Who is the Baha’i Jesus and how does He differ from the Christian Jesus?

[Dawnofhope]

This is gonna end up in an irrelevant discussion so I shall refrain.

That is sensible. The topic about the nature, life and teachings of Jesus from a Christian perspective alone is enormous.

Some key concepts would include:
1/ The Divinity of Christ
2/ The Trinity
3/ Jesus as Son of God
4/ Baptism and crucifixion
5/ Salvation
6/ The resurrection
7/ Miracles
8/ Eschatology
9/ The authenticity of the New Testament

There would be many more areas but these nine could be a useful starting point.

 

[firedragon]

That is sensible. The topic about the nature, life and teachings of Jesus from a Christian perspective alone is enormous.

Some key concepts would include:
1/ The Divinity of Christ
2/ The Trinity
3/ Jesus as Son of God
4/ Baptism and crucifixion
5/ Salvation
6/ The resurrection
7/ Miracles
8/ Eschatology
9/ The authenticity of the New Testament

There would be many more areas but these nine could be a useful starting point.

Thats great. Thanks a lot. Yet, I must confess I don't have enough knowledge on the Bahai faith to make a decent analysis. What I learned I learned from you. I read the scripture quote a lot but your scripture is so vast just reading some is not enough. I will join in on some conversations to which I can contribute. I will end up asking more questions than contributing otherwise.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Of the Baha'i faith I am not educated.
Listening to the posts you placed, it seems as if this religion believes in the divine nature of Jesus, his death and ressurection.
However, it also seems as if this religion combines the Quran and the NT.
In this case, does Baha'i specify that Jesus is God, was born as man, crucified, died on the Cross, and was ressurrected, and went to heaven?
And how does this religion answer to the Quran that clearly state that Jesus was not God, and was not crucified?

 

[firedragon]

Although off topic, I've made it clear in the OP it is how I view mainstream Islamic thought. You are welcome to highlight any errors I've made with statements you believe correct them.

The relevance to the OP is that Muhammad made statements that appeared in contradiction to Christian thought at the time (eg Trinity, Son-ship and Divinity of Christ). In a similar manner Baha'u'llah corrected what He percieved to be problems with Islam at that time.



That is a reasonable question. We would not accept the Athanasian Creed in its entirety or see it as essential.

Its important to note that this Creed is not used universally in many Churches.

True. Nothing is universal in any religion. Maybe in the Bahai faith, for which I cannot speak of due to the lack of knowledge.

Yet, this is the "creed of the trinity" that is followed by both Catholics and Protestants as a whole. I know some churches reject the trinity like the Subordinationists I presume like the Jehovahs Witnesses. The question in your post remains relevant to Christianity, and this is Christianity so I don't know how to address the few who don't follow the Trinity. Then your question should not relate to general catholicism or protestant denominations.

 

[SA Huguenot]

True. Nothing is universal in any religion. Maybe in the Bahai faith, for which I cannot speak of due to the lack of knowledge.

Yet, this is the "creed of the trinity" that is followed by both Catholics and Protestants as a whole. I know some churches reject the trinity like the Subordinationists I presume like the Jehovahs Witnesses. The question in your post remains relevant to Christianity, and this is Christianity so I don't know how to address the few who don't follow the Trinity. Then your question should not relate to general catholicism or protestant denominations.

I would like you to keep in mind that a "Christian" is someone who believes Jesus is God.
Any religion not adhering to this principle is not christian, and has no right to be called "Christian".
Universalists, JW's, Unitarians and everyone who uses the Bible, but deny the divine nature of Jesus, is the "Anti Christ".
Period.
Now they all would like to associate themself with the Christian, and might even wear the cloak of Christian, but such is deception.

 

[firedragon]

I would like you to keep in mind that a "Christian" is someone who believes Jesus is God.
Any religion not adhering to this principle is not christian, and has no right to be called "Christian".
Universalists, JW's, Unitarians and everyone who uses the Bible, but deny the divine nature of Jesus, is the "Anti Christ".
Period.
Now they all would like to associate themself with the Christian, and might even wear the cloak of Christian, but such is deception.

Your prerogative brother.

 

[firedragon]

Nearly six hundred years later, we have the emergence of Islam as the Quran is Revealed through Muhammad.

Following the Qur'an, the book says It was always Islam and nothing else. Most won't accept this, but this is bottomline. So saying Islam emerged six hundred years later is wrong "according to the Qur'an". It even specifically quotes Abraham as calling believes Muslimeena.

