on Faith

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

You think it refers to Baha'u'llah?

I think it refers to the Revelations of God given by Baha'u'llah and all the Messengers.

The Father has come to bring about the Most Great Peace, thy Kingdom Come, Thy Will he done, as in the Lords Prayer.

Tha ks for the question, Regards Tony

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

It's obviously a typo @Tony Bristow-Stagg
-- read 'are' for 'ate'

Thank you, that makes much more sense. But it also taked about practicing rituals, which we do not have, thus I thought it may be referencing the sacrament in some way.

Thus my frame of reference was to broad.

Regards Tony

 

[RJM]

I think it refers to the Revelations of God given by Baha'u'llah and all the Messengers.

Jesus was talking about Baha'u'llah?

“Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; so how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
John 14:7-9

it also taked about practicing rituals, which we do not have

Of course you do.

You say Allah-u-Abha 99 times in the morning facing the grave of Baha'u'llah, as well as other obligatory prayers, and various feasts and dedications every few weeks

 

[muhammad_isa]

It poses the problem of how Adam, Moses and Noah were resurrected from the dead for the meeting, because the resurrection of the dead is said to happen (only) on the last day

That is interesting.
In a similar fashion, one can ask about Divine destiny, and how we are not able to freely
choose our own path.

In other words, I see "time" as a complex topic. "time", as in the here and now, is defined
as in this universe.

..and finally, the "place" which Muhammad SAW met former prophets,
was not in this universe.

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Of course you do.

You say Allah-u-Abha 99 times in the morning facing the grave of Baha'u'llah, as well as other obligatory prayers, and various feasts and dedications every few weeks

May I suggest one could choose to have a look at the difference between worship and ritual.

Regards Tony

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Jesus was talking about Baha'u'llah?

This is an enormous subject about the nature of God and the Holy Spirit, there is no one answer, so everything offered requires tangents of explanations to be considered.

But basically Yes. The Manifestations of God such as Jesus are of the same Holy Spirit, so in reality they are in constant communication with each other. At times they speak as a man like us, at times they speak as God has told them to do and at times they share in each others experiences in the given Revelations.

An interesting thought is that both the Bab and Baha'u'llah have offered that it was they that had conversed with Moses through the Burning Bush. This also leads to another interesting thought, which there is also explanations to be found, that the Messengers may actually send themselves.

These are thoughts some have derived from the many scriptures, the discussions are found on the Web. Some are way to deep for me, as they do require extensive knowledge of many ancient traditions and Faith concepts. I do enjoy reading them though, who knows, some of it may stick to memory.

If you are interested I can track down those papers and link them.

Regards Tony

 

[wil]

Sorry that wording also does not make sense to me. (You ate a Baha'i?)

Holier than thou? That is far from my position in life.

Regards Tony

The t is next to the r, my fingers made a mistake and my eyes did not catch it.

You claim to be a Christian? Are you not a Baha'i and arguing Christianity from a bahai position... in the Christian forum?

Do Baha'i also claim to be Buddhist? Hindu? Jewis? Muslim? I'd ask how that goes...but we all know.

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

The t is next to the r, my fingers made a mistake and my eyes did not catch it.

You claim to be a Christian? Are you not a Baha'i and arguing Christianity from a bahai position... in the Christian forum?

Do Baha'i also claim to be Buddhist? Hindu? Jewis? Muslim? I'd ask how that goes...but we all know.

I see they are all names of the same reality, so all those Names are One, the laws and ordinances change from age to age. One can embrace the laws that are applicable to the age they live in. The core teachings are One across all Faiths.

Thus I argue for app Faiths in the same manner I embrace all the Messengers.

God bless always, regards Tony

 

[RJM]

This is an enormous subject about the nature of God and the Holy Spirit, there is no one answer, so everything offered requires tangents of explanations to be considered.

But basically Yes. The Manifestations of God such as Jesus are of the same Holy Spirit, so in reality they are in constant communication with each other. At times they speak as a man like us, at times they speak as God has told them to do and at times they share in each others experiences in the given Revelations.

