IndependentInvestigator

My post a little earlier on detachment from expectations raised questions for me about how much we should detach from expectations based on our understanding of scripture, and what principles we should use in interpreting or reinterpreting scripture as we assess the message one who is presented as a new prophet.

I decided to write these up separately, since they tend to cloud for me the idea I posted earlier. I'd like to discuss detachment on that thread and the role of prophecy, and the principles for properly understanding it, on this one. (Of course the two topics overlap, but I want to recognize the validity of the principle of detachment while also raising my quandaries about it, and this is probably best done by separating the affirmation from the puzzlement.)

One thing that puzzles me about the Baha'i perspective on prophecies, say of the Second Coming, is that the prophecies seem to largely lack a positive function. One assumes that prophecy is given in order to give people hope and let them know what to expect, and therefore prepare for and recognize. But the Baha'i take on the prophecies about Jesus (and even the narratives about Jesus) seems to me to make them veils blocking our vision more than it makes them lenses through which we can see better.

For example: If Jesus were not said to have risen from death, left his tomb empty, and ascended into heaven, prophesying that he would return in just the same way he'd left--descending out of the clouds, then Christians would have a far, far, far easier time accepting his return in the form of Baha'u'llah. I understand that the prophecy of his return in the clouds is understood as metaphor. But it isn't in any way clearly presented as metaphor. It's presented in the context of an apparently historical narrative, sandwiched between other historical narratives in a biography of Jesus. It presents Jesus as literally ascending, which would make his prophecy about returning in the same he left seem for all the world to say that he will literally descend from the clouds.

Unless the point of the Gospel narratives of Ascension and prophecies of the Second Coming was to prevent Christians from accepting a Second Coming in the way that it was actually going to happen in Baha'u'llah, why give the narratives and prophecies at all?

The stories of Resurrection, Ascension, and Second Coming are some of a Christian's greatest impediments to accepting Baha'u'llah. If they were meant to pave the way to his acceptance, they have backfired. Badly.

I think the idea I've read is that these things were a test. But as I understand it from the Writings, God wants all humankind to accept Baha'u'llah now. To insist that they accept him while simultaneously throwing up great barriers to their doing so seems self-contradictory.

So, the question arises for me of whether there are principles of proper reading of prophecy that all readers should be applying, and that would therefore lead them to see the allegorical nature of certain prophecies, and be able to accept the new Manifestation.

Another thing I wonder about regarding prophecy is how much should consistency with previous revelation matter, and how much should the apparent goodness of the new revelation matter? It seems to me that the idea in the Baha'i faith is that the only thing which really matters is the goodness of the new revelation. Anything from a previous revelation that seems to clash with it should be seen as limited to that time and place or read allegorically. But not everything in religion is valid only for a given time and place, and not everything is meant allegorically.

Suppose, for instance, that a new "prophet" arises who says beautiful moral and spiritual truths but interprets the Covenant and Baha'u'llah's prophecy that a new Manifestation won't come for 1000 years allegorically. (I know it's said one is not supposed to do this. But it seems like I recall reading in the Bayan where the Bab said the same kind of thing about his prophecy that the next Manifestation wouldn't come for thousands of years. Yet that prophecy is obviously not understood literally by Baha'is.)

Baha'is tend to interpret the prophecies and teachings of other religions allegorically, but not their own. But when we start using allegorical interpretation in a selective and ad hoc way, we run the risk of using it in order to maintain what we already believe or want to believe, only reinforcing our attachment to certain ideas.

In other words, something like selective allegorical interpretation can be applied in a way that reinforces one's preconceived notions, whether these are right or wrong.

I think I'd have an easier time with Baha'i allegorical reading of scripture and prophecy if it were done more consistently, or along the lines of some uniform criterion. The Resurrection of Christ is read allegorically. Yet his Virgin Birth is read literally. But where are the cues within the Gospels that the Virgin Birth is more literal than the Resurrection? Or what's the interpretive principle by which it can be judged that the one is literal and the other allegorical?

