A Baha'i's view of atonement

[Gxg (G²)]

I did not know your grandmother was a Baha'i!

Surprised - I was assuming you were aware of it....seeing how it was mentioned before in another discussion on the issue you were involved in when discussing Baha'i belief ( http://www.christianforums.com/t7754656-2/#post63477040 ) in regards to economics. My grandmother still associates with Baha'i circles to my knowledge, even though she believes Christ is the Messiah/Savior of mankind and God in the Flesh. And with Islam, she's with the branch holding to the ideology that Isa is the Messiah of all mankind.

Some of this is essentially a matter of reflection of those who are Muslim Background Believers (MBB). For more, one can go online to Articles about the Insider Movement in Christian Missions ....or here or here and here to An Interview with an Imam - Secret Believers - Podbean where Al Janssen talks with a MBB from Indonesia. ..with the Imam sharing his heart on how he came to know the Messiah and how he now shares Christ/Isa with other Muslims.

I would put it very never differently. Islam places a great deal of emphasis on human dignity. Hence God is depicted as 'concealing' our sins, something I think would be a hard thing for a Christian to understand. Likewise Baha'u'llah says:

O COMPANION OF MY THRONE! Hear no evil, and see no evil, abase not thyself, neither sigh and weep. Speak no evil, that thou mayest not hear it spoken unto thee, and magnify not the faults of others that thine own faults may not appear great; and wish not the abasement of anyone, that thine own abasement be not exposed.

or

O SON OF SPIRIT! I created thee rich, why dost thou bring thyself down to poverty? Noble I made thee, wherewith dost thou abase thyself? Out of the essence of knowledge I gave thee being, why seekest thou enlightenment from anyone beside Me? Out of the clay of love I molded thee, how dost thou busy thyself with another? Turn thy sight unto thyself, that thou mayest find Me standing within thee, mighty, powerful and self-subsisting.

The concept of God covering issues goes back to the concept of the Lord honoring others in the sense of not placing sin in the face of others at multiple points. Moreover, as said before, Eastern Christianity has always placed a HIGH status on the Dignity of mankind - one of the reasons Christ came into the world when it came to redeeming the world by choosing to live in it and aid those who are struggling.

God never shows us ALL of the sins we commit daily or the sins we've all committed - as no one would be able to handle it......

And the same concept was shown throughout the OT when it came to GOD working with others who had MANY issues within their lives which were sin and yet the Lord only later confirmed it to future generations - for He understood men at certain times were never ready to handle seeing the fullness of all things he'd see as a sin or a problem and thus he worked with them where they were at. From Jacob/his two wives and the things that happened with them in favoritism tearing up his family ( ) to Judah (as it concerns the Tamar incident in Genesis 38 when sleeping with his daughter disguised as a prostitute ) to Levi/Simeon being cursed by their father for being violent to avenge the rape of their sister - a daughter of Leah whom Jacob SHOULD have defended and not given to people he wasn't meant to be in covenant with ( ) and yet still being blessed by the Lord later.

As said before elsewhere with the sins being covered dynamic, we can see this with the formation of the Torah. One does not need to look at the actions of what would be sin according to ADDITIONAL LAW through Moses, nor even our modern views of right and wrong. A reason for considering this is because there was discrepancy between the common views (interpretations) concerning Abraham and Sarah, and statements made about them in scripture itself. Without going into detail concerning various scripture and what brought me to this APPROACH to Genesis, I will sum it up instead. I believe Genesis is a book showing "faith", "The law of faith", as it operated in a certain time in history, the beginning. What this approach does is leaves off the normative ideas of cause and effect. Namely, things we perceive as sin, being the cause of "problems" later on. Such is the case with Sarai, Abraham, and Hagar. Many look at all that they perceive as "problems" being the result of not having faith. Yet many only see it as sin because they find polygamy repugnant. But nowhere is polygamy a sin in scripture. And nowhere does scripture say Sarai, or Abram acted in faithlessness. Scripture says they were faithful according to Hebrews 11.

The actions we clearly find "WRONG", Somehow are made acceptable if we do not acknowledge them as binding on Abraham etc. But, ALL ACCEPT JUST THAT WHEN ABRAHAM OFFERED ISAAC UP AS A HUMAN SACRIFICE. We do not fear, that somehow we today need to think of this as anything than what it was. DISTINCT for its own purpose, distinct for its own time, distinct for an idea. You certainly may disagree with this approach, and it may even be wrong. But so far I have not found it to be so. Instead of looking for "SIN" in Genesis, I look for faith in the actions of these individuals. For sin is not reckoned to them, and faith was. Which faith there was no law against. So what do I do with LYING, etc? The same thing you all do with HUMAN SACRIFICE. What was Gods purpose in it, in a DISTINCT TIME, WITH DISTINCT INDIVIDUALS, FOR A DISTINCT PURPOSE?


There are multiple other examples of this.... polygamy BEING one of them. As it concerns the subject of polygamy, its error for others trying to say others were "wrong" for condoning it. It was a cultural practice of the time, as it still is in some nations like West Africa for example. Even in the time of the Mosaic Law, it was not explicitly condemned except in the case of those who were kings...and even that had exceptions at times. God made rules for polygamy just as he did with divorce, as seen in Deuteronomy 21:14-16. ..and others with the Law still did so ( Judges 8:29-31 , 1 Samuel 1:1-3 , 1 Samuel 25:42-44 , 1 Samuel 27:2-4 , 1 Samuel 30:4-6, 2 Samuel 2:1-3, 2 Samuel 12:7-9 , 2 Samuel 19:4-6 , 1 Chronicles 4:4-6, 1 Chronicles 14:2-4 , 2 Chronicles 13:20-22 , 2 Chronicles 24:1-4, etc ). Though Jesus says that God's best/ideal was ONE spouse (Matthew 19:1-14) as Genesis 1, he still made clear God allowed it to occur.

Another example would be prostitution. Scripture RECORDS events that may not always be an indication of something being right. That'd be like one reading of what happened with Judah marrying the daughter of a Canaanite man in Genesis 38:1-2 was "God's Best" since God still blessed his inheritance/the fruit of his loins and tribe----never mind that there was already NUMEROUS instances where the Canaanites were not favored by the patriarchs and told to be AVOIDED in marriage (Genesis 24:1-14, Genesis 26:34, Genesis 28:1-3, Genesis 28:6-9, etc). For all of the times where God told His people to avoid mixture with the Canaanites, its interesting enough already how the very Sons of Judah were mixed in with that already....and the line continued with them in it (I Chronicles 2:3-

It is from here that the story of Judah/Tamar in Genesis 38 (Genesis 38:1-20) is relevant...as it concerns assuming that the methods Tamar used to gain a son through her father-in-law and God blessing the birth was all justified. Indeed, there's a law in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 about marrying a widow in the family...with the purpose intended to ensure that a childless widow would have a son who would recieve her late husband's inheritance and who, in turn, would care for her. Judah's sons were killed by the Lord for wickedness....and at one point, Judah would not give up his son to Tamar to have children. Because Judah's son (Tamar's husband) had no children, there was no family line through which the inheritance and the blessing of the covenant could continue. Judah lacked SUBSTANTIAL integrity when examining how he went to prostitutes....and then tried to discuss how his daughter was in "sin" for showing up pregnant. Its amazing seeing how Judah was so open about his relations with a prostitute, yet ready to execute his daughter-in-law for being one (Leviticus 21:9, Deuteronomy 22:21-22). Some of the dynamics are due to culture, of course. For in the land of Canaan, a woman's most important function was bearing children who would perpetuate the family line. To ensure that children belonged to the husband, the bride was expected to be a virgin and the wife was expected to have relations only with him. If a wife committed adultery, she could be executed. Some women, however, did not belong to families. They might be shrine prostitutes supported by offerings or common prostitutes supported by the men who used their servuces. Their children were nobody's heirs...and men who hired them adulterated nobdy bloodlines.

