Did Paul champion the Cause of Christ or corrupt it?

[Trailblazer]

Paul is the one that said if Jesus hasn't risen that Christians should be the most pitied. So his point is that they shouldn't be pitied, because they are right... Jesus has risen from the dead. So the pitiful thing is... the NT gospels say he did and Paul and the others say he did. Baha'is say he didn't.

For me, a body rising from the grave had zero significance because the body is not who Jesus was. His body was just a vehicle that carried His soul around while He was alive on earth, a place to house His soul. The soul of Jesus was His true reality; His body was just His outer shell. His body was not eternal, only His soul was eternal. But what Christians did is conflate the body and the soul of Jesus and try to make His body into something it was not; a special kind of glorified body that can have all the benefits of physicality and spirituality. They had to do a lot of tweaking of verses to accomplish that... It is just not written that way.

But, Baha'is say Jesus is a manifestation and how great he was. And then cut down all the myths and legends about him that made him great. Did he literally do any of the miracles? Who knows? Could the writers have added them in? Easily. If they did... does that make Jesus great and the NT the word of God? No.

Here is what Baha’is believe made Jesus great:

“But in the day of the Manifestation the people with insight see that all the conditions of the Manifestation are miracles, for They are superior to all others, and this alone is an absolute miracle. Recollect that Christ, solitary and alone, without a helper or protector, without armies and legions, and under the greatest oppression, uplifted the standard of God before all the people of the world, and withstood them, and finally conquered all, although outwardly He was crucified. Now this is a veritable miracle which can never be denied. There is no need of any other proof of the truth of Christ.

The outward miracles have no importance for the people of Reality. If a blind man receives sight, for example, he will finally again become sightless, for he will die and be deprived of all his senses and powers. Therefore, causing the blind man to see is comparatively of little importance, for this faculty of sight will at last disappear. If the body of a dead person be resuscitated, of what use is it since the body will die again? But it is important to give perception and eternal life—that is, the spiritual and divine life. For this physical life is not immortal, and its existence is equivalent to nonexistence. So it is that Christ said to one of His disciples: “Let the dead bury their dead;” for “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” 1

Observe: those who in appearance were physically alive, Christ considered dead; for life is the eternal life, and existence is the real existence. Wherever in the Holy Books they speak of raising the dead, the meaning is that the dead were blessed by eternal life; where it is said that the blind received sight, the signification is that he obtained the true perception; where it is said a deaf man received hearing, the meaning is that he acquired spiritual and heavenly hearing. This is ascertained from the text of the Gospel where Christ said: “These are like those of whom Isaiah said, They have eyes and see not, they have ears and hear not; and I healed them.” 2

The meaning is not that the Manifestations are unable to perform miracles, for They have all power. But for Them inner sight, spiritual healing and eternal life are the valuable and important things. Consequently, whenever it is recorded in the Holy Books that such a one was blind and recovered his sight, the meaning is that he was inwardly blind, and that he obtained spiritual vision, or that he was ignorant and became wise, or that he was negligent and became heedful, or that he was worldly and became heavenly.”
Some Answered Questions, pp. 101-102​

Unfortunately, Adrian keeps pointing out how Baha'is should believe in the gospels and what Paul said, when you and I know, that would be a total contradiction.

It is a contradiction of the Baha’i Writings, so I do not know how he thinks he can believe in both.

The stories imply Jesus is God, because it says he forgave some guys sins. The story says he rose from the dead and conquered Satan's power. The story says a couple of people were brought back to life by Jesus and several people came out of their graves when Jesus was killed. Plus, the walking on water and turning water into wine and healing lepers and the blind people. Makes a fantastic story, but without those things, Jesus didn't do anything. Those things are the story about Jesus. Those things give him the authority to be speaking for God. Take them away and what did he do? He, supposedly, said a few things? What if those are myth and legend also?

According to Christianity this is what makes Jesus great, but according to Baha'i, the above quote from Some Answered Questions is what made Jesus great.

But, if a person's going to believe all that stuff is the truth, they got to believe Jesus is somebody special. Somebody that can forgive them of their sins and allow them into heavenly paradise. And, that he is coming back. That is Jesus. Not Muhammad or the Bab, or Baha'u'llah. The story says it's Jesus that's coming back... at least to Christians it does. But you know how it goes, Baha'i writings can explain all those references to the return to show it is not Jesus.

