Christianity vs Baha'i

[CG Didymus]

Quoted from Reasons for Jesus. How Polycarp Gives Us Evidence For The Early Use Of The New Testament

When it says that he spoke with people that had seen Jesus, did they mean after he was resurrected?

 

[Trailblazer]

I knew a lot of Baha'is and not many were building much of anything. There were the inactive Baha'is.

There are are also active Baha'is. Otherwise none of the Plans laid out by the UHJ would have been accomplished, but all of them have been successful, and then they move on to the next Plan.

But you keep talking about the Bible? You must read parts of it at least? Why? Is it because you need to know enough to answer the questions that Christians have?

Yes, that is the only reason. Meanwhile, I do not even have time to read the Baha'i Writings and I certainly have not read all of them.

So you keep trying to answer questions Christians have. You keep learning more about what they believe and what is the Baha'is response to their questions. And that is not something that at least some Baha'is should be doing?

I do not say what other Baha'is should be doing. I know my best Baha'i friend is studying the Writings of Baha'u'llah with other Baha'is and they have Zoom meetings all the time. Right now they are studying the Hidden Words. He invites me all the time but I am always too busy here.

You see the responses Baha'is get from Christians. Does it seem like it is worth our time to study the Bible and try to reach Christians?

Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Light, and no man comes to the Father but by Jesus. Why bother talking to them?

 

[CG Didymus]

Was Adam sinful? Yes. He died aged 930.

Since Baha'is say Adam was a manifestation, they can't believe he was sinful. Then about the age, they don't believe that. How they explain the ages of those people in the Bible... who knows?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

And why didn't the Jews and Romans prove them wrong? And none of the "witnesses" ever squealed? That ain't good 'cause some of the witnesses were the apostles. They lied? And Mary too. Each gospel puts her there. These guys are worse than the phony TV evangelists and faith healers. And that is not a corruption?

But yes, Baha'u'llah did say the Bible is wrong. I just posted the thing about Ishmael vs. Isaac. Either the Bible is wrong or Baha'u'llah is. Of course it is doubtful Moses wrote the Bible, so whoever did could have easily wrote things in that didn't really happen. And maybe things that God never said, like stone to death people for breaking the Sabbath. Like God telling Joshua to have his men kill all the men, women and children in Jericho. But then, the Bible wouldn't be "The Word of God"? Should we demote it to "The Word of Some Guys About What They Thought God Said"? But isn't that what it really is? Some guys wrote it. How did they know the stories? Do we really trust that they didn't add things in?

Bahaullah answered in a Tablet that, God said in the Bible, it was Issac who was going to be sacrificed, and again God said in Islam, that it was Ismael who was to be sacrificed. Bahaullah says, God does what He wills. So, there is an apparent contradiction in the words of God in this case. To reconcile, Bahaullah says, both Ismael and Isaac were going to be sacrificed. So, both stories are true. Bible mentioned and focused on Issac, and Islam on Ismael in this regard.
So, this is the Bahai view, and no corruption in the Bible.

 

[CG Didymus]

There are are also active Baha'is. Otherwise none of the Plans laid out by the UHJ would have been accomplished, but all of them have been successful, and then they move on to the next Plan.

I remember back then that one Baha'i friend moved to the Marshall Islands so he could open up a new place. I knew Baha'is that would move to a new town so they could fulfill the goal of having more LSA's. What's the new plan? Oh, and what was the plan for the Peace Statement back in the 80's?

You see the responses Baha'is get from Christians. Does it seem like it is worth our time to study the Bible and try to reach Christians?

Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Light, and no man comes to the Father but by Jesus. Why bother talking to them?

One reason would be for all the other people that are learning about the Baha'i Faith and how it differs from Christianity. They say Jesus is God and Baha'is say he's not... that it's that whole mirror thing, and he reflects God. If you happened by this thread what would you think about those two answers and which made more sense? Yeah, you should keep bothering.

 

[CG Didymus]

Bahaullah said, God said in the Bible, it was Issac who was going to be sacrificed, and again God said in Islam, that it was Ismael who was to be sacrificed. Bahaullah says, God does what He wills. So, there is an apparent contrediction in the words of God in this case. To reconcile, Bahaullah says, both Ismael and Isaac were going to be sacrificed. So, both stories are true. Bible mentioned and focused on Issac, and Islam on Ismael in this regard.
So, this is the Bahai view, and no corruption in the Bible.

