Baha`i:Islam::Christianity:Judaism

[Popeyesays]

"firstly, i am not aware that jesus actually ever made claims of specific revelation to himself - i thought that was what the point of his statement "i've not come to add another jot or tittle to the Law"; feel free to correct me via the relevant sources. similarly, i am not aware that the new testament is deemed to be revealed (with the exception, i expect, of the book of revelations) which makes it a very different kettle of fish from the "old". i would argue that the theological position of revelatory continuum is just that - theology. of course, theology is a matter of opinion too. in short, i don't see jesus making this claim at all - i see it as something that is made by later opinion in order to square the circle of breaking with traditional judaism."

I'd say 'yes, and no'.

"5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

I would suggest that the commandments of God do not change in essence and all the Prophets do naught but remind us, and purify the law in the reminder. The laws of social intercourse and the mechanics of daily living are not, in my estimation, the essence of the law. Jesus Himself says that the law of love of God and man are that by which hang all the law and all the prophets.

I would suggest that 'tradition' is of two kinds, that which upholds the law and that which is done because one's fathers of generations past have done because they have been told that is the way of doing things. I won't presume to tell you which you do properly and which you do not do properly.

Regards,
Scott

[Popeyesays]

Bruce,

Do remember that this is NOT the Baha`i board, and we're outside the 'garden'. Here we must properly acknowledge what others perceive of us and how they perceive themselves in a cooperative sense, rather than an evangelical sense.

Regards,
Scott

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings again, Sharon!

Originally Posted by lunamoth

But how does one determine where revelation leaves off and tradition starts? The Bible is tradition. What makes the words of Abdul Baha and Shoghi Effendi any less tradition and more authoritative than the Torah, the Epistles of Paul, or the Hadith?

Very simply, the fact that Baha'u'llah appointed 'Abdu'l-Baha His successor in writing and guaranteed his interpretations would be correct; and 'Abdu'l-Baha in turn did exactly the same thing in regard to Shoghi Effendi!

So like it or not, there is a clear provenance here.

Originally Posted by lunamoth

[i]t's not possible to with 100% certainty sort out the authentic writings of the Bab and Baha'u'llah.

On the contrary, we have the original manuscripts of EVERY ONE of Baha'u'llah's Writings that we take as scripture (and if I'm not mistaken, every one of the Bab's such Writings, too)!

If we don't have the original, then it's not considered scripture no matter how "inspirational" it might be!

(Further, all the later works Baha'u'llah wrote are uniquely identificable due to a shake that affected His handwriting for the rest of His life after a failed poisoning attempt. So we have this additional evidence as well.)

This is vastly different from the way works like the Bible were compiled and adopted.

And BTW, the establishment and authority of the House of Justice are also clearly delineated in the Baha'i scriptures.

Peace,

Bruce

[BruceDLimber]

Hi again, Brian!

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I'm curious about something, which hopefully isn't going to derail the thread...

Originally Posted by I, Brian

A number of major faiths - Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism for starters - all prophesize a coming figure to fulfill/rebirth the faith in some way. A "messianic" figure of sorts.

The Baha'i position appears to be that all of these faiths were great but limited to some degree, because the message of God is most relevant for that time and place.

Therefore their messianic predictions were all either wrong or misinterpreted over time....

Would that therefore mean that the Baha'i faith would fall under the same criteria - that the messiah figure of the Baha'i Faith will also be missed by the majority of the Baha'i faithful, and that the Baha'i faith itself is subject to the same limitations as attributed to other faiths?

In other words, that a messianic figure could return at any time and fulfill the Baha'i faith?

Basically, no.

Or at least, not for many centuries to come!

This is because the Baha'i scriptures explicitly state 1) that no new Divine Messenger will appear for at least a millenium (now down to about 840 years) and 2) that this statement is literal. Here’s the passage:

37

"Whoso layeth claim to a Revelation direct from God, ere the expiration of a full thousand years, such a man is assuredly a lying impostor. We pray God that He may graciously assist him to retract and repudiate such claim. Should he repent, God will, no doubt, forgive him. If, however, he persisteth in his error, God will, assuredly, send down one who will deal mercilessly with him. Terrible, indeed, is God in punishing! Whosoever interpreteth this verse otherwise than its obvious meaning is deprived of the Spirit of God and of His mercy which encompasseth all created things. Fear God, and follow not your idle fancies. Nay, rather, follow the bidding of your Lord, the Almighty, the All-Wise."

-- The Book of Laws, p. 32



So we are definintely not expecting anyone new at least until that time (which fits the general pattern for how often new Messengers / new religious dispensations appear).

Now, we clearly can't state absolutely that Baha'is definitely won't miss the boat the next time around (which you and I obviously don't have to worry about), but there is also a passage that states that this is a Day that won't be followed by night, which at least gives hope that maybe next time, humanity will finally get it right and not repeat the same old pattern of rejection we've so often seen in the past....

