Fadl

The original seed for this thread was removed by me, and so I am now leaving these holy words in its place:

cire perdue

Nicely done. I think it a great analogy. I have read science fiction about people who were waiting for a Springtime, barricaded against the cold until the signs of Spring.

aidan

Fadl.thank you for this beautiful analogous piece.Why such emphasis on Baha'u'llah being the return of Jesus?.Mohammed (PBUH) was also the return of Jesus as Jesus was the return of Moses.Baha'u'llah is not the final manifestation although his dispensation is what presently shapes our lives.God's Manifestation is lineal and the dispensation of Baha'u'llah will last for a single millenium.PS what does your avatar signify?I recntly saw a framed copy of it hanging in a Baha'i's house.

aidan

Tony may have been referring to the earlier tread about th ressurection of Jesus.The tread which Fadl has said led him to this one.In the aforementioned treadthere was argument and counter arguement ad nauseam and no party apparently was willing to concede any ground

LordOfGoblins

Baha'u'llah is also the return of Abraham...
hehe
I also dont want to be a wet-blanket. But is there anything wrong with expousing the unity of the prophets when it is so difficult for Christians to see how Baha'u'llah is the return of Jesus?

Yeshua

Dear Fadl

I MUST WARN YOU THIS POST IS "LONG" BUT PLEASE READ IT IN IN ITS ENTIRETY WHEN YOU HAVE THE TIME - IT IS VERY IMPORTANT!

Thank you for this thread my brother! I will be answering what you have raised in your first post - which was most beautifully and eloquently thought out/written - later on. First I want to deal with some of the signs you have selected and used from the holy Bible.

You said:

Is this really what Christ was saying? How do we determine based solely on the Bible alone whether this is what Jesus and his Apostles actually taught and believed regarding this passage? For Christians who do not believe that Baha'u'llah is the Second Coming of Christ, how can we be convinced in the first place into believing that the Baha'i understanding of this verse does actually mean what you guys say it means for us to hold it as a "proof" of Baha'u'llah as the return of Christ in the first place?

If you want me to see this verse as confirmation for Baha'u'llah's prophethood as Christ returned, then you must first prove the validity of this interpretation. You cannot surely use circular reasoning ie "Baha'u'llah said so, and so that makes it true" when engaging with us Christians, can you?

Don't get me wrong though, Baha'u'llah's interpretation and one you give, is stunningly beautiful and I can 100% see great wisdom in it. However admiration for something does not signify "truth".

Based solely on the Bible passage you referenced itself, I would say no - it doesn't to my mind point towards the coming of Baha'u'llah (God Bless him). I will explain in a subsequent post why I believe this to be so, based upon the Bible alone.

However I think that right now is the moment to say something very important about Catholic Christianity (and by this definition I mean ALL Catholic Christianities: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, High Anglican etc.) which distinguishes us from Protestantism. [To be fair the “Catholic Church”, meaning those Churches in communion with the Pope, cannot be called “Roman” since Roman is only one division of the Universal Church but to be fair to our Catholic brethren who are not in communion with the Pope, we say “Roman Catholic” even though it isn’t accurate].

After I have explained this I will comment directly on the passages you referred too, in a subsequent post (straight after).

As you know (I hope!) we do not adhere and never have adhered to "sola scriptura". For a Protestant Christian, the Bible is his sole rule of faith. It means everything to him. God's entire revelation of Himself and his Will is contained within the pages of one compilation of sacred books. Whatever the Bible says, that is it - God's Law. Thus for Pawnraider, as an Evangelical Protestant, the Bible is his sole rule of faith.

Not so in Catholicism. Christ never came and wrote the Gospels. Textual research has proven that Moses most definetly did not write the Torah we have right now. Obviously the Torah as we have it originates with him - and indeed scholars have found variants of Torah teachings in Hebrew now from as early as 10 century BC pottery (which disputes the false claim that the Torah was written down for the first time in the fifth or fourth century BC) - but Jews have always believed anyway that not everything Moses said was in the Torah. That's why Jews have the Oral Torah, which also comes from Moses and which both interprets and expands the Written Torah.

In Catholicism [and remember I mean not just Roman Catholicism] we have a similar situation. Jesus told his Apostles to go and "preach the Good News". He did not tell them to go and compile a set of written documents called the New Testament. That this happened was fortunate and a divinely ordained occurence, but it was not what Jesus commanded.

