Did Paul champion the Cause of Christ or corrupt it?

[paarsurrey]

Perhaps Tabors main point is the Pauline Epistles that were to become canonical new testament books were available well before the gospels. These epistles in all likelihood influenced the gospels. A good example is the resurrection first mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15. There is a good reason to believe the gospel writers simply incorporated the resurrection narrative that was being preached by Paul. Of course Baha'u'llah emphasises the importance of the resurrection in the Kitab-i-Iqan and Abdu'l-Baha explains the body of Christ imagery that Paul uses represents the church.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 103-105

The belief that God is 'born in the flesh' or 'physically God incarnate' is reinforced by John 1:1-3 and reference to the logos.

It is important to be aware of the abundance of biblical scripture that does not support this position and I'm sure you are very aware of this. For example:

1 John 4:12
"No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us."

Mark 13:32
But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

1 KIng 8:27
But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?

Malachi 3:6
For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

Such scripture seems to imply that Jesus can not possibly be God incarnate.

The narrative of sacrificial death atoning for the sins of mankind is certainly from Paul. Jesus was hardly likely to made an issue of His crucifixion! However to what extent did the Churches misunderstand and misinterpret what Paul said?

Abdu'l-Baha makes mention of the sacrifice of Christ.

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Promulgation of Universal Peace, Pages 449-452

as well as sin and atonement...

Some Answered Questions | Bahá’í Reference Library

Abdu'l-Baha is never critical of Paul of course. He simply reframes the understanding of the bible.

"Of course Baha'u'llah emphasises the importance of the resurrection in the Kitab-i-Iqan " Unquote.

Please give the direct quote of Jesus' resurrection from the dead from Kitab-i-Iqan by Bahaullah. Also please let us know if Kitab-i-Iqan is a compilation from Bahaullah's writings or directly from him.

Regards

 

[Trailblazer]

"Of course Baha'u'llah emphasises the importance of the resurrection in the Kitab-i-Iqan " Unquote.

Please give the direct quote of Jesus' resurrection from the dead from Kitab-i-Iqan by Bahaullah. Also please let us know if Kitab-i-Iqan is a compilation from Bahaullah's writings or directly from him.

Regards

Baha’is do not believe that Jesus rose from the grave. The following is the official position of the Baha’i Faith on the resurrection:

“According to the Bahá’í teaching the Resurrection has nothing to do with the gross physical body. That body, once dead, is done with. It becomes decomposed and its atoms will never be recomposed into the same body.

Resurrection is the birth of the individual to spiritual life, through the gift of the Holy Spirit bestowed through the Manifestation of God. The grave from which he arises is the grave of ignorance and negligence of God. The sleep from which he awakens is the dormant spiritual condition in which many await the dawn of the Day of God. This dawn illumines all who have lived on the face of the earth, whether they are in the body or out of the body, but those who are spiritually blind cannot perceive it. The Day of Resurrection is not a day of twenty-four hours, but an era which has now begun and will last as long as the present world cycle continues. It will continue when all traces of the present civilization will have been wiped off the surface of the globe.” Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 222
​

Baha'u'llah emphasizes the importance of the resurrection in the Kitab-i-Iqan, but He was in no way referring to Jesus' resurrection from the dead. Below is what Baha’u’llah means by Resurrection and the Day of Resurrection.

“The fifth question concerneth the Bridge of Ṣiráṭ, Paradise, and Hell. The Prophets of God have come in truth and have spoken the truth. Whatsoever the Messenger of God hath announced hath been and will be made manifest. The world is established upon the foundations of reward and punishment. Knowledge and understanding have ever affirmed and will continue to affirm the reality of Paradise and Hell, for reward and punishment require their existence. Paradise signifieth first and foremost the good-pleasure of God. Whosoever attaineth His good-pleasure is reckoned and recorded among the inhabitants of the most exalted paradise and will attain, after the ascension of his soul, that which pen and ink are powerless to describe. For them that are endued with insight and have fixed their gaze upon the Most Sublime Vision, the Bridge, the Balance, Paradise, Hellfire, and all that hath been mentioned and recorded in the Sacred Scriptures are clear and manifest.......

At the time of the appearance and manifestation of the rays of the Daystar of Truth, all occupy the same station. God then proclaimeth that which He willeth, and whoso heareth His call and acknowledgeth His truth is accounted among the inhabitants of Paradise. Such a soul hath traversed the Bridge, the Balance, and all that hath been recorded regarding the Day of Resurrection, and hath reached his destination.....

The Day of God’s Revelation is the Day of the most great Resurrection. We cherish the hope that, quaffing from the choice wine of divine inspiration and the pure waters of heavenly grace, thou mayest attain the station of discovery and witnessing, and behold, both outwardly and inwardly, all that which thou hast mentioned.”
The Tabernacle of Unity, Tablet of the Seven Questions, pp. 61- 63

“How strange! These people with one hand cling to those verses of the Qur’án and those traditions of the people of certitude which they have found to accord with their inclinations and interests, and with the other reject those which are contrary to their selfish desires. “Believe ye then part of the Book, and deny part?” 4 …….. And yet, through the mystery of the former verse, they have turned away from the grace promised by the latter, despite the fact that “attainment unto the divine Presence” in the “Day of Resurrection” is explicitly stated in the Book. It hath been demonstrated and definitely established, through clear evidences, that by “Resurrection” is meant the rise of the Manifestation of God to proclaim His Cause, and by “attainment unto the divine Presence” is meant attainment unto the presence of His Beauty in the person of His Manifestation.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, pp. 169-170

