The Baha'is

[Trailblazer]

It's certainly rather presumptuous of Baha’u’llah. to pretend to some new dispensation respecting the kingdom of God.

It is in the Islamic tradition for mere men to exalt themselves as teachers. In Christianity, it is seen as blasphemous for anyone to pretend to equality with Christ.

It certainly would be presumptuous if He was pretending.

Baha’is do not consider the Manifestations of God to be mere men. We believe theya re an order of creation above any ordinary man.

In Baha’i, it is considered presumptuous for Christians to claim that Christ is superior to all the other Manifestations of God.

In the Baha’i Faith we are admonished not to make any distinction between any of the Manifestations of God.

“These attributes of God are not, and have never been, vouchsafed specially unto certain Prophets, and withheld from others. Nay, all the Prophets of God, His well-favored, His holy and chosen Messengers are, without exception, the bearers of His names, and the embodiments of His attributes. They only differ in the intensity of their revelation, and the comparative potency of their light. Even as He hath revealed: “Some of the Apostles We have caused to excel the others.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 48

In circa 300 years Christ amassed circa 30 million followers. In 150 years Baha’u’llah has amassed 6 million. Then there are problems with Baha'i identity. Many move on to other religions, but are retained in the Baha'i statistics. Given the far greater number of people in the world today, Baha’u’llah seems to be on an upward struggle to even obtain parity with Christianity.

Christianity grew because it became the official religion of the Roman Empire. The Baha’i Faith cannot be affiliated with the government in any way so it cannot use politicians or rulers to promote it.

As for theological insight, it all seems to be about Baha’u’llah rather than God himself. I mean consider this: if Baha’u’llah is always pointing to Christ, then why not be a Christian. Why should anyone learn about Christ from Baha'i?

I never said that anyone should learn about Christ from Baha’u’llah, not unless they are a Baha’i; and even then they should read the NT to learn about Christ.

Baha’u’llah did not write about Himself; He wrote about God, and He said that everything He did was for the sake of God:

“Their belief or disbelief in My Cause can neither profit nor harm Me. We summon them wholly for the sake of God. He, verily, can afford to dispense with all creatures.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 85

“Incline your ears to the counsels which this Servant giveth you for the sake of God. He, verily, asketh no recompense from you and is resigned to what God hath ordained for Him, and is entirely submissive to God’s Will.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 127

The way I see it, Baha’u’llah may be a messenger to muslims, just as Mahomet was to the Arabians, but he's not any kind of messenger to Christians. Christians used not to acknowledge Islam as anything more than paganism, and Baha'i isn't much different to Islam with its political rather than spiritual focus.

Of course Christians do not believe that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God, if they believed that they would be Baha’is.

However, logically speaking, Baha’u’llah was either a Messenger of God or not; and if He was who he claimed to be he came for the whole world, not just for Muslims. Muslims would say the same thing you say, that Baha’u’llah is not a Messenger to them, because they only believe in Muhammad and the Messengers who preceded Him.

I do not accept what you say, which would only be true if religion was a political enterprise. For Christians Christ is as relevant today as 2000 years ago. Christ is focused on personal spiritual evolution. To God is entrusted the growth and the government of the world. I see Baha’u’llah as more interested in politics than religion, which is what I would expect from a muslim, sadly.

Religion is not a political enterprise, but religion is associated with social evolution because God reveals what society needs in every stage of its evolution. Baha’u’llah had no interest in politics, only in God and building the Kingdom of God on earth.

We can be pretty sure of what Christ said, because three of the gospels were written by those who knew him intimately. Moreover there is no "hadith."

No, the gospels were not written by the disciples.

When were the gospels written and by whom?
Composition and authorship

The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70, Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110. Despite the traditional ascriptions all four are anonymous, and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses.
Gospel - Wikipedia​

In Islam there is but one Koran. This is how is Abu Bakr compiled it: "The fragments were recovered from every quarter, including from the ribs of palm branches, scraps of leather, stone tablets and "from the hearts of men". Perhaps from Christian manuscripts in Syriac too?

In Christianity there are four gospels written by different people that mostly all agree with each other. By this single fact we can be far surer of what Christ said than what Mahomet said.

I have no dog in the fight between Christians and Muslims because what Muslims believe is no reflection upon the Baha’i Faith. I also have no need to compare Christ to Muhammad. Nobody knows what Christ said because the gospel writers did not even know Christ, and even if they did it would be logically impossible for men to memorize the words and write them down decades later. By contrast, the scribes knew Muhammad and either memorized His words of wrote them down before they were compiled into the Qur’an.

