Did Paul champion the Cause of Christ or corrupt it?

[CG Didymus]

If Bahai is right then I might be meeting with you somewhere where neither of us wanted to be.

That's why I keep supporting the Hindu belief in reincarnation... even if I have to come back as some kind of animal. One shot at life to get it right? Hardly fair.

 

[CG Didymus]

Paul was full of..... Pauline Christianity.

Hmmm? When I was with Christians and studying the Bible, I had no problem with Paul. I guess I'm going to have to go back and read some of his #%*@.

But the main thing that has to be determined is... did Jesus come back to life. If he didn't, then, for me, all of Christianity is based on a myth. That would look good for Baha'is, but, for me, that would make God kind of whacked out.

That would mean that God lets people believe all sorts of false notions... and then punishes them for being so gullible. Actually, it worse then that. God lets people develop false religions. Then, those people tell those that don't believe that they will be punished by God. So who's better off? The gullible ones that created and believed the false religious beliefs, or the ones that were smart enough to see through them?

 

[Dawnofhope]

I am not judging anyone. I am not assuming anything about who gets to heaven. As I told oldbadger, we Baha’is have been told very little about the afterlife.

“Death proffereth unto every confident believer the cup that is life indeed. It bestoweth joy, and is the bearer of gladness. It conferreth the gift of everlasting life.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 345
We don’t even know if Baha’u’llah is referring to ALL believers, or just Baha’is, although there are some other quotes that indicate only Baha’is have everlasting life.

“He is indeed as one dead who, at the wondrous dawn of this Revelation, hath failed to be quickened by its soul-stirring breeze. He is indeed a captive who hath not recognized the Supreme Redeemer, but hath suffered his soul to be bound, distressed and helpless, in the fetters of his desires.

O My servants! Whoso hath tasted of this Fountain hath attained unto everlasting Life, and whoso hath refused to drink therefrom is even as the dead. Say: O ye workers of iniquity! Covetousness hath hindered you from giving a hearing ear unto the sweet voice of Him Who is the All-Sufficing. Wash it away from your hearts, that His Divine secret may be made known unto you. Behold Him manifest and resplendent as the sun in all its glory.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 169

“Incline your ears to the sweet melody of this Prisoner. Arise, and lift up your voices, that haply they that are fast asleep may be awakened. Say: O ye who are as dead! The Hand of Divine bounty proffereth unto you the Water of Life. Hasten and drink your fill. Whoso hath been re-born in this Day, shall never die; whoso remaineth dead, shall never live.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 213

“The Book of God is wide open, and His Word is summoning mankind unto Him. No more than a mere handful, however, hath been found willing to cleave to His Cause, or to become the instruments for its promotion. These few have been endued with the Divine Elixir that can, alone, transmute into purest gold the dross of the world, and have been empowered to administer the infallible remedy for all the ills that afflict the children of men. No man can obtain everlasting life, unless he embraceth the truth of this inestimable, this wondrous, and sublime Revelation.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 183

They are certainly challenging words from Baha'u'llah. We need to consider the Baha'i writings in their entirity as well as the authoritative words of the guardian.

"But if the prophetic injunctions have not reached a place and the people fail, as a result, to act in conformity with the divine teachings, then they are not held accountable according to the laws of religion. For instance, Christ enjoined that cruelty should be met with kindness. If a person remains unaware of this injunction and acts according to the promptings of nature, that is, if he returns injury for injury, then he is not held accountable according to the laws of religion, for this divine injunction has not been conveyed to him. Although such a person is not deserving of divine bounty and favour, God will nevertheless deal with him in His mercy and grant him forgiveness."
('Abdu'l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, par. 76:4)

"Those who have never had any opportunity of hearing of the Faith but who lived good lives will no doubt be treated with the greatest love and mercy in the next world and reap their full reward."
(Directives from the Guardian, no. 108, p. 40)

"This cycle is the cycle of favor and not of justice. Therefore, those whose deeds are clean and pure, even though they are not believers, will not be deprived of the divine mercy; but perfection is in faith and deeds. Undoubtedly, a person, who is not a believer, but whose deeds and morals are good, is far better than one who claims his belief in words but, who, in actions, is a follower of satan. The Blessed Beauty says, 'My humiliation is not in my imprisonment, which, by my life, is an exaltation to me; nay rather, it is in the deeds of my friends, who attribute themselves to us and commit that which causes my heart and pen to weep!'"
(Attributed to 'Abdu'l-Bahá, Star of the West, vol. 9, issue 3, p. 29)

Non-believers - Bahai9

In response to a question about the first verse of the Kitab-i-Aqdas Abdu'l-Baha provided the following response:

"Question: It is said in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas: “…whoso is deprived thereof, hath gone astray, though he be the author of every righteous deed”. What is the meaning of this verse?

"Answer: The meaning of this blessed verse is that the foundation of success and salvation is the recognition of God, and that good deeds, which are the fruit of faith, derive from this recognition.

"When this recognition is not attained, man remains veiled from God and, as he is veiled, his good works fail to achieve their full and desired effect. This verse does not mean that those who are veiled from God are all equal, whether they be doers of good or workers of iniquity. It means only that the foundation is the recognition of God and that good deeds derive from this knowledge. Nevertheless, it is certain that among those who are veiled from God there is a difference between the doer of good and the sinner and malefactor. For the veiled soul who is endowed with good character and conduct merits the forgiveness of God, while the veiled sinner possessed of bad character and conduct will be deprived of the bounties and bestowals of God. Herein lies the difference."

