Does the Bible mention Islam?

[Trailblazer]

I suppose a lot of Muslims don't really care what's in the Bible as they see it as being corrupted and superseded by the Quran.

BTW, what's a Shia Muslim doing messing around with Babism? Isn't that an apostate religion?

And some Baha'is do not care about what is in the Bible because they see it as superseded by the Qur'an and the Revelation of Baha'u'llah....

"In conclusion of this theme, I feel, it should be stated that the Revelation identified with Bahá’u’lláh abrogates unconditionally all the Dispensations gone before it, upholds uncompromisingly the eternal verities they enshrine, recognizes firmly and absolutely the Divine origin of their Authors, preserves inviolate the sanctity of their authentic Scriptures....” God Passes By, Page 100​

WHEN are we ever going to move on if we keep clinging to the Bible? HOW are we ever going to move on? This is a practical consideration. As I see it Muslims of any sect are much closer to the Truth from God than any Jew or Christian.... They are but one step away.

 

[Trailblazer]

There's no disrespect. I saw your posts in the DIR columns but because I'm not a Shia Muslim or gnostic couldn't comment.

The Bab is one of the twin Manifestations of God of the Baha'i religion. I grew up Christian but became a Baha'i nearly 30 years ago. I was curious as to how the Bab was important to you. I hadn't come across Bayani Gnosticism before.

I saw it there and i am curious too....
Let's all three of us gang up on him and get him to talk....
I can't help it if I have a special place in my heart for the Bab, and I like Gnosticism too.

 

[Dawnofhope]

So lets consider what you posted in the Shia DIR thread if you don't mind me asking. If you do, then simply don't reply.

Any other Muslims here interested in the work of Siyyid `Alí Muhammad Shírází? (often falsely referred to as "Babism", named after Shírází's designation as "The Bab" (The Gate).

So why is the title Babism false?

Now, this thread is to discuss the Bayan within the context of Islam (not the Baha'i Faith's later claim to it's legacy, and subversion of). Within Twelver Islam, the Bayan can be seen on the esoteric and philosophical limits, in the sense that it is an innovative revelation but still remains part of Islam. However despite this, it is often considered a new religion, on the basis of heterodox aspects. The Bab's work is immense, with incredible tafsir of the Qur'an to hymns/prayers, alchemical, mystical and a bit Gnostic. Much of it is not yet translated into English and that which has been, is contestable. In it's original Arabic, the Bab displays an absolutely astounding use of language, cyphers and cryptic juxtapositions.

For those Muslims here that have heard or studied his work, what do you think?

How has the Baha'i Faith subverted Babism or Bayani Gnosticism?

The major break with Islam came through the conference of Badasht.

Conference of Badasht - Wikipedia

I agree that much of the works of the Bab have yet to be translated.

Preceded by the Shaykhi movement, the Bayani Gnostic Sect of Twelver Shia Islam was founded on revelation from a man named Siyyid (Ali Muhammad) Shirazi, in Iran. He is usually referred to as "The Bab" (The Gate), according to the revelation of the Gate of the Hidden Imam (of Islamic Eschatology).

Agreed.

The position of The Bab's work and legacy of Bayani Gnosticism, rests within the esoteric limits of Twelver Shia Esotericism- or the Batin. His revelation claimed a new cycle (or aeon) of theophany (manifestations of the divine) with the philosophy of The Primal Point* (Allah, Islamically), or Logos. In his revelation/teaching there are endless manifestations or theophany's of the divine Will, he proclaimed that there would be another "whom god would make manifest" unspecified but prophesied within 1511-2001 years of his death.

I've never heard of the 1511-2001 for Him whom God would make manifest.

His thought encompassed Shi'ite Pythagorean, neo-Platonic, Gnostic, Alchemical, Hermetic and Kabbalistic genius. In his prolific span of writings, referred to as "the Bayan", the Bab wrote Qur'anic Tafsir, Mantras, prayers, ordinances. His successor Sudh-i-Azal was also a magnificent poet too.
His writings (in Arabic and Persian) display an incredibly complex use of gematria and letter magic, thought to rival the Qur'an.

I see.

Subh-i-Azal - Wikipedia

So are you an Azali?

Azali - Wikipedia

The immediately significant texts are the "Arabic Bayan", the "Persian Bayan", the "Book of the Five Grades" (Kitab-i-panj sha'n), "Tafsir on the Surah of Yusuf" (Qayyumu'l-asma).

Sure.

The essence of the aim of Bayání Gnosticism is that of The Great Work of Alchemy, the elixir of life and gnosis.

Any revelation from God promotes mysticism, does it not?