To this end the Vatican II document “Dei Verbum”, an infallible document of the Roman Catholic Church [or Catholic Church, since the Roman Rite is not the only “sub-section” even of what is commonly called the Catholic Communion of Churches under the Pope] says:

“…Christ the Lord in whom the full revelation of the supreme God is brought to completion (see Cor. 1:20; 3:13; 4:6), commissioned the Apostles to preach to all men that Gospel which is the source of all saving truth and moral teaching, and to impart to them heavenly gifts. This Gospel had been promised in former times through the prophets, and Christ Himself had fulfilled it and promulgated it with His lips. This commission was faithfully fulfilled by the Apostles who, by their oral preaching, by example, and by observances handed on what they had received from the lips of Christ, from living with Him, and from what He did, or what they had learned through the prompting of the Holy Spirit. The commission was fulfilled, too, by those Apostles and apostolic men who under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit committed the message of salvation to writing. But in order to keep the Gospel forever whole and alive within the Church, the Apostles left bishops as their successors, "handing over" to them "the authority to teach in their own place." …”

The document continues:

“…This Sacred Tradition, therefore, and Sacred Scripture of both the Old and New Testaments are like a mirror in which the pilgrim Church on earth looks at God, from whom she has received everything, until she is brought finally to see Him as He is, face to face…”

The Catholic Church rejects the expression "religion of the book" which Muhammad (respectfully although to our mind incorrectly) used as a description of the Christian faith, preferring instead the term "religion of the Word of God" for ourselves.

To this end the Catechism of the Catholic Church declares:

“…The Christian faith is not a "religion of the book". Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, "not a written and mute word, but incarnate and living". If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open (our) minds to understand the Scriptures…”

For us Catholics Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition both constitute the “Word of God”. Sacred Tradition constitutes Divine Word of God in its own right [teaching concepts not contained in the Books of the Bible but taught by Christ and his Apostles and believed within the Early Church] and also as a means for understanding how the Apostles and their successors understood passages of the Bible. And then, the Magisterium – the collective of Bishops of the Catholic Church itself – has the power direct from Jesus to interpret Divine Revelation, whether Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture and apply it to modern times as well as generally to explain what it “means”. Thus it did so through the Apostles (Sacred Tradition), the Apostolic Fathers (successors to Apostles), the Church Fathers, the Saints, the Councils of the Church etc. all up and until the present time.

How do you understand a teaching of the Bible without having an awareness of how the Early Church [that is the Apostles and disciples in the first century] understood that teaching?

If you follow the Protestant view made up by Martin Luther, then you have a book called the Bible that anybody can interpret any way he wants. A Protestant can look at it and say, “Aha! It means A”, while a Mormon can look at it and say, “No, no – it certainly means B” or a Baha’i can look at it and say, “Sorry, but it actually means C”. In other words, anybody can find vindication for their belief system.

Not so in Catholic Christianity. We understand and interpret the Bible the way in which the Apostles and their successors the Apostolic Fathers and their successors the Church Fathers did. We interpret a passage not on face value but taking into account the background beliefs of the communities which composed the sacred texts, which is the living Sacred Tradition (distinguished from mere human traditions) which has been passed down from the Apostles through every generation of Catholic Christians until the present time.

So for example, if you want to understand a passage from the Book of Hebrews, if you follow the Protestant line then you can interpret it any way you want. If you follow the Catholic line then you will consult Sacred Tradition. What did the Church at this time actually believe? You would thus consult witnesses to Sacred Tradition from around the First or Second centuries, Orthodox works such as the Didache, Writings of Clement, Sheperd of Hermas composed in the first century or early second century. Then you would trace this belief down in the later centuries, to determine whether this was simply a belief of a small group of people or is a belief born of the Holy Spirit and thus derived from Divine Revelation which has been believed in every subsequent age of the Church.

That is how we interpret the “Bible”. The Bible does not contain all the teachings of Jesus, the Apostles or the Early Church. It’s a handful of written documents that are considered to be free from error and Divinely revealed in origin, but it is not the “sole authority” in determining what the Early Church believed.

To this end Fadl, if you can prove to me – for example – that “spiritual flood” was how the teaching of Christ behind this passage of Written Scripture was understood by the Early Church from Sacred Tradition [that is writings from the same period that attest to universally held and thus revealed truths and then writings from later origin which prove that this was a consistent belief of the Church in every age] then you will convince Catholics by your arguments. If not, then it will be regarded by us as a foreign belief which comes from later speculation and not from Christ and his Apostles in the first century.

We Catholics want to see “Apostolic origin” for ideas and “consistency” over time, both of which prove to us that a concept is in accord with Sacred Tradition and is thus divinely revealed [constitutes Divine Revelation].

OK, I will now answer your post directly later on tonight. I just wanted to clear that up!

It is my firm conviction that most of Baha'i apologetics/teaching is angled towards the Protestant perspective in Christianity and thus can potentially be very effective in engaging with them. However it is often quite fruitless when engaging in conversation with Catholics, since it seems to rely on "sola scriptura".

A different approach is necessary for Catholics who represent by far the largest segment of Christianity, the vast majority, about 75% if you include all Roman Catholics [and others such as Byzantines under the Pope], Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, High Anglicans and Episcopalians and [sometimes] also Methodists.

If Baha'i interpretations cannot be found already present in The Early Church and later on within the living and continual stream of Sacred Tradition, then how can you expect us to accept them? They will just appear novel to us, not in accord with our Teachings.

It is also no use criticizing our Sacred Tradition, because for us it is equally the Word of God as is the Bible. It is not "human tradition".

