Supersessionism and beyond - Can Christianity meaningfully address religious pluralism?

[Harel13]

At the same time, whilst we must remember with sorrow the history of supersessionist theology, pogroms and discrimination by Christians (whether Catholic Spanish Inquisition or medieval pogroms or Martin Luther's anti-Judaism tracts) towards Jews, I think it's also worthwhile and important to bear in mind the more benign elements of Christian-Jewish relations from our past - as there were brighter moments in the darkness, when some in the Christian community (including high-ranking officials) tried to mitigate the evils.

Key here, in my mind from a Catholic point of view, is the papal constitution Sicut Judaeis which was first issued by Pope Gregory the Great in the sixth century against Christian persecution of Jews and forced conversions, and which was reiterated in later generations by those medieval pontiffs who were kindly disposed towards the Jewish community (in spite of the prejudices they might have been brought up with as a result of replacement theology):


Sicut Judaeis - Wikipedia

Sicut Judaeis (Latin: "As the Jews") were papal bulls which set out the official position of the papacy regarding the treatment of Jews. The first bull by that name was issued in about 1120 by Calixtus II and served as a papal charter of protection to Jews. It was prompted by attacks on Jews by the First Crusade, during which over five thousand Jews were slaughtered in Europe. The bull forbade Christians, on pain of excommunication, from forcing Jews to convert, from harming them, from taking their property, from disturbing the celebration of their festivals, and from interfering with their cemeteries.

Following further attacks, further bulls by many popes reaffirmed the doctrine, including Alexander III, Celestine III (1191-1198), Innocent III (1199), Honorius III (1216), Gregory IX (1235), Innocent IV (1246), Alexander IV (1255), Urban IV (1262), Gregory X (1272 & 1274), Nicholas III, Martin IV (1281), Honorius IV (1285-1287), Nicholas IV (1288-92), Clement VI (1348), Urban V (1365), Boniface IX (1389), Martin V (1422), and Nicholas V (1447).[1][2]​

From the Jewish Virtual Library:

Papal Bulls

Sicut Judaeis. First issued by *Calixtus II around 1120, it was a general Bull of Protection for the Jews, who had suffered at the hands of participants in the First Crusade (1095–96) and were being maltreated by their Christian neighbors. It forbade killing them, using force to convert them, and otherwise molesting them, their synagogues, and cemeteries. The bull was modeled on a letter, which began with the same phrase, sent to the bishop of Palermo by Pope *Gregory I in 598, objecting to the use of force as a conversionary method. Calixtus' formulation was repeated by most of the popes from the 12th to the 15th centuries. They often added references to problems current in their day. Several of them condemned the accusation of ritual murder (see *blood libel ).​

Would've been nice if the papal bulls had been real bulls that would charge down anyone who tried to hurt Jews...

 

[Vouthon]

Would've been nice if the papal bulls had been real bulls that would charge down anyone who tried to hurt Jews...

If only

There's an old saying attributed to Stalin: “How many divisions does the Pope of Rome have?”

In his brutal humour, Stalin's joke was of course about the fact that no matter how powerful a pontiff may be (in theory i.e. infallible, supreme pontiff of the church akin to a High Priest), in practice he doesn't directly commandeer a vast Soviet-style military empire like he did, papal pretensions aside.

So, while some popes - indeed a good number who reiterated the Gregorian Charter Sicut Judaeis from the 12th till the 15th century - tried to safeguard legal protections for Jewish communities and condemn the anti-Semitic blood libel, they would have had varying degrees of success in actually achieving that, despite their theoretical plenitude of power.

But so far as the canon law was concerned, on paper, this was the official policy, even though in practice it would have been enforced to the extent able and anti-semitism was, of course, sadly widespread in medieval society. Again from the Jewish Virtual Library (great website by the way):

Here's the form in which Pope Gregory X articulated the Sicut Judaeis in 1272:


Papal Protection of the Jews

"Gregory, bishop, servant of the servants of God, extends greetings and the apostolic benediction to the beloved sons in Christ, the faithful Christians, to those here now and to those in the future...

We decree moreover that no Christian shall compel them [Jews] or any one of their group to come to baptism unwillingly. But if any one of them shall take refuge of his own accord with Christians, because of conviction, then, after his intention will have been manifest, he shall be made a Christian without any intrigue. For, indeed, that person who is known to have come to Christian baptism not freely, but unwillingly, is not believed to posses the Christian faith.

Moreover no Christian shall presume to seize, imprison, wound, torture, mutilate, kill or inflict violence on them; furthermore no one shall presume, except by judicial action of the authorities of the country, to change the good customs in the land where they live for the purpose of taking their money or goods from them or from others.

In addition, no one shall disturb them in any way during the celebration of their festivals, whether by day or by night, with clubs or stones or anything else. Also no one shall exact any compulsory service of them unless it be that which they have been accustomed to render in previous times.