Best regards, :-)

Bruce

[BruceDLimber]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

that last post, by the way, is exactly the sort of attitude i'm talking about: "well, if you converted, you'd see i was right". *rolls eyes*

Meaning no offense, I'm afraid you're getting chased by your own fears and paranoia!

I said NOTHING WHATEVER about your "converting" (your term).

I merely pointed out that many former-Muslim Baha'is exist, and that this stands as at least a partial refutation of your statement about the (admittedly regrettable) attitude that too many Muslims indeed have about the Baha'i Faith. (Which attitude is often the result of intentional disinformation fed to them, BTW.)

How you could get a solicitation to convert out of that baffles me.

Simple as that.

Bruce

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by BruceDLimber

Greetings again, Sharon!



Very simply, the fact that Baha'u'llah appointed 'Abdu'l-Baha His successor in writing and guaranteed his interpretations would be correct; and 'Abdu'l-Baha in turn did exactly the same thing in regard to Shoghi Effendi!

So like it or not, there is a clear provenance here.



On the contrary, we have the original manuscripts of EVERY ONE of Baha'u'llah's Writings that we take as scripture (and if I'm not mistaken, every one of the Bab's such Writings, too)!

If we don't have the original, then it's not considered scripture no matter how "inspirational" it might be!

(Further, all the later works Baha'u'llah wrote are uniquely identificable due to a shake that affected His handwriting for the rest of His life after a failed poisoning attempt. So we have this additional evidence as well.)

This is vastly different from the way works like the Bible were compiled and adopted.

And BTW, the establishment and authority of the House of Justice are also clearly delineated in the Baha'i scriptures.

Peace,

Bruce

One should add that not all of the Bab's and Baha`u'llah's writings (or even Shoghi Effendi's) are in their own hand. The Bab and Baha`u'llah did frequently dictate to scribes, but in each case the 'hand' of the scribe is indentifiable, and the transcription notes are often in possession at the archives. There are significant amounts of Abdu'l Baha`s writings that are not considered 'authoritative' because they are someone's personal notes of the public talk later collected and published without submitting the transcriptions to Abdu'l Baha to be authenticated. Such writings constitute 'guidance' but not 'infallible text'. Promulgation of World Peace is one such collection. the tablets that appear in English in Star of the West are another such collection, though many of the original letters to individuals by Abdu'l Baha and Shoghi Effendi have been collected.

As to the 'next' Prophet, with the proviso about the thousand years, Baha`i's expect a next Prophet, and the spiritual choice facing the individuals in that age will be the same as in every other instance.

Regards,
Scott

[BruceDLimber]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

One should add that not all of the Bab's and Baha`u'llah's writings (or even Shoghi Effendi's) are in their own hand. The Bab and Baha`u'llah did frequently dictate to scribes, but in each case the 'hand' of the scribe is indentifiable, and the transcription notes are often in possession at the archives.

Quite correct!

And for anything He dictated to his secretary, Baha'u'llah then checked and sealed each document after its completion, so there's none of His work that He didn't either write Himself or officially vet.

Regards,

Bruce

[Promethium]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

brucedlimber: well, of *course* the muslims who have become baha'is are convinced. that's why they did it, isn't it? people convert, or apostasise, or whatever you want to call it, all the time. it would be convincing if it was, say, a major theologian, or imam, or someone who actually knew all there was to know about islam.
bananabrain

Mírzá Abu'l-Faḍl-i-Gulpáygání was a famous Shiite Jurist who became a Bahai. Interestingly enough he is credited for converting man Jews in Iran.

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by Promethium

Mírzá Abu'l-Faḍl-i-Gulpáygání was a famous Shiite Jurist who became a Bahai. Interestingly enough he is credited for converting man Jews in Iran.

Of the early Babi's in Mazindaran and during the siege of the Fort of Shaykh Tabarsi a couple hundred Babi's were attacked again and again. Since the Babi's bereft of leadership from the Bab followed the dictates of the Qur'an regarding self-defence they managed to defy the government's armies for several months. Almost seventy percent of those defenders were Mullahs.

One should remember that until the time of Abdu'l Baha there were no Baha`i's or Babi's at all who weren't part of the Persian and Indian culture, except for the Zoroastrians and Christians the vast majority of these individuals who saw fit to suffer persecution and martyrdom were indeed Shi'ites before they encountered the teachings of the Bab and Baha`u'llah.