Even the Gospels originated first as Sacred Traditions - scholars have discerned a Q source behind the Synoptics. And after they were written down, Sacred Tradition continued to be transmitted.

Indeed it could be said also that Sacred Tradition includes that written down in infallible writings and that which was not written down but passed orally or through other non-biblical means.

If something has always been believed by the Church, but is not contained in the Bible then it is Sacred Tradition. You will find it in extra-canonical works that are Orthodox and apostolic in origin but which were never used in Church services [ie Eucharistic Gatherings] as "scripture" but which do contain real Sacred Traditions such as the Didache, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of the Hebrews etc.

Sacred Tradition is how the Church functioned and passed on Christ's teachings before the New Testament, how it did so after the New Testament and does so now. Sacred Tradition is intrinsic to Catholicism. It is Divine Revelation. Without consulting Sacred Tradition, which is Word of God for us, we will not be convinced of basically anything since the Bible is essentially a free for all on its own.

We would like you not to focus on simply half of the Christian Word of God/Divine Revelation (the Bible/Sacred Scripture) but the other half as well (Sacred Tradition).

PS Sacred Tradition ended with the close of the first century and the start of the early second century with the death of the last apostle. Divine Revelation in Christianity, whether written or oral, ended with that death. Anything later constitutes "private revelation", which helps one to more deeply understand, apply and implement public divine revelation. But it [Sacred Tradition] was continually attested to in later generations, and if a Tradition was not consistently attested to universally in later generations, that it cannot be regard as Sacred Tradition because Christ gave the Church (ie the Bishops) the authority to determine what constituted true Sacred Traditions as opposed to mere speculations of men not taught by the divine Apostles. That is where the Church Fathers come in - determining true Sacred Traditions, passing them on, preserving them for posterity etc.

See Matthew 18:18:

"...I tell you the truth, whatever you [the Church] bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven..."

To see Sacred Tradition in action, lets take the teaching that abortion is evil and cannot be condoned by Christians. This is stated nowhere in the Bible but Christ and Apostles clearly taught it.

This Sacred Tradition is attested as far back as the first century documents the Didache and the Epistle of Barnabus, written before the close of the Apostolic age:


The Didache


"The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child" (Didache 2:1–2 [A.D. 70]).


The Letter of Barnabas

"The way of light, then, is as follows. If anyone desires to travel to the appointed place, he must be zealous in his works. The knowledge, therefore, which is given to us for the purpose of walking in this way, is the following. . . . Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born" (Letter of Barnabas 19 [A.D. 74]).


Now lets trace this Sacred Tradition about a century later, the Apostolic Age has closed but this Sacred revealed tradition is still being attested to by Church authorities as universal Christian belief from Jesus and the Apostles:


Tertullian

"In our case, a murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from the other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed" (Apology 9:8 [A.D. 197]).


And 200 years after this:


The Apostolic Constitutions

"Thou shalt not use magic. Thou shalt not use witchcraft; for he says, ‘You shall not suffer a witch to live’ [Ex. 22:18]. Thou shall not slay thy child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten. . . . if it be slain, [it] shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed" (Apostolic Constitutions 7:3 [A.D. 400]).


And now just over 20 years ago in the modern Catechism of the Catholic Church:


Modern Catechism of the Catholic Church

"...2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72


Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:


You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society..."


That abortion is unlawful for Christians is thus (undisputably) Divine Revelation since it is a genuine Sacred Tradition that has always and universally been taught by the Church. That is why St Vincent Lerins - a Church Father from the fifth century - once said:

"...We must hold fast to that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all the Faithful. Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic,' as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality, antiquity, and consent. But what if some novel contagions try to infect the whole Church, and not merely a tiny part of it? Then he will take care to cleave to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any deceit of novelty..."

St Vincent also said:

"...When we find people asserting passages from the Apostles or Prophets that supposedly disagree with the Catholic Faith, we may be assured beyond doubt that the devil speaks through their mouths. The Church of Christ, zealous and cautious guardian of the dogmas deposited with it, never changes any part of them. It does not diminish them or add to them; it neither trims what seems necessary, nor grafts things superfluous; it neither gives up its own nor usurps what does not belong to it. But it devotes all its diligence to one aim: to treat tradition faithfully and wisely; to nurse and polish what from old times may have remained unshaped and unfinished; to consolidate and to strengthen what already was clear and plain; and to guard what already was confirmed and defined. We must, with the Lord’s help, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and second, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church...."

Now that "devil" part might seem a little harsh but if you understand "Catholic" here in the way it is supposed to be understood (according to St Vincent himself), that is in terms of that direct line of Sacred Tradition, you will understand why St Vincent said this. Anything not in accord with this crucial portion of Divine Revelation (Word of God) cannot, from the Christian perspective, be in tune with what Jesus or the Apostles taught. That doesn't necessarily mean its from the devil, as St Vincent reasoned through the means available to him in the fifth century, but it certainly cannot be from the Apostles and it is this latter conviction that has always and everywhere been taught by the Catholic Church.