Inasmuch as the Jews are not able to bear witness against the Christians, we decree furthermore that the testimony of Christians against Jews shall not be valid unless there is among these Christians some Jew who is there for the purpose of offering testimony.

Since it happens occasionally that some Christians lose their children, the Jews are accused by their enemies of secretly carrying off and killing these same Christian children and of making sacrifices of the heart and blood of these very children. It happens, too, that the parents of these very children, or some other Christian enemies of these Jews, secretly hide these very children in order that they may be able to injure these Jews, and in order that they may be able to extort from them a certain amount of money by redeeming them from their straits.

And most falsely do these Christians claim that the Jews have secretly and furtively carried away these children and killed them, and that the Jews offer sacrifices from the heart and the blood of these children, since their law in this matter precisely and expressly forbids Jews to sacrifice, eat, or drink the blood, or to eat the flesh of animals having claws. This has been demonstrated many times at our court by Jews converted to the Christian faith: nevertheless very many Jews are often seized and detained unjustly because of this...

We decree, therefore, that Christians need not be obeyed against Jews in a case or situation of this type, and we order that Jews seized under such a silly pretext be freed from imprisonment, and that they shall not be arrested henceforth on such a miserable pretext, unlesswhich we do not believethey be caught in the commission of the crime. We decree that no Christian shall stir up anything new against them, but that they should be maintained in that status and position in which they were in the time of our predecessors, from antiquity till now.

We decree in order to stop the wickedness and avarice of bad men, that no one shall dare to devastate or to destroy a cemetery of the Jews or to dig up human bodies for the sake of getting money. Moreover, if any one, after having known the content of this decree, should which we hope will not happen attempt audaciously to act contrary to it, then let him suffer punishment in his rank and position, or let him be punished by the penalty of excommunication, unless he makes amends for his boldness by proper recompense."​

 

[Harel13]

Since it happens occasionally that some Christians lose their children, the Jews are accused by their enemies of secretly carrying off and killing these same Christian children and of making sacrifices of the heart and blood of these very children. It happens, too, that the parents of these very children, or some other Christian enemies of these Jews, secretly hide these very children in order that they may be able to injure these Jews, and in order that they may be able to extort from them a certain amount of money by redeeming them from their straits.

And most falsely do these Christians claim that the Jews have secretly and furtively carried away these children and killed them, and that the Jews offer sacrifices from the heart and the blood of these children, since their law in this matter precisely and expressly forbids Jews to sacrifice, eat, or drink the blood, or to eat the flesh of animals having claws. This has been demonstrated many times at our court by Jews converted to the Christian faith: nevertheless very many Jews are often seized and detained unjustly because of this...

Whadd'ya know? A medieval pope with a head on his shoulders.



Okay, I'm just expressing how little I know about what the church itself thought of blood libels.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Thank you for dropping in and answering my questions:

1. I do not believe Christianity can embrace pluralism.

Christianity is a diverse religion with a wide range of theological perspectives, some contradictory. The capacity of Christianity to accept religious pluralism is clear from the OP and even clearer from the diverse contributions from Christians on this thread.

2. I do not view supersessionism as correct but I doubt it has any affect on the outcome.

Do you think it had any impact on the persecution of Jews by Christians?

3. I believe Christianity has to stay focused on the Gospel because that is what Jesus came for.

What exactly does the Gospel teach about how a Christian should relate to those of other faiths and religions?

I believe as a side not I would say that religious pluralism acts as a stumbling block for people to be saved.

Do you mean, people get caught up in non-Christian religions and become distracted from accepting the salvation that only Christianity can offer?

 

[Dawnofhope]

It's this way for all religions that are based on prior religions. They pick and choose what they want to keep and what they want to throw away. Thus they feel they can claim the previous religion as theirs, yet in reality they have no clue of the previous religion.

All of the major world religions such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism are founded on prior religions. How about Judaism? Were there not Covenants through Abraham and Noah? Do you believe these Jewish Prophets brought Teachings from Hashem for the people to follow? If not, what was Judaism founded on prior to Moses?

 

[Vouthon]

Okay, I'm just expressing how little I know about what the church itself thought of blood libels.

Of all the Christian anti-semitic smears and prejudices down the generations, the blood libel has to count as the most patently ridiculous and bone-headed - as anyone with even a modicum of knowledge of the Torah must have been aware that eating blood and human sacrifice are both expressly prohibited. Ironically, it's actually Christianity that is centered around a ritual involving the consummation of a meal (the Eucharist) which is mystically thought to be the body and blood of Christ, not Judaism.

So it was all rather 'projecting' one's own insecurities onto another group of people, in this case Jews.

But this prejudice emerged, for whatever reason, in the Middle Ages and the attitude of the institutional church - the papacy - was typically very much against the blood libel and in support of the Jews persecuted under it, as you can see from Pope Gregory X's 1272 bull. However, again, we come to this matter of 'enforcement' ("How many divisions has the Pope"?).

