Baha'i for Beginners

[Montalban]

You stated all my sources were second century when I quoted from Mark which is first century. I have now shown you are a liar to all of CF forums.

I didn't say you only cited from 2nd century sources
Here's what you replied directly to...

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!

 

[Montalban]

BUMP

I however won't say you're a liar but it's no wonder you ignored this. I showed where you claimed to quote from several books that you didn't.

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

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]

Livindesert came to the conclusion that Christians' ideas on Christ are wrong following

1)

a) an assumption that Mark believed in adoptionism - based on a single verse of Mark's that doesn't show this​

b) a claim that in Mark Jesus isn't called Son of God till after his baptism (when he's referred to Son of God at the beginning of that Gospel)​

2) citations from a heretical gospel
3) referral to a heretic.
4)

a) citation of part of a verse of Paul, which when complete doesn't say what Livindesert says it states, and in the context of the earlier verses actually blows adoptionism out of the water​

b) ignoring this verse in the context it's written BEFORE Mark anyway​

5) claims of citations to two other books that he didn't cite

 

[Livindesert]

Montalban: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.

I cited the Book of Mark which is first century.

 

[Montalban]

I cited the Book of Mark which is first century.

Where did I say that the only thing you cited was 2nd century?

You quote me (though you don't link it)
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.

This is true. You cited two second century sources that are heretical, and bible misquotes.

At no stage did I say that the Bible quotes you cited were second century - a claim I'd never make anyway, because I believe that those books in the Bible were set down quite early.

 

[Montalban]

I cited the Book of Mark which is first century.

And you made a mistake about that too, by making a claim about when Jesus is called Son of God.

 

[Montalban]

For those not familiar with adotpionism its a heretical belief that Jesus born a man was 'adopted' by God for a higher purpose.

The problem for Livindesert with Paul's verse is that Jesus is shown to be the creator, not just a really cool bloke picked out by God for a special mission

 

[Montalban]

And of course this is totally not like the Ethiopian's example that Livindesert claimed he followed.

The Ethiopian found someone to explain scriptures.

At 'best' Livindesert's attempted to read other scriptures - NOT to seek an explanation of scriptures - unless he can show that they were commentaries on scripture.

 

[Arthra]

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.[/quote

A lot of Baha'is in America brought along their music..same is true in India

YouTube - Bahai Prayer in Hindi - Hey Ishwar Meri Aatma ko....

You may like this:

YouTube - Bahai song in Hindi

 

[Livindesert]

That's nice bro': I came to Bahai through the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order, in the late 60's.

I think our friend is right: "You can't leap, from the oldest Buddhist texts, right from Buddhism to Baha'i." The word "texts" there is the reason I think he's right, at least for him. I would say, if you approach your religion in a Protestant text-centric way, the gulf between the Pali canon and Baha'u'llah's doctrines is enormous.

However I don't think either the Buddha or Baha'u'llah were really hung up on doctrines. Buddhism and Bahai seem like near neighbours, if you open the gate of the heart, but the route through the gate of reason is a long and winding one, and (with due respect for the Buddhist-Bahais who have written at great length on the topic), I'm not convinced all the bridges are sound.

One of the ways the Bahai and Buddhist are near neighbours is in the emphasis on understanding teaching rather than believing doctrines. What Shoghi Effendi calls the 'fundamental verities' are functionally different to doctrines in most churches and religions in at least 3 ways. First of all, right belief is not a condition for individual salvation, and this makes a huge difference to the way Baha'is approach doctrine, as compared to groups such the Jehovah's Witnesses. The *or else*, even where it exists, is not "or eternal damnation". This may well be a common feature between the Baha'is and the Univeral Unitarians, Quakers, etc.

Second, doctrines are not or should not be a basis for exclusion. The identity of the Baha'is is intended to be based on *having* a collective centre -- Baha'u'llah as symbolized in the Mashriqu'l-Adhkar -- rather than on being pure or free *from* some external other.

