Who was Baha'u'llah?

[Truthseeker]

BTW, of course in this 'debate', each side presents their own points of view and tries to support and defend them to the other. That is what makes for a good discussion, IMO. But that is not the same as trying to convert the other person on the level of "making converts". That's just basic persuasion of ideas. That's the nature of a healthy dialog.

What we have doing is debate. The Baha'i ideal is consultation.

debate: a contention by words or Arguments. a: A regulated discussion of a proposition (see PROPOSITION entry 1 sense 1b) between two matched sides. b: law and government : the formal discussion of a motion (see MOTION entry 1 sense 3a) before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure.​

I believe the first definition applies here.

Consultation in a Baha'i sense is different than what we see in a dictionary.

The prime requisites for them that take counsel together are purity of motive, radiance of spirit, detachment from all else save God, attraction to His Divine Fragrances, humility and lowliness amongst His loved ones, patience and long-suffering in difficulties and servitude to His exalted Threshold. Should they be graciously aided to acquire these attributes, victory from the unseen Kingdom of Bahá shall be vouchsafed to them.... The members thereof must take counsel together in such wise that no occasion for ill-feeling or discord may arise. This can be attained when every member expresseth with absolute freedom his own opinion and setteth forth his argument. Should any one oppose, he must on no account feel hurt for not until matters are fully discussed can the right way be revealed. The shining spark of truth cometh forth only after the clash of differing opinions. If after discussion, a decision be carried unanimously, well and good; but if the Lord forbid, differences of opinion should arise, a majority of voices must prevail.
‘Abdu’l-Bahá, cited in a letter 5 March 1922 written by Shoghi Effendi to the Bahá’ís of the United States and Canada, “Bahá’í Administration”, p. 21
‘Abdu'l-Bahá, Bahá'u'lláh, Shoghi Effendi, "Consultation", 9

They must then proceed with the utmost devotion, courtesy, dignity, care and moderation to express their views. They must in every matter search out the truth and not insist upon their own opinion, for stubbornness and persistence in one’s views will lead ultimately to discord and wrangling and the truth will remain hidden.
‘Abdu'l-Bahá, Bahá'u'lláh, Shoghi Effendi, "Consultation", 10

I don't want to engage in any more in wrangling as we are doing now to determine who is more virtuous. I also don't want to have debate, and it has become heated as of late. You can blame me if you want to for it become heated, and indeed I do bear a lot of responsibility for it being more heated.

I have difficulty being here where debate is the norm. I get caught up in it. I prefer to come to points of agreement though consultation.

As I am not good at discussing religion in an oral sense, that's why I am here despite the prevailing debate in any forum. If I go to a discussion section, I get little takers in having a discussion. They are relatively empty places, but I now realize I should change my ways, and just be in discussion forums. This isn't working. I get too caught up debating, and I have a temper.

 

[Trailblazer]

The Church had a problem of explaining who Jesus is. They solved it with fixating the Trinity doctrine as dogma.

I think the Church was baffled because they realized that Jesus was more than just a man, so they made Him into God.
What the Church did not understand is that Jesus had two natures, a human nature and a divine nature. It is the divine nature from which Jesus was the Voice of God, but from His human nature He was just a human like the rest of us. Baha'is believe that Jesus was a Manifestation of God but not God in the flesh, as Christians believe. God is spirit and cannot become flesh.

“Unto this subtle, this mysterious and ethereal Being He hath assigned a twofold nature; the physical, pertaining to the world of matter, and the spiritual, which is born of the substance of God Himself. He hath, moreover, conferred upon Him a double station. The first station, which is related to His innermost reality, representeth Him as One Whose voice is the voice of God Himself…. The second station is the human station, exemplified by the following verses: “I am but a man like you.” “Say, praise be to my Lord! Am I more than a man, an apostle?”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 66-67

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't want to engage in any more in wrangling as we are doing now to determine who is more virtuous. I also don't want to have debate, and it has become heated as of late. You can blame me if you want to for it become heated, and indeed I do bear a lot of responsibility for it being more heated.