A good source on papal responses to the blood libel is:

The Apostolic See and the Jews, Documents: 492–1404; Simonsohn, Shlomo, pp. 188–189, 193–195, 208


He references a number of condmnations, such as:

Pope Innocent IV , 5 July 1247 "Mandate to the prelates of Germany and France to annul all measures adopted against the Jews on account of the ritual murder libel, and to prevent accusation of Arabs on similar charges"

"Certain of the clergy, and princes, nobles and great lords of your cities and dioceses have falsely devised certain godless plans against the Jews, unjustly depriving them by force of their property, and appropriating it themselves;... they falsely charge them with dividing up among themselves on the Passover the heart of a murdered boy...

In their malice, they ascribe every murder, wherever it chance to occur, to the Jews. And on the ground of these and other fabrications, they are filled with rage against them, rob them of their possessions without any formal accusation, without confession, and without legal trial and conviction, contrary to the privileges granted to them by the Apostolic See...

Since it is our pleasure that they shall not be disturbed,... we ordain that ye behave towards them in a friendly and kind manner. Whenever any unjust attacks upon them come under your notice, redress their injuries, and do not suffer them to be visited in the future by similar tribulations"​

Today in History: 3 July 1247: Pope Innocent IV Issues Encyclical Condemning Blood Libels Against Jews

Pope Innocent IV issues the encyclical Lacrimabilem Judaeorum condemning blood libels against Jews.

Innocent writes:

"They are falsely accused that in the same solemnity [Passover] they receive communion with the heart of a murdered child.

This, it is believed, is required by their Law, although it is clearly contrary to it. No matter where a dead body is discovered, their persecutors wickedly cast it against them."​

 

[Vouthon]

@Harel13 The Rhineland massacres of Jews in 1096 are a case in point, in illustrating the intellectual gap that often existed between populist, grassroots anti-semitism in the medieval era and the general response of the institutional church itself:


Rhineland massacres - Wikipedia

The Rhineland massacres, also known as the persecutions of 1096 or Gzerot Tatnó[1] (Hebrew: גזרות תתנ"ו‎, Hebrew for "Edicts of 4856"), were a series of mass murders of Jews perpetrated by mobs of German Christians of the People's Crusade in the year 1096, or 4856 according to the Jewish calendar. Some scholars consider the massacres to be the earliest known incident of antisemitism.

The massacre of the Rhineland Jews by the People's Crusade and other associated persecutions were condemned by the leaders and officials of the Catholic Church.[27] The Church and its members had previously carried out policies to protect the presence of Jews in Christian culture. For example, the twenty-five letters regarding the Jews of Pope Gregory I from the late sixth century became the primary texts for the canons, or Church laws, which were implanted to not only regulate Jewish life in Europe but also to protect it.[28]

These regulations were enacted in a letter by Pope Alexander II in 1063.[29] Their goal was to define the place of the Jews in Christian society. The Dispar nimirum of 1060, was the late eleventh-century papal policy concerning the Jews. It rejected acts of violence and punishments of the Jews, and it enforced the idea of protecting the Jews because they were not the enemy of the Christians. This papal policy aimed at creating a balance of privilege and restrictions on Jews so that the Christians did not see their presence as a threat. Sixty years after the Dispar nimirum, inspired by the atrocities of the First Crusade, the Sicut Judaeis was issued.[28] It was a more detailed and organized text of the position of the papacy concerning the treatment of Jews. This text was enacted by Pope Calixtus II in 1120....

The bishops of Mainz, Speyer, and Worms had attempted to protect the Jews of those towns within the walls of their palaces. In 1084 Rüdiger Huzmann (1073–1090), bishop of Speyer, established an area for the Jews to live, to protect them from potential violence. Rüdiger's successor, Bishop John, continued the protection of Jews during the First Crusade. During the attack on Speyer, John saved many of the Jews, providing them protection in his castle.

Bishop John had the hands of many attackers cut off.[30] Archbishop Ruthard of Mainz tried to save the Jews by gathering them in his courtyard; this was unsuccessful as Emicho and his troops stormed the palace. Ruthard managed to save a small number of Jews by putting them on boats in the Rhine.[30] The Archbishop of Cologne, Hermann II, sent many of the Jews to outlying villages, so that they would be safe from Crusaders. The archbishop of Trier was less effective; he favored protecting the Jews from violence, but during the attack on Trier, he hid and did not take any action to help them. Some bishops, like Albrecht of Magdeburg (1513–1545), went as far as offering the Crusaders silver to spare the Jews.[30]

After the First Crusade, there was a continued effort made by the popes to protect the Jews, so that violence that occurred in the Rhineland Valley would not reoccur. In 1272, Pope Gregory X stated that the Jews "are not capable of harming Christians, nor do they know how to do so."[29] Popes continually assured the Christians people that the Jews were not the enemy, but the Saracens were because they opposed Christianity, and Jews would only become the enemy if they challenged the religion. Following Gregory X's lead, Pope Benedict XIII clearly stated to the Christian people how to treat the Jews. "Jews are never to be burdened beyond the limits of the present constitution. [They are not] to be molested, to be offered in their persons, or to have their goods seized… [Rather, they are to be treated] humanely and with clemency…"[29] Benedict enforced the privileges given to the Jews by warning the Christians that their actions toward the Jewish people must not violate those given to them by the Church.