Third, when Shoghi Effendi speaks of these essential verities, he speaks of the need to understand them, to clarify them. I think if someone asked him whether a Baha'i *had* to believe them, he would have been bewildered. The question itself shows an incomplete understanding. In this view (which supposes a harmony between right reason and the will), more correct belief follows automatically from fuller understanding, and to understand the teachings and not believe is more or less impossible. One believes, by definition, that which one understands -- which involves a lot more than just knowing what the texts say.

Certainly the Baha'is are called on to affirm the teachings and witness to them to the world (including the Bahai community itself), but this affirmation grows out of understanding.

I don't think Baha'u'llah would have liked a pure adoptionism: he treats the divine nature of the Manifestations as a separate category of existence, distinct to the human. However there are also a few references that seem to be saying that God has Manifestations in reserve: that Quddus for example had the nature of a Manifestation of God, but was not called to a mission. If Quddus had survived the Bab, and Baha'u'llah had died, how might things have turned out? Does this explain the narratives of a moment of "calling" or "enlightenment" that begins the teaching mission of a Manifestion of God? - the Manifestations are different in nature (so we don't become one, however hard we work on it), but are called to a mission when they and the time is right.

Good points McGlinn

Awesome I did not know about Quddus thanks

 

[Livindesert]

In accordance with the new forum guidelines I have removed my post and PM'ed it. I for one applaud the moderators for trying to establish peace and unity in the forum.

 

[Livindesert]

Here is the Chanted Tablet of Ahmad.

YouTube -

 

[Montalban]

Some have approached this topic in a flawed way

The canon of the Bible was not set for some time. However this doesn't mean that the church didn't know what books were written by whom and when.

That was in fact a way that the church came to the canon, by knowing which books were always relied upon.

For instance if say in 205 a church hears of a book called "The Gospel of Mary" then they would know that this book is not 'genuine' because they've never heard from other churches of this book before, plus they'd read the book and compare it to the faith that was always taught.

It does not matter that Nicea 'formulated' the Trinity. The Trinity was always taught - it's not a new teaching. What 'formulating' means is a way of setting out a more definitive statement of what was taught.

When Councils made a 'ruling' it itself doesn't make that teaching dogma, because it was always taught, anyway. However when Councils made their ruling they in fact stated "This is what was always taught"

It was taught from Pentecost...
“For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge…,"
Irenaeus - "Against Heresies" Book III.I.I

The mind of the early church shows this.

I cited Ignatius of Antioch earlier, which shows the early church believed Jesus is God...
“Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto her that hath found mercy in the bountifulness of the Father Most High and of Jesus Christ His only Son; to the church that is beloved and enlightened through the will of Him who willed all things that are, by faith and love towards Jesus Christ our God; even unto her that hath the presidency in the country of the region of the Romans, being worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of felicitation, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy in purity, and having the presidency of love, walking in the law of Christ and bearing the Father's name; which church also I salute in the name
of Jesus Christ the Son of the Father; unto them that in flesh and spirit are united unto His every commandment, being filled with the grace of God without wavering, and filtered clear from every foreign stain; abundant greeting in Jesus Christ our God in blamelessness.”
Epistle to the Romans

I also note again that Paul, writing before the Gospels notes that Jesus is he through whom all things were made.

None of this has been addressed, unfortunately.

 

[Sen McGlinn]

I also note again that Paul, writing before the Gospels notes that Jesus is he through whom all things were made.

None of this has been addressed, unfortunately.

The Bahai teaching agrees, at least largely. Baha'u'llah writes:

No sign can indicate His [God's] presence or His absence; inasmuch as by a word of His command all that are in heaven and on earth have come to exist, and by His wish, which is the Primal Will itself, all have stepped out of utter nothingness into the realm of being, the world of the visible.
(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 98)

So creation comes about through the Primal Will - the equivalent in Bahai theology to the Logos in greek-christian theology. This Primal Will is also focussed in the Manifestations of God, the revealers of verses, whom the Bab calls "the Focal Point of God's Primal Will." (Selections from the Writings of the Bab, p. 104) and further

"And know thou that He [the Manifestation of the Primal Will] indeed resembleth the sun. Were the risings of the sun to continue till the end that hath no end, yet there hath not been nor ever will be more than one sun; and were its settings to endure for evermore, still there hath not been nor ever will be more than one sun. It is this Primal Will which appeareth resplendent in every Prophet and speaketh forth in every revealed Book. It knoweth no beginning, inasmuch as the First deriveth its firstness from It; and knoweth no end, for the Last oweth its lastness unto It."
(Selections from the Writings of the Bab, p. 126)

 

[Montalban]

The Bahai teaching agrees, at least largely. Baha'u'llah writes:

This is the second time you've said there's agreement and there isn't.

