on Faith

On faith, you would have to ask Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as to why he made a claim when he was well aware of the claims of the Bab and Baha'u'llah, had even studied and said he had masteres the Writings of the Bab. (He never challenged the Bab and Baha'u'llah)

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad studied religion, was nothing special and piggy backed of other faiths. He changed his ideas about some religious subjects over time.
God can send messengers, manifestations, mahdis any time he wants. Who is to restrict him?
That is what Bahaollah also did. He rode piggy-back on Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Islam.
Don't you accept Abraham, Moses, Zoroaster, Jesus and Mohammad as messengers of God?
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad basically tried to reform Islam.
What is strange in that? Messengers are sent for this purpose only. God does not have 10 religions.
 
Last edited:
..then the Quran was revealed to Muhammad, which says that pork is unlawful..
..and then you tell me that Abdul Baha says that it is now lawful again. :)

Forgive me, for telling you that the above is nonsensical.
To change laws also is God's prerogative (abrogation).
All change and power is in the hands of Allah.
"lā ḥawla wa-lā quwwata ʾillā bi-llāh"
I do not eat red meat, especially pork.
What a person likes or does not like is immaterial. You are sure missing things in life. What about alcohol?
 
I just think those who teach others about the nature of Christ could find the time to read the New Testament in full context, or at least the Gospels -- really I do
What makes you think that I have not?

I offer a story "on faith" relative to the discussion, a test between darkness and light.

My mother, God bless her soul, was a born again Christian. When I found Faith in Baha'u'llah, my mother actually disowned me for a couple of years based on an interpretation of the Old Testament. She did apologise that as a Christian she should not have done that. As a consequence we have many discussion on the Bible, as I did over many years with a Jehovah Witness friend who loved next door.

My mother was a fixated on the Trinity, that Jesus was God, yet my reading of the New Testament found way more verses that indicated Jesus was not God. So I set myself a task, O would record all those verses, so read the New Testament front to back noting verses where it indicated Jesus did not associate himself as God or the disciples did not associate Jesus with being God. I ended up with 100's of passages noted on about 5 A4 pages (I still have them after 38 years).

So armed with this undisputable evidence, I started to compile my explanation. I did not get past the opening line, as it dawned on me the futility of trying to prove this to my mother. If I could read the Bible and find that many passages where Jesus was not associated with God,then it was just as plain for my mother to see. I could never change her mind, as only God could give my mother that ability.

That is applicable to all of us, God grants our Faith direction by allowing our free will to choose.

Regards Tony
 
What makes you think that I have not?
My mother was a fixated on the Trinity, that Jesus was God, yet my reading of the New Testament found way more verses that indicated Jesus was not God. So I set myself a task, O would record all those verses, so read the New Testament front to back noting verses where it indicated Jesus did not associate himself as God or the disciples did not associate Jesus with being God. I ended up with 100's of passages noted on about 5 A4 pages (I still have them after 38 years).
So is it true to say you last read the New Testament 38 years ago with the intention of finding verses where Jesus did not associate himself with God? You went into it with that deliberate agenda.

That's the last time you read it, and yet you refer to it every day? You set yourself up as a teacher concerning the nature of Christ?
 
Last edited:
This is always my issue in discussions with @Tony Bristow-Stagg and others too who seem to need to extract passages out of context -- but with only a sketchy knowledge of the New Testament.

Perhaps @Tony Bristow-Stagg could find time to read the NT again, to refresh himself about it, and then go on to discuss the nature of Christ with a more matured and adult view after 38 years? I know my own memory has faded in 38 years about a lot of things.

Just my own opinion
 
So is it true to say you last read the New Testament 38 years ago with the intention of finding verses where Jesus did not associate himself with God? You went into it with a deliberate agenda.

That's the last time you read it, and yet you refer to it every day? You set yourself up as a teacher concerning the nature of Christ?
I can offer RJM a small book that contains the entire Essence of all the Holy Books of the past. By reading this book, everything you can learn from past scriptures, can be found in these short Meditations. All our questions can be answered.

I take this as a fact, on faith in its author, God.


It opens with the statement referred to above and then it leads into our required state of being, for us to embrace the Counsels given by God.

Regards Tony
 
This is always my issue in discussions with @Tony Bristow-Stagg and others too who seem to need to extract passages out of context -- but with only a sketchy knowledge of the New Testament.

Perhaps @Tony Bristow-Stagg could find time to read the NT again, to refresh himself about it, and then go on to discuss the nature of Christ with a more matured and adult view after 38 years? I know my own memory has faded in 38 years about a lot of things.

