The Baha'is

[shunyadragon]

How do you account for the Holy Spirit being poured out on the apostles in the upper room so that they "began to speak in other tongues as the spirit enabled them?"

5Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. 6When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. 7Utterly amazed, they asked: “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? 8Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? 9Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, b 10Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11(both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” 12Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, “What does this mean?”
​

How is that, if what Jesus said would happen when he was resurrected, came to pass, that there is no evidence for his resurrection?

Would try to account for it? It is a subjective anecdotal claim of a religious experiences, which occurs everyday in churches in history. No evidence by definition involved here.

Other than a subjective anecdotal personal experience, it is a good question to ask: "What does this mean?"

 

[firedragon]

The time will be 5 pm tomorrow night central standard Texas time. if you want to come let me know here and I will send you the info message it to you tomorrow.

A Son like Ephraim?

 

[firedragon]

No, we do not reject the gospels, but we do interpret them differently than Christians

How do you interpret the Gospels? I am interested to know!

 

[Trailblazer]

How do you interpret the Gospels? I am interested to know!

That is a big question...
What part of the Gospels are you referring to?

 

[Trailblazer]

Well the evidence you have is in print.

The Bible is not evidence that anything in the Bible actually happened as it was recorded.
Anyone can write a book, but unless what is contained in the book can be verified by outside sources, it cannot be considered a factual account, but rather it is just a story that someone wrote. It could be true but there is no way to prove it is true.

 

[firedragon]

That is a big question...
What part of the Gospels are you referring to?

I am not referring to any particular passage. I am referring to your statement where you said that you interpret the Gospels differently in comparison to the Christians.

So could you explain how you interpret the Gospels?

 

[Trailblazer]

So why do you believe there was a person named Jesus then?

Simply put, I believe that Jesus existed because Baha'u'llah testified of Jesus:
Referring to Jesus as the Son of Man, Baha’u’llah wrote:

“We testify that when He came into the world, He shed the splendor of His glory upon all created things. Through Him the leper recovered from the leprosy of perversity and ignorance. Through Him, the unchaste and wayward were healed. Through His power, born of Almighty God, the eyes of the blind were opened, and the soul of the sinner sanctified.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 85-86

Your logical inconsistencies are astounding, in believing one thing but not another. Either you believe it, or you don't. You can't pick and choose which bits to believe, just because of your political preferences. Either the whole thing is a fraud, or it's not. And no-one from the first few centuries managed to prove it to be a fraud.

Yes, either I believe that Jesus existed or not, but after that I can choose to believe what I believe about Jesus. I do not have to believe everything that was recorded on the NT and I do not have to interpret it as you do.

Even if nobody from the first few centuries managed to prove it to be a fraud that does not mean that everything recorded in the NT is a fact. No, it is not as simple as either the NT was a fraud or not. Below is the Baha'i position on the Bible:

The Bahá'í viewpoint proposed by this essay has been established as follows: The Bible is a reliable source of Divine guidance and salvation, and rightly regarded as a sacred and holy book. However, as a collection of the writings of independent and human authors, it is not necessarily historically accurate. Nor can the words of its writers, although inspired, be strictly defined as 'The Word of God' in the way the original words of Moses and Jesus could have been. Instead there is an area of continuing interest for Bahá'í scholars, possibly involving the creation of new categories for defining authoritative religious literature.

A Baháí View of the Bible

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: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments

In studying the Bible Bahá'ís must bear two principles in mind. The first is that many passages in Sacred Scriptures are intended to be taken metaphorically, not literally, and some of the paradoxes and apparent contradictions which appear are intended to indicate this. The second is the fact that the text of the early Scriptures, such as the Bible, is not wholly authentic.
(28 May 1984 to an individual believer)

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....

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: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments

 

[Trailblazer]

So could you explain how you interpret the Gospels?

That question is too broad.
What in the Gospels are you referring to?

 

[firedragon]

That question is too broad.
What in the Gospels are you referring to?

I am not referring to any particular passage. I am referring to your statement where you said that you interpret the Gospels differently in comparison to the Christians.

It was you who made that statement "No, we do not reject the gospels, but we do interpret them differently than Christians". But it seems like I will not receive a response. So its fine. Peace.