Mainstream Islam discounts the testimony of the Gospels as being superseded by the Quran which is considered by Muslims as the Word of God.

Its not really accurate. The Quran says the Qur'an is the confirmation of the Gospel (not plural). And confirmation means the Qur'an repeats the teachings of the Gospel (again, not plural). Which means there was one Gospel, the teaching of Jesus, and the Qur'an clarifies it.

I am only responding to this comment of yours, so I hope someone will not start some kind of bidding war on this based on their perspective, and what's right and wrong. I am only stating the Quran and its perspective.

Although off topic, I've made it clear in the OP it is how I view mainstream Islamic thought. You are welcome to highlight any errors I've made with statements you believe correct them.

 

[Vouthon]

Thought-provoking topic for discussion @adrian009, I very much enjoyed reading through the OP (your threads are on fire at the moment ).

This is a h-huuuge comparative exercise given the reams upon reams of material in Baha'i, Christian and scholarly literature - not to mention the Islamic accounts (Qur'anic, Hadith and Sufi sayings tradition as recorded in some Al-Ghazali's works) - concerning their varying portraits of Jesus. So much has been written about his character and teachings by people from a broad cross-range of perspectives that it can be intimidating, sometimes, to even broach the topic. But you have broached it

The 'composite' orthodox Christian understanding of Jesus, as articulated doctrinally and shaped by the biblical, creedal and Patristic data, aligns pretty precisely with your description of it in the OP.

Here's my own quick and 'rough' summary (given that I'm pushed for time today but will participate more fully when I have the time to afford to it!):

Jesus is considered by orthodox Christians to be the incarnation of God the Son (Second Person of the Trinity) also known as the eternal Word of God (as this 'Divine Person' is also known pre-incarnately) "God from God, light from light, true God from true God, Begotten and not made, of one Being with the Father" to quote the Nicene creed. He is the one 'through whom' God the Father created the universe.

One God, one Lord, one eternal, one uncreated, one essence and substance and yet eternally subsisting of Three Persons/relations mutually indwelling: the Unity in Trinity, one coeternal and coequal God, as this triskele window pane from a medeival Gothic cathedral depicts in visual terms:

So, for Christians, the Second Person/relation/Word became incarnate as a human being in the womb of the Virgin Mary and near to his thirtieth year of age, the now fully human (as well as fully divine) Jesus came out of the shadows - so to speak - to embark upon his public career of ministry as an itinerant preacher of the "Kingdom of God" throughout Galilee and Judea, after being baptised by John in the river Jordan and subjected to temptation/testing by himself in the wilderness for 40 days/40 nights.

After gathering the Twelve Apostles and many more disciples, as well as performing a series of 'miraculous' deeds and being 'Transfigured' in the presence of his three closest followers on Mount Tabor (i.e. unveiling his 'divinity' to them), he finally set himself towards Jerusalem around the time of the Passover festival and celebrated a 'Last Supper' with his disciples in which he announced the inauguration of the 'New Covenant' in his blood, that would be shed for the reconciliation of the sins of the human race, and instructed his disciples to keep this 'Eucharistic' sacrifice involving the bread/body and wine/blood in perpetual memory of him until he came again.

Jesus was subsequently betrayed by one of his apostles, Judas Iscariot, and arrested by the Judean priestly authorities, who proceeded to try and place the conviction of blasphemy on his head before turning him over to the Roman governor Pontius Pilate for crucifixion. After some 'humming-and-hawing' (in the gospel accounts), Pilate ultimately charges Jesus with sedition against the Roman Empire and delivers him over to a brutal fate - tortue-death humiliation - as a condemned criminal.

He then perished on the cross, vicariously suffering for the sinfulness of humankind (I'm not going to wade into which 'atonement' doctrine is preferrable, as some theologians favour Christus Victor whereas others are more persuaded by Anselm's penal substitution/satisfaction theory and others still by Abelard's moral influence model) but rose from the dead on the third day: thus triumphing over both sin and the 'shadow of death', before ascending into heaven to be at the "right hand of the Father" with the promise of the commissioning of the 'Holy Spirit' in his stead, the one who would dwell 'within' the disciples and make Christ remain with them until the end of time, guiding them forever thereafter into the fullness of truth. And for orthodox Christians, this promise was fulfiled on the feast of Pentecost soon after the death, resurrection and ascension, with the outpouring of the Spirit of Truth (the Third Person of the Trinity) upon the apostles gathered together with the Virgin Mary in the 'upper room' (the Cenacle) in Jerusalem.

