If Jesus isn't the only way to come to God...

[Brian2]

No, it doesn't, but what the seminar determined is that what the majority of Christians believe is false, and I agree.

No they did not determine what the majority of Christians believe is false, they began with the assumptions that anything in the gospels that pointed to these things is false and so eliminated the sayings of Jesus and deeds of Jesus which pointed to the truth of His divinity and anything supernatural.

 

[CG Didymus]

If these same people decided to write the Baha'u'llah Seminars they would probably eliminate all of what he wrote. These people do not believe in the supernatural and the divine inspiration of what Baha'u'llah wrote all they would accept is what history knows about the life and death of the man Baha'u'llah.

We are kind of like the "Baha'u'llah" Seminar. Let's see... Raise your hand if you believe Baha'u'llah was sent by the God of the Bible? Raise your hand if you believe he is the return of Christ?

How about whether the Bible teaches there will be "twin" manifestations? And speaking of manifestations.... How many, like the claims of the Baha'i Faith say, believe that Adam, Noah, and Abraham were manifestations? How many people, like Baha'u'llah claims, believe that Ishmael, not Isaac, was taken by Abraham to be sacrificed?

Hmmm? Let's take a tally... So far... Zero percent of the claims made by Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i Faith are true.

Maybe people might say you and me with our little seminar are a little biased. But how about the people in the "Jesus" Seminar?

So, let's do another seminar. This one with TB and I. How many of us believe Jesus is God? How many of us believe Satan is real? How many of us believe the Flood and Creation story is literally true? How many people here think Paul was a dufus?

Okay, so far, it's not even close to 20%. It's 0%. We declare the Bible fictional.

Yeah, the Jesus Seminar is great for those that don't want the Bible and Jesus to literally true. But that doesn't make the Baha'i Faith literally true.

 

[Trailblazer]

Hah, you agree to what suits you, otherwise you disagree.

The same exact thing applied to you.

 

[Trailblazer]

Of course Baha'is change the Bible. They do not do it officially obviously but when they say they interpret the Bible, it is plain that they do not mean that they have interpreted the official Bible.

What other Bible would we be interpreting? The KJV and the NIV are official versions.

You even admit to changing the Bible when you claim that 80% of what Jesus said is not what He said. What you interpret is only 20% of what Jesus said in the Bible. Denying the Bible is not interpreting it, you only interpret what you have changed the Bible to be or say,,,,,,,,,,, you deny the rest.

I do not claim that 80% of what the Bible says that Jesus said is not what He said. It was the scholars who claimed that.

Bible scholars know that Jesus did not say everything that is attributed to Him. Acknowledging that is not changing the Bible and it is not denying the Bible. The Bible can still be true in substance, as Baha'is believe, even if Jesus did not actually say everything it says He said.

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.
Shoghi Effendi, Lights of Guidance, p. 494

The Bahá’ís believe that God's Revelation is under His care and protection and that the essence, or essential elements, of what His Manifestations intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in Their Holy Books. However, as the sayings of the ancient Prophets were written down some time later, we cannot categorically state, as we do in the case of the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, that the words and phrases attributed to Them are Their exact words.
Universal House of Justice, 1987 Sept 14, Resurrection of Christ

Bible | Bahá’í Quotes

bahaiquotes.com

Then by accepting only 20% of what Jesus said you are denying what Bajha'u'llah said about the Bible not being corrupted.

There is no correlation between the Bible being corrupted and believing that Jesus did not actually say everything that the Bible says He said.
It is absurd to believe that anyone writing the Bible decades after Jesus walked the earth knew exactly what Jesus said. I know it cannot be exactly what Jesus said because it is logically impossible.

I accept that even if Jesus did not actually say everything it says He said, the essence of what Jesus said was captured in those verses.
However, the stories that were written about Jesus is another matter. I don't have any reason to accept them as being literally true.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, you have said that only 20% of the sayings of Jesus were said by Jesus, so you have determined to believe the opinions of the skeptics in the Jesus Seminar. That is not about Baha'i faith but imo does show the spirit of the false prophet Baha'u'llah, to deny the words of the Bible. I see this in all Baha'is I have spoken to except those who refuse to speak about it.

Those were not skeptics, they were scholars. If you want to believe what is logically impossible that is your choice.

How accurate are Jesus words in the Bible?