 

[firedragon]

That question is too broad.
What in the Gospels are you referring to?

Okay, for the same of a question how do you interpret John 1:1?

 

[Riders]

Simply put, I believe that Jesus existed because Baha'u'llah testified of Jesus:
Referring to Jesus as the Son of Man, Baha’u’llah wrote:

“We testify that when He came into the world, He shed the splendor of His glory upon all created things. Through Him the leper recovered from the leprosy of perversity and ignorance. Through Him, the unchaste and wayward were healed. Through His power, born of Almighty God, the eyes of the blind were opened, and the soul of the sinner sanctified.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 85-86

Yes, either I believe that Jesus existed or not, but after that I can choose to believe what I believe about Jesus. I do not have to believe everything that was recorded on the NT and I do not have to interpret it as you do.

Even if nobody from the first few centuries managed to prove it to be a fraud that does not mean that everything recorded in the NT is a fact. No, it is not as simple as either the NT was a fraud or not. Below is the Baha'i position on the Bible:

The Bahá'í viewpoint proposed by this essay has been established as follows: The Bible is a reliable source of Divine guidance and salvation, and rightly regarded as a sacred and holy book. However, as a collection of the writings of independent and human authors, it is not necessarily historically accurate. Nor can the words of its writers, although inspired, be strictly defined as 'The Word of God' in the way the original words of Moses and Jesus could have been. Instead there is an area of continuing interest for Bahá'í scholars, possibly involving the creation of new categories for defining authoritative religious literature.

A Baháí View of the Bible

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: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments

In studying the Bible Bahá'ís must bear two principles in mind. The first is that many passages in Sacred Scriptures are intended to be taken metaphorically, not literally, and some of the paradoxes and apparent contradictions which appear are intended to indicate this. The second is the fact that the text of the early Scriptures, such as the Bible, is not wholly authentic.
(28 May 1984 to an individual believer)

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....

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: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments

I interpret the new testament much like The Unity church does. The references to Jesus being God or supernatural, was the same as the saying Jesus gave " The kingdom of heaven is within you" sense Jesus was the first to come up with this truth, he was closer to God and the Son of God the chosen one but not God.

 

[Trailblazer]

Okay, for the same of a question how do you interpret John 1:1?

You are in luck. I have several Word documents I have written up on John 1 over the years. Below is my response to one Trinitarian Christian I have been conversing with for about six years:

Those verses do not mean that Jesus is God. God cannot become a man because God cannot “incarnate” His Essence and reveal it to man. God is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men. We know Jesus was not God because Jesus said that no man has seen God.

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

God can never be known except through Manifestations of God which are sent by God. God sent Jesus and Jesus manifested and declared God.

John 1 King James Version (KJV)

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

The Holy Spirit and the Word are the appearance of God. The Spirit and the Word mean the divine perfections that appeared in Jesus Christ, and these perfections were with God. The Word does not mean the body of Jesus but rather the divine perfections manifested in Jesus. Jesus was like a clear mirror and the divine perfections were visible and apparent in this mirror. Therefore, the Word and the Holy Spirit, which signify the perfections of God, are the divine appearance. This is the meaning of the verse which says: “The Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

When God sent Jesus, Jesus was “manifested” in the flesh and Jesus dwelt among us. God did not become flesh, but rather the divine perfections of God were manifested in Jesus who came in the flesh and revealed the Word of God to humanity.

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

You can't get it any plainer than that. God was manifest in the flesh, not incarnated in the flesh.

 

[Riders]

Thank you for considering it! I'll let you know how it goes!!!

We are not having, she wants a bigger crowd so she

Thank you Riders. I looked it up and I am 15hrs in front of your time, so I will be at work and out bush, so can not make it.

Thank you for the invite.

Regards Tony

So they don't want to do it unless you are there. SO if your 15 hours ahead 3 pm would be 8 your time give me a good time to meet and Ill let them know.

 

[Trailblazer]

It was you who made that statement "No, we do not reject the gospels, but we do interpret them differently than Christians". But it seems like I will not receive a response. So its fine. Peace.

If you are interested in how the Baha'i interpretation of the gospels differs from the Christian interpretation you can catch me on the the following thread conversing with Brian2.