“Strive, therefore, O my brother, to grasp the meaning of “Resurrection,” and cleanse thine ears from the idle sayings of these rejected people. Shouldst thou step into the realm of complete detachment, thou wilt readily testify that no day is mightier than this Day, and that no resurrection more awful than this Resurrection can ever be conceived. One righteous work performed in this Day, equalleth all the virtuous acts which for myriads of centuries men have practised—nay, We ask forgiveness of God for such a comparison! For verily the reward which such a deed deserveth is immensely beyond and above the estimate of men. Inasmuch as these undiscerning and wretched souls have failed to apprehend the true meaning of “Resurrection” and of the “attainment unto the divine Presence,” they therefore have remained utterly deprived of the grace thereof.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, pp. 144-145​

 

[CG Didymus]

"But I had doubts, and still do, about some of the things they believe." Unquote.

And what are these doubts about. Please elaborate.
Regards

One is the concept of progressive revelation. If one God revealed some truth a little at a time so it wouldn't overwhelm people, then the next teacher (manifestation) from the one God would have built off of that true teaching and add something more. But the major religions are all over the place with their teachings... and they all don't describe themselves as coming from one God. So the inconsistency is a problem. The Baha'is explain this by saying that in the original teachings, which were lost, there is consistency... that people corrupted and misinterpreted the original teachings.

But to believe that then the religions that teach things like reincarnation have to have had someone, not the manifestation, come up with that belief and get everyone to believe it. And, what did happen to those elusive original teachings that would have clearly taught that reincarnation isn't the truth from the one God.

Baha'is don't have Satan and hell, so all religions that believe that Satan and hell are real are wrong. And any teaching from the manifestation that might suggest that those things are real were misinterpreted or maybe they were added into the Scriptures. I don't know much at all Zoroastrianism, but don't they believe in a battle between good and evil be played out in the spiritual realm? So how about you? Do you see all the major religions as having come from one God?

 

[CG Didymus]

Regarding what the gospel writers were writing about, people who saw Jesus walking around, eating and drinking, I really do not know why could not have been some kind of apparition of Jesus that looked so real that the people who saw it thought it was real. Jesus was a Manifestation of God so He had special powers and He could make it seem real. That makes the most sense of all.

As for the empty tomb, I do not know what to say about that because I do not know the story very well.

The empty tomb is used a lot by Christians as proof that Jesus did come back to life. And in one verse Jesus tells one of the apostles to touch him and see that he is not a ghost. So, regardless if it's true or not, I think original Christian teachings always made the claim that Jesus had come back to life.

So I can easily believe that they are full of %&*#, but that's not what the Baha'is, other than you, are saying. They are trying to say all these verses are symbolic. But, I don't see it. The gospel writers and early Christians, I think, really believed that Jesus rose from the dead. The "symbolic" explanation doesn't cut it with me. That's why I keep saying that if it didn't happen, then Christianity is based on myths and legends and nothing that really happened, Ironically, that includes the Virgin Birth, that Baha'i writings apparently support? That I don't get at all.

 

[Trailblazer]

One is the concept of progressive revelation. If one God revealed some truth a little at a time so it wouldn't overwhelm people, then the next teacher (manifestation) from the one God would have built off of that true teaching and add something more. But the major religions are all over the place with their teachings... and they all don't describe themselves as coming from one God. So the inconsistency is a problem. The Baha'is explain this by saying that in the original teachings, which were lost, there is consistency... that people corrupted and misinterpreted the original teachings.

But to believe that then the religions that teach things like reincarnation have to have had someone, not the manifestation, come up with that belief and get everyone to believe it. And, what did happen to those elusive original teachings that would have clearly taught that reincarnation isn't the truth from the one God.

I do not think that there were any original teachings that were written by the Prophets of those older religions, and therein lies one problem, but the biggest problem is that whatever teachings those religions had were misinterpreted and corrupted over time.

“It is an indisputable fact that religions have always changed in the course of their long history. Religion, unless it has become a faith of the ‘dead letter’, is a living thing, and to be living means to assimilate, to absorb and incorporate foreign matter. All religions have done this, and the clear source of revelation has become a broad stream made up of many tributaries. In the course of their history all religions have incorporated beliefs and practices aliento them in essence and have thereby departed from their source, the revelation. The religious heritage has been constantly increased, while the revelation has been obscured by human misinterpretations and misunderstandings.”
(Udo Schaefer,The Light Shineth in Darkness: Studies in revelation after Christ, pl. 80)​

This cannot happen to the Baha’i Faith because have the original writings of Baha’u’llah, and they cannot be tampered with and absorb and incorporate foreign matter. We also have the Covenant of Baha’u’llah, so the clear source of revelation cannot ever become a broad stream made up of many tributaries. Finally, the Revelation of Baha’u’llah cannot be obscured by human misinterpretations and misunderstandings because we have Abdu’l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi as the appointed interpreters who clarified the meanings.

Baha'is don't have Satan and hell, so all religions that believe that Satan and hell are real are wrong. And any teaching from the manifestation that might suggest that those things are real were misinterpreted or maybe they were added into the Scriptures. I don't know much at all Zoroastrianism, but don't they believe in a battle between good and evil be played out in the spiritual realm? So how about you? Do you see all the major religions as having come from one God?