Because it is generally accepted that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written at least two generations after the death of Jesus, the scholars insist that the precise words Jesus would have used when he preached are unknown.Jan 22, 1994

Scholars: The Gospel truth is, Jesus' words not precise - Tampa Bay Times

This has NOTHING to do with me being a Baha'i. if I was not a Baha'i, I would not believe anything that is in the Bible!

Yah, yah sure.
Acts 1: 9 And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. 10 And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, 11 and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.”

And what you have assigned to be the meaning of this verse is that the disciples did not see Jesus go into the sky and that it will be someone else who comes and not Jesus because Jesus will not return. And it won't be in the same way that this other person comes.

You certainly interpret that verse to death. And that verse is one of the ways Christians will know if someone is the return of Jesus.
Sucked in by a false prophet imo.
You deny the Bible and say it is corrupted and then claim that you do neither of those. You speak with the same spirit that Baha'u'llah and your teachers speak.

I do not deny that the Bible is corrupted. I believe that much of what Paul said is false, and that includes the verses above.
Time marches on and I learned a few things. I no longer interpret those verses to mean something else, to be about Baha'u'llah, since I believe they are part of the false gospel of Paul.

You cherry-pick the verses you WANT to believe and ignore the rest.
Those verses have to be false if other parts of the Bible are true, because we will NEVER be seeing Jesus again in this world if we go by what is in John.

John 14:19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

John 16:10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more.

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

So go on and deny Paul also. Why not, you deny Jesus.
Believe the opinions of more skeptics about the Bible.

I absolutely deny Paul. You talk about me changing the Bible when it was Paul who corrupted the Bible with his false teachings about Jesus.

“That the figure of the Nazarene, as delivered to us in Mark’s Gospel, is decisively different from the pre-existent risen Christ proclaimed by Paul, is something long recognized by thinkers like Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Herder and Goethe, to mention only a few. The distinction between ‘the religion of Christ’ and ‘the Christian religion’ goes back to Lessing. Critical theological research has now disputed the idea of an uninterrupted chain of historical succession: Luther’s belief that at all times a small handful of true Christians preserved the true apostolic faith. Walter Bauer (226) and Martin Werner (227) have brought evidence that there was conflict from the outset about the central questions of dogma. It has become clear that the beliefs of those who had seen and heard Jesus in the flesh --- the disciples and the original community--- were at odds to an extraordinary degree with the teaching of Paul, who claimed to have been not only called by a vision but instructed by the heavenly Christ. The conflict at Antioch between the apostles Peter and Paul, far more embittered as research has shown (228) than the Bible allows us to see, was the most fateful split in Christianity, which in the Acts of the Apostles was ‘theologically camouflaged’. (229)

Paul, who had never seen Jesus, showed great reserve towards the Palestinian traditions regarding Jesus’ life. (230) The historical Jesus and his earthly life are without significance for Paul. In all his epistles the name ‘Jesus’ occurs only 15 times, the title ‘Christ’ 378 times. In Jesus’s actual teaching he shows extraordinarily little interest. It is disputed whether in all his epistles he makes two, three or four references to sayings by Jesus. (231) It is not Jesus’ teaching, which he cannot himself have heard at all (short of hearing it in a vision), that is central to his own mission, but the person of the Redeemer and His death on the Cross.

Jesus, who never claimed religious worship for himself was not worshipped in the original community, is for Paul the pre-existent risen Christ….
This was the ‘Fall’ of Christianity: that Paul with his ‘Gospel’, which became the core of Christian dogma formation, conquered the world, (237) while the historic basis of Christianity was declared a heresy….

Pauline heresy served as the basis for Christian orthodoxy, and the legitimate Church was outlawed as heretical’. (240) The ‘small handful of true Christians’ was Nazarene Christianity, which was already extinct in the fourth century……

The centerpiece then, of Christian creedal doctrine, that of Redemption, is something of which—in the judgment of the theologian E. Grimm (244) --- Jesus himself knew nothing; and it goes back to Paul. “
(Udo Schaefer, Light Shineth in Darkness, Studies in revelation after Christ )

How Paul changed the course of Christianity

This is an excerpt from the book entitled The Light Shineth in Darkness, Studies in revelation after Christ by Udo Schaefer. This section explains how Paul changed the Christianity of Jesus. It is important to note that the views expressed by this author reflect his individual perspective and...

www.religiousforums.com

You go by the skeptic scholars not THE scholars. You choose whom you believe. You go by the skeptical scholars when you say that none of the writers of the gospels knew Jesus.
You deny what Jesus said to His disciples if you think that they could not remember all of what the gospels say.
John 14:25All this I have spoken to you while I am still with you. 26But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have told you.