Because of it's esoteric nature, it is easy to see that his life was only met with hostility by the orthodox Sunni and Shia's in Iran. He was misunderstood, proclaimed to be a heretic and a disbeliever and his life ended with execution. (this is a history in itself but this thread is more about his theosophy, theophany, revelation and doctrine)

That's unusual terminology I hadn't come across before.

Theosophy - Wikipedia

Theophany - Wikipedia

Like notable Sufi's such as Ibn Arabi, his doctrines function within the esoteric framework of Orthodox Islam (for Arabi it was Sunni, for the Bab it was Twelver Shi'ism). His work gets at the essence of Shahada, the essence of the Twelve Imams and Islamic Eschatology. In part, offering up a viable answer to the endless problems with the Exoteric dimension of religion, inevitably the thing that killed him.

OK.

 

[Dawnofhope]

And some Baha'is do not care about what is in the Bible because they see it as superseded by the Qur'an and the Revelation of Baha'u'llah....

"In conclusion of this theme, I feel, it should be stated that the Revelation identified with Bahá’u’lláh abrogates unconditionally all the Dispensations gone before it, upholds uncompromisingly the eternal verities they enshrine, recognizes firmly and absolutely the Divine origin of their Authors, preserves inviolate the sanctity of their authentic Scriptures....” God Passes By, Page 100​

Funny thing that, because I swear I saw a Jew, Christian and Muslim not too long ago. Their Dispensations may be abrogated but I don't think any of them have twigged. Perhaps if we just tell them straight up.....

WHEN are we ever going to move on if we keep clinging to the Bible? HOW are we ever going to move on? This is a practical consideration. As I see it Muslims of any sect are much closer to the Truth from God than any Jew or Christian.... They are but one step away.

If that were true, why have Muslims murdered thousands of Babi/Baha'is and the Christians and Jews hardly any?

 

[Dawnofhope]

I saw it there and i am curious too....
Let's all three of us gang up on him and get him to talk....
I can't help it if I have a special place in my heart for the Bab, and I like Gnosticism too.

Maybe he just needs to hear that the Babi dispensation has been abrogated!

You can be the one to break it to him? You’re the straight shooter after all.

 

[Trailblazer]

The other side of the coin are verses that support the authenticity of the Bible;

Bahá'u'lláh writes concerning the Books of Christians and the peoples of other Faiths:
"...the words of the verses themselves eloquently testify to the truth that they are of God."
Bahá'u'lláh, The Kitáb-i-Iqan

"You must know the Old and New Testaments as the Word of God"
'Abdu'l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace

"Surely the Bible is the book of God"
'Abdu'l-Bahá, Paris Talks,

"...We have also heard a number of the foolish of the earth assert that the genuine text of the heavenly Gospel doth not exist amongst the Christians, that it hath ascended unto heaven. How grievously they have erred! How oblivious of the fact that such a statement imputeth the gravest injustice and tyranny to a gracious and loving Providence! How could God, when once the Day-star of the beauty of Jesus had disappeared from the sight of His people, and ascended unto the fourth heaven, cause His holy Book, His most great testimony amongst His creatures, to disappear also? What would be left to that people to cling to..."
Bahá'u'lláh, The Kitáb-i-Iqan

"That city is none other than the Word of God revealed in every age and dispensation. In the days of Moses it was the Pentateuch; in the days of Jesus the Gospel
Bahá'u'lláh, The Kitáb-i-Iqan

Those quotes say nothing about authenticity.

Word of God means exactly what? I think the Bible was inspired by God through the Holy Spirit, that is what Abdu’l-Baha meant by Word of God. Inspired does not mean it is authentic or accurate.

We need to reconcile these verses with the ones you have provided from the Guardian. That's what the paper I've provided attempts to do.

My thoughts.

...The Bible is not wholly authentic, and in this respect is not to be compared with the Qur'an, and should be wholly subordinated to the authentic writings of Bahá'u'lláh.
(28 July 1936 to a National Spiritual Assembly)

Not wholly authentic isn't the same as saying it not authentic.

authentic: of undisputed origin; genuine. https://www.google.com/search

By authentic, I think what Shoghi Effendi and Abdu’l-Baha mean is that we know who wrote them and/or we have the original scriptures..

Okay, what books of the Bible are authentic? Even if we can know who the authors of certain books in the Bible were, how was their authenticity verified? Do we have any original scriptures? We know that Baha’u’llah’s Writings were verified by modern techniques of handwriting analysis.

...we cannot be sure how much or how little of the four Gospels are accurate and include the words of Christ and His undiluted teachings, all we can be sure of, as Bahá'ís, is that what has been quoted by Bahá'u'lláh and the Master must be absolutely authentic. As many times passages in the Gospel of St. John are quoted we may assume that it is his Gospel and much of it accurate.
(23 January 1944 to an individual believer)

The words here absolutely authentic as opposed authentic.

