• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Resurrection of Christ - What's the evidence for and against a literal resurrection

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Good grief Adrian! So when Shoghi Effenci wrote (in 1941): "that the reality of the mystery of the Immaculacy of the Virgin Mary is confessed" he was not referring to his understanding of Catholic doctrine...

...but when he wrote (in 1945): "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 In the 'Kitáb-i-Íqán' (Book of Certitude) p. 56, and in a few other Tablets still unpublished, Bahá’u’lláh confirms, however indirectly, the Catholic conception of the Virgin Birth."
(From a letter dated October 14, 1945 written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer)...

...he was referring specifically to his understanding of Catholic doctrine minus the "immaculate conception"?

Are you seriously asking us to believe that Shoghi Effendi considered Mary's generally upright character to be a "mystery" that needed to be "confessed"?

He just didn't have a clue what he was talking about did he? And now you're stuck with it.

As I've explained to another on this thread, the Baha'i writings support:
(1) The virgin birth of Christ
(2) Mary's distinguished character.

The Baha'i writings do not support the notion of:
(3) The Fall of man starting from Adam's alleged original sin.

Shoghi Effendi refers to the virgin birth and the immaculate conception (virgin birth and distinguished character of Mary). He does not say anything in support of the Fall of man and/or the original sin.

Catholic doctrines refer to (1), (2), and (3) above so he was referring to Catholic doctrines that supported (1) and (2).

Although Protestants believe in (1) there is simply not the same emphasis if any on Mary's distinguished/immaculate character (2) as is clear from Catholic Teachings. That is almost certainly why he refers to Catholic teachings.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
You say science and religion then when asked if science and religion can explain how life started then you answer with another dead end, i.e., "science has completed discredited the literal interpretation" of the bible. Can you be more specific on how science discredited the literal creation and the flood?

This is a huge topic in its own right. I started a thread about this last year that you may be interested in.

The Stories of Genesis: Myth or Literally True

There are plenty of proofs and arguments outlined.

Please let me know if there is anything specific you would like me to comment on.
 

siti

Well-Known Member
As I've explained to another on this thread, the Baha'i writings support:
(1) The virgin birth of Christ
(2) Mary's distinguished character.

The Baha'i writings do not support the notion of:
(3) The Fall of man starting from Adam's alleged original sin.

Shoghi Effendi refers to the virgin birth and the immaculate conception (virgin birth and distinguished character of Mary). He does not say anything in support of the Fall of man and/or the original sin.

Catholic doctrines refer to (1), (2), and (3) above so he was referring to Catholic doctrines that supported (1) and (2).

Although Protestants believe in (1) there is simply not the same emphasis if any on Mary's distinguished/immaculate character (2) as is clear from Catholic Teachings. That is almost certainly why he refers to Catholic teachings.
The Catholic teaching on the "immaculacy" of Mary cannot be separated from the Catholic doctrine of original sin unless you don't understand what the words mean to Catholics. Catholics would never interpret the "immaculate conception" to be a reference merely indicating "Mary's distinguished character" - only someone commenting from ignorance would make that mistake.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
The Catholic teaching on the "immaculacy" of Mary cannot be separated from the Catholic doctrine of original sin unless you don't understand what the words mean to Catholics. Catholics would never interpret the "immaculate conception" to be a reference merely indicating "Mary's distinguished character" - only someone commenting from ignorance would make that mistake.

The intent of the Baha'i writings, what Baha'is believe in and what we don't is clear. We do believe in the immaculate conception of Christ (virgin birth and Mary's distinguished character) but don't believe in the Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception (Fall of man/original sin as well as the virgin birth and distinguished character of Mary).

The 'immaculate conception of Christ' is a Baha'i belief and obviously has a different meaning to what the Catholics believe about 'the doctrine of the immaculate conception'.

The tone of you comments reflect your atheistic and anti-theistic worldview IMHO.

Now the Baha'i position in regards to Christ's birth and Mary has been made crystal clear to you as it is to me, how about moving on?
 

Rough Beast Sloucher

Well-Known Member
It's My Birthday!
The intent of the Baha'i writings, what Baha'is believe in and what we don't is clear. We do believe in the immaculate conception of Christ (virgin birth and Mary's distinguished character) but don't believe in the Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception (Fall of man/original sin as well as the virgin birth and distinguished character of Mary).