Fifty years later, when St. Bernard of Clairvaux was urging recruitment for the Second Crusade, he specifically criticized the attacks on Jews that had occurred in the First Crusade....

It is equally possible that Bernard held the belief that forcibly converting the Jews was immoral or perceived that greed motivated the original Rhineland massacre: both sentiments are echoed in the canon of Albert of Aachen in his chronicle of the First Crusade. Albert of Aachen's view was that the People's Crusaders were uncontrollable semi-Catholicized country-folk (citing the "goose incident," which Hebrew chronicles corroborate) who massacred hundreds of Jewish women and children and that the People's Crusaders were themselves slaughtered by Muslim forces in Asia Minor.
​

In modern times, Pope Francis said the following only last year:


Catholics must continue seeking pardon for anti-Judaism, pope says

ROME - A few decades of respectful Catholic-Jewish dialogue pale in comparison to “19 centuries of Christian anti-Judaism,” Pope Francis said, so Catholics must continue to ask forgiveness and forge new bonds of respect and friendship with the Jewish community.

“We must work with greater intensity to ask pardon and repair the damage,” the pope said in an introduction to a new Italian book of Christian and Jewish commentaries on passages from the first five books of the Bible, which are known collectively as the Torah or Pentateuch.

Francis said the volume of commentaries, The Bible of Friendship, is an important tool for helping Catholics recognize the Jewish roots of their faith and for promoting concrete Catholic-Jewish cooperation in helping others.

​

And at the start of this year:


Pope Francis: “I will never grow tired of condemning every form of anti-Semitism”

Referring to the “barbaric resurgence of cases of anti-Semitism” in many countries today, Pope Francis firmly condemned “every form of anti-Semitism” on the eve of the commemoration of the 75th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp. “I will never grow tired of condemning every form of anti-Semitism,” he stated.

His remarks came on Jan. 20 during an address to a delegation from the Simon Wiesenthal Center in the Vatican. The center, established in 1977 by Rabbi Marvin Hier, is today is “a global human rights organization researching the Holocaust and hate in a historic and contemporary context.”

In his talk, Francis reminded the delegation that this resurgence of anti-Semitism has to be viewed in the wider “troubling” context where “in many parts of the world, an increase in selfishness and indifference, lack of concern for others and the attitude that says life is good as long as it is good for me, and when things go wrong, anger and malice are unleashed.” He said this attitude of indifference “creates a fertile ground for the forms of factionalism and populism we see around us, where hatred quickly springs up.”

In his address today, Francis recalled that the Second Vatican Council, in its decree “Nostra Aetate,” “pointed out that Jews and Christians possess a rich spiritual patrimony, which needs to be increasingly appreciated and put at the service of others.” He added: “I feel that we, above all, are summoned, especially today, to such service: not to take the path of distance and exclusion but that of proximity and inclusion; not to force solutions but to initiate ways of drawing closer together. If we do not do this—we who believe in him who from on high remembered us and showed compassion for our weaknesses—then who will?”

Concluding his talk, Francis said, “Let us, too, remember the past and have compassion on those who suffer and in this way till the soil of fraternity.” He ended with a prayer: “May the Almighty help us to respect one another and to love one another more and to make the earth a better place by sowing seeds of peace. Shalom!”
​

 

[Dawnofhope]

At this stage I wish to express my appreciation for all those who have contributed to this thread, especially our two Catholic contributors @Vouthon and @metis. I have started many threads on this forum for all sorts of reasons. This thread is a very personal one and the issue of being able to genuinely love people from all backgrounds is extremely important. I naturally encounter peoples from different cultures, ethnicities and religions. Some of those people are my closest friends and includes my spouse.

I grew up Christian and naturally reconnected with it in my early adult life when needing to have a consciously spiritual path. During this time I encountered Christian fundamentalism for the first time and was briefly sucked into its vortex. This encounter contributed to a realisation there was something seriously wrong with Christianity in the world today. Over thirty years later those issues clearly remain and if anything have become worse in some places.

A few years ago, I came across a colleague from medical school who had been somewhat of a Christian fundamentalist. I was surprised she had converted to Catholicism. She didn’t explain why and she probably sensed I wasn’t ready to genuinely appreciate the reasons. It seems much clearer now why.