Oh, but we Baha’is do have Satan and hell, we just define them differently than other religions. Satan is symbolic of the lower selfish nature of man, the Evil One is he that hinders the rise and obstructs the spiritual progress of the children of men

“How high the reward of him that hath not deprived himself of so great a bounty, nor failed to recognize the beauty of his Best-Beloved in this, His new attire. Watch over yourselves, for the Evil One is lying in wait, ready to entrap you. Gird yourselves against his wicked devices, and, led by the light of the name of the All-Seeing God, make your escape from the darkness that surroundeth you. Let your vision be world-embracing, rather than confined to your own self. The Evil One is he that hindereth the rise and obstructeth the spiritual progress of the children of men.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 94​

We have hell too... Look at this passage I just discovered. Mind you if Paradise (Heaven) is attaining the good-pleasure of God, then Hell is its opposite.

“The fifth question concerneth the Bridge of Ṣiráṭ, Paradise, and Hell. The Prophets of God have come in truth and have spoken the truth. Whatsoever the Messenger of God hath announced hath been and will be made manifest. The world is established upon the foundations of reward and punishment. Knowledge and understanding have ever affirmed and will continue to affirm the reality of Paradise and Hell, for reward and punishment require their existence. Paradise signifieth first and foremost the good-pleasure of God. Whosoever attaineth His good-pleasure is reckoned and recorded among the inhabitants of the most exalted paradise and will attain, after the ascension of his soul, that which pen and ink are powerless to describe. For them that are endued with insight and have fixed their gaze upon the Most Sublime Vision, the Bridge, the Balance, Paradise, Hellfire, and all that hath been mentioned and recorded in the Sacred Scriptures are clear and manifest. At the time of the appearance and manifestation of the rays of the Daystar of Truth, all occupy the same station. God then proclaimeth that which He willeth, and whoso heareth His call and acknowledgeth His truth is accounted among the inhabitants of Paradise. Such a soul hath traversed the Bridge, the Balance, and all that hath been recorded regarding the Day of Resurrection, and hath reached his destination.”
The Tabernacle of Unity, Tablet of the Seven Questions, pp. 61- 63​

Baha’is like to make light of hell, saying it is just distance from God, but it seems to me it is more than that... According to Baha’u’llah, anyone who has have rejected Him will be going there, even if they believe in God through another religion. That means hell has to be more than just “distance from God.”

“Say: The heavens have been folded together, and the earth is held within His grasp, and the corrupt doers have been held by their forelock, and still they understand not. They drink of the tainted water, and know it not. Say: The shout hath been raised, and the people have come forth from their graves, and arising, are gazing around them. Some have made haste to attain the court of the God of Mercy, others have fallen down on their faces in the fire of Hell, while still others are lost in bewilderment. The verses of God have been revealed, and yet they have turned away from them. His proof hath been manifested, and yet they are unaware of it.And when they behold the face of the All-Merciful, their own faces are saddened, while they are disporting themselves.They hasten forward to Hell Fire, and mistake it for light. Far from God be what they fondly imagine! Say: Whether ye rejoice or whether ye burst for fury, the heavens are cleft asunder, and God hath come down, invested with radiant sovereignty. All created things are heard exclaiming: “The Kingdom is God’s, the Almighty, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 41-42​

“The purpose of God in creating man hath been, and will ever be, to enable him to know his Creator and to attain His Presence. To this most excellent aim, this supreme objective, all the heavenly Books and the divinely-revealed and weighty Scriptures unequivocally bear witness. Whoso hath recognized the Day Spring of Divine guidance and entered His holy court hath drawn nigh unto God and attained His Presence, a Presence which is the real Paradise, and of which the loftiest mansions of heaven are but a symbol. Such a man hath attained the knowledge of the station of Him Who is “at the distance of two bows,” Who standeth beyond the Sadratu’l-Muntahá. Whoso hath failed to recognize Him will have condemned himself to the misery of remoteness, a remoteness which is naught but utter nothingness and the essence of the nethermost fire. Such will be his fate, though to outward seeming he may occupy the earth’s loftiest seats and be established upon its most exalted throne.’” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 70-71​

 

[Trailblazer]

The empty tomb is used a lot by Christians as proof that Jesus did come back to life. And in one verse Jesus tells one of the apostles to touch him and see that he is not a ghost. So, regardless if it's true or not, I think original Christian teachings always made the claim that Jesus had come back to life.

So I can easily believe that they are full of %&*#, but that's not what the Baha'is, other than you, are saying. They are trying to say all these verses are symbolic. But, I don't see it. The gospel writers and early Christians, I think, really believed that Jesus rose from the dead. The "symbolic" explanation doesn't cut it with me. That's why I keep saying that if it didn't happen, then Christianity is based on myths and legends and nothing that really happened, Ironically, that includes the Virgin Birth, that Baha'i writings apparently support? That I don't get at all.

The only authoritative interpretation we have we have is what Abdu’l-Baha said about the resurrection, so that is where they get that from:

“Therefore, we say that the meaning of Christ’s resurrection is as follows: the disciples were troubled and agitated after the martyrdom of Christ. The Reality of Christ, which signifies His teachings, His bounties, His perfections and His spiritual power, was hidden and concealed for two or three days after His martyrdom, and was not resplendent and manifest. No, rather it was lost, for the believers were few in number and were troubled and agitated. The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body; and when after three days the disciples became assured and steadfast, and began to serve the Cause of Christ, and resolved to spread the divine teachings, putting His counsels into practice, and arising to serve Him, the Reality of Christ became resplendent and His bounty appeared; His religion found life; His teachings and His admonitions became evident and visible. In other words, the Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body until the life and the bounty of the Holy Spirit surrounded it.”
Some Answered Questions, p. 104​

The "symbolic" explanation doesn't cut it with me either, because it does not explain what is in the gospel stories. The gospel writers were either making up a story or the story was about apparition of Jesus that looked so real that the people who saw it thought it was real.