The reason the Virgin Birth is understood literally (by the Founding Figures and thus by other Baha'is) seems to be that the Qur'an teaches the Virgin Birth. Yet if Gospel narratives can be read allegorically, it's not at all clear why their Quranic echoes can't be as well. The Virgin Birth in the Qur'an can be read allegorically with greater ease than can the Resurrection in the Gospels.

Are there clear criteria by which the literal and allegorical can be distinguished? If not, how can readers of previous scripture possibly know that they are to read allegorically the things Baha'is read allegorically, and thus be led to properly accept Baha'u'llah?

So far as I can see, the application of allegorical reading is done ad hoc, to eliminate any conflict with accepting the revelation of Baha'u'llah, and not on the basis of any kind of principle of proper reading. If the only interpretive principle for distinguishing literal prophecy or scriptural narrative from allegorical prophecy or scriptural narrative is that what points to and agrees with Baha'u'llah is literal and what would point away from or disagree with Baha'u'llah (if taken literally) is only allegorical, then the prophecies themselves mean nothing and serve no function. One wouldn't have been able to use them to anticipate Baha'u'llah or to pave the way for his acceptance; one can only understand them after the fact, in light of what he says is their proper fulfillment.

So, my question is, are there principles, independent of what I just mentioned, for distinguishing allegorical prophecy and narrative from literal prophecy and narrative? Are they laid out in any of the Writings, or has anyone gleaned and compiled them anywhere?

Don

EternalStudent

Actually a pretty good question. But somebody smarter than me will have to do the answering. :/

IndependentInvestigator

Hey Eternal Student (great name, by the way!),

I know my questions are quite involved. What I'm asking for may be best answered by referring me to something written, that could handle the subject in detail. But I'm interested in either that or just in people's personal understandings of the principles behind allegorical interpretation.

One view that I've seen expressed on this board (from someone who may or may not be reflecting broader Baha'i views) is that in the Shi'a tradition that the Bab followed all divine signs had both literal and symbolic fulfillment.

That doesn't seem to be the interpretive principle that Baha'u'llah and Abdul-Baha used (since they appear to say Jesus wasn't literally resurrected), but it's an example of a general interpretive principle regarding scripture and allegory.

What I'm curious of is if such principles can also be found either explicitly in the Writings or implicitly in the actual practice of how they make allegorical and literal interpretations.

Don

Sboyce

I don't feel the need to answer this when you can read the Kitab-i-iqan yourself, online, and for free.
also google prophecy fulfilled BCI and there is a whole list of materials

EternalStudent

Well, I don't quite know. I know I read somewhere that some prophecies only appear literal once translated, and that in the original language they were clearly meant symbolically (sorry if I spelled that wrong. Spelling != my strong suit.) I've also had the thought that maybe we are told what we NEED to know by the Manifestations. This explains why there are differences in the religions founded by the Manifestations. God won't have them tell us what we can't handle. Back to prophecies, I thought it might be possible that prophecies were sometimes told in a certain way so that they would be remembered. Which is more likely to be remembered: I will one day return as some Arab dude!
Or: I will return in the sky with angels announcing that I've come!
Also... I believe Jews had a certain distaste for their cousins at that time. If Jesus had said the next Manifestation was to be an Arab... I think his following would have died then and there. Which would completely defeat His purpose.

cire perdue

Prophecy is and has been a test. The leaders of Judaism rejected Jesus. Had they accepted Him they may have tried to run things. The prophecies weeded out the venal and materialistic. Do you think mass acceptance by Romans who would proceed to make Christianity into a little Rome could have possibly been beneficial to mankind? As I mentioned over and over in the Gospel, the eye to see and the ear to hear is mentioned.

We cannot have people come into this Faith who are not willing to be changed by God. They are not going to benefit it. God protects us, because it is hard to become a Baha'i. It is a test. We do not need people who are going to come in here and tell us how to run things. We don't need large groups of gay people joining who want to be accepted as they are and change our teachings. IT would be the heighth of folly to come in and change our administrative order which is actually a pattern for world government/s that is far superior to what is going on out there.

