OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 01, 2014, 02:30:25 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What is the Bahá'í Faith?  (Read 6360 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« on: February 19, 2011, 07:31:29 PM »

Saw someone on a message board believing in this faith, all I know about it is it originated in the 19th century and something about spiritual unity?

Was there originator another Muhammed archetype?
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,925


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #1 on: February 19, 2011, 07:40:06 PM »

The Bahai religion was formed in 19th Century Iran by a fellow named Bahá'u'lláh. It is a syncretic religion that believes all religious expressions are true, and that all religious texts really say the exact same thing. They are, in a sense, a revival of the Manichaeian Gnosticism (an Iranian heresy from the late 3rd Century AD, famously abandoned by St. Augustine in favor of Orthodoxy). Their Christology is similar to Arianism, denying that Jesus and God are consubstantial and coeternal; they view him as an "enlightened being" along with the other prophets, Buddha, Muhammad, etc.  
« Last Edit: February 19, 2011, 07:42:36 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #2 on: February 19, 2011, 07:43:04 PM »

So it's sort of like a New Age movement of synthesizing the spiritual aspects of each faith.

One has to wonder if Bahaullah could even read, and if he did ever read the Quran and the Bible.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,925


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #3 on: February 19, 2011, 07:45:41 PM »

So it's sort of like a New Age movement of synthesizing the spiritual aspects of each faith.
Yep. It's an "Old New-Age" movement.  Wink
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,854



« Reply #4 on: February 19, 2011, 07:50:55 PM »

A sect of a sect of a sect of a sect of a sect of a sect or Islam.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Cognomen
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Phyletism Rules, OK
Posts: 1,968


Ungrateful Biped


« Reply #5 on: February 19, 2011, 08:38:33 PM »

So it's sort of like a New Age movement of synthesizing the spiritual aspects of each faith.
Yep. It's an "Old New-Age" movement.  Wink

Kind of a "Best Of World Religions" religion.
Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,854



« Reply #6 on: February 19, 2011, 08:47:57 PM »

So it's sort of like a New Age movement of synthesizing the spiritual aspects of each faith.
Yep. It's an "Old New-Age" movement.  Wink

Kind of a "Best Of World Religions" religion.
The Muslim version of the Unitarian Universalists.

Go to the generic brand aisle, and you will find them next to each other in the boxes labeled "Religion."
« Last Edit: February 19, 2011, 08:49:51 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #7 on: February 19, 2011, 08:50:41 PM »

^^ LOL
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Cognomen
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Phyletism Rules, OK
Posts: 1,968


Ungrateful Biped


« Reply #8 on: February 19, 2011, 08:53:41 PM »

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy  Perfect!
Logged

North American Eastern Orthodox Parish Council Delegate for the Canonization of Saints Twin Towers and Pentagon, as well as the Propagation of the Doctrine of the Assumption of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 (NAEOPCDCSTTPPDAMAFM®).
Sen McGlinn
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Bahai
Posts: 28



WWW
« Reply #9 on: February 20, 2011, 06:47:37 AM »

So it's sort of like a New Age movement of synthesizing the spiritual aspects of each faith.

One has to wonder if Bahaullah could even read, and if he did ever read the Quran and the Bible.

Yes, he was a very literary writer: he quotes the Quran and traditions, the Bible, classical Persian poetry, and refers to writers in the medieval Arabic tradition, on history and philosophy. Considering that he was a prisoner most of his adult life, and presumably had little access to books, it's an amazing performance.

His first long work, the Kitab-e Iqan or Book of Certitude, is largely an exegesis of the little Apocalypse of Matthew 24, verses 29-31. You can read the book online or download it, at
http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/KI/ki-1.html#pg24 (the link is to the page where the exegesis begins: the book was written for a Persian Muslim who had asked some questions, so it begins with references to the Quran)

Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #10 on: February 20, 2011, 06:57:47 AM »

Welcome!

So Sen why are you in the Bahai faith? And what brings you to this board?
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Sen McGlinn
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Bahai
Posts: 28



WWW
« Reply #11 on: February 20, 2011, 10:52:25 AM »

Welcome!

So Sen why are you in the Bahai faith? And what brings you to this board?

Your question as to whether Bahaullah could read summoned me here. I'm a compulsive question-answerer.

I'm a Bahai by conviction and conversion, in which many factors played a part: what I think and experience about God and spirituality and the transcendent in human beings in the first place; what I see in the history of religions and their role in society second, and what I see in the Bahai Faith following that.

There's a thread on Bahai Forums in which a researcher has asked people how they became Bahais. My answer is there along with about a dozen others:
http://bahaiforums.com/new-users/3089-how-did-you-discover-bahai.html
« Last Edit: February 20, 2011, 10:57:14 AM by Sen McGlinn » Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #12 on: February 20, 2011, 07:35:18 PM »

I just find it interesting I make a thread on this and the same day you join this board and are associated with the faith, this just a mere coincedence?

That's why I wonder what brings you to Orthodox Christianity.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #13 on: February 20, 2011, 07:37:45 PM »

I just find it interesting I make a thread on this and the same day you join this board and are associated with the faith, this just a mere coincedence?

That's why I wonder what brings you to Orthodox Christianity.

google much?
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #14 on: February 20, 2011, 07:45:38 PM »

I just find it interesting I make a thread on this and the same day you join this board and are associated with the faith, this just a mere coincedence?

That's why I wonder what brings you to Orthodox Christianity.

google much?
I tried googling it, nothing populated. Usually it takes google a day to register a new thread.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #15 on: February 20, 2011, 07:51:46 PM »

I just find it interesting I make a thread on this and the same day you join this board and are associated with the faith, this just a mere coincedence?

That's why I wonder what brings you to Orthodox Christianity.

google much?
I tried googling it, nothing populated. Usually it takes google a day to register a new thread.

Nope. This board is indexed at least hourly:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=One+has+to+wonder+if+Bahaullah+could+even+read%2C+and+if+he+did+ever+read+the+Quran+and+the+Bible.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #16 on: February 20, 2011, 07:53:18 PM »

I just find it interesting I make a thread on this and the same day you join this board and are associated with the faith, this just a mere coincedence?

That's why I wonder what brings you to Orthodox Christianity.

google much?
I tried googling it, nothing populated. Usually it takes google a day to register a new thread.

Nope. This board is indexed at least hourly:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=One+has+to+wonder+if+Bahaullah+could+even+read%2C+and+if+he+did+ever+read+the+Quran+and+the+Bible.


Quite shocking the power of google, heh?

I've seen threads indexed within ten minutes (not here necessarily).
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #17 on: February 20, 2011, 08:00:46 PM »

My thing is though is how exactly did he find this site though. Because I searched generic terms regarding the faith, and this thread did not show up on google.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #18 on: February 20, 2011, 08:12:01 PM »

My thing is though is how exactly did he find this site though. Because I searched generic terms regarding the faith, and this thread did not show up on google.

He could be TtC for all I know, but you can set up google queries which are run frequently and return you their results. Maybe this guy had one about Bahai, the dude named, and reading and orthodoxy, who knows.

Don't underestimate the power of a zealot.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Sen McGlinn
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Bahai
Posts: 28



WWW
« Reply #19 on: February 21, 2011, 05:46:40 AM »


google much?

Yes, every day. I run a Bahai current-affairs site,
Sen's daily : http://sensday.wordpress.com/
so I google twice a day when I can, using the "last 24 hours" option under "advanced search."

Alternatively, you could believe that the Illuminati are running everything, and sent me to bug you.  Cheesy

I won't bug you of course, but I can answer questions
Logged
soufliotiki
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 186



« Reply #20 on: February 21, 2011, 08:01:44 AM »

Quote
Go to the generic brand aisle, and you will find them next to each other in the boxes labeled "Religion."


Post of the month award nomination.
Logged

Guide my heart, O Blessed Wisdom, and my tongue will also be guided ...
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,655


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #21 on: February 21, 2011, 10:15:57 AM »


google much?

Yes, every day. I run a Bahai current-affairs site,
Sen's daily : http://sensday.wordpress.com/
so I google twice a day when I can, using the "last 24 hours" option under "advanced search."

Alternatively, you could believe that the Illuminati are running everything, and sent me to bug you.  Cheesy

I won't bug you of course, but I can answer questions

And of course, the feeling is mutual.  Any questions you have, I think we have very capable members here who can answer them very well.

Welcome to oc.net Smiley
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #22 on: February 21, 2011, 12:50:53 PM »

Quote
Go to the generic brand aisle, and you will find them next to each other in the boxes labeled "Religion."


Post of the month award nomination.

If you want to nominate it you should do it in another way:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19897.0.html
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #23 on: February 21, 2011, 04:15:49 PM »


google much?

Yes, every day. I run a Bahai current-affairs site,
Sen's daily : http://sensday.wordpress.com/
so I google twice a day when I can, using the "last 24 hours" option under "advanced search."

Alternatively, you could believe that the Illuminati are running everything, and sent me to bug you.  Cheesy

I won't bug you of course, but I can answer questions

Behold the power of orthonorm!
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #24 on: February 21, 2011, 07:06:48 PM »


google much?

Yes, every day. I run a Bahai current-affairs site,
Sen's daily : http://sensday.wordpress.com/
so I google twice a day when I can, using the "last 24 hours" option under "advanced search."

Alternatively, you could believe that the Illuminati are running everything, and sent me to bug you.  Cheesy

I won't bug you of course, but I can answer questions
Is Iran trying to eliminate the public expression of Baha'ism, or Baha'ism itself?
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,854



« Reply #25 on: February 21, 2011, 07:57:58 PM »


google much?

Yes, every day. I run a Bahai current-affairs site,
Sen's daily : http://sensday.wordpress.com/
so I google twice a day when I can, using the "last 24 hours" option under "advanced search."

Alternatively, you could believe that the Illuminati are running everything, and sent me to bug you.  Cheesy

I won't bug you of course, but I can answer questions
Is Iran trying to eliminate the public expression of Baha'ism, or Baha'ism itself?
The religion itself.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Sen McGlinn
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Bahai
Posts: 28



WWW
« Reply #26 on: February 22, 2011, 07:43:20 AM »

Is Iran trying to eliminate the public expression of Baha'ism, or Baha'ism itself?

Government policy aims at strangling the community and creating an underclass, without educational or economic opportunities, but there may be some religious fanatics who would like to kill the Bahais.

Quote
Iran’s anti-Bahá’í actions are not random acts, but deliberate government policy. In 1993, concrete evidence emerged that the government had in fact adopted a secret blueprint for the quiet strangulation of the Bahá’í community.... The document indicates, for example, that the government aims to keep the Bahá’ís illiterate and uneducated, living only at a subsistence level, and fearful at every moment that even the tiniest infraction will bring the threat of imprisonment or worse.... The memorandum says, for example, that all Bahá’ís should be expelled from universities; that they shall be denied “positions of influence,” and instead only be allowed to “lead a modest life similar to that of the population in general”; and even that “employment shall be refused to persons identifying themselves as Bahá’ís.”
Source:
The Bahai Question : http://question.bahai.org/002.php


Logged
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,925


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #27 on: February 22, 2011, 04:03:01 PM »

Sen McGinn, what do Bahais think about the material world? Is it good or evil, permanent or transient, an illusion, subservient or superior to a higher spiritual reality, those kinds of things. Are humans material and spiritual beings? Is being both material and spiritual an "ideal" state, or is it something to be surpassed?
« Last Edit: February 22, 2011, 04:05:14 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Sen McGlinn
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Bahai
Posts: 28



WWW
« Reply #28 on: February 22, 2011, 06:21:33 PM »

Sen McGinn, what do Bahais think about the material world? Is it good or evil, permanent or transient, an illusion, subservient or superior to a higher spiritual reality, those kinds of things. Are humans material and spiritual beings? Is being both material and spiritual an "ideal" state, or is it something to be surpassed?