I swear I saw a quote that said it was Ishmael and not Isaac. Hey, but now that I've got you here... Were you the one that brought up the things about the two different words for "lamb" being used in the NT?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I swear I saw a quote that said it was Ishmael and not Isaac. Hey, but now that I've got you here... Were you the one that brought up the things about the two different words for "lamb" being used in the NT?

Bahaullah never wrote it was Not Isaac.

No, I wasn't the one talking about lamb.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

@CG Didymus

Bahai scriptures does not give an interpretation on all verses of Revelation. Only some of them. So, for the rest, there is no official interpretation in Bahai Scriptures. Bahais are free to think and interpret them.

 

[CG Didymus]

I see all the Messengers are the Lamb, they are all sacraficed so that we may obtain unto the Truth God wants for us all.

The Story of the Bab parallels that of Christ for twice the time.

Regards Tony

The whole question was that without knowing about a messenger that was to come 2000 years later, what was a Christian to believe? I think they would read Revelation and have no doubt that the Lamb was Jesus. Plus, since they believed he had resurrected and was alive, that he was the one returning.

 

[Trailblazer]

I remember back then that one Baha'i friend moved to the Marshall Islands so he could open up a new place. I new Baha'is that would move to a new town so they could fulfill the goal of having more LSA's. What's the new plan? Oh, and what was the plan for the Peace Statement back in the 80's?

That is all ancient history now. Do you want to know what the Baha'is are doing now? If so I will send you what is in the letters from the UHJ. I just got another one today.

One reason would be for all the other people that are learning about the Baha'i Faith and how it differs from Christianity.

Frankly, that is the only reason I can think of, but does it look like anyone besides you is interested in how they differ? Who are all the other people?

They say Jesus is God and Baha'is say he's not... that it's that whole mirror thing, and he reflects God. If you happened by this thread what would you think about those two answers and which made more sense? Yeah, you should keep bothering.

I only keep bothering because I am a fool, and because of you. I highly doubt anyone reads a thing I post, not even the Christians I post to. Jesus is the Only Way to God, if I hear it one more time I might start believing it.
I have no idea why people cannot see how arrogant that belief is.

 

[CG Didymus]

Bahaullah never wrote it was Not Isaac.

Really? Here's a link...
That which thou hast heard concerning Abraham, the Friend of the All-Merciful, is the truth, and no doubt is there about it. The Voice of God commanded Him to offer up Ishmael as a sacrifice, so that His steadfastness in the Faith of God and His detachment from all else but Him may be demonstrated unto men. The purpose of God, moreover, was to sacrifice him as a ransom for the sins and iniquities of all the peoples of the earth. This same honor, Jesus, the Son of Mary, besought the one true God, exalted be His name and glory, to confer upon Him. For the same reason was Husayn offered up as a sacrifice by Muhammad, the Apostle of God.("Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh", sec. 32, pp. 75-76)He asks concerning the sacrifice of Ishmael: "Bahá'u'lláh said it was Ishmael... But again, how do I explain this to the Jews who say it was Isaac?"

Mr. _ may find the following extracts useful in presenting the Bahá'í view of this subject: As to the question raised by the Racine Assembly in connection with Bahá'u'lláh's statement in the "Gleanings" concerning the sacrifice of Ishmael: although this statement does not agree with that made in the Bible, Genesis 22:9, the friends should unhesitatingly, and for reasons that are only too obvious, give precedence to the saying of Bahá'u'lláh, which, it should be pointed out, is fully corroborated by the Qur'án, which book is far more authentic than the Bible, including both the New and the Old Testaments. The Bible is not wholly authentic, and in this respect is not to be compared with the Qur'án and should be wholly subordinated to the authentic writings of Bahá'u'lláh.(From a letter dated 28 July 1936 written on bealf of Shoghi Effendi to the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States and Canada, published in "Bahá'í News", no. 103 (October 1936), p. 1)...the reference to Ishmael is correct, although it disagrees with the text of the Bible. The Qur'án too corroborates this statement of Bahá'u'lláh, and as this book is more authentic than the Bible, it is obvious that it should be given precedence over the Jewish and Christian Holy Scriptures, which cannot be considered as being wholly authentic.(From a letter dated 7 March 1938 written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer)
The Guardian confirms that the record in the Qur'án and in the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, that it was Ishmael, and not Isaac as stated in the Old Testament, whom Abraham was to sacrifice, is to be upheld. In one of His Tablets 'Abdu'l-Bahá refers to this discrepancy, and explains that, from a spiritual point of view, it is irrelevant which son was involved. The essential part of the story is that Abraham was willing to obey God's command to sacrifice His son. Thus, although the account in the Torah is inaccurate in detail, it is true in substance.(From a letter dated 19 July 1981 written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer)

