The Bahai Faith states that this faith is a continuation of Christianity as Christianity is a continuation of Judaism. Yet what we really have here is not a continuation of Christianity but a relatively new religion whose supposed prophet cannot prove what he says is true but can only make the startling claim what he is who he says he is and no more.
When Baha'is state their claims and Christians counter with biblical references showing such claims to be spurious Baha'is then counter that we Christians are much too literal in our application of biblical exegesis. Case in point: Baha'is claim that the resurrection of Jesus Christ was not a literal event but spiritual. Never mind that most of the writers of the New Testament-and many more-witnessed the resurrection and testified to the physicality of such an event. See Luke 24:39 and 1 Corinthians 15:1-9. Another one would have us believe is that the raising of Lazarus requires a spiritual interpretation and cannot and should not be understood as a literal event. We are asked to believe that Baha'i beliefs are a continuation of Christianity yet many of the Baha'i doctrines and beliefs cannot be traced back any further than the advent of their prophet and his followers and not before. The appeal is made to symbolism and symbolic imagery as the way to interpret biblical passages supporting their prophet. However, such appeals are always subjective and are rarely, if ever, objective. Baha'is would have us believe that the writers of the Bible were employing symbolism and symbolic imagery when writing but when referencing their own writings they must always be understood as literal and objective. And yet Baha'is would have us believe that they are the only ones who know the correct or true interpretation of what the writers of the Bible wrote. One method of interpretation must be employed for the writings of one faith and a different method of interpretation for the other. The dichotomy is obvious. What we are being asked to believe is that those who wrote the Bible knew that they were writing in such a manner yet failed or neglected to pass on the true meanings of what they wrote. The reason that they did not is they fully expected their readers to understand what they were writing!
We Christians are being told that what we have believed and taught for nearly two millennia is wrong and only now are we being told this. If what they're asking us to believe is right then they should be able to show what they believe has been taught since biblical times yet they can do no such thing. One cannot and should not expect people to jettison core fundamental beliefs which have been believed, taught and expounded upon for nearly two millennia merely at the insistence of some self-proclaimed prophet who now says we should.
They claim that their prophet-Baha'u'llah-is the second coming of Christ. Again biblical facts fail to support such a claim. The Bible states that when Jesus Christ returns every eye shall see Him. Has every eye seen this "Baha'u'llah"? One does not have to think long or hard to know whether or not this has happened. Jesus told those around Him that no one would know when He would return, and that even He Himself would not know when, only God knows. Yet we're told that His return in 1844 was predicted by many Bible scholars. And that "Baha'u'llah" is the promised second coming. Clearly someone must be wrong for both cannot be right.
Baha'is claim that this "Baha'u'llah" is the comforter that is promised in the Bible. Yet the Bible makes it very clear that the promised comforter is a spirit and not a corporeal entity. Luke 24:29; John 14:26; 15:26. One of the more interesting things is about the disparity between the rich and poor. The Baha'i answer for this disparity is, "The remedy must be legislative readjustment of conditions." This is nothing more than the redistribution of wealth. Only one word accurately describes the system that would be needed to implement such a remedy and that word is SOCIALISM.
The name "Baha'u'llah" we are told means "Glory of God" and that this is the promised new name the returning Christ would have. This clearly contradicts Scripture because Isaiah 42:8 reads, "I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another..." See also Isaiah 48:11.
So in other words what we have here in this "prophet" is someone that contradicts the Bible who can only prove his claim of being the return of Jesus Christ by employing the most sweeping symbolism and symbolic imagery available as a means of interpreting previous scriptures and who brings to us a faith bearing the banner of socialism. Not a very sure foundation to place one's faith or for pinning ones hope of an afterlife.
... what we really have here is not a continuation of Christianity but a relatively new religion whose supposed prophet cannot prove what he says is true but can only make the startling claim what he is who he says he is and no more.
There might be some who think of the Baha'i Faith as a continuation of Christianity but not all of us do. It certainly IS a completely NEW religion but, then again, so was Christianity at one time. The mere fact that the Baha'i Faith grew from obscurity into a global religion in such a short span of time attests to its validity in many minds/hearts. Whether it is from God is for each individual to judge.