The world is real, and is honoured as God's creation (which is not to deny material explanations of the development of the universe and the evolution of plants and animals). Humans are material, temporarily, and also spiritual, permanently. The creation is permanent, and has no beginning, for God has always been and will always be The Creator, therefore there is always a creation - but not necessarily in the same form. I'm not sure about your last question: whether our material and spiritual condition is ideal, depends rather on what we make of it. I think it was GB Shaw who said, "whether life is worth living or not, is a question of the liver."

Some quotes, not an exhaustive selection:

Quote
And whensoever thou dost gaze upon creation all entire, and dost observe the very atoms thereof, thou wilt note that the rays of the Sun of Truth are shed upon all things and shining within them, and telling of that Day-Star's splendours, Its mysteries, and the spreading of Its lights.

   (Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p. 41)

Quote
Reflect upon the inner realities of the universe, the secret wisdoms involved, the enigmas, the inter-relationships, the rules that govern all. For every part of the universe is connected with every other part by ties that are very powerful and admit of no imbalance, nor any slackening whatever. In the physical realm of creation, all things are eaters and eaten: the plant drinketh in the mineral, the animal doth crop and swallow down the plant, man doth feed upon the animal, and the mineral devoureth the body of man. Physical bodies are transferred past one barrier after another, from one life to another, and all things are subject to transformation and change, save only the essence of existence itself -- since it is constant and immutable, and upon it is founded the life of every species and kind, of every contingent reality throughout the whole of creation.
   (Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p. 157)


Quote
Now the new age is here and creation is reborn. Humanity hath taken on new life. The autumn hath gone by, and the  reviving spring is here. All things are now made new. Arts and industries have been reborn, there are new discoveries in science, and there are new inventions; even the details of human affairs, such as dress and personal effects -- even weapons -- all these have likewise been renewed. The laws and procedures of every government have been revised. Renewal is the order of the day.

And all this newness hath its source in the fresh outpourings of wondrous grace and favour from the Lord of the Kingdom, which have renewed the world. The people, therefore, must be set completely free from their old patterns of thought, that all their attention may be focused upon these new principles, for these are the light of this time and the very spirit of this age.
   (Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p. 252)
Quote
... when the Holy Manifestation of God, Who is the sun of the world of His creation, shines upon the worlds of spirits, of thoughts and of hearts, then the spiritual spring and new life appear, the power of the wonderful springtime becomes visible, and marvelous benefits are apparent. As you have observed, at the time of the appearance of each Manifestation of God extraordinary progress has occurred in the world of minds, thoughts and spirits. For example, in this divine age see what development has been attained in the world of minds and thoughts, and it is now only the beginning of its dawn. Before long you will see that new bounties and divine teachings will illuminate this dark world and will transform these sad regions into the paradise of Eden.
   (Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 163)

Quote
In creation there is no evil; all is good. Certain qualities and natures innate in some men and apparently blameworthy are not so in reality. For example, from the beginning of his life you can see in a nursing child the signs of greed, of anger and of temper. Then, it may be said, good and evil are innate in the reality of man, and this is contrary to the pure goodness of nature and creation. The answer to this is that greed, which is to ask for something more, is a praiseworthy quality provided that it is used suitably. So if a man is greedy to acquire science and knowledge, or to become compassionate, generous and just, it is most praiseworthy. If he exercises his anger and wrath against the bloodthirsty tyrants who are like ferocious beasts, it is very praiseworthy; but if he does not use these qualities in a right way, they are blameworthy.

Then it is evident that in creation and nature evil does not exist at all; but when the natural qualities of man are used in an unlawful way, they are blameworthy.
   (Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 214)

Quote
The Creator always had a creation; the rays have always shone and gleamed from the reality of the sun, for without the rays the sun would be opaque darkness. The names and attributes of God require the existence of beings, and the Eternal Bounty does not cease.
   (Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 281)

These two books by Abdu'l-Baha, and many more, can be downloaded or read online at the Bahai Reference Library: http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/ 

Logged
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,925


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #29 on: February 22, 2011, 07:39:35 PM »

I'm not sure about your last question: whether our material and spiritual condition is ideal, depends rather on what we make of it. I think it was GB Shaw who said, "whether life is worth living or not, is a question of the liver."
Orthodox Christians believe that man is a spiritual and material unity, and that any separation of this unity is unnatural and "less than ideal". While the soul is immortal, the body *should* also be immortal, and will someday be re-made immortal and incorruptible. The idea that we are who we are because of our bodily as well as our spiritual nature, and the idea that humans will one day be an immortal *unity* of material and spiritual, was considered foolishness by the platonistic greek philosophers. These philosophers believed that the spiritual realm was superior to the physical, and that mankind's true worth was mental/spiritual.

What is Bahai's take on this issue? Should man strive to enhance only his "spiritual permanence"?
« Last Edit: February 22, 2011, 07:44:16 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Sen McGlinn
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Bahai
Posts: 28



WWW
« Reply #30 on: February 23, 2011, 10:05:17 AM »

Orthodox Christians believe that man is a spiritual and material unity, and that any separation of this unity is unnatural and "less than ideal". While the soul is immortal, the body *should* also be immortal, and will someday be re-made immortal and incorruptible. The idea that we are who we are because of our bodily as well as our spiritual nature, and the idea that humans will one day be an immortal *unity* of material and spiritual, was considered foolishness by the platonistic greek philosophers. These philosophers believed that the spiritual realm was superior to the physical, and that mankind's true worth was mental/spiritual.

What is Bahai's take on this issue? Should man strive to enhance only his "spiritual permanence"?

Not all unities are intended to last forever, as Christ says, "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh .... What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder," but also, "in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage."

The marriage of body and soul is like that. The destiny of the physical elements is to be recycled and take on new forms, but not the same forms again. As Abdu'l-Baha writes:

Quote
In the physical realm of creation, all things are eaters and eaten: the plant drinketh in the mineral, the animal doth crop and swallow down the plant, man doth feed upon the animal, and the mineral devoureth the body of man. Physical bodies are transferred past one barrier after another, from one life to another, and all things are subject to transformation and change, save only the essence of existence itself -- since it is constant and immutable, and upon it is founded the life of every species and kind, of every contingent reality throughout the whole of creation. (Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p. 157)

Bahais therefore do not believe in the resurrection of a body to be reunited with the same soul, and do not believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus. When asked about that, Abdu'l-Baha replied:

Quote
The resurrections of the Divine Manifestations are not of the body. All Their states, Their conditions, Their acts, the things They have established, Their teachings, Their expressions, Their parables and Their instructions have a spiritual and divine signification, and have no connection with material things. For example, there is the subject of Christ's coming from heaven: it is clearly stated in many places in the Gospel that the Son of man came from heaven, He is in heaven, and He will go to heaven. So in chapter 6, verse 38, of the Gospel of John it is written: "For I came down from heaven"; and also in verse 42 we find: "And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?" Also in John, chapter 3, verse 13: "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."

Observe that it is said, "The Son of man is in heaven," while at that time Christ was on earth. Notice also that it is said that Christ came from heaven, though He came from the womb of Mary, and His body was born of Mary. It is clear, then, that when it is said that the Son of man is come from heaven, this has not an outward but an inward signification; it is a spiritual, not a material, fact.
   (Some Answered Questions, p. 103, see http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/SAQ/saq-23.html#pg103)

Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,014


"My god is greater."


« Reply #31 on: February 23, 2011, 10:15:56 AM »

Matter, like all created things, is by nature impermanent and mutable, but the grace of God can certainly render the corruptible incorruptible. And that is what the Resurrection of Christ accomplishes. 

Bahais therefore do not believe in the resurrection of a body to be reunited with the same soul, and do not believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus. When asked about that, Abdu'l-Baha replied:

Quote
The resurrections of the Divine Manifestations are not of the body. All Their states, Their conditions, Their acts, the things They have established, Their teachings, Their expressions, Their parables and Their instructions have a spiritual and divine signification, and have no connection with material things. For example, there is the subject of Christ's coming from heaven: it is clearly stated in many places in the Gospel that the Son of man came from heaven, He is in heaven, and He will go to heaven. So in chapter 6, verse 38, of the Gospel of John it is written: "For I came down from heaven"; and also in verse 42 we find: "And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?" Also in John, chapter 3, verse 13: "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."

Observe that it is said, "The Son of man is in heaven," while at that time Christ was on earth. Notice also that it is said that Christ came from heaven, though He came from the womb of Mary, and His body was born of Mary. It is clear, then, that when it is said that the Son of man is come from heaven, this has not an outward but an inward signification; it is a spiritual, not a material, fact.
   (Some Answered Questions, p. 103, see http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/SAQ/saq-23.html#pg103)

St. Theophylact gives the genuine interpretation of this passage:
Quote
The Lord adds the words Who is in heaven for a specific reason: "When you hear Me say that I came down to earth, do not imagine that I am no longer in heaven. I am here in the body on earth, and at the same time co-enthroned there with the Father in My divine nature."
But the incarnation is a stumbling block and an enigma to philosophers, even those who deem themselves prophets.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
Sen McGlinn
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Bahai
Posts: 28



WWW
« Reply #32 on: February 23, 2011, 10:54:54 AM »

St. Theophylact gives the genuine interpretation of this passage:
Quote
The Lord adds the words Who is in heaven for a specific reason: "When you hear Me say that I came down to earth, do not imagine that I am no longer in heaven. I am here in the body on earth, and at the same time co-enthroned there with the Father in My divine nature."


That's how I understand it too.

Christ's words are incompatible with a physical descent of the body from the skies. His body came from Mary, and has a physical and temporal location, His spirit, not being material, does not literally come down, go up, or enter or exit. It can be on earth, and with God, at the same time (as God also is not limited to one place)
« Last Edit: February 23, 2011, 10:56:05 AM by Sen McGlinn » Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,014


"My god is greater."


« Reply #33 on: February 23, 2011, 10:56:46 AM »

St. Theophylact gives the genuine interpretation of this passage:
Quote
The Lord adds the words Who is in heaven for a specific reason: "When you hear Me say that I came down to earth, do not imagine that I am no longer in heaven. I am here in the body on earth, and at the same time co-enthroned there with the Father in My divine nature."


That's how I understand it too.

Christ's words are incompatible with a physical descent of the body from the skies. His body came from Mary, and has a physical and temporal location, His spirit, not being material, does not literally come down, go up, or enter or exit. It can be on earth, and with God, at the same time (as God also is not limited to one place)


His body did not descend from heaven, but he certainly resurrected in it, and ascended with it.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2011, 10:57:24 AM by Iconodule » Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,925


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #34 on: February 23, 2011, 04:17:24 PM »

Not all unities are intended to last forever, as Christ says, "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh .... What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder," but also, "in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage."