Fulfillment of Prophecy in the New Testament

 

[eik]

Would try to account for it? It is a subjective anecdotal claim of a religious experiences, which occurs everyday in churches in history. No evidence by definition involved here.

Other than a subjective anecdotal personal experience, it is a good question to ask: "What does this mean?"

The way in which Acts reports it is somewhat more objectively than your average Pentecostal mumbo jumbo. Here were foreigners hearing the apostles speaking in their own language. The fact is you can't account for it.

 

[eik]

Simply put, I believe that Jesus existed because Baha'u'llah testified of Jesus:
Referring to Jesus as the Son of Man, Baha’u’llah wrote:

“We testify that when He came into the world, He shed the splendor of His glory upon all created things. Through Him the leper recovered from the leprosy of perversity and ignorance. Through Him, the unchaste and wayward were healed. Through His power, born of Almighty God, the eyes of the blind were opened, and the soul of the sinner sanctified.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 85-86

Yes, either I believe that Jesus existed or not, but after that I can choose to believe what I believe about Jesus. I do not have to believe everything that was recorded on the NT and I do not have to interpret it as you do.

In other words you don't have any conviction of your own. All you're doing is parroting someone else? Doesn't give me any confidence that you personally have the faintest confidence in your anti-Christian propaganda. Sounds to me like you're brainwashed.

Brainwashing is not the kind of "belief" that God desires. Without seeking to proselytize I have to say that if there is any obvious merit of Christianity distinct from most other religions it is in the matter that Christianity does not seek to brainwash its adherents, although there is some of that too. Yet it is not part of the deal.

Even if nobody from the first few centuries managed to prove it to be a fraud that does not mean that everything recorded in the NT is a fact. No, it is not as simple as either the NT was a fraud or not. Below is the Baha'i position on the Bible:

The Bahá'í viewpoint proposed by this essay has been established as follows: The Bible is a reliable source of Divine guidance and salvation, and rightly regarded as a sacred and holy book. However, as a collection of the writings of independent and human authors, it is not necessarily historically accurate. Nor can the words of its writers, although inspired, be strictly defined as 'The Word of God' in the way the original words of Moses and Jesus could have been. Instead there is an area of continuing interest for Bahá'í scholars, possibly involving the creation of new categories for defining authoritative religious literature.

A Baháí View of the Bible

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: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments

In studying the Bible Bahá'ís must bear two principles in mind. The first is that many passages in Sacred Scriptures are intended to be taken metaphorically, not literally, and some of the paradoxes and apparent contradictions which appear are intended to indicate this. The second is the fact that the text of the early Scriptures, such as the Bible, is not wholly authentic.
(28 May 1984 to an individual believer)

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....

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: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments

You clearly do an excellent job of parroting the teachings of Baha'i. However it seems to be largely humanistic waffle of an inferior order. So many wierd and wonderful religious leaders have come from Persia or the Parthian Empire: Zarathustra, Mani, the Khwarazmian dynasty, Rashid ad-Din Sinan and the Nizari Isma'ilis, and now Baháʼu'lláh. I expect there's others. All the rest bar Baháʼu'lláh have long bitten the dust, wiped out by the fierce wrath of God. Actually Mani, despite being executed, is probably the most successful, having wormed his doctrines into the Roman Catholic church by way of heresies started by the likes of Augustine et al. I'm surprised given that Persia has such a poor record when it comes to religion, that you're willing to credit another Persian.

 

[Trailblazer]

In other words you don't have any conviction of your own. All you're doing is parroting someone else? Doesn't give me any confidence that you have the faintest idea why you're spouting anti-Christian propaganda. Sounds to me like you're brainwashed by your leader.

You are the pot calling the kettle black, and it is UNBELIEVABLE that you cannot see that.
Sounds like you have been brainwashed by the New Testament.
What evidence is there that I have been brainwashed by anyone?

Question: What do you parrot?
Answer: The New Testament.

The New Testament was not even written by Jesus, it came to us by way of ORAL TRADITION. so it is not the Word of God in the same sense as the Writings of Baha'u'llah which were written in the Pen of Baha'u'llah. I do not care if YOU believe Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God or not, as your belief in Jesus is no more verifiable than my belief in Baha'u'llah, actually less verifiable, since Jesus never wrote anything...