Christianity is based on myths and legends of things that never really happened. The virgin birth is an exception, but it is no big deal because God can perform miracles if He wants to.

 

[oldbadger]

The only authoritative interpretation we have we have is what Abdu’l-Baha said about the resurrection, so that is where they get that from:

“Therefore, we say that the meaning of Christ’s resurrection is as follows: the disciples were troubled and agitated after the martyrdom of Christ. The Reality of Christ, which signifies His teachings, His bounties, His perfections and His spiritual power, was hidden and concealed for two or three days after His martyrdom, and was not resplendent and manifest. No, rather it was lost, for the believers were few in number and were troubled and agitated. The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body; and when after three days the disciples became assured and steadfast, and began to serve the Cause of Christ, and resolved to spread the divine teachings, putting His counsels into practice, and arising to serve Him, the Reality of Christ became resplendent and His bounty appeared; His religion found life; His teachings and His admonitions became evident and visible. In other words, the Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body until the life and the bounty of the Holy Spirit surrounded it.”
Some Answered Questions, p. 104​

The "symbolic" explanation doesn't cut it with me either, because it does not explain what is in the gospel stories. The gospel writers were either making up a story or the story was about apparition of Jesus that looked so real that the people who saw it thought it was real.

Christianity is based on myths and legends of things that never really happened. The virgin birth is an exception, but it is no big deal because God can perform miracles if He wants to.

If Bahauallah did not write about Christianity in enough detail for absolute Bahai clarity about the resurrection, then I would not take notice of any other words, even those of his named successor.

But what Abdul Baha said, above, totally destroys the foundations of the Christian Faith........ whilst still trying to hold hands with it. A diplomatic juggling act, right there.

 

[Trailblazer]

If Bahauallah did not write about Christianity in enough detail for absolute Bahai clarity about the resurrection, then I would not take notice of any other words, even those of his named successor.

Baha'u'llah did not write about Jesus' resurrection but He explained what is meant by Resurrection, which has nothing to do with bodies rising from graves.

“It hath been demonstrated and definitely established, through clear evidences, thatby “Resurrection” is meant the rise of the Manifestation of God to proclaim His Cause, and by “attainment unto the divine Presence” is meant attainment unto the presence of His Beauty in the person of His Manifestation.”
The Kitáb-i-Íqán, p. 170​

But what Abdul Baha said, above, totally destroys the foundations of the Christian Faith........ whilst still trying to hold hands with it. A diplomatic juggling act, right there.

I cannot speak for other Baha'is but I am not holding hands with Christianity because that would be dishonest, since the doctrines of Christianity are in conflict with the Baha'i Faith.

 

[paarsurrey]

Baha’is do not believe that Jesus rose from the grave. The following is the official position of the Baha’i Faith on the resurrection:

“According to the Bahá’í teaching the Resurrection has nothing to do with the gross physical body. That body, once dead, is done with. It becomes decomposed and its atoms will never be recomposed into the same body.

Resurrection is the birth of the individual to spiritual life, through the gift of the Holy Spirit bestowed through the Manifestation of God. The grave from which he arises is the grave of ignorance and negligence of God. The sleep from which he awakens is the dormant spiritual condition in which many await the dawn of the Day of God. This dawn illumines all who have lived on the face of the earth, whether they are in the body or out of the body, but those who are spiritually blind cannot perceive it. The Day of Resurrection is not a day of twenty-four hours, but an era which has now begun and will last as long as the present world cycle continues. It will continue when all traces of the present civilization will have been wiped off the surface of the globe.” Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 222
​

Baha'u'llah emphasizes the importance of the resurrection in the Kitab-i-Iqan, but He was in no way referring to Jesus' resurrection from the dead. Below is what Baha’u’llah means by Resurrection and the Day of Resurrection.

“The fifth question concerneth the Bridge of Ṣiráṭ, Paradise, and Hell. The Prophets of God have come in truth and have spoken the truth. Whatsoever the Messenger of God hath announced hath been and will be made manifest. The world is established upon the foundations of reward and punishment. Knowledge and understanding have ever affirmed and will continue to affirm the reality of Paradise and Hell, for reward and punishment require their existence. Paradise signifieth first and foremost the good-pleasure of God. Whosoever attaineth His good-pleasure is reckoned and recorded among the inhabitants of the most exalted paradise and will attain, after the ascension of his soul, that which pen and ink are powerless to describe. For them that are endued with insight and have fixed their gaze upon the Most Sublime Vision, the Bridge, the Balance, Paradise, Hellfire, and all that hath been mentioned and recorded in the Sacred Scriptures are clear and manifest.......

At the time of the appearance and manifestation of the rays of the Daystar of Truth, all occupy the same station. God then proclaimeth that which He willeth, and whoso heareth His call and acknowledgeth His truth is accounted among the inhabitants of Paradise. Such a soul hath traversed the Bridge, the Balance, and all that hath been recorded regarding the Day of Resurrection, and hath reached his destination.....