An interesting thought is that both the Bab and Baha'u'llah have offered that it was they that had conversed with Moses through the Burning Bush. This also leads to another interesting thought, which there is also explanations to be found, that the Messengers may actually send themselves.

These are thoughts some have derived from the many scriptures, the discussions are found on the Web. Some are way to deep for me, as they do require extensive knowledge of many ancient traditions and Faith concepts. I do enjoy reading them though, who knows, some of it may stick to memory.

If you are interested I can track down those papers and link them.

Sigh …

And why should I be interested in the windy ramblings of the single-minded followers of Baha’u’llah – as they try to manipulate the words of Jesus to say the opposite of what they DO say – in order to support their own new Christ figure?

 

[RJM]

I was trying to make light as you take offence so readily.


Oh, but it does.

OK – show me how it doesn't.

Be warned – there a vast amount of scholarship out there. safer to say in your opinion it doesn't – I can see that. Your 'frame of reference' cannot allow it – and statements such as yours suggests a certain fundamentalism.
(It might be the case that there's a lack of insight and understanding.)

On the one hand we have the Trinitarian theology ranging across centuries of Christian thought.
We also have philosophical debates regarding the One and the Many, and the likes of Plotinus and Proclus coming up with analogous triune theories like the One, Intellect and the Soul; we have Hindu's Cit-Sat-Ananda (Being-Consciousness-Bliss) – and all necessarily prefigured in the One.

So the One is simple, a Unity without Diversity ... but now we're really pushing metaphysical bounds.

(In fact the evidence is compelling, when we consider the universe – a lower order of existence cannot possess a property that is not already in its Cause, nor can a Cause effect something greater than itself.)

So there is necessarily Unity in the One, and this is what the theological Trinity is all about.

The activity of the Divine Persons of the Trinity in the world is particular to this universe, and here we can have a hierarchy of Father and Son and Holy Spirit, in which the Father reveals the Son (who is always with the Father and the Holy Spirit) and the Son in turn reveals the Holy Spirit (who is always with the Father and the Son) – a vertical line.

Mystical assent is then by the reverse process – the Holy Spirit reveals the Son in and to the soul, and the soul cries "Abba!" (Father) in recognition (Galatians 4:6 and Romans 8:15) – the point here is the soul can only say Abba in a confessional sense; but when the Holy Spirit Indwells the soul, then the recognition is immediate and most intimate, the soul cries out with the Son's voice, as it were, being in union with Christ.


But your 'frame of reference' disallows everything unique and mystical in mine. It reduces mine to a banality.

When I read the commentaries of spiritual writers – and not Christian ones alone (I'm talking of the Traditionalist School within the Sophia Perennis), and indeed particularly a Sufi and a Tibetan Buddhist – then both have opened my eyes to new depths of understanding of my own tradition, without once having to declare that tradition corrupt or out-moded or mistaken or plain wrong ... whereas when I read Baha'i commentary I find it throttles the possible meaning of Scripture, shuts down insights and draws a veil over horizons ...

I was for many years a lapsed Catholic, and thought of Jesus as a teacher, a troublemaker, a wonderworker – all the New Age ideas – then one simple line from the pen of a Tibetan Buddhist, it was classically a statement of the 'blindingly obvious' that passes without notice until someone makes the point. And then the curtain slipped away, and I saw with fresh eyes.

One could call it an apocalyptic moment, a Damascus moment, an epiphany.

Sadly, when I read your interpretation of Scripture, the reverse is the case. Christ cannot be who I believe Him to be, but who you believe Him to be ... not the Incarnate Logos of God (it's a metaphor), not the Second Person of the Holy Trinity (that's just all wrong), nor the Resurrected Christ (another metaphor); the Holy Spirit is not the Third Person (metaphor again), and the Paraclete is not the Holy Spirit but Baha'u'llah (even though the text would be contradictory is such were the case – and besides, Islam beat you to that one) ...

