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

[Muffled]

Its not just huge, its encyclopaedic! I’m relying on the exceedingly short attention span of the average RF participant

I believe since I haven't read much of their writings, it is all new to me. Of course unlike God who tends toward terse verse, the B man does tend to carry on and on like a guru.

 

[Muffled]

Baha'u'llah was tortured, imprisoned and exiled from his homeland for forty years. The Bab was you mentioned was executed as Christ was. Muhammad was tormented by His own people. Moses had His work cut out for Him dealing with an Egyptian Pharoah. Noah was ignored and ridiculed by His people. So all the Prophets of God suffer and sacrifice themselves in the path of God for our sakes.

I believe when the leader is massively glorified it can lead to bad things as with Jim Jones. On the other hand God in the flesh ought to be glorified.

 

[firedragon]

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,

You misquoted me. Read my comment again brother.

 

[firedragon]

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.

Completely misunderstood.

Also, please don't make many assumptions about others brother. Its not a very good show of character. Maybe others are also versed in Bahai writings more than you may think they are, but reading like that is not enough so maybe others don't claim scholarship in Bahai faith matters.

Cheers. Have a great day.

 

[Vouthon]

Also, please don't make many assumptions about others brother. Its not a very good show of character. Maybe others are also versed in Bahai writings more than you may think they are, but reading like that is not enough so maybe others don't claim scholarship in Bahai faith matters.

I have never claimed "scholarship" in Baha'i Writings nor questioned the degree of profiency of others in terms of their knowledge of these scriptural texts.

Given that I almost converted to the Baha'i Faith as a teenager, however, I am nonetheless very "familiar" (the precise word I used) with its teachings but open to correction from the Baha'is here if I misrepresent it on any points (it has been many years, after all, since I seriously studied them myself), which is all I said in my last post. And I don't personally think the Baha'i conception of Christ amounts to Modalism as you claimed. I just don't, which is my honest opinion.

All things considered, I agree with you that our discussion is not moving forward so I am quite happy to leave it there as you asked.

A very blessed day to you as well.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Its not really accurate. The Quran says the Qur'an is the confirmation of the Gospel (not plural).

By the way, I did some investigation, and understood that many eastern Christian's call their whole Holy Book, INJIL. In another words, for many Eastern Chrisitans, the Injil, is just another name for new Testament. Quran speaks to people, in their own language. So, when the Christian's called their own Book Injil, Quran also uses their own term and language! In another words, Quran confirmed the Injil (New Testament) which is with Christians.

"Those who follow the Messenger-Prophet, the Ummi, whom they find written down with them in the Taurat and the Injeel (who) enjoins them good and forbids them evil, and makes lawful to them the good things and makes unlawful to them impure things, and removes from them their burden and the shackles which were upon them; so (as for) those who believe in him and honor him and help him, and follow the light which has been sent down with him, these it is that are the successful." Quran 7:157

According to verse, they can find the Messenger (Muhammad) in Injil which is with them. If there is no single Injil with the, Chrisitans, why Quran does not use plural?

 

[1213]

....one of the three aspects of the Trinity,...these are some of the key theological concepts in regards the Biblical Jesus....

I just want to say, Bible doesn’t speak of Trinity.

 

[firedragon]

By the way, I did some investigation, and understood that many eastern Christian's call their whole Holy Book, INJIL. In another words, for many Eastern Chrisitans, the Injil, is just another name for new Testament. Quran speaks to people, in their own language. So, when the Christian's called their own Book Injil, Quran also uses their own term and language! In another words, Quran confirmed the Injil (New Testament) which is with Christians.

"Those who follow the Messenger-Prophet, the Ummi, whom they find written down with them in the Taurat and the Injeel (who) enjoins them good and forbids them evil, and makes lawful to them the good things and makes unlawful to them impure things, and removes from them their burden and the shackles which were upon them; so (as for) those who believe in him and honor him and help him, and follow the light which has been sent down with him, these it is that are the successful." Quran 7:157

According to verse, they can find the Messenger (Muhammad) in Injil which is with them. If there is no single Injil with the, Chrisitans, why Quran does not use plural?

You said many eastern Christians call their whole Holy Book Injil. I presume you are referring to the New Testament. Thus, tell me what is the New Testament? Is it as you have now or is it as it was in the 4th century? For example, how about epistle of Barnabas? Is that part of the so called "Injil"?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

You said many eastern Christians call their whole Holy Book Injil. I presume you are referring to the New Testament. Thus, tell me what is the New Testament? Is it as you have now or is it as it was in the 4th century? For example, how about epistle of Barnabas? Is that part of the so called "Injil"?