... many of the Baha'i doctrines and beliefs cannot be traced back any further than the advent of their prophet and his followers and not before.
I believe that something very similar was claimed of Jesus by the Pharisees. If this weren't the case, Christianity would still be considered a sect of Judaism and Baha'i, a sect of Islam. Jesus' parable about wine skins might apply (see Luke 3:6).
We Christians are being told that what we have believed and taught for nearly two millennia is wrong and only now are we being told this.
It's my understanding that certain Christian beliefs were said to be wrong 1400 years ago in the noble Qur'an. It isn't a new concept, but the Baha'i Faith has never been about turning Christianity on its head. No Baha'i will ever deny Jesus or His teachings.
If what they're asking us to believe is right then they should be able to show what they believe has been taught since biblical times yet they can do no such thing.
I'm unsure what you mean by this. An example from you might help provide an adequate response.
One cannot and should not expect people to jettison core fundamental beliefs which have been believed, taught and expounded upon for nearly two millennia merely at the insistence of some self-proclaimed prophet who now says we should.
Well, apparently there are millions of previous Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindis, Buddhists and others who have. Could it be that they investigated the writings of Baha'u'llah with an open mind and without bias?
... when a true seeker determineth to take the step of search in the path leading to the knowledge of the Ancient of Days, he must, before all else, cleanse and purify his heart, which is the seat of the revelation of the inner mysteries of God, from the obscuring dust of all acquired knowledge, and the allusions of the embodiments of satanic fancy. ~Baha'u'llah, "The Kitab-i-Iqan," p. 192
The Bible states that when Jesus Christ returns every eye shall see Him. Has every eye seen this "Baha'u'llah"?
This is the age of the internet and if you hadn't seen "Baha'u'llah" all over the place, you might not now be visiting us in the Baha'i Faith forum (or known how to correctly spell His name).
Jesus told those around Him that no one would know when He would return, and that even He Himself would not know when, only God knows. Yet we're told that His return in 1844 was predicted by many Bible scholars.
Jesus NEVER said that He didn't know the year, only that He didn't know the day or the hour. The Tanakh (OT) has many clues as to the year.
[continued]
Ye have been forbidden in the Book of God to engage in contention and conflict... ~Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas
The name "Baha'u'llah" we are told means "Glory of God" and that this is the promised new name the returning Christ would have. This clearly contradicts Scripture because Isaiah 42:8 reads, "I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another..." See also Isaiah 48:11.
In Arabic "Allah" stands for either "God" or "Lord." You possibly overlooked the following from Isaiah, as well as a few prophesies from Revelation?
…the excellency of Carmel and Sharon; they shall see the Glory of the Lord, and the excellency of our God. (Is.35:2)
And the Glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of God hath spoken it. (Is.40:5)
…and thy righteousness shall go before thee; the glory of the Lord shall be thy rereward. (Is.58:8)
Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the Glory of the Lord is risen upon thee … I the Lord am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer… (Is.60: 1-16)
…showed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God. Having the Glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious… (Rev. 21:10-11)
And the temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God, and from his power... (Rev. 15:8)
And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. (Rev. 21:23)
Christ Jesus said He would return "in the glory of his Father" (Matt.16:27, Mark 8:38). It was helpful to me at one time to re-read the parable of the husbandman (Luke 20:9) to grasp its true meaning.
So in other words what we have here in this "prophet" is someone that contradicts the Bible who can only prove his claim of being the return of Jesus Christ ....
Baha'u'llah does NOT make the claim to be the return of Jesus. His claim is that of "Lord of Hosts," "King of Kings," and "Lord of Lords." His claims are those of the "Father" and not as return of the Son.