I have difficulty being here where debate is the norm. I get caught up in it. I prefer to come to points of agreement though consultation.

As I am not good at discussing religion in an oral sense, that's why I am here despite the prevailing debate in any forum. If I go to a discussion section, I get little takers in having a discussion. They are relatively empty places, but I now realize I should change my ways, and just be in discussion forums. This isn't working. I get too caught up debating, and I have a temper.

I understand how you feel about debating, but consultation is not what people do on forums. Those quotes you cited refer to how Baha'is come to points of agreement in Baha'i meetings. They do not apply to religious forums. In a forum such as this people are not going to agree so discussion is the alternative to debate, and we can all learn from a discussion. There is no need to fight to win as long as we can leave our ego out and just say it is our opinion or our belief, because after all, none of this religious stuff can be proven, so it is a matter of opinion or belief.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

Okay, I think I'm following you a little better here. Where I still don't quite get your meaning is where you saying engaging within their desire for justice. Are you saying that you have to speak to their sense of justice for those who wronged them? Where does justice fit in there?

BTW, while I don't find the Divine to be the source of "paying back" others for wrongs done by them in the sense of punishment, I do believe there is a balance that occurs of its own, with any external agent exacting revenge, like some grand executioner, the angry god who tortures wrongdoers as a payback for a life a sin. I see it more in the sense of a spiritual buoyancy. If you have lightened your load in this life, you float or exist at a higher level. Where you are now, you are at when you leave this life. If you're in darkness, spiritually heavy, then you exist at a lower level now, and in the next life.

So in that sense, there is a perfect Divine justice. That is truly your own doing. But it's not the God of Love, suddenly becoming the God of Vengeance. We harm ourselves through our own actions. If we live in darkness now, we will pick up right where we left off. God is only just always there inviting to 'come up higher'. Never kicking or punishing those who don't make the grade, as some imagine of God. They punish themselves for missing what was there for them the whole time.

So are you saying that that "wounded child" needs to understand this in order to move beyond clinging to darkness of their own wounds?

You have beliefs.

This is my last message to you for now:
The one who takes the test is ready. If you never decide that you’re ready, then you will never take the test. If you never decide that you will pass the test, then you will never deem yourself ready.

 

[Windwalker]

Truth is correspondence to/with fact.

Is it? Is it that simple? I don't think so. Just to give a taste as to how complex a question that is, just skim over this article about truth on Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Truth (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

In my basic view, I see truth as perception. A theological truth, is a different order of truth than a historical truth. Can there be overlap between them? Of course, but a theological truth, or the truth of faith, the eyes of faith, is what carries the value of meaning. Just citing historical facts doesn't carry that kind of truth with it. Symbolic truth, is where we live. Truth is far more fluid and dynamic than facts.

Can Jesus of faith ignore what actual hystorical Jesus said about himself and what actually happened?

Can we know what historical Jesus really said about himself? I'll say the answer to that is that is probably unlikely. Considering the Jesus of faith is based on far more than just the sayings of Jesus, then I would answer knowing what Jesus said or didn't say about himself is kind of besides the point.

It's the Jesus of faith, the theological Jesus, that image of the Divine contained in the paintings about him (which is what the gospels are, works of art depicting the artists impressions of the Christ), the "facts" are honestly not what the actual focus is on to begin with.

If theology is not based on historical Jusus then it's just pure speculation, mind gymnastics, wishful thinking...

Incorrect. It's based upon inspired impressions of who that person was to them. The Jesus of faith. Think of the gospels as I just said, artist's portraits of who they saw Jesus as. There is the Jesus according to Matthew, the Jesus according to Mark, the Jesus according to Luke, and the Jesus according to John. You have four different "according to's", or paintings.

These are not histories in the way we think of historians today. They were religious and devotional in nature, not meant as biographies.

They couldn't even get the stories right as they don't match.