Whichever chapters which were included in the Injil that was with Arab Christian's living at the time of Muhammad is confirmed in Quran.
From Bahai perspective, the Holy Book which is with Chrisitans in our time is legitimate.

 

[firedragon]

Whichever chapters which were included in the Injil that was with Arab Christian's living at the time of Muhammad is confirmed in Quran.
From Bahai perspective, the Holy Book which is with Chrisitans in our time is legitimate.

You quoted the eastern Christians, not the "Bahai Perspective". Perspectives are not the discussion point here. Then the Muslim perspective is completely alien. Thus, making perspectives the criterion is invalid. We are talking scripture. You are quoting the Quran and making an error. So I asked a specific question expecting a specific response, not a vague response with a "Bahai Perspective".

If you did not understand the question I will rephrase so you can tell me if that is the case. But the question again is below.

You said many eastern Christians call their whole Holy Book Injil. I presume you are referring to the New Testament. Thus, tell me what is the New Testament? Is it as you have now or is it as it was in the 4th century? For example, how about epistle of Barnabas? Is that part of the so called "Injil"?

 

[firedragon]

"Those who follow the Messenger-Prophet, the Ummi, whom they find written down with them in the Taurat and the Injeel (who) enjoins them good and forbids them evil, and makes lawful to them the good things and makes unlawful to them impure things, and removes from them their burden and the shackles which were upon them; so (as for) those who believe in him and honor him and help him, and follow the light which has been sent down with him, these it is that are the successful." Quran 7:157

According to verse, they can find the Messenger (Muhammad) in Injil which is with them. If there is no single Injil with the, Chrisitans, why Quran does not use plural?

Brother. You have taken the word "With them" and thought of a book that they have in their hands. Wrong. Even in the English language you are wrong because it says "written down with them" in your translation, not "written down in the Taurat and the InJil that is with them". You have basically played around with the words in that sentence.

Try and understand this if you can.

1. When I say Indhahum in arabic, I don't mean to say "with them" as in a book or some letter in your possession. I am saying "this was given to you" or "made for you for your benefit".

2. And you see, this is talking about those who follow the "Ummi Nabi" who is Muhammed. Its addressing those who follow Muhammed. The so called "Eastern Christians" do not follow "Muhammed". So you have only seen a small portion of one single verse. Read the whole Qur'an. This is talking about Muslims who follow Muhammed.

Peace.

 

[Windwalker]

So with this thread I’d like to explore and compare the Christian Jesus and the Baha’i Jesus. Of course there is only one Jesus the Christ recorded in the NT. However there are different perspectives. For example there is the historical Jesus based on what we can reasonably establish to be true based on established methodology with analysis of historic documents and archaeology. Most scholars of antiquity would agree Jesus was an itinerant Jewish Preacher who was baptised by John the Baptist and crucified at the behest of Pontius Pilate.

The Christian Jesus is predominately understood through the four Gospels but also through the Apostolic letters.

The term I've heard recently, and I believe it was something Crossan called it, there is the historical Jesus, and the theological Jesus. That is the Jesus of faith, which entails all our mythologies about him. It's a nice distinction.

So beyond what we know of the historical Jesus, Jesus becomes so much more through the New Testament. Christ is understood to be God incarnate, the Son of God born to the Virgin Mary, one of the three aspects of the Trinity, and a fulfilment of Prophecies in Hebrew Scriptures. Jesus rose from the dead three days after being Crucified and then Ascended to be with His Father in Heaven during Pentecost after appearances to His Disciples. He inaugurated a New Covenant. Of course Christianity is a diverse religion and so there is a range of views but these are some of the key theological concepts in regards the Biblical Jesus.

Just to reiterate, I think rather than saying, "theological concepts in regards the Biblical Jesus," it makes clearer distinction to say these are two distinct perceptions, or ways of looking at Jesus. They aren't so much about trying to tie them to the historical Jesus, as it is a set of glasses through which people interpret their faith through their shared mythologies and symbols.

I would say that list is the perception of faith, meaning found in symbols, such as Trinity, Virgin birth, etc. These are really held differently than a historical perspective. The Jesus of history, can for many, interfere with their theological Jesus, or their Jesus of faith. This is where you have the rise of conservative scholarship to keep that Jesus from interfering with their theology, and people who gravitate towards that in order to preserve their faith being threatened by it. "What do these modern scholars really know," as an example of defense.