Now I give you a challange Fadl: Do what I did above with abortion, with the Baha'i concept of "spiritual flood" vis-a-vis Jesus' saying about Noah and the days of the Son of Man and thereby prove to me that this is what Jesus and his Apostles taught. If you can do this, then I will agree with your interpretation if not then I won't because it constitutes [from our perspective] innovations not taught by Jesus and the Apostles.

You must thus demonstrate 3 prerequisities outlined by St Vincent of Lerins:

1. Antiquity (believed "always")
2. Universality (believed "everywhere" in world wherever Church is)
3. Consent (believed by "all" the Faithful collectively speaking throughout centuries)

If it ain't these 3 things then it ain't "Catholic" and if ain't Catholic then it ain't from Jesus or the Apostles because it ain't "the direct line"

Shoghi Effendi once said of Catholicism (uniquely meaning Roman Catholicism):

"...The Guardian agrees with you that the Bahá'ís should be very careful not to criticize or rather attack the [Catholic] Church as we believe the Church of Rome to be the inheritor, so to speak, of Christ's teachings, the direct line...it certainly does not befit us to show antagonism towards it [the Catholic Church]..."


(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, March 22, 1950)


As you can see from my tracing of "abortion" within the Church from the first century AD (Apostles) to Pope John Paul II's Catechism of the Catholic Church 1992, we do indeed have a "direct line" of Sacred Tradition independent of the Bible which goes straight back to Jesus, the Apostles and the Early Church which Protestants (or indeed any other subsequent Church whether Mormon, Jehovah's Witness etc.) do not have.

I thus ask you, in all sincerity, to understand and believe in the reality of this direct line which we Catholics have and encourage you to consult it whenever necessary Few Baha'is seem to understand this elemental foundational belief inherent to Catholicism nor do they believe in it - although Shoghi Effendi clearly did on both accounts I feel! Most I've encountered confuse it with mere "traditions of men", and then quote teachings from the Baha'i writings about believers of past dispensations rigidly adhering to man-made customs. This is not the same as Sacred Tradition, which is actually the basis and origin of all Christian revelation, as you can hopefully now see from the example of "abortion" I have outlined above, it really was a teaching of Jesus and his Apostles not written down in the New Testament which was protected by the power of the Holy Spirit and was thus passed on to all subsequent generations of the Church.

The Baha'i Faith is a religion revealed via definite Sacred Writings. The Catholic Faith is only partly so, and even the Bible originated first as Sacred Tradition such that Catholicism is a faith founded not on a "book" or set of "books" but on a living strand of continuous Sacred Tradition protected by the Holy Spirit and passed down from age to age - a "direct line", to use the very apt and correct words of Shoghi Effendi who clearly had great insights into Catholic Christianity. You must respect the differences between the two, which were not "revealed" in the same way by God and thus approach Catholicism in a different manner from your own faith.

To end this post, I would like to refer again to words written by the Church Father St Vincent of Lerins:

"...Because of the depth of Holy Scripture, everyone does not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one manner, and one in another, so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters [...] Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of the great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the Prophets and Apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation...”

St Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, Chapter 2

Love in Christ

arthra

Yeshua wrote:

To this end Fadl, if you can prove to me – for example – that “spiritual flood” was how the teaching of Christ behind this passage of Written Scripture was understood by the Early Church from Sacred Tradition [that is writings from the same period that attest to universally held and thus revealed truths and then writings from later origin which prove that this was a consistent belief of the Church in every age] then you will convince Catholics by your arguments. If not, then it will be regarded by us as a foreign belief which comes from later speculation and not from Christ and his Apostles in the first century.

Yeshua is free of course to come to his own conclusions here...I think it would be somewhat presumptuous of anyone to pose as being a final arbiter.

Baha'is approach the flood as allegorical and there is some evidence I would suggest that some early writers also did..

The event of the flood had a great allegorical importance for the Apostles and the Church Fathers, since Peter himself indicates the Ark as a type for Christ and the Church, and the flood as a type for baptism.

The dimensions of the Ark were speculated as allegorical by Hippolitus, who understood them as a sign for the timing of Christ's coming after 5500 years from Adam, while Origen invented or reconstructed a pyramidal form for the vessel.

Great Flood of Noah - OrthodoxWiki

The emphasis of course would be on the spiritual meanings of the texts..

The allegory for us continues...

"Noah's flood is but the measure of the tears I have shed, and Abraham's fire an ebullition of My soul. Jacob's grief is but a reflection of My sorrows, and Job's afflictions a fraction of My calamity

~ Baha'u'llah, Gems of Divine Mysteries, p. 60

[Only the believers in the Prophet Noah were spiritually alive, safely preserved in the "ark" of His Faith, and the other people on the earth were spiritually dead.] [It is interesting to compare the story of Noah and the Ark to this passage referring to the future effect of the World Order of Bahá'u'lláh, from a letter of the Guardian: "... that Ark of human salvation, ordained as the ultimate haven of a society destined, for the most part, to be submerged by the tidal wave of the abuses and evils which its own perversity has engendered."