I see the changes from Vatican II for the Catholic Church in the 1960s as non negotiable for any Church in the modern world. Without it, a faith community can not free itself from the insidious antipathy towards peoples of different faiths under the guise of ‘Christian’ love. It is fuelled by ignorance and prejudice that must be countered by the independent investigation of truth.

Whether or not my own faith (Baha’i) is the real deal is largely irrelevant for this thread. However it was born from a holocaust with the martyrdom of thousands of its early believers. We remain persecuted in a number of countries as with other religions. So religious fanaticism and hatred remains a major evil in twenty first century which we all need to counter with a genuine desire for love and peace with all peoples in our hearts.

 

[CG Didymus]

There is much in the Bible that Baha’is would not take literally and we would see many laws as belonging to a bygone era.

I'm a couple of pages behind, but I need you to refresh my memory... What do Baha'is see as the new "social" laws that Jesus brought?

But I love American culture too, especially the African-American music.

In some interview, Carlos Santana said that even Latin music with it's rhythms has African roots. Rock music came from the Blues, then the British took the Blues and put their twist on it. Those early Blues/Rock bands then influenced the American bands. Probably both influenced Australian bands. Then Reggae rhythms came in from Jamaica. Then Rock bands started to add Rap into their songs. Then I know theirs World Beat music out there too. Too bad people don't borrow and share as much from each others cultures like they do with music... except maybe food.

 

[CG Didymus]

It's this way for all religions that are based on prior religions. They pick and choose what they want to keep and what they want to throw away. Thus they feel they can claim the previous religion as theirs, yet in reality they have no clue of the previous religion.

After being told what Baha'is and Christians believed was true, I happened by a Jewish Bookstore and asked, "Both these other religions say they came from Judaism, but Jews don't believe them... why?

I left there with three little books. From those books I learned what the Messiah was supposed to actually do. What were the Messianic prophecies. I'd have to agree Jesus didn't fulfill the requirements of being the Messiah and didn't fulfill the prophecies. Now Christians do have "fulfilled" prophecies... Like he will be born of a "virgin". Out of Egypt I called my son and others. But, they were taken out of context.

Yet, some Jews believed and Christianity grew. Christians told me that the NT teaches that the purpose of the Law was to show people, for hundreds and hundreds of years, that people can't follow the Law... nothing they can do can save them. Jesus takes care of that. He is the perfect sacrifice.

Now, jumping ahead, Baha'is say... "No, no, that is not how it goes." They explain things that pretty much gets rid of most of the traditional Christian beliefs. They have prophecies that go back to the Bible that they say told of Baha'u'llah. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. Same problem too vague and a verse or two taken out of context.

But, Jews are back in Israel. Will their Messiah appear? Will Jesus descend from heaven as their Messiah? Or, is Baha'u'llah, with the Baha'i headquarters in Haifa, their true Messiah? Then, if the Baha'is are right, how do you tie in Hinduism, Buddhism and the other religions? What did they have to do with Jerusalem and the God of Israel? IndigoChild, what's going on?

 

[CG Didymus]

All of the major world religions such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism are founded on prior religions. How about Judaism? Were there not Covenants through Abraham and Noah? Do you believe these Jewish Prophets brought Teachings from Hashem for the people to follow? If not, what was Judaism founded on prior to Moses?

Since I think there is a good chance that much of the Bible was based on passed down oral traditions that weren't necessarily historically true, I wonder if Abraham and Noah were actual historical characters?

Even the Baha'i Faith doesn't believe the Bible story of Adam, Noah and Abraham. Adam's story to Baha'is is symbolic. Baha'i have a different story about Noah, does it include a world-wide flood and the Ark with all the animals? And, with Abraham, I know Baha'is don't believe the Bible story of him taking Isaac to be sacrificed is accurate. So what do you believe is real and historical about those stories? Plus, Baha'is I'm sure don't believe that many of them lived to be hundreds of years old?

So, again I ask... what if they were just the myths and legends that led up to a later time? Like to the time of Moses?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

In this thread I’d like to explore Christianity’s capacity to adapt to modernity generally and religious pluralism in particular. The heart of the problem for Christianity and a Bible based theology is the existence of other religious and non-religious world views whose adherents live outstanding lives worthy of admiration.

At one end of the spectrum are theological narratives that view a particular framework within Christianity as being the exclusive truth and THE only true path to God. All other paths are considered false including many other paths under the umbrella of Christianity itself.

At the other end of the spectrum are theological approaches the employ historical-critical methods that more readily accept the validity of approaches to life outside a Christian framework. A Baha’i approach is an example I’m most familiar with along with Post-Vatican II Catholicism and more liberal and modern Protestant Churches.

A critical turning point in Christianity’s move towards more pluralistic theologies arose after WW II in the aftermath of the holocaust. Theological approaches moved away from long held doctrines such as supersessionism.