We know that verses cannot apply to when the disciples lived because what it says in that verses did not happen back when the disciples lived.
Teach you all things and remind you of everything I have told you is what Baha'u'llah did.

And of course you deny this passage and say it is speaking about Baha'u'llah even when Jesus said that his disciples would be reminded of what He had said to them. Baha'u'llah could nor remind anyone of what Jesus said to them because Baha'u'llah came in the 19th century.

But that did not happen when the disciples were alive, so we know it doesn't apply to the disciples.

But I don't know why you would want to say that this verse is about Baha'u'llah anyway, I'm sure it would be one of the verses that the Jesus Seminar reject.
So what are you going to do, say that this verse is not authentic or be inconsistent and say it is authentic and is about Baha'u'llah?
This would apply to all the verses about the Advocate and Spirit of Truth that you want to apply to Baha'u'llah. Are they authentic saying of Jesus which prophesy about Baha'u'llah or have you denied those prophecies about Baha'u'llah by believing the Jesus Seminar?

I do not know exactly which verses were rejected by the scholars, but it doesn't matter to me because I do not need the Bible to validate who Baha'u'llah was... I go by what Baha'u'llah wrote, since I believe His claims and I know it is what He actually wrote.

“O kings of Christendom! Heard ye not the saying of Jesus, the Spirit of God, “I go away, and come again unto you”? Wherefore, then, did ye fail, when He did come again unto you in the clouds of heaven, to draw nigh unto Him, that ye might behold His face, and be of them that attained His Presence? In another passage He saith: “When He, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth.” And yet, behold how, when He did bring the truth, ye refused to turn your faces towards Him, and persisted in disporting yourselves with your pastimes and fancies. Ye welcomed Him not, neither did ye seek His Presence, that ye might hear the verses of God from His own mouth, and partake of the manifold wisdom of the Almighty, the All-Glorious, the All-Wise.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 246

* Note that "when He did come again unto you in the clouds of heaven" does not refer to a body coming down from heaven in the clouds.

“We, in truth, have sent Him Whom We aided with the Holy Spirit (Jesus Christ) that He may announce unto you this Light that hath shone forth from the horizon of the will of your Lord, the Most Exalted, the All-Glorious, and Whose signs have been revealed in the West. Set your faces towards Him (Bahá’u’lláh) on this Day which God hath exalted above all other days, and whereon the All-Merciful hath shed the splendour of His effulgent glory upon all who are in heaven and all who are on earth.”
Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 18

“The Word which the Son concealed is made manifest. It hath been sent down in the form of the human temple in this day. Blessed be the Lord Who is the Father! He, verily, is come unto the nations in His most great majesty.” Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 84-85

“This is, truly, that which the Spirit of God (Jesus Christ) hath announced, when He came with truth unto you, He with Whom the Jewish doctors disputed, till at last they perpetrated what hath made the Holy Spirit to lament, and the tears of them that have near access to God to flow….” Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 19

 

[Trailblazer]

If these same people decided to write the Baha'u'llah Seminars they would probably eliminate all of what he wrote.

Nobody can eliminate what Baha'u'llah wrote as not being what He wrote because we have His original Writings that were stamped with His official seal.

These people do not believe in the supernatural and the divine inspiration of what Baha'u'llah wrote all they would accept is what history knows about the life and death of the man Baha'u'llah.

You do not know that these scholars do not believe in the supernatural, but they would not accept the divine inspiration of what Baha'u'llah wrote unless they were Baha'is.

 

[Trailblazer]

No they did not determine what the majority of Christians believe is false, they began with the assumptions that anything in the gospels that pointed to these things is false and so eliminated the sayings of Jesus and deeds of Jesus which pointed to the truth of His divinity and anything supernatural.

NO, they did not begin with any assumptions. They studied the Bible from 1985-1991 and then drew their conclusions.
They did not eliminate all the sayings of Jesus and deeds of Jesus, they only determined that some of them are not exactly what Jesus said.

Jesus Seminar Fellows also came to consensus on the following:

- Jesus of Nazareth did not refer to himself as the Messiah, nor did he claim to be a divine being who descended to earth from heaven in order to die as a sacrifice for the sins of the world. These are claims that some people in the early church made about Jesus, not claims he made about himself.