"This blessed verse means, therefore, that good deeds alone, without the recognition of God, cannot lead to eternal redemption, to everlasting success and salvation, and to admittance into the Kingdom of God."
('Abdu'l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, Chapter 65; note that the mentioned verse from the Aqdas is par. 1)

What I see happening in the Baha’i Faith is exactly what I see happened in Christianity. They have the Bible and we have the Writings of Baha’u’llah, Abdu’l-Baha, and Shoghi Effendi. Those can be interpreted in more than one way. Also, and more importantly, you can always find another passage that says something a little different.

Also, one must have the full context, not just parts of the letters of Shoghi Effendi.

"To 'get to heaven' as you say is dependent on two things--faith in the Manifestation of God in His Day, in other words in this age in Bahá'u'lláh; and good deeds, in other words living to the best of our ability a noble life and doing unto others as we would be done by. But we must always remember that our existence and everything we have or ever will have is dependent upon the mercy of God and His bounty, and therefore He can accept into His heaven, which is really nearness to Him, even the lowliest if He pleases. We always have the hope of receiving His mercy if we reach out for it."
(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, January 12,
1957)

"God judges each soul on its own merits. The Guardian cannot tell you what the attitude of God would be towards a person who lives a good life in most ways, but not in this way. All he can tell you is that it is forbidden by Bahá'u'lláh, and that one so afflicted should struggle and struggle again to overcome it. We must be hopeful of God's Mercy but not impose upon it."
(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, March 26, 1950)

Lights of Guidance (second part): A Bahá'í Reference File

I agree that we must have the full context of verses.

It is obviously vitally important to recognise the Manifstation of God for this day (Baha'u'llah) and to follow His commandments.

It is a useful discussion to consider why that is important. Perhaps it comes back to our purpose in life. You will no doubt be familiar with the short obligatoy prayer.

Thou hast created me to know Thee and to worship Thee

Bahá'í Reference Library - Prayers and Meditations by Bahá’u’lláh, Page 314

Verses need to be read in context. It could be any clearer. Paul did away with the Law. Before Jesus came, we were under the Law, but after Jesus came we were no longer bound by the Law.

Galatians 3:21-26 King James Version (KJV)

21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

Question: "What does it mean that Christians are not under the law?"

What does it mean that Christians are not under the law?

It means they are no longer bound by the Old Covenant. It does not mean they don't have to follow any laws.

If you want examples of laws Paul laid down:

1 Corinthians 5
1 Corinthians 6
1 Corinthians 7
1 Corinthians 11
2 Corinthians 9:6-15

I am going to start a new thread containing what Udo Schaefer said about Paul, but because the book is not online, I have to type that section from the book. It has many references so that is why it is taking a long time to type up.

Why not read Paul's epistles and study them yourself first?

The Bible and the Gospels are most honored in the estimation of all Baha'is. One of the spiritual utterances of His Holiness Christ in his Sermon on the Mount is preferable to me to all the writings of the philosophers. It is the religious duty of every Baha'i to read and comprehend the meanings of the Old and New Testament."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Star of the West, Vol. 14, p. 55)

 

[Marcion]

But the main thing that has to be determined is... did Jesus come back to life. If he didn't, then, for me, all of Christianity is based on a myth. That would look good for Baha'is, but, for me, that would make God kind of whacked out.

That would mean that God lets people believe all sorts of false notions... and then punishes them for being so gullible. Actually, it worse then that. God lets people develop false religions. Then, those people tell those that don't believe that they will be punished by God. So who's better off? The gullible ones that created and believed the false religious beliefs, or the ones that were smart enough to see through them?

What you seem to be calling 'false' here is everything that religious people made up as religious myth.
But that is how human spirituality started out, as shamanic priests making up mythical stories for people to make sense of their world.
We don't really need that any longer but in all the old religions myth is endemic.
Even recent religions such as Scientology are full of myths.

And still, people seem to trust older religions better because they have those strong central myths. Paths without such myths are few and far between and don't get the same sort of respect.
If you don't like this superstitious irrational approach from the past it seems better to become a Buddhist, a Sufi or start doing Tantra-Yoga and forget about all those religions with their hollow promises of eternal paradise.

It is obviously vitally important to recognise the Manifstation of God for this day (Baha'u'llah) and to follow His commandments.

That may seem so for followers of Bahaullah.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I'd like to address this separately in some detail because I believe that this is a very important aspect of the Bible's teachings that very few actually understand.

This is how we see those things.....based solely on scripture.

I believe you are sincere in what you believe. It is of course very different to how a Baha'i would view and interpret the book of revelation. Clearly there are a broad range of approaches to interpretation and the link I provided outlines four. For Baha'is most, though not all of the events of the book of revelation have taken place. The book of Daniel uses a similar apocalyptic style of language as the book of revelation. A portion of Daniel 11 descibes historic events that took place in regards the Jews under the Persian and Greek empires. In a similar manner nearly two thousand years after Revelations was written a great deal has happened that would fit into known history.

One could consider a religion called Islam that in all likelihood will exceed Christianity as the largest religion in the world in another 50 years. You may want to consider that Islamic empires have occupied the Holy Land for the majority of time period since the seventh to twentieth centuries. A certain dragon with many heads, horns and crowns (Revelation 12:3) may refer to a particular Caliphate that expanded rapidly into Africa, Europe and Asia. The number 666 may relate to the number of years after the birth of Christ, this particular beast was born!

 

[Dawnofhope]

Hello again Adrian......no, my father served overseas in the military but was thankfully not involved in that awful tragedy. I am grateful that he never actually participated in any armed conflict.