Regards,
Scott

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by popeyesays

I would suggest that the commandments of G!D do not change in essence and all the Prophets do naught but remind us, and purify the law in the reminder.

i'd agree with all of that, with the additional qualifier of specifying "the commandments of G!D to specific groups do not change" - in other words, different messages may very well go to different groups; that is their affair. but G!D's Revelation to the jewish people occurs in time and via the recognised prophets alone. that level of prophecy ceased with the death of the last one (micah, i think) and continued at a lower level via the bat qol (heavenly voice) until the cessation of prophecy altogether when the supply of the ashes of the red heifer ran out a few years after the destruction of the second Temple. in any case prophecy "at large", widespread in the population, ceased with the destruction of the first Temple, at which time the "inclination to idolatry" also ceased. the level of prophecy we have now (according to some) is not true prophecy, but a much lower level known as ruah ha-Qodesh which is, depending on who you listen to, posessed by the great mystics and/or some of the great commentators. the lower the prophetic level, the less authoritative. hence nobody can overrule or modify the rules in the Torah by subsequent prophecy - at least not in the case of judaism. if other people, say christians, consider that they have received revelations abrogating jewish revelations for them, that is all very well. but they may not abrogate revelations to us, intended for us. in fact, if i was being uncharitable, i might suggest that the early church was built upon precisely that - although once it opened its doors to the "gentiles" and made christianity a universalistic religion, it could no longer be argued by jews that the obligations of jews had been transferred to christians. does that make sense?

The laws of social intercourse and the mechanics of daily living are not, in my estimation, the essence of the law.

well, this is the position of much christian supercessionist apologetics:

law = bad
love = good

letter = bad
spirit = good

observance = bad
essence = good

this is of course nothing but a way to do what i have already complained about originally: discredit judaism as legalistic, mechanical and lacking an inner dimension - compared to other solutions which go right to the so-called "essence of the law". i question your right to define what the "essence of the law" is when you are talking about jewish sacred texts. surely we are in a better position to define this than you are? or are you informing us of the inferiority of our tradition compared to those self-declaredly based on the "essence", "spirit" and "love"?

Jesus Himself says that the law of love of God and man are that by which hang all the law and all the prophets.

well, he may very well do so, but that doesn't mean judaism agrees with him. nobody has yet been able to define this so-called "law of love" effectively in a way which enables one to apply it in any given situation - in contradistinction to the halakhic method. in other words, it sounds nice, but it's not really all that useful outside apologetics. nor is it tolerant - it suggests that a) the dispute can really be reduced to such facile dualisms and b) that in any case it is obvious which side is "better", both of which suggestions i will vociferously dispute.

I would suggest that 'tradition' is of two kinds, that which upholds the law and that which is done because one's fathers of generations past have done because they have been told that is the way of doing things.

i don't see the distinction if the law has been (and we would argue that it has been) accurately and securely transmitted between the generations. as i pointed out above, we seem to have managed to do so more than effectively in other cases.

Do remember that this is NOT the Baha`i board, and we're outside the 'garden'. Here we must properly acknowledge what others perceive of us and how they perceive themselves in a cooperative sense, rather than an evangelical sense.

well, this is my point exactly - although you seem to be implying that you are saying something different inside this 'garden' of yours.

Originally Posted by BruceDLimber

So we are definintely not expecting anyone new at least until that time (which fits the general pattern for how often new Messengers / new religious dispensations appear).

well, we're not expecting anyone until he actually shows up and "does what it says on the tin". the proof of the pudding will be, as it were, in the eating. what is more, we are forbidden to calculate the date of his arrival.

I'm afraid you're getting chased by your own fears and paranoia!

how charming. in other words, my irritation is because i am paranoid, not because you're being patronising and smug. i'm reacting to what you wrote, not to what i think you wrote. i could just as easily claim that you were being paranoid about being labelled patronising and smug.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Popeyesays]

Actually, I would put up the Aqdas (Most Holy Book) as a good comparison to the Mosaic law for complexity and depth. There is plenty of depth to delve and the letter AND the spirit share importance.

No Baha`i is going to take offense at individuals who choose to follow the 'faith of their fathers' rather than become Baha`i. We won't even feel sad for such an individual. The person who follows the law of Christianity or Judaism or whatever is to be respected for his attempt to seek God as he feels driven.

In time enough, the Baha`i laws will be the 'old traditions' challenged by a new advent. But the challenge is only to individuals, not to groups. It is totally a personal thing.

Regards,
Scott

[Popeyesays]

I cautioned another Baha`i at being too intense in this folder. I don't really think I've said anything different in the Baha`i folder, other than to occasionally engage in the practice of 'apologia' when others made claims that challenged the Baha`i faith as untrue within that very garden.

If you think we are speaking from both sides of our mouths, check out the Baha`i folder, you don't have to post, but yo0u can see for yourself.

Regards,

Scott

[bananabrain]

thanks, popeyesays; that's good to hear. i would be interested in hearing more about the interpretational methods used in the Aqdas.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Popeyesays]

I can make you PDF's of the Aqdas and the Synopsis and e-mail them to you. The easiest way would be for you to download Ocean, which is a free religious archive of the sacred texts of many religions, including Judaism. Included in the Baha`i texts is the Aqdas and the Synopsis and Codification of the Aqdas. You can download that (in many languages) at:
Ocean - World Religions Free Research Library

Regards,
Scott

[bananabrain]

thank you for that, but i was more thinking in terms of you taking a verse of the Aqdas and interpreting it according to your methodology, so i can understand a little more about how you go about it. i know a certain amount about how christians and muslims do this, so basically i'm looking to understand baha'i hermeneutics in light of this.

b'shalom

bananabrain