So you deny the virgin birth? In Sura 19:16-36 it is difficult to see how Mary was not a virgin when she gave birth to Christ, as she had no husband. So you & Mahomet saying God had no biological son is very strange. It is in fact a contradiction, given what is in the Koran.

I posted twice to you that Baha’is believe in the Virgin Birth. Here it is again:

1637. Christ, Virgin Birth of

"First regarding the birth of Jesus Christ. In light of what Bahá’u’lláh and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá have stated concerning this subject it is evident that Jesus came into this world through the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit, and that consequently His birth was quite miraculous. This is an established fact, and the friends need not feel at all surprised, as the belief in the possibility of miracles has never been rejected in the Teachings. Their importance, however, has been minimized."

(From a letter dated December 31, 1937 written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer)
Lights of Guidance/Christ - Bahaiworks, a library of works about the Bahá’í Faith​

However this one thing I will grant you: Muslims may have a legitimate gripe against those ignorant Christians who assert Jesus was a God in human form. He was a man, I'll agree but one who came from heaven. So God was his Father, in not only a metaphorical sense, or by process of adoption, but because "The Word was with God" before Christ's conception John 1:1.

I don’t disagree with that as I believe that Jesus was pre-existent on the spiritual world before He was born into this world.

As I have indicated above it was "collected" from who knows where. I'm not saying that parts of it are not authentic. I am saying the Koran is a "collection" of disparate documents of varying origin. All the traditions about it are clearly done for the sake of enhancing its authenticity.

I do not know enough about the Qur’an to comment but I would not take any Christian’s word on that. Again, I have no dog in this fight because Islam is not my religion.

I am afraid that what you have said above would make most Christians run a mile from Baha'i. In any case, as I have said, to deny the physical resurrection would be an act of apostasy for a Christian, so you're not like to get many converts from Christianity, except from amongs the ignorant, or nominal.

Baha’is are not looking for converts. The only people who become Baha’is are people who are true seekers. That excludes most Christians unless they are questioning the truth of Christianity. Baha’is are not going to lie and say we believe in the resurrection when we don’t.

Almost all Christians are already in conflict with the Baha’i Faith because of Baha’ullah’s claim to be the return of Christ and the Messiah, but we cannot lie about that either.

Obviously Christ was not "physically" begotten, because he pre-existed. Neither was he spiritually begotten (i.e. before the world began after the pagan conception). In some sense he was biologically conceived by God because he had no human father. The main thing to note is how Christ describes himself, which is coming down from heaven after experiencing a kenosis (i.e. an emptying) so as to become a man.

I do not disagree with any of that.

I some sense I could agree that if what you are protesting is High Trinitarianism, where Christ is effectively a God in human form, I would concede you have grounds to object. But you don't need to become a Baha'i to protest. There are many Christians who reject the high Trinity of Roman Catholicism. The heresies of the Christian churches never warrant apostacy from the Christian faith, Christianity has many protestants, but none would deny the resurrection and expect to remain an orthodox Christian.

Most Protestants believe in the Trinity doctrine and that Jesus was God, that is not a Catholic doctrine. Liberal Christians deny the bodily resurrection but they are still Christians.

Which is in Christian terms a very dangerous occupation.

Rev 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

It's a brave (or foolish) man who contradicts any Christian doctrine written in the New Testament.

Interpreting what the NT means is not adding to the NT. I have just as much of a right to interpret it and ascribe meaning to it as any Christian.

Christian doctrines are not written in the New Testament. They were decided upon and written by men at councils such as Nicaea.

 

[night912]

Well the evidence you have is in print. And it has been repeated oft times. Perhaps the reason why you can't see any evidence is because, like Nelson, you put the telescope to your blind eye?

That says nothing about the evidence.

 

[eik]

It certainly would be presumptuous if He was pretending.
.
.

So now you plainly reveal that Christ was not the monogenes son of God in the Baha'i!

Christianity grew because it became the official religion of the Roman Empire. The Baha’i Faith cannot be affiliated with the government in any way so it cannot use politicians or rulers to promote it.

Does not mean to say Bahai's sole reason for existing is not linked to the affairs of this world, whereas Christianity's reason for existing is to do with the affairs of the kingdom of heaven, which is defined to be not of this world.