- At the heart of Jesus’ teaching and actions was a vision of a life under the reign of God (or, in the empire of God) in which God’s generosity and goodness is regarded as the model and measure of human life; everyone is accepted as a child of God and thus liberated both from the ethnocentric confines of traditional Judaism and from the secularizing servitude and meagerness of their lives under the rule of the empire of Rome.

- Jesus did not hold an apocalyptic view of the reign (or kingdom) of God—that by direct intervention God was about to bring history to an end and bring a new, perfect order of life into being. Rather, in Jesus’ teaching the reign of God is a vision of what life in this world could be, not a vision of life in a future world that would soon be brought into being by a miraculous act of god.

Jesus Seminar Phase 1: Sayings of Jesus | Westar Institute

The original Jesus Seminar (Sayings) is Westar’s first and best-known project. What did Jesus really say? The findings of the seminar sparked widespread debate and controversy. Its major book is The Five Gospels.

www.westarinstitute.org

It is interesting to note that these scholars were not influenced by the Baha'i Faith, yet the conclusions that they came to about what Jesus actually taught are aligned with what the Baha'i Faith teaches. I am enamored with what Jesus actually taught but sadly, most Christians do not even know what that was since they were brainwashed by the false doctrines of the church.

 

[CG Didymus]

No they did not determine what the majority of Christians believe is false, they began with the assumptions that anything in the gospels that pointed to these things is false and so eliminated the sayings of Jesus and deeds of Jesus which pointed to the truth of His divinity and anything supernatural.

Here's some of the findings of the Jesus Seminar. It's bad for both Born-Again Christians and Baha'is.

According to the Seminar, Jesus was a mortal man born of two human parents, who did not perform nature miracles nor die as a substitute for sinners nor rise bodily from the dead. Sightings of a risen Jesus represented the visionary experiences of some of his disciples rather than physical encounters.​

​

For Born-Again Christians.... hate to tell you but these "scholars" say you're wrong about a lot of things. Jesus didn't die for the sins of anybody and didn't rise from the dead.

But there's something that the Baha'is are wrong about too. Baha'is believe in the virgin birth. But the "scholars" say that's not true... that Jesus had two human parents like everybody else. Here' a quote about the Baha'i belief....

"With regard to your question concerning the Virgin Birth of Jesus: On this point, as on several others, the Bahá’í Teachings are in full agreement with the doctrines of the Catholic Church. In the 'Kitáb-i-Íqán' (Book of Certitude) p. 56, and in a few other Tablets still unpublished, Bahá’u’lláh confirms, however indirectly, the Catholic conception of the Virgin Birth. Also ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in the 'Some Answered Questions', Chap. XII, p. 73, explicitly states that 'Christ found existence through the Spirit of God' which statement necessarily implies, when viewed in the light of the text, that Jesus was not the son of Joseph."​

​

(From a letter dated October 14, 1945 written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer)​

​

1640. Christ's Brothers and Sisters Were Born in the Natural Way​

"We believe that Christ only was conceived immaculately. His brothers and sisters would have been born in the natural way and conceived naturally."​

​

(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to Dr. Shook, November 19, 1945: Bahá’í News, No. 210, p. 3, August 1948)​

​

So, what to do with the findings of these "scholars"? I guess they could be right about some things but wrong about the virgin birth. Because we all know that Baha'u'llah can't be wrong.

 

[Brian2]

We are kind of like the "Baha'u'llah" Seminar. Let's see... Raise your hand if you believe Baha'u'llah was sent by the God of the Bible? Raise your hand if you believe he is the return of Christ?

How about whether the Bible teaches there will be "twin" manifestations? And speaking of manifestations.... How many, like the claims of the Baha'i Faith say, believe that Adam, Noah, and Abraham were manifestations? How many people, like Baha'u'llah claims, believe that Ishmael, not Isaac, was taken by Abraham to be sacrificed?

Hmmm? Let's take a tally... So far... Zero percent of the claims made by Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i Faith are true.

Maybe people might say you and me with our little seminar are a little biased. But how about the people in the "Jesus" Seminar?

So, let's do another seminar. This one with TB and I. How many of us believe Jesus is God? How many of us believe Satan is real? How many of us believe the Flood and Creation story is literally true? How many people here think Paul was a dufus?

Okay, so far, it's not even close to 20%. It's 0%. We declare the Bible fictional.

Yeah, the Jesus Seminar is great for those that don't want the Bible and Jesus to literally true. But that doesn't make the Baha'i Faith literally true.

