How are these Great Beings explained?

[CG Didymus]

...It is history repeating itself. The Jews fail to recognise their messiah and then the Christians fail to recognise theirs....

Same problem as the other post I just did. Jews should have recognized Zoroaster, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah. So tell me how that would have made any sense?

 

[CG Didymus]

Baha'u'llah, Jesus, and Muhammad were not God.



I appreciate that. However if making a case about what sacred OT and NT scripture actually say, it becomes mandatory to refer to the bible. This was an important issue during the Catholic/Protestant schism. The issues we are discussing may seem basic, but if they can not be supported biblically we can't say they are relevant to Christianity.

On the other hand I don't want our discussion being drowned in a see of biblical quotes so sorry about that.



Baha'is recognise Jesus as the Jewish Messiah prophesised in the OT. We recognised Baha'u'llah as the Messiah prophesised in both the OT and NT.




The point is, that Jesus is not God, So Baha'u'llah doesn't need to be either. To understand why many Christians believe Jesus is God in the flesh we need to consider scripture and history.

What about Hindu manifestations claiming to be an incarnation of a Hindu God?

 

[CG Didymus]

Would it be better to have fifty thousand peaceful religions than one dominate one?

You how some people are more spiritually oriented, some more pragmatic, and all those other things. The point being there's going to be all sorts of Baha'is... like liberal and conservative Baha'is. I've already seen it a very liberal, spiritual woman didn't do well with the more conservative, administrative Baha'is. I get the feeling the conservative ones are going to be the ruling class.

If so, how different is that going to be than the problems other religions had?

 

[Dawnofhope]

I'd like to know when you say that Zoroaster, Buddha, King David, and Isaiah lived? Because if a Psalm of David or a prophecy of Isaiah mentions a coming of the next manifestation, it might have to include Zoroaster and Buddha. If the dates don't work then the Psalm or prophecy would have to include Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah. So not only a second coming, but many comings.

I wonder if you are thinking about ancient times from a modern perspective, rather than how the ancient peoples themselves would have thought. While it is true that Zoroaster and Buddha where around about two and a half thousand years ago after the prophecies of David and Isaiah, it appears unlikely the intention was for the Jews to recognise them. I understand they really struggled with the verses in Isaiah referring to Cyrus (a Persian King who some scholars argue was probably Zoroastrian) as the Anointed One.

The language of first and second coming is Christian terminology. Interestingly Baha'u'llah suggested a better strategy for the Muslims when conversing with Christians should have been to highlight how Muhammad fulfilled biblical prophecy rather than rejecting the bible as being corrupted.

Same problem as the other post I just did. Jews should have recognized Zoroaster, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah. So tell me how that would have made any sense?

The Jews would have been better off recognising Jesus. However a study of the OT and NT indicates God knew this would not happen. That is history and God has forgiven the Jews. These however are different times and we have access to a wealth of information where we can properly inform ourselves about the lives and teachings of all the great spiritual teachers. In a bygone era this simply wasn't possible.

What about Hindu manifestations claiming to be an incarnation of a Hindu God?

I suspect the principle is similar to Jesus being a (spiritual not physical) incarnation of God. John 1:1, John 1:3, John 1:14.

NB I've deleted some of my original answer. Thanks to @siti for highlighting my error.

 

[siti]

The treatment of the Holy Spirit (Baha'u'llah) is a different proposition. Mark 3:28-29

Yikes!

So disbelieving Baha'u'llah is the 'eternal' and 'unforgivable' sin? I'm in the piggies now aren't I?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Yikes!

So disbelieving Baha'u'llah is the 'eternal' and 'unforgivable' sin? I'm in the piggies now aren't I?

Not really. It is more to do with antipathy and hatred towards the Manifestation of God

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 127-128

I suspect it isn't at all similar - beyond a glib and superficial examination.

Perhaps. I'm happy to hear an argument to the contrary.

 

[arthra]

You how some people are more spiritually oriented, some more pragmatic, and all those other things. The point being there's going to be all sorts of Baha'is... like liberal and conservative Baha'is. I've already seen it a very liberal, spiritual woman didn't do well with the more conservative, administrative Baha'is. I get the feeling the conservative ones are going to be the ruling class.
If so, how different is that going to be than the problems other religions had?

