Jesus and the Bahai Faith

[Sean H.]

This topic will start out as a response to our wonderful wil and further about the relationship between Jesus and the Bahai Faith.

Originally Posted by wil

Namaste Sean, I didn't say twist did I? I also have a bent for religious harmony however there are points which are incompatible. For instance do Bahai see Jesus as the one and only saviour which is described repeatedly in the bible? I think you may have different interpretation. I don't have an issue with that, but I believe it to be so.

Let's begin at the source with a some revelant quotes.
3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
(King James Bible, John)

John 3:16 is held by some Christians to be the quintessential quote of Christianity demonstrating that Jesus and only Jesus is the path to everlasting life. However, there may be a few problems with taking it literally.

3:38 who was the son of Enos, who was the son of Seth, who was the son of Adam, who was the son of God.
(King James Bible, Luke)

This passage states that Adam was the son of God. How can Jesus be the only son of God if Adam is the son of God? Again, taken literally this does not make sense. To understand this concept, let’s explore some more.

The word begotten is not translated the same way in the Bible when it is not used to refer to Jesus

Luke 7:12 Now when He came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man being carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow. And many people of the city were with her.

Luke 8:42 For he had one only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she lay a dying. But as he went the people thronged him.

Luke 9:38 And, behold, a man of the company cried out, saying, Master, I beseech thee, look upon my son: for he is mine only child.
(King James Bible)

The same Greek word, monogenēs, is used for all of the bolded parts. It is the same word used in John 3:16 for only begotten. Begotten is only translated for Jesus. There is a subtle difference between “his only Son” and “his only begotten Son.”

It’s interesting to look at the first use of begotten in John.

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
If you take a look at the Greek Words intertwined……….

Jhn 1:14 And 2532 the Word 3056 was made 1096 flesh 4561, and 2532 dwelt 4637 among 1722 us 2254, (and 2532 we beheld 2300 his 846 glory 1391, the glory 1391 as 5613 of the only begotten 3439 of 3844 the Father 3962,) full 4134 of grace 5485 and 2532 truth 225.

The words “of the only begotten” is monogenēs in Greek which means only. The passage translated as that would look like…

“And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as only of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”

Much different isn’t it?

[Sean H.]

ANYWHO………

Let’s get back on Topic. Jesus refers to himself as the Son of God even though Adam was also the Son of God. Jesus also refers to himself as the Son of Man. One example is

22:47 And while he yet spake, behold a multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them, and drew near unto Jesus to kiss him.
22:48 But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?
(King James Bible, Luke)

Jesus also points to the Son of Man who will come.

21:25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;
21:26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.
21:27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
(King James Bible, Luke)

21:36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.
(King James Bible, Luke)

13:24 But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,
13:25 And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.
13:26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.
(King James Bible, Mark)

24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
(King James Bible, Matthew)

There are some other prominent passages where Jesus talks of his station.

14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me
16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
(King James Bible, John)

2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our's only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
(King James Bible, 1 John)

In my opinion, Jesus implies when he says "give you another Comforter" that he is also a Comforter. In fact in I John 2:1 the translators use the word advocate when in fact they translated the same Greek word earlier as Comforter! So there too it says that Jesus is a Comforter.

Many modern-day Christians have interpreted that the Comforter is the Holy Spirit. Keep in mind that this was not always the common Christian belief, and that translations have supported a particular interpretation. In 14:26 it reads "which is the Holy Ghost". The original greek has only two word for the 5 words in the King James translation: pneuma meaning Holy or saint and hagios , Spirit.

Another item to point out is that there is no word "the" in the Greek. The passage would be read as thus "But the Comforter, Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name ..." or "But the Comforter, Saint Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name ..." As far as the Greek is concerned both are correct. A translation of "the Holy Spirit" and a translation of "a Holy Spirit" are equivalent.

I would also say that, in my opinion, Jesus is filled with the Holy Spirit, and that you could call Jesus the Holy Spirit truthfully because he demonstrates the qualities of God.

So, Jesus is called the only Son of God when Adam was also a Son of God. He calls himself the Son of Man and refers to the Son of Man coming again. He is referred to as a Comforter, implies that he is a Comforter, and instructs his followers to follow another Comforter.

There are some more quotes which need to be looked at with a fair mind.

62:2 And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD shall name.
(King James Bible, Isaiah)

In my opinion, this refers to Jesus. And, it's logical too because this came from the Old Testament. However, there's a quote from Revelation which is very important.

2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.
(King James Bible, Revelation)

3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.
(King James Bible, Revelation)

These can't refer to Jesus because this came after Jesus. Think deeply on this. Isn't it interesting that the Old Testament referred both to a new name and a new prophet that would appear

18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
18:19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.
(King James Bible, Deuteronomy)

Isn't it also interesting that the New Testament referred to a new name, a Comforter, and a Son of Man that would appear?

[Sean H.]

There are some more quotes which need to be looked at with a fair mind.