The Creator always had a creation; the rays have always shone and gleamed from the reality of the sun, for without the rays the sun would be opaque darkness. The names and attributes of God require the existence of beings, and the Eternal Bounty does not cease.
   (Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 281)

But not all unity shall pass away. The unity of the Triune Godhead shall not pass away; the same unity that allows God to have selflessly loved before creation. The names and attributes of God require the existence of persons; not the existence of created things.

And the holy Apostle says regarding the resurrection:

"So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body."
« Last Edit: February 23, 2011, 04:23:23 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
MyMapleStory
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Approaching Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Will probably be Greek
Posts: 181


« Reply #35 on: February 24, 2011, 12:35:28 AM »

Essentially the belief that Baha'u'llah was the one promised by the Bab as a manifestation of God. The bab being someone who claimed to be the 12th imam a figure in Islam that is supposed to come before Christ comes back in islam. And essentially that is bahai. I have talked to many of them and none of them seem to agree on what specific doctrines should be believed, but they consider this one a must.

I personally consider it a false and dangerous religion which promotes plurality and eccumenism, basically a new age version of Islam, only less islam and more New age. They reject the Physical ressurection and the deity of Christ.
Logged
Sen McGlinn
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Bahai
Posts: 28



WWW
« Reply #36 on: February 24, 2011, 08:43:54 AM »

... a false and dangerous religion which promotes plurality and eccumenism, ...

Plurality and ecumenism is certainly a core Bahai message (also equality, peace, education and spirituality). Time will show whether ecumenism really is a danger. 
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #37 on: February 24, 2011, 02:32:28 PM »

So Sen there is no Truth but a multiplicity of "truths" that equal a big Truth?
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Sen McGlinn
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Bahai
Posts: 28



WWW
« Reply #38 on: February 24, 2011, 03:40:49 PM »

So Sen there is no Truth but a multiplicity of "truths" that equal a big Truth?

There are a multiplicity of truth-seers, none of them big enough to grasp or hold an absolute truth.

Is there any Truth with a big T? God knows (it).

The rest of us have fragments

Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #39 on: February 24, 2011, 03:42:05 PM »

But why wouldn't God give us just Truth then? Why fragments?
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Sen McGlinn
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Bahai
Posts: 28



WWW
« Reply #40 on: February 24, 2011, 07:01:58 PM »

But why wouldn't God give us just Truth then? Why fragments?

I have faith that God does sent us Truth, in the form of Christ, and Baha'u'llah, and others (Truth is persons, not propositions). However we are limited beings, and conditioned by all sorts of factors. So we not only cannot know any absolute truth, we cannot prove that such a thing exists. At most we accept it on faith
Logged
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,925


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #41 on: February 24, 2011, 07:38:15 PM »

But why wouldn't God give us just Truth then? Why fragments?

I have faith that God does sent us Truth, in the form of Christ, and Baha'u'llah, and others (Truth is persons, not propositions). However we are limited beings, and conditioned by all sorts of factors. So we not only cannot know any absolute truth, we cannot prove that such a thing exists. At most we accept it on faith
Can man receive knowledge only through the senses and the intellect, or is there another way? Is truth only absolute if it can be empirically provable to others?
« Last Edit: February 24, 2011, 07:40:12 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Sen McGlinn
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Bahai
Posts: 28



WWW
« Reply #42 on: February 24, 2011, 08:43:40 PM »

Can man receive knowledge only through the senses and the intellect, or is there another way? Is truth only absolute if it can be empirically provable to others?

The senses can be deceived, and intellectual reasoning can be faulty (which is why people don't agree on conclusions, even where the facts are agreed). There is also scripture and the religious tradition, but we can be mistaken on how we understand these. And there is inspiration, but we may mistake our imagination for the inspiration of the Spirit. Therefore the best path is to combine all of these, and to remain modest. We may be mistaken, and we can surely learn from others even where we are not mistaken.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #43 on: February 24, 2011, 08:45:27 PM »

Can man receive knowledge only through the senses and the intellect, or is there another way? Is truth only absolute if it can be empirically provable to others?

The senses can be deceived, and intellectual reasoning can be faulty (which is why people don't agree on conclusions, even where the facts are agreed). There is also scripture and the religious tradition, but we can be mistaken on how we understand these. And there is inspiration, but we may mistake our imagination for the inspiration of the Spirit. Therefore the best path is to combine all of these, and to remain modest. We may be mistaken, and we can surely learn from others even where we are not mistaken.

Are you then possibly mistaken about the Bahai faith?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,925


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #44 on: February 24, 2011, 08:52:39 PM »

Can man receive knowledge only through the senses and the intellect, or is there another way? Is truth only absolute if it can be empirically provable to others?

The senses can be deceived, and intellectual reasoning can be faulty (which is why people don't agree on conclusions, even where the facts are agreed). There is also scripture and the religious tradition, but we can be mistaken on how we understand these. And there is inspiration, but we may mistake our imagination for the inspiration of the Spirit. Therefore the best path is to combine all of these, and to remain modest. We may be mistaken, and we can surely learn from others even where we are not mistaken.

What if God chose to give man knowledge that was not communicated in words, text, imaginings or through the senses at all?
« Last Edit: February 24, 2011, 08:53:36 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Sen McGlinn
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Bahai
Posts: 28



WWW
« Reply #45 on: February 24, 2011, 09:25:05 PM »


What if God chose to give man knowledge that was not communicated in words, text, imaginings or through the senses at all?


That's the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which gives certain, but not complete, knowledge. However we can be mistaken about receiving such guidance, therefore we should not discard the senses, reason, and scripture and tradition. We can be relatively assured of what is in harmony with all of these
Logged
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,925


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #46 on: February 24, 2011, 10:09:29 PM »

That's the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which gives certain, but not complete, knowledge.
Would "complete knowledge" mean all knowledge that exists, or a complete "catholic/whole" knowledge regarding a particular truth?

I guess what I'm getting at is where you draw the line between what you consider knowable "partial" truth versus absolute.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2011, 10:10:45 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
MyMapleStory
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Approaching Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Will probably be Greek
Posts: 181


« Reply #47 on: February 24, 2011, 10:45:03 PM »

Can't help but feel this is an extreme form of skeptism that ultimately we cannot know anything. This is destructive to almost everything anyone says, the bahai under this logic has no reason to be bahai than be of any other religion.

Though I would submit God has given us knolwedge and that our senses are not completely flawed, though they can be misguided at times, but not at all times.
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #48 on: February 24, 2011, 10:56:32 PM »

Can't help but feel this is an extreme form of skeptism that ultimately we cannot know anything. This is destructive to almost everything anyone says, the bahai under this logic has no reason to be bahai than be of any other religion.

Exactly what I was about to get at.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
MyMapleStory
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Approaching Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Will probably be Greek
Posts: 181


« Reply #49 on: February 24, 2011, 10:57:07 PM »

Can't help but feel this is an extreme form of skeptism that ultimately we cannot know anything(pr very little). This is destructive to almost everything anyone says, the bahai under this logic has no reason to be bahai than be of any other religion.

Though I would submit God has given us knolwedge and that our senses are not completely flawed, though they can be misguided at times, but not at all times.
Logged
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #50 on: February 24, 2011, 11:53:21 PM »

Can't help but feel this is an extreme form of skeptism that ultimately we cannot know anything. This is destructive to almost everything anyone says, the bahai under this logic has no reason to be bahai than be of any other religion.

Though I would submit God has given us knolwedge and that our senses are not completely flawed, though they can be misguided at times, but not at all times.
I don't think that this Baha'i is saying that our knowledge is misguided at all times.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2011, 11:54:21 PM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,925


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #51 on: February 25, 2011, 12:08:32 AM »

Can't help but feel this is an extreme form of skeptism that ultimately we cannot know anything. This is destructive to almost everything anyone says, the bahai under this logic has no reason to be bahai than be of any other religion.

That seems to be the Bahai theme. Except you have to choose a somewhat consistent cosmological interpretation (dualism, for one) regarding all the different faiths to make bahai itself plausible; that is why they have to deny the resurrection and the trinity. and of course, you must believe that the prophet of Bahai has most clearly expressed this truth (that truth cannot ultimately be fully known)... which is a bit self-contradictory.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2011, 12:10:48 AM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Sen McGlinn
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Bahai
Posts: 28



WWW
« Reply #52 on: February 25, 2011, 06:44:34 AM »

Can't help but feel this is an extreme form of skeptism that ultimately we cannot know anything(pr very little). This is destructive to almost everything anyone says, the bahai under this logic has no reason to be bahai than be of any other religion.

Though I would submit God has given us knolwedge and that our senses are not completely flawed, though they can be misguided at times, but not at all times.

Yes, our senses are a good source of knowledge, so is our reason, and our understanding of scripture, and inspiration by the Spirit. We have many sources of knowledge, and should use them together, because none of these sources is absolutely reliable. This is not scepticism at all, let alone extreme scepticism: it is prudence and humility. Because each of us has at best partial truth - and generally mixed with untruths we have mistaken in some way for truth - it is also prudent and modest for us to learn from one another. This is the epistemological foundation for what we all -- Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Bahais -- do in practice: we enter into a community of the intellect (as well as a community of worship, of service, etc...).

Logged
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,925


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #53 on: February 25, 2011, 04:19:47 PM »

Here is the problem I have with what you've said, though:

Man cannot expect both a bodily general resurrection as believed by Christians, AND the re-incarnation expected by Bahais.

Man cannot expect both the eventual eternal unity of the spiritual and material man, AND the lack of this in Bahai.

Man cannot believe that Jesus rose bodily from the dead AND did not rise bodily from the dead, as Bahai claims.

So you *are*, in fact, making a claim that your Truth is superior to ours. Or that much of the truth we possess we misunderstand, where Bahai correctly understands. If I believe things about Jesus, about human spiritual anthropology, eschatology, cosmology, that the prophet of Bahai explicitly disagreed with, then I cannot be Bahai, can I?
« Last Edit: February 25, 2011, 04:22:29 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Sen McGlinn
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Bahai
Posts: 28



WWW
« Reply #54 on: February 25, 2011, 04:37:11 PM »

So you *are*, in fact, making a claim that your Truth is superior to ours. Or that much of the truth we possess we misunderstand, where Bahai correctly understands.

I make no claim to superiority. If you think back to what Christians believed and preached in the first three centuries, you will realise that there was a great deal of nonsense, even among the orthodox (Origen's spherical souls for example), and a great deal of downright heresy. Time and testing has added a great deal to the Christian tradition, and I am perfectly ready to say that the Bahai tradition is young, that much of what Bahais think they know is nonsense (if only we knew which bits!), and that we can learn from older traditions.

Neither I, nor I think any Bahai, has said that all people agree. There are disagreements within the Bahai community, and within the Christian and the Orthodox community - which is why there are points to discuss on forums like this!

If I believe things about Jesus, about human spiritual anthropology, eschatology, cosmology, that the prophet of Bahai explicitly disagreed with, then I cannot be Bahai, can I?

No. (or  - maybe, if you ask very nicely  Cheesy ). However I never said that everyone could become a Bahai regardless of belief, and I didn't invite anyone here to become Bahais. The general question is "what is the Bahai Faith," and I am willing to answer more specific questions to the best of my knowledge.

Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #55 on: February 25, 2011, 04:43:06 PM »

If you think back to what Christians believed and preached in the first three centuries, you will realise that there was a great deal of nonsense, even among the orthodox (Origen's spherical souls for example), and a great deal of downright heresy.