That is true, it just that the people in the Jesus Seminar are called Biblical scholars that makes the difference in the mind of some who listen to them, but it does not make them any better in determining what Jesus said and did etc.

 

[Brian2]

There is no correlation between the Bible being corrupted and believing that Jesus did not actually say everything that the Bible says He said.
It is absurd to believe that anyone writing the Bible decades after Jesus walked the earth knew exactly what Jesus said. I know it cannot be exactly what Jesus said because it is logically impossible.

I suppose if the Gospels were originally made up stories about Jesus then that would mean that they have not been corrupted. But to say that they are made up stories is to deny their truth.

I accept that even if Jesus did not actually say everything it says He said, the essence of what Jesus said was captured in those verses.
However, the stories that were written about Jesus is another matter. I don't have any reason to accept them as being literally true.

The Jesus Seminar is looking for the historical Jesus, the one without the supernatural BS.
A teacher who said some wise things and was executed is a completely different Jesus to the one in the Bible, it is a Jesus that sceptics might accept and that Baha'is might accept but sceptics and Baha'is don't accept the Biblical Jesus.

 

[Brian2]

Those were not skeptics, they were scholars.

That does not make sense. Scholars can be sceptics.

Because it is generally accepted that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written at least two generations after the death of Jesus, the scholars insist that the precise words Jesus would have used when he preached are unknown.Jan 22, 1994

I suppose that these days the world has the "opinions" of sceptical scholars that many people prefer to view the gospels through.

This has NOTHING to do with me being a Baha'i. if I was not a Baha'i, I would not believe anything that is in the Bible!

Nothing has changed then. You still deny what Jesus said what makes the gospel what it is,,,,,, the good news. You may as well believe Aesops fables, interesting and possibly wise sayings from a teacher.

I do not deny that the Bible is corrupted. I believe that much of what Paul said is false, and that includes the verses above.
Time marches on and I learned a few things. I no longer interpret those verses to mean something else, to be about Baha'u'llah, since I believe they are part of the false gospel of Paul.

Paul did not write Acts, so the bits of the Bible that you deny just grow by the minute. As I have said to you many times. To be a Baha'i means that you have to deny the Bible.
But as you pointed out, that does not mean that the Bible is corrupted, it just means that the Bible was BS from the beginning, in your opinion.

You cherry-pick the verses you WANT to believe and ignore the rest.
Those verses have to be false if other parts of the Bible are true, because we will NEVER be seeing Jesus again in this world if we go by what is in John.

No I believe all the Bible and actually "interpret" it to be consistent.
You cherry pick and cannot "interpret" the rest to be consistent with your interpretation of your cherry picked verses, so you just say that they are not the words of Jesus or some such thing.
IOW your interpretation is no more than a series of cherry picked verses interpreted in the Baha'i way and a denial of the truth of the verses that contradict your interpretation of those cherry picked verses.

I absolutely deny Paul. You talk about me changing the Bible when it was Paul who corrupted the Bible with his false teachings about Jesus.

You accept Paul when you think he is agreeing with you.

“That the figure of the Nazarene, as delivered to us in Mark’s Gospel, is decisively different from the pre-existent risen Christ proclaimed by Paul, is something long recognized by thinkers like Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Herder and Goethe, to mention only a few. The distinction between ‘the religion of Christ’ and ‘the Christian religion’ goes back to Lessing. Critical theological research has now disputed the idea of an uninterrupted chain of historical succession: Luther’s belief that at all times a small handful of true Christians preserved the true apostolic faith. Walter Bauer (226) and Martin Werner (227) have brought evidence that there was conflict from the outset about the central questions of dogma. It has become clear that the beliefs of those who had seen and heard Jesus in the flesh --- the disciples and the original community--- were at odds to an extraordinary degree with the teaching of Paul, who claimed to have been not only called by a vision but instructed by the heavenly Christ. The conflict at Antioch between the apostles Peter and Paul, far more embittered as research has shown (228) than the Bible allows us to see, was the most fateful split in Christianity, which in the Acts of the Apostles was ‘theologically camouflaged’. (229)

Paul, who had never seen Jesus, showed great reserve towards the Palestinian traditions regarding Jesus’ life. (230) The historical Jesus and his earthly life are without significance for Paul. In all his epistles the name ‘Jesus’ occurs only 15 times, the title ‘Christ’ 378 times. In Jesus’s actual teaching he shows extraordinarily little interest. It is disputed whether in all his epistles he makes two, three or four references to sayings by Jesus. (231) It is not Jesus’ teaching, which he cannot himself have heard at all (short of hearing it in a vision), that is central to his own mission, but the person of the Redeemer and His death on the Cross.