 

[InvestigateTruth]

The whole question was that without knowing about a messenger that was to come 2000 years later, what was a Christian to believe? I think they would read Revelation and have no doubt that the Lamb was Jesus. Plus, since they believed he had resurrect and alive, that he was the one returning.

Those verses in practice are describing the manifestation of the Bab and Bahaullah. For the Christians such verses did not matter, until the time of manifestion came. And now, all can know what is their interpretation. Their interpretation is now come. This is the Bahai view.

 

[CG Didymus]

That is all ancient history now. Do you want to know what the Baha'is are doing now? If so I will send you what is in the letters from the UHJ. I just got another one today.

Frankly, that is the only reason I can think of, but does it look like anyone besides you is interested in how they differ? Who are all the other people?

I only keep bothering because I am a fool, and because of you. I highly doubt anyone reads a thing I post, not even the Christians I post to. Jesus is the Only Way to God, if I hear it one more time I might start believing it.
I have no idea why people cannot see how arrogant that belief is.

You can just give me a short summary. As long as things are moving forward.
I haven't checked but more people read than post.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Really? Here's a link...
That which thou hast heard concerning Abraham, the Friend of the All-Merciful, is the truth, and no doubt is there about it. The Voice of God commanded Him to offer up Ishmael as a sacrifice, so that His steadfastness in the Faith of God and His detachment from all else but Him may be demonstrated unto men. The purpose of God, moreover, was to sacrifice him as a ransom for the sins and iniquities of all the peoples of the earth. This same honor, Jesus, the Son of Mary, besought the one true God, exalted be His name and glory, to confer upon Him. For the same reason was Husayn offered up as a sacrifice by Muhammad, the Apostle of God.("Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh", sec. 32, pp. 75-76)He asks concerning the sacrifice of Ishmael: "Bahá'u'lláh said it was Ishmael... But again, how do I explain this to the Jews who say it was Isaac?"

Mr. _ may find the following extracts useful in presenting the Bahá'í view of this subject: As to the question raised by the Racine Assembly in connection with Bahá'u'lláh's statement in the "Gleanings" concerning the sacrifice of Ishmael: although this statement does not agree with that made in the Bible, Genesis 22:9, the friends should unhesitatingly, and for reasons that are only too obvious, give precedence to the saying of Bahá'u'lláh, which, it should be pointed out, is fully corroborated by the Qur'án, which book is far more authentic than the Bible, including both the New and the Old Testaments. The Bible is not wholly authentic, and in this respect is not to be compared with the Qur'án and should be wholly subordinated to the authentic writings of Bahá'u'lláh.(From a letter dated 28 July 1936 written on bealf of Shoghi Effendi to the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States and Canada, published in "Bahá'í News", no. 103 (October 1936), p. 1)...the reference to Ishmael is correct, although it disagrees with the text of the Bible. The Qur'án too corroborates this statement of Bahá'u'lláh, and as this book is more authentic than the Bible, it is obvious that it should be given precedence over the Jewish and Christian Holy Scriptures, which cannot be considered as being wholly authentic.(From a letter dated 7 March 1938 written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer)
The Guardian confirms that the record in the Qur'án and in the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, that it was Ishmael, and not Isaac as stated in the Old Testament, whom Abraham was to sacrifice, is to be upheld. In one of His Tablets 'Abdu'l-Bahá refers to this discrepancy, and explains that, from a spiritual point of view, it is irrelevant which son was involved. The essential part of the story is that Abraham was willing to obey God's command to sacrifice His son. Thus, although the account in the Torah is inaccurate in detail, it is true in substance.(From a letter dated 19 July 1981 written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer)

Yes, so, as I said Bahaullah did not write it was not Isaac.

The rest of that link, is just the opinion of a Bahai. Not what actually Bahaullah wrote. We only consider Bahai Scriptures officially represent Bahai view.