Judah saw no harm in hiring a prostitute for a night....but he was ready to execute Tamar because if she was pregnant as a result of prostitution, his grandchild would not be part of his family line. Sadly, the question of sexual immorality never entered Judah's mind as his concern was for keeping his inheritance in the family. ...

Ironically, it was TAMAR, not Judah, who acted to provide him with legal heirs. By seducing him, she acted more in the spirit of the law than he did when he refused to send his third son to her. The story in no way winks at prostitution since throughout scripture, prostitution is condemned as a serious sin. But it does show how even mistakes can be utilized of the Lord as apart of his plan. Incidently, Judah and TAMAR are listed as direct descendants of Jesus Christ (Matthew 1:1-6).

I don't think that is your biggest problem. Most Muslims, like myself, do not believe that God requires a blood sacrifice in order to forgive.

Most Christians - especially in the Eastern world - have never said God needed a blood sacrifice in order to forgive, as was noted in the post I shared earlier when it came to really understanding the Christian worldview as the early church advocated when it came to seeing man in need of healing....and the atonement as being done in order to show mankind how to live - and free him from the power of the Devil, who mankind couldn't escape in his own power.

The guilt of Adam's sin is not imputed, but the effects of being born in a state of spiritual separation from God (the degree of which can be debated) are present. Yes, they are born sinners, but no, they are guilty of committing a sin that would send them to Hell. ...and understandingAncestral Sin vs. Original Sin--and the essay details the vast divergence between western/Scholastic theology and Orthodox Patristic theology with regard to the sin of Adam.

Others even in the Evangelical world have noted this dynamic - such as Dr. Michael Heisner, more in The Naked Bible » Election, Salvation, Unbelief, and Eternal Security

With regards to the Incarnation and its significance, others in the Christian world who note how Christ's death was beyond a matter of securing forgiveness are ones such as N.T Wright. His book is very excellent on the matter...

• The Rapture Fallacy « The Centrality and Supremacy of Jesus Christ
• Rapture Theology: History & Influence « The Centrality and Supremacy of Jesus Christ

One of the best books I think that addresses the issue of the Rapture is by N.T Wright called Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church.

​

Wright challenges the notion of “going to heaven when you die” and spending an eternity in some bodiless future. For if this was the case, Wright says, “then what’s the fuss about putting things right in the present world?” - and Christ showed in his death and life how man was meant to live...


In regard to the Incarnation/Heaven on Earth, this is what N.T Wright said in interview

N.T. Wright on Heaven & Rapture Theology - YouTube N.T. Wright on Heaven & Rapture Theology - YouTube ).


"N.T. Wright - Death, Resurrection, and Afterlife"( N.T. Wright - Death, Resurrection, and Afterlife - YouTube )

"Rethinking Life After Death (NT Wright) ( Rethinking Life After Death (NT Wright) - YouTube )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNKvejq02-s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PP8dG6Qr3LE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HD2jeJiblkA

• Surprised by Hope - N. T. Wright | Book Review | 21st Century Reformation

• "Surprised by hope" by Tom Wright - a review - BeThinking.Org" ( http://www.bethinking.org/bible-jesus/surprised-by-hope-by-tom-wright-a-review.pdf )

 

[Gxg (G²)]

.But as far as recognizing their individual and collective sinfullness, there is significant divide between Sunnis and Shi'ites on this issue. Sunnis tend to be triumphalistic, assuming that if you are doing the right thing God will bless your affairs and make you successful. Consequently the conquests of Islam are evidences of its validity. Shi'ites, on the other hand, assume that if you are doing the right thing, following the right religion you will be the most persecuted. They believe that the martyrdom of the Imam Husayn demonstrated the depths of sinfulness to which Muslim community had fallen and that identifying with his suffering was redemptive.

Indeed....

I don't think this so much has to do with taking sin lightly in comparison with say, ritual purity. Let me speak to the situation in Iran, since these are the Muslims I know the best. Persian etiquette, or ta'aruf, involves the concealment and control of one's personal feelings or opinions in service of smooth public interactions. At times this may amount to no more than refusing refreshments when initially offered no matter how hungry the person may be; at other times it involves much more complex social interactions where relative status is determined. Iranians often tend to reserve access to their inner self to a small circle of intimates. Among these persons, interactions ought to be pure and constant, maintaining a spiritual integrity. With those outside that circle one behaves with reserve and formality, concealing one's true intentions. Westerners often interpret this behavior as hypocritical. When ta'aruf is combined with a market place shrewdness, zerangi, which is often marked by a lack of social responsibility, this negative impression is further reinforced. Iranians deem such behavior as courteous, prudent, and necessary when dealing with an uncertain and treacherous world. Far from being cynical and insincere, they see themselves as simply conducting themselves with wisdom.

Much of this is really no different than what occurred in the time of Abraham...

For in Genesis 23:1-16, there was an exchange where Abraham was speaking to one of the Hittites for the sake of land gain on behalf of his wife. Abraham was in a foreign land looking for a place to bury his wife and offered to help him because he was a "mighty prince," and they respected him. As a resident alien, Abraham owns no land to bury the dead and and the Hittites offer him the use of the choicest of burial places. Ephron the Hittite and Abraham engage in an elaborate and deferential dialogue that results in the sale of the cave and field for an exorbitant price that Abraham willingly pays - and Ephron's initial offer to give it as a gift is a rhetorical gesture of honor and generosity, which Abraham knows not to take seriously and which Ephron undermines with his inflated price. The polite interchange between Abraham and Ephron involved Ephron making an offer to get the land at no charge and Abraham turning him down to get a full price - and both men knew what was going on as they went through the bargaining process. If Abraham had accepted the land as a gift when it was offered, he would have insulted Ephron, who then would have rescinded his offer.

Many Middle Eastern shopkeepers follow this ritual with their customers today - the dynamic of honor and shame being ever present - and that is not a dynamic of lying which I am speaking of. The same goes for saving face in many situations, which is also done in many circumstances where others don't show their true feelings all at once. What I'm speaking of are the many cases Muslims have noted it's permissible to lie about one's intentions in order to deceive them to get their desired end - something other Muslims have noted to be problematic as well as Christians.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

That is, of course, the essence of Anselm's argument. I'm just not sure I buy it. I very much believe that God is free to forgive sins in whatever manner He wishes.


.

Forgiveness of sins can occur however God wishes - although throughout scripture, even in the sacrificial system, blood sacrifices were required in order to show atonement. There were different kinds of sacrifices of course - but for sin, blood was the requirement for the sake of atonement since life was in the Blood (as noted in Genesis 9 and other places) and sin had a cost/consequence in order to right the wrong.