Are we square now?

How is this anti-Christian propaganda?
Referring to Jesus as the Son of Man, Baha’u’llah wrote:

“We testify that when He came into the world, He shed the splendor of His glory upon all created things. Through Him the leper recovered from the leprosy of perversity and ignorance. Through Him, the unchaste and wayward were healed. Through His power, born of Almighty God, the eyes of the blind were opened, and the soul of the sinner sanctified.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 85-86

That is not the sort of believer that God desires. If there is any distinguishing mark of Christianity from all other religions it is that every Christian is expected to think for himself, develop his own reasons, and not merely rely on parroting cultic teachings.

You asked a specific question -- why do I believe in Jesus -- and I gave you the answer.
That does not mean I do not think for myself.

My own reasons to believe in Jesus? Maybe you need a course in logic. How could I ever know anything about Jesus if it was not revealed in scriptures? I also believe what secular scholars say about Jesus, but that is not verification as I have from Baha'u'llah.

You clearly do an excellent job of parroting the teachings of Baha'i.

You clearly do an excellent job of parroting the teachings of the New Testament.

However it seems to me that it is largely humanistic waffle of an inferior order.

Inferior to what?
However it seems to me that the NT is largely he words of men who never even knew Jesus Christ.

So many wierd and wonderful religious leaders have come from Persia or the Parthian Empire: Zarathustra, Mani, the Khwarazmian dynasty, Rashid ad-Din Sinan and the Nizari Isma'ilis, and now Baháʼu'lláh. I expect there's others. All the rest bar Baháʼu'lláh have long bitten the dust, wiped out by the wrath of God. Actually Mani is probably the most successful, having wormed his doctrines into the Roman Catholic church by way of heresies. I'm surprised given that Persia has such a poor record when it comes to religion, that you're willing to credit Baháʼu'lláh.

It is said that Queen Victoria, upon reading the Tablet revealed for her by Baha'u'llah, remarked: "If this is of God, it will endure; if not, it can do no harm." (pdc 65) (18:49)

From: 2nd Coming of Christ by David Yamartino

 

[shunyadragon]

The way in which Acts reports it is somewhat more objectively than your average Pentecostal mumbo jumbo. Here were foreigners hearing the apostles speaking in their own language. The fact is you can't account for it.

I do not need to, because it is an ancient subjective anecdotal. If believe it fine, but there is no evidence support this calim than people speaking tongues today. Paul could fairly easily with a knowledge of Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek and Latin.everywhere he traveled.

 

[CG Didymus]

Complete baloney! Jesus was worshipped in his physical body, generally after his resurrection but also before: Matt 28:9, Mat 28:17, Luk 24:52, John 9:38.

More importantly Paul was only engaged with the risen Christ, the Christ who now ruled the universe from his place on God's throne, which accounts for the differences between him and the other apostles. That is why Paul calls him "Christ". Jesus was the name of a human being. The risen Jesus has a different name, that "no man knoweth" (Rev 2:17).

So Baha'i has nothing to do with Christianity. It promotes a heresy in place of Christianity, a heresy that Jesus did not come to save anyone but to merely promote peace and good will.

Such a false "gospel" would have been condemned not only by Paul but by all the other apostles too in the strongest possible terms. All Baha'is would have been excommunicated by just about every single Christian denomination in the early church.

I don't think all Baha'is believe those things about Paul.

The Universal House of Justice, (of the Baha'i Faith), in a letter to a believer dated February 25, 1980, wrote: "The Research Department has found nothing in the writings of Bahá'u'lláh, 'Abdu'l-Bahá or the Guardian which states that St. Paul 'usurped the station of Peter' or that he 'changed the basic message of Peter' or that he 'changed the basic message of Christ.'"​

 

[Trailblazer]

How very haphazard. Don't you think God could have provided a more certain way of salvation?

What is uncertain about that? All we have to do is have faith in Baha’u’llah and do good deeds, living to the best of our ability a noble life and doing unto others as we would be done by…. How difficult is that?