I never said that anyone should learn about Christ from Baha’u’llah, not unless they are a Baha’i; and even then they should read the NT to learn about Christ.

Which is deceptive if you don't regard Christ as superior to all the other Manifestations of God, because Christ certainly regarded himself as such. Christ deemed himself to be the monogenes son of God, which doesn't leave room for anyone else.

Baha’u’llah did not write about Himself; He wrote about God, and He said that everything He did was for the sake of God:

“Their belief or disbelief in My Cause can neither profit nor harm Me. We summon them wholly for the sake of God. He, verily, can afford to dispense with all creatures.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 85

“Incline your ears to the counsels which this Servant giveth you for the sake of God. He, verily, asketh no recompense from you and is resigned to what God hath ordained for Him, and is entirely submissive to God’s Will.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 127

Of course Christians do not believe that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God, if they believed that they would be Baha’is.

The reason why Baha’u’llah is credited is because the world he lives in is Islamic. There is no room for a Baha’u’llah in Christianity. Is is Islam which gives him legitimacy not Christianity.

However, logically speaking, Baha’u’llah was either a Messenger of God or not; and if He was who he claimed to be he came for the whole world, not just for Muslims. Muslims would say the same thing you say, that Baha’u’llah is not a Messenger to them, because they only believe in Muhammad and the Messengers who preceded Him.

Islam has the concept of the Mahdi in the hadith that had no equivalent in Christianity. According to a source of mine, Baha't fulfilled Islamic apocalyptic expectations only.

Religion is not a political enterprise, but religion is associated with social evolution because God reveals what society needs in every stage of its evolution. Baha’u’llah had no interest in politics, only in God and building the Kingdom of God on earth.

According to my source, Baha'is in general seek political liberalism and are focussed on social issues, like liberal Roman Catholics, which is a long way from orthodox Christianity. However there is a fundamentalist branch also. Again like Islam in general, there is no divine authority to say whom is correct?

No, the gospels were not written by the disciples.
.
.

From the same source "modern scholars are cautious of relying on the gospels uncritically, but nevertheless they do provide a good idea of the public career of Jesus, and critical study can attempt to distinguish the original ideas of Jesus from those of the later author"

These Wikipedia articles are written by liberal not conservative scholars. They use words like "tradition" gratuitously . There are many so-called biblical scholars attached to universities who are by no means Christian, but complete atheists.

However I can agree that due to variants in the gospels, the reliability of the texts is less than that of other parts of the bible. Some interpolations exist, seen from textual variations, but not enough to discredit them generally.

Many criticisms are ignorantly made. People have been trying to undermine the bible very hard since the age of reason in the 19th century. Many archaeological discoveries have only affirmed the bible over many such ignorant criticisms. Textual criticism can only go so far. It can seldom disprove anything. Thus no-one has disproved that the authors of the gospels are not per the writings of received from the early church fathers.

Historical criticism - Wikipedia

I have no dog in the fight between Christians and Muslims because what Muslims believe is no reflection upon the Baha’i Faith. I also have no need to compare Christ to Muhammad. Nobody knows what Christ said because the gospel writers did not even know Christ, and even if they did it would be logically impossible for men to memorize the words and write them down decades later. By contrast, the scribes knew Muhammad and either memorized His words of wrote them down before they were compiled into the Qur’an.

You take the "higher criticism" far too seriously. Most of it is just endless waffle and opinions that cannot be proven. If the point of Baha'i is to align itself with atheist university scholars in condemning what has been received from the early church, then I can accept that Baha'i is really apostasy from Christ wrapped up in Islamic philosophical religion. No-one has shown the gospels to be other than completely authentic.

I posted twice to you that Baha’is believe in the Virgin Birth. .
.

But this seems to contradict what you said above:

"We believe theya re an order of creation above any ordinary man."

Possibly Baha'is are a kind of Arian i.e. like Jehova's Witnesses who think Christ was a created being. Arianism is one of the most ancient and one of the worst heresies in Christianity. They are universally relegated to "cultic" status, just because Christ consistenty maintained he was not a created being.

I do not know enough about the Qur’an to comment but I would not take any Christian’s word on that. Again, I have no dog in this fight because Islam is not my religion.

Baha’is are not looking for converts. The only people who become Baha’is are people who are true seekers. That excludes most Christians unless they are questioning the truth of Christianity. Baha’is are not going to lie and say we believe in the resurrection when we don’t.