 

[CG Didymus]

I only keep bothering because I am a fool, and because of you.

Well I made it to the end and I quit. Freakin four hours of this. What is weird is how I post from earlier pages then catch up to myself here on the last page... and end up having several posts in a row. No more being a fool today. Probably no such luck for you, huh? You probably have a half dozens other threads you're posting on? Don't answer that. I'll see you tomorrow after Thanksgiving dinner and football.

 

[Skywalker]

The whole question was that without knowing about a messenger that was to come 2000 years later, what was a Christian to believe? I think they would read Revelation and have no doubt that the Lamb was Jesus. Plus, since they believed he had resurrect and alive, that he was the one returning.

Quoted from carm.org. When did John find out Jesus was the Messiah? | CARM.org

When did John find out Jesus was the Messiah?
We do not know exactly when John the Baptist finally figured out that Jesus was the Messiah. Even after John was arrested and was in prison, he still wasn't sure. One possible explanation could be that though John initially seemed to realize Jesus was the Messiah (John 1:29-31), it is possible that he had his doubts since Jesus was not initially freeing the Jewish people from Roman oppression. One of the expectations of the Messiah was that he would set the people of the Jewish nation free. Of course, we know that this did not happen. The expectation of being freed was depended upon the covenant faithfulness of Israel. But Israel, as a nation, was not governmentally faithful to the Messiah was. Instead, Jesus was then crucified.

Matthew 11:2-3; Luke 7:18-22; and John 1:29-34

1. In prison (Matthew 11:2,3) - "Now when John in prison heard of the works of Christ, he sent word by his disciples, 3 and said to Him, "Are You the Expected One, or shall we look for someone else?"
2. In prison (Luke 7:18-21) - "And the disciples of John reported to him about all these things. 19 And summoning two of his disciples, John sent them to the Lord, saying, "Are You the Expected One, or do we look for someone else?" 20 And when the men had come to Him, they said, "John the Baptist has sent us to You, saying, ‘Are You the Expected One, or do we look for someone else?’" 21 At that very time He cured many people of diseases and afflictions and evil spirits; and He granted sight to many who were blind."
3. While baptizing (John 1:29-31) - "The next day he *saw Jesus coming to him, and *said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! 30 "This is He on behalf of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’ 31"And I did not recognize Him, but in order that He might be manifested to Israel, I came baptizing in water."

Matthew, Mark, and Luke are known as the synoptic gospels. Synoptic means "similar." They are very similar in their approach to writing about Jesus. They are more chronological than John is and contain a majority of common information. The intent of the Gospel of John was not to present a detailed chronological account of Jesus' life. Rather, the intent was to demonstrate that Jesus is the Son of God (John 20:31). John is thematic in emphasis and he brings out those issues that demonstrate Christ's divine nature (John 1:1,14;8:24,58; 10:30-33; 20:28).

When we read the accounts of the Synoptic Gospels, we see that they mesh very well. John, on the other hand, ignores the details of the chronology and simply presents Jesus as the Christ, picking and choosing the issues in Christ's life in order to demonstrate his goal. For example, John doesn't even mention that John the Baptist was arrested as do the other gospels (Matt. 4:12; Mark 1:14; Luke 3:19-20). Why? It isn't the intent of John to present the chronological events about John the Baptist. It is meant to convince people that Jesus is the Son of God (John 20:31). Therefore, what we see in John is a synopsis of the prophetic revelation of God regarding Jesus as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. John, therefore, summarizes Jesus' baptism account in order to portray Him as the Christ.

Strictly speaking, if we were to force a chronological harmony of Matthew, Luke, and John, we would see something like the chart below.

Event Matthew Luke John 1
Jesus comes to John.
John says Jesus is the Lamb of God.

Matt. 3:13, Then Jesus *arrived from Galilee at the Jordan coming to John, to be baptized by him.
"The next day he *saw Jesus coming to him, and *said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

1:30 "This is He on behalf of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’

1:31 "And I did not recognize Him, but in order that He might be manifested to Israel, I came baptizing in water."

1:32 And John bore witness saying, "I have beheld the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and He remained upon Him.

1:33 "And I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, ‘He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.’

1:34 "And I have seen, and have borne witness that this is the Son of God."