I only know Christianity as a historical marker, but neither did it grow. I don't want people to join this Faith, I want those who believe. That is so much more important than numbers. We will and are getting numbers. It is happening and it is going to accelerate. In fact I have believed it has not happened, because we weren't ready, but that it is getting close. However more ordinary people who truly believed with all their hearts have done more for this Faith than numbers. I have waited almost 40 years for numbers. It was originally a shock that people did not accept what I saw, a shock. As far as I am concerned the small trickle that has begun is what I have waited for.
The couple here that have been Baha'is not quite 2 years humble and move me to tears by their love, devotion, and understanding. So, No, I don't want joiners, I want the faith-full.

cire perdue

Nope. Hey, it is almost as much a jolt to some of us as you to find we do believe in the Virgin Birth, but not the bodily resurrection. I would not say we believe in it, because of the Qu'ran, though that is implied, we believe in it, because God told us, and also said the Qu'ran is more authentic than the Bible (beware you know the meaning of authentic, before you flip out). The Qu'ran does not teach the bodily resurrection either. It has, however, been interpreted to mean that Christ was not crucified, but that is interpretation, and the verse actually means the Reality of Christ was not killed.

I like Gary Matthews books. I know you are aware of SOME ANSWERED QUESTIONS. However it's me again, and I still say what good are prophecies when there is the Word of God to read. However I know it is part of one's investigation to consider things. However it sure is great if one can backwards engineer from believing something is from and of God, so that this other must be true as well!!!!

EternalStudent

listen to cire perdue, he's smarter than me, lol.

arthra

Don..

Let me

first suggest that you try to condense your prose.. It may seem to be a challenge I realize but it will I think assist you in being more cogent and it will also assist those reading your posts.

Secondly in referring to the Baha'i Writings actually quote or cite the particular thinig you are referring to..an example: You write above:

Suppose, for instance, that a new "prophet" arises who says beautiful moral and spiritual truths but interprets the Covenant and Baha'u'llah's prophecy that a new Manifestation won't come for 1000 years allegorically. (I know it's said one is not supposed to do this. But it seems like I recall reading in the Bayan where the Bab said the same kind of thing about his prophecy that the next Manifestation wouldn't come for thousands of years. Yet that prophecy is obviously not understood literally by Baha'is.)

Baha'is tend to interpret the prophecies and teachings of other religions allegorically, but not their own. But when we start using allegorical interpretation in a selective and ad hoc way, we run the risk of using it in order to maintain what we already believe or want to believe, only reinforcing our attachment to certain ideas.

Actually cite what you're talking about rather than making vaque references and from these making up your own conclusions.. It will help.

In answer to some of your references above concerning the Return of Christ, for us Baha'is, there were two fairly large historical movements separated by the Atlantic ocean and a few continents that occurred simultaneously in the 1830's. One in America and Europe in Christianity and one in Iran/Iraq which was the Shaykhi movement. Both focused on the year 1844 for Christians and 1260 AH for Muslims..so many of the interpretations of Biblical prophecies occurred in a Christian context and the others concerned the appearance of the Twelfth Imam and the expected Mahdi in the Hadiths of the descendents of Prophet Muhammad.

After the Bab declared Himself as the Propmised One in 1844, He began referring to Him Whom God would make manifest in His later Wrtings and the majority of His followers later accepted Baha'u'llah after 1863 as the fulfillment of the allusions made by the Bab.

IndependentInvestigator

Arthra,

I read the Bab's prophecy and interpretations of it sometime ago. I don't recall all the sources, but here is one:

"The Baha'i Faith: Its History and Teachings" - William McElwee Miller

Miller cites the Bayan to the effect that the Bab expected his successor between 1501 and 2001 in the future. (See near the bottom of the second paragraph.)


You've offered two suggestions to me in this post, and something you also referred to as a suggestion in a previous post. I can see the value of greater concision and precision in my posts, per your suggestions.

After this second and third suggestion you've offered, I would like to offer one as well: Other posters will probably be more receptive to your suggestions, and less likely to take offense, if they are not preceded by an initial...suggestion that places a facetious emphasis on their words and invites them to go someplace where someone will actually care about what they're saying (e.g., "My suggestion to you would be to lay out your own conundrum' on a Christian board where they might be more appreciated").