OK. But you're going to have a hard job of making converts from other than from muslims living in non-muslims lands or people who for some reason have apostatized from Christianity.

Almost all Christians are already in conflict with the Baha’i Faith because of Baha’ullah’s claim to be the return of Christ and the Messiah, but we cannot lie about that either.

I do not disagree with any of that.

Most Protestants believe in the Trinity doctrine and that Jesus was God, that is not a Catholic doctrine. Liberal Christians deny the bodily resurrection but they are still Christians.

Depends what you mean by "Trinity." There are a lot of definitions, ranging from the mere quality of divinity ascribed to the Father son and Holy Spirit, to a rigorous definition of "God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit" (which I take to be clearly non-scriptural) as subscribed to by the Council of Chalcedon and embodied in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions. Between these two extreme positions, there are many variations.

Although the "Trinity" was first formulated in AD325 at Nicea, in distinctly non-biblical language, but widely subscribed to on a political level amongst the churches for the sake of unity (it used the non-biblical word homoousios), it is par excellence a Catholic doctrine because its ultimate manifestation was defined by the Council of Chalcedon AD451, after which the Roman Church under Leo I pretended to a legal supremacy over all the other churches in regard to the tenets of this Council regarding the "Trinity." No other version of the "Trinity" was henceforth permitted. The Roman church excommunicated all other churches for not adopting the tenets of this Council. Only the Eastern Orthodox church remained in communion with Rome. All other churches broke away at that time.

The "Trinity doctrine" of the Council of Chalcedon is not found in the bible. It is a fusion of Greek philosophy and biblical literature. The bible knows only of the Father as "true God," but of the son and the holy spirit as divine and uncreated entities centred on the throne of God, and dependent on the Father for divinity. That's not to detract from their divinity, but it is to position their divinity as relational to the Father.

I accept that many protestants accept the Roman Catholic position on the "Trinity" without criticism, probably because they couldn't be bothered to dabble with it, but many protestants don't acept the Roman Catholic position. In any event the "Trinity doctrine" of the Council of Chalcedon is hardly ever impressed onto the laity, especially in Protestant churches. It is more the preserve of theologians and dabblers in philosophy, rather than those who seek to practice the Christian religion.

Interpreting what the NT means is not adding to the NT. I have just as much of a right to interpret it and ascribe meaning to it as any Christian.

Christian doctrines are not written in the New Testament. They were decided upon and written by men at councils such as Nicaea.

God has given you free choice, I agree,

The only true Christian doctrines were handed down by the apostles and by Christ himself. The Nicene creed was a democratic decison of the churches to preserve unity under the Emperor Constantine in response to the Arian threat. The Nicene creed is not good theology in biblical terms. There were many who did not like the wording of the Nicene creed because of its recourse to Greek philosophy in unbiblical words like "ousia." It contains distinctly pagan ideas.

Greek philosophy had long infiltrated the church before Nicea, which paved the way for Christianity to almost destroy itself, and hence is the reason why Islam exists, because philosophical Christianity can only be disunited Christianity. It was disunity which paved the way for Islam.

 

[firedragon]

The fact that Baha'u'llah predicted many events that later came to pass is also icing on the cake.

All the prophecies? What do you mean "all the prophecies"?

 

[firedragon]

One thing that initially attracted me to the Baha'i Faith is its all-inclusiveness. I could never believe in a religion that would exclude billions of people from heaven for all of eternity just because of their beliefs.

Doesn't Shoghi Effendi actually contradict you there? Or is it you contradicting them? Okay at least does not Shoghi Effendi admonish covenant breakers as sufferers of spiritual leprosy etc? Doesn't Baha say that anyone who questions the guardians or opposes them should be cast out of the congregation?

 

[Trailblazer]

So now you plainly reveal that Christ was not the monogenes son of God in the Baha'i!

My, how things can get misconstrued on these forums.

I never said that. It is a Baha’i belief Jesus was the Son of God. Baha’is do not believe that Baha’u’llah was the Son of God. There is only one Son of God and that is Jesus Christ.

Does not mean to say Bahai's sole reason for existing is not linked to the affairs of this world, whereas Christianity's reason for existing is to do with the affairs of the kingdom of heaven, which is defined to be not of this world.

Bahai’s reason for existing is linked to BOTH the affairs of this world and affairs of the kingdom of heaven. It was the same for Jesus when He walked the earth. He cared about how people lived on earth, but He was also concerned about their eternal life in heaven.