Saddest of all, I cannot hope for a Participation in the Divine, except at some remove (more metaphors) Theosis is a metaphor, and metaphors are not realities ...

So despite who God is, despite what the Bible says, despite centuries of Christian witness, and despite my own experience .. all this stuff you disallow, and why? Because it has to be all about you.

Take Baha'u'llah out of the equation, and it's a New Age Romance (No doubt Baha'u'llah is King Arthur, too ...)

And everyone must worship like us ... If there was any message for this age, it is one of religious totalitarianism.

@Thomas Thank you for this post

The activity of the Divine Persons of the Trinity in the world is particular to this universe, and here we can have a hierarchy of Father and Son and Holy Spirit, in which the Father reveals the Son (who is always with the Father and the Holy Spirit) and the Son in turn reveals the Holy Spirit (who is always with the Father and the Son) – a vertical line.

This …

It is in this timespace dimension of man and nature, that the Father/Son analogy applies.

Because there are many other dimensions and states of being. God is also the God of the neutron star, and of the fish or tree or tiny insect, or of the living Earth itself – but the Trinity/Christ applies to the relationship of God to Man, imo

then one simple line from the pen of a Tibetan Buddhist, it was classically a statement of the 'blindingly obvious' that passes without notice until someone makes the point. And then the curtain slipped away, and I saw with fresh eyes.

Would you care to share it here?

So despite who God is, despite what the Bible says, despite centuries of Christian witness, and despite my own experience .. all this stuff you disallow, and why? Because it has to be all about you.

Rather because the Quran disallows it?

"4:171 O People of the Book! Do not go to extremes regarding your faith; say nothing about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was no more than a messenger of Allah and the fulfilment of His Word through Mary and a spirit ˹created by a command˺ from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers and do not say, “Trinity.” Stop!—for your own good. Allah is only One God. Glory be to Him! He is far above having a son! To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And Allah is sufficient as a Trustee of Affairs."

Muhammad warned us more than once.

"5:73 Those who say, “Allah is one in a Trinity,” have certainly fallen into disbelief. There is only One God. If they do not stop saying this, those who disbelieve among them will be afflicted with a painful punishment. Will they not turn to Allah in repentance and seek His forgiveness?"

The Baha'i faith requires Christians to accept the authority of the Quran over the New Testament, and then to accept the authority of the writings of Baha'u'llah over all other scriptures for the next 800 years for all mankind

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Sigh …

And why should I be interested in the windy ramblings of the single-minded followers of Baha’u’llah – as they try to manipulate the words of Jesus to say the opposite of what they DO say – in order to support their own new Christ figure?

It would be entirely up to you as to why you would or would not consider the Oneness offered, a unity in our obvious diversity.

Regards Tony

 

[Thomas]

In the Tablet of Ahmad
"... Be thou assured in thyself that verily, he who turns away from this Beauty hath also turned away from the Messengers of the past and showeth pride towards God from all eternity to all eternity..."

If all Messengers are a Manifestation of God, why are they different in appearance? Should they not, in manifesting the One, be exactly alike? (And that's a serious question.)

As an aside, again and again, if the Baha'i would allow that all messengers are from the One, and listening to them is responding to the Call of God, then I could accept the Baha'i Faith – but you take it upon yourselves to correct and belittle the Messengers, which suggests to me a certain pride towards the works of God, in the assumption that your Messenger is superior to all others.

It's suprematism – and, as I said, its tendency is a totalitarian ideology.

 

[Thomas]

It is true, they are all One and with God. I have personally chosen to embrace "The Glory of God", as God has, as God Chooses to do, fulfilled the promises given in the Tanakh and by Jesus Christ.

Regards Tony

Only by twisting the words to fit 'your frame of reference'.

 

[Thomas]

Of course it is not what the author means as what was offered was in turn seen with a different frame of reference that is inclusive of all other faiths.