Messages to the Bahá'í World 1950-1957, p.104. Also See #1336, Lights of Guidance.]

Yeshua

God Bless you Arthra

It is this kind of inspection into Sacred Tradition that I desire! Often I find that those outside of the Catholic fold don't take Sacred Tradition seriously. So it is refreshing to see you do so! We do afterall regard it as the Word of God equal with the Bible and even saying that is kind of wrong since the New Testament Gospels are derived from and based on pre-existent Sacred Traditions (ie Q Source for Synoptics and Signs Gospel for John) and not the other way around. This fact is often lost on many Protestants though, I find.

Yes I have before heard of the Church referred to as the "Ark" in the Sacred Tradition of the Church.

The Church is viewed by the Fathers as an Ark which guides the sinner through all of the temptations and evils of this life, to the safety of the Kingdom of God. Non-Christians, according to the Fathers, were not going to "drown" in sin because they were not in the Ark, the Fathers said that God would prove - through his own means of salvation - "driftwood" for them to latch onto and so also arrive safely to the Kingdom. However the "Ark" they taught was the safest and most effective means. Noah's flood was thus interpreted by the Fathers, courtesy of Sacred Tradition and Written Scripture, in an allegoically sense, indeed as a mystical "type" or foreshadowing of the Church.

It would seem then that the understanding of the Church as the spiritual Ark was carried on into Baha'i belief, or rather confirmed by Baha'u'llah, as representing his New Faith?

The Baha'i and Christian Faiths seem to be agreed on this interpretation of the Ark. I can thus see where Fadl would be coming from, in approaching this.

The Flood was also viewed in "baptismal" terms. Just as Noah's Flood washed all the wicked people and thus evil from the earth, so too does Christian baptism wash away one's sins so that they can become a voyager of the Ark (Church) and so be led to the safety of salvation and heaven. If Fadl applied this Sacred Tradition to the idea that the "days of Noah" were a foreshadowing of the "days of the Son of Man" then I can see why he would believe what he believes.

Nonetheless I'm still not utterly convinced that the Apostles would have interpreted the passage at hand as pertaining to a "spiritual flood" that would be ushered in by the coming of a new Divine Messenger. However I will look into it more closely by consulting the books I have on the Apostolic Fathers from the first and second centuries as well as the Fathers of later centuries to ascertain precisely how they read this passage. I do not want to interject my own conclusions on it. Of course I'm entitled to "interpret" it how I feel, through private revelation Christians can always find deeper levels of meaning in the Word of God (whether written or oral tradition) to apply to the modern age in which we live. Nevertheless Sacred Tradition is the Word of God (for us) so I must find out exactly what it says on the matter.

Nonetheless I can see how one could make the leap, so to speak.

Thank you!

BTW I can understand why the concept of a "Sacred Tradition" may give many Baha'is pause and make them recoil. The Baha'i Faith was after all revealed in written books by Baha'u'llah. However it is important, from my perspective, to stress that Catholic Sacred Tradition is not the "traditions and customs of men" criticized by Jesus Christ and indeed Baha'u'llah. If this were the case then the New Testament would be mere "traditions of men" since it was not directly revealed but handed down in the first place via Sacred Tradition. Rather, as my example of abortion should have shown you, the Catholic Church really has preserved a 2,000 year old set of non-biblical teachings which do actually go right back to Jesus and the Apostles. I know how crazy that is to some people's heads, but the Church of Rome itself [not including the other Catholic Churches] is recognised by all academics as the oldest, still-existing institution in the Western world. Despite some bad mistakes made by men in the past, we have preserved these real Sacred Traditions in tact and faithfully. The New Testament itself upholds the validity of Sacred Tradition:

"...So then brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us...” [2 Thess 2:15; see 1 Cor 11:2]

Yeshua

On the subject of Sacred Tradition btw it might be of interest to note that Saint Papias of Hierapolis (born before AD 70 and died circa 155 AD), while serving as bishop of Hierapolis, Papias set to work collecting the oral traditions of the apostolic community. He arranged them into a five-volume work called An Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord.

Interestingly, Papias testified at the beginning of the Second Century AD that he preferred the oral traditions of Jesus' teachings, which dated back to eyewitnesses (that he had often personally met), over the written testimonies which would one day be gathered and become the New Testament! Now for an Apostolic Father born in the first century who had personally known at least the Apostle John, and the direct disciples of the Apostles do you not think that this is an incredible thing to say? What it demonstrates is that Sacred Tradition has always been an integral part of the Christian religion and is reliable and genuine Word of God.

Papias described his process for gathering apostolic traditions in the introduction to his work as follows:


"But I shall not be unwilling to put down, along with my interpretations, whatsoever instructions I received with care at any time from the elders, and stored up with care in my memory, assuring you at the same time of their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those who spoke much, but in those who taught the truth; nor in those who related strange commandments, but in those who rehearsed the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and proceeding from truth itself. If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings, –– what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord’s disciples: which things Aristion and the [elder] John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice"

One scholar writes:

"...When Papias wrote that “what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice,” he was not discrediting the written Gospels. Instead, He was simply saying that the oral tradition was vaster and more meaningful to him because it came with explanation..."

