Questions about the Baha'i

[Mumin]

-

 

[Mumin]

-

 

[Niblo]

Good day Susan; Light; Art (that sounds nicely theatrical).

We are agreed that Muhammad (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) was the final prophet (and if we are not agreed, then let us at least agree to differ. I am an old man and would like to move on. Time is short!).

A professor of philosophy once advised that if ever I found myself in debate with those who know their subject better than I, then I should exercise caution. The reason being that were they to spout utter rubbish - and be in perfect error - I might have neither the knowledge nor the experience to discern it!

To proceed then……….…cautiously:

According to the Baha’i, Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla) is unknowable without aid of revelation (I agree with that); and that revelation can come only through human beings (in the language of the Baha’i: through ‘divine manifestations.&#8217. As I understand it, these manifestations include Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Krishna, Zoroaster, Jesus, Buddha, Confucius, Muhammad, the Báb, and Bahá’u’lláh.

According to Bahá’u’lláh (I believe) each manifestation is both impeccable in his nature and infallible in his teaching.

I have to wonder in what way was Adam impeccable?

I understand that according to Bahá’u’lláh, ‘normal human beings’ have two natures only (body and soul). However, the ‘manifestations of God’ have a third nature; namely the ‘spirit and attributes’ of Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla) reflected in them. It is this that makes them special.

Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla) is spirit: ‘Every corporeal thing, being extended, is compound and has parts. But God is not compound: therefore He is not anything corporeal. With this demonstrated truth divine authority also agrees. For it is said: God is a spirit (John 4:24): To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, only God (1 Tim. 1:17): The invisible things of God are understood and discerned by the things that are made (Rom. 1:29).’ (Summa Contra Gentiles - St Thomas Aquinas: Chapter 20).

Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla) is simple, in that He is not made of parts: ‘In every compound there must be actuality and potentiality. For a plurality of things cannot become one thing, unless there be actuality and potentiality. For things that are not one absolutely, are not actually united except by being in a manner tied up together or driven together: in which case the parts thus got together are in potentiality in respect of union; for they combine actually, after having been potentially combinable. But in God there is no potentiality: therefore there is not in Him any composition.’ (Summa Contra Gentiles - St Thomas Aquinas: Chapter 18).

Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla), being spirit and being simple, cannot be divided. Wherever He is, He is there entirely. If I cup my hands together I contain Him entirely; and yet the whole of creation is contained entirely within Him.

There is no place where the Exalted cannot be; and therefore He can never be remote from us: ‘We created man - We know what his soul whispers to him: We are closer to him than his jugular vein.’ (Qaf: 17).

So how is it He can be in one person (the ‘manifestation) yet not in another (the ‘normal human)? So how is it He can dwell in Bahá’u’lláh in some special manner, but not in Susan; and in the same manner?

Have a great day.

 

[Supreme]

I didn't say it was something "good" or "bad", I just compared dates.
In that particular post, I only opined on this:

"Traditional Christian scholarship has generally preferred to assign earlier dates."
(this is not objective)

Now I opine: there is nothing wrong in the date of surviving copy, unless is not a copy of the original, that's the case of the Gospel. The original is supposed to be in Aramaic. And nothing wrong unless many contradictions are found in it, the case of the NT.

The original is in Aramaic? I think you're just making stuff up. There is absolutely *no* evidence *whatsoever* that the Gospels were written in Aramaic. It's just common sense that they were written in Koine Greek, the lingua franca of the Eastern Roman Empire.

 

[smaneck]

Now I opine: there is nothing wrong in the date of surviving copy, unless is not a copy of the original, that's the case of the Gospel. The original is supposed to be in Aramaic. And nothing wrong unless many contradictions are found in it, the case of the NT.

First off, there is not and never was a single 'Gospel.' There has been some speculation that Matthew's Gospel was written first in Aramaic, but that has never been established. As far as we know the originals of all of them were in Greek.

 

[smaneck]

According to Bahá’u’lláh (I believe) each manifestation is both impeccable in his nature and infallible in his teaching.

I have to wonder in what way was Adam impeccable?

We don't take the story of Adam and Eve all that literally. Here is Abdu'l-Baha's commentary on it:
Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 122-126

I understand that according to Bahá’u’lláh, ‘normal human beings’ have two natures only (body and soul). However, the ‘manifestations of God’ have a third nature; namely the ‘spirit and attributes’ of Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla) reflected in them. It is this that makes them special.

I'm not used to seeing it articulated in that manner. What is your source for this? We see the Manifestations as perfect mirrors reflecting the Names and Attributes of God. If we think of God as the sun, yes we all reflect His light in some manner or there would be no colors, but only a mirror can reflect what the sun really looks like. Of course, analogies can only take us so far.

 

[smaneck]

I don't know about it, I read it in the Tafsir, ask an expert for a clarification.

Why? It would be their own speculation, a way of justifying the fact that Muslims observe Friday. That's fine with me. If God wants to make it Saturday in one Dispensation, Sunday in another and Friday in still another "He doeth whatsoever He willeth." But Muslims have a stake in pretending this is the way it has always been.