Many of the  Origen's teachings were heterodox.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
MyMapleStory
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Approaching Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Will probably be Greek
Posts: 181


« Reply #56 on: February 25, 2011, 04:53:56 PM »

Well first of all Origen’s theology was later condemned at an ecumenical coucil, I cannot recall which one its something I need to remember. But Origen was a great scholar and he did influence later Christians in his field, though his theology was way off.

Now by time testing and adding what do you mean? You are saying that Christianity specifically orthodox Christianity has been added to? Well major Orthodox christian doctrines can be found in that same bible you accept as well as the early church fathers. But hers the problem you seem to be justifying why you don’t choise Christianity when you have seemed to have suggested that none of us can have full truth, thus it does sound contrary to what you said you are trying to make the bahai look superior to Christianity.

I suppose the question is, since we only have bits of knowledge and you claim to be not superior in religion that is other religins are better or just as good as Bahai, why believe in it in the first place?
Logged
GabrieltheCelt
Hillbilly Extraordinaire
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,988


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #57 on: February 25, 2011, 06:41:12 PM »

But why wouldn't God give us just Truth then? Why fragments?

I have faith that God does sent us Truth, in the form of Christ, and Baha'u'llah, and others (Truth is persons, not propositions). However we are limited beings, and conditioned by all sorts of factors. So we not only cannot know any absolute truth, we cannot prove that such a thing exists. At most we accept it on faith

Hi Sen.  Welcome to the forum! Smiley

If I may ask a few questions of you.  You state above that God has sent us Truth in the form of Christ, Baha'ullah, possibly the Buddha and others.  What was Baha'ullah's criterion for Truth?  How did he recognize it?  What was his criterion for rejecting non-truth.  By abandoning those parts of the Qur'an, the Bible and the Dhammapada that are at odds with one another (as much of them are), do you suppose the Baha'ullah threw the baby out with the bath water?  For example, Christianity tells us that Jesus is God but the Qur'an denies this.  Christianity tells us that we must be baptized to enter into heaven but the Qur'an mentions nothing of baptism and instead sets forth laws that must be adhered to in order to reach heaven.  How did Baha'ullah reconcile these disparities?  Additionally, being well-read, what did Baha'ullah think about these verses from the Bible;

 "...if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ." Galatians 1:9-10

"If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Revelation  22:18-19

  Thanks in advance.

 Gabriel
Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,925


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #58 on: February 25, 2011, 06:42:28 PM »

If you think back to what Christians believed and preached in the first three centuries, you will realise that there was a great deal of nonsense, even among the orthodox (Origen's spherical souls for example), and a great deal of downright heresy. Time and testing has added a great deal to the Christian tradition...
But those heresies were later additions, "innovations" if you will, to the apostolic faith. So time has not added to the *holy* tradition of Christianity; rather it has exposed the innovations to be houses built on sand. C.S. Lewis said it quite accurately regarding religious texts:

"A new book is still on its trial and the amateur is not in a position to judge it.  It has to be tested against the great body of Christian thought down the ages, and all its hidden implications (often unsuspected by the author himself) have to be brought to light."

Quote
No. (or  - maybe, if you ask very nicely  Cheesy ). However I never said that everyone could become a Bahai regardless of belief, and I didn't invite anyone here to become Bahais. The general question is "what is the Bahai Faith," and I am willing to answer more specific questions to the best of my knowledge.
Alright then, thank you for doing so and being so helpful.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Andrew Crook
formerly known as AveChriste11
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 523



« Reply #59 on: June 21, 2011, 02:05:33 PM »

Hello Sen, and welcome!         ---Truthseeker630 Smiley                                                                                                                                     
Logged

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,121


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #60 on: June 21, 2011, 11:22:44 PM »

Welcome Sen.

I don't mean to harp on the point, but if the Baha'i faith says Christ did not rise from the dead, and yet Christianity says he in fact DID rise from the dead, and this is what is found throughout all of the New Testament, and is what the Apostles (more than just the 12 by the way) were executed for, then aren't you by default either saying:

1.) Christianity is wrong and Baha'is is right; or

2.) Baha'i may well be wrong and Christianity right?
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
Andrew Crook
formerly known as AveChriste11
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 523



« Reply #61 on: June 21, 2011, 11:33:52 PM »

Yes James, that's one of the reasons I left the Baha'i Faith for Eastern Orthodoxy.  I couldn't imagine all of those people choosing to be martyred over an allegory.  Maybe one day I'll post my journey since I've been through several different religions.
Logged

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity
Sen McGlinn
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Bahai
Posts: 28



WWW
« Reply #62 on: June 22, 2011, 03:27:19 AM »

Welcome Sen.

I don't mean to harp on the point, but if the Baha'i faith says Christ did not rise from the dead, ...

That's a big if. The Bahai scriptures say Christ did rise, and is living today.

Abdu'l-Baha says:

Quote
… the breezes of Christ are still blowing; His light is still shining; His melody is still resounding; His standard is still waving; His armies are still fighting; His heavenly voice is still sweetly melodious; His clouds are still showering gems; His lightning is still flashing; His reflection is still clear and brilliant; His splendor is still radiating and luminous; and it is the same with those souls who are under His protection and are shining with His light.
(Some Answered Questions, 152 - see:
http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/SAQ/saq-38.html#pg152
Logged
MyMapleStory
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Approaching Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Will probably be Greek
Posts: 181


« Reply #63 on: June 22, 2011, 06:20:28 AM »

Nay, the Word of God from all eternity has always been, and will be, in the exaltation of sanctification.

I found this interesting in the words of Abbas Effendi, as the word who is Jesus christ he seems to suggest is eternal. Yet the bahai reject that of Christ and say he was a creature (arianism heresy).
Logged
Byron
Moderated
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Nationalist
Posts: 472



« Reply #64 on: June 22, 2011, 06:46:34 AM »

Sen, are you a fan of Icewind Dale 2?
Logged

I. Metaxas - 4th of August Regime

"Country, Loyalty, Family and Religion".

Nationalism, Monarchy, Family and Orthodoxy.
Andrew Crook
formerly known as AveChriste11
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 523



« Reply #65 on: June 22, 2011, 09:53:09 AM »

Christ may be risen, but not the man Jesus as that would defy reason and science.  Sounds like Nestorianism to me.
Logged

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity
Sen McGlinn
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Bahai
Posts: 28



WWW
« Reply #66 on: June 22, 2011, 04:28:37 PM »

Sen, are you a fan of Icewind Dale 2?

No - my avatar comes from a time when my son had a one-month trial of World of Warcraft. I was looking over his shoulder when this dwarf fellow appeared. It looks very much like me, when I used to keep my beard trimmed, and had more hair, and a waist, so I asked him to take a screenshot. You can see the real me on my facebook page.






Logged
Sen McGlinn
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Bahai
Posts: 28



WWW
« Reply #67 on: June 22, 2011, 04:46:58 PM »

Christ may be risen, but not the man Jesus as that would defy reason and science.  Sounds like Nestorianism to me.

If you mean, the Bahai Faith is like Nestorianism, I suggest that if you want to know "what is the Bahai Faith" you should first learn something about it. Historical parallels may possibly be illuminating, but only after one has learned what the Bahai Faith is in itself. The same goes for the supposed parallel to Arianism.

From what I know of Nestorianism, Bahai Christology is not like that, because (as I understand it) Nestorianism taught or was accused by its opponents of teaching, that the human and divine natures of Christ were parallel phenomena, whereas I think Bahai Christology would (if translated into Christian terms) say something like Christ had two natures, the human being totally taken up into the divine. Compare it to the animal nature and human nature of every human - the animal does not cease to exist because we are humans, but our human nature incorporates the animal, while transcending it and within limits controlling it. This is my own analogy, not one made in Bahai scripture.

As for Arianism, it is generally understood (via the descriptions of its opponents) to have taught that the Son was created, whereas the Bahai teachings speak rather of the Son as the first emanation or proceeding from the Father, and of creation coming about through the Son.

For what it's worth, Shoghi Effendi, who was the great grandson of the Founder and was western-educated, commented (en passant) on the similarities between Bahai and Roman Catholic theology. One example is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, or in Bahai terminology:

Quote
"The Holy Spirit Itself hath been generated through the agency of a single letter revealed by this Most Great Spirit, if ye be of them that comprehend. (Baha'u'llah, The Summons of the Lord of Hosts, p. 26)


Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #68 on: June 22, 2011, 05:20:30 PM »

For what it's worth, Shoghi Effendi, who was the great grandson of the Founder and was western-educated, commented (en passant) on the similarities between Bahai and Roman Catholic theology. One example is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, or in Bahai terminology:

Quote
"The Holy Spirit Itself hath been generated through the agency of a single letter revealed by this Most Great Spirit, if ye be of them that comprehend. (Baha'u'llah, The Summons of the Lord of Hosts, p. 26)

I bow to your genius . . .

« Last Edit: June 22, 2011, 05:21:00 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Andrew Crook
formerly known as AveChriste11
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 523



« Reply #69 on: June 22, 2011, 07:19:00 PM »

Forgive me brother Sen, my understanding is that if you say Christ is of a different essence, person or nature from the man Jesus then that is Nestorianism.  To say that the divine Christ nature swallowed up the human nature would be the monophysitism of Eutyches.
Logged

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,121


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #70 on: June 22, 2011, 08:41:45 PM »

Sen, I noticed your quote says nothing that would require Jesus Christ of Nazareth to have risen bodily (that is, for his physical body to have risen from the dead).  Is it the case that the Baha'i believe that Christ did not in fact rise from the dead bodily?  If so, my questions still remain, (and also, they remain because the Christology you described is, at least, monophysite) how does the Baha'i faith NOT claim to be true and the Christian (at least Orthodox) faith to be false, or alternatively that the Baha'i faith may well be false and the Christian faith true?
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
Sen McGlinn
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Bahai
Posts: 28



WWW
« Reply #71 on: June 23, 2011, 01:52:29 PM »

Forgive me brother Sen, my understanding is that if you say Christ is of a different essence, person or nature from the man Jesus then that is Nestorianism. 

I didn't say that, rather I said that there are two natures, divine and human (and I might add, animal) in Christ. THAT there are two natures is hardly an innovation, it is in the Chalcedonian creed, the one that begins

Quote
"We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead...

That leads on to two questions: the relationship between the natures, and the relationship between the divine nature of Christ and the Godhead. Various churches and creeds have different positions on these, but before pressing on to decide for or against one or the other, I think it's worth noting that the doctrine of two natures itself is remarkably widely shared, and that it is also a Bahai teaching.

Abdu'l-Baha writes:

Quote
The Holy Manifestations of God possess two stations: one is the physical station, and one the spiritual. In other words, one station is that of a human being, and one, of the Divine Reality. If the Manifestations are subjected to tests, it is in Their human station only, not in the splendour of Their Divine Reality.