Just my own opinion
That is because you are not aware of what I have read and built my faith upon RJM.

Regards Tony
 
But Jesus said all this, and more, in far better terms. What's new here?

The Sermon on the Mount

I still think it would be useful for @Tony Bristow-Stagg to read the New Testament (again after 38 years) before setting out to teach about the nature of Christ

Whatever ... I rest my case
 
Last edited:
I see and personally would say it is a leap into the Light. As such Faith is enlightenment. The unknown self, the self that embraces the light, is pursued and knowledge of our spiritual selves is gained, whole new worlds are opened before our eyes.
That's certainly a stage along the way, but as you say, it's a leap into the light, so it starts in darkness and, at the summit, it's a leap from the light into a whole other order of darkness.

In the Christian Mystical Tradition, there is the threefold path of Purgation - Illumination - Union.

The first 'leap' is from ignorance to knowledge, Purgation to Illumination, darkness into light. One could say this is the movement from the carnal self to the spiritual self.

The final 'leap' is from Illumination to Union, which leaves behind the 'self' as such, physically spiritually. St Paul speaks eloquently of this: "I know a man in Christ above fourteen years ago (whether in the body, I know not, or out of the body, I know not; God knoweth), such a one caught up to the third heaven." (2 Corinthians 12:2)

Dionysius says:
"... the Good Cause of all things is eloquent yet speaks few words, or rather none; possessing neither speech nor understanding because it exceedeth all things in a super-essential manner, and is revealed in Its naked truth to those alone who pass right through the opposition of fair and foul, and pass beyond the topmost altitudes of the holy ascent and leave behind them all divine enlightenment and voices and heavenly utterances and plunge into the Darkness where truly dwells, as saith the Scripture, that One Which is beyond all things."

With regard to the threefold process, Dionysius goes on with an exegesis:
"(Purgation) For not without reason is the blessed Moses bidden first to undergo purification himself and then to separate himself from those who have not undergone it; and after all purification (Illumination) hears the many-voiced trumpets and sees many lights flash forth with pure and diverse-streaming rays, and then stands separate from the multitudes and with the chosen priests presses forward to the topmost pinnacle of the Divine Ascent. Nevertheless he meets not with God Himself, yet he beholds – not Him indeed (for He is invisible) – but the place wherein He dwells. And this I take to signify that the divinest and the highest of the things perceived by the eyes of the body or the mind are but the symbolic language of things subordinate to Him who Himself transcendeth them all. Through these things His incomprehensible presence is shown walking upon those heights of His holy places which are perceived by the mind; (Union) and then It breaks forth, even from the things that are beheld and from those that behold them, and plunges the true initiate unto the Darkness of Unknowing wherein he renounces all the apprehensions of his understanding and is enwrapped in that which is wholly intangible and invisible, belonging wholly to Him that is beyond all things and to none else (whether himself or another), and being through the passive stillness of all his reasoning powers united by his highest faculty to Him that is wholly Unknowable, of whom thus by a rejection of all knowledge he possesses a knowledge that exceeds his understanding.
(The Mystical Theology, Chapter I, 3.)
 
I think we have to allow that God will see the true heart, even when the heart is led astray ...
That is the dark side, even if we are not aware of it.

A quandary for all that say they have Faith.

Personally I know who leads me astray, and it was not any of the Messengers, it is my own self.

Regards Tony
 
You asked why not just follow Jesus, from my frame of reference, I would not be following Jesus, if I did not embrace Muhammad and Baha'u'llah, that is why.
To which I would reply you follow Jesus from a Baha'i frame of reference, to which I would say, why not go to the source?

Jesus stated Baptism was a necessity (John 3:5), yet the Baha'i do not baptise; Jesus instituted the Eucharist (Mark 14, Matthew 26, Luke 22, John 6, 1 Corinthians 10), yet the Baha'i do not celebrate.

Apart from following a generic and exoteric teaching, I don't really see an embrace of Jesus, or if any, only very superficially.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Logically Paul would not write about Muhammad and Baha'u'llah, as he had embraced Jesus for the age he lived. I offer the context of the talk progresses with and is applicable to Faith in each of the Prophets.
Nope. Hebrews 13:8 "Jesus Christ, yesterday, and today; and the same for ever."

It's because you don't understand who Jesus is and what He is that you can assume His teaching has a 'best-by' date attached.
 
Back
Top