In light of an initial suggestion like that, it's difficult for the recipient of your further suggestions (in this case me, but this would hold true of most others as well) to see them as expressions of aid rather than of annoyance, and to not read them as having an edge (e.g., comments about the difficulty of the other person being concise being taken as saying the person is inherently verbose). A series of such suggestions, begun with an obviously annoyed, dismissive, and sarcastic one may lead to your subsequent posts being tuned out and ignored, unless their tenor becomes more obviously constructive and friendly to their recipient.


Thank you for this, Arthra. How would you interpret the Bab's statement on when the next Manifestation would arrive? And what interpretive principles do you think should be employed in understanding such texts, and other prophecies that might be taken as either literal or allegorical?

Don

arthra

Don,

I appreciate your efforts to be more concise!

You quote me accurately:

My suggestion to you would be to lay out your own conundrum' on a Christian board where they might be more appreciated"

You used the word "conundrum" and I was thinking of your several references to N.T. Wright and longing for someone to respond to him or his writings.. that's why I suggested they should more appropriately be shared on a Christian forum.

Your reference to William McElwee Miller is a biased one... He was a Presbyterian missionary to Iran and antagonistic to our Faith.. He was not an impartial observer.

See these reviews:

Baha'i Faith: Its History and Teachings, The by William Miller

Baha'i Faith: Its History and Teachings, The, by William Miller

The term Mustaghath though is Arabic word meaning: "He who is invoked"; the numerical value of which has been assigned by the Bab as the limit of the time fixed for the advent of the promised Manifestation or He Whom God will make manifest.

Unless you are very familiar with Abjad reckoning I wouldn't presume to say what it means...but some assign the number "2001" to it... this doesn't refer though to 2001 CE in the Gregorian calendar. The Gregorian Calendar was not the Calendar used by the Babis nor was it used by Muslims.

The Bab revealed the Lawh-i-Huru'fat (Tablet of the Letters) which unravelled the mystery of the Mustaghath and alluded "... to the nineteen years which must needs elapse between the Declaration of the Bab and that of Bahá'u'lláh."

This is not just my own "interpretation" of the Bab's statement. I have no authority to "interpret" what a Central Figure of the Baha'i Faith has written or revealed...

During the Báb's confinement in the fortress of Chihriq, where He spent almost the whole of the two remaining years of His life, the Lawh-i-Huru'fat (Tablet of the Letters) was revealed, in honor of Dayyan -- a Tablet which, however misconstrued at first as an exposition of the science of divination, was later recognized to have unravelled, on the one hand, the mystery of the Mustaghath, and to have abstrusely alluded, on the other, to the nineteen years which must needs elapse between the Declaration of the Báb and that of Bahá'u'lláh.

(Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By, p. 26)

It is also referred to in Nabil's Narrative:

The people of the Bayan, who utterly misconceived the purpose underlying that Tablet, thought it to be a mere exposition of the science of Jafr.[1] When, at a later time, in the early years of Bahá'u'lláh's incarceration in the prison city of 'Akká, Jinab-i-Muballigh made, from Shiraz, his request that He unravel the mysteries of that Tablet, there was revealed from His pen an explanation which they who misconceived the words of the Báb might do well to ponder. Bahá'u'lláh adduced from the statements of the Báb irrefutable evidence proving that the appearance of the Man-Yuzhiruhu'llah [2] must needs occur no less than nineteen years after the Declaration of the Báb. The mystery of the Mustaghath [3] had long baffled the most searching minds among the people of the Bayan and had proved an unsurmountable obstacle to their recognition of the promised One. The Báb had Himself in that Tablet unravelled that mystery; no one, however, was able to understand the explanation which He had given. It was left to Bahá'u'lláh to unveil it to the eyes of all men.

[1 Science of divination.]
[2 Reference to Bahá'u'lláh. See Glossary.]
[3 See Glossary.]

(Shoghi Effendi, The Dawn-Breakers, p. 304)

IndependentInvestigator

Thank you, Arthra, for that clarification about Miller.

As I mentioned, I saw mention of the Bab predicting the coming of Him Whom God Shall Manifest in the far future in several sources, though this was some time ago and I don't know them offhand.