Jesus, who never claimed religious worship for himself was not worshipped in the original community, is for Paul the pre-existent risen Christ….
This was the ‘Fall’ of Christianity: that Paul with his ‘Gospel’, which became the core of Christian dogma formation, conquered the world, (237) while the historic basis of Christianity was declared a heresy….

Pauline heresy served as the basis for Christian orthodoxy, and the legitimate Church was outlawed as heretical’. (240) The ‘small handful of true Christians’ was Nazarene Christianity, which was already extinct in the fourth century……

The centerpiece then, of Christian creedal doctrine, that of Redemption, is something of which—in the judgment of the theologian E. Grimm (244) --- Jesus himself knew nothing; and it goes back to Paul. “
(Udo Schaefer, Light Shineth in Darkness, Studies in revelation after Christ )

How Paul changed the course of Christianity

This is an excerpt from the book entitled The Light Shineth in Darkness, Studies in revelation after Christ by Udo Schaefer. This section explains how Paul changed the Christianity of Jesus. It is important to note that the views expressed by this author reflect his individual perspective and...

www.religiousforums.com

Now you are just cutting and pasting anti Bible quotes that suite your purpose in denying the Bible and the gospel but that you have not thought through.

We know that verses cannot apply to when the disciples lived because what it says in that verses did not happen back when the disciples lived.
Teach you all things and remind you of everything I have told you is what Baha'u'llah did.

But that did not happen when the disciples were alive, so we know it doesn't apply to the disciples.

I am always amazed how people can become blind to what verses say. It says that they would be reminded of what Jesus said to them.

I do not know exactly which verses were rejected by the scholars, but it doesn't matter to me because I do not need the Bible to validate who Baha'u'llah was... I go by what Baha'u'llah wrote, since I believe His claims and I know it is what He actually wrote.

“O kings of Christendom! Heard ye not the saying of Jesus, the Spirit of God, “I go away, and come again unto you”? Wherefore, then, did ye fail, when He did come again unto you in the clouds of heaven, to draw nigh unto Him, that ye might behold His face, and be of them that attained His Presence? In another passage He saith: “When He, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth.” And yet, behold how, when He did bring the truth, ye refused to turn your faces towards Him, and persisted in disporting yourselves with your pastimes and fancies. Ye welcomed Him not, neither did ye seek His Presence, that ye might hear the verses of God from His own mouth, and partake of the manifold wisdom of the Almighty, the All-Glorious, the All-Wise.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 246

* Note that "when He did come again unto you in the clouds of heaven" does not refer to a body coming down from heaven in the clouds.

“We, in truth, have sent Him Whom We aided with the Holy Spirit (Jesus Christ) that He may announce unto you this Light that hath shone forth from the horizon of the will of your Lord, the Most Exalted, the All-Glorious, and Whose signs have been revealed in the West. Set your faces towards Him (Bahá’u’lláh) on this Day which God hath exalted above all other days, and whereon the All-Merciful hath shed the splendour of His effulgent glory upon all who are in heaven and all who are on earth.”
Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 18

“The Word which the Son concealed is made manifest. It hath been sent down in the form of the human temple in this day. Blessed be the Lord Who is the Father! He, verily, is come unto the nations in His most great majesty.” Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 84-85

“This is, truly, that which the Spirit of God (Jesus Christ) hath announced, when He came with truth unto you, He with Whom the Jewish doctors disputed, till at last they perpetrated what hath made the Holy Spirit to lament, and the tears of them that have near access to God to flow….” Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 19

Yes OK you know the "historical Baha'u'llah" but those sceptical scholars would deny that anything that Baha'u'llah said could possibly be from God because they are "sceptical" as well as being scholars.

 

[Trailblazer]

So, what to do with the findings of these "scholars"? I guess they could be right about some things but wrong about the virgin birth.

Yes, I think this was the case.

Because we all know that Baha'u'llah can't be wrong.

That's true. And the Christians are not wrong about that either.

 

[Trailblazer]

I suppose if the Gospels were originally made up stories about Jesus then that would mean that they have not been corrupted. But to say that they are made up stories is to deny their truth.