But that only applies to John and the few other verses that have been quoted.

“As many times passages in the Gospel of St. John are quoted we may assume that it is his Gospel and much of it accurate.”

He said much of it is accurate, not all of it is accurate.
That does not mean it is authentic. Do we know who wrote John? Do we have any original scriptures?

The fact of the matter is that an enormous amount of the Gospels have been quoted by Baha'u'llah and particularly by Abdu'l-Baha.

Can you point me to those? I have not seen them.

There is not one statement from Abdu'l-Baha or Baha'u'llah that points to an error in the Gospels.

But logically speaking that does not mean there are no errors, and actually there is one statement in the Iqan:

“Our purpose in relating these things is to warn you that were they to maintain that those verses wherein the signs referred to in the Gospel are mentioned have been perverted, were they to reject them, and cling instead to other verses and traditions, you should know that their words were utter falsehood and sheer calumny. Yea “corruption” of the text, in the sense We have referred to, hath been actually effected in particular instances.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, p. 88​

There are no Biblical verses that necessitate Baha'is needing to argue they are not authentic.

But they are not all authentic unless we know who wrote them. Everybody knows that so if Baha’is insist they are authentic they only make themselves look stupid and out of step with modern scholars who have studied the Bible and its origins.

When 'Abdu'l-Bahá states we believe what is in the Bible, He means in substance. Not that we believe every word of it to be taken literally or that every word is the authentic saying of the Prophet.
(11 February 1944 to an individual believer)

Only the four Gospels have the Words of Jesus. Those gospels also have a theological narrative concerning events surrounding the mission of Jesus. This is quite different from the Quran that has only the words that Muhammad spoke. In addition, the New Testament part of the Bible refers to epistles of the Apostles which are not Divine revelation so can't be compared to the utterances of Jesus and Muhammad.

But not all of these Gospels contain the Words of Jesus. I am sure you have heard of the Red letter edition of the Bible.

Red letter edition bibles are those in which the Dominical words—those spoken by Jesus Christ, commonly only those spoken during his corporeal life on Earth—are printed rubricated, in red ink.
Red letter edition - Wikipedia

But even with the Red letter edition, how is it possible for those to be the exact words of Jesus? Unless someone recorded what Jesus said while He was talking how could they remember every word Jesus said many years or even decades later? Nobody has a memory that good. I think at some point religious people need to start thinking logically.

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: And some Baha'is do not care about what is in the Bible because they see it as superseded by the Qur'an and the Revelation of Baha'u'llah....

"In conclusion of this theme, I feel, it should be stated that the Revelation identified with Bahá’u’lláh abrogates unconditionally all the Dispensations gone before it, upholds uncompromisingly the eternal verities they enshrine, recognizes firmly and absolutely the Divine origin of their Authors, preserves inviolate the sanctity of their authentic Scriptures....” God Passes By, Page 100

Adrian said: Funny thing that, because I swear I saw a Jew, Christian and Muslim not too long ago. Their Dispensations may be abrogated but I don't think any of them have twigged. Perhaps if we just tell them straight up.....

I did not say that the people were abrogated, I said that the Dispensations of their religions were abrogated; and actually I did not say it, Shoghi Effendi said it, so if you don’t like it maybe you should take it up with him, or the UHJ since the Guardian is no longer with us.

Actually I think Baha’is should be telling them straight up, instead of pretending, because that is dishonest.

Trailblazer said: WHEN are we ever going to move on if we keep clinging to the Bible? HOW are we ever going to move on? This is a practical consideration. As I see it Muslims of any sect are much closer to the Truth from God than any Jew or Christian.... They are but one step away.

Adrian said: If that were true, why have Muslims murdered thousands of Babi/Baha'is and the Christians and Jews hardly any?

1. Because they claimed to fulfill Islamic prophecies just as Jesus claimed to fulfill Jewish prophecies from the Old Testament and was persecuted for it.
   
2. Because the the Bab and Baha’u’llah were Muslims, they were considered heretics who were forsaking Islam.
3. Because the Bab and Baha’u’llah resided in primarily Muslim countries, not where very many Christian or Jews resided.

Jews will never persecute Baha'is, but Shoghi Effendi said that the time will come when Christians will try to persecute Baha'is. They are already doing so online. By contrast to anti-Baha'i Christian websites, how many anti-Baha'i Muslim websites are there? Get real.

But how far away the Muslims are from the Truth is just two Manifestations of God whereas the Christians are three and the Jews are four... That is how we measure distance. I trust you know the choice words that Baha’u’llah had for both Christians and Jews so I won't repeat them here.

