Does the Bahai' religion...

[jackcv]

Regarding this thread "Does the Baha'i religion..." it was begun in January 2015 by "simplegifts" and "revived" by jackcv on November 18th... In terms of how the latest discussion relates to the Baha'i Faith I felt moved to post here that Baha'is do accept the birth of Jesus as miraculous... and other than the statements of the Bible and the Qur'an on the matter we have nothing more to add. As to the Bible we generally accept that it contains spiritual truth. Rather than a literal word to word perspective we accept that much of it is allegorical and symbolic. I hope this clarifies where Baha'is stand on some of the points discussed more recently on this thread.

The Quran refers to Mary as a virgin. I suppose you translate that as simply "young girl", which is inaccurate. There were, I am sure, other terms for loose young girls, both in Israel and Arabia, just as there are where you live today. And the differentiation was much more important to people then than it is now in the countries where most posters to this site live.

 

[LoAmmi]

You are certainly right: This Was Special.

Nothing in the Tanach says that the Messiah would be able to not be David's direct heir.

But, this goes along with what I said. Christians want me to just accept that Jesus is the exception to all the rules. That's fine, I get where you are coming from. But I don't have to do it.

 

[LoAmmi]

The Dead Sea Scrolls In English, Vermes, 4th edition, 1995, pg xxxiii

I'll see if I can check it out.

 

[Arthra]

The Quran refers to Mary as a virgin. I suppose you translate that as simply "young girl", which is inaccurate. There were, I am sure, other terms for loose young girls, both in Israel and Arabia, just as there are where you live today. And the differentiation was much more important to people then than it is now in the countries where most posters to this site live.

Thanks for your post... The Baha'i view regarding the birth of Jesus Christ is as follows:

"First regarding the birth of Jesus Christ. In the 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)

Regarding Mary the Qur'an has:

42 And when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah hath chosen thee and made thee pure, and hath preferred thee above (all) the women of creation.

(The Qur'an (Pickthall tr), Sura 3 - The Family Of Imran)

 

[dcalling]

You picked a very special circumstance. Is that what happened with Joseph? Was Joseph the brother of Jesus's father who died before Mary had a child? Brothers would be of the same tribe and lineage as well. This was, as I said, special.

You can say it is a very special circumstance (or you can say not to eat Pork is also very special), but the fact is it is the Law of God. I remember when I read Deuteronomy 25:5, my first thought was, even though through our eyes and minds the dead brother's line is broken, it is not in the eyes of God, and if God ruled in that instance that the line is not broken, then it is not broken.

See Matthew 3:9, "And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham", and indeed, Adam is just dirt if not for God's spirit

 

[LoAmmi]

You can say it is a very special circumstance (or you can say not to eat Pork is also very special), but the fact is it is the Law of God. I remember when I read Deuteronomy 25:5, my first thought was, even though through our eyes and minds the dead brother's line is broken, it is not in the eyes of God, and if God ruled in that instance that the line is not broken, then it is not broken.

See Matthew 3:9, "And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham", and indeed, Adam is just dirt if not for God's spirit

That's fine. But if there was no brother or if that brother was married, this didn't take place. It's a specific circumstance covering one event. It isn't where adoption carry on a family line. Show me that and we'll talk.

 

[dcalling]

That's fine. But if there was no brother or if that brother was married, this didn't take place. It's a specific circumstance covering one event. It isn't where adoption carry on a family line. Show me that and we'll talk.

It doesn't even needs to be brothers. See Book of Ruth, Naomi can have a son through his daughter in law and a relative.

But the primary message is, if God so wishes, God can raise up children for Abraham out of stones.

 

[LoAmmi]

It doesn't even needs to be brothers. See Book of Ruth, Naomi can have a son through his daughter in law and a relative.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here.

But the primary message is, if God so wishes, God can raise up children for Abraham out of stones.

So the New Testament claims.

 

[light upon light]

The Quran refers to Mary as a virgin. I suppose you translate that as simply "young girl", which is inaccurate. There were, I am sure, other terms for loose young girls, both in Israel and Arabia, just as there are where you live today. And the differentiation was much more important to people then than it is now in the countries where most posters to this site live.

"With regard to your question concerning the Virgin Birth of Jesus; on this point, as on several others, the Bahá'í teachings are in full agreement with the doctrines of the Catholic Church. In the Kitáb-i-Iqán (Book of Certitude) page 56, and in a few other Tablets still unpublished, Bahá'u'lláh confirms, however indirectly, the Catholic conception of the Virgin Birth. Also `Abdu'l-Baha in `Some Answered Questions', Chap. 12, page 73, explicitly states that Christ found existence through the spirit of God which statement necessarily implies, when reviewed in the light of the text, that Jesus was not the son of Joseph."