I never said that I believe all the stories in the Bible are made up stories. Some stories might have been made up or remembered wrong, but just because Jesus did not actually say everything that the Bible says He said that doesn't mean that some of the stories are not true, since some of the stories might have been passed down to the authors correctly.

The Jesus Seminar is looking for the historical Jesus, the one without the supernatural BS.
A teacher who said some wise things and was executed is a completely different Jesus to the one in the Bible, it is a Jesus that sceptics might accept and that Baha'is might accept but sceptics and Baha'is don't accept the Biblical Jesus.

What is wrong with looking for the historical Jesus? that would be the real Jesus so that is the Jesus we should be looking for.

Baha'is do not believe that Jesus was just a teacher who said some wise things and was executed, we believe that Jesus was a Manifestation of God who could perform miracles. We also believe that Jesus was a savior but not in the same sense that Christians believe that, since we don't believe in substitutionary atonement.

I do not accept the Jesus of Paul since it does not represent the real Jesus. Why would I want to believe in a fabricated Jesus?

 

[Trailblazer]

That does not make sense. Scholars can be sceptics.

They can be skeptical, but they can also be looking at the facts objectively and trying to get to the truth, and I think that was the purpose of the Jesus seminar.

I suppose that these days the world has the "opinions" of sceptical scholars that many people prefer to view the gospels through.

Yes, that is becoming increasingly true since people want to know the truth about the Bible.

Nothing has changed then. You still deny what Jesus said what makes the gospel what it is,,,,,, the good news. You may as well believe Aesops fables, interesting and possibly wise sayings from a teacher.

No, I do not deny that the gospel is the good news, nor do I believe that Jesus was just a wise teacher.

Shoghi Effendi, the Guardian of the Baha’i Faith and grandson of ʻAbdu’l-Bahá, described the teachings of Jesus Christ as follows:​

“As to the position of Christianity, let it be stated without any hesitation or equivocation that its divine origin is unconditionally acknowledged, that the Sonship and Divinity of Jesus Christ are fearlessly asserted, that the divine inspiration of the Gospel is fully recognized, that the reality of the mystery of the Immaculacy of the Virgin Mary is confessed, and the primacy of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, is upheld and defended."

The Baha’i writings further explain:​

“The Founder of the Christian Faith is designated by Bahá’u’lláh as the ‘Spirit of God,’ is proclaimed as the One Who ‘appeared out of the breath of the Holy Ghost,’ and is even extolled as the ‘Essence of the Spirit.’ His mother is described as ‘that veiled and immortal, that most beauteous, countenance,’ and the station of her Son eulogized as a ‘station which hath been exalted above the imaginings of all that dwell on earth,’ whilst Peter is recognized as one whom God has caused ‘the mysteries of wisdom and of utterance to flow out of his mouth.’”

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

We testify that when He came into the world, He shed the splendor of His glory upon all created things. Through Him the leper recovered from the leprosy of perversity and ignorance. Through Him the unchaste and wayward were healed. Through His power, born of Almighty God, the eyes of the blind were opened and the soul of the sinner sanctified…. He it is Who purified the world. Blessed is the man who, with a face beaming with light, hath turned towards Him.

The Bahá’í Faith & Christianity – Baha'is of the United States

www.bahai.us

 

[Aupmanyav]

The same exact thing applied to you.

The difference is that I do not follow what someone else says and look for evidence.
You follow an uneducated 19th Century Iranian who has nothing new to offer other than what is already mentioned in millenniums old books of other religions.

 

[Trailblazer]

The difference is that I do not follow what someone else says and look for evidence.

I looked at the evidence and that is why I believe and follow.

You follow an uneducated 19th Century Iranian who has nothing new to offer other than what is already mentioned in millenniums old books of other religions.

As I said, you agree to what suits you, otherwise you disagree.

 

[CG Didymus]

The Jesus Seminar is looking for the historical Jesus, the one without the supernatural BS.
A teacher who said some wise things and was executed is a completely different Jesus to the one in the Bible, it is a Jesus that sceptics might accept and that Baha'is might accept but sceptics and Baha'is don't accept the Biblical Jesus.

The Jesus of Born-Again Christians saves people from hell. The Baha'is don't believe there is a hell for people to get saved from.

I'm okay with not believing any of it... and just calling it myth. But I can't agree with Baha'is when they interpret Christianity and the other religions in such a way to make them fit their Baha'i beliefs, like "progressive" revelation. There are just too many things they have to deny really happened or were really said.