(continued....)

 

[Vouthon]

So, where do you wish to begin my friend in comparing this Christology with the one presented by the Bab, Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi in the Baha'i Writings?

I'll address the 'divinity' doctrine first in our comparative exercise:

Naturally, both religious frameworks conceive of Jesus as the incarnation of a priorly existent 'unembodied' person. In this respect, Christians and Baha'is concur - over against our Islamic brothers and sisters - to the extent that we each affirm the humanity of Christ originating from his conception in the womb of the Virgin Mary (something Christians, Muslims and Baha'is all accept as a divinely revealed truth) and his pre-existent 'divinity', which is of another order and degree in kind (which Muslims reject as shirk, associating partners with Allah).

Where the Baha'i Writings and Christian theology diverge is, therefore, not over the doctrine of the "incarnation" itself (as with Christianity and Islam) but rather over what manner or mode of 'divinity' became incarnate in the womb of Mary. For orthodox Christians - whether Catholic, Protestant or Eastern - the Divine Person conceived of the Virgin is 'consubstantial with God the Father', that is: the uncreated essence of God became one personhood with the 'created essence' of a human being by assuming the latter (without thereby implying any division in the divine nature). As the Chalcedonian definition held in 451 CE:

"Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same Perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly Man; the Self-same of a rational soul and body; co-essential with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same co-essential with us according to the Manhood; like us in all things, sin apart; before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation..."
​

And the so-called 'Athanasian creed' (though a misnomer given that St. Athanasius's didn't actually pen it!):


Athanasian Creed - Wikipedia

For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance [Essence] of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance [Essence] of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God. One altogether; not by confusion of Substance [Essence]; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. ​

For Baha'is, on the other hand, the 'manner of divine being' that became incarnate in the person of Jesus is distinct in essence from God. The preincarnate Person of Christ is not 'God' but a created spiritual 'mirror' of God that subsequently assumed flesh. Indeed, the preincarnate Christ - whilst pre-existent before his birth in tandem with the souls of all the other Manifestations of God yet to be born or that have been made 'incarnate' and since died - is still in the Baha'i conception a created being.

Jesus perfectly 'reflects' the attributes of God and using symbolic language one could say that he 'radiates' them (like a window filtering sunlight from the outside to illuminate the interior of a house) to the rest of the human race (i.e. He 'manifests' God) but he is not in 'essence' God; rather he is a created person in time - a 'mirror', not a 'container' so to speak.

Because He is the perfect 'mirror-image' of the Father, Baha'is would affirm (and indeed Baha'u'llah did affirm) that Christ has a 'divine station' - just like the other Manifestations of God - that no mere human individual could ever hope to attain, such that it is not imprecise or blasphemous for a Manifestation to declare (when speaking from the vantage point of their 'divine nature' as the reflected image of God): "I am God" and yet in equal breath to declare their 'servial' status before God as a mere 'human'.

Thus, Baha'u'llah stated quite plainly in Gleanings:


Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 50-56

Thus, viewed from the standpoint of their oneness and sublime detachment, the attributes of Godhead, Divinity, Supreme Singleness, and Inmost Essence, have been, and are applicable to those Essences of Being, inasmuch as they all abide on the throne of Divine Revelation, and are established upon the seat of Divine Concealment. Through their appearance the Revelation of God is made manifest, and by their countenance the Beauty of God is revealed. Thus it is that the accents of God Himself have been heard uttered by these Manifestations of the Divine Being.

Viewed in the light of their second station—the station of distinction, differentiation, temporal limitations, characteristics and standards—they manifest absolute servitude, utter destitution, and complete 54 self-effacement. Even as He saith: “I am the servant of God. I am but a man like you.”…

Were any of the all-embracing Manifestations of God to declare: “I am God,” He, verily, speaketh the truth, and no doubt attacheth thereto. For it hath been repeatedly demonstrated that through their Revelation, their attributes and names, the Revelation of God, His names and His attributes, are made manifest in the world. Thus, He hath revealed: “Those shafts were God’s, not Thine.”
​

I would contend that the Christian and Baha'i 'christologies' are closer than the corresponding orthodox Islamic doctrine of Isa al-Masih but also 'different', insofar as this issue of uncreated/created 'essence' and consubstantiality with the Father is concerned.