You're right. If they were trying to be historians, they failed miserably! But is the problem the gospels, or the people who don't understand what the gospels intentions were about?

That's like saying that Monet really slaughtered getting the details of water lilies right in his painting! It's not realistic at all! Imagine an art critic saying that? Clearly, he doesn't understand the nature of Impressionist paintings and what they are about.

Monet's works are about photorealism! Exact same thing in thinking the gospels are meant as to be the works of historians.

By hystorical I don't mean just the facts. I mean first hand experience. The earliest accounts of Jesus are written by anonimous authors who were not eye-witnesses and they present the eye-witnesses (the apostles) as too dumb (slow in faith) to get it.

Exactly. Which should be your first clue that these weren't written to be historical records. Matthew did not follow around behind Jesus and jotting down his words in a book to later write his gospel with. That's pure fantasy.

Have you ever seen Galaxy Quest? If so, think of that species who had watched the TV shows beamed out from earth of the the Galaxy Quest actors and their space adventures, and mistook them all as "historical documents".

That is exactly the problem here in reading the gospels as "historical documents". They weren't written to be that. They were faith-inspired dramas. Dramas with messages to live by, communicated by the actors and teachings in the stories. They are stories of the Good News. You could call them the Good News book series.

 

[Windwalker]

I don't want to engage in any more in wrangling as we are doing now to determine who is more virtuous. I also don't want to have debate, and it has become heated as of late. You can blame me if you want to for it become heated, and indeed I do bear a lot of responsibility for it being more heated.

Again, please speak only for yourself. I have not felt heated at all in our discussions. I'm am very aware of my own emotional states. The only time I felt upset was when you blasted me unexpectedly with your insulting "I'm done with you!" speech. That's was like someone abruptly slapping you in the face while you thought you were having a friendly discussion.

Again, never once did I feel heated or frustrated, until that outburst.

I have difficulty being here where debate is the norm. I get caught up in it. I prefer to come to points of agreement though consultation.

As I am not good at discussing religion in an oral sense, that's why I am here despite the prevailing debate in any forum. If I go to a discussion section, I get little takers in having a discussion. They are relatively empty places, but I now realize I should change my ways, and just be in discussion forums. This isn't working. I get too caught up debating, and I have a temper.

I do not view my expressing my disagreements as "arguing". I view that as part of a healthy dialog. I do the same thing in non-debate forums, as well. I don't like arguing. If I felt that's what I was engaging in, I wouldn't be wasting my time. It's not beneficial to anyone.

If you feel like you are arguing, then examine what your motives are in yourself and why or where those may be coming from. That's what I do when I don't like the way I've been behaving. When in the past with certain others I become frustrated with what its pulling out in me, then I step away. It's better for me not to feed that dog in myself, so to speak. But I never once felt that way or that need in our conservations.

I'm always here for a good healthy discussion of our differences, without being argumentative. It's totally up to you in what you feel you can do or not.

 

[Windwalker]

You have beliefs.

I thought I had questions. That's why I asked you for clarification. You did say I should ask you, so I did. I was hoping for you clarifying for me, since I am open and willing to understand your points of view. Are you stating here you think I have my mind made up and am unwilling to listen? Is that what you mean by "you have beliefs"?

This is my last message to you for now:
The one who takes the test is ready. If you never decide that you’re ready, then you will never take the test. If you never decide that you will pass the test, then you will never deem yourself ready.

Do you believe you understand where I am at on my path, and this is directed to me? In the last post you said I was the shepherd, which I had not previously understood your meaning to be. Now you are saying I need to decide to take the test of faith? Do you really think you understand where I am at in my growth?

You're not making sense. And I don't believe it is because I am unable to see the greater Mysteries. Take to heart the meaning of Paul's instructions here:

"If the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle? So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air."​

​

1 Cor. 14:8-9​

 

[Twilight Hue]

Interesting!.

Here, the majority of people who reject Baha'u'llah, are of the opinion that Baha'u'llah sincerely believed He was a Messenger of God, but He was delusional, as opposed to being a Liar knowingly.