Ye are but vassals, O Kings of the earth! He Who is the King of kings hath appeared, arrayed in His most wondrous glory, and is summoning you unto Himself, the Help in Peril, the Self-Subsisting. Take heed lest pride deter you from recognizing the Source of Revelation; lest the things of this world shut you out as by a veil from Him Who is the Creator of heaven. ("The Proclamation of Baha'u'llah," p. 5)
O Pope! Rend the veils asunder. He Who is the Lord of Lords is come overshadowed with clouds, and the decree hath been fulfilled by God, the Almighty, the Unrestrained. Dispel the mists through the power of thy Lord, and ascend unto the Kingdom of His names and attributes. Thus hath the Pen of the Most High commanded thee at the behest of thy Lord, the Almighty, the All-Compelling. He, verily, hath again come down from Heaven even as He came down from it the first time. Beware that thou dispute not with Him even as the Pharisees disputed with Him without a clear token or proof. (~Baha'u'llah, "The Summons of the Lord of Hosts," p. 55)
[continued]
Ye have been forbidden in the Book of God to engage in contention and conflict... ~Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas
.... by employing the most sweeping symbolism and symbolic imagery available as a means of interpreting previous scriptures
Are you familiar with the verses in Daniel, Isaiah, and Revelation concerning the sealing of the books of the Bible? From the following verses, it would seem that the scriptures were never meant to be fully understood or interpreted until the time of the end when the Promised One would be "...worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof…" (Rev. 5:9)?
O Daniel, shut up the Words and seal the Book, even to the time of the end… (Daniel 12:4)
And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed…which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed. (Is. 29:11)
And in that day shall the deaf hear the words of the Book, and the eyes of the blind shall see… They also that erred in spirit shall come to understanding, and they that murmured shall learn doctrine. (Is. 29:18,24)
These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall show you plainly of the Father. (John 16:25)
Having the belief that the Bible is God's indisputable Word, and given that the Book was "sealed" by God until the end time, would you concede to even the possibility that some interpretation of "sealed" Biblical verses might very well be in error? Since even many Christians also believe that we're now in the "time of the end," (Israel being the most obvious fulfilled prophecy), what is viewed by you as symbolic imagery is believed by Baha'is to be fulfillment of Isaiah 29:18,24 above.
Namaste, wc
Ye have been forbidden in the Book of God to engage in contention and conflict... ~Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas
3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
3:11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
3:14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
3:17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
3:18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
Another prophecy is that when the Gospel had been preached unto all nations the Advent would occur. That happened in 1844 and was proclaimed by the missionary societies. Then came the Great Disappointment. Where was He? They did not all keep seeking Him and thus they did not all find Him.
We were not disappointed. But the world is full of those who remain and continue to be disappointed.
Disappointed, just like those who expected Jesus to come with a sword, which they expected would be made of metal and used for slaying; instead of for cleaving those who believed in Him from all others, even close kin.
Disappointed, just like those who expected a crowned king to throw off the Roman yoke upon their shoulders; forcing a crown of thorns upon the blessed brow of the King sent from Heaven, Who conquered the hearts of the Romans so thoroughly, that they still bend the knee before Him, over two thousand years later.
The Food of the Children, who did not eat of it, became the spiritual Sustenance and Salvation of those who kissed His piercéd palms. He balmed their hearts and blessed their souls. He gave them life eternal.
The dead are still too busy burying the dead. Let them do so, as the Lord commanded.
All eyes shall see Him. Some do not wake with Advent's dawn. Those who are wakeful shall see Him, sooner or later. It is a matter of whether one is of the former or of the latter.
... what we really have here is not a continuation of Christianity but a relatively new religion whose supposed prophet cannot prove what he says is true but can only make the startling claim what he is who he says he is and no more.
There might be some who think of the Baha'i Faith as a continuation of Christianity but not all of us do.
What do the infallible men of the Universal Hous of Jusitice think?
It certainly is NOT a "completely" new religion. You have the same OLD prophets of Judiaism, Christiainity and Islam. You use the same OLD scriptures of Judiaism, Christianity and Islam. You just interprete them DIFFERENTLY and continued with adding your own scripture.
Again, Christianity was never a "completly" new religion. Jesus was a Jew, St. Paul was a Jew and all the 12 apostles were Jews. Up until 70 AD Christianity was considered to be a sect of Judiaism. It was like Reform Bahai is to Real Bahai. St. Paul preached in synogouges.