Now would be a good time to visit a Baha'i community and see for yourself... We're in what we call the Ridvan season commemorating the departure of Baha'u'llah from Baghdad embarking on a journey to Istanbul at the order of the Ottoman sultan. Baha'is hold an annual election on the First of Ridvan which was on April 20th where all adult Baha'is vote for those members of the community who they feel should serve on the Assembly our governing body locally. Our National Convention will be held in Wilmette Ill. as I recall on the 27th of April by delegates who were elected back last October at our Unit Conventions.

So we have no Priests or Mullas or "ruling classes" as our Institutions are all democratically elected.

 

[siti]

Not really. It is more to do with antipathy and hatred towards the Manifestation of God

Phew! That's a relief!

Perhaps. I'm happy to hear an argument to the contrary.

I actually edited that bit out a few minutes after posting it because on second thoughts I decided I didn't want to focus on it. But since you have already responded, I don't think a fair examination of Hindu and Christian beliefs about divine incarnation would conclude that they are at all similar.

For a start Hinduism has numerous incarnations, in Christianity only one is either possible or necessary. And in any case, the incarnation of Christ in Christianity was as a real, flesh and blood, agony-suffering human. The Hindu avatars - as far as I understand it - wore apparent human flesh but did not really suffer. Rather, eternal souls put flesh on and off like garments in the process of reincarnation (Bhagavad Gita 2,22). Christ's once-for-all-time physical death and physical resurrection are central to the Christian faith. To suggest that this was 'spiritual not physical' is equivalent to docetism - the gnostic idea that Christ only gave the semblance of being human. But that idea has been considered heretical in Christianity since the Council of Nicaea.

Christ as an avatar would be an absurdity in Christianity. A physical resurrection of, say, Krishna would be an absurdity in Hinduism. They are just not compatible.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Phew! That's a relief!

I actually edited that bit out a few minutes after posting it because on second thoughts I decided I didn't want to focus on it. But since you have already responded, I don't think a fair examination of Hindu and Christian beliefs about divine incarnation would conclude that they are at all similar.

For a start Hinduism has numerous incarnations, in Christianity only one is either possible or necessary. And in any case, the incarnation of Christ in Christianity was as a real, flesh and blood, agony-suffering human. The Hindu avatars - as far as I understand it - wore apparent human flesh but did not really suffer. Rather, eternal souls put flesh on and off like garments in the process of reincarnation (Bhagavad Gita 2,22). Christ's once-for-all-time physical death and physical resurrection are central to the Christian faith. To suggest that this was 'spiritual not physical' is equivalent to docetism - the gnostic idea that Christ only gave the semblance of being human. But that idea has been considered heretical in Christianity since the Council of Nicaea.

Christ as an avatar would be an absurdity in Christianity. A physical resurrection of, say, Krishna would be an absurdity in Hinduism. They are just not compatible.

Rightly or wrongly I deliberately quoted the Christian scripture that most strongly supports the conservative Christian view. To elaborate Jesus was pre-existent with God from the beginning, then incarnated into the physical body of Jesus in the womb of Mary to become a physical incarnation of God. God/Jesus three days after His crucifixion returns to physical life and appears to His disciples over a period of 40 days before finally ascending into the sky to be with His Father in heaven that exists beyond the clouds somewhere in space or beyond. There have been various challenges to this belief early on in Christian history as you say and this belief system has become enshrined in Christian doctrine during the 4th century and beyond through various councils including the two in Nicea.

This narrative is no longer plausible when considered from the perspective of what we know about scripture, science, history, and comparative religion. I don't know too much about Hinduism but suspect mainstream Hindu beliefs concerning Vishnu, avatars including Krishna, and reincarnation could be reframed with a similar type of modern analysis.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It doesn't matter, either way peace is peace and to be accepted.

If there is a dominate peaceful faith, then other faiths will loose their role. Christ wouldn't be Christ. Muhammad wouldnt be Muhammad and so forth. We'd literally have to divorce our beliefs to conform with the foundation of the dominate religion. (Given the word why it's dominate).

Can dominate religions provide peace?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Peace and prosperity is my wish however it can be established.

Why is there a need to accept or reject one religion in order to bring peace to all religions as a whole? (For example, why would christ need to save all people to bring peace...but I'm taking out any particular religion right now)

 

[loverofhumanity]

Why is there a need to accept or reject one religion in order to bring peace to all religions as a whole? (For example, why would christ need to save all people to bring peace...but I'm taking out any particular religion right now)

There is no need. They can do as they are now. Ultimately th destiny of humanity is in its own hands.

Unless people feel there's a need they won't change anything. That's the way it is now.