Supersessionism - Wikipedia

However it is apparent with the rise of fundamentalism in most mainstream religions that a vocal minority of Christians insist on the exclusive nature of Christianity for salvation.

1/ So can Christianity meaningfully embrace religious pluralism?

2/ To what extent do doctrines such as supersessionism prevent this movement.

3/ If you are a Christian what direction would you like to see Christianity move and why? If you are not a Christian does it matter to you whether Christianity retains its traditional exclusivity or moves towards embracing religious pluralism? Why?

Any questions or constructive comments welcome? If you’ve made it this far, thanks for dropping by.

I personally think that Christ was quite clear when he proclaimed that no one comes to the Father but by him. (John 14:6) In Christianity, Jesus, the God-man, is the sole mediator between God and humanity and Christianity is believed to contain the fullness of truth. There is no other mechanism for salvation. There are some nuances, however. Non-Christians don't necessarily have to be dammed automatically in that view. One can be judged by the level of knowledge one had and whether they went out of their way to reject Christ. It's also acceptable to recognize that all religions have at least some truth in them, as one view is that this would be a reflection of humans being made in the image of God and so their hearts desire him, whether consciously or not. So what truths exist in the other religions stem from the heart of humanity and its striving for the Divine. Either way, one can certainly pray that all may be saved. There is that view that God shows his mercy on those whom he will.

I also don't think that Christianity needs to go out of it's way to water down its traditional theology to make it more palatable to the modern world, when that's obviously not going to keep the people in the pews in the first place.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

After being told what Baha'is and Christians believed was true, I happened by a Jewish Bookstore and asked, "Both these other religions say they came from Judaism, but Jews don't believe them... why?

I left there with three little books. From those books I learned what the Messiah was supposed to actually do. What were the Messianic prophecies. I'd have to agree Jesus didn't fulfill the requirements of being the Messiah and didn't fulfill the prophecies. Now Christians do have "fulfilled" prophecies... Like he will be born of a "virgin". Out of Egypt I called my son and others. But, they were taken out of context.

Yet, some Jews believed and Christianity grew. Christians told me that the NT teaches that the purpose of the Law was to show people, for hundreds and hundreds of years, that people can't follow the Law... nothing they can do can save them. Jesus takes care of that. He is the perfect sacrifice.

Now, jumping ahead, Baha'is say... "No, no, that is not how it goes." They explain things that pretty much gets rid of most of the traditional Christian beliefs. They have prophecies that go back to the Bible that they say told of Baha'u'llah. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. Same problem too vague and a verse or two taken out of context.

But, Jews are back in Israel. Will their Messiah appear? Will Jesus descend from heaven as their Messiah? Or, is Baha'u'llah, with the Baha'i headquarters in Haifa, their true Messiah? Then, if the Baha'is are right, how do you tie in Hinduism, Buddhism and the other religions? What did they have to do with Jerusalem and the God of Israel? IndigoChild, what's going on?

These are all very good things to think about, to try to figure out. But in the end, they count for very little. What counts is our obedience to God. May I humbly suggest that you spend at least as much time studying the texts for what is right and wrong universally, and then resolve with God's help to become that upstanding, good, decent person that He has called you to be. Now THAT would really be something. In fact, if you are hoping to decide on a religion, I would pick that religion which facilitiates one becoming such a righteous individual.

At any rate, you are very inspiring in your search for the truth. Truly, you are.

 

[Dawnofhope]

In some interview, Carlos Santana said that even Latin music with it's rhythms has African roots. Rock music came from the Blues, then the British took the Blues and put their twist on it. Those early Blues/Rock bands then influenced the American bands. Probably both influenced Australian bands. Then Reggae rhythms came in from Jamaica. Then Rock bands started to add Rap into their songs. Then I know theirs World Beat music out there too. Too bad people don't borrow and share as much from each others cultures like they do with music... except maybe food.

There’s also the influence of the French Creoles in New Orleans with the development of Jazz music in America.

Just about anything under the broad umbrella of arts has become somewhat of a melting pot with easy access to different cultures of the world. The internet in particular makes whole libraries of knowledge easily accessible through a few taps on a keyboard.

In a recent letter, the Universal House of Justice spoke of this phenomenon:

As you know, technological advancement is integral to the emergence of a global civilization. Indeed, the Internet is a manifestation of a development anticipated by the Guardian when, in describing the characteristics of a unified humanity, he foresaw that a “mechanism of world inter-communication will be devised, embracing the whole planet, freed from national hindrances and restrictions, and functioning with marvellous swiftness and perfect regularity.”

9 October 2015 – [To a National Spiritual Assembly] | Bahá’í Reference Library

I'm a couple of pages behind, but I need you to refresh my memory... What do Baha'is see as the new "social" laws that Jesus brought?