Illusions of grandeur as I see the man.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Do you have a need to tear down the Baha'is or the Baha'i Faith?

I don’t care what religion thinks about me. I’m against the ideas that promote ignorance and hatred. I criticize my own religious beliefs. It’s healthy to see one’s religion clearly. If your faith can’t stand criticism, feel free to put me on ignore.

 

[Dawnofhope]

If he proclaimed he was the return of Christ and the Message of God for the Age, that is self-promotion. And I disagree that was necessary. Jesus never went around proclaiming he was the Messiah, did he?

Regardless of whether or not Baha'u'llah was who He claimed to be, Jesus certainly made similar claims about who He was and encouraged His disciples to do the same.

 

[Windwalker]

Regardless of whether or not Baha'u'llah was who He claimed to be, Jesus certainly made similar claims about who He was and encouraged His disciples to do the same.

Did he? Even in the stories about him (the gospels), he never came out proclaiming he was the Messiah. "Whom do men say that I am? Whom do you say that I am?", he asked his own disciples. He didn't even proclaim it to them. He didn't go around self-promoting, according to the way the narratives read.

And furthermore, the gospels were not Jesus writing about himself. They were the portraits of how the various authors saw him. They were artist's renditions, not photorealism, VHS recorded documentaries. They weren't there when Jesus was born to see the star and the Maji coming from the East. They weren't there when he prayed alone in the garden, yet recorded his very words and the whole scene.

This is very different from someone in the 1800's writing in his own hand words about himself on documents we have in hand today.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I see it now but I did not see it eariler because I am running on empty since I hardly slept owing to a home emergency that happened late last night. I am glad you caught the contradiction in my post.
It is the apostle Paul and the church that made Jesus into who he never claimed to be. I don't think that Jesus ever said those things about Himself, but the problem is that Christians believe it is all the words of Jesus, and Christianity is based upon this.

Some truth in this, I think. Building a religion around him distracts somewhat from Jesus' universal message of love and forgiveness. The religion has often got in the way of the message, but on the other hand it has also sustained the message.

And it's more than a little ironic, that a man who told his disciples "He that is greatest among you shall be your servant" should be portrayed as a King, placed at the head of a hierarchical institution.

On the other hand, I have known people say with convincing sincerity that they have felt Christ walking at their side. So I'm agnostic - which is to say not entirely dismissive - about the resurrection, and the possibly divine nature of Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[Trailblazer]

On the other hand, I have known people say with convincing sincerity that they have felt Christ walking at their side. So I'm agnostic - which is to say not entirely dismissive - about the resurrection, and the possibly divine nature of Jesus of Nazareth.

I believe that God conferred upon Jesus a divine nature that ordinary humans do not possess. God assigned a twofold nature upon Jesus, the physical, pertaining to the world of matter, and the divine nature, which is born of the substance of God Himself.

“Unto this subtle, this mysterious and ethereal Being He hath assigned a twofold nature; the physical, pertaining to the world of matter, and the spiritual, which is born of the substance of God Himself. He hath, moreover, conferred upon Him a double station. The first station, which is related to His innermost reality, representeth Him as One Whose voice is the voice of God Himself. To this testifieth the tradition: “Manifold and mysterious is My relationship with God. I am He, Himself, and He is I, Myself, except that I am that I am, and He is that He is.” …. The second station is the human station, exemplified by the following verses: “I am but a man like you.” “Say, praise be to my Lord! Am I more than a man, an apostle?”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 66-67

 

[Trailblazer]

Did he? Even in the stories about him (the gospels), he never came out proclaiming he was the Messiah.

Then how does anyone know that Jesus was the Messiah? Maybe the Christians just decided that Jesus was the Messiah.
Why is that 'better' than Jesus honestly proclaiming that He was the Messiah, if He was the Messiah?