Jesus is baptized 3:16 And after being baptized, Jesus went up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon Him,
John is arrested 4:12 Now when He heard that John had been taken into custody, He withdrew into Galilee; 3:20 he added this also to them all, that he [Herod] locked John up in prison.
John in prison heard of Christ's works 11:2 "Now when John in prison heard of the works of Christ, he sent word by his disciples, 7:18 "And the disciples of John reported to him about all these things.
"Are you the One? 11:3 and said to Him, "Are You the Expected One, or shall we look for someone else?" 7:19 And summoning two of his disciples, John sent them to the Lord, saying, "Are You the Expected One, or do we look for someone else?" 20 And when the men had come to Him, they said, "John the Baptist has sent us to You, saying, ‘Are You the Expected One, or do we look for someone else?’"

 

[Trailblazer]

Well I made it to the end and I quit. Freakin four hours of this. What is weird is how I post from earlier pages then catch up to myself here on the last page... and end up having several posts in a row. No more being a fool today. Probably no such luck for you, huh? You probably have a half dozens other threads you're posting on? Don't answer that. I'll see you tomorrow after Thanksgiving dinner and football.

No, only one other thread right now because they suckered me into posting in it, stuff about sex, not my favorite subject.

Football? You and my husband, but I am glad to see other people enjoying things.
Thanksgiving is the only day I get anything really good to eat! And I go all out, for only two people.

 

[Skywalker]

Those verses in practice are describing the manifestation of the Bab and Bahaullah. For the Christians such verses did not matter, until the time of manifestion came. And now, all can know what is their interpretation. Their interpretation is now come. This is the Bahai view.

Quoted from carm.org. Jesus was God in the flesh, not a manifestation of God. Theophany | CARM.org

A theophany is a visible manifestation of God usually restricted to the Old Testament. God has appeared in dreams (Gen. 20:3-7, Gen. 28:12-17), visions (Gen. 15:1-21, Isaiah 6:1-13), as an angel (Gen. 16:7-13, 18:1-33), etc.

There is a manifestation known as the Angel of the Lord (Judges 6:20f.) and seems to have characteristics of God Himself (Gen. 16:7-9, 18:1-2, Exodus 3:2-6, Joshua 5:14, Judges 2:1-5, 6:11). Such characteristics as having the name of God, being worshiped, and recognized as God has led many scholars to conclude that the angel of the Lord is really Jesus manifested in the Old Testament. This does not mean that Jesus is an angel. The word "angel" means messenger. Other Scriptures that describe more vivid manifestations of God are Gen. 17:1, 18:1, Ex. 6:2-3, 24:9-11, 33:20, Num. 12:6-8, Acts 7:2.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Quoted from carm.org. Jesus was God in the flesh, not a manifestation of God. Theophany | CARM.org

It is not wrong for Jesus if at times, He called Himself God. However, He also said many times, He is doing the work of the Father who sent Him, and without Father He cannot do anything.

 

[Trailblazer]

In denying that Jesus Christ was fully man and fully God, you make him less than a Saviour.

Using your quotations from John simply proves the point that Jesus must have been fully God. If the Father was upon the Son, then Jesus was fully God.

That is just your way of interpreting the verses.

“I and my Father are one” (John 10:30) means that the Manifestation of God, in this case Jesus, and God are one and the same, so whatever pertains to the Manifestation of God, all His acts and doings, as well as whatever He ordains and forbids, is identical with the Will of God Himself.

However, only God is Spirit and not flesh, so Jesus could not have been "fully God" since Jesus was flesh.

What I believe is that God conferred upon Jesus a twofold nature, a human nature but also a spiritual nature that other humans do not possess; so Jesus was kind of like a hybrid, half man and half God, but not fully God or fully man. I hope that makes sense.

“Unto this subtle, this mysterious and ethereal Being He hath assigned a twofold nature; the physical, pertaining to the world of matter, and the spiritual, which is born of the substance of God Himself. He hath, moreover, conferred upon Him a double station. The first station, which is related to His innermost reality, representeth Him as One Whose voice is the voice of God Himself. To this testifieth the tradition: “Manifold and mysterious is My relationship with God. I am He, Himself, and He is I, Myself, except that I am that I am, and He is that He is.” …. The second station is the human station, exemplified by the following verses: “I am but a man like you.” “Say, praise be to my Lord! Am I more than a man, an apostle?” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 66-67