The Day of God’s Revelation is the Day of the most great Resurrection. We cherish the hope that, quaffing from the choice wine of divine inspiration and the pure waters of heavenly grace, thou mayest attain the station of discovery and witnessing, and behold, both outwardly and inwardly, all that which thou hast mentioned.”
The Tabernacle of Unity, Tablet of the Seven Questions, pp. 61- 63

“How strange! These people with one hand cling to those verses of the Qur’án and those traditions of the people of certitude which they have found to accord with their inclinations and interests, and with the other reject those which are contrary to their selfish desires. “Believe ye then part of the Book, and deny part?” 4 …….. And yet, through the mystery of the former verse, they have turned away from the grace promised by the latter, despite the fact that “attainment unto the divine Presence” in the “Day of Resurrection” is explicitly stated in the Book. It hath been demonstrated and definitely established, through clear evidences, that by “Resurrection” is meant the rise of the Manifestation of God to proclaim His Cause, and by “attainment unto the divine Presence” is meant attainment unto the presence of His Beauty in the person of His Manifestation.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, pp. 169-170

“Strive, therefore, O my brother, to grasp the meaning of “Resurrection,” and cleanse thine ears from the idle sayings of these rejected people. Shouldst thou step into the realm of complete detachment, thou wilt readily testify that no day is mightier than this Day, and that no resurrection more awful than this Resurrection can ever be conceived. One righteous work performed in this Day, equalleth all the virtuous acts which for myriads of centuries men have practised—nay, We ask forgiveness of God for such a comparison! For verily the reward which such a deed deserveth is immensely beyond and above the estimate of men. Inasmuch as these undiscerning and wretched souls have failed to apprehend the true meaning of “Resurrection” and of the “attainment unto the divine Presence,” they therefore have remained utterly deprived of the grace thereof.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, pp. 144-145​

So, Bahaullah did not know as to what happened to Jesus on the Cross and afterwards. Lack of this knowledge reflects on the fallibility of Bahaullah. Right, please?

Regards

 

[oldbadger]

Baha'u'llah did not write about Jesus' resurrection but He explained what is meant by Resurrection, which has nothing to do with bodies rising from graves.

“It hath been demonstrated and definitely established, through clear evidences, thatby “Resurrection” is meant the rise of the Manifestation of God to proclaim His Cause, and by “attainment unto the divine Presence” is meant attainment unto the presence of His Beauty in the person of His Manifestation.”
The Kitáb-i-Íqán, p. 170​

​

OK.....

I cannot speak for other Baha'is but I am not holding hands with Christianity because that would be dishonest, since the doctrines of Christianity are in conflict with the Baha'i Faith.

I for one do respect your individual investigation, findings and straight talking about this.

 

[Trailblazer]

So, Bahaullah did not know as to what happened to Jesus on the Cross and afterwards. Lack of this knowledge reflects on the fallibility of Bahaullah. Right, please?

Regards

Of course Baha'u'llah knew all of that. Just because something is not in His Writings does not mean He did not know. He did not reveal everything He knew either because we did not need to know it or because we were not ready to hear it because we are not capable of understanding it.

Baha'u'llah did write about the trial of Jesus and the cross sacrifice and many other things. He did not write about the resurrection of Jesus from the grave because that never happened. Later, Abdu'l-Baha explained the meaning of the resurrection.

 

[CG Didymus]

The only authoritative interpretation we have we have is what Abdu’l-Baha said about the resurrection, so that is where they get that from:

“Therefore, we say that the meaning of Christ’s resurrection is as follows: the disciples were troubled and agitated after the martyrdom of Christ. The Reality of Christ, which signifies His teachings, His bounties, His perfections and His spiritual power, was hidden and concealed for two or three days after His martyrdom, and was not resplendent and manifest. No, rather it was lost, for the believers were few in number and were troubled and agitated. The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body; and when after three days the disciples became assured and steadfast, and began to serve the Cause of Christ, and resolved to spread the divine teachings, putting His counsels into practice, and arising to serve Him, the Reality of Christ became resplendent and His bounty appeared; His religion found life; His teachings and His admonitions became evident and visible. In other words, the Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body until the life and the bounty of the Holy Spirit surrounded it.”
Some Answered Questions, p. 104​

The "symbolic" explanation doesn't cut it with me either, because it does not explain what is in the gospel stories. The gospel writers were either making up a story or the story was about apparition of Jesus that looked so real that the people who saw it thought it was real.

Christianity is based on myths and legends of things that never really happened. The virgin birth is an exception, but it is no big deal because God can perform miracles if He wants to.

Both the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection are both similar for me. To people at that time, that had kings and prophets that were thought to be divine, and to have died and come back to life, why not the ultimate king and prophet, Jesus? If I was alive back then and someone came up to me all excited and said, "Hey, have you heard about Jesus?" And then went on to say he was born of a virgin and then was crucified but came back to life and was seen by many, many people. I really don't think I'd be thinking, "No, that is scientifically impossible." I'd probably go to their church and take a listen. Heck, I live in modern times and I went several times to several churches to take a listen.

Right now, look how they present it. They use the old "God can do anything" All these miracles are impossible for humans but not for God... and any man that can perform these miracles must be from God (unless they are from the devil, than those miracles are fake). They go through, in circles, how we can trust that the Bible is true. By the time they are done, it all makes perfect sense. Jesus walked on water, because he's God and can do anything. Of course he rose from the dead. Death can't keep a good man down. And, it is him, Jesus, that is coming back, because he's alive. And how do we know this? Because the Bible says so, and the Bible can't be wrong.

But then, what is the result? For the believer, they are locked into everyone of the building blocks. Take away any of the foundational blocks and the whole thing will fall down. The Bible is the inerrant, infallible word of God, foundational. Jesus is the only way and only one that can save us from our sins, and he is Lord and God, foundational. Got doubts? Then the world and the ruler of this world, Satan, is trying to deceive and confuse you. So you don't want that. But, some of us got doubts anyway, and the whole Christian thing crumbles.

