of His Words were symbolical and which were literal?

To me it’s common sense that Christ returned would know all these things and if the most learned and astute scholar disagreed with Him? Well...

Baha’u’llah has this to say..

“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.” (Baha’u’llah- Book of Certitude)

This is out of topic but I wish to share some beauties with you. Guess what this is.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Sired means begotten. So I seriously can't understand the conundrum. I am surprised at the kind of rejection based on a word that you have heard like a magical word but its still just an English word. Anyway, if you think Jesus is the "only begotten son of God" the way Christians believe you have conflicted with mainstream Bahai views. Thats fine with me.



You just contradicted yourself. Look at the above comment, and this comment.

Impossible sis. So Peace.

From Bahai point of view, the Gospels are truth. So, in this respect, the Bahai view and Biblical Christian view are the same. The interpretations by mainstream Chrisitans however differs with the way Bahai Scriptures interprets Bible. As regards to the term begotten son, in Bahai view, that is a spiritual fact, not a material or biological fact. Among Christian's though, there are different views regarding the meaning of sonship. Some would agree that Jesus is spiritually son of God, some may say, it is not just spiritual... you can ask them perhaps, by taking vote, or asking from their Dir.

 

[firedragon]

From Bahai point of view, the Gospels are truth. So, in this respect, the Bahai view and Biblical Christian view are the same. The interpretations by mainstream Chrisitans however differs with the way Bahai Scriptures interprets Bible. As regards to the term begotten son, in Bahai view, that is a spiritual fact, not a material or biological fact. Among Christian's though, there are different views regarding the meaning of sonship. Some would agree that Jesus is spiritually son of God, some may say, it is not just spiritual... you can ask them perhaps, by taking vote, or asking from their Dir.

Thus, bottomline is as Adrian simply said, you don't believe he is the biological son which means the Bahai view is in conflict with the Christian view.

No need for votes. The dominant or Orthodox Christianity since the recorded Arian controversy has been the same. They all believed Jesus and God are father and son.

Peace.

 

[firedragon]

What I find strange is that not a single person has answered this question. I am sure they can read. At least attempt an answer.

4. Bahais seem to believe in the older Bibles without latter scholarship that identified interpolations based on older manuscripts. Thus, what is the clear belief of the Bahai's in the accounts of Jesus? Do they follow the masoretic text, vis a vis the older Bibles like the KJV or/and Tyndale or do they follow the latter critical texts? If Christians are open minded enough to move with scholarship and demarcate the interpolations how come it was not identified by Bab, Bahaullah, Abdul Baha, etc who are as we are told to be manifestations of God himself? If not their fault, is it the adherents fault? Which is the correct view of Jesus's ministry and teachings Bahai's believe in when they make their claims about the New Testament?