He died very suddenly at home, at the age of 52. I was standing right beside him and he died as the result of a massive clot that lodged in his heart. He never uttered a sound. One minute he was sitting in his chair watching TV and the next minute he was gone. He probably never knew what hit him. Our devastation over his sudden exit was always accompanied by our fear that he too was experiencing the pain of sudden separation from the family he loved. This always weighed heavily on me....until I saw in the scriptures that death is a state of unconsciousness. Those who 'sleep', can't suffer. (Ecclesiastes 9:5; 10) A huge burden was lifted.

That is a nice way to go. Quick and painless. I was with my parents when they died. I believe our parents are somewhere in the next world, but I have to rely on my understanding of scripture for that.

We have no belief in a hell of eternal torment, but that doesn't mean we discount the existence of a real devil. (a rebel spirit) The Bible's whole scenario from start to finish is basically all about him.....what he did....the issues he raised.....the damage he caused...and how God undoes it, leaving the precious gift of free will intact.
If he was not a real entity, then the Bible makes no sense to us.

Heaven and hell are staes of being that can exist in both this world and the next. Satan is a symbol for our lower nature.

Heaven and Hell | What Bahá’ís Believe

 

[oldbadger]

That's why I keep supporting the Hindu belief in reincarnation... even if I have to come back as some kind of animal. One shot at life to get it right? Hardly fair.

It just might be a methematical certainty that you will live again.... and again. But if you don't, then don't come moaning at me about it!

 

[oldbadger]

Hmmm? When I was with Christians and studying the Bible, I had no problem with Paul. I guess I'm going to have to go back and read some of his #%*@.

But the main thing that has to be determined is... did Jesus come back to life. If he didn't, then, for me, all of Christianity is based on a myth. That would look good for Baha'is, but, for me, that would make God kind of whacked out.

That would mean that God lets people believe all sorts of false notions... and then punishes them for being so gullible. Actually, it worse then that. God lets people develop false religions. Then, those people tell those that don't believe that they will be punished by God. So who's better off? The gullible ones that created and believed the false religious beliefs, or the ones that were smart enough to see through them?

I feel certain that the historical Jesus never resurrected. And being a Deist I don't think that my Deity cares any more for us than for the blooming seagull that's screaming it's head off on our garden fence. I'll just go and tell it that.

 

[Dawnofhope]

That may seem so for followers of Bahaullah.

You have to admit despite your universal leanings you are staunchly anti-Abrahamic as with some Hindus I've come across on RF.

 

[Trailblazer]

What does it mean that Christians are not under the law?
It means they are no longer bound by the Old Covenant. It does not mean they don't have to follow any laws.
If you want examples of laws Paul laid down:
1 Corinthians 5
1 Corinthians 6
1 Corinthians 7
1 Corinthians 11
2 Corinthians 9:6-15

Those are not Laws, they are injunctions. Paul was not a Manifestation of God so he did not have the authority vested in him by God to lay down Laws of God. Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha’u’llah had that authority.

Everything Baha’u’llah wrote are not Laws; only what is in The Kitab-i-Aqdas are Laws.

Question: "What does it mean that Christians are not under the law?"

The Law is the issue that has to be dealt with in order to bring us into a right relationship with God. "Know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified" (Galatians 2:16). This passage reveals that the Law cannot justify or make righteous any man in God’s sight, which is why God sent His Son to completely fulfil the requirements of the Law for all those who would ever believe in Him.

Christ Jesus redeemed us from the curse that has been brought through the law by becoming a curse for us (Galatians 3:13). He substituted Himself in our place and upon the cross took the punishment that is justly ours so that we are no longer under the curse of the Law. In doing so, He fulfilled and upheld the requirements of the Law. This does not mean that Christians are to be lawless, as some advocate today—a teaching called antinomianism. Rather, it means that we are free from the Mosaic Law and instead under the law of Christ, which is to love God with all of our being and to love our neighbors as we love ourselves.

Christ became the end of the Law by virtue of what He did on earth through His sinless life and His sacrifice on the cross. So, the Law no longer has any bearing over us because its demands have been fully met in the Lord Jesus Christ. Faith in Christ who satisfied the righteous demands of the Law restores us into a pleasing relationship with God and keeps us there. No longer under the penalty of the Law, we now live under the law of grace in the love of God.
What does it mean that Christians are not under the law?​

Jesus did not become the end of the Law by virtue of what He did on earth through His sinless life and His sacrifice on the cross.

Jesus' Teaching on God's Law

“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill” (Matthew 5:17).

This is a complete distortion of what Jesus taught. I do not know how much Paul had to do with it, but certainly Paul agreed that we were no longer under the Law:

Galatians 3:23-26 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

Why not read Paul's epistles and study them yourself first?

I am not interested in studying the Bible. I already know that Paul changed the course of Christianity and did away with the Law, so I know he went against what Jesus taught. That is all I need to know. I would however be interested in the Christianity of Jesus.

James D Tabor, Contributor
Professor of Religious Studies at University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Writer, Researcher, Christian Origins, Ancient Judaism

Christianity Before Paul

The fundamental doctrinal tenets of Christianity can be traced back to Paul — not to Jesus. In contrast, the original Christianity before Paul is somewhat difficult to find in the New Testament.

Over the span of my academic career I have taught a course simply titled “Paul,” and I half-jokingly tell the students the first day that Paul is one of those people for whom a last name is not necessary, much like Elvis or Madonna. I have begun the course with what I intend to be a startling assertion: Paul is the most influential person in human history. I have in mind, of course, the West in particular. The foundations of Western civilization, from our assumptions about reality to our societal and personal ethics, rest upon the heavenly visions and apparitions of a single man — the apostle Paul. We are all cultural heirs of Paul. In contrast, Jesus as a historical figure — that is, a Jewish Messiah of his own time who sought to see the kingdom of God established on earth — has been largely lost to our culture. In this holiday season, it is worth taking pause and thinking a bit about the historical origins of the Christian faith, and how much it depends on St. Paul.