Baha’is do believe that Jesus had the power to forgive sins but of course we do not believe Jesus is ever coming back because Baha’u’llah was the return of the Christ Spirit who Jesus promised to send from the Father:

“It is also recorded in the Gospel according to St. Luke, that on a certain day Jesus passed by a Jew who was sick of the palsy, and lay upon a couch. When the Jew saw Him, he recognized Him, and cried out for His help. Jesus said unto him: “Arise from thy bed; thy sins are forgiven thee.” Certain of the Jews, standing by, protested saying: “Who can forgive sins, but God alone?” And immediately He perceived their thoughts, Jesus answering said unto them: “Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, arise, and take up thy bed, and walk; or to say, thy sins are forgiven thee? that ye may know that the Son of Man hath power on earth to forgive sins.” 7 This is the real sovereignty, and such is the power of God’s chosen Ones! All these things which We have repeatedly mentioned, and the details which We have cited from divers sources, have no other purpose but to enable thee to grasp the meaning of the allusions in the utterances of the chosen Ones of God, lest certain of these utterances cause thy feet to falter and thy heart to be dismayed.”
The Kitáb-i-Íqán, pp. 133-134

But that means, if they are going to believe Paul is special, they got to explain his writings too. The main one being that Paul did say that Jesus, indeed, rose from the dead. And why oh why, like Baha'is claim, would he mean it symbolically? Either Jesus did or he didn't rise physically. To rise "spiritually" in a symbolic way is meaningless and makes all of Christianity meaningless. Not now. Not since Muhammad came, but from the beginning. It was a myth-based religion that gave people a false hope in something better in some perfect spirit world in the sky... pitiful isn't it?

You already know what Baha’is believe about the resurrection. Abdu’l-Baha explained that:

Question.—What is the meaning of Christ’s resurrection after three days?
Answer.—The resurrections of the Divine Manifestations are not of the body. All Their states, Their conditions, Their acts, the things They have established, Their teachings, Their expressions, Their parables and Their instructions have a spiritual and divine signification, and have no connection with material things......

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.

Such is the meaning of the resurrection of Christ, and this was a true resurrection. But as the clergy have neither understood the meaning of the Gospels nor comprehended the symbols, therefore, it has been said that religion is in contradiction to science, and science in opposition to religion, as, for example, this subject of the ascension of Christ with an elemental body to the visible heaven is contrary to the science of mathematics. But when the truth of this subject becomes clear, and the symbol is explained, science in no way contradicts it; but, on the contrary, science and the intelligence affirm it.” Some Answered Questions, pp. 104-105​

 

[oldbadger]

That's what I was taught to believe. Since we can't be perfect, and will fail at trying to keep the laws of God perfectly, we can't get into the Christian heaven by our good deeds. Paul quotes, probably out of context, that our righteousness is like "filthy" rags to God. So faith in Jesus gets us in, and Paul says that way it's not by our good works, so nobody can boast. But there is always a glitch. If a person isn't perfect, and can't do the things Jesus commands perfectly, how about that person's faith? Isn't that imperfect too?

When I was trying to be a Christian, I had doubts galore. Others that had doubts would say that the devil was messing with their heads. Maybe. But maybe... it was reason. Maybe the subconscious saying that some of those Christian literal beliefs don't make any sense. But the Baha'i Faith is supposed to be a reasonable faith... Something that you don't have to turn your brain off to. But I had doubts, and still do, about some of the things they believe.

Thanks for that....... your first paragraph does help to clarify Paul's ideas about human imperfection. Sadly his words have caused the initiation of groups that have turned all of that into 'We can do anything we like and still make Heaven, just by believing.' But there is no doubt in my mind that Jesus was trying to force the corrupted priesthood back into following the original codes and laws of old, especially the poor-laws which they had clearly ignored for a very long time. His (and the Baptist's) ideas of true heaven on Earth. Jesus was a Jew, through and through, imo.