The mere fact that the Baha'i Faith grew from obscurity into a global religion in such a short span of time attests to its validity in many minds/hearts. Whether it is from God is for each individual to judge.
Well I do agree with your charactizing it as a "mere" fact.
The mere fact that the Mormon Faith grew from obscurity into a global religion in such a short span of time attests to its validity in many minds/hearts. Whether it is from God is for each individual to judge.
The mere fact that the Church of Scientology grew from obscurity into a global religion in such a short span of time attests to its validity in many minds/hearts. Whether it is from God is for each individual to judge.
... many of the Baha'i doctrines and beliefs cannot be traced back any further than the advent of their prophet and his followers and not before.
I believe that something very similar was claimed of Jesus by the Pharisees. If this weren't the case, Christianity would still be considered a sect of Judaism
Messanic Jews do considered Christianity to be a sect of Judaism.
Orthodox Jews consider Christianity to be a HERETICAL sect of Judiaism.
Much like Orthodox Bahai consider Reform Bahai to be heretical.
There are two sects in Islam. Sunni and Shia. Now you "might" consider yourself to be a sect in Islam because you revere Muhammad and use the Quran. But I have never heard anyone refer to the Bahai as a sect of Islam.
If what they're asking us to believe is right then they should be able to show what they believe has been taught since biblical times yet they can do no such thing.
I'm unsure what you mean by this. An example from you might help provide an adequate response.
I think he is trying to say that
If you Bahai are asking us Christians to believe that the Bahai believe right and has been taught during the time of both the Old Testament and New Testament then you should be able to show why. But you can't do it.
One cannot and should not expect people to jettison core fundamental beliefs which have been believed, taught and expounded upon for nearly two millennia merely at the insistence of some self-proclaimed prophet who now says we should.
Well, apparently there are millions of previous Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindis, Buddhists and others who have. Could it be that they investigated the writings of Baha'u'llah with an open mind and without bias?
And apparently there are millions more of current Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindis, Buddhists and others who have NOT.
... when a true seeker determineth to take the step of search in the path leading to the knowledge of the Ancient of Days, he must, before all else, cleanse and purify his heart, which is the seat of the revelation of the inner mysteries of God, from the obscuring dust of all acquired knowledge, and the allusions of the embodiments of satanic fancy. ~Baha'u'llah, "The Kitab-i-Iqan," p. 192
And if after doing all that you do not see the truth of the Baha'u'llah and reject the Kitab-i-Iqan ?
The Bible states that when Jesus Christ returns every eye shall see Him. Has every eye seen this "Baha'u'llah"?
This is the age of the internet and if you hadn't seen "Baha'u'llah" all over the place, you might not now be visiting us in the Baha'i Faith forum (or known how to correctly spell His name).
I do not see and have never seen the "Bahaullah" even visiting this forum, even if I illiterate his name correctly.
Jesus told those around Him that no one would know when He would return, and that even He Himself would not know when, only God knows. Yet we're told that His return in 1844 was predicted by many Bible scholars.
Jesus NEVER said that He didn't know the year, only that He didn't know the day or the hour. The Tanakh (OT) has many clues as to the year.
November 12th 1817 is a specific day. It was the day that Mirzza Husayn Ali Nuri was born. It was a Wednesday.
I despise those who use the cut and paste approach that many if not most adherents of one religion use to try to prove a point. I think you should at least at the bare minium read the entire chapter.
.... by employing the most sweeping symbolism and symbolic imagery available as a means of interpreting previous scriptures
Are you familiar with the verses in Daniel, Isaiah, and Revelation concerning the sealing of the books of the Bible? From the following verses, it would seem that the scriptures were never meant to be fully understood or interpreted until the time of the end when the Promised One would be "...worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof…" (Rev. 5:9)?