Visit any church service, Roman Catholic, Protestant or Greek Orthodox, and it is the apostle Paul and his ideas that are central — in the hymns, the creeds, the sermons, the invocation and benediction, and of course, the rituals of baptism and the Holy Communion or Mass. Whether birth, baptism, confirmation, marriage or death, it is predominantly Paul who is evoked to express meaning and significance.

The fundamental doctrinal tenets of Christianity, namely that Christ is God “born in the flesh,” that his sacrificial death atones for the sins of humankind, and that his resurrection from the dead guarantees eternal life to all who believe, can be traced back to Paul — not to Jesus. Indeed, the spiritual union with Christ through baptism, as well as the “communion” with his body and blood through the sacred meal of bread and wine, also trace back to Paul. This is the Christianity most familiar to us, with the creeds and confessions that separated it from Judaism and put it on the road to becoming a new religion.

Paul never met Jesus. The chronological facts are undisputed. Jesus of Nazareth was crucified during the reign of Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor or prefect of Judea, in April, A.D. 30. As best we can determine it was not until seven years after Jesus’ death, around A.D. 37, that Paul reports his initial apparition of “Christ,” whom he identifies with Jesus raised from the dead. He asks his followers when challenged for his credentials: “Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” equating his visionary experience with that of those who had known Jesus face-to-face (1 Corinthians 9:1). Paul’s claim to have “seen” Jesus, as well as the teachings he says he received directly from Jesus, came after Jesus’ lifetime, and can be categorized as subjective clairvoyant experiences (Galatians 1:12, 18; 2:1; 2 Corinthians 12:1-10). These “revelations” were not a one-time experience of “conversion,” but a phenomenon that continued over the course of Paul’s life. Paul confesses that he does not comprehend the nature of these ecstatic spiritual experiences, whether they were “in the body, or out of the body” but he believed that the voice he heard, the figure he saw and the messages he received were encounters with the heavenly Christ (2 Corinthians 12:2-3).

It was a full decade after Jesus’ death that Paul first met Peter in Jerusalem (whom he calls Cephas, his Aramaic name), and had a brief audience with James, the brother of Jesus, and leader of the Jesus movement (Galatians 1:18-23). Paul subsequently operated independently of the original apostles, preaching and teaching what he calls his “Gospel,” in Asia Minor for another 10 years before making a return trip to Jerusalem around A.D. 50. It was only then, 20 years after Jesus’ death, that he encountered James and Peter again in Jerusalem and met for the first time the rest of the original apostles of Jesus (Galatians 2:1). This rather extraordinary chronological gap is a surprise to many. It is one of the key factors in understanding Paul and his message.

What this means is that we must imagine a “Christianity before Paul” that existed independently of his influence or ideas for more than 20 years, as well as a Christianity preached by Paul, which developed independently of Jesus’ original apostles and followers.

I have spent my 30-year career as a scholar of Christian Origins investigating the silence between two back-to-back statements of the Apostles’ Creed, namely that Jesus was: “Conceived by the Holy Ghost, Born of the Virgin Mary,” and that he “Was crucified, dead and buried, and on the third day He rose again from the dead.”

Is it not striking that this oldest and most foundational Christian creed jumps from Jesus’ birth to his death and resurrection, entirely skipping over his life?

How did it happen that the way Jesus came into the world, and how he left — Christmas and Easter — came to define Christianity itself? Here Catholics, mainstream Protestants and evangelicals all agree. To be a Christian is to believe in the virgin birth and resurrection of Christ, and thus to participate in the salvation Christ brought to the world as God-in-the-flesh.

In contrast, the original Christianity before Paul is somewhat difficult to find in the New Testament, since Paul’s 13 letters predominate and Paul heavily influences even our four Gospels. Fortunately, in the letter of James, attributed to the brother of Jesus, as well as in a collection of the sayings of Jesus now embedded in the Gospel of Luke (the source scholars call Q), we can still get a glimpse of the original teachings of Jesus.

What we get in the letter of James is the most direct possible link to the Jewish teachings of Jesus himself. James is quite sure that the “Judge” is standing at the door, and that the kingdom of God has drawn very near (James 5:7). He warns the rich and those who oppress the weak that very soon the judgment of God will strike. James seems to be directly echoing and affirming what he had learned and passed on from his brother Jesus. It is important to note that James did not directly quote Jesus or attribute any of these teachings to Jesus by name — even though they are teaching of Jesus.

For James the Christian message is not the person of Jesus but the message that Jesus proclaimed. James’ letter lacks a single teaching that is characteristic of the apostle Paul and it draws nothing at all from the Gospel narratives. What we have preserved in this precious document is a reflection of the original apocalyptic proclamation of Jesus: the “Gospel of the kingdom of God” with its political and social implications.

Christianity Before Paul | HuffPost​

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Everything Baha’u’llah wrote are not Laws; only what is in The Kitab-i-Aqdas are Laws.

Many of Baha'u'llah's Laws are written and explained in other Tablets and supplement the Most Holy Book.

This is a most amazing aspect of 'Revelation Writing'.

Regards Tony

 

[paarsurrey]

Many of Baha'u'llah's Laws are written and explained in other Tablets and supplement the Most Holy Book.

This is a most amazing aspect of 'Revelation Writing'.