If you do not believe in the resurrection, you are not forgiven, even if you claim to believe in Jesus. Rom 4:25 "He was delivered over to death for our trespasses and was raised to life for our justification."

What evidence do you have of that? Where are any verses that say that we have to believe in the resurrection in order to get to heaven?

As far as being forgiven, Jesus said that there is only one unforgivable sin:

Matthew 12:31-32 “So I tell you, every sin and blasphemy can be forgiven—except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which will never be forgiven. Anyone who speaks against the Son of Man can be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, either in this world or in the world to come.”

Of you Matt 7:21-23 would apply.

Matthew 7:21-23 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

I agree that all things are dependent upon doing the will of the Father:

“By My Beauty! Nothing whatsoever shall, in this Day, be accepted from you, though ye continue to worship and prostrate yourselves before God throughout the eternity of His dominion. For all things are dependent upon His Will, and the worth of all acts is conditioned upon His acceptance and pleasure. The whole universe is but a handful of clay in His grasp. Unless one recognize God and love Him, his cry shall not be heard by God in this Day. This is of the essence of His Faith, did ye but know it.” Gleanings, pp. 293

What is the will of the Father?

John 14:6 “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

Is really no different than recognizing Baha’u’llah in this day….

“The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is the recognition of Him Who is the Day Spring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His laws, Who representeth the Godhead in both the Kingdom of His Cause and the world of creation. Whoso achieveth this duty hath attained unto all good; and whoso is deprived thereof, hath gone astray, though he be the author of every righteous deed.” Gleanings, pp. 330-331

I would cite you as indulging in "godless chatter" by New Testament standards, but in fact far worse as you actively deny the resurrection. In Christian terms you are currently beyond redemption.

I do not go by New Testament standards because I believe that the New Testament is no longer in force, since the Dispensation of Jesus Christ was abrogated by the Revelation of Baha’u’llah.

Dispensation

1. the divine ordering of the affairs of the world.
2. an appointment, arrangement, or favor, as by God.
3. a divinely appointed order or age:

e.g. the old Mosaic, or Jewish, dispensation; the new gospel, or Christian, dispensation.

Definition of dispensation | Dictionary.com

The gospel of Jesus has not been abrogated, only the Dispensation of Jesus has been abrogated...
The new gospel is no longer new, it got old over time.

That means by an arrangement of God the divine ordering of the affairs of the world is now according to the Revelation of Baha'u'llah, not according to the gospel of Jesus.

You still have not shown me any verses that say that I have to believe in the bodily resurrection in order to be saved. That is not even a valid “belief” (no less a fact) unless you have verses to support it.

His mission to the Jews was finished. His earthly life was completed. Then he entered into his reward:

Luke 23:43 "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise."

I agree with that. Baha’u’llah wrote that Jesus was sitting on the right hand of God and that Jesus ascended to His Reward in the fourth heaven after He was crucified. Below is Baha’u’llah’s depiction of the trial of Jesus:

“Similarly, call thou to mind the day when the Jews, who had surrounded Jesus, Son of Mary, were pressing Him to confess His claim of being the Messiah and Prophet of God, so that they might declare Him an infidel and sentence Him to death. Then, they led Him away, He Who was the Day-star of the heaven of divine Revelation, unto Pilate and Caiaphas, who was the leading divine of that age. The chief priests were all assembled in the palace, also a multitude of people who had gathered to witness His sufferings, to deride and injure Him. Though they repeatedly questioned Him, hoping that He would confess His claim, yet Jesus held His peace and spake not. Finally, an accursed of God arose and, approaching Jesus, adjured Him saying: “Didst thou not claim to be the Divine Messiah? Didst thou not say, ‘I am the King of Kings, My word is the Word of God, and I am the breaker of the Sabbath day?’” Thereupon Jesus lifted up His head and said: “Beholdest thou not the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power and might?” These were His words, and yet consider how to outward seeming He was devoid of all power except that inner power which was of God and which had encompassed all that is in heaven and on earth. How can I relate all that befell Him after He spoke these words? How shall I describe their heinous behaviour towards Him? They at last heaped on His blessed Person such woes that He took His flight unto the fourth Heaven.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, pp. 132-133

(Continued on next post)