Anslem was never the main definition of how the Atonement occurred in Christianity and it'd not be accurate to say such as if Christianity is mostly defined by it - that is not what the early church stated. However, if focusing on him, as said before with Anselm's views, According to Anselm, "Nothing can be added to or taken from the honor of God. For this honor which belongs to him is in no way subject to injury or change...And [the sinner] disturbs the order and beauty of the universe, as relates to himself, although he cannot injure nor tarnish the power and majesty of God...It is then plain that no one can honor or dishonor God, as he is in himself; but the creature, as far as he is concerned, appears to do this when he submits or opposes his will to the will of God." Again, this is an objective fact since the idea that God can be dishonored is an obvious anthropomorphism -- the Bible does that a lot, in trying to present God in a way we can understand Him according to our limited capacity as creatures. Anselm does not actually teach that God Himself somehow loses honor or has honor robbed from Him in any way....

But in helping us to see who He is and the cost disobeying Him has on our on lives, he has to give real life illustrations.

That I find more easier to grasp. It seems to me that what the whole Suffering Servant motif attempts to express is that God suffers with and for us.

Correct - God feels the nature of what happens in His own creation.

it's unfornate enough people often speak on them flippantly or assume the Lord literally doens't take such matters deeply seriously. For if Jesus wept at the sheer emotion of the moment when seeing Mary and Martha sorrowful over Lazarus (as noted in John 11:34-36 & John 11 ) and was deeply moved in spirit and troubled (John 11:32-34 )- or note to his own (when it came to his impending death) that “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me." (Matthew 26:37-39 /Mark 14:33-35 ) .....and that Jesus knew what it meant to be angry (Mark 3:4-6 / Mark 3 )and full of Joy (Luke 10:20-22 Luke 10 ) the scriptures noting how the Messiah was " a man of suffering, and familiar with pain" ( Isaiah 53:3 ).....it is a pity that so many forget where the early Jewish culture of believers never lost sight of the fact the Messiah perfectly reflected what the Father feels...

Of course, for many, it's already a struggle for them to deal with the fact that Yeshua reflected the Father flawlessly - but that's something the early body of believers had to contend with as well (expressed best with Binitarianism ...specifically [URL="http://youtu.be/T2WvZ0AcXi4"]Binitarian Monotheism and Jewish Binitarianism since that was indeed[/URL] a very prevalent view within the early church and Messianic Jews had to deal with the issue...some of this discussed before - such as here, here and here / here ).

But indeed, it's unfortunate when people try to disconnect Yeshua from the Father as if He (in his expressions of emotions) was not reflecting what the Lord felt. Saw it often with many parts of the Church -

John 14:9
Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
John 14:8-10 / John 14

Colossians 1:15
[ The Supremacy of the Son of God ] The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
Colossians 1:14-16 /Colossians 1

Hebrews 1 Hebrews 1:5


God’s Final Word: His Son

1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.

​

Where many get themselves in inconsistency with the early Jewish Church - if constantly arguing on anthromorphological concepts being the solution - is that God has ultimately shown us the reality of His relationship through Yeshua - and He wasn’t just an anthropomorphism. For he is us is the “image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15) and “the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His being” (Hebrews 1).

<B>

Hebrews 4:14-16
​

</B>

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin. Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.”
​

​

As it is, the author of Hebrews and/or the audience would have been familiar with Greek philosophy and Hebrews 4:14-16 seems to be a rejection of the divine not being able to feel (ie. Epicurus) - for in fact the very temptation of Christ allows Him to empathize, unlike the gods of Greek Philosophy which were deemed to be BEYOND human emotion....and it is PRECISELY because of this Divine empathy that we can “approach God’s throne of grace with confidence.” It seems logical to note that God is passable - that He feels pain not just by His own deliberate decisions, but also by the actions of His created children.

Unlike others such as John Calvin and differing theologians, I believe God is certainly sorrowful and sad, that He does grieve when we sin. We can also come to God in prayer truly as a child to a loving Father - not just in metaphorical language but in the reality of a relationship. For we have a God who understands, emotionally and in experience, what it means to be tempted and a Great High Priest that empathizes with us. ...as Hebrews 4:16 notes “Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.”

I think the issue lies in how we put those scriptural pieces together. Where exactly do you find a verse which states that Jesus death was for the purpose of satisfying Divine Justice?

Plenty..

Start with Romans 5, Romans 6, Romans 3 and Acts 13 for starters.

According to the New Testament, forgiveness requires the sacrifice of a substitute: “The law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Heb. 9:22, NIV). Dr. Michael Brown correctly concludes, “The very reason God gave for calling his people out of Egypt was to offer sacrifices to him.”...and he adds “A careful study of the Five Books of Moses indicates that more chapters are devoted to the subject of sacrifices and offerings than to the subjects of Sabbath observance, high holy days, idolatry, adultery, murder, and theft combined.”8 Indeed, Moses explicitly states that the blood offering was necessary to cover or atone for sins (Lev. 17:11).

For sacrifice was never optional. When the Angel of Death destroyed the firstborn from the land of Egypt, he passed over and spared those Israelite homes that had the blood of the offering on them (Exod. 12:23). Any firstborn without the blood on his doorposts would have been killed. Blood was also required to cover all the sins of Israel (Lev. 16:21–22) in accordance with the New Testament (Heb. 9:22). And this is why what Christ did in His blood sacrifice was significant..

Jesus told His fellow Jews that if they knew the Father, they would know Him also, and those who rejected Him rejected the Father as well (see Luke 10:16; John 5:36-47; cf. also 9:39-41). In keeping with this, John wrote that “he who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life,” and that “no one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also” (1 John 5:12; 2:23). Peter plainly stated to the Sanhedrin, the Jewish governing body, “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12—Paul too made himself clear when his people rejected the message of the Messiah: “We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles” (Acts 13:46; this is basically how Acts ends; see Acts 28:16-31). That’s why Paul had “great sorrow and unceasing anguish” in his heart: so many of his people were not saved (see Romans 9:2), including those whom he said were “zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge” (Romans 10:2). In fact, it was for those very people that he prayed (see Romans 10:1), “Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness” (Romans 10:3).

And Jesus made it clear that He was the fulfillment of the Torah and Prophets (see Matthew 5:17-19), while the disciples recognized Him to be the one of whom Moses and the prophets spoke (see John 1:45; Acts 3:24-26). After His resurrection, the Lord said to His disciples, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44), commissioning them to preach “repentance and forgiveness of sins . . . in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem” (Luke 24:47).

Where does the Bible indicate this was the reason God gave Adam skins to wear?

The allusion is discussed more in the Early Church when it comes to animal sacrifices and their purposes.

But not all sacrifices in the Bible were sin offerings. And I'm not sure that the word "redemption" is used for any of them. Can you give me some examples?

Again, not all sacrifices were sin offerings - but that isn't the same as showing that there were not sacrifices mentioned to be for sin....nor what Jesus talked about when it came to speaking of His death.

Thanks for jumping in here. Your contributions are always appreciated

Not a problem and thanks for starting the discussion...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

not all sacrifices in the Bible were sin offerings. And I'm not sure that the word "redemption" is used for any of them. Can you give me some examples?
.

Concerning the issue, With Adam, there does seem to be a concept of previews in the actions he does - things mentioned in the Mosaic - and what we do now in the New Covenant.