 

[PearlSeeker]

That is exactly the problem here in reading the gospels as "historical documents". They weren't written to be that. They were faith-inspired dramas. Dramas with messages to live by, communicated by the actors and teachings in the stories. They are stories of the Good News. You could call them the Good News book series.

"And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain." (1 Cor 15:14)

Christian faith and teachings depend on the historicity of the events (at least in outline).

 

[Dawnofhope]

Did he? Even in the stories about him (the gospels), he never came out proclaiming he was the Messiah. "Whom do men say that I am? Whom do you say that I am?", he asked his own disciples. He didn't even proclaim it to them. He didn't go around self-promoting, according to the way the narratives read.

And furthermore, the gospels were not Jesus writing about himself. They were the portraits of how the various authors saw him. They were artist's renditions, not photorealism, VHS recorded documentaries. They weren't there when Jesus was born to see the star and the Maji coming from the East. They weren't there when he prayed alone in the garden, yet recorded his very words and the whole scene.

This is very different from someone in the 1800's writing in his own hand words about himself on documents we have in hand today.

It is certainly true that we have no actual writings that can be attributed to Jesus as we do for Baha'u'llah. What we do have are accounts of the Life and Teachings of Jesus through the Gospels. How reliable those accounts are is another topic.

The Gospel of John leaves us under no illusion that Jesus is God Himself and the Son of God.

For Example John 10:30-36

"I and my Father are one.
Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"

Clearly His audience understood Jesus claims of Divinity and considered it blasphemy.

The claim to be the Son of God also led to His crucifixion in Matthew 26:63-66

"But Jesus held his peace, And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.
What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death."

It appears that various claims of Divinity from the words of Jesus Himself were understood to have crossed the line with the Jewish people and High Priest Caiaphus.

Should we reject Jesus the Christ because He made such claims? I believe they require careful investigation.

 

[Windwalker]

The Gospel of John leaves us under no illusion that Jesus is God Himself and the Son of God.
.......
Clearly His audience understood Jesus claims of Divinity and considered it blasphemy.

Yes, this is John's view of Jesus. Each gospel writer has a different image of Christ they wished to portray. As I mentioned before, these are not historians. They are instead creating portraits of the Christ as they wished the audience to see. It reflects themselves as the artists in the painting, so to speak.

The claim to be the Son of God also led to His crucifixion in Matthew 26:63-66

...

It appears that various claims of Divinity from the words of Jesus Himself were understood to have crossed the line with the Jewish people and High Priest Caiaphus.

You're conflating John's Jesus with Matthew's Jesus. The Son of God in Matthew does not necessarily mean the Incarnate God as it does in John. In Matthew, they are wanting to crucify him because he claimed to be the messiah which did not mean "equal to God" as it did in John's gospel.

Should we reject Jesus the Christ because He made such claims? I believe they require careful investigation.

As I've said before, seeing Jesus as Divine, as something his followers claimed of him and wrote into their stories about him. This is the Jesus of faith. Not necessarily the historical Jesus. The Jesus of faith is important, but it's important to recognize the nature of faith versus historical facts.

Generally speaking today, if we have someone going around claiming themselves to be the Christ, we mainly recognize this as delusional. That others may see that in someone, who themselves does not say that about themselves as an act of self-promotion, has much, much more depth of meaning than someone announcing they are the Christ returned, the Prophet of the New Age, and the like.

It's fairly common for people who are delusional to claim they are the 2nd coming of Jesus. I think just being the Light of the World, rather than going around claiming that's what you are, has more truth to it. Those who are Enlightened, don't need to announce it. That's my point.

 

[Windwalker]

"And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain." (1 Cor 15:14)

Christian faith and teachings depend on the historicity of the events (at least in outline).

That's tricky. That depends how one views the resurrection of Jesus, whether it as a spiritual resurrection, or a physical one. If it was a spiritual resurrection, which many believed back then and do today, it is happening in a subtle domain, so "history" has really little bearing upon it. Where do we go after we die? Is it somewhere physical? Then time and history have a bearing. If it not physical but spiritual, then you citing the importance of history is a moot point.

