Baha'i for Beginners

[Sen McGlinn]

Do Baha'i have any nice devotional or worship music? I really like Iranian, Arabic and Indian kinds of music... especially Sikh and Hindu Bhajans and Kirtan. I would kind of expect Baha'i to have nice music from coming from the Middle East but I looked on youtube and elsewhere and everything I found was incredibly dull. It reminded me of 1950's gospel radio, or English food.

mmm English food. Tandoori !

You will also find 70's folk Bahai (which I actually like, but each to his taste), and rap. If you want to find something more existential you may have to google in Urdu or Farsi, or ask on a Persian-language Bahai list: what you will find with an English google has probably been selected with use in Bahai devotional meetings in mind -- staid and pious to a fault. Or choral music for convention crowds


There's a diverse list of more artistic approaches here:
ht tp:/ /ww w.bahai-library.com/bafa/music.htm

 

[Sen McGlinn]

The problem is that Baha'i say that the manifestations ARE god then use as an analogy that the manifestations are to their god like a mirror is to the sun.

A mirror isn't that which it reflects

I agree entirely. The Bahais do not say that the Manifestations are God: that's what our Muslim opponents say that the Bahais say, in order to justify persecuting the Bahais.

 

[Montalban]

If a human being was to call a Manifestation "God", then that would be in a sense the truth - because a Manfestation is the closest thing a human being can get to knowing and understanding God - in a real sense, Baha'is believe
that the Manifestation is "God in human form".
Some Answered Questions: A Critical Analysis (energy able sense aspect time) - Mombu the Religion Forum

I agree entirely. The Bahais do not say that the Manifestations are God: that's what our Muslim opponents say that the Bahais say, in order to justify persecuting the Bahais.

That's not what I said.

Baha'i do say that it is correct to call a manifestation 'god'.

I've gone over this before - two years ago

Sure! Your scripture says it's right to call a manifestation God, though they're not God.

Like your analogy of the reflective mirror. You're saying that the mirror is both the sun, and reflects the sun!

Precisely!

Just I pointed out, people can (and do) say both "that's the sun" and "that's a mirror reflecting the sun" when referring to the image in a mirror.

And this is precisely the same sort of thing.

The key nuance is that we can't know God directly without the assistance of these Divine Messengers (which of course differs in this respect from the general "mirror" analogy).

All you guys need to do is make up your mind what you believe and stick to it

 

[BruceDLimber]

Who are those vast majorities? Care to elaborate before I respond?

Apparently, everybody except Orthodox Christians.

Why are you asking me?

I'm not (and didn't)! One of you posted that.

This is akin to the Baha'i claim that only Baha'ullah, is an authority in Baha'i scriptures. I am not including Abdul Baha and Shogi Effendi since they are not the founders.

Each of them was explicitly given such status, however (tho' no one else was).

And your "self-appointed" diatribe completely ignored the fact that we consider both the Bab and Baha'u'llah to have been divinely appointed. I'm not expecting you to agree about it, but you can at least exhibit the courtesy of recognizing that this is our view.

But those people are outside of Christianity and are therefore void of understanding the spiritual nature of Jesus and His teachings.

Only in your rather prejudiced view.

It's entirely possible for ANYONE to understand His nature and teachings, little as you appreciate the fact.

Bruce

 

[BruceDLimber]

Now Sam Khan was Christian. Observing both the Báb . . .

Assuming that he is orthodox, what scripture did he use to validate Baha'ullah?

So sorry if you're blinded.

The text quoted specifically referred to the martyrdom of the Bab, which was years before Baha'u'llah received His mission and is the reason why He wasn't mentioned here.

As usual, you're so busy manufacturing objections that you didn't even read the text.

Sigh.

Bruce

 

[Montalban]

Apparently, everybody except Orthodox Christians.

Catholics make up the largest group of Christians

 

[Livindesert]

The Gospel of the Hebrews is second century.


Paul's writings are not a chronology of Jesus. However you've misrepresented that passage.

It says...
Hebrews 1:5 For to which of the angels did He ever say:


“ You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You”?[a]

And again:


“ I will be to Him a Father,
And He shall be to Me a Son”?