The 'immaculate conception of Christ' is a Baha'i belief and obviously has a different meaning to what the Catholics believe about 'the doctrine of the immaculate conception'.

The tone of you comments reflect your atheistic and anti-theistic worldview IMHO.

Now the Baha'i position in regards to Christ's birth and Mary has been made crystal clear to you as it is to me, how about moving on?

I understand your distinctions. But a question remains. What exactly is meant by 'immaculacy'? Is there an exact definition that would distinguish this state from any state possible for an ordinary human. Or is it simply a recognition of the special role of Mary?
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
It does not really matter what they meant because as I said we cannot know now since they are not here to ask. It only matters what happened and what did not happen. There is no way to prove or disprove the bodily resurrection so it all boils down to what we choose to believe, in light of everything else in the Bible and the Baha'i Writings. ;)

As far as I am concerned he was wrong, because I am a Baha'i. As I told a Christian friend I have been posting to about this for over three years, if the same Jesus shows up in the sky as the Christians believe He will, I will alter my belief... :D
So you believe that the writer of Revelation was wrong. He quotes somebody as "coming" back and thinks it is going to be Jesus, but the writer is wrong. So again, all the prophesies Baha'is use from Revelation are dead on, but the writer himself was wrong about who would be returning?
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
I understand your distinctions. But a question remains. What exactly is meant by 'immaculacy'? Is there an exact definition that would distinguish this state from any state possible for an ordinary human. Or is it simply a recognition of the special role of Mary?

For Baha'is immaculacy as applied to Mary concerns her saintly and outstanding character. She was ranked alongside the apostles of Christ and distinguished herself as being steadfast in her faith, when the faith of the other apostles waivered after the crucifixion.

In every religious dispensation there was a woman of outstanding Character exalted above all other women. That woman need not necessarily be the mother of the Manifestation of God or Messiah/Christ.

To attain the station or rank of an 'apostle of Christ' such as Mary, Peter, Paul, and John generally only happens within the first century of a religious dispensation. Therefore it is generally not possible to attain the rank of an 'apostle' beyond this time.

To believe that Mary had an affair or sexual relations with her husband before marriage is completely contrary to Baha'i Teachings.

The immaculacy of Mary for Baha'is has absolute nothing to do with her being literally freed from the sin of Adam. However for human beings to properly rise above our baser lower nature we need to Manifestation of God/Christ.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Paul can write whatever He wants but that won’t make the same man Jesus into the Messiah promised in the Old Testament. Jews knew that Jesus was not that Messiah, and that is why they still do not believe Jesus was even a Prophet. Christians are trying to make Jesus into what He never was and never said that He was – the Messiah of the latter days, the Promised One of All Ages – and Jews know that is not true so they reject Jesus altogether... It does not matter what is in the New Testament because some of it was written to make it appear as if Jesus is the Messiah, but He isn’t. What is in the Old Testament precludes Jesus as the Messiah. Isaiah 53 is just one chapter that precludes Jesus:

Jesus did not fulfill any of the Isaiah 53 prophecies. Logically speaking, the only way that Jesus could be the Messiah would be if Jesus fulfilled these prophecies upon His Return. Is Jesus going to have children and “see His seed” as Baha’u’llah did? Then there is the slight little problem of Mount Carmel... How did the World Centre of the Baha’i Faith get there? Why is it there? Is Jesus going to tear it all down and build His own buildings when He returns to rule the world as Christians believe He will?

The following is and excerpt from: Thief in the Night, pp. 156-160

There in the valley of ‘Akká, in sight of holy ‘Carmel’, the entire prophecy of the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah was brought to its fulfilment.