Regards Tony

And the need of Kitab-i-Aqdas, I believe, was a later realization of Bahaullah and was compiled from his writings as I understand from my Bahais friends here.
Strictly speaking, Bahaullah had inspiration/revelation in the sense a poet gets his ideas generated in the self, these are not words of G-d which are received by a prophet/messenger etc from outside.
Has Bahaullah explained difference between inspiration and revelation, please?
Any Bahai or Non-Bahai please.
And now after 125 years of Bahaullah the time has changed, so this Law-Book, as per the argument offered for the New-Law has, perhaps, lost its benefit, if the argument was valid. Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

You are free to believe whatever you wish because you have free will.

It is a Baha’i belief that Muhammad was the Seal of the Prophets, which means He was the last Prophet in the prophetic cycle of religion. The Dispensation of Muhammad ended in 1844 with the coming of the Bab. The Bab ushered in the Bahai Cycle (also called the Cycle of Fulfillment because all the prophecies from former religions will be fulfilled during this Cycle). We are now living in the Dispensation of Baha'u'llah.

A dispensation is a time period, so only one dispensation can exist at a time. Two dispensations cannot take place concurrently.

"A dispensation is a time period, so only one dispensation can exist at a time." Unquote.
Thanks for admitting the title name wakhātaman-nabiyyeen or Seal of the Prophets bestowed on him by G-d.
Bahaullah did not follow Muhammad so Bahaullah did not have Seal of Authenticity from Muhammad to claim rightfully to be a prophet/messenger of G-d.
So, I believe, Law of Muhammad as given in Quran is as valid and as fresh as it was in Muhammad's time. Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Those are not Laws, they are injunctions. Paul was not a Manifestation of God so he did not have the authority vested in him by God to lay down Laws of God. Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha’u’llah had that authority.

Everything Baha’u’llah wrote are not Laws; only what is in The Kitab-i-Aqdas are Laws.

Question: "What does it mean that Christians are not under the law?"

The Law is the issue that has to be dealt with in order to bring us into a right relationship with God. "Know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified" (Galatians 2:16). This passage reveals that the Law cannot justify or make righteous any man in God’s sight, which is why God sent His Son to completely fulfil the requirements of the Law for all those who would ever believe in Him.

Christ Jesus redeemed us from the curse that has been brought through the law by becoming a curse for us (Galatians 3:13). He substituted Himself in our place and upon the cross took the punishment that is justly ours so that we are no longer under the curse of the Law. In doing so, He fulfilled and upheld the requirements of the Law. This does not mean that Christians are to be lawless, as some advocate today—a teaching called antinomianism. Rather, it means that we are free from the Mosaic Law and instead under the law of Christ, which is to love God with all of our being and to love our neighbors as we love ourselves.

Christ became the end of the Law by virtue of what He did on earth through His sinless life and His sacrifice on the cross. So, the Law no longer has any bearing over us because its demands have been fully met in the Lord Jesus Christ. Faith in Christ who satisfied the righteous demands of the Law restores us into a pleasing relationship with God and keeps us there. No longer under the penalty of the Law, we now live under the law of grace in the love of God.
What does it mean that Christians are not under the law?​

Jesus did not become the end of the Law by virtue of what He did on earth through His sinless life and His sacrifice on the cross.

Jesus' Teaching on God's Law

“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill” (Matthew 5:17).

This is a complete distortion of what Jesus taught. I do not know how much Paul had to do with it, but certainly Paul agreed that we were no longer under the Law:

Galatians 3:23-26 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

I am not interested in studying the Bible. I already know that Paul changed the course of Christianity and did away with the Law, so I know he went against what Jesus taught. That is all I need to know. I would however be interested in the Christianity of Jesus.

James D Tabor, Contributor
Professor of Religious Studies at University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Writer, Researcher, Christian Origins, Ancient Judaism

Christianity Before Paul

The fundamental doctrinal tenets of Christianity can be traced back to Paul — not to Jesus. In contrast, the original Christianity before Paul is somewhat difficult to find in the New Testament.

Over the span of my academic career I have taught a course simply titled “Paul,” and I half-jokingly tell the students the first day that Paul is one of those people for whom a last name is not necessary, much like Elvis or Madonna. I have begun the course with what I intend to be a startling assertion: Paul is the most influential person in human history. I have in mind, of course, the West in particular. The foundations of Western civilization, from our assumptions about reality to our societal and personal ethics, rest upon the heavenly visions and apparitions of a single man — the apostle Paul. We are all cultural heirs of Paul. In contrast, Jesus as a historical figure — that is, a Jewish Messiah of his own time who sought to see the kingdom of God established on earth — has been largely lost to our culture. In this holiday season, it is worth taking pause and thinking a bit about the historical origins of the Christian faith, and how much it depends on St. Paul.

Visit any church service, Roman Catholic, Protestant or Greek Orthodox, and it is the apostle Paul and his ideas that are central — in the hymns, the creeds, the sermons, the invocation and benediction, and of course, the rituals of baptism and the Holy Communion or Mass. Whether birth, baptism, confirmation, marriage or death, it is predominantly Paul who is evoked to express meaning and significance.

The fundamental doctrinal tenets of Christianity, namely that Christ is God “born in the flesh,” that his sacrificial death atones for the sins of humankind, and that his resurrection from the dead guarantees eternal life to all who believe, can be traced back to Paul — not to Jesus. Indeed, the spiritual union with Christ through baptism, as well as the “communion” with his body and blood through the sacred meal of bread and wine, also trace back to Paul. This is the Christianity most familiar to us, with the creeds and confessions that separated it from Judaism and put it on the road to becoming a new religion.