It's not saying that God only then declared Jesus his son. It's asking a rhetorical question about who would say this.

In point of fact had you read the verses leading up to this you'd have noticed...

Hebrews 1:1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; 3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself[a] purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

Note that God made the worlds through Jesus. We believe this that Jesus is he whom all things were made. Given that they were made before Jesus' time on earth it means Jesus was around at the time of creation. He wasn't just a man who was later adopted by God, because he already existed before the worlds!


Theodotus is not to more than a hundred years after - and after Ingaitus of Antioch whom I cited and you ignored.

Theodotus in NOT an Early Church Father, he's a heretic and was declared so in the second century.

He also claimed that Jesus was not God until after the resurrection so he doesn't even support the form of adoptionism you mentioned you see in Matthew and Mark.



You need to provide more information. You made a claim that you were lead to an understanding by reading the ECFs. You’ve not shown any ECF writers stated what you believe.

You’ve cited two second century sources. Sources that are heretical. The only thing from the Bible you cite is a misquote, and the context too is something that undermines your position.

Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

The Gospel to the Hebrews 80-150 A.D. just about the same age as the Acts of the Apostles.
I showed you the earliest source Mark was adoptionist and backed myself up with other sources contemporary with the Acts of the Apostles and the Gospel of Luke, showed that adoptionist thought did not come out of nowhere but was in fact the earliest Christiology from first to second century.

 

[Montalban]

Livindesert has stated that his way of exploring the Bible was akin to the Ethiopian Eunuch - who asked Phillip the Deacon for guidance

So which Christians did he speak to? None! (at least none evidenced). Instead he took a book written more than a century later and the musings of a heretic. Added to that his own part quote of Paul's!

 

[Livindesert]

originally posted by Livindesert



I am afraid, Livindesert, you have been exposed. If I recall correctly, Pali cannon was part of the Mahayana school.

I said I read the Pali canon and other Mahayan sutras as in I read from both Theravada and Mahayan sources.*edited to be in accordance with new forum guidelines*

btw the Pail canon is Theravada

 

[Livindesert]

Livindesert has stated that his way of exploring the Bible was akin to the Ethiopian Eunuch - who asked Phillip the Deacon for guidance

So which Christians did he speak to? None! (at least none evidenced). Instead he took a book written more than a century later and the musings of a heretic. Added to that his own part quote of Paul's!

Yes the earliest Mark sources are second century.

 

[Livindesert]

Plus Father ,Son, Holy Spirit can still refer to adoptionist theology in my view. Even in E.O. theology the Son and the Spirit proceed out of the Father making the Father more important than both Son and Holy Spirit.

 

[Montalban]

Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

The Gospel to the Hebrews 80-150 A.D. just about the same age as the Acts of the Apostles.

That's not a certainty. If you read what they say they say it MAY HAVE BEEN KNOWN to Papias.

Your own cite notes that it's APOCRYPHA

It says..."Cameron makes these observations on dating and provenance: "The earliest possible date of the composition of the Gospel of the Hebrews would be in the middle of the first century"
Gospel of the Hebrews

Although the authors of that site say it may be an earlier date, and that it was likely composed in Egypt. However,
"All that survives to us from the 'Gospel of the Hebrews' are several quotations made by Clement, Origen, Jerome, and Cyril of Jerusalem."
The Development of the Canon of the New Testament - Gospel of the Hebrews

I showed you the earliest source Mark was adoptionist and backed myself up with other sources contemporary with the Acts of the Apostles and the Gospel of Luke, showed that adoptionist thought did not come out of nowhere but was in fact the earliest Christiology from first to second century.

No. You said you (by way of analogy) approached the Bible the same way the Ethiopian did.

You didn't. You didn't consult anyone.

Secondly you said you read the ECFs. You didn't - if you're referring to a heretic of Byzantium, and a gnostic book.

You claimed Matthew wrote that "Gospel" and that's not shown.

You now claim you quoted from Luke, and you didn't.

You now claim you quoted from Acts of the Apostles and you didn't.