Isaiah had foretold:

1. “He is despised and rejected of men: a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief …” Isaiah 53:3.
  • Bahá’u’lláh was rejected by his own countrymen, and was sent into exile. His life was filled with grief and sorrow.
2. “We hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.” Isaiah 53:3.
  • The Emperor Franz Joseph passed within but a short distance of the prison in which Bahá’u’lláh was captive. Louis Napoleon cast behind his back the letter which Bahá’u’lláh sent to him, saying: “If this man is of God, then I am two Gods!” The people of the world have followed in their footsteps.
3. “Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows …” Isaiah 53:4.
  • I read the following words of Bahá’u’lláh concerning his persecution and imprisonment: “Though weariness lay Me low, and hunger consume Me, and the bare rock be My bed, and My fellows the beasts of the field, I will not complain, but will endure patiently … and will render thanks unto God under all conditions … We pray that, out of His bounty—exalted be He—He may release, through this imprisonment, the necks of men from chains and fetters…” The Promised Day is Come, Shoghi Effendi, pp. 42–3.
The prophecy of Isaiah continues:

4. “But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.” Isaiah 53:5
  • Bahá’u’lláh was twice stoned, once scourged, thrice poisoned, scarred with hundred-pound chains which cut through his flesh and rested upon the bones of his shoulders. He lived a prisoner and an exile for nearly half a century.
5. “He was taken from prison and from judgement …” Isaiah 53:8
  • Bahá’u’lláh was taken from the black-pit prison in Tihrán for judgement before the authorities. His death was expected hourly, but he was banished to ‘Iráq and finally to Israel. In the prison-city of ‘Akká, on another occasion, “… the Governor, at the head of his troops, with drawn swords, surrounded (Bahá’u’lláh’s) house. The entire populace, as well as the military authorities, were in a state of great agitation. The shouts and clamour of the people could be heard on all sides. Bahá’u’lláh was peremptorily summoned to the Governorate, interrogated, kept in custody the first night … The Governor, soon after, sent word that he was at liberty to return to his home, and apologized for what had occurred.” God Passes By, Shoghi Effendi, pp. 190–191.
6. “And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death …” Isaiah 53:9.
  • Bahá’u’lláh was buried in the precincts of the Mansion of Bahjí, owned by a wealthy Muslim. He was surrounded by enemies; members of his own family who betrayed his trust after his death and dwelt in homes adjacent to his burial-place.
7. “… he shall see his seed …” Isaiah 53:10.
  • Bahá’u’lláh did see his ‘seed’. He wrote a special document called the Book of the Covenant, in which he appointed his eldest son to be the Centre of his Faith after his own passing. This very event was also foretold in the prophecies of the Psalms that proclaim:
  • “Also I will make him my first-born higher than the kings of the earth … and my covenant shall stand fast with him.” Psalms 89:27, 28
  • The ‘first-born’ son of Bahá’u’lláh, was named ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, which means ‘the servant of Bahá’(‘u’lláh). Bahá’u’lláh appointed him as his own successor in his Will and Testament. He called ‘Abdu’l-Bahá the Centre of his Covenant.
8. Isaiah’s prophecy continues:

“He (God) shall prolong his days …” Isaiah 53:10.
  • Bahá’u’lláh’s days were prolonged. He was born in 1817 and passed away in the Holy Land in 1892. In the last years of his life, Bahá’u’lláh was released from his prison cell. He came out of the prison-city of ‘Akká and walked on the sides of Mount Carmel. His followers came from afar to be with him, and to surround him with their love, fulfilling the words of the prayer of David spoken within a cave: “Bring my soul out of prison, that I may praise thy name: the righteous shall compass me about; for thou shalt deal bountifully with me.” Psalms 142:7.
  • These events in the valley of ‘Akká with its strong fortress prison had been foreshadowed in Ecclesiastes (4:14):
"Jews knew that Jesus was not that Messiah..."? So Jesus was not "that" Messiah. Muhammad was not "that" Messiah. The Bab was not "that" Messiah. But now, Jews have finally got their true Messiah in Baha'u'llah? So what was the point of the supposed "progressive" revelation if all these other secondary Messiahs weren't meant to be followed by the Jews?
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
As I've explained to another on this thread, the Baha'i writings support:
(1) The virgin birth of Christ
(2) Mary's distinguished character.

The Baha'i writings do not support the notion of:
(3) The Fall of man starting from Adam's alleged original sin.

Shoghi Effendi refers to the virgin birth and the immaculate conception (virgin birth and distinguished character of Mary). He does not say anything in support of the Fall of man and/or the original sin.

Catholic doctrines refer to (1), (2), and (3) above so he was referring to Catholic doctrines that supported (1) and (2).