Sacrifices immediately come to mind...for all sacrifices were meant to point to Christ as the ultimate sacrifice... something the Early Church noted repeatedly when pointing out (according to the Apostles) the importance of the Blood of Christ being shed (more shared elsewhere).

Romans 3:25
God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished&#8212;
Romans 3:24-26 /Romans 3

Hebrews 2:17
For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.
Hebrews 2:16-18

​

With sacrifices, it seems that the means by which they occurred within the OT do not apply in the same way as they do in the New Covenant. The sacrifices of the Lord are now our own bodies----whereas the animal sacrifices only pointed to what Christ was going to do and what it is that He desires of us.

Hebrews 13:16
And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased.
Hebrews 13:15-17

1 Peter 2:5

The Living Stone and a Chosen People

4 As you come to him, the living Stone&#8212;rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him&#8212; 5you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
1 Peter 2:4-6

Romans 12:1
[ A Living Sacrifice ] Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God&#8217;s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God&#8212;this is your true and proper worship.


​

One would be in error, IMHO, saying that any kind of animal sacrifice (if done in a memorial of what the Lord had done) had to be done in the manner that the Mosaic Law outlined since that era has ended....and it was transformed.

On the part concerning burnt offerings/sacrifices, Jesus noted this to a degree during his earthly ministry. For why else did Jesus note in HIS OWN Time (Matthew 9:9-13, Mark 2:13-17, Luke 5:27-32) when it came to his quoting what the scriptures say on Sacrifices in Psalm 51:16-19...in line with I Samuel 15:22-23..when it came His making clear that what God desired was Mercy and NOT Sacrifice? Christ was very radical to choose someone such as Matthew the Tax Collector as one of his disciples....seeing how well known they were for being corrupt/wild in their living....and when Jesus visited Matthew, at the cost of making connections, Jesus hurt his own reputation at first. The Pharisees tried to question Christ by saying he could never be a righteous man by choosing to associate with such immoral people....and yet, Jesus made clear that they were off since they were more concerned with their own OUTER appearance of holiness than with helping people, with criticism than encouraging, with outward respectability than practical help.

Jesus made clear that God was concerned for all people --including sinful and hurting ones (counter to how many of the Jews often acted when making sacrifices and yet mistreating Gentiles)....and Jesus made clear that God was more concerned with the Heart. More than outward appearance, God wanted inward REPENTENCE. Its the reason why Jesus quoted Psalm 51:16-17 when it came to the Psalmists ---in a time of GREAT SIN---made clear that the expression of a sacrifice didn't matter if the heart was not contrite and broken.

Jesus also made certain that he quoted Hosea 6:6 --in line with what the Prophet Isaiah said to Israel in Isaiah 1:1---that sacrifces alone were never God's heart since God desired MERCY and not sacrifice. The prophet Hosea began his ministry during the end of the prosperous but morally declining reigh of Jeroboan II of Israel---prophesing until shortly after the fall of Samaria in 722 B.C (II Kings 17). His role was to show the northern kingdom how unfaithful they had been to God, their "husband" and "provider" and had married themselves to Baal and the gods of Cananna.

The way the people made sacrifices to false gods and tried to appease God with more sacrifices to him would be like a man finding out his wife had an affair---and then having the wife try to cook breakfast/dinner more or go on dates with her husband and give more sex. The other activities would be meaningless if she continued having an affair---or thought that her husaband wanted more and yet she didn't love Him...and Hosea tried to make clear that a religious ritual is only helpful if it is carried out with an attitude of love/ obediance for God....BUT if not having those elements, it will be simply mockery of God. God didn't want the Israelities' rituals as mucha s their hearts....

1 Samuel 15:22
But Samuel replied: &#8220;Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the LORD? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams
​

As Isaiah said,

Isaiah 1:10-12
&#8220;I have more than enough of burnt offerings,
of rams and the fat of fattened animals;
I have no pleasure
in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.


​

The context of Isaiah's words makes sense in light of how he lived in idolatrous Israel...a prophet during the time when the original nation of Israel had been divided into two kingdoms---Israel in the north and Judah in the South. The entire chapter of Isaiah 1 goes into great detail discussing how God was unhappy with his people....and as Isaiah 1 makes clear, God was unhappy with thier sacrifices while not revoking the system of sacrifices he had initiated with Moeses. Instead, God was calling for sincerefaith and devotion. For as said before, the leaders were carefully making the traditional sacrifices/offerings at Holy Celebrations but still remaining unfaithful to God in their hearts. For sacrifices were to be an OUTWARD sign of their INWARD Faith in God...but outward signs became empty because not inward faith existed. The people continued to offer sacrifices because they had come to place more faith in the rituals of their religion than in the God they worshipped.

One can find more on sacrifices via what Isaiah said in Isaiah 19:20-22, Isaiah 43:23-25, Isaiah 65:6-8, and Isaiah 66:2-4

Ezekiel is another good one, as seen in Ezekiel 20:27-29 , Ezekiel 20:39-41 and Ezekiel 44:14-16, Ezekiel 46:23-24.

And with Jeremiah, one can find more on what he was discussing fully with Sacrifices in Jeremiah 6:19-21 , Jeremiah 17:25-27 ,


God often made clear that sacrifices for its own sake were never appropriate if they were done in an end of themselves---for at that point, one would be lacking a broken/contrite heart in the process (God's Goal) and all one would be doing is ritualism. Its why the Jews were caught off guard before the exile--as they thought they were doing everything right and yet God was not in it.


Adam's sons were raised in the adominition of the Lord---and as God required/made clear, they were to offer up to Him. . Cain and Abel had constrasting occupations/differing kinds of offering to God----both being what God commanded since both offerings are recognizable parts of the later Levitical system: for Cain's offering of the fruit of the ground is in Deuteronomy 26:2 (an offering expressing consecration), and for Abel's offering of the firstborn of his flock, that can be found in Deuteronomy 15:19-23 (a kind of peace offering, a meal in God's prescence). At no point does the Bible suggest that offering work automatically...as if the worshipper's faith and contrition did not matter. For as the Torah makes clear, God desires BROKENESS/Willful humility in order for us to come to Him.....

Psalm 51:16-18
16 You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it;
you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings.
17 The sacrifices of God are [a] a broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart,
O God, you will not despise.
​

This is a teaching throughout the scriptures----especially as it relates to how often God said he RESISTED the proud---but gave grace to the Humble ( Numbers 12:2-4 , 2 Samuel 22:27-29 , 1 Kings 21:28-29, 2 Kings 22:18-20, 2 Chronicles 12:6-8 , Psalm 18:26-28, Psalm 25:8-10, Psalm 149:3-5, Proverbs 3:34, Isaiah 66:1-3, Luke 18:13-15, James 4:5-7 , 1 Peter 5:4-6, etc )


And with Cain's fundamentally bad heart, this can be seen in his resentment toward his brother and in his uncoopertative answers to God in the rest of the pasage in Genesis 4. He chose not to love God...or His neighbor. Cain demonstrated an evil heart by his wicked deeds, whereas Abel demonstated a pious heart by his righteous deeds---and His wholeheartely doing as God commanded. That Abel offered his sacrifice by faith and was COMMENDED as righteous for that reason, cannot be ignored. As the Word says in Genesis 4:1-12, Matthew 23:35, Hebrews 11:4, and 1 John 3:11-13

To focus on the sacrifice itself and not on the heart being transformed---as the New Covenant focuses upon--may miss the point.