It's probably like Noah before the flood. But now the stakes are a lot higher.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

There is no need. They can do as they are now. Ultimately th destiny of humanity is in its own hands.

Unless people feel there's a need they won't change anything. That's the way it is now.

It's probably like Noah before the flood. But now the stakes are a lot higher.

Can there be peace with conflicting religions and conflicting goals with conflict practices regardless the motive?

Or would it be easier to have one guidence to which all religions can mirror their practices and goals on if they comformed their religions to work with each other?

 

[Vinayaka]

Which has nothing to do with the Baha'is, who do not "kill everyone else".
Please remember the bounds of moderation and relevance when posting

The point was that according to many Muslims and Christians, their religions started out as peaceful, and only later became violent and aggressive. It gets debated. So the fact of the matter is we won't know about Bahai unless it becomes a majority faith somewhere, in which case it would be in a position of power, and might well turn to aggression to promote. I certainly hope not, but who can rally predict the future?

 

[loverofhumanity]

Can there be peace with conflicting religions and conflicting goals with conflict practices regardless the motive?

Or would it be easier to have one guidence to which all religions can mirror their practices and goals on if they comformed their religions to work with each other?

I think we have to try the different ways. If they don't work we can always go back to the old ways.

“let us try, as an experiment, peace, and if the results of peace are bad, then we can choose if it would be better to go back to the old state of war!”

. “Abdu’l-Bahá in London.”

 

[Vinayaka]

Christ as an avatar would be an absurdity in Christianity. A physical resurrection of, say, Krishna would be an absurdity in Hinduism. They are just not compatible.

Hinduism and Christianity, as you suspect, are indeed very far apart. Right from the nature of God, afterlife beliefs, practices, (cremationn versus burial) salvations, and much much more. Only by selecting certain passages can outsiders to either faith find similarities. But we can do that with any two novels. Both will have punctuation for example.

 

[Vinayaka]

I think we have to try the different ways. If they don't work we can always go back to the old ways.

“let us try, as an experiment, peace, and if the results of peace are bad, then we can choose if it would be better to go back to the old state of war!”

. “Abdu’l-Bahá in London.”

There is nothing wrong with trying, and all kinds of governments have been trying new ways for a long time. It's not just Bahai. With each new election in every democratic country, something new is tried. Most especially after any major war, there is more dialogue. Yes sometimes the change seems way too slow.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I think we have to try the different ways. If they don't work we can always go back to the old ways.

“let us try, as an experiment, peace, and if the results of peace are bad, then we can choose if it would be better to go back to the old state of war!”

. “Abdu’l-Bahá in London.”

But half the religions dont want a new way. They feel the old will help with the new. Other religions rather for the new and disregard the old. Both are fine.

Can you find world peace when each and all religion defines it differently?

 

[sayak83]

If there is a dominate peaceful faith, then other faiths will loose their role. Christ wouldn't be Christ. Muhammad wouldnt be Muhammad and so forth. We'd literally have to divorce our beliefs to conform with the foundation of the dominate religion. (Given the word why it's dominate).

Can dominate religions provide peace?

Peace of the grave only. If I were to choose a dominant ideology to promote world peace and flourishing why would I choose Baha over Gandhi? The latter has been shown to be effective at least to a reasonable extent in history under multiple different social condition without causing anyone to subscribe to one metaphysics. Choosing Bahai over Gandhi is illogical.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

If there is a dominate peaceful faith, then other faiths will loose their role. Christ wouldn't be Christ. Muhammad wouldnt be Muhammad and so forth. We'd literally have to divorce our beliefs to conform with the foundation of the dominate religion. (Given the word why it's dominate).

Can dominate religions provide peace?

It depends on what your definition of dominant religion is. If by this, you mean a Religion which forces its beliefs on others, or pressures others to also believe, in what they believed, or discriminates against those who have a different religious believe, then, in my opinion it won't be able to establish peace, and most likely, there would appear conflicts and divisions between the followers of its own.
The Bahai Faith cannot be like that, as can be seen from its scriptures, it forbids Bahais from forcing their belief on others or even defend their own religion by use of weapons. Also, the Bahais, believe Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, Krishna...were all the Truth, and Islam, hinduism, buddhism, zoroastrism,...all had the same and one divine origin, so they do not change their mind, about truth of the older Manifestations. Off course, the Bahai Scriptures provides a new interpretations of some of the sayings of the Previous Manifestations, because it says, some of Their sayings were not to be taken literally, and must be interpreted Symbolically or Mystically. But what is wrong with this, or what harm is in this?