Although Protestants believe in (1) there is simply not the same emphasis if any on Mary's distinguished/immaculate character (2) as is clear from Catholic Teachings. That is almost certainly why he refers to Catholic teachings.
"Mary's distinguished/immaculate character"? Can't you just admit that Shoghi made a mistake? The Immaculate Conception is not about Mary's character.
 

siti

Well-Known Member
The tone of you comments reflect your atheistic and anti-theistic worldview IMHO.
And...? I mean I'm actually not an atheist really but even I were, why would you expect my comments not to reflect my worldview? Is it only OK for Baha'i comments to reflect their worldview but not for others? For example, is it OK for a Baha'i to deny the literal resurrection of Jesus based on "implausibility" and yet uphold an equally implausible virgin birth based on a tenuous and confused interpretation of Catholic theology, but it is not OK for others with a different worldview to challenge what seems to them to be a flawed and inconsistent argument? It is a debate forum after all - isn't it?

Sure we can move on...but that doesn't change the fact that Shoghi Effendi seems - to any fair-minded examination - to have misinterpreted Roman Catholic doctrine and commented favourably on part of it that he clearly did not believe in. Either he misunderstood it or he was trying to paper over the cracks of this very obvious discrepancy between Church doctrine and Baha'i dogma.

And like I said earlier - if someone (such as Shoghi Effendi) is attempting to overturn a couple of millennia of Christian tradition by invoking 'science' and 'plausibility', then they jolly well have to stand up to the same examination themselves...this line of inquiry speaks directly to the competence of your witnesses - if they cock up (oops!) on the virgin birth etc., why should we believe them on the resurrection?
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
"Mary's distinguished/immaculate character"? Can't you just admit that Shoghi made a mistake? The Immaculate Conception is not about Mary's character.

The immaculate conception is about:
(1) Mary's immaculate character

AND

(2) Conceived through the Holy Spirit
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
The intent of the Baha'i writings, what Baha'is believe in and what we don't is clear. We do believe in the immaculate conception of Christ (virgin birth and Mary's distinguished character) but don't believe in the Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception (Fall of man/original sin as well as the virgin birth and distinguished character of Mary).

The 'immaculate conception of Christ' is a Baha'i belief and obviously has a different meaning to what the Catholics believe about 'the doctrine of the immaculate conception'.

The tone of you comments reflect your atheistic and anti-theistic worldview IMHO.

Now the Baha'i position in regards to Christ's birth and Mary has been made crystal clear to you as it is to me, how about moving on?
His tone? Maybe it's because you and Shoghi are wrong about the Immaculate Conception. Just say, "No, Mary was a normal person. The Catholics made up the doctrine. Shoghi should not have used the word "immaculate" when clearly he only meant that Jesus was virgin born, not Mary." Admit that, and it's all alright. Shoghi misspoke or miswrote.
 
Last edited:

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
The immaculate conception is about:
(1) Mary's immaculate character

AND

(2) Conceived through the Holy Spirit
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin." "

Is this really a battle you have to win? The immaculacy is tied in the doctrine of original sin. Mary could not have that taint. She had to be pure. Siti one, You and Shoghi zero.
 

siti

Well-Known Member
To believe that Mary had an affair or sexual relations with her husband before marriage is completely contrary to Baha'i Teachings.
...and nothing to do with the doctrine of "immaculate conception"...

The immaculate conception is about:
(1) Mary's immaculate character

AND

(2) Conceived through the Holy Spirit
No it is not - that's how Shoghi Effendi apparently misinterpreted it, but the Catholic doctrine of the immaculate conception is about the conception of Mary in her mother's womb - not Jesus' conception in Mary's womb.

"Concerning the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, ancient indeed is that devotion of the faithful based on the belief that her soul, in the first instant of its creation and in the first instant of the soul's infusion into the body, was, by a special grace and privilege of God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, her Son and the Redeemer of the human race, preserved free from all stain of original sin."

~ Pope Alexander VIII in Apost. Const. Sollicitudo Omnium Ecclesiarum, December 8, 1661. as quoted by Pope Pius IX in his 1854 Encyclical Ineffabilis Deus.

Edited to include a link to the 1854 Encyclical referenced above - as far as I know, this remains official RC doctrine so when Shoghi Effendi referred to "immaculacy" in reference to Catholic Marian doctrine, this is the official version of what he was "upholding" and "confessing". @adrian009 - I think you should place this side by side with Shoghi Effendi's comments and read carefully and analytically - how much of this official Catholic doctrine about Mary was he really agreeing with?
 