 

[Trailblazer]

Maybe he just needs to hear that the Babi dispensation has been abrogated!

You can be the one to break it to him? You’re the straight shooter after all.

I have no problem with that, but let's remember one thing... The Bab was part of the "new" religious cycle, the Baha'i Cycle of religion, foreshadowing Him Whom God Shall Make Manifest. The Bab was also the Primal Point who ushered in a whole new age.....

Hardly comparable to the older religious dispensations.

“It is evident that every age in which a Manifestation of God hath lived is divinely ordained, and may, in a sense, be characterized as God’s appointed Day. This Day, however, is unique, and is to be distinguished from those that have preceded it. The designation “Seal of the Prophets” fully revealeth its high station. The Prophetic Cycle hath, verily, ended. The Eternal Truth is now come. He hath lifted up the Ensign of Power, and is now shedding upon the world the unclouded splendor of His Revelation.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 60
​

Referring to past Dispensations and their “books” Baha’u’llah wrote:

“Please God thou wilt turn thine eyes towards the Most Great Revelation, and entirely disregard these conflicting tales and traditions.”
Gleanings, pp. 174-175
​

I do not think we really need an appointed interpreter to understand what Baha’u’llah meant.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Those quotes say nothing about authenticity.

Word of God means exactly what? I think the Bible was inspired by God through the Holy Spirit, that is what Abdu’l-Baha meant by Word of God. Inspired does not mean it is authentic or accurate.

We are really fortunate as Baha'is to have the Universal House of Justice to resolve difficult problems.

Let's see what they have to say:

You ask for elucidation of the statement made on behalf of the Guardian in this letter of 11 February 1944, “When ‘Abdu’l-Bahá states we believe what is in the Bible, He means in substance. Not that we believe every word of it to be taken literally or that every word is the authentic saying of the Prophet.” Is it not clear that what Shoghi Effendi means here is that we cannot categorically state, as we do in the case of the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, that the words and phrases attributed to Moses and Christ in the Old and New Testaments are Their exact words, but that, in view of the general principle enunciated by Bahá’u’lláh in the “Kitáb-i-Iqán” that God’s Revelation is under His care and protection, we can be confident that the essence, or essential elements, of what these two Manifestations of God intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in these two Books.
(Universal House of Justice, 1987 Sept 14, Resurrection of Christ)

So we can not say that the words recorded in the Gospels and Torah are the exact words of Christ and Moses. However God's Revelation is under His care and protection. Therefore we can be confident that what these two Manifestations intended to convey has been recorded.

In regards our attitude towards studying the Bible;

The Universal House of Justice has asked us to recommend your continued study of “Some Answered Questions” since this book contains the interpretations given by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá on the meaning of some of the passages you mention from the Book of Daniel as well as other subjects found in the Old and New Testaments. You will note that in addition to giving His explanations, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá encourages personal initiative in unravelling divine mysteries. For example, at the end of Chapter XX on “The Necessity of Baptism” He says: “This subject needs deep thought. Then the cause of these changes will be evident and apparent.” And at the end of Chapter XXX on “Adam and Eve", after setting forth His own interpretation of the subject, He goes on to say: “This is one of the meanings of the Biblical story of Adam. Reflect until you discover the others.
(Universal House of Justice, Extracts From The Bahá’í Writings And From Letters Of The Guardian And The Universal House Of Justice On The Old And New Testaments)

What I understand is that we are asked not only to study what the Baha'i writings have to say about the Bible but to go beyond that. We should take personal initiative to unravel the Divine mysteries.

What about areas of the Bible where there are no references from the Baha'i writings such as much of the book of Revelation?

The interpretation of biblical prophecies has long been the subject of controversy and speculation among religious scholars. As Bahá’ís, we know that we must turn to the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi for authoritative guidance in these matters. When a subject has not been mentioned or explained in the Sacred Writings, we are free to consult other books and to consider the opinions of scholars if we wish to do so.
(Universal House of Justice, Extracts From The Bahá’í Writings And From Letters Of The Guardian And The Universal House Of Justice On The Old And New Testaments)

Bible

authentic: of undisputed origin; genuine. https://www.google.com/search

By authentic, I think what Shoghi Effendi and Abdu’l-Baha mean is that we know who wrote them and/or we have the original scriptures..

Okay, what books of the Bible are authentic? Even if we can know who the authors of certain books in the Bible were, how was their authenticity verified? Do we have any original scriptures? We know that Baha’u’llah’s Writings were verified by modern techniques of handwriting analysis.

As above the issue is being certain that the Gospel and Torah has the exact words of Christ or Moses.