And further, these tests are such only from the viewpoint of mankind. That is, to outward seeming, the human condition of the Holy Manifestations is subjected to tests, and when Their strength and endurance have by this means been revealed in the plenitude of power, other men receive instruction therefrom, and are made aware of how great must be their own steadfastness and endurance under tests and trials. For the Divine Educator must teach by word and also by deed, thus revealing to all the straight pathway of truth.
   (Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p. 55)


Logged
Sen McGlinn
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Bahai
Posts: 28



WWW
« Reply #72 on: June 23, 2011, 02:03:03 PM »

Sen, I noticed your quote says nothing that would require Jesus Christ of Nazareth to have risen bodily (that is, for his physical body to have risen from the dead).  Is it the case that the Baha'i believe that Christ did not in fact rise from the dead bodily?  If so, my questions still remain, (and also, they remain because the Christology you described is, at least, monophysite) how does the Baha'i faith NOT claim to be true and the Christian (at least Orthodox) faith to be false, or alternatively that the Baha'i faith may well be false and the Christian faith true?

That's true - Bahais do not teach bodily resurrection in general, or the bodily resurrection of Christ. Abdu'l-Baha says:

Quote
The resurrections of the Divine Manifestations are not of the body. All Their states, Their conditions, Their acts, the things They have established, Their teachings, Their expressions, Their parables and Their instructions have a spiritual and divine signification, and have no connection with material things. For example, there is the subject of Christ's coming from heaven: it is clearly stated in many places in the Gospel that the Son of man came from heaven, He is in heaven, and He will go to heaven. So in chapter 6, verse 38, of the Gospel of John it is written: "For I came down from heaven"; and also in verse 42 we find: "And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?" Also in John, chapter 3, verse 13: "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."

Observe that it is said, "The Son of man is in heaven," while at that time Christ was on earth. Notice also that it is said that Christ came from heaven, though He came from the womb of Mary, and His body was born of Mary. It is clear, then, that when it is said that the Son of man is come from heaven, this has not an outward but an inward signification; it is a spiritual, not a material, fact. The meaning is that though, apparently, Christ was born from the womb of Mary, in reality He came from heaven, from the center of the Sun of Reality, from the Divine World, and the Spiritual Kingdom. And as it has become evident that Christ came from the spiritual heaven of the Divine Kingdom, therefore, His disappearance under the earth for three days has an inner signification and is not an outward fact. In the same way, His resurrection from the interior of the earth is also symbolical; it is a spiritual and divine fact, and not material; and likewise His ascension to heaven is a spiritual and not material ascension.
   (Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 103)


The Bahai Faith does not claim to be true, and other religions false. The Bahai teachings in some cases offer different understandings of the same thing - in this case, of the resurrection. If you find this way of understanding resurrection illuminating, it may expand your understanding of the Gospel message. That does not mean that your previous way of understanding was false, but that it was not -- and never will be -- complete. There are no limits to our growth in understanding.
Logged
MyMapleStory
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Approaching Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Will probably be Greek
Posts: 181


« Reply #73 on: June 23, 2011, 05:11:36 PM »

The Gospel Message is best illuminated through the Physical ressurection as the Church has taught for 2000 years since the time of the apostles. But if you believe the words of Mirza Husayn in that he said Christ did not ressurect physically, how can you say this position is not false? this seems to completely violate the law of non contradiction. Both cannot be right, it is logically and historically impossible.
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #74 on: June 23, 2011, 05:19:30 PM »

this seems to completely violate the law of non contradiction.

Probably best known as the law of the excluded middle. Not saying that you ain't right here, but you must realize that much of Orthodox theology is built upon a rejection of the law of the excluded middle as such in light of its adoption of neo-Platonic thought, especially that of Plotinus.

See:

Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite for the most obvious example.
St. Gregory Palamas
etc.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
MyMapleStory
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Approaching Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Will probably be Greek
Posts: 181


« Reply #75 on: June 23, 2011, 05:23:59 PM »

I realise the Orhtodox church might not be so scholastic, but I do think this is an absolute law of logic which makes things a tonne easier to understand.
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #76 on: June 23, 2011, 05:29:28 PM »

I realise the Orhtodox church might not be so scholastic, but I do think this is an absolute law of logic which makes things a tonne easier to understand.

Well it ain't in Orthodoxy.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Sen McGlinn
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Bahai
Posts: 28



WWW
« Reply #77 on: June 23, 2011, 05:39:30 PM »

The Gospel Message is best illuminated through the Physical resurrection as the Church has taught for 2000 years since the time of the apostles. But if you believe the words of Mirza Husayn in that he said Christ did not ressurect physically, how can you say this position is not false? this seems to completely violate the law of non contradiction. Both cannot be right, it is logically and historically impossible.

I don't think the law of the excluded middle will get you much traction in reading poetry, or understanding religion, or building a relationship or community or society. Doesn't most of the millennia-long discussion about the trinity and divine unity suppose that both are somehow true? Doesn't orthodox christology teach that Christ is both God and man?

I also have some trouble with the law of the exuding middle, but a wider belt should take care of that
Logged
MyMapleStory
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Approaching Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Will probably be Greek
Posts: 181


« Reply #78 on: June 23, 2011, 05:42:14 PM »

Distinct in two natures, humanity and divinity, the two are not contradictory for we see the Humanity is not the divinity, two essences, not one claiming to be both. But it stands to reason the Bahai religion and Christianity cannot both be true.
Logged
Sen McGlinn
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Bahai
Posts: 28



WWW
« Reply #79 on: June 23, 2011, 06:15:22 PM »

Distinct in two natures, humanity and divinity, the two are not contradictory for we see the Humanity is not the divinity, two essences, not one claiming to be both. But it stands to reason the Bahai religion and Christianity cannot both be true.

Is it possible for Judaism and Christianity to be both true? If so, how?
Logged
MyMapleStory
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Approaching Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Will probably be Greek
Posts: 181


« Reply #80 on: June 23, 2011, 11:29:00 PM »

Ancient Judaism, Yes, modern day Phariseeism with its direct denial of Jesus, No. The understanding of the jews before the time of Jesus was mch different than it was for modern day jews. But Judaism has ceased to be a valid religion (Both old and New), one could not go to that Judaism before Christ because that Judaism cannot exist without a temple and therefore Judaism had to change and in this change it responded alot to Christianity, specifically on the plurality of persons within God and prophecies regarding the Messaiah. It ceased to be that becuase Christianity has fulfilled everything that was lacking int he OT.

This cannot be the case with bahai which directly contradicts Christianity and everything before it.

Logged
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,121


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #81 on: June 24, 2011, 01:20:56 AM »

The Gospel Message is best illuminated through the Physical resurrection as the Church has taught for 2000 years since the time of the apostles. But if you believe the words of Mirza Husayn in that he said Christ did not ressurect physically, how can you say this position is not false? this seems to completely violate the law of non contradiction. Both cannot be right, it is logically and historically impossible.

I don't think the law of the excluded middle will get you much traction in reading poetry, or understanding religion, or building a relationship or community or society. Doesn't most of the millennia-long discussion about the trinity and divine unity suppose that both are somehow true? Doesn't orthodox christology teach that Christ is both God and man?

I also have some trouble with the law of the exuding middle, but a wider belt should take care of that

The thing about the trinity is that we are not capable of fully (or even well) understanding it.  We admit that it is a conundrum for us because our human intellects are not great enough to comprehend the unknowable God.  However, that is a far cry from claiming that a historical event both happened and didn't happen.

Did Hitler run Germany?  Either Hitler did or Hitler did not.  Was Einstein a real person?  Either he existed, or he did not.  In Orthodoxy, it has been taught from the time of Christ Himself (and can be found in the Gospels), that if Christ did not rise in the body, our faith is in VAIN.  Our faith is a foolish waste of time, and we might as well eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die.  Without a bodily ressurection, Christianity is pointless.  Furthermore, how is it that you can claim that either your religion is quite possibly wrong or my religion is when your's says Christ did not rise in the body and mine says he did?  If it is simply a matter of better understanding the Gosepl message, and your religion is right, that would still result in the truth being that Christ's body did NOT rise.  Whereas if my religion is true, then by necessity yours is wrong (at least on this point) because Christ DID rise in the body.  These are two historical claims and only one of them is capable of truth. 

Would you refuse to tell someone who thinks George Washington was a Romanian transvestite that he was wrong?  Or would you at least be willing to admit you might be wrong and that might be true?  Because the fact of the matter is that George Washington either WAS a Romanian or he was NOT a Romanian.  The fact of the matter is George Washington either WAS a transvestite or he was NOT a transvestite.  You can't have it both ways or you fail to assert anything at all, and if you refuse asserting anything as true, there is no point in agreeing with your beliefs because you don't really believe them.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
Sen McGlinn
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Bahai
Posts: 28



WWW
« Reply #82 on: June 24, 2011, 08:45:53 AM »

... Was Einstein a real person?  Either he existed, or he did not.  In Orthodoxy, it has been taught from the time of Christ Himself (and can be found in the Gospels), that if Christ did not rise in the body, our faith is in VAIN. 

I would like to suggest to you that the Gospels are written to tell us something more, and much more important, than history. You can accept that or not - I just suggest you consider it.

The verse you refer to is presumably in 1 Corinithians:

Quote
15:12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain."
This speaks of the resurrection of Christ and of the dead (which Bahais believe and preach), it does not mention the resurrection of the body, and it is most unlikely that a bodily resurrection is meant. 1 Corinthians is one of the epistles written by Paul himself, somewhere around 53 to 57 AD. It is too early, and too Pauline, to have the bodily resurrection in it. Paul's own experience of the resurrected Christ is of a spiritual presence:

Quote
Acts 9:3 ... as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. ... And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

The earliest New Testament documents do not contain the bodily resurrection, for one of two reasons (1) although Christians taught it, they did not write it down because Pharisees believed in bodily resurrection, and they did not want to be seen to be like the Pharisees, or (2) Christians did not yet believe in bodily resurrection. They proclaimed the resurrection in the form of the risen and present Christ, a living reality, rather than as a physical miracle which had happened in the past. Either possibility is compatible with the fact that the earliest form of Mark stops with the resurrection, not including the ending with the various post-resurrection appearances (bodily resurrection), which are added by a different author later. Mark does enable us to date when the idea of bodily resurrection entered the tradition: some time soon after 64 AD, and before Mark 16:19, Luke and Acts were composed - so before 70AD, since the destruction of the Temple is not reflected in Luke and Acts.

There's an outline of the arguments here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_of_Jesus#Origin_of_the_narrative

As I understand the tradition, the bodily resurrection was not an innovation in doctrine, but another way of transmitting the doctrine of the risen Christ, in the form of post-resurrection appearances and then (because the body of Christ obviously was no longer present), the Ascension. Narrative as a means of transmitting teachings is a common feature of religious discourse, certainly in the Abrahamic traditions. Consider the creation stories, which teach that one God is Lord of all, or the parables of Christ, each with its own moral, or the stories in Rabbinical literature, some of which are reflected in the Quran. Or the story of Joseph, "the best of stories."

I certainly don't advocate throwing out the later way of telling the resurrection in favour of the earlier. The Catholic (in the sense of universalist, inclusive) approach has always been to include multiple approaches, and this can be seen in the canon: it has not one gospel synopsis but 4 different gospels, not one creation story but two in Genesis, and so on. This catholicism gives us two or more different ways of looking at a truth that cannot be conveyed to us completely in any one way, because it is ineffable.
Logged
Theophilos78
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #83 on: June 24, 2011, 10:03:28 AM »


The verse you refer to is presumably in 1 Corinithians:

Quote
15:12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain."
This speaks of the resurrection of Christ and of the dead (which Bahais believe and preach), it does not mention the resurrection of the body,

Resurrection of the dead means resurrection of the dead body, for the soul is immortal.

and it is most unlikely that a bodily resurrection is meant.