The point is to understand it from its own point of reference before offering commentary from another, it seems to me you're not letting the text say what it says, rather simply fit it to your 'frame of reference' and – it seems to me – miss the implication.

The apocalypse you describe is exactly as a Baha'i would see it, and it also has material dimensions.

Are you talking about the Apocalypse spoken of in the last Book of the New Testament?

The doctrinal apocalypse, the kind Hart is speaking of, will always 'break into' the continuum of the tradition – whilst it can appear revolutionary and radical, it's not a break from the tradition as an illumination, revealing something that was always implicit within it – what Hart is not suggesting, is that an apocalypse requires the wholesale wiping away of its Revealed content – rather the apocalypse offers a deeper and more profound insight into it.

 

[Thomas]

I see the Divine Nature is in Essence the Holy Spirit and that is where all the attributes emanate from, they are not part of the human nature.

It depends what you mean by 'attributes' –

All nature is created, hence it's source and origin is in the Divine, but you can't strip every attribute from a given nature, else the nature would be an empty shell. A things nature says what it is, and how it is ...

The Divine Nature, or Holy Spirit is the First Cause, it is the all the Messengers, it is all their Names, it is all the Attributes, it is Love.

Here again I think you make a category error: God is God, but when we say "Divine Nature, the Holy Spirit, the First Cause ..." such titles address aspects of the God made known through Revelation ... God is all those things, and 'beyond' them. You seem to think the terms are interchangeable, and at an exoteric level they are, but esoterically there are distinctions.

It is the failure to discern difference between these two domains, the esoteric and the exoteric, that leads you inadvertently to make overblown claims for Baha'u'llah.

To say "it (the Divine Nature) is the all the Messengers, it is all their Names, it is all the Attributes, it is Love." is on the one hand to reduce all to a bland sameness, at the exoteric level, which is not the case – St John the Baptist, for example, who is a Messenger – St John the Forerunner in the Eastern Tradition – is not equal and equivalent to Jesus.

On the other, is suggests God is the exemplar of everything – the sum total of Messengers, Names, Attributes, etc. whereas God is not the 'sum' of anything ...

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

If all Messengers are a Manifestation of God, why are they different in appearance? Should they not, in manifesting the One, be exactly alike? (And that's a serious question.)

That is a big question Thomas. Personally I have never contemplated such a question in that context.

Most likely as in this world nature itself reflects the individuality of all things, which will reflect the essence of the Holy Spirit.

From my understanding, the Holy Spirit contains all the names and attributes given of God, which are unlimited. Each of those unlimited Names and Attributes have a cause in creation.

All creation came from God, so we could juat as easily ask "why are the worlds not all the same", "why are the snowflakes of a storm all different"....etc. this is a creation of cyclic change where the elements of creation are in constant fluxuation

It would be a good topic. I would be happy to pursue what I can find out on that specific question,if you are interested, start a topic and I will join in the discussion. I am aware of some passages that may be applicable, but I will not introduce them in this OP.

Regards Tony

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

As an aside, again and again, if the Baha'i would allow that all messengers are from the One, and listening to them is responding to the Call of God, then I could accept the Baha'i Faith – but you take it upon yourselves to correct and belittle the Messengers, which suggests to me a certain pride towards the works of God, in the assumption that your Messenger is superior to all others.

Thomas I can confim that "all messengers are from the One, and listening to them is responding to the Call of God".

I would also humbly offer that the Baha'i do not take it upon themselves to belittle any Faith. All that is offered is taken from the "Word of God" and shared in Love.

You will find such passages in all the holy books, where it is God that is giving the reprimands to the "People of the previous Books", it is God that is giving the advice of the required changes via the new message, it is God giving the promise of our embracing of the Holy Spirit in the age we live.

Thus there can be absolutely no assumption that any Messenger is superior to all others, as it is all God given. I can say hand on heart, 100%, that there is no contemplation about any of the Messengers being superior. I can offer Baha'u'llah has given us many writings on this topic that guide our thoughts on that specific topic.