Which is deceptive if you don't regard Christ as superior to all the other Manifestations of God, because Christ certainly regarded himself as such. Christ deemed himself to be the monogenes son of God, which doesn't leave room for anyone else.

Christ certainly did not consider Himself “superior” to all the other Manifestations of God! Jesus did not compare Himself to other Manifestations of God. That Jesus is superior is a Christian teaching. The fact that Jesus had the special title of the Son of God does not mean there is no room for anyone else. Do you know anything about logic?

Baha’u’llah also had many titles, as noted in this short video below. Some but not all of these titles appear in the Bible. Of course, Christians believe the titles that appear in the Bible such as the Prince of Peace and the King of Kings apply to Jesus, but that is just a belief that cannot be proven, not anymore than Baha’is can prove our beliefs about Baha’u’llah are true.

The reason why Baha’u’llah is credited is because the world he lives in is Islamic. There is no room for a Baha’u’llah in Christianity. Is is Islam which gives him legitimacy not Christianity.

You are totally off base, because Islam gives no legitimacy to the Baha’i Faith. Muslims have the same exact issues with Baha’u’llah that Christians have. There is no room for a Baha’u’llah in Christianity or Islam or Judaism, or Hinduism or Buddhism for that matter.

Islam has the concept of the Mahdi in the hadith that had no equivalent in Christianity. According to a source of mine, Baha't fulfilled Islamic apocalyptic expectations only.

The Bab claimed to be the Mahdi, and of course that has no equivalent in Christianity because Christianity does not recognize the Qur’an as scripture.

In his early writings, the Báb appears to identify himself as the gate (báb) to the Hidden Twelfth Imam, and later begins explicitly to proclaim his station as that of the Hidden Imam and a new messenger from God.[20
https://en.wikipedia.org/Bab

According to my source, Baha'is in general seek political liberalism and are focussed on social issues, like liberal Roman Catholics, which is a long way from orthodox Christianity. However there is a fundamentalist branch also. Again like Islam in general, there is no divine authority to say whom is correct?

Baha’is are focused on social issues but we do not seek political liberalism. Some Baha’is are more focused on social issues than other Baha’is. Other Baha’is are more focused on mystical and spiritual issues. I acknowledge the importance of social issues but I am more focused on the individual, spiritual growth, and the afterlife.

Who would be the divine authority to say who is correct?

From the same source "modern scholars are cautious of relying on the gospels uncritically, but nevertheless they do provide a good idea of the public career of Jesus, and critical study can attempt to distinguish the original ideas of Jesus from those of the later author.

I do not know what you mean by “the later author.”

Baha’is do not discredit the gospels, and we believe that they are the record of Jesus’ life and mission.

A Baháí View of the Bible

You take the "higher criticism" far too seriously. Most of it is just endless waffle and opinions that cannot be proven. If the point of Baha'i is to align itself with atheist university scholars in condemning what has been received from the early church, then I can accept that Baha'i is really apostasy from Christ wrapped up in Islamic philosophical religion. No-one had proved the gospels to be other than authentic.

Baha’is do not align itself with atheist university scholars in condemning what has been received from the early church. Regarding 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

But this seems to contradict what you said above:

"We believe they are an order of creation above any ordinary man."

Possibly Baha'is are a kind of Arian i.e. like Jehova's Witnesses who think Christ was a created being. Arianism is one of the most ancient and one of the worst heresies in Christianity. They are universally relegated to "cultic" status, just because Christ consistenty maintained he was not a created being.

What is said on these forums can become misconstrued. When I said Christ was another order of creation, I did not mean He was a created being. In short, Baha’is believe that the spirit of Christ has always existed in the spiritual world (heaven) and His spirit was sent from the heaven of the Will of God, then He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and became a Manifestation of God on earth. Christ is referred to as the Alpha and the Omega because He had no beginning and He will have no end – He has always existed and will continue to exist for all of eternity.

OK. But you're going to have a hard job of making converts from other than from muslims living in non-muslims lands or people who for some reason have apostatized from Christianity.

Again, Baha’is are not looking for converts. If people are attracted to the Faith they show an interest if we mention it and then we talk to them and answer any questions they might have. If not, we shake the dust off our feet as Jesus said.

Depends what you mean by "Trinity." There are a lot of definitions, ranging from the mere quality of divinity ascribed to the Father son and Holy Spirit, to a rigorous definition of "God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit" (which I take to be clearly non-scriptural) as subscribed to by the Council of Chalcedon and embodied in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions. Between these two extreme positions, there are many variations.