One thing that crumbles is the Virgin Birth. Magi following a moving star? God making a woman pregnant without having sex? Lots of angels coming around and talking to people? But then, only two gospel writers write about it and they both contradict each other? And both weren't there, so how would they know about the star and the angels and that Mary was a virgin? Doubted it.

Crumbling... stories about people coming back to life. Jesus raises two people back from the dead. Baha'is have tried to explain Lazarus as having come to life spiritually from being dead spiritually. But that don't work. Lazarus was a friend of Jesus' and one of the Mary's was his sister. The story doesn't make him "spiritually" dead but definitely physically dead. And Jesus calls him out of the grave and the guy gets up. But for me, why doubt that? God can do anything. But they come up with a mass resurrection story. People coming out of their graves and walking around Jerusalem? But I shouldn't say "they", one, just one gospel writer says this. That's getting a little overboard.

But then the big one, Jesus. They've already laid the groundwork, miracle after impossible miracle, then Jesus comes back to life. The bad guys put guards and a big stone to keep people from stealing the body and pretending he had come back to life. Yes, the story says that is why they did it, because they knew he had predicted he would rise again. More angels appearing, then Jesus appearing... and then rising into the sky. If you don't buy it all, why buy any of it?

That's the problem I have with the Baha'i Faith and their explanations. They want me to believe in Jesus, but not all the things the New Testament says about him. Nope, can do it. If some of those things didn't happen, then my explanation is that it's all religious myth. Nothing but embellished stories to make Jesus a God/man. And why not? It worked on a lot of people.

 

[oldbadger]

..................
Baha'is don't have Satan and hell, so all religions that believe that Satan and hell are real are wrong. ...........

The irony of it all....
Bahai: We believe ........ about Jesus.
Agnostic: So you believe in Heaven, Hell, physical resurrection?
Bahai: Nah.......

 

[oldbadger]

Of course Baha'u'llah knew all of that. Just because something is not in His Writings does not mean He did not know. He did not reveal everything He knew either because we did not need to know it or because we were not ready to hear it because we are not capable of understanding it.

This is a wonderful 'back-stop' or 'buffer' to protect from 'lack of knowledge' about a thing, surely?

So if Bahauallah had wanted to he could have written down the essential details of Jesus's mission, message and actions in total clarity as clear proof of his own status, but decided that this would be a bad idea....?

Politicians like Mr Trump could learn from this..,..... every time he gets something absolutely upside-down, all he has to explain is that the time was not right for the people to know the truth. or he needed to veil his true meaning until the people were ready?

I just don't get this kind of nonsense.......

 

[oldbadger]

B
That's the problem I have with the Baha'i Faith and their explanations. They want me to believe in Jesus, but not all the things the New Testament says about him. .......

Bahai:- We believe in Jesus.
Agnostic:- You do? All of it?
Bahai:- Nah.....

 

[Trailblazer]

Both the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection are both similar for me. To people at that time, that had kings and prophets that were thought to be divine, and to have died and come back to life, why not the ultimate king and prophet, Jesus? If I was alive back then and someone came up to me all excited and said, "Hey, have you heard about Jesus?" And then went on to say he was born of a virgin and then was crucified but came back to life and was seen by many, many people. I really don't think I'd be thinking, "No, that is scientifically impossible." I'd probably go to their church and take a listen. Heck, I live in modern times and I went several times to several churches to take a listen.

I do not know why you cannot separate the Virgin Birth from the resurrection. Both do not have to be true in order for one to be true. The Baha’i explanations of both are perfectly logical. The thing is that you just let everything run together rather than looking at them separately.

Right now, look how they present it. They use the old "God can do anything" All these miracles are impossible for humans but not for God... and any man that can perform these miracles must be from God (unless they are from the devil, than those miracles are fake). They go through, in circles, how we can trust that the Bible is true. By the time they are done, it all makes perfect sense. Jesus walked on water, because he's God and can do anything. Of course he rose from the dead. Death can't keep a good man down. And, it is him, Jesus, that is coming back, because he's alive. And how do we know this? Because the Bible says so, and the Bible can't be wrong.

The Bible does not say that Jesus is alive or that Jesus is coming back. Even if the body of Jesus resurrected from the dead there is no reason to believe that the body of Jesus ever ascended into the sky or that it is going to return. All these beliefs are based upon MISINTERPRETATIONS of Bible verses.

Shall we look at some verses I have beaten to death with a Christian friend on my forum?

Acts 1:9-11 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.​

I am well aware of these verses and I have discussed them at length with Christians for many years. As such, I already have an interpretation.

The disciples were staring up into the sky as the spirit of Jesus was taken up to heaven out of their sight. The two men dressed in white (angels) came along and asked why they were staring up into the sky because they wondered why the disciples were staring up into the sky. Then the angels said that the same Jesus who was taken up to heaven will return as he went to heaven.

It does not say that the disciples saw a body go up. It was the Christ Spirit that ascended, not a body, which is why the angels wondered why the disciples were staring into the sky, since there was nothing to look at. That makes perfect sense since angels can see spirits.

Descending from heaven upon the clouds means that the spirit of Jesus, the Christ Spirit, will be made manifest from the heaven of the will of God and will appear in the form of the human temple. Though delivered from the womb of Mary, Jesus in reality descended from the heaven of the will of God. Baha’u’llah descended in like manner, from the heaven of the will of God.