 

[Brian2]

The Jesus of Born-Again Christians saves people from hell. The Baha'is don't believe there is a hell for people to get saved from.

I'm okay with not believing any of it... and just calling it myth. But I can't agree with Baha'is when they interpret Christianity and the other religions in such a way to make them fit their Baha'i beliefs, like "progressive" revelation. There are just too many things they have to deny really happened or were really said.

Jesus did and said what the gospels claim. Baha'is have hardened their heart against that and in theory they believe what Baha'u'llah and the other infallibles said about the gospels but Baha'u'llah and the infallibles contradict each other and themselves at times and Baha'is end up denying much of the gospels (as TB does) and denying anything else that does not take their fancy (eg Pauline writings and Christianity and the divine inspiration of the Gospel, etc

As to the position of Christianity, let it be stated without any hesitation or equivocation that its divine origin is unconditionally acknowledged, that the Sonship and Divinity of Jesus Christ are fearlessly asserted, that the divine inspiration of the Gospel is fully recognized, that the reality of the mystery of the Immaculacy of the Virgin Mary is confessed, and the primacy of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, is upheld and defended....
Shoghi Effendi, The Promised Day is Come", p. 109

And should they reply: "The Books that are in the hands of this people, which they call the Gospel and attribute to Jesus, the Son of Mary, have not been revealed by God and proceed not from the Manifestations of His Self", then this would imply a cessation in the abounding grace of Him Who is the Source of all grace. If so, God's testimony to His servants would have remained incomplete and His favour proven imperfect. His mercy would not have shone resplendent, nor would His grace have overshadowed all. For if at the ascension of Jesus His Book had likewise ascended unto heaven, then how could God reprove and chastise the people on the Day of Resurrection, as hath been written by the Imams of the Faith and affirmed by its illustrious divines?
Bahá’u’lláh, Gems of Divine Mysteries, p. 12-13

 

[Trailblazer]

Jesus did and said what the gospels claim.

That is a belief based solely upon religious tradition. That is not a fact by any means.

Baha'u'llah and the infallibles contradict each other

As to the position of Christianity, let it be stated without any hesitation or equivocation that its divine origin is unconditionally acknowledged, that the Sonship and Divinity of Jesus Christ are fearlessly asserted, that the divine inspiration of the Gospel is fully recognized, that the reality of the mystery of the Immaculacy of the Virgin Mary is confessed, and the primacy of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, is upheld and defended....
Shoghi Effendi, The Promised Day is Come", p. 109

And should they reply: "The Books that are in the hands of this people, which they call the Gospel and attribute to Jesus, the Son of Mary, have not been revealed by God and proceed not from the Manifestations of His Self", then this would imply a cessation in the abounding grace of Him Who is the Source of all grace. If so, God's testimony to His servants would have remained incomplete and His favour proven imperfect. His mercy would not have shone resplendent, nor would His grace have overshadowed all. For if at the ascension of Jesus His Book had likewise ascended unto heaven, then how could God reprove and chastise the people on the Day of Resurrection, as hath been written by the Imams of the Faith and affirmed by its illustrious divines?
Bahá’u’lláh, Gems of Divine Mysteries, p. 12-13

Those passages are not contradictory.

 

[CG Didymus]

the Sonship and Divinity of Jesus Christ are fearlessly asserted,

That almost sounds like they are supporting the belief that Jesus is God. But they don't. So, what is it they "fearlessly" assert? That Jesus and a whole bunch of other men are "manifestations" of God

the divine inspiration of the Gospel is fully recognized,

Accept where it's wrong. A skeptic, which I think includes some Baha'is, the gospels were just stories that later got voted in to become the canonized "Word of God."

that the reality of the mystery of the Immaculacy of the Virgin Mary is confessed,

That sounds so Catholic. Who, other than Catholics, confessed the "immaculacy" of Mary. I think what Shoghi might have meant that Baha'is support the belief that Mary was a virgin when she had Jesus... not that her birth was "immaculate".

the primacy of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, is upheld and defended.

Who upholds and defends this? I've never heard a Baha'i defend the "primacy" of Peter. The thing that a lot of people remember about Peter is that he denied Jesus three times.

For if at the ascension of Jesus His Book had likewise ascended unto heaven

His book? What book did Jesus write? I guess he's talking about the NT. But they weren't written for years after the ascension of Jesus, which Baha'is say didn't happen as it was written in Acts.

But they sure make it sound like Baha'is love the Bible and the NT.