Why?

1 Corinthians is one of the epistles written by Paul himself, somewhere around 53 to 57 AD.

So what?

It is too early, and too Pauline

So what?

Paul's own experience of the resurrected Christ is of a spiritual presence:

Quote
Acts 9:3 ... as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. ... And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

Yet Paul NEVER says that the vision he saw was what Jesus' resurrection meant. Where does Paul use the phrase "spiritual resurrection" in the same context as Jesus' resurrection?

The earliest New Testament documents do not contain the bodily resurrection

so what? Besides, what enables you to know for sure which are the earliest New Testament documents?

, for one of two reasons (1) although Christians taught it, they did not write it down because Pharisees believed in bodily resurrection, and they did not want to be seen to be like the Pharisees,

Pharisees also believed in the books of the prophets. Why did the Evangelists refer to those books in their documents at the expense of looking like Pharisees? Pharisees also believed in angels. Why did the Evangelists teach the same doctrine then?

or (2) Christians did not yet believe in bodily resurrection.

Evidence for this assertion?

They proclaimed the resurrection in the form of the risen and present Christ, a living reality, rather than as a physical miracle which had happened in the past. Either possibility is compatible with the fact that the earliest form of Mark stops with the resurrection, not including the ending with the various post-resurrection appearances (bodily resurrection), which are added by a different author later.

Marcan priority is not a Christian dogma. It is only a presumption. There were some Church Fathers who taught that Matthew's Gospel came first.

Mark does enable us to date when the idea of bodily resurrection entered the tradition: some time soon after 64 AD, and before Mark 16:19, Luke and Acts were composed - so before 70AD, since the destruction of the Temple is not reflected in Luke and Acts.

It seems u have not read the resurrection narrative in the supposedly earliest New Testament document. Let me lead you those verses:

Then as they went into the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed. But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has been raised! He is not here. Look, there is the place where they laid him. (Mark 16:5-6)

If Jesus' resurrection was not in the body, why did the angel tell the women - who had gone to see the body - that Jesus was no more in the place they had laid Him? How come Jesus' body was not in the tomb if the resurrection had only a spiritual meaning? (Note that the angel associates Jesus' resurrection with His body's not being in the tomb anymore)
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,121


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #84 on: June 24, 2011, 12:29:54 PM »

Sen, so at the very least you would say that Christians fail to understand their own books but your religion is wiser and therefore can understand them properly?

Firstly, Paul was writing to Greeks and Hellenized Jews.  These people by their presuppositions believed in the soul's continuance at the death of the body.  However, they did not believe in the general resurrection (that of all people in the body) because their presuppositions were that the body was a prison to the soul, and so they had the attitude of "good ridance" when they were free of it.  Yet, Paul wrote "But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen." because to deny the general resurrection while affirming the bodily resurrection of Christ (something that has ALWAYS been believed since the time of Christ Himself, which is why the Greeks laughed at Paul when he preached Christ's Gospel to them) would be to deny the fullness of Christ's humanity.  I would also recomment you read all of 1 Corinthians chapter 15, so that your quote is in context.  For instance, Paul continues "Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up-if in fact the dead do not rise.  For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen.  And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!"  The vast majority of Jews (especially those Jews who lived outside of Judea, where the Sadducees lived) believed in the immortality of the soul.  As such, it would be ludicrous for Paul to speak of Christ's soul being raised, as the Jews already believed Christ's soul was alive (and, as well, it would be a terrible choice of words, for it certainly has a connotation of a bodily resurrection, if it doesn't by necessity mean as much. 

Don't you think someone would have noticed when, in the 50's AD Christians were not claiming Christ's physical resurrection, but less then thirty years later in the other Gospels (save John which was closer to the end of the first century), were claiming Christ rose physically?  Don't you think this would have been a major argument against the Christians, by the Pagans and Jews "Oh those fool Christians, they can't keep their story straight.  Why would anyone be swayed by them" is a line I could see being delivered against them.  Yet, there is no such claim.  Rather, the claim was generally that the 12 moved Christ's body after His death, and hid it.  Why would anyone fight the Christians by claiming they really just moved His body, if the Christians weren't claiming Christ rose in the body?
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
Sen McGlinn
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Bahai
Posts: 28



WWW
« Reply #85 on: June 24, 2011, 01:03:59 PM »

Sen, so at the very least you would say that Christians fail to understand their own books but your religion is wiser and therefore can understand them properly?

What I outlined above is the fruit of modern scholarship, largely conducted by Christians. I learned it from Christian teachers, in a Presbyterian institution and a Catholic seminary, where I studied theology.

I think it is possible for the present generation to understand something more fully than people of a thousand or 1900 years earlier. That is, I do not believe that understanding in religion inevitably declines - it may do so, but progress is also possible. Or things may be first forgotten, and then rediscovered. The Bahais, among others, can share in an enlarging understanding, and can contribute to it.

Both defensiveness, and a belief in one's own superiority, get in the way of learning 
Logged
Sen McGlinn
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Bahai
Posts: 28



WWW
« Reply #86 on: June 24, 2011, 01:53:18 PM »

Firstly, Paul was writing to Greeks and Hellenized Jews. ... .

...   Yet, there is no such claim.  Rather, the claim was generally that the 12 moved Christ's body after His death, and hid it.  Why would anyone fight the Christians by claiming they really just moved His body, if the Christians weren't claiming Christ rose in the body?

Both good arguments, but both are arguments from silence, and there's another argument from silence against them: if there was a bodily resurrection, wouldn't the earliest Christian documents report it, and the earliest anti-Christian apologies focus on it?

What persuades me is, first of all, that there is a sequence of development from spiritual encounters to increasingly specified bodily appearances, in the New Testament documents; second, that if there was a tomb of Jesus in Jerusalem, empty or otherwise, the Jerusalem Christians would surely have clustered around it (another argument from silence, admittedly), third, that the bodily resurrection requires a physical heaven in the sky to which the body ascended; and fourth, Abdu'l-Baha's analysis in Some Answered Questions of the ways the gospels speak, which I quoted above ... "the Son of man came from heaven, He is in heaven, and He will go to heaven." ( http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/SAQ/saq-23.html )
Logged
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,121


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #87 on: June 24, 2011, 10:01:02 PM »

Firstly, Paul was writing to Greeks and Hellenized Jews. ... .

...   Yet, there is no such claim.  Rather, the claim was generally that the 12 moved Christ's body after His death, and hid it.  Why would anyone fight the Christians by claiming they really just moved His body, if the Christians weren't claiming Christ rose in the body?

Both good arguments, but both are arguments from silence, and there's another argument from silence against them: if there was a bodily resurrection, wouldn't the earliest Christian documents report it, and the earliest anti-Christian apologies focus on it?

What persuades me is, first of all, that there is a sequence of development from spiritual encounters to increasingly specified bodily appearances, in the New Testament documents; second, that if there was a tomb of Jesus in Jerusalem, empty or otherwise, the Jerusalem Christians would surely have clustered around it (another argument from silence, admittedly), third, that the bodily resurrection requires a physical heaven in the sky to which the body ascended; and fourth, Abdu'l-Baha's analysis in Some Answered Questions of the ways the gospels speak, which I quoted above ... "the Son of man came from heaven, He is in heaven, and He will go to heaven." ( http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/SAQ/saq-23.html )

Firstly, have you never heard of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre?  This is in fact believed to be Christ's tomb by Christians in Jerusalem, and many visit it frequently.  And why can there not be other states of physical being?  I mean, science is now under the impression there are multiple dimensions and various forms of matter that are invisible to human eyes.  Why is it so difficult to believe, then, that there is a physical heaven of a sort?

As well, why would Christians need to - in the early decades anyways - write down something that is known to everyone?  The earliest Christian documents are letters written for specific purposes.  How often do you write a letter to a friend and say "Oh, by the way, this has nothing to do with your question, but by any chance do you recall that time we both got ten million dollars?  I know it was only ten years ago, but I can barely recall it."  Big events are things people remember, so why would they have a need to comment on it?  And, in fact, St. Paul does so in 1 Corinthians.  In fact, while you accuse me of using an argument from silence, that is precisely what you are doing.  You are claiming that the lack of mention of Christ's resurrection (or your perceived lack of mention) is itself evidence that it was an unknown event.  That is the very definition of an argument from silence.

As well, I would have to do some digging, but I suspect that in fact the resurrection of Christ IS mentioned and argued against in the earliest known anti-Christian polemics. 

Furthermore, this paragraph from your link:

Therefore, we say that the meaning of Christ’s resurrection is as follows: the disciples were troubled and agitated after the martyrdom of Christ. The Reality of Christ, which signifies His teachings, His bounties, His perfections and His spiritual power, was hidden and concealed for two or three days after His martyrdom, and was not resplendent and manifest. No, rather it was lost, for the believers were few in number and were troubled and agitated. The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body; and when after three days the disciples became assured and steadfast, and began to serve the Cause of Christ, and resolved to spread the divine teachings, putting His counsels into practice, and arising to serve Him, the Reality of Christ became resplendent and His bounty appeared; His religion found life; His teachings and His admonitions became evident and visible. In other words, the Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body until the life and the bounty of the Holy Spirit surrounded it.

is foolishness.  If Christ didn't actually rise - as He Himself predicted - then why on earth would the disciples (which includes more than the 12) all of a sudden become moved to go out living a terrible life and dying in cruel and inhumane ways for a man who lied to them or who was deluded into thinking He could see the future?  As well, the message of the Resurrection of Christ was one of the first things that the apostles (which includes more than the 12) would preach in the synagogues.  After all, they spoke to the Jews of the Messiah who came.  Do you think it logical that they said "Hey, we met the Messiah!  But then he died.  Oh, and now he's not here any more".  Why would any Jews have believed a dead man is the Messiah?
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,121


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #88 on: June 24, 2011, 10:06:07 PM »

Sen, so at the very least you would say that Christians fail to understand their own books but your religion is wiser and therefore can understand them properly?

What I outlined above is the fruit of modern scholarship, largely conducted by Christians. I learned it from Christian teachers, in a Presbyterian institution and a Catholic seminary, where I studied theology.

I think it is possible for the present generation to understand something more fully than people of a thousand or 1900 years earlier. That is, I do not believe that understanding in religion inevitably declines - it may do so, but progress is also possible. Or things may be first forgotten, and then rediscovered. The Bahais, among others, can share in an enlarging understanding, and can contribute to it.

Both defensiveness, and a belief in one's own superiority, get in the way of learning 

Modern scholarship conducted by Christians has determined there was no bodily resurrection?  I don't buy that.  Certainly some Christians don't believe in the bodily resurrection, but they really shouldn't then be called Christians because for 2000 years one of the key pieces of Christianity was the ressurection of Christ.  You see, the point of the death of Christ wasn't to accomplish something on the Cross.  Rather, it was the Resurrection of the Lord and God of Mankind, that accomplished a task - the destruction of death.  How is death destroyed if Christ is not risen?

Frankly, what Catholics and Presbyterians teach isn't to do with my question.  Here we are talking of Orthodoxy and the Baha'i faith.  If Orthodoxy requires believers to believe in the physical bodily resurrection of Christ, and Baha'i say it didn't happen, this is not merely a different way of understanding something.  Even if it is, you are still claiming that the Baha'i understand it better than the Orthodox.  Or, alternatively, you must admit that the Baha'i faith could well be wrong on this point, and Orthodoxy true.  You cannot have it both ways if you are to have ANY intellectual honesty.