This is a huge question with many aspects. Many Christian commentators have written extensively around this theme. I think it would be invaluable to hear from a broad range of Christians how understand this key aspect of Christ’s Teaching. One of the most important approaches achievements was the reframing of Judaism to transform it from being an ethnocentric religion to world faith. So rather that bring many new laws Jesus emphasised the essential laws (eg Matthew 22:36-40) and indirectly taught that many of the Mosaic laws were no longer applicable.

’Abdu’l-Bahá speaks of this in a series of table talks given to American Baha’is in Haifa in the early twentieth century:

As the change and alteration of conditions are necessities for beings, so laws also are changed and altered in accordance with the changes and alterations of the times. For example, in the time of Moses, His Law was conformed and adapted to the conditions of the time; but in the days of Christ these conditions had changed and altered to such an extent that the Mosaic Law was no longer suited and adapted to the needs of mankind; and it was, therefore, abrogated. Thus it was that Christ broke the Sabbath and forbade divorce. After Christ four disciples, among whom were Peter and Paul, permitted the use of animal food forbidden by the Bible, except the eating of those animals which had been strangled, or which were sacrificed to idols, and of blood. They also forbade fornication. They maintained these four commandments. Afterward, Paul permitted even the eating of strangled animals, those sacrificed to idols, and blood, and only maintained the prohibition of fornication. So in chapter 14, verse 14 of his Epistle to the Romans, Paul writes: “I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.”

Also in the Epistle of Paul to Titus, chapter 1, verse 15: “Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.” Now this change, these alterations and this abrogation are due to the impossibility of comparing the time of Christ with that of Moses. The conditions and requirements in the later period were entirely changed and altered. The former laws were, therefore, abrogated.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 93-96

 

[Aupmanyav]

It's this way for all religions that are based on prior religions. They pick and choose what they want to keep and what they want to throw away. Thus they feel they can claim the previous religion as theirs, yet in reality they have no clue of the previous religion.

Well, Hinduism is a mix of many religions, the religion of the Vedas/Indo-Aryans and multitude of indigenous beliefs. Yeah, in time, there has been a lot of change, choosing and throwing away. But I respect all origins of Hinduism.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Baha'is believe Hinduism is a religion of Divine origins and both Krishna and Buddha were avatars of Vishnu.
Baha'is believe Jesus was the Son of God and both the Gospel and Torah were Divinely Inspired.

Buddhist will differ with you. Hindus too will differ when you make Krishna a manifestation of Abrahamic Allah and place him on a footing equal to a 19th Century Iranian preacher who had no education besides Abrahamic scriptures and Arabic language.
You are differing from what that preacher said about Jesus. You are misinforming people. Kindly go through your books again and check with your House of Justice.

 

[rational experiences]

Historically the context of the Christian movement was multi national.

For the context is first science, not spirituality.

Spirituality historically is natural, it is innate, it is who were always were, our first human selves, our extended family unity on one planet.

And the science teaching second says, when I practiced occult UFO machine science, I caused brain change...by irradiating the life on Earth...and I changed it.

Language changed for the brain changed, its chemistry, its hearing and its speech ability or language. For radiation affects how we speak, what is heard, and as I learnt, our tongue gets burnt. Making thinking and speaking difficult.

Science in biological studies...studies such as geology and archaeology, all proof against our own personal science historic choices....prove we did it to our own self.

So DNA was once genetic the same human parentage, no matter where you lived O on Earth. Then we inherited the HOLY LAND information...DNA diversified...and so did body types, self expression and language...due to incoming UFO irradiation attack which was not the same O event, on a lighted one sided planet in light or in darkness.

The history of religious spiritual explanations about the sciences.

The Christ realization is taught to be a personal experience in science itself...and it was then fought for...the CHANGE to the traditions of scientific ufo o occult concepts, used in ancient technologies....as an agreement.

What the Christ teachings meant...it was a science overview of being correct in the science realization...taught to every country in any form of self DNA expression.

So you cannot remove the country or the DNA from holy land religious spiritual science expression, yet if you began to do a documented comparison of information, the difference or variable was due to metallic radiation mass itself "cutting advice" of science radiation cooling unnaturally at the above ground level...where bio life lived.

Historically cold metal radiation, the bio life cutter was inside of the stone body.

Science brought its cooling radiation mass above ground, and historically the UFO advice says killed us.....which is human memory, where all human evils historically came from as advice how to destroy self...the UFO extra radiation mass.

Therefore CHRIST historically was a science realization, why it was so strictly upheld by a lawful male group who represented its teaching and also owned the leadership of group entitled to prevent and also stop any future life abuses.

How it came about as an organization, that is not factually owned specially by any one country, if you cared to review history for how it was lived.

My spiritual advice from my Mother's spiritual memories taught me this story....and her visions and dream states and memories said that irradiation of the brain removes human memory, it changes language and it is proven that old documents can no longer be understood....due to the human brain/body having converted.