Bahais won't have it, but Bahai is a political system for the world, its MO a World Order, a Bahai World Order, with Bahai governments, Laws, Criminal code, Control, World Police Force ...... the lot. Bahai emphasis on afterlife seems to be reduced to a 'sure you get that 'n all' with an enhanced bogof special offer of 'Become a Bahai and your parents get in free!' deal to sweeten the sell.

At least Karl Marx thought he could see an Utopian World for all, no matter how shocked he would be if he could be resurrected and shown how it all turned gangrenous. The Bahai World might suit ardent followers of Bahai, but humans have varying perspectives, ideas and beliefs, and there will always be an opposition... today that opposition can be heard in our efforts at democracy, but a Bahai World would shut their votes out because they would not be Bahais.

I think Bahai is interesting, I think the Plymouth Brethren are interesting, or the New Druid movements here, all of these unusual, different and colourful ways of life..... I just don't want any of them to get big enough to be as dangerous as I believe that they could be..

 

[CG Didymus]

Thanks for that....... your first paragraph does help to clarify Paul's ideas about human imperfection. Sadly his words have caused the initiation of groups that have turned all of that into 'We can do anything we like and still make Heaven, just by believing.' But there is no doubt in my mind that Jesus was trying to force the corrupted priesthood back into following the original codes and laws of old, especially the poor-laws which they had clearly ignored for a very long time. His (and the Baptist's) ideas of true heaven on Earth. Jesus was a Jew, through and through, imo.

Bahais won't have it, but Bahai is a political system for the world, its MO a World Order, a Bahai World Order, with Bahai governments, Laws, Criminal code, Control, World Police Force ...... the lot. Bahai emphasis on afterlife seems to be reduced to a 'sure you get that 'n all' with an enhanced bogof special offer of 'Become a Bahai and your parents get in free!' deal to sweeten the sell.

At least Karl Marx thought he could see an Utopian World for all, no matter how shocked he would be if he could be resurrected and shown how it all turned gangrenous. The Bahai World might suit ardent followers of Bahai, but humans have varying perspectives, ideas and beliefs, and there will always be an opposition... today that opposition can be heard in our efforts at democracy, but a Bahai World would shut their votes out because they would not be Bahais.

I think Bahai is interesting, I think the Plymouth Brethren are interesting, or the New Druid movements here, all of these unusual, different and colourful ways of life..... I just don't want any of them to get big enough to be as dangerous as I believe that they could be..

One thing I've mentioned a couple of times is that Paul says the Law is impossible to follow, but Moses said it isn't hard to follow. Actually, I think a lot of religious laws are impossible. So maybe I agree with Paul... but that would mean I don't believe Moses? Holy #%&* what am I supposed to do?

 

[CG Didymus]

For me, a body rising from the grave had zero significance because the body is not who Jesus was. His body was just a vehicle that carried His soul around while He was alive on earth, a place to house His soul. The soul of Jesus was His true reality; His body was just His outer shell. His body was not eternal, only His soul was eternal.

Huge, huge problem... the gospel writers. I've gone around and around with Adrian about this, but they said that they saw him alive and talked with him and ate with and one of them said he wouldn't believe unless he saw him and touched the wounds to make sure it was him. Of course, Jesus appeared and the doubter touched him and believed. So nothing in the written accounts make the resurrection nothing but a physical coming back to life of the same body.

Are they nuts? Probably, but that, for me, would make them all liars. And that maybe true too. But Christians based their whole religion on a bodily resurrection of Jesus. Plus, some Jews believed in a resurrection also. Could they all be wrong? Sure, but that makes two religions that Baha'is say are true, both believing a lie. I can believe it's all true or it's all a bunch of lies. But, what can Baha'is do? You have to believe some of the "truths" of a religion, but reject other "truths" of that same religion.

 

[oldbadger]

One thing I've mentioned a couple of times is that Paul says the Law is impossible to follow, but Moses said it isn't hard to follow. Actually, I think a lot of religious laws are impossible. So maybe I agree with Paul... but that would mean I don't believe Moses? Holy #%&* what am I supposed to do?

Moses' and all the OT laws made perfect sense. If you separate out the 106 sacrificial and ceremonial laws you are left with 507 laws, each one a facilitator and enabler for building a strong, healthy, cohesive, very successful nation (back then). I cannot think of any exceptions.