O Daniel, shut up the Words and seal the Book, even to the time of the end… (Daniel 12:4)
And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed…which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed. (Is. 29:11)
And in that day shall the deaf hear the words of the Book, and the eyes of the blind shall see… They also that erred in spirit shall come to understanding, and they that murmured shall learn doctrine. (Is. 29:18,24)
These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall show you plainly of the Father. (John 16:25)
Having the belief that the Bible is God's indisputable Word, and given that the Book was "sealed" by God until the end time, would you concede to even the possibility that some interpretation of "sealed" Biblical verses might very well be in error?
Would YOU having a "belief" that the Bible AND the Quran are indusputably the wordS of God even past the endtime, would YOU concede to even the possiblity that some of YOUR interpretations of the "sealed" Biblical AND Quraic verses might well be in error?
Since even many Christians also believe that we're now in the "time of the end," (Israel being the most obvious fulfilled prophecy), what is viewed by you as symbolic imagery is believed by Baha'is to be fulfillment of Isaiah 29:18,24 above.
That many Christians "now" believe that we are in the "time of the end" is certainly true. But it is not unique. Many Christians have held that belief since the death of Jesus. And it is not now, nor was it then "unique" to Christians,some Jews after the time of the destruction of the 1st Temple and Jews at the time of the destruction of the 2nd Temple(when the book of Daniel was written)and Jews NOW believe that "now is the end time". And I am sure that there are Muslims who hold the same belief. And I would not be suprised that there are Bahai that "believe" the same way.
Would YOU be willing to concede that the Jews would interprete the symbolic imagary in Isa 29,
Hello NATAS and thanks for visiting our forum with your comments/questions.
WC: There might be some who think of the Baha'i Faith as a continuation of Christianity but not all of us do. NATAS: What do the infallible men of the Universal House of Jusitice think?
To Israel He was neither more nor less than the incarnation of the "Everlasting Father", the "Lord of Hosts" come down "with ten thousands of saints"; to Christendom Christ returned "in the glory of the Father"; to Shí'ah Islam the return of the Imam Husayn; to Sunni Islam the descent of the "Spirit of God" (Jesus Christ); to the Zoroastrians the promised Shah-Bahram; to the Hindus the reincarnation of Krishna; to the Buddhists the fifth Buddha. ("The Kitab-i-Aqdas," p.233)
As the Manifestation of God to the age of fulfillment, He is the one promised in all the scriptures of the past, the "Desire of all nations," the "King of Glory." To Judaism He is "Lord of Hosts"; to Christianity, the return of Christ in the glory of the Father; to Islam, the "Great Announcement"; to Buddhism, the Maitreya Buddha; to Hinduism, the new incarnation of Krishna; to Zoroastrianism, the advent of "Shah-Bahram." (Baha'i International Community, 29 May 1992, "Statement on Baha'u'llah," p. 26)
Bahá'u'lláh is the Culmination of the Adamic Cycle and the Inaugurator of the Bahá'í Cycle. (Compilation: "Lights of Guidance," p. 500)
It certainly is NOT a "completely" new religion. You have the same OLD prophets of Judiaism, Christiainity and Islam. You use the same OLD scriptures of Judiaism, Christianity and Islam. You just interprete them DIFFERENTLY and continued with adding your own scripture.
While we believe in the validity of the "same old prophets" and their Books, they aren't germane to the Baha'i Faith. To be a "completely" new religion, a belief system can't fall under the umbrella of another religion (e.g., Mormonism is still basically Christianity; Sikhism is still basically Hinduism). Which of the following principles and/or laws aimed toward the unification of mankind are found in other world religions?
All religions share a common foundation.
People of all races, nationalities, economies and religions are equal in the sight of God.
Prejudice of any kind is to be eliminated.
An administrative order established by the Prophet Founder.
Each individual is responsible to investigate divine truths for him/herself - no clergy.
Science without religion is materialism; religion without science is superstition.
Education of children is mandatory.
A spiritual solution to economic problems.
The mandate of an international auxiliary language.
There are two sects in Islam. Sunni and Shia.
They are only the two largest, more vocal sects within Islam.
Now you "might" consider yourself to be a sect in Islam because you revere Muhammad and use the Quran. But I have never heard anyone refer to the Bahai as a sect of Islam.