At the end of the second century, Saint Clement of Alexandria - one of the most important and incredible of the Church Fathers - testified that the teachings of and about Jesus (his words and deeds) exist in both unwritten and written form. Remember, "oral" does not just mean passed by word of mouth (although it also means this) but includes all early non-canonical writings that aren't used in liturgy as "scripture" but which are Orthodox and attest to genuine Sacred Tradition. He wrote that Christ left behind a "knowledge tradition" to the apostles and that they passed on this knowledge to their disciples and so on. Clement is convinced that he himself stands in this tradition. He states that what he has written in his books is derived from the trustworthy tradition which, through his own teachers, originates from the Apostles.

The Pericope Adulterae, which is the famous story about Jesus saving the adulterous woman from being stoned to death, actually constitutes part of Sacred Tradition even although its in the Bible. It wasn't in the original version of the Gospel of John however Papias mentions a "woman falsely accused" of sin before the Lord coming originally from the Gospel of the Hebrews which many scholars, and indeed the early fathers, considered to be a reference to a version of this story.

arthra

On the subject of prophecies I'm reminded of a passage from "Baha'u'llah and the New Era":

"The interpretation of prophecy is notoriously difficult, and on no subject do the opinions of the learned differ more widely. This is not to be wondered at, for, according to the revealed writings themselves, many of the prophecies were given in such a form that they could not be fully understood until the fulfillment came, and even then, only by those who were pure in heart and free from prejudice. Thus at the end of Daniel's visions the seer was told: --

But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. ... And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. -- Daniel xii, 4-9.

If God sealed up the prophecies until the appointed time, and did not fully reveal the interpretation even to the prophets who uttered them, we may expect that none but the appointed Messenger of God will be able to break the seal and disclose the meanings concealed in the casket of the prophetic parables."

BruceDLimber

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yeshua Yes I have before heard of the Church referred to as the "Ark" ....

Indeed!

And this is reflected in church architecture as well.

The area of a church where the congregation sits is generally referred to as the "nave" (which comes from the same root as "navy") because the overhead beams there forming the roof of the church resemble an inverted ship.

Best regards! :-)

Bruce

BruceDLimber

Quote:

Originally Posted by arthra "O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end....

And of course, the end of the Age having arrived during the Nineteenth Century, Baha'is regard The Book of Certitude as having performed this unsealing!

Best, :-)

Bruce

Yeshua

Fascinating! I never knew this!!!!

InvestigateTruth

I think a question can be what was the reason the Book was sealed untill the end time? Why would God leave people without the knowledge of it for such a long time? and if people didn't understand the Bible properly, then what was the use of it?

cire perdue

Unsealing the books to those who understand them is a proclamation of the Station of Him who shall unseal them. To accept that interpretation of prophecies requires a spiritual capacity. I still like the statment, "Knowledge does not result in faith, faith results in knowledge." That means to me that faith allows one to understand things that will be points of contention for others, such as the spiritual fulfillment of scripture rather than literal. God's purpose continues to separate the tares from the wheat. To build the receptacle among mankind for the teachings that will evolve man apparently means assembling those with the eyes and ears that see and hear spiritually. There is going to be a distinct separation. Our unity in understanding is a rather miraculous feat. Baha'is are rather amazing.

BruceDLimber

Quote:

Originally Posted by InvestigateTruth I think a question can be what was the reason the Book was sealed untill the end time? Why would God leave people without the knowledge of it for such a long time? and if people didn't understand the Bible properly, then what was the use of it?

Apparently some did understand it properly, however few!

And of course, later there was also the Qur'an, so the entire interval between the two was only a few centuries.

Granted, things were a lot tougher then given the lack of literacy, let alone education! But that at least should no longer be a major obstacle today, the more so given how explicit and clear the Baha'i scriptures are by comparison.

Peace, :-)

Bruce

BruceDLimber

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fadl I don't think this is a matter of God keeping secrects from us per se, and sealing up the books, ie knowledge to keep us ignorant. It's not the entire Bible that is said to be sealed, only certain prophetic books and sayings within it. Surely enough of the Bible is plain enough to provide guidance to the one who turns to it.

Indeed!

And obviously a few individuals were able to decode the prophecies even before they were unsealed!: the Millerites are a prime example as they, too, expected the Return in 1844. (Of course, then then missed the boat by taking the prophecies too literally, but at least they'd figured out the correct date.)