You claim Mark said something that shows adoptionism - based on you saying that it doesn't call Jesus the Son of God till after his baptism, which doesn't support adoptionism as shown by your other source from Theodotus of Byzantium.

He's called SON OF GOD at the beginning of Mark...
Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God

Next, you misquote Paul who specifically says that Jesus was around at the time of creation - so a verse you claim supports you doesn't! In point of fact this very much undermines you because we know that Paul's book to the Hebrews was written before Matthew's Gospel, so a book prior to you 'source' for adoptionism shows Jesus to be around since the time of creation. Which is probably why you chose to ignore it.

 

[Montalban]

Plus Father ,Son, Holy Spirit can still refer to adoptionist theology in my view. Even in E.O. theology the Son and the Spirit proceed out of the Father making the Father more important than both Son and Holy Spirit.

That's quite false. Show me EO theology that says that the Father is more important.

 

[Livindesert]

That's not a certainty. If you read what they say they say it MAY HAVE BEEN KNOWN to Papias.

Your own cite notes that it's APOCRYPHA

It says..."Cameron makes these observations on dating and provenance: "The earliest possible date of the composition of the Gospel of the Hebrews would be in the middle of the first century"
Gospel of the Hebrews

Although the authors of that site say it may be an earlier date, and that it was likely composed in Egypt. However,
"All that survives to us from the 'Gospel of the Hebrews' are several quotations made by Clement, Origen, Jerome, and Cyril of Jerusalem."
The Development of the Canon of the New Testament - Gospel of the Hebrews



No. You said you (by way of analogy) approached the Bible the same way the Ethiopian did.

You didn't. You didn't consult anyone.

Secondly you said you read the ECFs. You didn't - if you're referring to a heretic of Byzantium, and a gnostic book.

You claimed Matthew wrote that "Gospel" and that's not shown.

You now claim you quoted from Luke, and you didn't.

You now claim you quoted from Acts of the Apostles and you didn't.

You claim Mark said something that shows adoptionism - based on you saying that it doesn't call Jesus the Son of God till after his baptism, which doesn't support adoptionism as shown by your other source from Theodotus of Byzantium.

He's called SON OF GOD at the beginning of Mark...
Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God

Thirdly, you misquote Paul who specifically says that Jesus was around at the time of creation - so a verse you claim supports you doesn't! In point of fact this very much undermines you because we know that Paul's book to the Hebrews was written before Matthew's Gospel, so a book prior to you 'source' for adoptionism shows Jesus to be around since the time of creation. Which is probably why you chose to ignore it.

Apocrypha and non-apocrypha is a distinction made by the Catholic and E.O. the time period I am referring to was before Trinitarian theology as defined by the Nicea creed and canon as defined by the council of Carthage began.

 

[Montalban]

Yes the earliest Mark sources are second century.

The site you cited, earlychristianwritings says

65-80 Gospel of Mark

If you want to argue against source sites you yourself cite from as evidence that's entirely up to you

 

[Montalban]

Apocrypha and non-apocrypha is a distinction made by the Catholic and E.O. the time period I am referring to was before Trinitarian theology as defined by the Nicea creed and canon as defined by the council of Carthage began.

I wrote more than just that

 

[Livindesert]

That's quite false. Show me EO theology that says that the Father is more important.

The fact that the Son proceeds from the Father dose this. If they were equal none would proceed for each other.

 

[Livindesert]

The site you cited, earlychristianwritings says

65-80 Gospel of Mark

If you want to argue against source sites you yourself cite from as evidence that's entirely up to you, but consistent with Baha'i 'logic'

Unless you have a problem with maths and can't tell that up to 80 AD is not second century!

You stated all my sources were second century when I quoted from Mark which is first century. *edited to be in accordance with new forum guidelines*

 

[Montalban]

The fact that the Son proceeds from the Father dose this. If they were equal none would proceed for each other.

You repeating yourself is not evidence

 

[Insubres]

mmm English food. Tandoori !

I meant "traditional" English food, where they overcook everything till it has no flavour.. or boil it. Or, especially, over boil everything.

There's a diverse list of more artistic approaches here:
ht tp:/ /ww w.bahai-library.com/bafa/music.htm

Thanks.