As well, this isn't about defensiveness or a belief in my superiority.  I do not believe I am superior to anyone, least of all someone I don't even know.  Rather, I believe that the Orthodox Church is superior to the Baha'i faith.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,641


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #89 on: June 25, 2011, 09:22:55 AM »

I don't see how Sen missed the bodily resurrection that's in the Gospels.  Huh
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Sen McGlinn
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Bahai
Posts: 28



WWW
« Reply #90 on: June 25, 2011, 08:23:30 PM »

I don't see how Sen missed the bodily resurrection that's in the Gospels.  Huh

I didn't miss it, but it is not the only account of the resurrection in the New Testament. The New Testament books were not written in the order they are published in the Bible. The first records are the genuine letters of Paul (not all of those attributed to him are written by him), then Mark, Luke and Acts, Matthew, John and the pastoral epistles, and Revelation. When historians study the development of Christian thought, they put the records in chronological order and also locate them geographically and socially where possible (because what Christians thought in Alexandria was not necessarily the same as Christians of the same day in Southern Turkey, or in Jerusalem and Damascus between those poles).

Now it appears -- with the necessary reservation that the data is rather fragmentary -- it appears that the earliest expression of the experience of the living Christ did not include a bodily resurrection and physical encounters with Jesus. That way of speaking of the resurrection seems to be almost a generation later. I would argue that both ways of speaking of the living Christ should be retained in theology, not privileging one over the other, but that when we are doing objective history, we have to recognise that it's improbable that the Apostles themselves spoke in this way. For example, if the Jerusalem church had known of the site of the empty tomb, could the community possibly have forgotten such an important fact for 200+ years, so that the site had to be "discovered" by Helena, mother of Constantine?
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,828



« Reply #91 on: June 25, 2011, 09:47:34 PM »

For example, if the Jerusalem church had known of the site of the empty tomb, could the community possibly have forgotten such an important fact for 200+ years, so that the site had to be "discovered" by Helena, mother of Constantine?

Josephus described the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus thusly:

 "...it was so thoroughly laid even with the ground by those that dug it up to the foundation, that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it [Jerusalem] had ever been inhabited... And truly, the very view itself was a melancholy thing; for those places which were adorned with trees and pleasant gardens, were now become desolate country every way, and its trees were all cut down. Nor could any foreigner that had formerly seen Judaea and the most beautiful suburbs of the city, and now saw it as a desert, but lament and mourn sadly at so great a change."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(70)
« Last Edit: June 25, 2011, 09:48:33 PM by Second Chance » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
MyMapleStory
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Approaching Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Will probably be Greek
Posts: 181


« Reply #92 on: June 26, 2011, 12:52:11 AM »

I think its very clear throughout most of the New testament that Christ rose physically, this was not an idea held amongs thte earliest Christians but heretics whom the church the Bahai faith says was the authority of that time condemned, namely the Docetics. We don't see a mystical understanding of Jesus raising, we see a solid and firm imprint that the actual body of Christ rose. the New testament was written as if it were history, it names places, people and features of the land that mere metaphorical accounts do not, such is in the case of previous pagan mythology, its too historical and we see no reason to suppose that some accounts in the NT are literal and some metaphorical for what would seem purely arbitrary reasons (The Bahai say Christ was born a virgin, which is strange because it is in the same narrative flow as the rest of the New testament books which account for it). Ultimately this idea of a spiritual ressurection is a novel idea one which was condemned as heresy by the Church which Constantine called at the Council of Nicaea, and the Bahais believe Constantine was a good Christian.
Logged
Theophilos78
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #93 on: June 26, 2011, 02:32:54 PM »


I didn't miss it, but it is not the only account of the resurrection in the New Testament.

You sure did. Here it comes again:

It seems u have not read the resurrection narrative in the supposedly earliest New Testament document. Let me lead you those verses:

Then as they went into the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side; and they were alarmed. But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has been raised! He is not here. Look, there is the place where they laid him. (Mark 16:5-6)

If Jesus' resurrection was not in the body, why did the angel tell the women - who had gone to see the body - that Jesus was no more in the place they had laid Him? How come Jesus' body was not in the tomb if the resurrection had only a spiritual meaning? (Note that the angel associates Jesus' resurrection with His body's not being in the tomb anymore)

Now it appears -- with the necessary reservation that the data is rather fragmentary -- it appears that the earliest expression of the experience of the living Christ did not include a bodily resurrection and physical encounters with Jesus.

This is a lie. Keep ignoring the truth.

That way of speaking of the resurrection seems to be almost a generation later.

Even the resurrection narrative in Mark sends your fallacious argument to dustbin.

I would argue that both ways of speaking of the living Christ should be retained in theology, not privileging one over the other, but that when we are doing objective history, we have to recognise that it's improbable that the Apostles themselves spoke in this way. For example, if the Jerusalem church had known of the site of the empty tomb, could the community possibly have forgotten such an important fact for 200+ years, so that the site had to be "discovered" by Helena, mother of Constantine?

Mark, whose resurrection narrative you seemingly rely on, also wrote that Jesus rose and His tomb was therefore empty.

Why would the community of Jerusalem care about Jesus' empty tomb when they knew that Jesus had bodily risen?  Grin
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Sen McGlinn
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Bahai
Posts: 28



WWW
« Reply #94 on: June 26, 2011, 04:35:46 PM »


Mark, whose resurrection narrative you seemingly rely on, ...

I think you are misunderstanding me. Mark is the earliest Gospel, when I refer to the earliest New Testament documents I mean the genuine letters of Paul. These have a different way of telling the resurrection. For example:

Colossians (about 50-60 AD) 3:1

If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.

Ephesians (about 60AD) 1:19: ...according to the working of his mighty power, which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come. And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.
2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

Mark has an empty tomb, but no post-resurrection encounters (if the latter part of chapter 16 is a later addition), while Matthew and Luke do report post-resurrection encounters with an embodied Jesus.



Logged
MyMapleStory
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Approaching Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Will probably be Greek
Posts: 181


« Reply #95 on: June 26, 2011, 05:16:33 PM »

And yet the man in the Tomb which is apart of the authentic Gospel of Mark says that Jesus has gone before them. Mark is not telling the Bahai version of events. And I would garuntee you its really stretching to reach a spiritual interpretation of such a verse, given that Paul is very Clear in 1st Cor 15 that Christ rose physically, not spiritually, he tells us that Christ appeared to the Desciples and the only other account of this we have are in the canonical gospels, but Luke is the Most important here because Saint Luke knew Saint Paul and was tuaght by him. St Luke presents along with all the other gospel writers a thoroughly Physical ressurection, recording that JEsus ate and was no spirit among them, either the bible is contradicting itself if Paul is speaking about a spiritual ressurection and Luke is not (the bahai whenever I have asked them affirm the truth of scripture) or Saint Paul truely believed in the physical resserection as his desciples, St Luke and St Clement clearly demonstrate in their material.
Logged
Theophilos78
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #96 on: June 26, 2011, 05:53:17 PM »


Mark has an empty tomb, but no post-resurrection encounters (if the latter part of chapter 16 is a later addition), while Matthew and Luke do report post-resurrection encounters with an embodied Jesus.

Wrong again! The angel in Mark's resurrection narrative makes it clear that the disciples will meet the risen Jesus in Galilee:

But go, tell his disciples, even Peter, that he is going ahead of you into Galilee. You will see him there, just as he told you. (Mark 16:7)

Post-resurrection encounter is anticipated in the angel's good news.

I thought that the followers of Bahai were not like the followers of Ahmadiyya. How wrong I was in that presumption! Bahai religion was born of Islam. This is why lying and deception are maintained in it.
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,854



« Reply #97 on: June 26, 2011, 06:55:12 PM »

And yet the man in the Tomb which is apart of the authentic Gospel of Mark says that Jesus has gone before them. Mark is not telling the Bahai version of events. And I would garuntee you its really stretching to reach a spiritual interpretation of such a verse, given that Paul is very Clear in 1st Cor 15 that Christ rose physically, not spiritually, he tells us that Christ appeared to the Desciples and the only other account of this we have are in the canonical gospels, but Luke is the Most important here because Saint Luke knew Saint Paul and was tuaght by him. St Luke presents along with all the other gospel writers a thoroughly Physical ressurection, recording that JEsus ate and was no spirit among them, either the bible is contradicting itself if Paul is speaking about a spiritual ressurection and Luke is not (the bahai whenever I have asked them affirm the truth of scripture) or Saint Paul truely believed in the physical resserection as his desciples, St Luke and St Clement clearly demonstrate in their material.
Actually, historically St. Paul is the most important in what you cite, as I Corinthians is the earliest witness that you mention (about 20 years after the event), and he is referencing eyewitnesses to the Resurrection whom the Corinthians know they can check to verify St. Paul's account.  St. John writes much later, but claims (which are true) to be an eyewitness, and the incident with St. Thomas which he reports leaves no doubt it was a physical resurrection.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
MyMapleStory
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Approaching Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Will probably be Greek
Posts: 181


« Reply #98 on: June 26, 2011, 07:02:00 PM »

Yes Saint Paul is indeed the greatest historical witness to the ressurection and death of christ, but the bahai tend to quote him more than anyone else and insert their doctrine of a spiritually raised Christ(how a spiritually raised person has any signifficance I have no idea), I really need to read the Apostle's writings and churches understanding of them in order to respond.

God bless.
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #99 on: June 26, 2011, 08:53:49 PM »

I think its very clear throughout most of the New testament that Christ rose physically, this was not an idea held amongs thte earliest Christians but heretics whom the church the Bahai faith says was the authority of that time condemned, namely the Docetics. We don't see a mystical understanding of Jesus raising, we see a solid and firm imprint that the actual body of Christ rose. the New testament was written as if it were history, it names places, people and features of the land that mere metaphorical accounts do not, such is in the case of previous pagan mythology, its too historical and we see no reason to suppose that some accounts in the NT are literal and some metaphorical for what would seem purely arbitrary reasons (The Bahai say Christ was born a virgin, which is strange because it is in the same narrative flow as the rest of the New testament books which account for it). Ultimately this idea of a spiritual ressurection is a novel idea one which was condemned as heresy by the Church which Constantine called at the Council of Nicaea, and the Bahais believe Constantine was a good Christian.

From my understanding the New Testament is not history in Orthodoxy, rather it works in different ways for our salvation. It couldn't be just a historical document, because Orthodoxy is a living faith.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Sen McGlinn
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Bahai
Posts: 28



WWW
« Reply #100 on: June 27, 2011, 04:20:50 AM »

I thought that the followers of Bahai were not like the followers of Ahmadiyya. How wrong I was in that presumption! Bahai religion was born of Islam. This is why lying and deception are maintained in it.