Where it gets interesting for me personally, is that for me at this stage in my attempt to reconcile the parts of my faith that had meaning from the rest that did not, is how I am able to take the historical perspective, sans the mythology, and do this comfortable dance between them, which in reality liberates the mythology to serve as myth in transcendence. These myths are ladders which the soul climbs upon, towards self-realization, Awakening, Enlightenment, or Salvation. Having them analyzed through the cold lens of facts and data, and then compared and contrasted with the symbols of faith, sullies their abilities to serve us. It confuses us.

Nearly six hundred years later, we have the emergence of Islam as the Quran is Revealed through Muhammad. Muhammad was the bearer of a Divine Message equivalent to the Torah through Moses and the Gospel through Christ brings a new vision. According mainstream Islam, Jesus was born to the Virgin Mary but is not the son of god. He is a Prophet who brought the Gospel which was subsequently lost or corrupted. He was not part of a triune god for God is strictly One. He is not God incarnate for God can have no partners. He was not crucified for God would not allow crucifixion of one so exalted as Jesus. So the Muslim Jesus is very different from the Christian Jesus. The two versions are not reconciled. Mainstream Islam discounts the testimony of the Gospels as being superseded by the Quran which is considered by Muslims as the Word of God.

And I see this as a continuum of the same sort of "theological perspective", as what created the mythologies surrounding the "historical Jesus". This is another example of what scholars would term mythmaking, the formation of symbolic meanings, apart and beyond facts of history. Muhoman was not technically trying to correct "theological views" within Christianity with "facts". He was no historian. He was no modernist. His words were themselves part of that mythmaking process. They became the vocabulary of future generations, as the Christian language did before. They are theological perspectives of history, not historical reality. These are different things.

1260 Islamic years from the beginning of the Islamic calendar, in the year 1844, a Persian Merchant from Shiraz claims to be the Promised Qa’im and the bearer of a New Revelation. As the movement spreads through Persia opposition from clergy and the government seeks to eradicate this new found movement. The Bab (meaning the Gate) is executed and later thousands of His followers put to death.

The purpose of the Bab’s mission was to prepare for Him Whom God shall make manifest. Bahá’u’lláh has a vision while in prison in Tehran during 1852 and was later recognised by most Babis to be the Promised One. Bahá’u’lláh according to Baha’is also brought a Divine Revelation. Over 40 years through tablets and letters He provided extensive commentary on many themes touching on Christian topics as early as the 1860s through the Kitab-i-Iqan.

After 1892 when Bahá’u’lláh passed away, His eldest so ‘Abdu’l-Baha was appointed successor, leader, and authorised interpreter. ‘Abdu’l-Baha came into close contact with Westerners who were interested in this new Faith. Eventually He traveled to Europe and North America including the USA during 1912. Through out His Ministry He spoke at length about many Christian topics. One of the most important works is a book titled Some Answered Questions.

Interesting history. What part of the U.S. did the Baha'i take root in primarily as it entered America? What years?

So if you’ve made it this far, this is my limited understanding of aspects of biblical scholarship, Christianity, Islam and the Baha’i Faith. I’ve avoided providing my view on what the Baha’i Faith says about Jesus. I might write about it later. I’m interested to hear who on this forum can explain the Baha’i Jesus. Who is He? What does He have in common with the Christian Jesus and how does He differ? If I’ve misrepresented the position of mainstream Christianity, Islam or the Baha’i Faith please feel free to correct me. Thanks.

I would be interested in seeing how that would be when held up against modern scholarship, that cold lens of the "historical perspective". The theological perspective would be a different evaluation.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

You quoted the eastern Christians, not the "Bahai Perspective". Perspectives are not the discussion point here. Then the Muslim perspective is completely alien. Thus, making perspectives the criterion is invalid. We are talking scripture. You are quoting the Quran and making an error. So I asked a specific question expecting a specific response, not a vague response with a "Bahai Perspective".

If you did not understand the question I will rephrase so you can tell me if that is the case. But the question again is below.

You said many eastern Christians call their whole Holy Book Injil. I presume you are referring to the New Testament. Thus, tell me what is the New Testament? Is it as you have now or is it as it was in the 4th century? For example, how about epistle of Barnabas? Is that part of the so called "Injil"?

The main Injil which has the teaching of Jesus are the narratives and prophecies given by the apostles of Jesus. That completely has all requirement.