62:2 And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD shall name.
(King James Bible, Isaiah)

In my opinion, this refers to Jesus. And, it's logical too because this came from the Old Testament. However, there are quotes from Revelation which are very important.

2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.
(King James Bible, Revelation)

3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.
(King James Bible, Revelation)

These can't refer to Jesus because this came after Jesus. Think deeply on this. Isn't it interesting that the Old Testament referred both to a new name and a new prophet that would appear

18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
18:19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.
(King James Bible, Deuteronomy)

Isn't it also interesting that the New Testament referred to a new name, a Comforter, and a Son of Man that would appear?

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

Originally Posted by Sean H.

Isn't it also interesting that the New Testament referred to a new name...?

The Jewish scriptures also prophesy a new name, in Isaiah!

Peace,

Bruce

[Thomas]

Hi Sean —

Interesting stuff!

As a Catholic, I would say the texts cited have to be viewed with the body of the NT as a whole, for the proper context to be understood, and also in light of traditional commentary. Historical Criticism, for example, buried so deeply into lexical nuance that soon they lost sight of the 'big picture' altogether ... but the issue should not be ignored. I applaud your scholarship.

I know in Islam, for example, some insist the Comforter is Mohammed, and it is he to whom the text refers (PBUH).

And we can 'locate' Jesus/Adam especially by reference to Paul in Romans when he talks of the 'new Adam' ... Paul was preaching the faith he had received, from his studies with Ananias in Damascus, before the Gospels were written.

But a particular point is the Son of Man/Son of God.

It is notable that Jesus never refers to Himself as the Son of God, although this is implicit, He teaches, He performs miracles, etc., all in His own name, a significant indicator in a Hebrew context.

And the hymn of Colossians is in no doubt about it.

It is also notable that the Adversary and his demons do refer to Jesus as the Son of God — His divinity is unquestioned as far as they are concerned.

The Son of Man can imply any man, but in the sense inferred in the Book of Daniel, the Son of Man is divine, and this is what the Sanhedrin asked at His trial, to which He asserted, and on which grounds He was condemned as a blasphemer. It is often forgotten that Jesus' assertion of His divinity was what got him killed — if He did not believe himself to be divine, he could have poo-poo'd the question, and walked away a free man. There was no law against prophecy, and without his assertion, there would have been no grounds to convict Him.

The Gospels, of course, are in no doubt about His absolute divinity. Quite how that worked, they were not sure, that is what the Church has been working out ever since ... indeed the Doctrine of the Trinity springs from the fact that Jesus is the Incarnate and only-begotten Son of God.

John's Gospel, for example, was produced by the Church in Ephesus, founded by John, to refute the teachings of Cerinthus that Jesus was not divine in any absolute sense, as such Cerinthus was a precursor to the gnostic debate that would spring up a century later.

Christology is an ongoing and very lively debate in Catholic theology!

I hope it gives you as much joy as it does me,

Thomas

[arthra]

Thanks for your post Thomas and welcome!

I thought you muight be interested in an essay on the Baha'i perspective of Christianity. The essay covers the Baha'i views pretty well I think inthe following areas:

http://bahai-library.com/file.php5?f... tive&language=

1. A Bahá'í Approach to the Bible
2. The New Testament
3. Preserving the Jesus Tradition
4. Jesus Christ in History and in the Bahá'í Writings
5. Apostolic Christianity
6. Christianity in the Classical World
7. Christianity in the Middle Ages
8. The Reformations
9. Christianity in America

[Thomas]

Hi Arthra —

Thanks for that. Just had a quick, a very quick, glance at some of the essays, and may I say for the most part I find the content delightfully even-handed! The author does a good good at covering a vast terrain swiftly, without becoming lopsided in viewpoint, or casually misrepresenting what is held in faith.

I would reserve my enthusiasm somewhat with regard to the essay on Paul, as I think that is inaccurate on a number of points, especially the role of the Apostles and the institutional Church. When the Church was one, before any schism between what became Catholic and Orthodox, the East was by far the majority, but Rome always had priority.

At Chalcedon in 451AD, for example, some 600 Eastern bishops were in attendance, but pride of place was already a tradition, and went to the envoys of the Bishop of Rome, who was seen as successor of Peter.

In the Christian Tradition, Peter was always seen as 'first among equals', Rome always as the authority and arbiter of dispute.

Even today, in discussions towards the reunification of the Roman and Orthodox Patriarchates, it is accepted without question that Rome is the senior seat. 'The devil is in the detail', as the saying goes, as they thrash out just how and how far authority is exercised, but in principle all the churches adhere to what is held as the unbroken tradition.

Thanks again, and hopefully I'll find the time, in a very busy schedule, to read further.

Thomas

[arthra]

Actually Thomas it's really the work of one scholar named Robert Stockman... and reflects his views as a Baha'i... If you had something more specific about the essay you read I'd be interested in following up on that...