Who wrote the Gospels while important to understanding the background and context, is not the main concern here at all. Besides that, we don't know the names of all the individuals who initially penned each chapter of 114 chapters of the Quran. It doesn't matter and is not relevant to what makes the Gospels or Quran authentic.

This idea the Muslims promote that we don't have the correct scriptures is thoroughly discounted by Baha'u'llah's words in the Kitab-I-Iqan.

So if we want to consider the meaning of the word authentic as being the origin, we know the origin of the Gospels and Torah is God and His Manifestations. The origins in regards authorship is not relevant.

Questions about authenticity as Shoghi Effendi raised and elucidated by the Universal House of Justice means the extent to which we can be certain it was the exact words of the Manifestation. With Islam and the Baha'i writings we can be certain. With Christianity and Judaism we can't. That does not mean the writings are not authentic. It means they are not wholly authentic.

But that only applies to John and the few other verses that have been quoted.

“As many times passages in the Gospel of St. John are quoted we may assume that it is his Gospel and much of it accurate.”

He said much of it is accurate, not all of it is accurate.
That does not mean it is authentic. Do we know who wrote John? Do we have any original scriptures?

Accurate is probably another way of describing the extent the Gospel of John reflected the exact words of Christ.

Can you point me to those? I have not seen them.

We know there is a vast quantity of the writings of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha including much that hasn't yet been translated. Then we have all the references from the Guardian too.

Some Answered Questions is the obvious starting point.

But in regards the book of Revelation check out the bottom of this letter from the Research Department to have a sense of how many references there are in our writings to this one book alone.

Biblical Verses, Interpretation of

But logically speaking that does not mean there are no errors, and actually there is one statement in the Iqan:

“Our purpose in relating these things is to warn you that were they to maintain that those verses wherein the signs referred to in the Gospel are mentioned have been perverted, were they to reject them, and cling instead to other verses and traditions, you should know that their words were utter falsehood and sheer calumny. Yea “corruption” of the text, in the sense We have referred to, hath been actually effected in particular instances.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, p. 88

The one specific example is Isaac and Ishmael.

The Bahá’ís believe what is in the Bible to be true in substance. This does not mean that every word recorded in that Book is to be taken literally and treated as the authentic saying of a Prophet. A striking example is given in the account of the sacrifice which Abraham was called upon to make. The Guardian of the Faith confirms that the record in the Qur‘án and the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, namely that it was Ishmael, and not Isaac as stated in the Old Testament, whom Abraham was to sacrifice, is to be upheld. In one of His Tablets ‘Abdu’l-Bahá refers to this discrepancy, and explains that, from a spiritual point of view, it is irrelevant which son was involved. The essential part of the story is that Abraham was willing to obey God’s command to sacrifice His son. Thus, although the account in the Torah is inaccurate in detail, it is true in substance.
(Universal House of Justice, 1987 Sept 14, Resurrection of Christ)

Resurrection of Christ and the Bible

But they are not all authentic unless we know who wrote them. Everybody knows that so if Baha’is insist they are authentic they only make themselves look stupid and out of step with modern scholars who have studied the Bible and its origins.

I disagree for the reasons stated above. This is our main point of disagreement. We don't need to make statements like 'The Gospels are not authentic' just because we don't know the names of the authors or it is the opinion of most secular Bible scholars. I believe this perspective is not supported by the Baha'i writings.

But not all of these Gospels contain the Words of Jesus. I am sure you have heard of the Red letter edition of the Bible.

Red letter edition bibles are those in which the Dominical words—those spoken by Jesus Christ, commonly only those spoken during his corporeal life on Earth—are printed rubricated, in red ink.
Red letter edition - Wikipedia

But even with the Red letter edition, how is it possible for those to be the exact words of Jesus? Unless someone recorded what Jesus said while He was talking how could they remember every word Jesus said many years or even decades later? Nobody has a memory that good. I think at some point religious people need to start thinking logically.

Once again the Gospels have been inspired by God, are under God's protection, and all the God wished to convey through His Manifestations is within the text. The substance of God's teachings is clearly there in the Gospels and Torah although we can not be certain that it all contains the exact words of Christ or Moses.

I therefore conclude the Gospels are authentic, but unlike the Baha'i writings and Quran, not wholly authentic.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I did not say that the people were abrogated, I said that the Dispensations of their religions were abrogated; and actually I did not say it, Shoghi Effendi said it, so if you don’t like it maybe you should take it up with him, or the UHJ since the Guardian is no longer with us.

Actually I think Baha’is should be telling them straight up, instead of pretending, because that is dishonest.

I was being flippant of course but I accept I may not have communicated my sense of irony too well.

There are two issues I'm grappling with here.