Paul helped to build a religion that would last two millennia up to this present day, built upon superstition, fear, ignorance, spirits, false morals and promises.

Both have worked for a long time, but nothing about the Israelites' religion or system was particularly superstitious, spiritual, (hypocritically) moral etc....... it was simply a system to produce the most successful nation amongst any others anywhere around to them.....

Pick a law, any law....... pick the old favourites if you like, or one of the most obscure, and there will be an enabler/facilitator for success built right in. Amazing.

But I've got no respect for Paul, or his spun up religion and heaven.

 

[oldbadger]

Huge, huge problem... the gospel writers. I've gone around and around with Adrian about this, but they said that they saw him alive and talked with him and ate with and one of them said he wouldn't believe unless he saw him and touched the wounds to make sure it was him.

Of course they did!
Historically that could all have happened.
I for one certainly don't think that Jesus died on any cross. He was taken down after a few hours and Joseph met urgently with Pilate. I feel sure that Pilate didn't want Jesus dead. The soldiers were ordered to finish the other convicts (bust legs causes very quick end) and the spear thrust seen from a distance could easily have been either fake or a life-saver to empty fluid from largest lung.
Or........ Pilate substituted Jesus Son of Man for the rioter Jesus Son of the Father (Jesus Barabbas) after whipping his features so bloody and mashed as to be unrecognisable. I'll bet I know which one Pilate wanted to nail up.

And so Jesus could be slid out and away North, either ending up in the far east or to the trading ports of Sidon/Tyre for shipment away. These two ports traded with Cornwall for tin which was the largest exporter in the known world bacvk then. The Cornish have a tradition that Jesus visited there with the merchant Joseph.

And so, going North on either route Jesus would have passed through Galilee, said his goodbyes, etc.

Now some folks might guffaw and say, 'Ha ha! ....funny story!' but it sure ain't dafter than this business about Jesus being God (of the whole universe!??) and coming to Earth as a bloke and rising from the dead, and...... oh dear.

Are they nuts? Probably, but that, for me, would make them all liars.

Not liars...... just misguided nuts would do for me.
We believe what we need or want to believe.

And that maybe true too. But Christians based their whole religion on a bodily resurrection of Jesus. Plus, some Jews believed in a resurrection also. Could they all be wrong? Sure, but that makes two religions that Baha'is say are true, both believing a lie. I can believe it's all true or it's all a bunch of lies. But, what can Baha'is do? You have to believe some of the "truths" of a religion, but reject other "truths" of that same religion.

I think that several threads over many many months have sorted out what many of us think about Bahai. So many Bahai claims have been busted wide apart .......

 

[CG Didymus]

Not liars...... just misguided nuts would do for me.
We believe what we need or want to believe.

I only say liars if the whole resurrection story is made up. Somebody had to make that up. And isn't it Matthew that has people coming out of their graves? So dead people coming back to life seems like a very believable thing back then. But who saw them? What did they do while alive again? And how long before they died... again? Or, it was a lie to build up Jesus as being a God/man?

But, for sure, I really don't think the writers of all those stories were writing them as being symbolic parables. For all the things I like about the Baha'i Faith, that kind of blows it all away. That would mean that Jesus spoke in parables, and then the gospel writers wrote the story about Jesus in parables on top of that. So what's true and what is made up ^%*# @$#%. Or, they were nuts. But wasn't Jesus just as bad as Paul in saying things about people that weren't good would burn in hell?

 

[Trailblazer]

Huge, huge problem... the gospel writers. I've gone around and around with Adrian about this, but they said that they saw him alive and talked with him and ate with and one of them said he wouldn't believe unless he saw him and touched the wounds to make sure it was him. Of course, Jesus appeared and the doubter touched him and believed. So nothing in the written accounts make the resurrection nothing but a physical coming back to life of the same body.

Are they nuts? Probably, but that, for me, would make them all liars. And that maybe true too. But Christians based their whole religion on a bodily resurrection of Jesus. Plus, some Jews believed in a resurrection also. Could they all be wrong? Sure, but that makes two religions that Baha'is say are true, both believing a lie. I can believe it's all true or it's all a bunch of lies. But, what can Baha'is do? You have to believe some of the "truths" of a religion, but reject other "truths" of that same religion.