One source I see on the question by doing a Google search is a paper on the "Baha'i Library" website, which interprets the numbers as Miller does, except that he sets them as outside dates for the coming of this promised one.

However, the author cites another statement in which the Bab gave a minimum number of years before his successor would appear:

I realize that MacEoin is a former Baha'i, and thus from the perspective of within the faith may be tainted. Since I'm not in the faith, his status in that regard isn't of particular interest to me. What is of interest are the sources. The Bab anticipated his successor in the far future, establishing laws for a long-term society and enjoining his followers to begin seeking Him Whom God Shall Manifest in 623 years.

The Bab's failure to anticipate the coming shortly after his death--and, more problematically, to recognize during life--his successor, the Mahdi, Second Coming of Christ, the Father, the promised one of all religions seems highly problematic. But the issue of recognizing him is distinct from that of the interpretation of prophecy; so I'll leave it aside.

Note that my central question is not whether the Bab misspoke or issued a prophecy that must be taken non-literally; rather, my question is whether there are principles by which allegorical and literal prophecies/writings can be distinguished, or whether this must be done on an ad hoc basis. Ad hoc interpretation would allow readers to interpret things simply on the basis of prior prejudices, which would not help in seeing things as they really are.

Are there, that you know of--either explicitly or implicitly in the Writings--principles by which allegorical and literal texts can be distinguished? If you have information on this question or know where I can find it, please point me in that direction.

Thanks for taking the time read and respond to my posts, and to document your answers with sources I can further consult.

Don

InvestigateTruth

IndependentInvestigator Interesting!. I remember that the Bab wrote in the Persian Bayan, that no one knows the interpretation of my verses, except whoever God would give the knowledge to.
The quote that you have given, even if it is authentic writings of the Bab, is not so clearly or explicitly about the time of Manifestation of Baha'u'llah. He could have just meant quite something else.
For example the Babi Kings, may not be literal kings, but the Babi Martyrs. You would find it interesting if you read the stories of those brave Babis who eventually became Martyrs.

IndependentInvestigator

Thanks, InvestigateTruth!

Your comment gets to the heart of my question. My question is how is scripture interpreted, when it is interpreted in the Faith (e.g., by the Founding Figures)? And how should it be interpreted, when it is interpreted by us?

If the Bab's statement is not to be taken at face value, why? And if it is to be taken at face value, why? Is there an actual normative principle for determining when a revealed passage is meant literally/at face value and when it is meant only allegorically or in some more arcane way?

This issue of how to read scripture is not by any means one that applies to all faiths and their scriptures. If scripture is just read an ad hoc way--literally when one likes or agrees with what it would mean if taken literally and non-literally when the literal reading seems problematic for what one prefers or already believes, this empties the idea of scripture of much of its meaning.

This style of reading would render scriptural texts useless: where I already agree with them, they mean what they say on the surface; and where I disagree with them, they mean something else. If we read in this way, then we (anyone--people of every religion) cannot be critiqued and corrected in our beliefs and practice by scripture, because we become the standard by which its meaning is judged rather than it being the standard by which our lives and perspectives are judged.

By the way, though I've raised the example of this statement about the Bab, it's just to bring up a question that we can bring to all passages of revelation. I'm wondering what differentiates when a passage is read literally in the Writings and when it's read allegorically. Are there discernible principles of interpretation at work there? Or, even more usefully, did the Founding Figures lay out explicitly principles along these lines, or have Baha'i scholars proposed such principles?

It's okay if the principles are few, only inferred, or even not principles I would necessarily like. At this point I just want to know if there are principles or criteria that distinguish literal from non-literal readings of scripture.

Thoughts?

Don

cire perdue

What intellectual exercise this is. It is like talking about swimming instead of swimming. That example is not something I even remember encountering. It certainly hasn't kept me from having lots of meanings to the Writings which I read at leas a small portion a.m. and p.m. I read and I try to find and see the deeper meanings. As I have grown older and reread things there are different meanings to me. Sometime I feel something deeply. Other times I go, "Okay!" Try a BAHA'I PRAYER BOOK.

IndependentInvestigator

Cire,

I get that religion ultimately entails living your life in a certain way, and that part of the test of a religion is in the doing.