But it seems to me, you want to suggest, if the epistle of Barnabas was legitimate, why today it is not included in the Injil, and if it is not legitimate, therefore, the Injil had illegitimate epistle in it.
But, something similar happened in Islam. There were several different versions of Quran. The Khalif burned all of them, and kept one of them. What matters is the end result. What we can tell for sure, from Quran perspective, the Injl that is with Christian's is confirmed and valid, otherwise Quran would not ask people of the Book stand by the Gospel and Torah. They contain enough guidence, regardless if epistle of Barnabas was legitimate or illegitimate. It is like, Islam, there might be some invalid hadithes among Muslims, which may be included in their books, and there might have been some valid hadithes which are omitted from the books, yet, overall has guidence people to refer to.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Brother. You have taken the word "With them" and thought of a book that they have in their hands. Wrong. Even in the English language you are wrong because it says "written down with them" in your translation, not "written down in the Taurat and the InJil that is with them". You have basically played around with the words in that sentence.

Try and understand this if you can.

1. When I say Indhahum in arabic, I don't mean to say "with them" as in a book or some letter in your possession. I am saying "this was given to you" or "made for you for your benefit".

2. And you see, this is talking about those who follow the "Ummi Nabi" who is Muhammed. Its addressing those who follow Muhammed. The so called "Eastern Christians" do not follow "Muhammed". So you have only seen a small portion of one single verse. Read the whole Qur'an. This is talking about Muslims who follow Muhammed.

Peace.

In this particular verse, it is addressed to those who follow Muhammad. But in many other verses, Injil is the book of the Christian's. Either way the verse says, they can find Muhammad in Injil and Torah. What does it mean to you, when it says, they can "Find"? It is irrelevant to our conclusion, Who can find it, Chrisitans or Muslims.

 

[firedragon]

The main Injil which has the teaching of Jesus are the narratives and prophecies given by the apostles of Jesus. That completely has all requirement.

But it seems to me, you want to suggest, if the epistle of Barnabas was legitimate, why today it is not included in the Injil, and if it is not legitimate, therefore, the Injil had illegitimate epistle in it.
But, something similar happened in Islam. There were several different versions of Quran. The Khalif burned all of them, and kept one of them. What matters is the end result. What we can tell for sure, from Quran perspective, the Injl that is with Christian's is confirmed and valid, otherwise Quran would not ask people of the Book stand by the Gospel and Torah. They contain enough guidence, regardless if epistle of Barnabas was legitimate or illegitimate. It is like, Islam, there might be some invalid hadithes among Muslims, which may be included in their books, and there might have been some valid hadithes which are omitted from the books, yet, overall has guidence people to refer to.

Nope. I say that the epistle of Barnabas "WAS PART OF THE BIBLE" New Testament.

So now since you could not answer that simple question objectively of course you brought in an irrelevant argument about so called "something similar" happened to the Qur'an. Absolutely irrelevant. And when did this so called Khalif burning the Quran happen? 650? And did he burn all the Qurans? Nope. He copied the Quran that Hafsa had and distributed them, returned the Hafsa copy, and burnt the rest. So you have not even seen the full Hadith. This happens when people try to argue for the sake of arguing. An irrelevant point, with no reading.

Now you are talking about the Hadith. Another absolutely irrelevant comment. Hadith is not part of the Quran. I was referring to the Bible which had the Epistle of Barnabas in it, and we still have the manuscript to prove it. Anyone can see it. This is not just hearsay like you speak of mate. Do some research. I am only responding because you are completely misreading into everything and uttering absolutely wrong information.

This has nothing to do with Hadith. This is to do with the Quran. So don't bring in all kinds of straw man arguments. Its useless.

You said many eastern Christians call their whole Holy Book Injil. I presume you are referring to the New Testament. Thus, tell me what is the New Testament? Is it as you have now or is it as it was in the 4th century? For example, how about epistle of Barnabas? Is that part of the so called "Injil"?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Nope. I say that the epistle of Barnabas "WAS PART OF THE BIBLE" New Testament.

So now since you could not answer that simple question objectively of course you brought in an irrelevant argument about so called "something similar" happened to the Qur'an. Absolutely irrelevant. And when did this so called Khalif burning the Quran happen? 650? And did he burn all the Qurans? Nope. He copied the Quran that Hafsa had and distributed them, returned the Hafsa copy, and burnt the rest. So you have not even seen the full Hadith. This happens when people try to argue for the sake of arguing. An irrelevant point, with no reading.

Now you are talking about the Hadith. Another absolutely irrelevant comment. Hadith is not part of the Quran. I was referring to the Bible which had the Epistle of Barnabas in it, and we still have the manuscript to prove it. Anyone can see it. This is not just hearsay like you speak of mate. Do some research. I am only responding because you are completely misreading into everything and uttering absolutely wrong information.

This has nothing to do with Hadith. This is to do with the Quran. So don't bring in all kinds of straw man arguments. Its useless.

You said many eastern Christians call their whole Holy Book Injil. I presume you are referring to the New Testament. Thus, tell me what is the New Testament? Is it as you have now or is it as it was in the 4th century? For example, how about epistle of Barnabas? Is that part of the so called "Injil"?