 

[firedragon]

So, where do you wish to begin my friend in comparing this Christology with the one presented by the Bab, Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi in the Baha'i Writings?

Naturally, both religious frameworks conceive of Jesus as the incarnation of a priorly existent 'unbodied' person. In this respect, Christians and Baha'is concur - over against our Islamic brothers and sisters - to the extent of both of us affirming that the humanity of Christ originated with his conception in the womb of the Virgin Mary (something Christians, Muslims and Baha'is all accept as a divinely revealed truth) but his 'divinity' is another order and degree in kind - a pre-existent reality.

Where the Baha'i Writings and Christian theology diverge is, thus, not over the doctrine of the "incarnarion" but rather over what manner or mode of 'divinity' became incarnate in the womb of Mary. For orthodox Christians - whether Catholic, Protestant or Eastern - the Divine Person conceived of the Virgin is 'consubstantial with God the Father', that is: the uncreated essence of God became one personhood with the 'created essence' of a human being (without thereby implying any division in the divine nature). As the Chalcedonian definition held in 451 CE:

"Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same Perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly Man; the Self-same of a rational soul and body; co-essential with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same co-essential with us according to the Manhood; like us in all things, sin apart; before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation..."
​

And the so-called 'Athanasian creed' (though a misnomer given that St. Athanasius's didn't actually pen it!):


Athanasian Creed - Wikipedia

For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance [Essence] of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance [Essence] of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God. One altogether; not by confusion of Substance [Essence]; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. ​

For Baha'is, on the other hand, the 'manner of divine being' that became incarnate in the person of Jesus is distinct in essence from God. Indeed, the preincarnate Christ - whilst pre-existent before his birth in tandem with the souls of all the other Manifestations of God yet to be born or that have been made 'incarnate' and since died - is still in the Baha'i conception a created being.

Jesus perfectly 'reflects' the attributes of God and using symbolic language one could say that he 'radiates' them (like a window filtering sunlight from the outside to illuminate the interior of a house) to the rest of the human race (i.e. He 'manifests' God) but he is not in 'essence' God; rather he is a created person in time - a 'mirror', not a 'container' so to speak.

Because He is the perfect 'mirror-image' of the Father, Baha'is would affirm (and indeed Baha'u'llah did affirm) that Christ has a 'divine station' - just like the other Manifestations of God - that no mere human individual could ever hope to attain, such that it is not imprecise or blasphemous for a Manifestation to declare (when speaking from the vantage point of their 'divine nature' as the reflected image of God): "I am God" and yet in equal breath to declare their 'servial' status before God as a mere 'human'.

Thus, Baha'u'llah stated quite plainly in Gleanings:


Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 50-56

Thus, viewed from the standpoint of their oneness and sublime detachment, the attributes of Godhead, Divinity, Supreme Singleness, and Inmost Essence, have been, and are applicable to those Essences of Being, inasmuch as they all abide on the throne of Divine Revelation, and are established upon the seat of Divine Concealment. Through their appearance the Revelation of God is made manifest, and by their countenance the Beauty of God is revealed. Thus it is that the accents of God Himself have been heard uttered by these Manifestations of the Divine Being.

Viewed in the light of their second station—the station of distinction, differentiation, temporal limitations, characteristics and standards—they manifest absolute servitude, utter destitution, and complete 54 self-effacement. Even as He saith: “I am the servant of God. I am but a man like you.”…

Were any of the all-embracing Manifestations of God to declare: “I am God,” He, verily, speaketh the truth, and no doubt attacheth thereto. For it hath been repeatedly demonstrated that through their Revelation, their attributes and names, the Revelation of God, His names and His attributes, are made manifest in the world. Thus, He hath revealed: “Those shafts were God’s, not Thine.”
​

I would contend that the Christian and Baha'i 'christologies' are closer than the corresponding orthodox Islamic doctrine of Isa al-Masih but also 'different', insofar as this issue of uncreated/created 'essence' and consubstantiality with the Father is concerned.

Not really. Christian Trinity is that Jesus and God are two different persons, one in essence. Bahai's believe Jesus is God himself. Not two different people, one essence. This is akin to modalism if you add the spirit into it.