And who is my neighbour? = who should I love as myself?
Answer: "only one of three was a neighbour"

Sorry, you missed the point. The most despised of men (from the Jewish standpoint) loved a perfect stranger enough to provide him with the help he needed. That's what neighbors do, and it is the kind of neighbor we should be to others. In other words we need to be like neighbors like the Good Samaritan and make no distinction between who is worthy of our love.

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

It's not so strange when one understands that being infinite, God is in all forms.

It's very strange if one reads the entire Qur'aan and accepts it as the Word of God.

 

[dlamberth]

It's very strange if one reads the entire Qur'aan and accepts it as the Word of God.

Those who read the entire Bible say the same thing. Where I tend to go is to look at how alive and vibrant God is with in people, regardless of their religious beliefs and where or to whom they direct their prayers. I just don't find God as constrained nor limited in His reach as those of the book (take your pick) tend to do.

.

 

[ViaCrucis]

First off, there is not and never was a single 'Gospel.' There has been some speculation that Matthew's Gospel was written first in Aramaic, but that has never been established. As far as we know the originals of all of them were in Greek.

And, to be fair, the ancient tradition as recorded by Papias and Irenaeus (I think it was Irenaeus at least) that says there may have been an Aramaic prototype of Matthew's Gospel is more specifically that it was a collection of logion or sayings. And as such would be closer to the hypothesized "Q" gospel than a gospel in the technical, literary sense. So the Gospel of Matthew was written in a Greek original, and the tradition really only suggests that there may have been something similar to the modern Q hypothesis prior to it.

But there's simply no evidence for some supposed Aramaic "original gospel", such a thing if it did exist is thus far not ascertainable. Which is to say there's about as much evidence for such a thing as there is for there having been an original gospel written in Sanskrit or Tagalog.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Mumin]

-

 

[LoAmmi]

First off there is no indication that they were differing with their prophet over this, only that they had differences with one another.

Second, there is no mention of Friday being the original Sabbath whatsoever. This sounds like pure speculation.

I'd also point out that except for Shabbat, the days of the week in Hebrew are basically 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Friday being 6. I really doubt a prophet came down and said that 6 was really important and Shabbat wasn't.

 

[ViaCrucis]

There are evidences that Jesus spoke Aramaic (Matthew 27:46), and there is evidence he was only sent to the children of Israel. Why Greek if it was for Jews?
You are talking about what seems people's "testimonies", written in Greek, I'm talking about the (original) Gospel which the Qur'an says it was sent down by God, and given to Jesus.
God knows best.

Jesus spoke Aramaic, but there was no written gospel in Aramaic, except later translations of the New Testament in Syriac a form of Aramaic--known as the Peshitta. The Peshitta, of which we have plenty of examples of in the form of manuscripts, all demonstrate translation from Greek originals.

So no, there was no original "Aramaic gospel" no such thing is known to have existed historically. The general consensus among virtually all scholars is that Mark was the first written, and according to the Q hypothesis there may have been a collection of sayings (known as logion) which Matthew and Luke relied on when they wrote their Gospels.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Arthra]

I think most people would agree that Jesus spoke Aramaic... and there are traces of Aramaic in the Gospels... We can speculate that the earliest Christians were also Jews and spoke Aramaic. I suspect that with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD or so and the diaspora later few traces of the earlier Aramaic Christians would be left..also considering the antipathy toward Jews and the antipathy the Nazoreans encountered from traditional Jews, etc.

But the remaining fragments of the Gospels we have are in Greek and Coptic fragments. The elements of the teachings of Jesus appear to have been passed down relatively intact... The Christians known in the Middle East at the time of the Prophet were likely those who left the Byzantine realms .. George Lamsa an Aramaic scholar was probably closest to this issue..

 

[Arthra]

Niblo wrote:

To proceed then……….…cautiously:

According to the Baha’i, Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla) is unknowable without aid of revelation (I agree with that); and that revelation can come only through human beings (in the language of the Baha’i: through ‘divine manifestations.’). As I understand it, these manifestations include Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Krishna, Zoroaster, Jesus, Buddha, Confucius, Muhammad, the Báb, and Bahá’u’lláh.

As one old man to another...

Baha'u'llah also refers to Prophets preceding Adam...

LXXXVII. And now regarding thy question, "How is it that no records are to be found concerning the Prophets that have preceded Adam, the Father of Mankind, or of the kings that lived in the days of those Prophets?" Know thou that the absence of any reference to them is no proof that they did not actually exist. That no records concerning them are now available, should be attributed to their extreme remoteness, as well as to the vast changes which the earth hath undergone since their time.

Moreover such forms and modes of writing as are now current amongst men were unknown to the generations that were before Adam. There was even a time when men were wholly ignorant of the art of writing, and had adopted a system entirely different from the one which they now use. For a proper exposition of this an elaborate explanation would be required.

~ Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 172



The Christ was the word of God from the beginning - in the same way Mohammed says, "I was a prophet before the existence of Adam," and Baha'o'llah says, "In the beginning which has no beginning I loved thee."

(Abdu'l-Baha, Divine Philosophy, p. 51)

The above is from a verbal record so maybe less accurate than a written but still interesting none the less...

 

[ViaCrucis]

I think most people would agree that Jesus spoke Aramaic... and there are traces of Aramaic in the Gospels... We can speculate that the earliest Christians were also Jews and spoke Aramaic. I suspect that with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD or so and the diaspora later few traces of the earlier Aramaic Christians would be left..also considering the antipathy toward Jews and the antipathy the Nazoreans encountered from traditional Jews, etc.

But the remaining fragments of the Gospels we have are in Greek and Coptic fragments. The elements of the teachings of Jesus appear to have been passed down relatively intact... The Christians known in the Middle East at the time of the Prophet were likely those who left the Byzantine realms .. George Lamsa an Aramaic scholar was probably closest to this issue..

The Syriac Church continues the ancient tradition of the ancient Aramaic Christians, they continue to worship in that language; though with the problems in Syria and Iraq their communities have been seriously devastated in the last several years. In addition the so-called Nestorian Church, better known as the Assyrian Church of the East, has retained Aramaic in their liturgies and through them spread it far and wide throughout the Asian continent, including regions of western China, and generally fared well during the age of the Mongol Empire, as the Khans were quite religiously tolerant and during the reign of Mongke Khan the Nestorians thrived. The Mar Thoma Christians of India are also heirs of the ancient Syriac tradition, and according to their ancient traditions they are the heirs of St. Thomas the Apostle's mission to India, hence their name (Mar Thoma being Syriac/Aramaic for St Thomas).

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Sen McGlinn]

Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla), being spirit and being simple, cannot be divided. Wherever He is, He is there entirely. If I cup my hands together I contain Him entirely;

If this were so, there could be no evil, for evil is the absence of the good. Therefore theologians in all the Abrahamic religions have suggested that while God could be fully present everywhere, in every thing, God has voluntarily chosen to "leave a space." In Bahai theology, God has endowed particular aspects of creation with particular divine attributes, in varying measures. The human person has the distinction of being endowed (in some measure, potentially) with all of the names and attributes of God. Manifestations, prophets, sages and saints are persons, so they too are endowed with all the names and attributes of God, but not in equal measure, and not all are charged with revealing in full measure their own station. Baha'u'llah writes:

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

It hath, therefore, become manifest and evident that within the tabernacles of these Prophets and chosen Ones of God the light of His infinite names and exalted attributes hath been reflected, even though the light of some of these attributes may or may not be outwardly revealed from these luminous Temples to the eyes of men. That a certain attribute of God hath not been outwardly manifested by these Essences of Detachment doth in no wise imply that they who are the Day Springs of God's attributes and the Treasuries of His holy names did not actually possess it. Therefore, these illuminated Souls, these 49 beauteous Countenances have, each and every one of them, been endowed with all the attributes of God, such as sovereignty, dominion, and the like, even though to outward seeming they be shorn of all earthly majesty....

(Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 47)

 

[Supreme]

There are evidences that Jesus spoke Aramaic (Matthew 27:46), and there is evidence he was only sent to the children of Israel. Why Greek if it was for Jews?
You are talking about what seems people's "testimonies", written in Greek, I'm talking about the (original) Gospel which the Qur'an says it was sent down by God, and given to Jesus.
God knows best.

Ah, so you're talking about the Islamic concept of the Injeel. That is different from the Christian concept of the Gospel, which we know were written in Greek after Jesus' Resurrection and Ascension.

 

[smaneck]

There are evidences that Jesus spoke Aramaic (Matthew 27:46)

So? Jesus didn't write the Gospels.

and there is evidence he was only sent to the children of Israel.

Aren't you contradicting what you said earlier about the Prophets issuing an invitation to all people?

Why Greek if it was for Jews?

Because the gospels weren't written for Jews. In fact by the time you get to john's gospel it is clearly written against them.

You are talking about what seems people's "testimonies", written in Greek, I'm talking about the (original) Gospel which the Qur'an says it was sent down by God, and given to Jesus.
God knows best.

It you are imagining by this that there was a Gospel from Jesus analogous to your Qur'an you would be mistaken. Jesus does not convey messages from God in the same way Muhammad does. Rather he personifies them and he teaches them. And those teachings are preserved in the Gospels.

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

Those who read the entire Bible say the same thing. Where I tend to go is to look at how alive and vibrant God is with in people, regardless of their religious beliefs and where or to whom they direct their prayers. I just don't find God as constrained nor limited in His reach as those of the book (take your pick) tend to do.

I don't pick and choose what I believe from God. And in Ibn Arabi's case, he wasn't even picking and choosing. I don't know how he distorted the verses so much to come to the conclusions he did. It's like someone reading the Qur'an and saying that disrespecting one's parents is actually a way of respecting God. Or abusing God is actually a form of loving Him.