One of the disctinctions I am aware of is that we Baha'is would probably have a different view of the resurrection of Christ than many Christians. We believe it was essentially a spiritual event while most Christians see it as a physical literal one.

Our view of Trinity may also be different...

- Art

[Thomas]

Hi arthra —

Originally Posted by arthra

Actually Thomas it's really the work of one scholar named Robert Stockman... and reflects his views as a Baha'i... If you had something more specific about the essay you read I'd be interested in following up on that...

It's a huge and very interesting (for me) subject ... and so much we will never know. I follow one scholar, for example, who claims the 'institutional structure' of the Church was modelled on the Essene community at Q'mran ... but we have no firm evidence, so it remains a favoured hypothesis.

We believe, for example, that Paul was never off 'doing his own thing' and inventing a religion, as so many assume. What little we do know is that after his epiphany on the road to Damascus, he spent some time — years — as a disciple in the Christian community there under Ananias, and then later in Jerusalem.

+++

Originally Posted by arthra

One of the disctinctions I am aware of is that we Baha'is would probably have a different view of the resurrection of Christ than many Christians. We believe it was essentially a spiritual event while most Christians see it as a physical literal one.

Yes, we would certainly differ there ... of course, the resurrection was essentially a spiritual event, but we also regard it as substantially a physical one.

Originally Posted by arthra

Our view of Trinity may also be different...

I shall take your word for it

Thomas

[arthra]

Thomas,

Thanks for providing your take on the Apostle Paul... I know now better where you're coming from. There is no official Baha'i view on that..

My personal take is that the early Christians particularly the Jewish Christians were a similar group such as the Essenes or like them but probably different.

When they say Jesus the Nazarene it may not only refer to Nazareth but to the particular group of Nazarenes...set aside and not so welll known as the Essenes.. but it is an interesting area!

- Art

[17th Angel]

I am sorry for going waaaay off topic here, but I didn't want to crowd you forum with a thread on a stupid question, so if someone could put me out of my pain.... You use all holy books right? So, you have one god? What's the name of your god?

[Sean H.]

Originally Posted by 17th Angel

I am sorry for going waaaay off topic here, but I didn't want to crowd you forum with a thread on a stupid question, so if someone could put me out of my pain.... You use all holy books right? So, you have one god? What's the name of your god?

I am sorry 17th Angel, I had thought that I answered that in the previous topic that you made.

Bahais believe that throughout time and place God sends his Messengers or Manifestations to mankind when they are needed. Among these Manifestations were Krishna, Buddha, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad. We believe that God has sent us another Manifestation Baha'u'llah for this age of mankind.

We believe that the spiritual essence of all these religions is the same. That does not mean that all the teachings we current have from them all in written form are accurate. Other than the writings of The Bab (A Manifestation that appeared very shortly before Baha'u'llah) and Baha'u'llah, the only other completely authentic holy writings are from the Qur'an.

So, we will speak of holy books from other religions and quote from them. However, we are an independent religion and have many many religious writings from Baha'u'llah. In fact there has never been a time in history when we have had so many writings from a Manifestation, the volumes far exceed the Bible, Qur'an, ect. combined.

We worship the same one God that everyone else does, God.

[17th Angel]

No no,

no need for apologies... It's me I can be thick skulled at times... It sounds simple and I guess it should be but my mind won't filter it correctly. Your god is every one's god? So... Who is that? Jah? Allah? Shiva? Zeus? I just finding it hard cause some of the books you use, have different gods...? Or is it that you believe they are all confused and all these gods are one and the same?

[arthra]

Originally Posted by 17th Angel

No no,

no need for apologies... It's me I can be thick skulled at times... It sounds simple and I guess it should be but my mind won't filter it correctly. Your god is every one's god? So... Who is that? Jah? Allah? Shiva? Zeus? I just finding it hard cause some of the books you use, have different gods...? Or is it that you believe they are all confused and all these gods are one and the same?

You're close 17th angel! Baha'is believe that God is One and has never let mankind alone without divine guidance. Men have many names for God and more probably than we can count or be aware of down through the misty corridors of time!

If you've read any of the Baha'i Writings you'll find some references from the Bible...the Qur'an and sometimes the Writings of the Bab in the Writings of Baha'u'llah as well as His Interpretor Abdul-Baha...so that means the same God that's the God found in the Bible, the Qur'an and the Writings of the Bab is the One in the Writings of Baha'u'llah.

We are actually unsure what was directly revealed by say by Zoroaster, Krishna and the Buddha and believe that Their original teachings has been lost over time.

You can peruse the Writings for yourself at:

Baha'i Reference Library

Also if you would like to read about the Greatest Name of God there's an essay on it at

http://bahai-library.com/file.php5?f..._name&language=

Some of this may take a little time for you to read so just feel free to take your time and we'll respond to any questions!

- Art

[17th Angel]

I am kind of understanding this now... It's like, not putting all your eggs in one basket isn't it?