 

[Vouthon]

Not really. Christian Trinity is that Jesus and God are two different persons, one in essence. Bahai's believe Jesus is God himself. Not two different people, one essence. This is akin to modalism if you add the spirit into it.

Modalism is the Christian heresy that God assumes different interchangeable "roles" rather then subsisting eternally as three distinct Persons with one essence and substance.

That is not what I presented above. I adhere to orthodox Homousian Trinitarian monotheism. Two natures (divine and human) one person in Christ.

For all small-c orthodox Christians, Jesus is the incarnation of God - the Second Person of the Trinity. He is not a distinct person from "God" for He is Himself fully God but rather a distinct person from God "the Father" (the First Person) because he is God the Son. There is only one God (theos) in the orthodox Christian conception, which is synonymous with the one essence (ousia) in three persons (hypostases) which can also be translated from the Greek as three distinct and eternal "relations".

Baha'is regard Jesus, on the other hand, as a created spirit who came into existence in time before his birth but who perfectly manifests the eternal attributes of God, such that He is at once possessed both of a "divine" and "human" station.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Following the Qur'an, the book says It was always Islam and nothing else. Most won't accept this, but this is bottomline. So saying Islam emerged six hundred years later is wrong "according to the Qur'an". It even specifically quotes Abraham as calling believes Muslimeena.



Its not really accurate. The Quran says the Qur'an is the confirmation of the Gospel (not plural). And confirmation means the Qur'an repeats the teachings of the Gospel (again, not plural). Which means there was one Gospel, the teaching of Jesus, and the Qur'an clarifies it.

I am only responding to this comment of yours, so I hope someone will not start some kind of bidding war on this based on their perspective, and what's right and wrong. I am only stating the Quran and its perspective.

The Quran says Allah had given different Books to different Messengers, at the same time Quran says Islam was always the Religion. Then Quran states Allah had given different Ordinances to people in different times. We can see how Quran states Allah made a strong covenant with Jews regarding the Sabbath and when some Jews went for fishing they broke the covenant of Sabbath, thus God punished them. The Quran however did not make same kind of covenant with followers of Muhammad saying you must keep Sabbath. Thus, God makes different requirements through different Messengers, and that He expects people to SUBMIT to whatever laws and covenants He gives at any time, and in Quran this called Islam, or Submission.

 

[firedragon]

Modalism is the Christian heresy that God assumes different interchangeable "roles" rather then subsisting eternally as three distinct Persons with one essence and substance.

That is not what I presented above. I adhere to orthodox Homousian Trinitarian monotheism. Two natures (divine and human) one person in Christ.

For Christians, Jesus is the incarnation of God - the Second Person of the Trinity. He is not a distinct person from "God" but rather a distinct person from God "the Father" (the First Person) because he is God the Son. There is only one God (theos) in the orthodox Christian conception, which is synonymous with the one essence (ousia) in three person's (hypostases).

Baha'is regard Jesus, on the other hand, as a created spirit who came into existence in time before his birth but perfectly manifests the eternal attributes of God, such that He is at once possessed both of a "divine" and "human" station.

I didn't say you were presenting modalism. I said that the Bahai belief is akin to modalism. I think you should read that comment again. They are polls apart, that's why the church called modalism a heresy. There is no need for repetition of definitions brother man.

 

[firedragon]

The Quran says Allah had given different Books to different Messengers, at the same time Quran says Islam was always the Religion. Then Quran states Allah had given different Ordinances to people in different times. We can see how Quran states Allah made a strong covenant with Jews regarding the Sabbath and when some Jews went for fishing they broke the covenant of Sabbath, thus God punished them. The Quran however did not make same kind of covenant with followers of Muhammad saying you must keep Sabbath. Thus, God makes different requirements through different Messengers, and that He expects people to SUBMIT to whatever laws and covenants He gives at any time, and in Quran this called Islam, or Submission.

Completely irrelevant to my comment.

 

[Vouthon]

I didn't say you were presenting modalism. I said that the Bahai belief is akin to modalism. I think you should read that comment again. They are polls apart, that's why the church called modalism a heresy. There is no need for repetition of definitions brother man.

With all due respect, it looked to me - from my initial read of your response - as if you were saying that I had been articulating a Modalist stance (which would be akin to claiming that an orthodox Muslim was advocating shirk). I welcome your clarification, no worries on that front

With that being said, it is inaccurate from a Chalcedonian Trinitarian perspective to draw any distinction between "God" and Jesus as you did in your reply to me. And that was really the crux of my disagreement with your description of the Trinitarian position.