I do not see a problem with believing some of the truths but not all of them. Baha’is believe that Christianity is based upon an original revelation from God and that Jesus was a Manifestation of God but the religion of Christianity got derailed from its original course early on. Hopefully on the weekend I am going to post a new thread about Paul and how he changed Christianity and started a new religion. Here is an excerpt from the section of the book I plan to post:

“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)​

Regarding the resurrection, I repeat: In my opinion it is ridiculous to base a whole religious belief system upon a body rising from the grave because it is utterly meaningless, since a body is not who Jesus was. His soul was and still is His true reality in heaven....

And it only gets more ridiculous when Christians believe that Jesus rising from the grave means that all of them are also going to rise from the grave when Jesus returns, and they will have a glorified body just like Jesus. Sure, Baha’is also believe we will have some kind of body after we die, since the soul has to take on some kind of form, but it will be a spiritual body, not a physical body... Physical bodies cannot live in the spiritual world where there is no oxygen.

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.

 

[oldbadger]

I only say liars if the whole resurrection story is made up. Somebody had to make that up. And isn't it Matthew that has people coming out of their graves? So dead people coming back to life seems like a very believable thing back then. But who saw them? What did they do while alive again? And how long before they died... again? Or, it was a lie to build up Jesus as being a God/man?

OK...... yeah..... that was a fib, right there.
But we ARE allowed to tell fibs, or so I have seen over the decades. If your country tells a fib which confounds an enemy, that's good. If an enemy tells a fib that confounds your country then that's a detestable despicable scummy LIE.

So if a group of folks wanted to attract and gather supporters in order to rebuild a busted movement then their fibs were good..... or so they believed. And so fibs can be wonderful, good, very clever, decent sentences, or threy can be wicked, evil, nasty obscenities, it is just a matter of who our friends are in all this....... and our lies are full of justice, honour and integrity.

Oh heck............ isn't that sad?

But, for sure, I really don't think the writers of all those stories were writing them as being symbolic parables. For all the things I like about the Baha'i Faith, that kind of blows it all away.

Bahai is a bunch of double-think, and imo a World Order controlled by Bahai would be even worse than Orwell's 1984. I find that it's easy to show that but Bahais seem to be brain-conditioned not to see it. The same goes for folks who believe that God chose this tiny planet to come to as a human......... billions of people believe that, but if you made such claims alone I reckon they'd take you away for medical protection and treatment.

That would mean that Jesus spoke in parables, and then the gospel writers wrote the story about Jesus in parables on top of that. So what's true and what is made up ^%*# @$#%. Or, they were nuts. But wasn't Jesus just as bad as Paul in saying things about people that weren't good would burn in hell?

If agents were among the crowds when Jesus was making speeches to it, then he needed to be careful how he explained everything. But sadly he often found that be camouflaging his messages the crowd didn't get these either.

I'm not angry about such old nonsense and fibs, it's the nonsense and lies that governments feel that they need to puke out every day, today, that I'm most sad about.

 

[Marcion]

If agents were among the crowds when Jesus was making speeches to it, then he needed to be careful how he explained everything. But sadly he often found that be camouflaging his messages the crowd didn't get these either.

He did not "camouflage" his messages for that reason (there were no such "speeches", that is the Christian imagination only). It was because these kind of tantric or mystic teachings were normally kept secret to be learnt only by the initiated few that knew the explanations behind the sayings.

Anyone who happened to find or hear the teachings would have no use for them and the sayings could be shorter and easier to remember by heart this way.

 

[oldbadger]

He did not "camouflage" his messages for that reason (there were no such "speeches", that is the Christian imagination only). It was because these kind of tantric or mystic teachings were normally kept secret to be learnt only by the initiated few that knew the explanations behind the sayings.

On the balances of probability I have no doubt that Jesus (Yeshua) spoke to (made speeches) to groups and crowds just as the Baptist had done. He didn't teach, he spoke to the people.

Anyone who happened to find or hear the teachings would have no use for them and the sayings could be shorter and easier to remember by heart this way.

Our politicians and other leaders often veil what they want to say in exactly the same way, and they don't 'teach' us, they make speeches.