And on the issue, Stephen spoke in-depth on sacrifices and what the Lord viewed on with temples in Acts 6-7 - many no longer had an ideology that sacrifices had to be made solely within the Temple system during their day. And the same is said as it pertains to gathering ( #4/#21/ #23 /#29 #39 ) - in light of the example of the Lord when he lived and the variety of places he operated. It's why the early body of believers could spread as far as they did - and see the Lord do amazing things. They were prepared to adapt and see a differing form of application.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

not all sacrifices in the Bible were sin offerings. And I'm not sure that the word "redemption" is used for any of them. Can you give me some examples? .

Yeshua was the goal behind those sacrifices. And it's why the early body of believers did not continue to make those types of sacrifices after His Resurrection.


Of course, that did not mean ALL types of sacrifices were done away with - as even Paul and others still made sacrifices (although they were in regards to free will and fellowship offerings - in addition to some instances of the Nazarene Vow from Numbers 6 being transformed). Some of this was discussed before elsewhere...as seen here in #25 / #37. As it is, Paul stands out - as he was born Tarsus/grew up in Jerusalem and studied under the famous Rabbi Gamaliel. (Acts 22:3) - a legendary Rabbi who was also mentioned in Acts 5:34-40 where he commanded the Sanhedrin to give the Apostles some liberty, following the traditional Jewish belief that God is the final arbiter in all matters of truth and error. And Paul was faithful in his observance - and yet he still differed on some things. His disagreement with Peter (Galatians 2:11-14) was purely about the requirement of the Gentiles to convert to Judaism, not about the lifestyle of the Jewish believers and what many Christians claim when trying to dismiss things like all types of sacrifices. He criticised Peter for his inconsistency because he was willing to live like the Gentiles when he was with the Gentiles, and then he expected the Gentiles to live like Jews. Moreover, during his ministry there are a number of occasions where Paul is seen observing a distinctly Jewish lifestyle.

• Paul went to Jerusalem for the "feast", probably Passover, at the end of his second journey. (Acts 18:21-22).

• Paul sailed away from Philippi "after the days of unleavened bread" (Acts 20:6). Essentially, this means he observed Passover and the days of unleavened bread with the church at Philippi. The same in regards to his value for Passover can also be seen in I Corinthians 16 when he informed them of his travel plans and his wish to stay in Ephesus till Pentecost - the festival that took place each spring some weeks after Passover (II Maccabees 12:32, Acts 2:1, etc.) And sacrifices would've been made.

• After leaving Phillipi he sailed along the coast of Asia Minor, stopping at a few places along the way, but missing out Ephesus because he wanted to be in Jerusalem for the feast of Pentecost. (Acts 20:16). This was at the end of his third journey.

• Paul observed that the prison ship, on which he was sailing to Rome, was going too slowly and "the fast was now already past". (Acts 27:9). This means he observed Yom Kippur.

Thus, anyone saying that the Apostles or others in 1st Century Judaism (or 1st Century Messianic Judaism/Jewish Christianity) were not concerned about any type of observances or sacrifices are simply not listening since their lifestyles made plain it was important...just as it is for Messianic Jews/Hebrew Christians today. What what Paul developed further in examination/analysis after his conversion was Transcultural Judaism - on the basis of what Yeshua did when it came to universalizing many concepts within Judaism (more shared here in #91 ).

 

[smaneck]

Surprised - I was assuming you were aware of it....seeing how it was mentioned before in another discussion on the issue you were involved in when discussing Baha'i belief ( http://www.christianforums.com/t7754656-2/#post63477040 ) in regards to economics. My grandmother still associates with Baha'i circles to my knowledge, even though she believes Christ is the Messiah/Savior of mankind and God in the Flesh. And with Islam, she's with the branch holding to the ideology that Isa is the Messiah of all mankind.

Ahh, I've forgotten all about that post, but it sounded more like she was raised around Baha'is not that she was a Baha'i herself.

But nowhere is polygamy a sin in scripture. And nowhere does scripture say Sarai, or Abram acted in faithlessness.

Correct.

We do not fear, that somehow we today need to think of this as anything than what it was. DISTINCT for its own purpose, distinct for its own time, distinct for an idea. You certainly may disagree with this approach, and it may even be wrong. But so far I have not found it to be so. Instead of looking for "SIN" in Genesis, I look for faith in the actions of these individuals. For sin is not reckoned to them, and faith was. Which faith there was no law against. So what do I do with LYING, etc? The same thing you all do with HUMAN SACRIFICE. What was Gods purpose in it, in a DISTINCT TIME, WITH DISTINCT INDIVIDUALS, FOR A DISTINCT PURPOSE?

That's not a conception that would be foreign to Baha'is. In fact, it is implicit in the concept of Progressive Revelation. As Baha'u'llah says:

"The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and center your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements."

As it concerns the subject of polygamy, its error for others trying to say others were "wrong" for condoning it.

Correct. Baha'is are monogamous but we don't condemn those religions which have practiced it. And if someone from Africa, for instance, were to become a Baha'i we would certainly not expect him to divorce his existing wives as do some Christian sects.

Incidently, Judah and TAMAR are listed as direct descendants of Jesus Christ (Matthew 1:1-6).

I think you mean ancestors, not descendants. But I'm not sure where we are going with this.

as was noted in the post I shared earlier when it came to really understanding the Christian worldview as the early church advocated when it came to seeing man in need of healing....and the atonement as being done in order to show mankind how to live -

And that is a concept I would endorse.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Ahh, I've forgotten all about that post, but it sounded more like she was raised around Baha'is not that she was a Baha'i herself.

No- she was Baha'i 100%..and no need to assume otherwise, seeing that she was at their meetings weekly, a part of the group/sponsoring others in the groups and promoting the theology within the home for decades throughout the lifetime of my parents ...books and all...particularly as it concerns all the religions and mankind being one.

Islam was more than present - as well as the universalistic dynamics of Baha'i. Didn't really matter to her how Baha'i was considered a sect within Islam – an offshoot from one of Shiite Islam (in the same dynamic as Ahmadiyya Islam was considered an offshoot since technically the Ahmadiyya Muslims are Sunni Muslim, one of the branches of Sunni sect ) – and in our house, you’d see a picture of Jesus/the Cross….and then a statue of Buddah right next to it while also seeing a picture of the founder of the Bahai Faith all together. And Christ also present.

And we also discussed others that were discussed in Bahai circles - from Biblical characters to Mohommad to Martin Luther King, the Jewish people or Malcolm X’s legacy with the Nation of Islam and Islam itself (even though he began in Ahmadiyya Islam and his life was one of reinvention when seeing the ways that he evolved in the differing sects of Islam AND had high significance when it came to Blacks within the Islamic world and how that experience often differs from whites in what they see ). We'd discuss others used in Native American culture....as well as in Eastern culture used by God - like Confucius, even though Abdu'l-Baha never referred to Confucius as a Manifestation of God, but rather included him in this list of 'Blessed souls' ("Tablets of Abdul-Baha Abbas", vol. 2 (Chicago: Bahá'í Publishing Society, 1915), pp. 469-70) (Abdu'l-Baha, Tablets of Abdu'l-Baha v2, p. 469) - similar to a spiritually enlightened soul who supported spiritual and moral teachings that had decreased in his time, somewhat like a lesser Prophet since the lesser prophets do not bring a new religion but support previous teachings......