Paul never met Jesus. The chronological facts are undisputed. Jesus of Nazareth was crucified during the reign of Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor or prefect of Judea, in April, A.D. 30. As best we can determine it was not until seven years after Jesus’ death, around A.D. 37, that Paul reports his initial apparition of “Christ,” whom he identifies with Jesus raised from the dead. He asks his followers when challenged for his credentials: “Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?” equating his visionary experience with that of those who had known Jesus face-to-face (1 Corinthians 9:1). Paul’s claim to have “seen” Jesus, as well as the teachings he says he received directly from Jesus, came after Jesus’ lifetime, and can be categorized as subjective clairvoyant experiences (Galatians 1:12, 18; 2:1; 2 Corinthians 12:1-10). These “revelations” were not a one-time experience of “conversion,” but a phenomenon that continued over the course of Paul’s life. Paul confesses that he does not comprehend the nature of these ecstatic spiritual experiences, whether they were “in the body, or out of the body” but he believed that the voice he heard, the figure he saw and the messages he received were encounters with the heavenly Christ (2 Corinthians 12:2-3).

It was a full decade after Jesus’ death that Paul first met Peter in Jerusalem (whom he calls Cephas, his Aramaic name), and had a brief audience with James, the brother of Jesus, and leader of the Jesus movement (Galatians 1:18-23). Paul subsequently operated independently of the original apostles, preaching and teaching what he calls his “Gospel,” in Asia Minor for another 10 years before making a return trip to Jerusalem around A.D. 50. It was only then, 20 years after Jesus’ death, that he encountered James and Peter again in Jerusalem and met for the first time the rest of the original apostles of Jesus (Galatians 2:1). This rather extraordinary chronological gap is a surprise to many. It is one of the key factors in understanding Paul and his message.

What this means is that we must imagine a “Christianity before Paul” that existed independently of his influence or ideas for more than 20 years, as well as a Christianity preached by Paul, which developed independently of Jesus’ original apostles and followers.

I have spent my 30-year career as a scholar of Christian Origins investigating the silence between two back-to-back statements of the Apostles’ Creed, namely that Jesus was: “Conceived by the Holy Ghost, Born of the Virgin Mary,” and that he “Was crucified, dead and buried, and on the third day He rose again from the dead.”

Is it not striking that this oldest and most foundational Christian creed jumps from Jesus’ birth to his death and resurrection, entirely skipping over his life?

How did it happen that the way Jesus came into the world, and how he left — Christmas and Easter — came to define Christianity itself? Here Catholics, mainstream Protestants and evangelicals all agree. To be a Christian is to believe in the virgin birth and resurrection of Christ, and thus to participate in the salvation Christ brought to the world as God-in-the-flesh.

In contrast, the original Christianity before Paul is somewhat difficult to find in the New Testament, since Paul’s 13 letters predominate and Paul heavily influences even our four Gospels. Fortunately, in the letter of James, attributed to the brother of Jesus, as well as in a collection of the sayings of Jesus now embedded in the Gospel of Luke (the source scholars call Q), we can still get a glimpse of the original teachings of Jesus.

What we get in the letter of James is the most direct possible link to the Jewish teachings of Jesus himself. James is quite sure that the “Judge” is standing at the door, and that the kingdom of God has drawn very near (James 5:7). He warns the rich and those who oppress the weak that very soon the judgment of God will strike. James seems to be directly echoing and affirming what he had learned and passed on from his brother Jesus. It is important to note that James did not directly quote Jesus or attribute any of these teachings to Jesus by name — even though they are teaching of Jesus.

For James the Christian message is not the person of Jesus but the message that Jesus proclaimed. James’ letter lacks a single teaching that is characteristic of the apostle Paul and it draws nothing at all from the Gospel narratives. What we have preserved in this precious document is a reflection of the original apocalyptic proclamation of Jesus: the “Gospel of the kingdom of God” with its political and social implications.

Christianity Before Paul | HuffPost​

"Everything Baha’u’llah wrote are not Laws; only what is in The Kitab-i-Aqdas are Laws." Unquote.

And strictly speaking The Kitab-i-Aqdas is not written by Bahaullah but it is a compilation from his writings. Right, please?

Regards

 

[Trailblazer]

"A dispensation is a time period, so only one dispensation can exist at a time." Unquote.
Thanks for admitting the title name wakhātaman-nabiyyeen or Seal of the Prophets bestowed on him by G-d.
Bahaullah did not follow Muhammad so Bahaullah did not have Seal of Authenticity from Muhammad to claim rightfully to be a prophet/messenger of G-d.
So, I believe, Law of Muhammad as given in Quran is as valid and as fresh as it was in Muhammad's time. Right, please?

Regards

You are free to believe whatever you want to, as am I.
I am not trying to convince you of anything, nor will you convince me.

 

[Trailblazer]

"Everything Baha’u’llah wrote are not Laws; only what is in The Kitab-i-Aqdas are Laws." Unquote.

And strictly speaking The Kitab-i-Aqdas is not written by Bahaullah but it is a compilation from his writings. Right, please?

Regards

It is a compilation of His Writings so it was all written by Baha'u'llah and then compiled into a book.

 

[CG Didymus]

What you seem to be calling 'false' here is everything that religious people made up as religious myth.
But that is how human spirituality started out, as shamanic priests making up mythical stories for people to make sense of their world.
We don't really need that any longer but in all the old religions myth is endemic.
Even recent religions such as Scientology are full of myths.

And still, people seem to trust older religions better because they have those strong central myths. Paths without such myths are few and far between and don't get the same sort of respect.
If you don't like this superstitious irrational approach from the past it seems better to become a Buddhist, a Sufi or start doing Tantra-Yoga and forget about all those religions with their hollow promises of eternal paradise.