As rational self advice.

Human spiritualism, the love of self, life, human and extended family is natural and innate in all of us. As first and original self human theme.

Religious science history owns its own story, which began on occult science causes, the machines.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

All of the major world religions such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism are founded on prior religions. How about Judaism? Were there not Covenants through Abraham and Noah? Do you believe these Jewish Prophets brought Teachings from Hashem for the people to follow? If not, what was Judaism founded on prior to Moses?

Judaism is basically our covenant as a people with Hashem. While our sacred texts trace the mythic history from Adam up to Abraham, Judaism really didn't begin until God covenanted with Abraham (some would even say until He covenanted with all of Israel at Sinai). The stories of i.e. Noah were IMHO included to teach us things about the nature of God and human beings. They don't teach us about Judaism.

As far as non-scriptural sources go, Judaism broke with polytheism. It didn't start with it. There was always only ONE GOD that was the God of Israel. Did Israel always stay true to this God? No. But that was clearly sin, not some sort of inclusiveness of an earlier religion. Some scholars make a case that Judaism was henotheistic in the beginning. Nevertheless, there was only ONE GOD to be worshiped, not a pantheon.

There is a story told about Abraham that accentuates this break with the old pantheons. Abraham was working in his father's idol store. In his father's absence, Abraham destroyed all the idols except one. He placed a club in the hand of that one. His father returned and asked what the heck happened. Abraham pointed to the statue with the club, and said, "He did it." The father was exasperated and said, That can't be, idols don't think. And Abraham then asked why do we then worship them???

 

[Dawnofhope]

The title of this thread should be: "How can Baha'i supercede the intolerant superceders and remain peaceful and loving?"
Perhaps they should take lessons from the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Latter-day-Saints of Jesus Christ. The JWs and the LDS seem to have it down to a fine art.

• https://www.quora.com/Does-Ecumenism-extend-to-Jehovah-s-Witnesses
  • "Jehovah’s Witnesses will never join in any attempt by any man made effort to unite the religions of this world into some sort of co-operation. So in that sense no, ecumenism does extend to Jehovah’s Witnesses."
• Chapter 20: Fellowship with Those Who Are Not of Our Faith

To be clear the Baha'i Faith does not supersede any of the religions that have gone before it, certainly not in the same manner Christianity attempted to supersede Judaism.

Shoghi Effendi the authorised interpreter and expounder of the Cause of Baha'u'llah has explained:

Let no one, however, mistake my purpose. The Revelation, of which Bahá’u’lláh is the source and center, abrogates none of the religions that have preceded it, nor does it attempt, in the slightest degree, to distort their features or to belittle their value. It disclaims any intention of dwarfing any of the Prophets of the past, or of whittling down the eternal verity of their teachings. It can, in no wise, conflict with the spirit that animates their claims, nor does it seek to undermine the basis of any man’s allegiance to their cause. Its declared, its primary purpose is to enable every adherent of these Faiths to obtain a fuller understanding of the religion with which he stands identified, and to acquire a clearer apprehension of its purpose. It is neither eclectic in the presentation of its truths, nor arrogant in the affirmation of its claims. Its teachings revolve around the fundamental principle that religious truth is not absolute but relative, that Divine Revelation is progressive, not final. Unequivocally and without the least reservation it proclaims all established religions to be divine in origin, identical in their aims, complementary in their functions, continuous in their purpose, indispensable in their value to mankind.

Bahá'í Reference Library - The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 57-60

 

[Dawnofhope]

Since I think there is a good chance that much of the Bible was based on passed down oral traditions that weren't necessarily historically true, I wonder if Abraham and Noah were actual historical characters?

Even the Baha'i Faith doesn't believe the Bible story of Adam, Noah and Abraham. Adam's story to Baha'is is symbolic. Baha'i have a different story about Noah, does it include a world-wide flood and the Ark with all the animals? And, with Abraham, I know Baha'is don't believe the Bible story of him taking Isaac to be sacrificed is accurate. So what do you believe is real and historical about those stories? Plus, Baha'is I'm sure don't believe that many of them lived to be hundreds of years old?

So, again I ask... what if they were just the myths and legends that led up to a later time? Like to the time of Moses?

Were Adam, Noah and Abraham real characters? Although there is no historical evidence to establish they were real, they may well have been. Anything after several thousand years just disappears into the mists of time. The Baha'is certainly would not agree the accounts of Adam and Noah as recorded in Genesis are to be taken literally. We don't believe the characters in Genesis lived to an age of nearly one thousand years old either as is recorded of Noah.

What if it was all myth up until Moses? It is possible but its not what I personally believe. I don't see the Baha'i writings supporting Adam, Noah and Abraham as being completely mythologized but instead being real characters who have been mythologized through the Sacred Writings of the Hebrew Bible, New Testament, Quran and the Baha'i Writings.