And we also discussed others considered Manifestations of God while noting man made in the Image of God/having the Divine Spark and Image that needs to be respected in all people.

Other Bahai members were well aware of it - and had no issue, particularly when it came to knowing the backgrounds of differing members (with grandmother growing up Catholic before walking away from it and having a husband who was never Bahai). Sometimes it reminded of something others have noted with Ecumenism as Household Decoration - like having a family where the wife and husband have differing backgrounds of faith and a particular mix of Jewish-Catholic-Orthodox religious imagery…all present

​

I was glad for the experience of growing up in a household with the myriad of experiences my family had (living with my mother, grand-parents and great-grandparents in the same household - with Catholic imagery placed alongside things you'd see in Asian culture/icons at the same and then having African/Hispanic cultural images or items in the same house since we were multi-cultural ). Many families in Panama (where my grandmother is from) are WELL known for doing this and seeing it for myself in the homes of others, it was a trip. Of course, it all went back to the reality of valuing other religions and truth that could be learned in them

Of course, for Grandma, her views changed in time to seeing Isa al Masih as the true final revelation as she began to really understand what Christianity was about - Christ at the center of all things and all things pointing back to Him while still having God working in multiple camps all over. And there were others similar who were Muslim yet actually studied the Quran and understood what it said about Isa as the Messiah - exalting him and not Mohommad as the final revelation ...AND showing His grace being present in/working in all.


People who were Baha'i don't stop understanding the theological system of it because they choose not to walk the way all other Baha'is are in time.

Correct.

Yep ..

That's not a conception that would be foreign to Baha'is. In fact, it is implicit in the concept of Progressive Revelation. As Baha'u'llah says:

"The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and center your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements."

Of course - as said before, growing up with Baha'is, it's not a surprise that the concept of progressive revelation is something that was present in it. Christianity has long discussed this when it comes to seeing the developments within scripture from age to age..

The priesthood with the Levites was developed at one point as a form of mediating between men and God for the sake of atonement of sins - and yet there were previously others who did priestly work, especially when we consider Job (most likely an Arab - as noted best in Arabs in the Shadow of Israel: The Unfolding of God's Prophetic Plan for ... - Tony Maalouf - Google Books ) from Job 1 in the sacrifices he did (and he was never noted to be a Hebrew) - the patriarch era where every man was a priest of his home and something the Lord seemed to take all believers BACK to after Christ...all things full circle.

We see the same concept of progressive revelation when it comes to the Temple System itself. temple liturgy and the ways that it was transferred to the local synagogue - one of the reasons Jews in the Diaspora no longer felt bound to keep going to temple anymore since the dynamics of how to see the Temple had changed radically. Of course, the Temple was still utilized - and people still made sacrifices, but the focus was different...and as the Temple was known to have changed to the believers being built into a Temple for God (1 Corinthians 3:16-18, 2 Corinthians 6:15-17 ), the attachment to the Temple from before lessened and going out became the focus.

Those in the Diaspora who were persecuted understood this well - and St. Peter spoke on the issue since many believers were being hounded for their faith and kicked out of synagogues in Jerusalem and having to flee because of their faith in Yeshua...

I Peter 2:4-5
As you come to him, the living Stone – rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him – 5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house[a] to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.​

The author of Hebrews also notes much of the same as it concerns the way the Heavenly Temple (of which the Earthly Temple was a type) became more in focus. And as it concerns the dynamic of change in Temple location itself and its purpose, there was already a foreshadowing of this in the OT when seeing how there was more than 2 Temple locations which God allowed - one in Jerusalem and another in Shiloh. More on the issue of Progressive Revelation was shared elsewhere in "Messianics and Dispensationalism" ( http://www.christianforums.com/t7756570-23/#post63518432 ) and the other being "Priests" ( http://www.christianforums.com/t7782610-5/#post64407122 and http://www.christianforums.com/t7782610-5/#post64407355 and http://www.christianforums.com/t7782610-8/#post64481934 and http://www.christianforums.com/t7782610-7/#post64469197 )

Correct. Baha'is are monogamous but we don't condemn those religions which have practiced it. And if someone from Africa, for instance, were to become a Baha'i we would certainly not expect him to divorce his existing wives as do some Christian sects.

Ultimately, one couldn't condemn polygamy without condemning those in the scripture whom the Lord worked with - AND promised wives (plural ) in certain cases if they followed him, as seen in the life of David. Not many wish to consider the dynamic of how even the Apostle Paul noted the same dynamic when saying that one coming to follow the Lord should remain where he is at (I Corinthians 7) - and for those married to multiple wives, they shouldn't be expected to have to divorce from their wives....even though the scriptures do give guidelines .

Of course, for those in the Muslim world, they are often not understood properly and it's unfortunate to see how that occurs. I've often noted with other Christians how one has to understand the dynamic of cultural contexualization of the Gospel and the ways that other cultures never had a mindset of many wives for its own sake - one excellent book on the matter being Miniskirts, Mothers and Muslims: A Christian Woman in a Muslim Land

​

The author is the Western wife of an Arab from a conservative Muslim family. And IMHO, her personal experience is both profound and enlightening. Themes include: status; the place of women; the veil; stereotypes; segregation and restrictions; family life; hospitality and witness. I was glad to see how she noted (as a Christian) how often the polygamy dynamic is something believers in Christ don't understand when talking to Muslims and not understanding the system it occurs in.....and how progressive revelation worked within the OT.

I think you mean ancestors, not descendants. But I'm not sure where we are going with this.

Thanks for pointing that out - as I did mean ancestors and don't know why I missed that. But on where I was going with it, what was noted was the dynamic of progressive revelation and the ways God worked thru imperfect people in order to ensure the coming of Christ ....and that having that view is crucial when understanding the atonement and the concept of forgiveness - for God forgave others even before Christ came on to the scene. St. Paul noted this as well:

Romans 3:21-26

God’s Righteousness Through Faith
21 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all[h] who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus
​

Acts 17:24-31

“God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. 26 And He has made from one blood[a] every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’

29 Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising. 30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”
​

And that is a concept I would endorse.

And in doing so, you endorse what Early Christianity was actually focused upon when it came to the purpose of the Incarnation and the Death of Christ

 

[Gxg (G²)]

it sounded more like she was raised around Baha'is not that she was a Baha'i herself.

As said before, she was raised Baha'i for decades - but has since changed to see that Isa is the final revelation of how man is to come to the Lord, even though her mindset is still one that believes in the Oneness of what God has done in all religions and thru other leaders. There has been a lot of good discussion over the years as it concerns addressing Baha'i and some of the ways that Christ was never properly presented within the system or their use of scripture.....although she still keeps up to my knowledge with her Baha'i family....and thus, similar to what was present with President Barack Obama, she is an inclusivist . ...and one more than understanding of the ways God used people in imperfect ways to show who He was ..all the way to the Finished work of Christ.