But religion isn't just like swimming. It is also, in some ways, like building and then flying in an airplane. You want to be careful that the plane you build is a good one, precisely because you're going to be flying it. And building a good plane (or choosing a safe pilot) is an important choice in which one's reason should be very active, and not turned off.

I can't see that in things of ultimate importance one's reason should be suspended either. Nor do I see where Baha'u'llah or Abdul-Baha said to do so. I see them saying the opposite, in quotes I've already provided, and in the principle that religion must harmonize with science. (BTW, if you look at how they used the term "sciences," you'll find that they used it in its broadest sense: all avenues for the pursuit of truth. What they were saying is that all truth integrates into a single whole; so true religion will fit with what we can learn about the world through carefully done biology, physics, psychology, history, mathematics, etc.)

BTW, although I am--it's true--spending too much time on here discussing the Baha'i faith in a philosophical sort of way, it would be a mistaken to think that I'm all about discussing religion and not about practicing it. Although I am not a Baha'i in my theological beliefs, I am trying to incorporate some of the good, high, and beautiful teachings of the Baha'i faith into my life. I have a blue "Baha'i Prayers" book sitting on the bookcase next to me, from which I love to pray Abdul-Baha's prayer for humanity that I mentioned earlier. Tomorrow I'll be meeting with a political action group that works to strengthen the United Nations and international law, and tomorrow night I'll be going to a Baha'i devotional at someone's house. (And, of course, being Christian, I read in the Bible to learn God's will for me and I am involved in church.)

On here you aren't going to see me doing those things, because this is a discussion board! =)

Don

InvestigateTruth

Ok.
I can point out some facts about the Baha'i Faith and interpretation of the scriptures.

First, according to the written Will of Baha'u'llah, only AbdulBaha was the only interpreter of the verses of God. That means, that only the interpretation that Abdulbaha has given would be considered offical in the Baha'i Faith.
Not even the Universal House of Justice can have an offical intrpretation.
Fortunately AbdulBaha has so many Tablets and Books. Also, Baha'u'llah and the Bab also wrote many interpretations of the older Scriptures, such as the Bible and Quran.
Therefore, it is very rare interpretation of something cannot be found.
Even if let's say, interpretation of some verses are not found anybody is free to interprete them. But I would say, it should be based on the Scriptures, though, It won't be offical.

I remember a quote from Shoghi Effendy, saying that in the Writings of Baha'u'llah there are mysteries which are left for the next Manifestation to reveal their meaning.



On the other hand, there is a freedom of expression in the faith, which allows anybody to think and express his openion and interpret them anyway they want. Only it will not be considered offical.
The good thing about this is that, the Baha'i Faith kept it's unity. We don't have Baha'is who are followeres of this or that scholar, just becouse some people think he knows better or another.

Having said that, I can also mention 3 other points;

one is that Baha'u'llah taught that, to understand the correct meaning of the verses of God, people must refer to the Sourse, and by sourse He means the appointed ones, or the manifestations of God.

Another point is from Baha'u'llah again in the Book of Certitude, which I think you already aware:

"No man shall attain the shores of the ocean of true understanding except he be detached from all that is in heaven and on earth."

and another major principle is that religion must be in accordance with logic or science.
So, if we read the Scriptures, they should mean logically and also not opposite to the science.
But you may find some interpretation in the Baha'i Faith that the current science may not explain that, but at least there is a logical explaination given for it (ex. virgin birth of Jesus)

Yeshua

How fascinating and exciting Don! What reform of the UN is your group proposing? Pope Benedict XVI in 2009 proposed reforms to the UN, to give it "real teeth" to use his own words (in his Encyclical "Caritas in Veritate"). In 2011 a Vatican document produced by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, caused a great deal of controversy in suggesting that the UN should be reformed basically into a World Federalist system, by calling for a World Political Authority. You can read it here:http://www.news.va/en/news/full-text...rom-the-pontif

Also see this paper: http://www.kdun.org/43/world-federal...cial-doctrine/

It might be of interest to you! Its called, "REFORMING THE INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL AND MONETARY SYSTEMS IN THE CONTEXT OF GLOBAL PUBLIC AUTHORITY".