I doubt there are many Baha'is that use the Qur'an; however, I'm glad that you've "never heard anyone refer to the Bahai as a sect of Islam." We also revere Jesus but we're not a sect of Christianity either.
[continued]
Ye have been forbidden in the Book of God to engage in contention and conflict... ~Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas
... what do Bahai say about Christians who do not accept the teachings of Bahaullah.
I've never heard a Baha'i say anything one way or the other about them. We definitely don't condemn or persecute people who don't accept Baha'u'llah.
And if after doing all that you do not see the truth of the Baha'u'llah and reject the Kitab-i-Iqan?
They are in this day like unto a blind man who, while moving in the sunshine, demandeth: Where is the sun? Is it shining? He would deny and dispute the truth, and would not be of them that perceive. Never shall he be able to discern the sun or to understand that which hath intervened between him and it. He would object within himself, voice protests, and would be among the rebellious. Such is the state of this people. Leave them unto themselves, saying: Unto you be that which ye desire and unto us that which we desire. ("Tablets of Baha'u'llah," p.186)
For they who turn away from their Lord in this day are in truth accounted amongst the dead, though to outward seeming they may walk upon the earth, amongst the deaf, though they may hear, and amongst the blind, though they may see, as hath been clearly stated by Him Who is the Lord of the Day of Reckoning: Hearts have they with which they understand not, and eyes have they with which they see not.... (~Baha'u'llah, "Gems of Divine Mysteries," p. 49)
I do not see and have never seen the "Bahaullah" even visiting this forum, even if I illiterate his name correctly.
LOL! May we assume that you've never seen Jesus visiting one of the Christian forums either? What is your requirement for belief in Him... or Moses... or Abraham... or Adam for that matter?
WC: Jesus NEVER said that He didn't know the year, only that He didn't know the day or the hour. The Tanakh (OT) has many clues as to the year.
November 12th 1817 is a specific day. It was the day that Mirzza Husayn Ali Nuri was born. It was a Wednesday.
You've been doing your homework! :-) 1844 didn't allude to the birth of Baha'u'llah, if that's the point you were trying to make. 1844 was the year that the Bab (the Gate) proclaimed His mission to prepare the way for "One Whom God Will Manifest." It was the beginning of the Baha'i Dispensation. Baha'u'llah's proclamation was made in 1863.
I despise those who use the cut and paste approach that many if not most adherents of one religion use to try to prove a point. I think you should at least at the bare minium read the entire chapter. www.biblestudytools.com/mark/13.html www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/24.html www.biblestudytools.com/luke/21.html
"Despise" is such a strong word. I have an aversion to copious links "that many if not most adherents of one religion use to try to prove a point" - especially when they're redundant. Since I am familiar with the entire chapters of these three gospels, I was disappointed that the links weren't offering some sort of new insight. Could you please tell me which of those things prophesied by Jesus haven't occurred yet?
Would YOU having a "belief" that the Bible AND the Quran are indusputably the wordS of God even past the endtime, would YOU concede to even the possiblity that some of YOUR interpretations of the "sealed" Biblical AND Quraic verses might well be in error?
They have never been MY interpretations but, no, I wouldn't. Believing that Baha'u'llah is the Voice of God for this day, I have already rid myself of past beliefs in interpretations made by fallible men.
Would YOU be willing to concede that the Jews would interprete the symbolic imagary in Isa 29, DIFFERENTLY than the Christians, Muslims, Bahai or YOU?
Of course! :-)
Ye have been forbidden in the Book of God to engage in contention and conflict... ~Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas
WC: There might be some who think of the Baha'i Faith as a continuation of Christianity but not all of us do. NATAS: What do the infallible men of the Universal House of Jusitice think?