For us Trinitarians, Jesus is fully God. The Father is fully God. The Holy Spirit is fully God and there is only One God, One Essence, in Three coeternal and co-equal but distinct hypostases (often translated into English as "person" but not actually meaning what our language implies with the word person and better rendered as a distinct and non-interchangeable "relation").

Likewise, I disagree with your description of Baha'i christology as "Modalist". It doesn't amount to modalism, because Baha'is do not regard Jesus as being "God" in the sense (with reference to the divine essence) that Christians teach, whether Modalist or Trinitarian. He is for them a pre-existent but created mirror of the eternal attributes of God (and I welcome corrections from the Baha'is here if they would disagree with this description on my part) not a mode of the one "divine essence".

 

[Muffled]

So that’s the Christian version....hey aren’t you a Baha’i!

I don't believe the two necessarily have to be mutually exclusive.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Completely irrelevant to my comment.

It is relevant because you stated:

And confirmation means the Qur'an repeats the teachings of the Gospel (again, not plural). Which means there was one Gospel, the teaching of Jesus, and the Qur'an clarifies it.

From what you say, it can be understood, you think, the Gospel that was given to Jesus, has same teachings and laws as the Quran, and Allah in Quran is repeating what was in Gospel. But if we consider even the Gospel that was revealed to Jesus had some different laws than Quran, how can we say, Quran repeating them?
Just because every Messenger brought Islam, does not mean They had brought same laws and ordinances.
Confirmation means, the holy Book called new testament which is with Christian's is a valid and legitimate Book, containing correct teachings. This is what Allah confirms! And using the word single Gospel is related to the single New Testament.

 

[firedragon]

With all due respect, it looked to me - from my initial read of your response - as if you were saying that I had been articulating a Modalist stance (which would be akin to claiming that an orthodox Muslim was advocating shirk). I welcome your clarification, no worries on that front

With that being said, it is inaccurate from a Chalcedonian Trinitarian perspective to draw any distinction between "God" and Jesus as you did in your reply to me. And that was really the crux of my disagreement with your description of the Trinitarian position.

For us Trinitarians, Jesus is fully God. The Father is fully God. The Holy Spirit is fully God and there is only One God, One Essence, in Three coeternal and co-equal but distinct hypostases (often translated into English as "person" but not actually meaning what our language implies with the word person and better rendered as a distinct and non-interchangeable "relation").

Likewise, I disagree with your description of Baha'i christology as "Modalist". It doesn't amount to modalism, because Baha'is do not regard Jesus as being "God" in the sense (with reference to the divine essence) that Christians teach, whether Modalist or Trinitarian. He is for them a pre-existent but created mirror of the eternal attributes of God (and I welcome corrections from the Baha'is here if they would disagree with this description on my part) not a mode of the one "divine essence".

You have not understood me mate. So I shall leave it at that. Cheers.

 

[Muffled]

That is a useful observation. I take my thoughts from what Baha'u'llah offered, which offers much the same;

"... The Ancient Beauty hath consented to be bound with chains that mankind may be released from its bondage, and hath accepted to be made a prisoner within this most mighty Stronghold that the whole world may attain unto true liberty. He hath drained to its dregs the cup of sorrow, that all the peoples of the earth may attain unto abiding joy, and be filled with gladness. This is of the mercy of your Lord, the Compassionate, the Most Merciful. We have accepted to be abased, O believers in the Unity of God, that ye may be exalted, and have suffered manifold afflictions, that ye might prosper and flourish... "

I see that above passage as inclusive of the sacrafice of Jesus, as I see that Baha'u'llah uses 'We' in that quote for all the Messengers.

Regards Tony

I believe it is more reminiscent of what Paul said: II Cor. 6:4 but as servants of God we commend ourselves in every way: by great endurance, in afflictions, hardships, calamities, 5 beatings, imprisonments, riots, labors, sleepless nights, hunger

 

[Vouthon]

You have not understood me mate. So I shall leave it at that. Cheers.

I respectfully disagree that I have misunderstood but am happy to leave it here at your wish.

You have characterised the Baha'i stance as "Modalist" when it isn't in my assessment (speaking as someone who is very familiar with the Baha'i writings, personally), and moreover stated further upstream that Trinitarians like myself regard Jesus and God as distinct Persons, when we don't.