But then, what is the result? For the believer, they are locked into everyone of the building blocks. Take away any of the foundational blocks and the whole thing will fall down. The Bible is the inerrant, infallible word of God, foundational. Jesus is the only way and only one that can save us from our sins, and he is Lord and God, foundational. Got doubts? Then the world and the ruler of this world, Satan, is trying to deceive and confuse you. So you don't want that. But, some of us got doubts anyway, and the whole Christian thing crumbles.

These are Christian beliefs, not Baha’i beliefs. We can take what we like and leave the rest. There are logical explanations as to why some of the NT is true but not all of it is true.

Crumbling... stories about people coming back to life. Jesus raises two people back from the dead. Baha'is have tried to explain Lazarus as having come to life spiritually from being dead spiritually. But that don't work. Lazarus was a friend of Jesus' and one of the Mary's was his sister. The story doesn't make him "spiritually" dead but definitely physically dead. And Jesus calls him out of the grave and the guy gets up. But for me, why doubt that? God can do anything. But they come up with a mass resurrection story. People coming out of their graves and walking around Jerusalem? But I shouldn't say "they", one, just one gospel writer says this. That's getting a little overboard.

Sorry but no. Jesus NEVER said He was going to bring anyone back from being physically dead. Can’t people read? Jesus was talking about spiritual life, not physical life. The giveaway is that Jesus talks about people being dead when they are still alive, like when Jesus said in Luke 9:60 Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God. He meant those who are spiritually dead.

John 11:23-27 Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” Martha said to Him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.” Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?” She said to Him, “Yes, Lord, I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.”​

When Jesus said “Your brother will rise again.” He did not mean rise physically. Jesus was the resurrection just as Baha’u’llah is now the resurrection. Resurrection means the rise of the Manifestation of God to proclaim His Cause.

“It hath been demonstrated and definitely established, through clear evidences, that by “Resurrection” is meant the rise of the Manifestation of God to proclaim His Cause, and by “attainment unto the divine Presence” is meant attainment unto the presence of His Beauty in the person of His Manifestation.”
The Kitáb-i-Íqán, p. 170​

But then the big one, Jesus. They've already laid the groundwork, miracle after impossible miracle, then Jesus comes back to life. The bad guys put guards and a big stone to keep people from stealing the body and pretending he had come back to life. Yes, the story says that is why they did it, because they knew he had predicted he would rise again. More angels appearing, then Jesus appearing... and then rising into the sky. If you don't buy it all, why buy any of it?

I do not buy any of it. It is a story plain and simple, a story used to convey spiritual truths. There is no way to know how it came to be written or why God allowed it to be written but IT DOES NOT MATTER ANYMORE, because the Revelation of Bahá’u’lláh abrogates unconditionally all the Dispensations gone before it. It does not matter what happened with the Bible. People can continue to waste their time talking about it or they can do something useful.

That's the problem I have with the Baha'i Faith and their explanations. They want me to believe in Jesus, but not all the things the New Testament says about him. Nope, can do it. If some of those things didn't happen, then my explanation is that it's all religious myth. Nothing but embellished stories to make Jesus a God/man. And why not? It worked on a lot of people.

It is too bad you cannot separate fact from fiction. It is a fact that Jesus existed and he did what it says He did in the Baha’i Writings. Why can’t you just accept that as the authority? What the Gospels say is either symbolic of something meant to be taken as spiritual truth or it is simply something written by fallible men that never happened at all. There is no way to know we even have anything original. It is such a mess, why bother with it now? We have the Qur’an and the Baha’i Writings that completely supersede the Bible. The Bible days are over, why can’t people just face it and move on?

One cannot be both a Baha’i and a Christian because their beliefs and tenets are contradictory. Baha’is are required to believe in Jesus, but not any of the Gospel stories or the doctrines of the Church. I do not consider the Virgin Birth a doctrine. It was a miracle and Jesus and Baha’u’llah both did miracles, and I see no problem with that. That needs to be separated from the stories in the Bible that were meant to convey spiritual truths and not actual facts.

As Baha’is, regarding Christianity, the following is ALL we are required to believe. We ARE NOT required to believe the Gospel stories or the doctrines of the Church.

“As to the position of Christianity, let it be stated without any hesitation or equivocation that its divine origin is unconditionally acknowledged, that the Sonship and Divinity of Jesus Christ are fearlessly asserted, that the divine inspiration of the Gospel is fully recognized, that the reality of the mystery of the Immaculacy of the Virgin Mary is confessed, and the primacy of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, is upheld and defended. The Founder of the Christian Faith is designated by Bahá’u’lláh as the “Spirit of God,” is proclaimed as the One Who “appeared out of the breath of the Holy Ghost,” and is even extolled as the “Essence of the Spirit.” His mother is described as “that veiled and immortal, that most beauteous, countenance,” and the station of her Son eulogized as a “station which hath been exalted above the imaginings of all that dwell on earth,” whilst Peter is recognized as one whom God has caused “the mysteries of wisdom and of utterance to flow out of his mouth.” ........