Thanks for explaining the historical basis og the Trinity. I agree that the Trinity doctrine is non-Biblical, and I am glad you realize that. Many Christians have simply accepted the doctrine without question. I used to post on a forum called The Holy Trinity and the forum owner got into all kinds of debates with those Christians who don’t believe the Trinity doctrine, he insisting it is biblically based.

The Baha’i Faith has a version of the Trinity, in case you are interested: 27: THE TRINITY

God has given you free choice, I agree,

The only true Christian doctrines were handed down by the apostles and by Christ himself. The Nicene creed was a democratic decision of the churches to preserve unity under the Emperor Constantine in response to the Arian threat.

I do not know what you mean by Christian doctrines that were handed down by the apostles and by Christ. Whenever I think of a doctrine I think if something created by men as at the Council of Nicaea, as opposed to the actual teachings in the NT.

I also do not know what you mean by “paved the way for Islam.” Islam came into being because Muhammad got a Revelation from God, just as Christianity came into being because Jesus received a Revelation from God, and just as the Baha’i Faith came into being because Baha’u’llah got a Revelation from God. Nothing Christians could have done would have stopped God from revealing Himself to Muhammad, not anymore than there was anything the Jews could do to stop Christianity from flourishing, because it was God’s Will.

“In the day of Christ, Annas and Caiaphas inflamed the Jewish people against Him and the learned doctors of Israel joined together to resist His Power. All sorts of calumnies were circulated against Him. The Scribes and Pharisees conspired to make the people believe Him to be a liar, an apostate, and a blasphemer. They spread these slanders throughout the whole Eastern world against Christ, and caused Him to be condemned to a shameful death!

In spite of all their efforts the Sun of Truth shone forth from the horizon. In every case the army of light vanquished the powers of darkness on the battlefield of the world, and the radiance of the Divine Teaching illumined the earth. Those who accepted the Teaching and worked for the Cause of God became luminous stars in the sky of humanity……

Regard the former times. Had the calumnies of Pharaoh any effect? He affirmed that Moses was a murderer, that he had slain a man and deserved to be executed! He also declared that Moses and Aaron were fomenters of discord, that they tried to destroy the religion of Egypt and therefore must be put to death. These words of Pharaoh were vainly spoken. The light of Moses shone. The radiance of the Law of God has encircled the world!

When the Pharisees said of Christ that He had broken the Sabbath Day, that He had defied the Law of Moses, that He had threatened to destroy the Temple and the Holy City of Jerusalem, and that He deserved to be crucified—We know that all these slanderous attacks had no result in hindering the spread of the Gospel!

The Sun of Christ shone brilliantly in the sky, and the breath of the Holy Spirit wafted over the whole earth!”

Abdul-Baha, Paris Talks

 

[Trailblazer]

All the prophecies? What do you mean "all the prophecies"?

I mean all the prophecies in the Bible.
The prophecies and how they were fulfilled are delineated in the book entitled Thief in the Night by William Sears.

 

[Trailblazer]

Doesn't Shoghi Effendi actually contradict you there? Or is it you contradicting them? Okay at least does not Shoghi Effendi admonish covenant breakers as sufferers of spiritual leprosy etc? Doesn't Baha say that anyone who questions the guardians or opposes them should be cast out of the congregation?

No, people can question the Baha'i Faith is they want to. It is ONLY when they break the Covenant that they are removed from membership, and this can only be determined by the Universal House of Justice (UHJ).

Covenant-breaking does not refer to attacks from non-Bahá'ís or former Baha'is. Rather, it is in reference to internal campaigns of opposition where the Covenant-breaker is seen as challenging the unity of the Bahá'í Faith, causing internal division, or by claiming or supporting an alternate succession of authority or administrative structure. The central purpose of the covenant is to prevent schism and dissension.[1] In a letter to an individual dated 23 March 1975, the Universal House of Justice wrote:

When a person declares his acceptance of Bahá'u'lláh as a Manifestation of God he becomes a party to the Covenant and accepts the totality of His Revelation. If he then turns round and attacks Bahá'u'lláh or the Central Institution of the Faith he violates the Covenant. If this happens every effort is made to help that person to see the illogicality and error of his actions, but if he persists he must, in accordance with the instructions of Bahá'u'lláh Himself, be shunned as a Covenant-breaker.