And as the early church had no problem talking on the ways God was inclusive, it was not a problem when we talked on the ways things bridge together. With regards to Muslims, it's significant enough to see how many Muslims have noted Isa as the Messiah - one of the reasons why it really wasn't a huge jump for her seeing how Isa has been appearing all over the world to Muslims in dreams/drawing others to himself.

More Than Dreams 5/5 - Mohammed (Christian Documentary) - YouTube​

More Than Dreams 1/5 - Ali (Christian Documentary)
More Than Dreams 2/5 - Dini (Christian Documentary)
More Than Dreams 3/5 - Khalil (Christian Documentary)​

More Than Dreams 4/5 - Khosrow (Christian Documentary) ​

The Kingdom of God is expansive - and thus, when I see Muslims coming to faith in Christ and yet still appreciating their Muslim background, it's why I don't see any real issue with where my grandmother is at in her experience in seeing the life-changing teaching of Christ. This is the concept behind the Kigndom and how we come in thru various places

In John 4, the Samaritan woman at the well recognized Jesus as a prophet and immediately wanted to ask Jesus a religious question: &#8220;Where should we worship God? At Jerusalem as the Jews believe? At Mt. Gerizim as the Samaritans believe?&#8221; It&#8217;s the classic setup for a debate. Whose religion is right? As it concerns the question, Jesus refuses to enter the discussion and elevates the conversation to another plane altogether: &#8220;The hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth.&#8221; For 1400 years, the debate has looked like this: Christianity v. Islam. Jesus v. Muhammad. Bible v. Qur&#8217;an. I know of many missionaries who tell Muslims that they need to become Christians. And many Muslims telling Christians how they'd be a great Muslim and that they should convert.

​

But there was something far bigger than &#8220;Christianity v. Islam&#8221;... for interestingly, Jesus never asked a single person to become a &#8220;Christian.&#8221; Paul was a Jew until the day he died. Both Jesus and Paul had a concern greater than religious identity since they spoke of the Kingdom of God. Jesus said, &#8220;The time is fulfilled and the Kingdom of God is at hand. Change the way you think and believe in the Good News&#8221; (Mark 1.15)

​

And the Kingdom is the conversation.

​

What I try to say to every Muslim I meet is that I am aware that there&#8217;s been a lot of bad blood and misunderstanding between Christians and Muslims over the years. ..and yet we actually have quite a bit in common - and I believe that both they and I desire to love and honor the one true God, so while I don't make it a factor of demanding that they become a Christian in order for me to fellowship with them (just as I ask that they please don&#8217;t ask me to become a Muslim), I promise that I will do all that I can to help us both discover the true straight path into the Kingdom of God....and I believe that the true access to that Kingdom is through the sacrifice of Jesus the Messiah.

How does an individual move into the Kingdom of God? How does he or she find meaningful answers to life&#8217;s questions? The answer is found through embracing the teachings of Jesus Christ. And included in this is placing one&#8217;s trust and faith in Him since out of an affection for Jesus, devotion to His teachings, and adoration of Him, will one grow all the beauty and comfort of life, the transformation of one&#8217;s character, and the regeneration of the soul.
[URL="http://www.qideas.org/video/engaging-islam.aspx"]

​

​

​

[/URL]​

http://vimeo.com/22577748​

​

​

 

[smaneck]

Didn't really matter to her how Baha'i was considered a sect within Islam – an offshoot from one of Shiite Islam (in the same dynamic as Ahmadiyya Islam was considered an offshoot since technically the Ahmadiyya Muslims are Sunni Muslim, one of the branches of Sunni sect )

That is not entirely accurate. The Ahmadiyya remain a sect of Islam whereas the Baha'i Faith is an independent religion mostly because Ghulam Ahmad, whatever his claims, did not reveal a new Book or a new Shariah or change the Qiblih. In short, he considered himself and his followers to be Muslims. The same cannot be said of Baha'u'llah who abrogated the Islamic shariah and proclaimed an entirely new revelation from God.

Malcolm X’s legacy with the Nation of Islam and Islam itself (even though he began in Ahmadiyya Islam and

Huh? What's the connection between Malcolm X and the Ahmadiyya?
Of course - as said before, growing up with Baha'is, it's not a surprise that the concept of progressive revelation is something that was present in it. Christianity has long discussed this when it comes to seeing the developments within scripture from age to age..

Actually, I'm pretty sure that Shoghi Effendi adopted the term from Protestant Christianity. But it will described Baha'u'llah's theology with the exception of course that with Christians that progression ends at some point.

The priesthood with the Levites was developed at one point as a form of mediating between men and God for the sake of atonement of sins

Again, I'm not persuaded this was their primary function.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

That is not entirely accurate. The Ahmadiyya remain a sect of Islam whereas the Baha'i Faith is an independent religion mostly because Ghulam Ahmad, whatever his claims, did not reveal a new Book or a new Shariah or change the Qiblih. In short, he considered himself and his followers to be Muslims. The same cannot be said of Baha'u'llah who abrogated the Islamic shariah and proclaimed an entirely new revelation from God.

All depends on who one talks to, actually - seeing how many do not see Ahmadiyya as a valid sect of Islam in the same way many don't see Sufism as a valid expression of Islam (even though Sufi Islam is more so like the Charismatic movement is within Christianity - crossing over multiple camps within Christendom - and Sufism was something that aided in the spread of Islam and had a more mystical approach/monastic dynamic, as I have shared before on the forum and elsewhere as well.)

Again, Ahmadiyya Islam has often been not considered as a valid sect of Islam paticularly due to how Mirza Ghulam Qadian declared himself to be only a Muslim writer in 1980..then in 1885, he announced he was a revivalist (Mujaddid) ...then in 1891, he claimed to be the Promised Mehdi and the Promised Messiah and had other claims others had issue with)...and others are more tolerant of it. The same goes for Baha'i since many see it as an offshoot and others see it as its own thing entirely - even though it can never escape its origins/roots and development in the Islamic world (just as Christianity grew out of Judaism - considered a sect within Judaism called "Followers of the Way" or the "Nazarene Sect" as it concerns early Jewish Christianity and Judaism can exist without Christianity while Christianity can never exist without Judaism).

Of course others in Ahmadiyya Islam may see themselves as true Islam - in the same way Mormons may view themselves as Christian (despite where many of their claims go directly opposite of the basics within Christianity as espoused by Christ/the Early Church and are in essence Semi-Christian) - but their personal view of themselves is something that will always be reinforced more so than what other camps of Islam see in them...

One of my dear friends grew up in Trinidad and Tobago - her father being from India (and Muslim) and her uncle being an Imam who was the one to first bring Ahmadiyya Islam in the islands there. And we have had wonderful discussions on the issue of what has occurred historically when seeing how much debate occurred in the camp.

Huh? What's the connection between Malcolm X and the Ahmadiyya?

Not really difficult seeing that Malcolm X was aware of the founder of Nation of Islam coming from that world/trying to gain legitimacy within and later seperating....and when Elijah Muhammad was being exposed, many others in the camp left and joined with Ahmadiyya Islam - which Malcolm didn't condemn when he went for other camps in Islam.