 

[Marcion]

On the balances of probability I have no doubt that Jesus (Yeshua) spoke to (made speeches) to groups and crowds just as the Baptist had done. He didn't teach, he spoke to the people.


Our politicians and other leaders often veil what they want to say in exactly the same way, and they don't 'teach' us, they make speeches.

The nature of the teachings makes it highly unlikely that they were ever spoken to a gathering of any sorts. To accept this Christian frame is a naive understanding, the gospel story is a mythical one in this case using older material originally meant for other purposes (which is also proven by the different heavy editing by both authors).

 

[oldbadger]

The nature of the teachings makes it highly unlikely that they were ever spoken to a gathering of any sorts.

What did I say to you? I said that Jesus didn't teach, but spoke out, just as a movement sp[okesperson, union rep or politician might today.

To accept this Christian frame is a naive understanding,

What did say to you? I don't accept the Christian frame, I am a Deist btw.

the gospel story is a mythical one in this case using older material originally meant for other purposes (which is also proven by the different heavy editing by both authors).

If you like, but Yeshua BarYosef was the man who picked up that older mission when dropped by the Baptist on his arrest. Yeshua tried to carry it forward for nearly a year before his attempts failed as well. G-Mark is (mostly) a good account.,

 

[Milton Platt]

There is almost unanimous agreement from scholars that seven of the New Testament books were written by Paul. Just because a book doesn't mention who wrote doesn't mean to say it wasn't know who wrote it. Having said that I freely acknowledge the uncertainty when it comes to most of the other books in the New Testament.

Yours avatar looks sad btw.

Yeah, the avatar doesn’t show well because of the size. It’s supposed to be the guy from the horror flick Friday the 13th and the calendar reads Friday the 12th.

 

[Milton Platt]

I'm curious to find out what we know about this man called Paul in the New Testament from external sources, that would make him a real historical character.

This might be interesting to you:
The Historicity of Paul the Apostle • Richard Carrier

 

[paarsurrey]

@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.



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).



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.



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.






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).



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.



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.



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



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?



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.

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

What is this Guardian, please? Please give Arabic and Persian words used by Bahaullah that has been translated as Guardian. If Baha'ullah has explained it, please quote from him in this connection.

Regards

 

[Marcion]

This might be interesting to you:
The Historicity of Paul the Apostle • Richard Carrier

I have read Carrier's ideas on Jesus and Paul. But I am still convinced by the arguments of Detering of ascribing the letters to Marcion and possibly to the gnostic school that followed Simon Magus. So Paul is in fact Simon Magus, a historical gnostic.
But Carrier denies the historicity of Jesus. Jesus did not write any letters like the followers of Simon Magus did, but he did speak the instructions of Q-lite and his behaviour in the first half of gMark matches the ideology of Q-lite perfectly eventhough it contradicts the Christian gospel (added later) in style and ideological intention (the Christian gospel is layered over the ideology of the historical Jesus but sits next to it akwardly and doesn't truely interact with it).

That for me is the proof of a historical Jesus mission before Christianity was invented with its myth of "apostles" in the mythical Acts. It is proof because Christians would never have made up such a Jesus. Carrier needs a historical Paul to "prove" that Jesus started out as a non-corporeal invention or projection of the first hellenised Jewish Christians.
It is indeed a mystery how Christianity could have fallen so out of touch with its real beginnings. It means for those early Christians the life of Jesus had become very anecdotal and quite separated from the orignal teachings and mission.

As if they thought, 'we don't really understand what happened there in the beginning, but let's think this thing out for ourselves using the ideas we already know from other familiar traditions. This need not surprise us because such new traditions are still being created today in pretty much the same way (pulling things from here and there) and people still get attracted to them.

 

[paarsurrey]

If Jesus hasn't risen from the dead, then Christians should be the most pitied of all people. So should we be pitying them? I said that meaning that if the Baha'is are correct that Jesus didn't rise physically from the dead, then by what Paul is teaching is wrong. He doesn't believe Jesus is dead. He believes that Jesus came back to life... at least that is what my Christian friends tell me. So they shouldn't be pitied at all.