Last edited:

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
So you believe that the writer of Revelation was wrong. He quotes somebody as "coming" back and thinks it is going to be Jesus, but the writer is wrong. So again, all the prophesies Baha'is use from Revelation are dead on, but the writer himself was wrong about who would be returning?
Yes, if the writer of Revelation believed it was the same man Jesus in the same body, he was wrong.

Revelation 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

That verse does not make any sense as it is written. The author is saying that Jesus said that Jesus was going to come quickly. Then the author beckons Jesus to come. Show me one verse where Jesus says He is coming quickly, or coming at all. Obviously the author of Revelation was just as misled as all the Christians.

John 14:2-3 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

His Father’s house that has many mansions is in heaven, which is where Jesus was going to prepare a place for the disciples. “I will come again” is Jesus saying that His Spirit will come again, not that the same man Jesus will come again. This idea that the same body of Jesus is going to return is where the Christian train left the tracks and it just keeps going and going and going and going, but still no Jesus because His Spirit already returned in Baha’u’llah. :D
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
"Jews knew that Jesus was not that Messiah..."? So Jesus was not "that" Messiah. Muhammad was not "that" Messiah. The Bab was not "that" Messiah. But now, Jews have finally got their true Messiah in Baha'u'llah? So what was the point of the supposed "progressive" revelation if all these other secondary Messiahs weren't meant to be followed by the Jews?
They were meant to be followed by the Jews (and everyone else) until the Messiah came. :eek:

The whole point of progressive revelation is that Truth from God is revealed progressively, in stages, as humans are ready to hear it. Jews should have recognized Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah, but they stopped at Moses. Baha'u'llah had some choice things to say about that.

“And when the days of Moses were ended, and the light of Jesus, shining forth from the Day Spring of the Spirit, encompassed the world, all the people of Israel arose in protest against Him. They clamored that He Whose advent the Bible had foretold must needs promulgate and fulfil the laws of Moses, whereas this youthful Nazarene, who laid claim to the station of the divine Messiah, had annulled the laws of divorce and of the sabbath day—the most weighty of all the laws of Moses. Moreover, what of the signs of the Manifestation yet to come? These people of Israel are even unto the present day still expecting that Manifestation which the Bible hath foretold! How many Manifestations of Holiness, how many Revealers of the light everlasting, have appeared since the time of Moses, and yet Israel, wrapt in the densest veils of satanic fancy and false imaginings, is still expectant that the idol of her own handiwork will appear with such signs as she herself hath conceived! Thus hath God laid hold of them for their sins, hath extinguished in them the spirit of faith, and tormented them with the flames of the nethermost fire. And this for no other reason except that Israel refused to apprehend the meaning of such words as have been revealed in the Bible concerning the signs of the coming Revelation. As she never grasped their true significance, and, to outward seeming, such events never came to pass, she, therefore, remained deprived of recognizing the beauty of Jesus and of beholding the Face of God. And they still await His coming! From time immemorial even unto this day, all the kindreds and peoples of the earth have clung to such fanciful and unseemly thoughts, and thus have deprived themselves of the clear waters streaming from the springs of purity and holiness...” Gleanings, p. 20-21

“When the Unseen, the Eternal, the Divine Essence, caused the Day Star of Muhammad to rise above the horizon of knowledge, among the cavils which the Jewish divines raised against Him was that after Moses no Prophet should be sent of God. Yea, mention hath been made in the Scriptures of a Soul Who must needs be made manifest and Who will advance the Faith, and promote the interests of the people of Moses, so that the Law of the Mosaic Dispensation may encompass the whole earth. Thus hath the King of eternal glory referred in His Book to the words uttered by those wanderers in the vale of remoteness and error: “‘The hand of God,’ say the Jews, ‘is chained up.’ Chained up be their own hands; And for that which they have said, they were accursed. Nay, outstretched are both His hands!” “The hand of God is above their hands.” Gleanings, pp. 22-23
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Everyone's always the Last Prophet until the next one shows up.
There is no Last Prophet.

The most current Prophet is the Prophet we are supposed to follow until the next Prophet shows up. Then we are supposed to follow the new Prophet who is the most current Prophet until another Prophet shows up.

This succession of Prophets will continue throughout all of eternity because God never leaves man alone. :D
 
Top