The source-critical  (or "higher criticism") approach to the New Testament is not a Bahai thing: it is the way the New Testament is studied in academies and seminaries. See the Wikipedia article on higher criticism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_criticism
Logged
MyMapleStory
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Approaching Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Will probably be Greek
Posts: 181


« Reply #101 on: June 27, 2011, 05:39:30 PM »

I think its very clear throughout most of the New testament that Christ rose physically, this was not an idea held amongs thte earliest Christians but heretics whom the church the Bahai faith says was the authority of that time condemned, namely the Docetics. We don't see a mystical understanding of Jesus raising, we see a solid and firm imprint that the actual body of Christ rose. the New testament was written as if it were history, it names places, people and features of the land that mere metaphorical accounts do not, such is in the case of previous pagan mythology, its too historical and we see no reason to suppose that some accounts in the NT are literal and some metaphorical for what would seem purely arbitrary reasons (The Bahai say Christ was born a virgin, which is strange because it is in the same narrative flow as the rest of the New testament books which account for it). Ultimately this idea of a spiritual ressurection is a novel idea one which was condemned as heresy by the Church which Constantine called at the Council of Nicaea, and the Bahais believe Constantine was a good Christian.

From my understanding the New Testament is not history in Orthodoxy, rather it works in different ways for our salvation. It couldn't be just a historical document, because Orthodoxy is a living faith.

I don't maintain it to be just a historical document, but it certaintly is a historical document, primarily the gospels and acts.
Logged
Theophilos78
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #102 on: June 29, 2011, 03:17:50 AM »

I thought that the followers of Bahai were not like the followers of Ahmadiyya. How wrong I was in that presumption! Bahai religion was born of Islam. This is why lying and deception are maintained in it.

The source-critical  (or "higher criticism") approach to the New Testament is not a Bahai thing: it is the way the New Testament is studied in academies and seminaries. See the Wikipedia article on higher criticism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_criticism

I know about the higher criticism, yet ignoring the reference to post-resurrection encounter in the angelic message in Mark's resurrection narrative has nothing to do with this field of study.
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
Sen McGlinn
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Bahai
Posts: 28



WWW
« Reply #103 on: June 29, 2011, 04:41:31 AM »

I thought that the followers of Bahai were not like the followers of Ahmadiyya. How wrong I was in that presumption! Bahai religion was born of Islam. This is why lying and deception are maintained in it.

The source-critical  (or "higher criticism") approach to the New Testament is not a Bahai thing: it is the way the New Testament is studied in academies and seminaries. See the Wikipedia article on higher criticism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_criticism

I know about the higher criticism, yet ignoring the reference to post-resurrection encounter in the angelic message in Mark's resurrection narrative has nothing to do with this field of study.

I'm not sure you've understood my point about historical development in the New Testament. The oldest NT documents (the genuine letters of Paul) have a spiritual resurrection. The later documents have increasingly specific post-resurrection physical appearances. Mark, the earliest of the gospels, has a reference to appearances (which since they are not described, cannot be characterised as either physical or spiritual). That is just what one would expect if there is a historical development in the direction of post-resurrection physical appearances. It confirms, not refutes, what I am saying. The later gospels have accounts of physical appearances. So there seems to be a historical development (the evidence is only the fragments that have survived from what must have been a much larger corpus, and it is not impossible that the differences are not due to historical development but to differences between the teaching of the church in different centres). But whether there is or is not a chronological development, it is still true that the NT documents teach both a spiritual resurrection and physical post-resurrection appearances. I understand the latter as a different way of saying the same thing as is meant by the accounts that have a spiritual resurrection, ie I think the later 3 gospels present us with theological claims in a narrative form.
Logged
MyMapleStory
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Approaching Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Will probably be Greek
Posts: 181


« Reply #104 on: June 29, 2011, 04:51:49 AM »

As I have demonstrated Paul's ressurection is not only spiritual but physical. Please respond to what I ahve said (That Saint Paul clearly in 1st Corinthians 15, presents Christ as appearing to the desciples and we have his own student, Saint Luke explaining what that appearence involved IE a Physical appearance) before you reach such a heretical opinion. But your claim about the new testament gospels does them no justice, we have no reason to believe they are not to be taken literal as they were very clearly written as primarily historical documents (the exception being John, but his Gospel is also historical), how can one say spiritually interpret the passage which has Jesus eating fish and then saying a spirit is not flesh and blood? The Bahai have no interpretation of this verse because it contradicts their very novel ideas about Christ (and they are novel or rather a revival of ancient heresies condemned by the Church the Bahai admit had authority at one point, and yet the Bahai insist they do not contradict the early believers, which they clearly do). Please do not insert your bahai intepretaition on to a scripture which knows nothing of it, or else you are no better than the Docetics.


Just to quickly elaborate, In 1st Corinthians Fifteen paul not only gives the teaching that the apostles saw the risen Christ along with the 500, he then goes on to point out about the general ressurection and how some doubted, that if Christ did not raise from the dead we have no hope in us. How can saint Paul be talking about a spiritual ressurection (whatever that accomplishes I have no idea), when he quite clearly says that Christ's ressurection is the first of them. What with the general ressurection (which the bahai conveinently deny) do our bodies just die and everyone's spirits just rise? How is this a ressurection? it is no different from dying. The Ressurection was never understood in first century Judaism and Christianity as being something spiritual, it always involved a fleshly Dimension, no doubt we will have Sen quote verses in order to show that Paul speaks of a spiritual resserection, denying the very verses which indicate that it is a fleshy one as well. Why does the bible contradict itself in the bahai view? Because it is the wrong view of Scripture, the correct view is the Orthodox Christian view, maintained for 2000 years.

But I must ask, why did Jesus utterly fail to teach people correctly if the bahai are correct? Not even Muhammad could teach the reality of Christ and his atoning death. Why is it that new teachers always claim those before them have misunderstood or gone astray? This is the ultimate reason why the Bahai faith crumbles.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2011, 05:05:47 AM by MyMapleStory » Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,641


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #105 on: June 29, 2011, 08:49:56 AM »

If an 'appearance' cannot be characterized as either spiritual or physical, then how is it an appearance?  Huh

Does not Thomas touch the wounds of Christ?
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
MyMapleStory
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Approaching Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: Will probably be Greek
Posts: 181


« Reply #106 on: June 29, 2011, 03:49:27 PM »

I would say it is both, but the Bahai believe that Jesus did not literally appear to the desciples in any form, but rather the apostles somehow contrary to their culture and religious roots somehow understood the meaning of the death of Christ and were willing to die. This explains none of the facts of the empty tomb and the apostles willingness to die for the faith and seems utterly contrived and novel.
Logged
Theophilos78
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: pro-Israeli Zionist Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Adonai Yeshua
Posts: 2,043



« Reply #107 on: June 29, 2011, 04:09:46 PM »


I'm not sure you've understood my point about historical development in the New Testament. The oldest NT documents (the genuine letters of Paul) have a spiritual resurrection.

This is a groundless claim of yours. Where does Paul deny bodily resurrection? He actually talks about corruption and bodies:

And there are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies. The glory of the heavenly body is one sort and the earthly another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon and another glory of the stars, for star differs from star in glory. It is the same with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. (1 Corinthians 15:40-44)

For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. (1 Corinthians 15:52-53)

The later documents have increasingly specific post-resurrection physical appearances. Mark, the earliest of the gospels, has a reference to appearances (which since they are not described, cannot be characterised as either physical or spiritual).

The angel declares "Christ is risen" and immediately says He is not here (in the tomb)! Bodily resurrection is in the text for honest and brave people who are not afraid of the truth.  Grin

That is just what one would expect if there is a historical development in the direction of post-resurrection physical appearances. It confirms, not refutes, what I am saying.

What you are claiming is alien to the Gospels and Paul's letters. All these inspired authors taught bodily resurrection.

The later gospels have accounts of physical appearances. So there seems to be a historical development (the evidence is only the fragments that have survived from what must have been a much larger corpus, and it is not impossible that the differences are not due to historical development but to differences between the teaching of the church in different centres). But whether there is or is not a chronological development, it is still true that the NT documents teach both a spiritual resurrection and physical post-resurrection appearances. I understand the latter as a different way of saying the same thing as is meant by the accounts that have a spiritual resurrection, ie I think the later 3 gospels present us with theological claims in a narrative form.

Thanks to your posts under this thread, we have studied the historical development of the Bahai faith. Your leader fabricated the phrase "spiritual resurrection" and invented further methods of perverting the NT documents to deceive/mislead his followers.
Logged

Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,854



« Reply #108 on: June 29, 2011, 06:17:31 PM »

I thought that the followers of Bahai were not like the followers of Ahmadiyya. How wrong I was in that presumption! Bahai religion was born of Islam. This is why lying and deception are maintained in it.

The source-critical  (or "higher criticism") approach to the New Testament is not a Bahai thing: it is the way the New Testament is studied in academies and seminaries. See the Wikipedia article on higher criticism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_criticism
Have you seen what they conclude about Baha'i scripture?
http://books.google.com/books?id=iO7XAAAAMAAJ&q=On+Shiism+Kasravi+Bahai+bad+Arabic&dq=On+Shiism+Kasravi+Bahai+bad+Arabic&hl=en&ei=VKQLTt7NKeqLsALo0KnVAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA
Quote
And he asked why the founders of the Bahai religion, who lived in a Persian- speaking environment, wrote in Arabic (and, bad Arabic at that), apparently on the assumption that Arabic is the only language of revelation.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2011, 06:18:31 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,925


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #109 on: August 06, 2011, 05:25:25 PM »

I thought that the followers of Bahai were not like the followers of Ahmadiyya. How wrong I was in that presumption! Bahai religion was born of Islam. This is why lying and deception are maintained in it.

The source-critical  (or "higher criticism") approach to the New Testament is not a Bahai thing: it is the way the New Testament is studied in academies and seminaries. See the Wikipedia article on higher criticism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_criticism

I know about the higher criticism, yet ignoring the reference to post-resurrection encounter in the angelic message in Mark's resurrection narrative has nothing to do with this field of study.

I'm not sure you've understood my point about historical development in the New Testament. The oldest NT documents (the genuine letters of Paul) have a spiritual resurrection. The later documents have increasingly specific post-resurrection physical appearances. Mark, the earliest of the gospels, has a reference to appearances (which since they are not described, cannot be characterised as either physical or spiritual). That is just what one would expect if there is a historical development in the direction of post-resurrection physical appearances. It confirms, not refutes, what I am saying. The later gospels have accounts of physical appearances. So there seems to be a historical development (the evidence is only the fragments that have survived from what must have been a much larger corpus, and it is not impossible that the differences are not due to historical development but to differences between the teaching of the church in different centres). But whether there is or is not a chronological development, it is still true that the NT documents teach both a spiritual resurrection and physical post-resurrection appearances. I understand the latter as a different way of saying the same thing as is meant by the accounts that have a spiritual resurrection, ie I think the later 3 gospels present us with theological claims in a narrative form.

My Persian Bahai friend seems to think that such statements, or any statement that would imply that the NT is in any way corrupted, not the Word of God, or in theological error or distortion, would only be stated by a Bahai "Covenant Breaker"; that is, a heretic and schismatic.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Andrew Crook
formerly known as AveChriste11
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 523



« Reply #110 on: August 06, 2011, 11:09:22 PM »

That is correct Nicholas, Mirza Husayn Ali Nuri (or Baha'u'llah) also never believed the Bible was corrupted.  I am certain that he states this in some of his writings.. although he and his followers might say our interpretations of that Bible were corrupted.  Because somehow you have to reconcile it with Islam, which says that we are wallad'aleeen.. or those who have "gone astray" according to the Opening Prayer in the Qur'an.
Logged

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.337 seconds with 139 queries.