To Israel He was neither more nor less than the incarnation of the "Everlasting Father", the "Lord of Hosts" come down "with ten thousands of saints"; to Christendom Christ returned "in the glory of the Father"; to Shí'ah Islam the return of the Imam Husayn; to Sunni Islam the descent of the "Spirit of God" (Jesus Christ); to the Zoroastrians the promised Shah-Bahram; to the Hindus the reincarnation of Krishna; to the Buddhists the fifth Buddha. ("The Kitab-i-Aqdas," p.233)
As the Manifestation of God to the age of fulfillment, He is the one promised in all the scriptures of the past, the "Desire of all nations," the "King of Glory." To Judaism He is "Lord of Hosts"; to Christianity, the return of Christ in the glory of the Father; to Islam, the "Great Announcement"; to Buddhism, the Maitreya Buddha; to Hinduism, the new incarnation of Krishna; to Zoroastrianism, the advent of "Shah-Bahram." (Baha'i International Community, 29 May 1992, "Statement on Baha'u'llah," p. 26)
Bahá'u'lláh is the Culmination of the Adamic Cycle and the Inaugurator of the Bahá'í Cycle. (Compilation: "Lights of Guidance," p. 500)
Well then the Bahai is not only a continuation of Christianity but a continuation of all the religions you mentioned. So it is not a "new" religion but a continuation of all religions.
It certainly is NOT a "completely" newi religion. You have the same OLD prophets of Judiaism, Christiainity and Islam. You use the same OLD scriptures of Judiaism, Christianity and Islam. You just interprete them DIFFERENTLY and continued with adding your own scripture.
While we believe in the validity of the "same old prophets" and their Books, they aren't germane to the Baha'i Faith.
They are germane to your faith if you accept the same old prophets and believe in the validity of their Books. They are germane to your faith if you use those Books to find prophecies that foretell the future advent of the Bab and Bahaullah.
To be a "completely" new religion, a belief system can't fall under the umbrella of another religion (e.g., Mormonism is still basically Christianity; Sikhism is still basically Hinduism).
To be a "completely" new religion a belief system can't fall under the umbrella of another religion/s OR their scriptures.
Now I would agree that Mormonism is still basically Christian. I would agree that it is not a "completely" new religion. They do use the texts of the older sects of christianity. They do consider themselves to be Christians. They believe that Joseph Smith was a new......Prophet/Manifestation of of God.
However I don't think that Sikhs consider themselves to be a continuation or sect of Hinduism.
People of all races, nationalities, economies and religions are equal in the sight of God.
What all religions have or should have in common is that all human beings are equally human beings in the sight of God. What all religions have in common is that the human beings that are not members of their own religions are either ignorant or blind.
An administrative order established by the Prophet Founder.
I agree that all religions have an administrative order that is started by a Prophet Founder and then further developed by its founders. I would not agree however that ALL religions claim that the heirachy of the men of that hierachy are infallible.
Each individual is responsible to investigate divine truths for him/herself - no clergy.
No clergy may be true for the Bahai and perhaps for some other religions but it is not true for all religions.
All religions may allow for the individual to investigate allegedly divine truths for themselves, however all religions do not allow individuals to question the core values, the doctrines and dogmas of their religion or the infallible adminstrators of their religions.
Another thing that ALL religions have in common is that after the Prophet that establishes the adminstration drops his body, new sects adminstration eventually come into existence.
Science without religion is materialism; religion without science is superstition.
I would agree that science without religion is physicalism. I would agree that science is naturalistic. It attempts to find answers and give non-supernatural explanations to questions about the universe.
I would not agree that religion is dependant or needs science.
I agree that all religions claim to have spiritual and not scientific-philosophical solutions to economic problems. All religions make the claim that they want to help the poor. However religions disagree on the DETAILS of the solutions to economic problems.
Now you "might" consider yourself to be a sect in Islam because you revere Muhammad and use the Quran. But I have never heard anyone refer to the Bahai as a sect of Islam.
I doubt there are many Baha'is that use the Qur'an;
Well I don't know how many Bahai either use or have read the Quran. I would imagine that some have and some haven't.
I don't know how many Bahai either use or have read the Bible. I do know that some have and some haven't.
But I do know that both the Bab and Bahuallah were Shia Muslims.
however, I'm glad that you've "never heard anyone refer to the Bahai as a sect of Islam." We also revere Jesus but we're not a sect of Christianity either.
And if you revere Muhammad that does not make you Muslims.
And if you revere Moses that does not make you Jewish.