1/ What does it mean that all the previous dispensations are abrogated? Perhaps you have perfect clarity, but I do not. What are the implications for Christians and Muslims who utterly convinced of the supremacy of their respective theological perspectives are part of a dispensation that is now abrogated? They clearly don't know its been abrogated and if I tell them it has, how likely are they to listen?

2/ Presuming I come to properly understand what it means, what's the best way to communicate this truth that only Baha'is are aware of? I could tell then straight up, but does everyone have the capacity to hear what I have to say?

1. Because they claimed to fulfill Islamic prophecies just as Jesus claimed to fulfill Jewish prophecies from the Old Testament and was persecuted for it.
   
2. Because the the Bab and Baha’u’llah were Muslims, they were considered heretics who were forsaking Islam.
3. Because the Bab and Baha’u’llah resided in primarily Muslim countries, not where very many Christian or Jews resided.

Jews will never persecute Baha'is, but Shoghi Effendi said that the time will come when Christians will try to persecute Baha'is. They are already doing so online. By contrast to anti-Baha'i Christian websites, how many anti-Baha'i Muslim websites are there? Get real.

But how far away the Muslims are from the Truth is just two Manifestations of God whereas the Christians are three and the Jews are four... That is how we measure distance. I trust you know the choice words that Baha’u’llah had for both Christians and Jews so I won't repeat them here.

What I understand from the Baha'i writings, and I could be completely wrong, is that receptivity to Baha'u'llah's message has everything to do with the purity of one's heart and nothing to do with what religion they are affiliated with.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I have no problem with that, but let's remember one thing... The Bab was part of the "new" religious cycle, the Baha'i Cycle of religion, foreshadowing Him Whom God Shall Make Manifest. The Bab was also the Primal Point who ushered in a whole new age.....

Hardly comparable to the older religious dispensations.

“It is evident that every age in which a Manifestation of God hath lived is divinely ordained, and may, in a sense, be characterized as God’s appointed Day. This Day, however, is unique, and is to be distinguished from those that have preceded it. The designation “Seal of the Prophets” fully revealeth its high station. The Prophetic Cycle hath, verily, ended. The Eternal Truth is now come. He hath lifted up the Ensign of Power, and is now shedding upon the world the unclouded splendor of His Revelation.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 60
​

Referring to past Dispensations and their “books” Baha’u’llah wrote:

“Please God thou wilt turn thine eyes towards the Most Great Revelation, and entirely disregard these conflicting tales and traditions.”
Gleanings, pp. 174-175
​

I do not think we really need an appointed interpreter to understand what Baha’u’llah meant.

Babis are of course just one step away, unlike the Muslims who are two steps, and the Christians and Jews three and four. Maybe trying to teach Babis will be easier? Not only are Babis just one step away but they are followers of Baha'u'llah's half brother Mirza Yahya. How close is that? Do you still want to break it to Him?

 

[Trailblazer]

Babis are of course just one step away, unlike the Muslims who are two steps, and the Christians and Jews three and four. Maybe trying to teach Babis will be easier? Not only are Babis just one step away but they are followers of Baha'u'llah's half brother Mirza Yahya. How close is that? Do you still want to break it to Him?

I do not know a lot about Babis, but I have always been one to take on difficult projects.... You should see all the atheists I am talking to on another forum... I have been talking to all of them for years and they still talk to me. They go away, they come back, and they are now my personal friends... Some of them that actually listen have learned a lot about the Faith and they even read stuff on their own... There is only one atheist who is utterly IMpossible, I have NO IDEA why I still post to him... His mind is as closed as steel trap... Only God knows why I still post to him but at least I am not screaming about it as I used to so my husband can hear me from the next room. Anymore, he is like water off a duck's back... There is some truth to the fact that the more you suffer the less it affects you.

So Babis, bring them on! I learn something new whenever I have to figure out WHY other beleivers believe what they believe and I can often use it later.

I will get to your other two posts tomorrow...

 

[Firemorphic]

So why is the title Babism false?

The Bayani's never referred to themselves as such.

How has the Baha'i Faith subverted Babism or Bayani Gnosticism?

As I said, The Bab was Esoteric and Bahaullah went all-out Hollywood Messiah. Most of The Bab's importance is completely lost on Baha'i'sm. And the truth is in the words, regarding the gnostic aspect at the forefront of The Bab's revelation.

I've never heard of the 1511-2001 for Him whom God would make manifest.

Of course.

So are you an Azali?

Azali - Wikipedia

No, it says right in the 'religion' spot, I'm a Shia (Twelver).

Any revelation from God promotes mysticism, does it not?

Read again what I wrote, these are specific terms for specific things. And on your comment, no, not for everyone.

That's unusual terminology I hadn't come across before.