- Shoghi Effendi, Directives from the Guardian

 

[jackcv]

Nothing in the Tanach says that the Messiah would be able to not be David's direct heir.

That's a bit convoluted, but probably true, LoAmmi. Doesn't mean much, though. You've already made the point more than once that the Tanach says almost nothing about the Messiah at all.

But, this goes along with what I said. Christians want me to just accept that Jesus is the exception to all the rules. That's fine, I get where you are coming from. But I don't have to do it.

Only an elect few have to do the things that they really do not want to do. Those who aspire to be like and with Moses, Abraham, Noah, Daniel and his 3 noble friends, etc.

There are plenty of beautiful mansions for those who are happy to be God's little lambs forever. That's honorable, too. If not for them, who would the shepherds protect?

Still, when it comes to making exceptions, one of the surprising things I have learned from you about Jewish theology is how many common English words you have simply defined in exceptional ways to allow your doctrines to be verbally rationalized. Unfortunately, every profession and religious sect has it's particular "learned language", or jargon, that makes discussing specialized subjects more efficient among its own learned members. Medicine does it, Mathematics and the sciences do it, and each religious sect seems to define the basic terms found in the scriptures differently. You should see the discussion going on in another CF blog about the word Trinity. I was arguing on one side, another faithful Mormon on the other, each of us I think with Protestant and Catholic allies.

In the scriptures, exceptions are the rule among the exemplary elect. I think we should all be striving to be exemplary exceptions to today's rules, don't you?

 

[LoAmmi]

Still, when it comes to making exceptions, one of the surprising things I have learned from you about Jewish theology is how many common English words you have simply defined in exceptional ways to allow your doctrines to be verbally rationalized.

Examples needed, please.

 

[jackcv]

My apologies, Arthra. I read "Baha'is do accept the birth of Jesus as miraculous" and understood "...do not accept..." it. Just looking for trouble where there isn't any, I guess.

Was it Goethe's who said, One can only see what one already knows. (Man seht nur das, was man weiss.) Might have been Schweitzer, but my blunder brought it to mind somehow.

I have only had one solid gospel discussion with a member of your faith, about 30 years ago. What I came away with was a feeling that Baha'is are a credit to humanity, intent on being part of the solution rather than part of the problem. The few subsequent contacts I've had with you have solidified my first impressions.

Thanks for all you do.

(That goes for you, too, LoAmmi, and Smaneck, and several others here.)

 

[jackcv]

Examples needed, please.

That was just looking back at our several conversations, LoAmmi. I'm not going down that fork in the road right now.

 

[LoAmmi]

That was just looking back at our several conversations, LoAmmi. I'm not going down that fork in the road right now.

I'm sorry, it sounds like I'm being accused of misusing language or being deceptive in order to make things gel with my religion. If that's the case, I insist you offer evidence or withdraw that comment.

 

[jackcv]

LoAmmi, my point is that you make too much of exceptions. God's word is full of them, and the highest caliber people make them. HaShem himself, for example. Thou shalt not kill, but...

Adam, you can only eat fruits and veggies, but...Noah, you and yours can eat just about anything, but...you Jews, no pork or shrimp, but...you Mormons, pork and shrimp (and I guess SUGAR) are OK, but no coffee, tea, tobacco or recreational pharmaceuticals, and so on.

And we will know what God wants us to do today by what he told prophets 2,000 years ago. He just stopped talking to His children. Whoa! So I certainly agree with you that there are exceptions too big to swallow, and too bitter to want to try.

 

[LoAmmi]

I think I read what you said entirely wrong. Forgive me. I take back my previous comment and see that you meant my faith uses words in unique way that others do not. I agree with that.

 

[jackcv]

I'm sorry, it sounds like I'm being accused of misusing language or being deceptive in order to make things gel with my religion. If that's the case, I insist you offer evidence or withdraw that comment.

You pulled that out of right field - way out of context. Go back and read the whole post.

 

[LoAmmi]

And we will know what God wants us to do today by what he told prophets 2,000 years ago. He just stopped talking to His children. Whoa! So I certainly agree with you that there are exceptions too big to swallow, and too bitter to want to try.

I think it would be a mistake for people to think that Judaism believes He stopped talking to us. Rather, we believed we received no more Prophets. Prophet is a special role.

 

[jackcv]

You pulled that out of right field - way out of context. Go back and read the whole post.

It's forgotten. Your post came in just after mine here went out. No problem at all on my end.

 

[LoAmmi]

It's forgotten. Your post came in just after mine here went out. No problem at all on my end.

Sometimes reading and responding at 1:15 AM isn't the best idea in the world.