Regards, :-)

Bruce

cire perdue

It is interesting to note however that no one had figured it out 100's of years ahead of time and were waiting for literal or symbolic fulfillment. Perhaps the spiritual forces that were being unleashed began to have an effect on mankind and certain individuals were insightful.

aidan

We need to remember two certainties : 1 God is loving mercy 2 He knows us all individually.He reveals to us what He wants us to know and what we can intellectually use to our benefit.The Book of Certitude is ineed a most holistic revelaton

aidan

We are adult and we are Baha'is. LETS MAINTAIN OUR DIGNITY BOYS

LordOfGoblins

Brother I fear that perhaps you may be abit too harsh in your words...

Surely you might be more gentle in your approach? The last thing Baha'u'llah would like is dissension amongst the ranks of the faithful.
Truly it makes me cringe to see a Bahai talk to another to another Bahai in such a way, even if you are on the end of right.
I cannot read anymore in this thread from fear that it might descend into harshness.
Please be nice.

cire perdue

I learned in Al Anon that I determine how much I let someone hurt me. WHAT? Yep, I can let someone really upset me or I can be in charge of my feelings. I think hurt and resentment can go hand and hand. It is said that expectations are resentments waiting to happen. Resentment is not getting what I wanted. I am powerless over other people, I cannot control them. It is important that I be appropriate. In Al Anon we here that the sober person in a relationship with an alcoholic/drug addict can look much crazier than the using person. If we react rather than choosing how we handle things then we may see behavior that is reallly out of whack.

To change one has to acknolwedge mistakes AND envision how it could have been handled differently. On can apologize as a means for admitting wrong in order to improve, not to get a change from the one we have wronged. The process of acquiring virtues is actually probably more an emotional one than an intellectual one. However one uses the intellectual and spiritual faculties to instruct the self, examine behavior, evaluate, plan, and direct change, but it IS an process of emotional growth and takes time. However slow changes last.

tonyfish58

I was only offering advice that I have found to be useful as a Baha'i who has tried to teach Christians for many a year. I see it was not advice you wanted to hear so it may as well be bad advice, but I for one do not think so - So yes I will leave it be after this post.

I did not attack your person or your motive as to why you post and I do not think I ever entered an argument about the subject.

I apologize that you have interpreted the intent the way you did, that was not the intent.

The quote you posted above is specific and is on the subject of discussion within a Spiritual Assembly Meeting.

"The shining spark of truth cometh forth only after the clash of differing opinions."
-Abdu'l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p. 87

Though I do agree that is has a broader application, the other piece of advice by Abdul'baha that must go with this quote to make it work is "that we have to let go of those opinions". The above does not work if we do not heed the later. We are instructed to not take offense if out opinion is not considered.

If anyone using this advice does not let go of an opinion, it does not work and that is when the other applicable passages in the writings come in to play.

I leave it entirely up to you as to what you make of all this

Best of luck in life - Cheers Tony

aidan

The Baha'i faith is frequently under attack from a government or a maliciously determed individual or individuals.It is crucial for us to remember the maxim,"united we stand,divided we fall" and "....a house whichg is dividedagainst itelf shall not stand...."

armin

I'm with aiden and lordofgoblins . This is the only place I come to to get a positive vibe and this thread took that away. I would side with tony and say based on my experience at some point there's no need to carry on. Regardless its obvious the subject has lead us astray from the main path of our faith, love and unity.

Fadl

Dear friends,

It seems I have been a cause of disunity, and this is not acceptable for me. If it were in my power, I would delete the entire thread, and let it be forgotten. As it is, I will have to content myself with deleting my individual contributions. Please feel free to delete yours as well if they have traces of mine.

I have to confess that I don't understand at all why I should not be able to post about how Baha'u'llah is the return of the Christ on a forum that bears His name, but that's my problem. I only wanted to have a deep and serious discussion about it with those who I thought were interested. If the expression of such ideas are a "waste of time" or inappropriate then it's better to simply keep silent or seek an internet community where people are interested in such things because if I can't say that "He has come" then to me there is no point saying anything because, compared to this, there is really nothing worth saying at all.

My apologies to you all for the disunity and bad feelings I've caused you.

cire perdue

I say drop it. Don't worry about posts. Let's get on with being Baha'is. I ignore things here if they bother me. I may not be good at totally ignoring them, but try not to respond at all......

armin

I think tony's point was that the people who were involved in the previous thread and involved in the arguments and what have you are not going to change their minds and that's what I believe also. It is not to say that you can't talk about it or bring the subject up, the whole point was just what I mentioned. Otherwise of course continue with expressing yourself as you seem passionate about it and I enjoy reading them.

So again, it's not that you shouldn't say it it was just a reminder that they won't be convinced ... this is my understanding

tonyfish58

Armin - You are correct in your interpretation

Fadl - Your final actions were not my intent - Your replacement quote though is excellent - The pure word is a great thing

To come to peace on this I too will remove my posts and submit a reply to your post that is applicable to the topic & what was previously discussed

Cheers Tony

tonyfish58

Excellent quote - I am currently re reading the Kitab-i-'iq'an (The book of Certitude and Baha'u'llah comments on the meaning of "Clouds" in scripture.