Covenant-breaker - Wikipedia​

 

[firedragon]

I mean all the prophecies in the Bible.
The prophecies and how they were fulfilled are delineated in the book entitled Thief in the Night by William Sears.

Read it extensively. Did you critic it or did you accept it blindly? Doesn't Abdul Baha tell you use your reason and investigate?

Also are you saying Sears lists every single prophecy in the whole Bible?

 

[firedragon]

No, people can question the Baha'i Faith is they want to. It is ONLY when they break the Covenant that they are removed from membership, and this can only be determined by the Universal House of Justice (UHJ).

Covenant-breaking does not refer to attacks from non-Bahá'ís or former Baha'is. Rather, it is in reference to internal campaigns of opposition where the Covenant-breaker is seen as challenging the unity of the Bahá'í Faith, causing internal division, or by claiming or supporting an alternate succession of authority or administrative structure. The central purpose of the covenant is to prevent schism and dissension.[1] In a letter to an individual dated 23 March 1975, the Universal House of Justice wrote:

When a person declares his acceptance of Bahá'u'lláh as a Manifestation of God he becomes a party to the Covenant and accepts the totality of His Revelation. If he then turns round and attacks Bahá'u'lláh or the Central Institution of the Faith he violates the Covenant. If this happens every effort is made to help that person to see the illogicality and error of his actions, but if he persists he must, in accordance with the instructions of Bahá'u'lláh Himself, be shunned as a Covenant-breaker.

Covenant-breaker - Wikipedia​

Oh they can question? So what you are saying is Bahaullah was wrong? Doesn't he say you should follow what he says blindly?

You are quoting preaching by UHJ, not scripture. Anyone can preach. Not valid for a person of other faiths. Oh but I forgot,
Even if someone criticizes Baha’ism with books and heavenly utterances, do not listen is what Bahaullah said right? So is that your stance?

 

[Trailblazer]

Read it extensively. Did you critic it or did you accept it blindly? Doesn't Abdul Baha tell you use your reason and investigate?

I did not base my belief in Baha'u'llah on fulfilled Bible prophecies because I was never a Christian.

I became a Baha'i long before I ever read Thief in the Night. The book was just more proof of what I already knew.

Why would I check the work of Sears? If Baha'u'llah fulfilled the prophecies the way Sears said He did that is verifiable history and geography.

Also are you saying Sears lists every single prophecy in the whole Bible?

I don't think Sears lists every single prophecy but there are enough of them to constitute evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

Oh they can question? So what you are saying is Bahaullah was wrong? Doesn't he say you should follow what he says blindly?

We do not follow what Baha'u'llah says blindly because we do not believe on blind faith. We investigate the claim of Baha'u'llah before we become Baha'is, just as Baha'u'llah said we should:

“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

You are quoting preaching by UHJ, not scripture. Anyone can preach. Not valid for a person of other faiths. Oh but I forgot,
Even if someone criticizes Baha’ism with books and heavenly utterances, do not listen is what Bahaullah said right? So is that your stance?

The UHJ does not preach anything. All they do is legislate on what Baha'u'llah has written.
No, that is not my stance. If someone criticizes the Baha'i Faith we should listen and determine if their criticism is valid.

 

[firedragon]

I did not base my belief in Baha'u'llah on fulfilled Bible prophecies because I was never a Christian.

I became a Baha'i long before I ever read Thief in the Night. The book was just more proof of what I already knew.

Why would I check the work of Sears? If Baha'u'llah fulfilled the prophecies the way Sears said He did that is verifiable history and geography.

I don't think Sears lists every single prophecy but there are enough of them to constitute evidence.

The problem is you preach your faith. I didn't ask about your faith.

 

[firedragon]

We do not follow what Baha'u'llah says blindly because we do not believe on blind faith. We investigate the claim of Baha'u'llah before we become Baha'is, just as Baha'u'llah said we should:

“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

The UHJ does not preach anything. All they do is legislate on what Baha'u'llah has written.
No, that is not my stance. If someone criticizes the Baha'i Faith we should listen and determine if their criticism is valid.

Thats more preaching. Your belief statements and the UHJ's belief statements.

 

[Trailblazer]

The problem is you preach your faith. I didn't ask about your faith.

That is not the truth. You did ask. I was talking to eik and you asked about something I said to him.
Go back and look, the proof of what I am saying is all posted on this forum.