Considering the nature of faith is spiritual, and not material, then I see insistence upon historical facts to be misplaced. Faith and facts function differently. So I would say the resurrection should not be bound to historical facts. It happens in a spiritual reality, far more than any physical domain. The Bible doesn't exactly portray the risen Christ as a resuscitated corpse.

 

[PearlSeeker]

That's tricky. That depends how one views the resurrection of Jesus, whether it as a spiritual resurrection, or a physical one. If it was a spiritual resurrection, which many believed back then and do today, it is happening in a subtle domain, so "history" has really little bearing upon it. Where do we go after we die? Is it somewhere physical? Then time and history have a bearing. If it not physical but spiritual, then you citing the importance of history is a moot point.

Considering the nature of faith is spiritual, and not material, then I see insistence upon historical facts to be misplaced. Faith and facts function differently. So I would say the resurrection should not be bound to historical facts. It happens in a spiritual reality, far more than any physical domain. The Bible doesn't exactly portray the risen Christ as a resuscitated corpse.

The Bible portrays resurrection as physical.

See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have. (Lk 24:39)​

God raised Him up on the third day and granted that He be revealed, not to all the people, but to witnesses who had been chosen beforehand by God, that is, to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead. (Acts 10:41)​

​

Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and yet You will raise it up in three days?” But He was speaking about the temple of His body. (John 2:19-21)​

​

 

[Dawnofhope]

Yes, this is John's view of Jesus. Each gospel writer has a different image of Christ they wished to portray. As I mentioned before, these are not historians. They are instead creating portraits of the Christ as they wished the audience to see. It reflects themselves as the artists in the painting, so to speak.

Agreed.

You're conflating John's Jesus with Matthew's Jesus. The Son of God in Matthew does not necessarily mean the Incarnate God as it does in John. In Matthew, they are wanting to crucify him because he claimed to be the messiah which did not mean "equal to God" as it did in John's gospel

I've provided contrasting examples of claims that would be seen as arrogant. The claims of being God and/or Son of God are different but are extraordinary claims that could be perceived as arrogant and blasphemy. There's at least a hint of Divinity in being the one and only Son of God. Maybe not the same as God Himself but heading in that general direction.

As I've said before, seeing Jesus as Divine, as something his followers claimed of him and wrote into their stories about him. This is the Jesus of faith. Not necessarily the historical Jesus. The Jesus of faith is important, but it's important to recognize the nature of faith versus historical facts.

The historical Jesus isn't much of a portrait as there is so little we know for certain about Jesus. He was an itinerant Jewish Preacher who was probably baptised and crucified. It's not saying a lot. It just tells us Jesus was a real person. So maybe Jesus didn't claim to be God as the author of the Gospel of John makes out. Maybe He wasn't the Son of God or the Messiah, or never claimed to be. It's clear however that the early Christians believed and taught these aspects of who Jesus was as they continue to do so today.

Generally speaking today, if we have someone going around claiming themselves to be the Christ, we mainly recognize this as delusional. That others may see that in someone, who themselves does not say that about themselves as an act of self-promotion, has much, much more depth of meaning than someone announcing they are the Christ returned, the Prophet of the New Age, and the like.

It's fairly common for people who are delusional to claim they are the 2nd coming of Jesus. I think just being the Light of the World, rather than going around claiming that's what you are, has more truth to it. Those who are Enlightened, don't need to announce it. That's my point.

According to the Gospels Jesus was considered blasphemous which is not too dissimilar to delusional and grandiose.

I worked in psychiatry for a few years. All those who claimed to be the return of Christ were clearly mentally unwell, didn't have any followers and generally weren't up to much in their lives. I wouldn't put Baha'u'llah or Christ in that category.

Being another Christ, Muhammad or Buddha is different from mere enlightenment. The claims Christ made as recorded in the Gospels are a big step up and have similarities to Baha'u'llah. Of course it doesn't mean they were true. It doesn't mean they are false either.