Theosophy - Wikipedia

Theophany - Wikipedia

Theosophy - study of God, divinity, transcendence
Theophany - manifestation of the divine (not always necessarily God itself but commonly in major religions)

Funny thing that, because I swear I saw a Jew, Christian and Muslim not too long ago. Their Dispensations may be abrogated but I don't think any of them have twigged. Perhaps if we just tell them straight up.....

Hmm, interesting that

Maybe he just needs to hear that the Babi dispensation has been abrogated!

In your opinion, only, preface that.

You can be the one to break it to him? You’re the straight shooter after all.

I'm sure I'm loosing out on a heck of a lot, I must be so lost, gosh I could do with another savior. In my very diverse range of religious, esoteric/occult and philosophical studies prior to converting to Islam, I most certainly never found many things that could ever hope to excel Bahaianity. Who oh who could help me in my dire need?

 

[Trailblazer]

As I said, The Bab was Esoteric and Bahaullah went all-out Messiah. Most of The Bab's importance is completely lost on Baha'i'sm. And the truth is in the words, regarding the gnostic aspect at the forefront of The Bab's revelation.

I'm sure I'm loosing out on a heck of a lot, I must be so lost, gosh I could do with another savior. In my very diverse range of religious, esoteric/occult and philosophical studies prior to converting to Islam, I most certainly never found many things that could ever hope to excel Bahaianity. Who oh who could help me in my dire need?

I am very interested in the gnostic aspect of the Bab's revelation. I am more interested in the mystic and esoteric than the practical aspects of the Bahai Faith, so I am somewhat atypical for a Baha'i. The world and all that is therein is utterly boring to me and the New World Order and all of that does not interest me that much, so I do not fit well into the Bahai community...

I am sure I am missing out on a heck of a lot by not knowing much of what the Bab wrote and I am also very interested in Shia Islam. I say that in all sincerity. Unfortunately, there are only 24 hours in a day.

My academic background is in psychology so I am also very interested in people and why they decided to join a particular religion, if you care to share that.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So who were those people and Pharisees,
That went about to kill Jesus?
Jesus revealed who they were many times.

What? The Jewish people and some Roman people called for the death of the Christ, part of God's redemptive plan, per the Bible.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I see Muhammad was also persecuted as he also said He had a connection to God, that God gave the Message of the Quran to Him.

The Bab had the same fate as Jesus the Christ and for the same reasons suffered execution by firing squad in amazing circumstances.

Baha'u'llah suffered persecution and banishment for the same reason as Christ.

Because of those three Messages from God, We now know how Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are connected to God.

Jesus the flesh is not God, He is but a man like us. The Holy Spirit, the Christ part of Jesus, the Spirit Jesus was born with and reflected to all humanity , is all we can know about God.

We will never see the flesh body of Jesus again, we have seen the Holy Spirit, the 'Christ' again through Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah.

Peace be with you and all, regards Tony

Persecution does not prove the truth of a faith or fact system. Jesus Christ verified His witness IMHO via miracles and fulfillment of prophecy.

 

[BilliardsBall]

There are plenty of papers by biblical scholars that examine the use of key Greek words used in the New Testament and Septuagint and consider possible meanings. A great example is the use of the word Logos in John 1:1. Verses in John 1 are often cited by some Christians as being supportive of the Divinity of Christ. But is it? If we considered the way the word Logos is used by Philo, a Hellenized Jew and contemporary of Jesus, this sheds light on what Logos most likely means. It simply means mediator or intermediary between God and man.

Philo's view of God - Wikipedia



Lets look at the verse from John 10:34 in context;

My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
I and my Father are one.
Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Jesus makes an ambiguous statement "I and my father are one". In response the Jews, without any reference to Pharisees, pick up stones because of blasphemy. In this instance the blasphemy is that Jesus has ‘made Himself God’. Jesus responds with reference to the Tanakh, Psalms 82:6 where it is said;

I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

So in that context Jesus is downplaying the Divinity question but then elaborates saying;

Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

So blasphemy is clearly associated with the claim of being 'Son of God'.

I'm happy to be more helpful in this context. Consider the following:

Paul uses a number of expressions to describe Jesus Christ as GOD, e.g.:

Col 1:15 – "who is the image of the invisible God"

2 Cor 4:4 – "Christ who is the image of God"

Phil 2:6 – "Who being in the form of God did not consider it robbery to be equal with God" – this verse, especially, states the **equality of Jesus with God**, which has to be truly twisted out of shape to be overlooked as modern translators have done.

Col 2:9 – "in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily"

Heb 1:3 – "Who being the … express image of His Person"

The same word "Lord" is used of Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the Father, which clearly shows the thinking of Paul and other NT writers on the deity of Christ:

1 Cor 3:5-7 – "Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one? 6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. 7 So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase."