And for more specifics on the issue, the founding of the Canaanite Temple in Newark, New Jersey, is considered by others the earliest form of an indigenous African-American Islam, one completely distinct from normative Islam. It was from this movement that came Elijah Muhammad, Malcolm X, and Louis Farrakhan. Originally, Noble Drew Ali was the founder of the Moorish Science Temple of America....and has two levels of development: inventing a new religion (1913-1975) and moving toward normative Islam (1975-2013). Originally, Timothy Drew (1886-1929), an American black who called himself Noble Drew Ali later, founded the Newark temple and then, in 1925 another, better verified organization, the oddly named Moorish Science Temple of America. It was the case that his ideas derived mainly from pan-Africanists, the Shriners, Ahmadiyya Muslims, and white racists. From pan-Africanists such as Edward Wilmot Blyden and Marcus Garvey, he appropriated the notion of Christianity as the religion of whites and Islam as that of non-whites. Noble was a practicing Shriner, thus borrowing traits from this organization, such as the use of &#8220;Noble&#8221; before one&#8217;s name, the requirement that men wear fezzes, and a network of lodges. From Ahmadis he took Arabic personal names, the crescent and star motif, the prohibition of pork, and the notion of Jesus traveling to India. And from white racists came the idea that accomplished black Americans are not Africans at all but &#8220;Moors,&#8221; &#8220;Moorish-Americans,&#8221; or &#8220;Asiatics,&#8221; a mythical northwest African people, the Moabites, who migrated to sub-Saharan Africa.

After these developments, Malcolm's mentor Elijah Muhammad took things further - leading to the development of the N.O.I (Nation of Islam). Of course, there were other forms of mainstream Islam already present within America long before anything came out with Noble Drew or Elijah ...and this was something many other Muslims pointed out when not accepting the movement. By the late 1950s, Malcolm X began to see some holes in the beliefs and ideas of the Nation of Islam movement - and left the group to embark on a journey to find what true Islam was - going to Hajj in 1964, then proceeding to tour Muslim and African countries. During this time he accepted Sunni Islam and came back to America with a new found determination to spread Islam among the African American community. Of course, having international identification with the world community (Ummah) of Islam led to him becoming a threat to the N.O.I since he had more legitimacy than they did....and many of his fans began to leave the Nation in favor of mainstream Islam.

He experienced others in Ahmadiyya Islam who came against him due to his views and the changing of his mindsets. And to a degree, awareness of them was not something surprising him since growing up in Harlem often led to extensive exposure to the variety of differing groups within Islam - with Ahmadiyya Islam being present for some time....before being eclipsed by N.O.I when Elijah Muhammad came onto the scene since Ahmadiyya was in competition with N.O.I and Elijah used the concept of him being the final revelation to gain more converts from them..

But in the end, Malcolm presented a lot of problems for Elijah's goals and N.O.I - and in many ways, Ahmadiyya found themselves on the same side as N.O.I in opposing him. For reference, good reads/study on the issue can be found in On the Side of My People: A Religious Life of Malcolm X By Louis A. Decaro Jr. ..and Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention By the late Manning Marable (amazing historian).


As said best elsewhere in SunnahOnline.com - America and Malcolm
(for a brief excerpt):

The N.O.I. was not an enemy to America; it was to America what the Ahmadiyya were to the British - a means to tame a potentially serious problem. Elijah's organization achieved two goals for the US government; first, it put a falsified version of Islam into the black community, which even after traditional Islam arrived would always be present to create conflict, making it more difficult for unification to occur. Second, the Nation made Islam appear as the "black only" religion, and scared whites away.

...Although it may seem far-fetched, governments in the past have created religious movements in order to achieve a political means; the N.O.I. shares many characteristics with the Ahmadiyya sect, which was founded by Mirza Ghulam Qadiani in India. Mirza's family was connected to the British government, and interested in helping them maintain their colonial interests in the land; frightened by increasingly anti-British sentiments in India, Britain ordered that an, "Apostolic Prophet" be created that would, "subdue the spirit of Jihad in Muslims." Ironically enough, after Malcolm expressed his displeasure with Elijah Muhammad, a Pakistani named 'Abdul-Basit Naim, from the same Indian movement appeared speaking against him; even today the N.O.I. still uses the same Qadiani English translation of the Qur'an, and shares many beliefs with the Ahmadiyya movement, such as their disbelief in the finality of Prophethood. About the same time as Malcolm's travels around the world, the Ahmadiyya Pakistani 'Abdul-Basit Naim began speaking out against Malcolm in the Nation's newspaper, Muhammad Speaks. Naim advised members of the Nation not to make Hajj (the Muslim pilgrimage that Malcolm had just completed,) stating that only Elijah Muhammad, Islam's "rightful leader" can advise "whether or not they should take adequate interest in the ... ritual at this time. The venerable Messenger alone, again, should have the privilege of scrutinizing and passing judgment on qualifications of the intending pilgrims, if any." Apparently fears were beginning to grow that after visits to Arabia, other members of the Nation would see the falsehoods in Elijah's doctrine, and begin to experience true Islam as Malcolm had.

The Emergence of Islam in the African-American Community is something that many are not truly aware of when seeing how it evolved and how much division there is within the camp.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that Shoghi Effendi adopted the term from Protestant Christianity. But it will described Baha'u'llah's theology with the exception of course that with Christians that progression ends at some point.

Not really - as the concept was already present among the early Jewish rabbis and others in the early church who noted the dynamic of differing revelations in every age and they building upon one another. This was noted by the Early Church Fathers often in the first 4 centuries of the Eastern Church.

And with progression, having final revelation for the purposes of salvation/transformation (as Christians note with Christ) isn't the same as saying there are no more progressions since it has been noted repeatedly that advancements in the world have...and will continue to occur. From science to the arts to medicine and many other things - all truth is God's truth and not all things there is to know on life were found in the Bible or Christ, although it is all confirmed by it.

Again, I'm not persuaded this was their primary function.

Of course (as you already mentioned earlier)

Nonetheless, that doesn't change where the rabbis and the OT Law itself already noted throughout Leviticus what the purpose of the Levitical priests was - and this is something Judaism has pointed out repeatedly for centuries. Differing periods of Judaism make a difference of course - Babylon period being different from the Monarchy period and so on...

But the concept of Blood Sacrifices to atone for sin was more than present.
- more shared earlier in discussion in #204

One Messianic Jewish scholar known as Dr. Michael Brown did an excellent job covering the matter in-depth ..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4MWFd-Zg_I

 

[smaneck]

All depends on who one talks to, actually - seeing how many do not see Ahmadiyya as a valid sect of Islam in the same way many don't see Sufism as a valid expression of Islam

I'm referring to how the Ahmadiyya see themselves. Their situation is rather like those of the Mormons. One might consider them an independent religion but they see themselves as Christians. However, Sufism is another matter. That would be a little like saying Catholics aren't Christians. Sufis are largely responsible for the spread of Islam.

Not really difficult seeing that Malcolm X was aware of the founder of Nation of Islam coming from that world/trying to gain legitimacy within and later seperating....and when Elijah Muhammad was being exposed, many others in the camp left and joined with Ahmadiyya Islam - which Malcolm didn't condemn when he went for other camps in Islam.

The Ahmadiyya mosque in Tucson was largely made up of African Americans but I wasn't aware of Malcolm X having any connection or even any knowledge of this group.

And with progression, having final revelation for the purposes of salvation/transformation (as Christians note with Christ) isn't the same as saying there are no more progressions

But spiritual transformation is present in all the religions. In fact it is what religion is all about.