Christ is our path through the narrow gate to the source of our very being, the discovery of our own self, it is not possible for me to prefer one source to that path above another and it is up to me to find within my own self, the morals, virtues and service to humanity needed, to enable a pass through the narrow gate.

Regards Tony

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

The point is to understand it from its own point of reference before offering commentary from another, it seems to me you're not letting the text say what it says, rather simply fit it to your 'frame of reference' and – it seems to me – miss the implication.

Thomas do we understand anything without a given frame of reference?

We are born into this world with no frames of references and from the first moments of life we start building our knowledge of this world through many frames of references, the first and foremost is our parents nature and nurture. Then interactions with friends and on to schooling and programs of learning.

When we learn basic maths, does not the pursual of complex maths enable us to see the basic maths in a different light, as a step to greater knowledge?

When reading the New Testament and accepting it as ones given frame of reference, does that not allow one to read the Tanakh in a different light?

Both the basic maths and Tanakh remain as sure foundations, but we embrace them knowing they are the foundations required for a greater capacity, an unlimited capacity.

I see the Baha'i Wrirings in that light, the next stage of our understanding of God, as a united humanity. When we finally become one people on one planet, then the collective unity of mind will bring about amazing discoveries both material and spiritual.

The Baha'i Faith is not the Last Messenger, they will continue to come as we in turn muddy the ocean of God's Word. This is only the dawn of Thy kingdom come and God's Will being done on earth as it is in heaven. If only we could see the beginning and the end.

Imagine a fist or second century rank and file Christian witnessing our age, could they envisage the power of the Word that Jesus Christ gave us and what humanity has produced?

Regards Tony

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Only by twisting the words to fit 'your frame of reference'.

How can I twist them Thomas? They say what they say and God fulfills all prophecy as God chooses to do. That accusation noted above would be applicable to all those that have embraced God's given Messangers from the dawn of time.

That is why a Jew does not see Jesus as the Messiah, they would offer that a Christian has to twist what the Tanakh reveals, to make Jesus Christ fit.

That is what Faith is always about. The Word of God allows us to examine it with open hearts and open minds, as the Bible says, to be as a child free of preconceptions.

So, that is how I read the Baha'i Writings and I found they have the keys to understanding all the past Holy books, just as the Tanakh is understood by reading the New Testament.

Regards Tony

 

[RJM]

Thus there can be absolutely no assumption that any Messenger is superior to all others, as it is all God given. I can say hand on heart, 100%, that there is no contemplation about any of the Messengers being superior ...

Christ is our path through the narrow gate to the source of our very being, the discovery of our own self, it is not possible for me to prefer one source to that path above another and it is up to me to find within my own self, the morals, virtues and service to humanity needed, to enable a pass through the narrow gate.

This is a really good piece @Tony Bristow-Stagg

But the problem is that Jesus Christ already said it. What's the need for Baha'u'llah's repetition?

So it’s just nice sounding words that add nothing to the life and words of Jesus..

In fact Baha’i obviously DO consider the teachings of Baha’u’llah superior to the earlier teachings of the ‘messengers’ who preceded him (and none of whom claimed 'Christ' status)

I want to ask a question @Tony Bristow-Stagg

If the new updated teachings of Baha’u’llah Christ the Father are not ‘superior’ to the old outdated teachings of Jesus Christ the Son – what is their purpose? Why is Baha'u'llah needed?

If the new updated Copernican teaching that the Earth goes round the sun is not ‘superior’ to the old outdated Ptolemaic teaching that the Sun circles the Earth – what is the purpose? Why is it needed?

If the new updated Einstein teaching that time and space are relative to the observer is not ‘superior’ to the old outdated Newtonian teaching that time and space are absolute – what is the purpose of Einstein? Why is it needed?

What’s new about Baha’u’llah’s teaching that is not contained in the teachings of Jesus?

You're talking about world peace and so on, but that's 'exoteric' as @Thomas observes. Jesus Christ came from a much higher level, imo