It concludes:

"...A long road still needs to be travelled before arriving at the creation of a public Authority with universal jurisdiction. It would seem logical for the reform process to proceed with the United Nations as its reference because of the worldwide scope of its responsibilities, its ability to bring together the nations of the world, and the diversity of its tasks and those of its specialized Agencies. The fruit of such reforms ought to be a greater ability to adopt policies and choices that are binding because they are aimed at achieving the common good on the local, regional and world levels...The establishment of a global political Authority cannot be achieved without an already functioning multilateralism, not only on a diplomatic level, but also and above all in relation to programs for sustainable development and peace. It is not possible to arrive at global Government without giving political expression to pre-existing forms of interdependence and cooperation...Paul VI emphasized the revolutionary power of “forward-looking imagination” that can perceive the possibilities inscribed in the present and guide people towards a new future...The birth of a new society and the building of new institutions with a universal vocation and competence are a prerogative and a duty for everyone, with no distinction. What is at stake is the common good of humanity and the future itself. In this context, for every Christian there is a special call of the Spirit to become committed decisively and generously so that the many dynamics under way will be channelled towards prospects of fraternity and the common good. An immense amount of work is to be done towards the integral development of peoples and of every person. As the Fathers said at the Second Vatican Council, this is a mission that is both social and spiritual, which “to the extent that the former can contribute to the better ordering of human society, it is of vital concern to the Kingdom of God.”...Only a spirit of concord that rises above divisions and conflicts will allow humanity to be authentically one family and to conceive of a new world with the creation of a world public Authority at the service of the common good..."

I quoted important sections from it in this thread: Media frenzy as "VATICAN CALLS FOR GLOBAL AUTHORITY ON ECONOMY"

I am a World Federalist (as insane as that might sound to some people ), although I recognise that it is not currently practicable, but hopefully will be more viable in the future. I am also a Law student!

arthra

Dr. Stephen Lambden has made a provisional translation of the Tablet Baha' Allah and you can read it here:

Tablet of Bah

He summarizes:

Bahā'-Allāh relates the Bābī cipher mustaghath (abjad 2001) to the numbers 9 and 19. He associates himself as the personification of the ism Allah al-a`ẓam (Greatest Name of God) with the Divine Name al-mustaghath.

In other Tablets Bahā'-Allāh claim to be man yuẓhiru-hu Allāh manifest in al-mustaghath:

"I am the one promised in al-mustaghath with the name man yuzhiru-hu Allah (Him Whom God shall make manifest)"

(Tablet to Mīrzā Assad-Allāh Nūrī / unpublished, INBMC 36:ADD ).

I am fairly sure that somewhere Baha'u'llah also claims that the figures 1511 (Ghiyath) and/or 2001 (al-mustaghath) relate also to future manifestations.

It is also the case that the Guardian in letters to A. L. M. Nicholas and others, seems to imply that these figures refer to future Manifestations (cf. Dawn of a New Day, Messages to India 1923-1957, p. 94) .

cire perdue

I just love it when you kill my argument like this....do it some more please!!! I love being wrong like this, I love being wrong like this........You are so right!!!! YOU are right, I'm wrong....wonderful, wonderul..........la la la la la la!

IndependentInvestigator

Yeshua,

Yes--I am definitely a world federalist too!

I'm just getting back into being active in promoting world federalism; so, I can't readily list off UN reforms. I've read of some and thought of some before that would be desirable, but this is a topic I'm open on and need to learn more about. My basic thoughts would be that it should be made as democratic as practically possible and that it needs to be strengthened by getting consistent funding (a stable source of revenue like the proposed [miniscule] Tobin tax on international currency markets) instead of having to practically go door to door to each country every year to beg charity for our world's most important political institution, and by having greater power to enforce international law and ICC rulings.

If you want to get involved, there are some excellent organizations that promote these aims, like Citizens for Global Solutions (I just got off their monthly action-planning conference call) and the United Nations Association. Wherever you live you should find your local chapters and join us!