That may seem so for followers of Bahaullah.

Myth is one thing, but when I was taught Christianity all those things like the flood, the serpent in Eden, Moses parting the water and the rest were taken as literal, historical events. The biggest one being the coming back to life of Jesus. Now Baha'is say it didn't happen. And they say, they have the real truth. So no matter what the NT says about Jesus, or about what he said, and no matter what Paul said, none of it is based on factual occurrences. So what does it matter if Paul corrupted the myths and legends about Jesus, if Jesus didn't necessarily do or say any of it... especially the big one of rising from the dead.

 

[CG Didymus]

I feel certain that the historical Jesus never resurrected. And being a Deist I don't think that my Deity cares any more for us than for the blooming seagull that's screaming it's head off on our garden fence. I'll just go and tell it that.

But Paul says that if Jesus hasn't risen from the dead, then Christians should be the most pitied of all people. So should we be pitying them?

 

[Dawnofhope]

@Trailblazer
We need to better understand the Apostle Paul better through the lens of Baha'u'llah's revelation. I am unable to find anything of a negative or critical nature in the Baha'i writings towards the apostle Paul. To the contrary it is all affirms the role and authority of Paul.

Those are not Laws, they are injunctions. Paul was not a Manifestation of God so he did not have the authority vested in him by God to lay down Laws of God. Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha’u’llah had that authority.

Injunctions are a form of law are they not?

The injunctions laid down to the church of Corinth are seen as laws applicable to all churches by Christians. There is no reason to see them in any other light.

The Universal House of Justice is not a manifestation of God, yet is has the power to created or over rule laws according to the exigencies of the time. The exception is they can not over turn laws that are in the explicit writings of Baha'u'llah.

Abdu'l-Baha and the Guardian both had the authority to interpret the laws of Baha'u'llah and to clarify them.

Paul believed he had the authority from Jesus to Preach to the Gentiles. That could all be confusion and delusion except Peter whom Jesus appointed as His successor (Matthew 16:8) affirmed the truth of Paul's Teachings (2 Peter 3:15-16).

Everything Baha’u’llah wrote are not Laws; only what is in The Kitab-i-Aqdas are Laws.

As said by another, that is not true. There are many laws outside of the Kitab-i-Aqdas and much of the Kitab-i-Aqdas is not laws.

The Law is the issue that has to be dealt with in order to bring us into a right relationship with God. "Know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified" (Galatians 2:16). This passage reveals that the Law cannot justify or make righteous any man in God’s sight, which is why God sent His Son to completely fulfil the requirements of the Law for all those who would ever believe in Him.

There was enormous emphasis in the New Testament placed on assisting the church to understand the implications of the New Covenant and what it mean for the Old Covenant (Mosaic law). It is because the Jews believed all their Covenants from God were eternal and not transitory.

An essential part of the Old Covenant was the promise of One who would renew it.

Messiah in Judaism - Wikipedia

The verses you quote do not mean that Christians should become anarchists and have no laws.

That is made explicitly clear in your next excerpt.

Christ Jesus redeemed us from the curse that has been brought through the law by becoming a curse for us (Galatians 3:13). He substituted Himself in our place and upon the cross took the punishment that is justly ours so that we are no longer under the curse of the Law. In doing so, He fulfilled and upheld the requirements of the Law. This does not mean that Christians are to be lawless, as some advocate today—a teaching called antinomianism. Rather, it means that we are free from the Mosaic Law and instead under the law of Christ, which is to love God with all of our being and to love our neighbors as we love ourselves.

Christ became the end of the Law by virtue of what He did on earth through His sinless life and His sacrifice on the cross. So, the Law no longer has any bearing over us because its demands have been fully met in the Lord Jesus Christ. Faith in Christ who satisfied the righteous demands of the Law restores us into a pleasing relationship with God and keeps us there. No longer under the penalty of the Law, we now live under the law of grace in the love of God.

No longer under Mosaic law but under the rule of Christ.

When Christ stated the most important law (Matthew 22:37) he was actually quoting from Mosaic law (Deuteronomy 6:5). So clearly some of the Mosaic law is still applicable as Paul made clear (Acts of the Apostles 15:29).

of God.
What does it mean that Christians are not under the law?

We need to understand Paul through a Baha'i perspective. This link is from a conservative Christian perspective and includes references to the doctrine of the fall of Adam which Baha'is reject. The doctrine of the original sin is an example of Christians misinterpreting and misunderstanding Paul's comments in regards references to Adam.

Jesus did not become the end of the Law by virtue of what He did on earth through His sinless life and His sacrifice on the cross.

Jesus' Teaching on God's Law

“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill” (Matthew 5:17).

Once again we need to look to the Baha'i writings. Abdu'l-Baha has mentioned Paul and his role abrogating Mosaic law.

For example, in the time of Moses, His Law was conformed and adapted to the conditions of the time; but in the days of Christ these conditions had changed and altered to such an extent that the Mosaic Law was no longer suited and adapted to the needs of mankind; and it was, therefore, abrogated. Thus it was that Christ broke the Sabbath and forbade divorce. After Christ four disciples, among whom were Peter and Paul, permitted the use of animal food forbidden by the Bible, except the eating of those animals which had been strangled, or which were sacrificed to idols, and of blood. They also forbade fornication. They maintained these four commandments. Afterward, Paul permitted even the eating of strangled animals, those sacrificed to idols, and blood, and only maintained the prohibition of fornication. So in chapter 14, verse 14 of his Epistle to the Romans, Paul writes: “I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.”

Also in the Epistle of Paul to Titus, chapter 1, verse 15: “Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.”