2 Cor 3:17 – "Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty."

Ac 4:29 – "Now, Lord, look on their threats" – Peter's prayer is to the Father

Act 5:3,4 – Peter equates the Holy Spirit and God

It is perfectly true that at the beginning, the Jews were somewhat hesitant to call Jesus “God”, they were almost afraid to mention the name of Jehovah. And here was someone standing before them as a man in the flesh. One can well understand their hesitation about calling Him God. But we have evidence to show that, even at the very beginning, they'd already begun to do so.

More evidence from the NT that the first believers understood Jesus as God:

Matthew 1:23 – "They shall call His name Immanuel… God with us".

John 1 – "The Word was with God, and the Word was God."

John 20:28 – "My Lord and my God!" The Jewish man Thomas didn't hesitate to refer to Jesus as God.

Acts 20:28 – Paul commands them "to feed the church of God, which He has purchased with His Own blood." He isn't referring to the Father, but to Jesus.

Titus 1:3 – "the commandment of God our Savior". Do scholars dispute that Paul wrote Titus? How then can they argue that "Paul never refers to Jesus as God"?

Titus 2:13,14 – "appearing of the great God and Savior Jesus Christ"

It takes a violent prejudice against the deity of Christ to deny these manifest references to Christ as God by Paul and other NT writers.

Another argument against the "Christ = God" translation has been that doxologies are nowhere addressed to Jesus. But doxologies ARE addressed to Jesus, to wit:

2 Tim 4:18 – "… to whom be glory forever and ever.

2 Peter 3:18 – "in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus, to Him be glory now and forever."

Rev 5:13 – "And every creature… saying, "Blessing and honor and glory and power… and unto the Lamb." The same ascribed to the Son as to the Father.

Rev 15:3 – "The song of the lamb, … Lord God Almighty, thou king of saints."

 

[LuisDantas]

So is Islam mentioned in the bible? Why or why not?

Of course it isn't. Islaam was created some four centuries after the writing of the latest books of the Bible, after all.

I seem to recall that there are those who see Islaam as a "promised revelation", often as a materialization of Immanuel (which is already a troubled, very feeble prediction on its own, even before Islaam enters the scene). But as references go, those are just a thin veneer to give a bit of form to a core of pure wishful thinking.

 

[Dawnofhope]

The Bayani's never referred to themselves as such.

They are also known as Azalis and from what I read are secretive, elitist and practice dissimulation or Taqiyya.

Azali - Wikipedia

I suppose after the Babi holocaust some felt they needed to do whatever it took to survive.

As I said, The Bab was Esoteric and Bahaullah went all-out Hollywood Messiah. Most of The Bab's importance is completely lost on Baha'i'sm. And the truth is in the words, regarding the gnostic aspect at the forefront of The Bab's revelation.

Hollywood or Bollywood? It’s not really how I would describe One who spent 40 years in prison or exile.

The Bab’s writings along with Bahá’u’lláh’s and to a lesser extent Abdu’l-Baha’s make up our sacred writings. Baha’is read from our sacred writings morning and evening and are asked to study our writings regularly as well as those of other faiths. We are an outwardly focused community and enjoined to associate with peoples of all religions in a spirit of love and fellowship.

No, it says right in the 'religion' spot, I'm a Shia (Twelver).

If you say so.

I'm sure I'm loosing out on a heck of a lot, I must be so lost, gosh I could do with another savior. In my very diverse range of religious, esoteric/occult and philosophical studies prior to converting to Islam, I most certainly never found many things that could ever hope to excel Bahaianity. Who oh who could help me in my dire need?

You seem happy enough with your Bayani Gnosticism. I doubt if the shallow and superficial Baha’is would have much to offer compared to the exalted experiences you must have through Bayani mysticism. Besides I wouldn’t want to rock your boat.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Persecution does not prove the truth of a faith or fact system. Jesus Christ verified His witness IMHO via miracles and fulfillment of prophecy.

As did Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah.

Baha'u'llah made it clear that though the Messengers of God can do miraculous things, it is not why they came and it is not a lasting proof of who they are.

If a person accepts Christ by the Miracles He performed, then that alone compels them to accept Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah. That one will not accept the miracles they performed, then that shows how strong a piece of evidence it is for accepting Christ.

Baha'u'llah has thus taken them off the list of proofs that determine a Messenger from God. That advice was given by Christ also, as after performing a miracle, he told the person to tell no one.

My faith in Christ is unshakeable and it needs no miracles to back it up. Christ is far greater than our thirst for the miraculous. A change of heart to accept Gods Messengers is the greatest miracle of them all.

Regards Tony