But, if Jesus is dead, and only his spirit is alive, then what? And, if that's the truth, then they should be pitied, 'cause for 2000 years most Christians have been wrong. But who ya goin to believe? Christians show the Scriptures, including Paul's. Baha'is, mostly Adrian, show me an alternative interpretation of those Scriptures to make them symbolic. I think I'm to be pitied. What do you believe? Maybe I'll try that instead.

"But, if Jesus is dead, and only his spirit is alive, then what?" Unquote.

Yes, Jesus did not die on the Cross, he was delivered from the Cross in near-dead condition but very much alive. Jesus died a natural death later in Kashmir, India.
It is Paul who invented the story of Jesus becoming alive from the dead, only to make Jesus a god.
So, it is a big "if", I believe Jesus died a natural death never to come again in person, physically and literally.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

That's what I was taught to believe. Since we can't be perfect, and will fail at trying to keep the laws of God perfectly, we can't get into the Christian heaven by our good deeds. Paul quotes, probably out of context, that our righteousness is like "filthy" rags to God. So faith in Jesus gets us in, and Paul says that way it's not by our good works, so nobody can boast. But there is always a glitch. If a person isn't perfect, and can't do the things Jesus commands perfectly, how about that person's faith? Isn't that imperfect too?

When I was trying to be a Christian, I had doubts galore. Others that had doubts would say that the devil was messing with their heads. Maybe. But maybe... it was reason. Maybe the subconscious saying that some of those Christian literal beliefs don't make any sense. But the Baha'i Faith is supposed to be a reasonable faith... Something that you don't have to turn your brain off to. But I had doubts, and still do, about some of the things they believe.

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

And what are these doubts about. Please elaborate.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I was thinking its really helpful to have the thoughts of a reputable albeit controversial biblical scholar on this thread.



Messiah in Judaism - Wikipedia

This scholar is not without his critics but that is fine.

James Tabor - Wikipedia

Lets' consider the points he makes.



It is fair to say that Paul had an enormous role in presenting the Teachings of Christ to the non-Jewish audience. 13 out of the 27 books in the New Testament are considered to have been written by Paul although there is controversy over 6 of those books.

Do keep in mind that it is not Paul's fault that so many of his works made it into New Testament Canon. Nor was it his doing that he was accepted as a an apostle along with the others. That is just who he was and the way it played out. The New Testament canon was chosen in the 4th century BC and most all the early Christian writers and scholars appear to have regarded Paul highly. For example one of the earliest references to New Testament canon is Clement of Rome.

Clement... makes occasional reference to certain words of Jesus; though they are authoritative for him, he does not appear to enquire how their authenticity is ensured. In two of the three instances that he speaks of remembering 'the words' of Christ or of the Lord Jesus, it seems that he has a written record in mind, but he does not call it a 'gospel'. He knows several of Paul's epistles, and values them highly for their content; the same can be said of the Epistle to the Hebrews, with which he is well acquainted. Although these writings obviously possess for Clement considerable significance, he never refers to them as authoritative 'Scripture'.

Development of the New Testament canon - Wikipedia



We still have the four gospels that make up the first four books of the New testament. The question is did Paul contradict what Jesus said. it is true that Paul had a lot to say about the Teachings of Christ but what is there that's opposed?

The first problem we have is the relative paucity of New Testament that includes the actual words of Jesus. The four gospels have unclear authorship though I understand from a Baha'i perspective John the apostle is most likely the author of the gospel of John. However that gospel was the last of the gospels to have been written late in the first century. So we have an understandable degree of uncertainty as to what Jesus taught.

We need to be clear that the Teachings of Christ needed clarification and elaboration. Imagine how confused and divided Christianity would have become if it had not been for the Apostles. Consider how necessary the interpretations and explanations of Abdu'l-Baha and the Guardian were for the Baha'i Faith. To have no Apostles to have made interpretations would have prevented Christianity from being communicated to the Gentiles.

"Consider how necessary the interpretations and explanations of Abdu'l-Baha and the Guardian were for the Baha'i Faith."

The similarity of Paul with Abdul-Baha+Guardian is obvious. I believe that as Paul carved god-head by creating a myth to found Pauline-Christianity, so did Abdul-Baha+Guardian made a god-head for Bahaullah for Bahaism. Right, please?

Regards