Trailblazer said to eik: The fact that Baha'u'llah predicted many events that later came to pass is also icing on the cake.

firedragon said: All the prophecies? What do you mean "all the prophecies"?

I do not preach, I just have conversations and answer questions when asked.
You asked a question so I answered your question.

 

[Trailblazer]

Thats more preaching.

I was talking to H Finn, who posted to me: #99 H Finn, Thursday at 5:34 PM

Trailblazer said: One thing that initially attracted me to the Baha'i Faith is its all-inclusiveness. I could never believe in a religion that would exclude billions of people from heaven for all of eternity just because of their beliefs.

firedragon said: Doesn't Shoghi Effendi actually contradict you there? Or is it you contradicting them? Okay at least does not Shoghi Effendi admonish covenant breakers as sufferers of spiritual leprosy etc? Doesn't Baha say that anyone who questions the guardians or opposes them should be cast out of the congregation?
#105 firedragon, Today at 12:18 AM

So you were the one who asked me a question out of the blue, and I answered it. That is by no means preaching.
I do not preach and I will not be accused of it, because it is unjust to accuse people falsely.

Your belief statements and the UHJ's belief statements.

No, it was just information regarding what you were asking me about.

 

[firedragon]

I was talking to H Finn, who posted to me: #99 H Finn, Thursday at 5:34 PM

Trailblazer said: One thing that initially attracted me to the Baha'i Faith is its all-inclusiveness. I could never believe in a religion that would exclude billions of people from heaven for all of eternity just because of their beliefs.

firedragon said: Doesn't Shoghi Effendi actually contradict you there? Or is it you contradicting them? Okay at least does not Shoghi Effendi admonish covenant breakers as sufferers of spiritual leprosy etc? Doesn't Baha say that anyone who questions the guardians or opposes them should be cast out of the congregation?
#105 firedragon, Today at 12:18 AM

So you were the one who asked me a question out of the blue, and I answered it. That is by no means preaching.
I do not preach and I will not be accused of it, because it is unjust to accuse people falsely.

No, it was just information regarding what you were asking me about.

Preaching is when you make belief statements like in a mosque or a temple. When someone asks a question, you cut and paste a faith statement of the UHJ. Thats preaching. You believe the UHJ is divine and for you it maybe equivalent to Gods word, but to others its not. Hope you understand.

I opened a thread once to understand the Bahai faith. When I wish to understand the Bahai faith, preaching is accepted in order to understand that faith. Anything is accepted. But when a question is asked, stating beliefs is not valid. It only calls for others to understand that particular response as "blind faith".

Cheers,.

 

[Trailblazer]

Preaching is when you make belief statements like in a mosque or a temple. When someone asks a question, you cut and paste a faith statement of the UHJ. Thats preaching. You believe the UHJ is divine and for you it maybe equivalent to Gods word, but to others its not. Hope you understand.

I opened a thread once to understand the Bahai faith. When I wish to understand the Bahai faith, preaching is accepted in order to understand that faith. Anything is accepted. But when a question is asked, stating beliefs is not valid. It only calls for others to understand that particular response as "blind faith".

Cheers,.

When someone asks me a question, and I cut and paste information from Wikipedia about the UHJ that is how I answer their question, by providing accurate information. That is not preaching by any definition of the word.

Preaching: the delivery of a sermon or religious address to an assembled group of people, typically in church.
preaching mean - Google Search

I believe the UHJ has certain authority vested in it by Baha'u'llah but I do not believe it is in any way equivalent to Gods word. I have no expectation that others believe it carries any authority because they are not Baha'is. I hope you understand.

I was not stating beliefs. I was stating information about my beliefs. I was also stating facts about the UHJ.

 

[firedragon]

When someone asks me a question, and I cut and paste information from Wikipedia about the UHJ that is how I answer their question, by providing accurate information. That is not preaching by any definition of the word.

Preaching: the delivery of a sermon or religious address to an assembled group of people, typically in church.
preaching mean - Google Search

I believe the UHJ has certain authority vested in it by Baha'u'llah but I do not believe it is in any way equivalent to Gods word. I have no expectation that others believe it carries any authority because they are not Baha'is. I hope you understand.

I was not stating beliefs. I was stating information about my beliefs. I was also stating facts about the UHJ.

Accurate information is not a faith statement.

 

[Trailblazer]

Accurate information is not a faith statement.

I do not make faith statements. I present accurate information about what I believe.