Link to pages discussed here - Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Íqán, Pages 41-80

It is evident that the changes brought about in every Dispensation constitute the dark clouds that 74 intervene between the eye of man’s understanding and the divine Luminary which shineth forth from the dayspring of the divine Essence. Consider how men for generations have been blindly imitating their fathers, and have been trained according to such ways and manners as have been laid down by the dictates of their Faith. Were these men, therefore, to discover suddenly that a Man, Who hath been living in their midst, Who, with respect to every human limitation, hath been their equal, had risen to abolish every established principle imposed by their Faith—principles by which for centuries they have been disciplined, and every opposer and denier of which they have come to regard as infidel, profligate and wicked,—they would of a certainty be veiled and hindered from acknowledging His truth. Such things are as “clouds” that veil the eyes of those whose inner being hath not tasted the Salsabíl of detachment, nor drunk from the Kawthar of the knowledge of God. Such men, when acquainted with these circumstances, become so veiled that without the least question, they pronounce the Manifestation of God an infidel, and sentence Him to death. You must have heard of such things taking place all down the ages, and are now observing them in these days.

I find the following passage of great interest, it may be a solution to get past those obscuring clouds?

It behooveth us, therefore, to make the utmost endeavour, that, by God’s invisible assistance, these dark veils, these clouds of Heaven-sent trials, may not hinder us from beholding the beauty of His shining Countenance, and that we may recognize Him only by His own Self. And should we ask for a testimony of His truth, we should content ourselves with one, and only one; that thereby we may attain unto Him Who is the Fountain-head of infinite grace, and in Whose presence all the world’s abundance fadeth into nothingness, that we may cease to cavil at Him every day and to cleave unto our own idle fancy.

So pursuing just one testimony to determine truth and be contented with may lead us to being able to attain our objective?

Baha'ullah goes on to say that these Tests & Trials (Clouds, Fire Smoke etc) are from God to test us

The All-Glorious hath decreed these very things, that are contrary to the desires of wicked men, to be the touchstone and standard whereby He proveth His servants, that the just may be known from the wicked, and the faithful distinguished from the infidel .......

So fierce is this fire of self burning within them, that at every moment they seem to be afflicted with fresh torments. The more they are told that this wondrous Cause of God, this Revelation from the Most High, hath been made manifest to all mankind, and is waxing greater and stronger every day, the fiercer groweth the blaze of the fire in their hearts. The more they observe the indomitable strength, the sublime renunciation, the unwavering constancy of God’s holy companions, who, by the aid of God, are growing nobler and more glorious every day, the deeper the dismay which ravageth their souls. In these days, praise be to God, the power of His Word hath obtained such ascendancy over men, that they dare breathe no word. Were they to encounter one of the companions of God who, if he could, would, freely and joyously, offer up ten thousand lives as a sacrifice for his Beloved, so great would be their fear, that they forthwith would profess their faith in Him, whilst privily they would vilify and execrate His name! Even as He hath revealed: “And when they meet you, they say, ‘We believe’; but when they are apart, they bite their fingers’ ends at you, out of wrath. Say: ‘Die in your wrath!’ God truly knoweth the very recesses of your breasts.”

All very powerful words attesting to the truth of your post - "Baha'u'llah, the Christ returned".

He certainly is

regards Tony

LordOfGoblins

In my understanding one of the reasons for the Kitabe-Iqan is to open peoples awareness and make them think, if nothing else then at least to be openminded and think in a more fair way, considering things from all apsects instead of just repeating dogma that has been passed down.
The posts that Tony wrote are sortof separating the wheet from Chuff type thing. Light from dark roses from thorns. As each manifestation of God does who comes.

Here is an analogy. At nighttime you might have the birds and the bats flying around together accosiating with eachother as animals do and it is hard to tell which is which (as it is dark). Then when the light comes the bats fly away and hide in their caves and remain ignorant whilst the birds start to sing at the hour of dawn with beautiful melodies.
This analogy is useful in helping people understand what it was like in the days of Baha'u'llah..

BruceDLimber

Quote:

Originally Posted by armin This is the only place I come to to get a positive vibe....

If I may make a humble suggestion, you should also check out the Planet Baha'i discussion area at:

Planet Baha'i

It has a great bunch of folks, both Baha'is and others, and a very cordial atmosphere! :-)

Best!

Bruce

spirit

Aiden, you quoted
"....a house whichg is dividedagainst itelf shall not stand...."
I think you need to take that quote to a much smaller scale, for example you are the house and the division is in you without that unity, there cannot be unity as a whole in the world.

armin

Thanks Bruce. I am a member there as well

aidan

Dear friend please clarify is this a generalisation or directed at me only?

aidan

Brethren the rainbow is a beautiful phenomenon created byeach of the individual colours,each colour essential for the rainbow.So it is with this forum......

spirit

Aiden
it was towards you because I couldn't tell how you were using the quote. It seemed to be on a large scale and it didn't seem to make sense?
When I work on my own unity, there is unity in the world, it is one and the same.

aidan

My quote was directed at the members of this Forum