Indeed, the essential prerequisites of admittance into the Bahá’í fold of Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, and the followers of other ancient faiths, as well as of agnostics and even atheists, is the wholehearted and unqualified acceptance by them all of the divine origin of both Islám and Christianity, of the Prophetic functions of both Muḥammad and Jesus Christ, of the legitimacy of the institution of the Imamate, and of the primacy of St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles. Such are the central, the solid, the incontrovertible principles that constitute the bedrock of Bahá’í belief, which the Faith of Bahá’u’lláh is proud to acknowledge, which its teachers proclaim, which its apologists defend, which its literature disseminates, which its summer schools expound, and which the rank and file of its followers attest by both word and deed.”
The Promised Day is Come, pp. 109-110​

 

[Trailblazer]

This is a wonderful 'back-stop' or 'buffer' to protect from 'lack of knowledge' about a thing, surely?

Baha'u'llah clearly explained why He did not reveal everything He knew:

“Oh, would that the world could believe Me! Were all the things that lie enshrined within the heart of Bahá, and which the Lord, His God, the Lord of all names, hath taught Him, to be unveiled to mankind, every man on earth would be dumbfounded.

How great the multitude of truths which the garment of words can never contain! How vast the number of such verities as no expression can adequately describe, whose significance can never be unfolded, and to which not even the remotest allusions can be made! How manifold are the truths which must remain unuttered until the appointed time is come! Even as it hath been said: “Not everything that a man knoweth can be disclosed, nor can everything that he can disclose be regarded as timely, nor can every timely utterance be considered as suited to the capacity of those who hear it.

Of these truths some can be disclosed only to the extent of the capacity of the repositories of the light of Our knowledge, and the recipients of Our hidden grace.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 176​

So if Bahauallah had wanted to he could have written down the essential details of Jesus's mission, message and actions in total clarity as clear proof of his own status, but decided that this would be a bad idea....?

Baha'u'llah did not need to write down all the details of Jesus's mission, but He summarized it as follows:

“Know thou that when the Son of Man yielded up His breath to God, the whole creation wept with a great weeping. By sacrificing Himself, however, a fresh capacity was infused into all created things. Its evidences, as witnessed in all the peoples of the earth, are now manifest before thee. The deepest wisdom which the sages have uttered, the profoundest learning which any mind hath unfolded, the arts which the ablest hands have produced, page the influence exerted by the most potent of rulers, are but manifestations of the quickening power released by His transcendent, His all-pervasive, and resplendent Spirit.

We testify that when He came into the world, He shed the splendor of His glory upon all created things. Through Him the leper recovered from the leprosy of perversity and ignorance. Through Him, the unchaste and wayward were healed. Through His power, born of Almighty God, the eyes of the blind were opened, and the soul of the sinner sanctified.

Leprosy may be interpreted as any veil that interveneth between man and the recognition of the Lord, his God. Whoso alloweth himself to be shut out from Him is indeed a leper, who shall not be remembered in the Kingdom of God, the Mighty, the All-Praised. We bear witness that through the power of the Word of God every leper was cleansed, every sickness was healed, every human infirmity was banished. He it is Who purified the world. Blessed is the man who, with a face beaming with light, hath turned towards Him.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 85-86
​

The proof of Baha'u'llah's status, aside from His Own Person and His Writings, is that Baha'u'llah did everything Jesus said he would do when He returned.

The Church misled Christians into believing that the Comforter and Spirit of truth are the Holy Spirit that Jesus sent to live inside of them, but a spirit living inside of people cannot DO any of the following things that are in John 14, 15 and 16; only a man could do those things. Baha'u'llah did all these things which is the proof that He was the return of the Spirit of Christ promised by Jesus.

• Teach you all things
• Call to remembrance what Jesus said
• Testify of Jesus
• Glorify Jesus, receive of Jesus, and shew it unto you
• Guide you into all truth
• Speak what He hears and shew you things to come
• Reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment

 

[oldbadger]

Baha'u'llah clearly explained why He did not reveal everything He knew: Of these truths some can be disclosed only to the extent of the capacity of the repositories of the light of Our knowledge, and the recipients of Our hidden grace.”

OK....... so he didn't unveil all about Jesus........... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

...............Baha'u'llah did all these things which is the proof that He was the return of the Spirit of Christ promised by Jesus.
Teach you all things................
..................Guide you into all truth

No, Trailblazer, that is just Not True!
See above! Please read Bahauallah's words (above) which explained that he would not, could not be revealing all truth.....

 

[Trailblazer]

No, Trailblazer, that is just Not True!
See above! Please read Bahauallah's words (above) which explained that he would not, could not be revealing all truth.....

You are right. If you interpret what Jesus said in John 16:13 literally.....
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come, then Baha'u'llah did not do that. Jesus meant that figuratively, not literally.

All truth can never be revealed by a Manifestation of God at any given time in history because humanity does not have the capacity to hear all truth; so what Jesus meant in John 16:13 is that the Spirit of Truth would guide humanity into all truth that humanity was ready to hear during His dispensation. If Baha'u'llah had revealed all the Truth He knew, everyone would be dumbfounded:

“Oh, would that the world could believe Me! Were all the things that lie enshrined within the heart of Bahá, and which the Lord, His God, the Lord of all names, hath taught Him, to be unveiled to mankind, every man on earth would be dumbfounded.......
Of these truths some can be disclosed only to the extent of the capacity of the repositories of the light of Our knowledge, and the recipients of Our hidden grace.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 176​

 

[Desert Snake]

'Speaking for Jesus', or best surmization. I believe there is a good chance that Paul is either speaking for Jesus, or speaking for the religion. In other words, Jesus practiced a religion, Himself, and, that would have been compared, at the time, the texts were written. Not so much now, very subjective how certain ideas are understood. Ironically, one would expect it to be the other way around, but, I believe, it isn't, the religion has been obfuscated, in my opinion.