We are getting too far from OP. Why does it matter if Epistle of Barnabas was included in New Testament?

 

[firedragon]

In this particular verse, it is addressed to those who follow Muhammad. But in many other verses, Injil is the book of the Christian's. Either way the verse says, they can find Muhammad in Injil and Torah. What does it mean to you, when it says, they can "Find"? It is irrelevant to our conclusion, Who can find it, Chrisitans or Muslims.

Then why did you quote this verse if its addressing Muslims? You tried a fast one mate, and it didn't work of course because this verse is quoted by many Anti Islamic apologetics on the internet and they all misquote it to an invalid audience. You are one of those audiences. So this is not addressing the "Eastern Christians" so your argument is completely absurd.

So now, tell me. Why do you now say "they can find" as if its some Jews and Christians with the Torah and the New Testament and its addressing them? And why did you misquote the verse again saying "They CAN find"? It doesn't say "They CAN find", it says Wajadha, yajidhoonahoo, which means "they find him or have him", not "They CAN find".

And now you are speaking about other verses in the Quran? Then mate, as I told you, why not also address the other scripture mentioned in the Quran? Why only focus on the Torah and the Injil? Zaboor, Injil, Taurat, Suhufi Ibrahima wamoosa, scripture given to Jacob and the whole gang mentioned therein. Why not seek them too?

 

[firedragon]

We are getting too far from OP. Why does it matter if Epistle of Barnabas was included in New Testament?

Of course, no one is even close to the OP. I tried my best to tell you that you are being irrelevant all the time but you didn't care at all and now you are talking about how far we are from the OP. Now you ask "why Why does it matter if Epistle of Barnabas was included in New Testament?:. It matters because it was there in the Bible, so which NT are you referring to when you call the whole NT the Gospel because some eastern Christians called the whole NT the Gospel? That is why.

You said many eastern Christians call their whole Holy Book Injil. I presume you are referring to the New Testament. Thus, tell me what is the New Testament? Is it as you have now or is it as it was in the 4th century? For example, how about epistle of Barnabas? Is that part of the so called "Injil"?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Of course, no one is even close to the OP. I tried my best to tell you that you are being irrelevant all the time but you didn't care at all and now you are talking about how far we are from the OP. Now you ask "why Why does it matter if Epistle of Barnabas was included in New Testament?:. It matters because it was there in the Bible, so which NT are you referring to when you call the whole NT the Gospel because some eastern Christians called the whole NT the Gospel? That is why.

You said many eastern Christians call their whole Holy Book Injil. I presume you are referring to the New Testament. Thus, tell me what is the New Testament? Is it as you have now or is it as it was in the 4th century? For example, how about epistle of Barnabas? Is that part of the so called "Injil"?

In the beginning not everything included in New Testament, was considered Holy. Even the Christian's who had included the epistle of Barnabas, did not consider it holy. In another words, not everything in New Testament was considered to be holy, or equally holy by the Christians. Some of it was meant as providing information and history or interpretation. Later, Christian's decided to keep only parts which they considered holy, or agree upon. It was a gradual process. Nothing wrong with that. But whatever described by apostles about the life and words of Jesus in new testament, was always considered holy by Christian's.
The Chrisitans may have had some epistles added and later removed from the new testament, but they did not change verses, or words within the gospels or epistles. In another words, removing an epistle such as epistle of Barnabas by no mean is an evidence that for example the story of Crucifixion of Jesus, is an invention by Christians.
I quote from Bahaullah on that:

"Can a man who believeth in a book, and deemeth it to be inspired by God, mutilate it?"

 

[firedragon]

In the beginning not everything included in New Testament, was considered Holy. Even the Christian's who had included the epistle of Barnabas, did not consider it holy. In another words, not everything in New Testament was considered to be holy, or equally holy by the Christians. Some of it was meant as providing information and history or interpretation. Later, Christian's decided to keep only parts which they considered holy, or agree upon. It was a gradual process. Nothing wrong with that. But whatever described by apostles about the life and words of Jesus in new testament, was always considered holy by Christian's.
The Chrisitans may have had some epistles added and later removed from the new testament, but they did not change verses, or words within the gospels or epistles. In another words, removing an epistle such as epistle of Barnabas by no mean is an evidence that for example the story of Crucifixion of Jesus, is an invention by Christians.
I quote from Bahaullah on that:

"Can a man who believeth in a book, and deemeth it to be inspired by God, mutilate it?"

Just vague with bogus assumptions of what people did or thought. Utterly invalid and irrelevant.