The first you said you agreed. Now you say the Baha'i prophet agrees with what I stated.

He doesn't. Paul said that Jesus was whom things were created. That's because Jesus is God.

You then cite something that does not say that Jesus created.

I'm not sure if it's a difficulty with English. And I'm not faulting you for that because I appreciate the skill of anyone who knows a second language.

However nothing you quoted talks of a 'manifestation' creating the world.

 

[Sen McGlinn]

Correct - the Bahai texts do not say that the world is created by the Manifestation, but through the Primal Will: " by His wish, which is the Primal Will itself, all have stepped out of utter nothingness into the realm of being, the world of the visible. "

and the Manifestations are ""the Focal Point of God's Primal Will." "this Primal Will which appeareth resplendent in every Prophet and speaketh forth in every revealed Book."

Equally, the Christian texts do not say that Jesus created the world, but rather that Jesus is "he through whom all things were made." and "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. .... All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made," and that this Word speaks through Jesus and the Scriptures and the Church.

 

[Montalban]

Correct - the Bahai texts do not say that the world is created by the Manifestation, but through the Primal Will: " by His wish, which is the Primal Will itself, all have stepped out of utter nothingness into the realm of being, the world of the visible. "

and the Manifestations are ""the Focal Point of God's Primal Will." "this Primal Will which appeareth resplendent in every Prophet and speaketh forth in every revealed Book."

Equally, the Christian texts do not say that Jesus created the world, but rather that Jesus is "he through whom all things were made." and "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. .... All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made," and that this Word speaks through Jesus and the Scriptures and the Church.

You're on a different wave length. You are trying to wrest agreement between Baha'i and Christian concepts that are poles apart.

There's nothing you cite from Baha'i texts that say your god creates 'through' the manifestations, but rather through the 'primal will' (whaterver that is).

The Word doesn't speak through Jesus. The Word is Jesus

John 1:1 says that the Word was there at the beginning. And John 1:14 says that the Word became flesh. That is, Jesus.

Jesus was there at the beginning.

Colossians 1:16 says that things were created by Jesus. Not just 'through' Jesus.

Christians don't say that Jesus is but a manifestation of God, but is God. They are of the same nature!

They are one
I John 5:7
“There are those that bear record in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one”

Philippians 2:5-7 "Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing."

Jesus said in John 10:38
But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”

They are of one accord
John 5:21
For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it.

Jesus is equal to God
Colossians 1:19
“For God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him”

Jesus has the power and wisdom of God
1 Corinthians 1:24
“...Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.”

Jesus is eternal like God
Hebrews 13:8
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

Colossians 2:9
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form

This is reflected in the writings of the early church, such as Ignatius of Antioch's opening address to his Epistle the Romans
“Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto her that hath found mercy in the bountifulness of the Father Most High and of Jesus Christ His only Son; to the church that is beloved and enlightened through the will of Him who willed all things that are, by faith and love towards Jesus Christ our God; even unto her that hath the presidency in the country of the region of the Romans, being worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of felicitation, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy in purity, and having the presidency of love, walking in the law of Christ and bearing the Father's name; which church also I salute in the name
of Jesus Christ the Son of the Father; unto them that in flesh and spirit are united unto His every commandment, being filled with the grace of God without wavering, and filtered clear from every foreign stain; abundant greeting in Jesus Christ our God in blamelessness.”

 

[Montalban]

Jesus isn't just filled with a 'force' of God either - because the HS is God too

 

[Zoness]

Fear not, the results of my argument are culminating. I will be back

 

[Montalban]

Everyone will hang out just to hear your very important words