Now this change, these alterations and this abrogation are due to the impossibility of comparing the time of Christ with that of Moses. The conditions and requirements in the later period were entirely changed and altered. The former laws were, therefore, abrogated.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 93-96

Abdu'l-Baha supports the needs for the law to be abrogated and affirms the role the apostles took in abrogating the law.

This is a complete distortion of what Jesus taught. I do not know how much Paul had to do with it, but certainly Paul agreed that we were no longer under the Law:

You seem to equate not being under Mosaic law with lawlessness and breaking the law. Both the bible itself and the Baha'i writings affirm that Christianity is not a lawless religion, that Paul didn't teach lawlessness. In fact Abdu'l-Baha praised his character and exhorted the Baha'is to be like Paul.

Now, like unto the morn, the light of the Sun of Truth hath been shed abroad. Effort must be made that slumbering souls may be awakened, the heedless become vigilant, and that the divine teachings, which constitute the spirit of this age, may reach the ears of the people of the world, may be propagated in the press and set forth with brilliance and eloquence in the assemblages of men.


One’s conduct must be like the conduct of Paul, and one’s faith similar to that of Peter. This musk-scented breeze shall perfume the nostrils of the people of the world, and this spirit shall resuscitate the dead.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Selections From the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Pages 223-224

I am not interested in studying the Bible. I already know that Paul changed the course of Christianity and did away with the Law, so I know he went against what Jesus taught. That is all I need to know. I would however be interested in the Christianity of Jesus.

That's a little like saying, I want to know the Baha'i Faith of Baha'u'llah and not Abdu'l-Baha.

If you are disinterested in learning about the Bible then should you be quoting from the bible or giving an opinion about characters in the Bible?

James D Tabor, Contributor
Professor of Religious Studies at University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Writer, Researcher, Christian Origins, Ancient Judaism

There are an abundance of biblical scholars that both support Paul and criticise him. The problem in taking a perspective of being so critical of Paul is the risk of contradicting the Baha'i writings and the Bible itself.

Once I have some time I'll consider what this biblical scholar has to say and comment further.

Thanks for posting.

 

[Trailblazer]

There are an abundance of biblical scholars that both support Paul and criticise him. The problem in taking a perspective of being so critical of Paul is the risk of contradicting the Baha'i writings and the Bible itself.

Once I have some time I'll consider what this biblical scholar has to say and comment further.

I was going to go over all your points but then I did not see the point in it. This all started because I said that Paul changed the course of Christianity and that the Christianity of Paul is not the Christianity of Jesus. There is nothing in the Baha’i Writings that contradicts that so it is just a matter of personal opinion.

Regarding the Law, it is clear that Christians are no longer under the Law, they are under grace. Everybody knows that. I do not have to know the Bible to know that.

Are Christians under the Law?
by Matt Slick

No, Christians are not under the Law. To be under the Law means that a person is under the power and authority of the Law to judge and condemn anyone who breaks the Law. Take a look at these verses that talk about being under the Law.

• Rom. 2:12, "For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law; and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law," (ἐν νόμῳ, en nomo, literally 'in law').
• Gal. 3:23, "But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed," (ὑπὸ νόμον, hupo nomon, literally 'under law').
• Gal. 4:5, "in order that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons," (ὑπὸ νόμον, hupo nomon, literally 'under law').

As you can see, to be under the Law means you will be judged by the Law. In the Old Testament Law found in Deuteronomy 27:26 it says, "‘Cursed is he who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’" So, to be under the Law means you have to keep it all. In Galatians 3:10 Paul said, "For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.'” That is what it means to be under the Law.

But, as I said above, Christians are not under the Law. In other words, Christians are not obligated to keep the Law so as to be saved from God's righteous judgment so they don't go to hell.

• Rom. 6:14, "For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace."
• Gal. 5:18, "But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law."

Christians are freed from having to please God and be saved by keeping the Law of God. We are not under the Law. We are not under its authority. It has no power over us.

Why are Christians not under the Law?
Christians are not under the Law because they have died to the Law. They have died with Christ, and those who have died are not bound by the Law.

• "for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, neither is there violation," (Rom. 4:15).
• "knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, that our body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin," (Rom. 6:6).
• "Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him," (Rom. 6:8).
• "Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, that we might bear fruit for God," (Rom. 7:4).
• "But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter," (Rom. 7:6).

So, Christians have died with Christ. They are identified with Christ so closely that it can be said that when Christ died, they died with Him. Since Christians have died with Him, they are no longer under the Law because he who has died is freed from the Law (Rom. 7:6). That is why Christians are not obligated to keep the Law of God in order to be saved from God's righteous judgment. Christians are saved from that requirement and penalty.
Are Christians under the Law? | CARM.org​

I am not criticizing Paul. I am not saying he was a bad person. Clearly, he had faith in Jesus Christ and spread the gospel message far and wide. I am only saying that Paul did not represent what Jesus taught. He started a new religion. That article I posted clearly points that out and there are many more where that came from. This is all Udo Schaefer is saying. What bothers me so much about this is that so many Christians believe that their beliefs come from Jesus when in reality they come from Paul.

As an aside, the reason I do not want to study the Bible or talk about Christianity is because of the way it affects and infects my mind. I have enough trouble with God and my own religion. I do not want to have these false beliefs infiltrating my mind. No, there is no danger I will believe them but they have an effect when you are exposed to them a lot. A person is either a Baha'i or a Christian. It is dishonest to say you can be both because they contradict each other. Baha'is believe in Jesus, , but we do not believe in the doctrines of Christianity. Abdu'l-Baha makes that perfectly clear.