Don

Lonemedic

Regarding the original posting on 1/12, I have some thoughts:

First, I greatly appreciate the excellent questions being posed. In essence, how can mankind properly recognize the prophecies that have been given in the past? If some descriptions are literal and some are symbolic, how can we recognize between the two?

The prophecies of the past are a guide. However, if they are not properly interpreted, they will become a "cloud". I feel that difficulty of proper interpretation is a major problem/obstruction. However, if we look historically, and we look at other guidance, we can use it to help us.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
For example, the Jews at the time of Christ clearly knew that the Messiah would be a literal king with massive armies and would rule with the sword. The majority of the people rejected even the consideration of Christ, despite the prophecies about His coming to Nazareth and to a virgin, and the crucifixion. So, any Christian can appreciate the religious scripture has significant symbolism attached, and these metaphors blinded some of the people. Some of it can also be literal, as in Christ's arrival into Jerusalem on a donkey. (We really don't know, before Christ actually arrived which prophecies would be symbolic and which would be literal)

OTHER GUIDANCE
We know that Christ came down from heaven at His first coming too.
"For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me." John 6:38
When we think about the meaning here, we see it is symbolic, since His body did not descend from the physical sky.

Therefore, by knowing the Bible better, we can better understand the idea that prophecies can guide and blind us. We can also see how interpretations can be misleading.

SO WHAT IS THE ANSWER, when we are investigating a claim??

Baha'u'llah clearly identifies this for us.

He says that recognition of the Manifestation of God is based on these items:
1) His Self
- He is perfect, flawless, has unsurpassed knowledge, etc..
2) His Word
- We can recognize Him just by reading His words.
3) His Teachings
- We recognize His guidance is the best medicine for our lives.
4) Prophecies
(notice this is the last one noted)

Most of the people believe in the Manifestations mainly because of the first three.... NOT because of the prophecies. Most people fail to adequately understand the prophecies anyway. Even Paul explains that the meaning of scripture is "sealed" until the "time of the end". In other words, until the Manifestation of God comes, we cannot understand what the previous prophecies fully mean.

Hope this helps...

Iconodule

So what was the point of Christ coming in the first place if his message was going to be merely corrupted and misunderstood creating the largest false religion this world has seen? Also does that mean you can't possibly understand your own founders words?

BruceDLimber

Quote:

Originally Posted by InvestigateTruth I can point out some facts about the Baha'i Faith and interpretation of the scriptures. First, according to the written Will of Baha'u'llah, only AbdulBaha was the only interpreter of the verses of God. That means, that only the interpretation that Abdulbaha has given would be considered offical in the Baha'i Faith.

Partially correct--or if you prefer, correct as far as it goes.

But what you overlook is that just as Baha'u'llah appointed 'Abdu'l-Baha in His will, so 'Abdu'l-Baha appointed Shoghi Effendi [please note spelling] in his.

So there exist official interpretations of our scripture by BOTH 'Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi (and this interpretation ended after him).

Peace, :-)

Bruce

Lonemedic

Christ came to provide salvation for man, to save him from his lower nature, and draw him until his Lord. This is the same reason all the Manifestations of God have come. The Bible is the Word of God, and its message is the Truth. Christianity is the Truth. Christianity's ultimate fulfillment comes with Baha'i Faith, just as Judaism is fulfilled with Christianity (and the Baha'i Faith).

The Jews at the time of Christ did not fully understand the words of Moses; otherwise, why would the most learned leaders of their time kill Christ and His followers? The fishermen recognized Christ, not because they understood the prophecies better, but because they were true Jews and had sincere and pure motives.

But even some of the Jews left Christ when He told them to "eat of His flesh" and "drink of His blood", because they did not understand him. Why did Christ say these things? He used metaphorical language to better impress His meaning. Such language also helps to separate the true sincere seeker from the insincere.

Iconodule

But no one seemed to grasp that message and infact they completely misunderstood it (as History shows if the Bahai are correct). And its hard to believe that Jesus would not have clarified if he really didn't mean what he meant by saying eat his blood and flesh, which Christians have always historically taken to mean the Holy Eurcharist. As everyone within the early church seemed to understand this as meaning the Eucharist as his body and blood. I Suppose the apostles also misunderstood because their students did as well...

Lonemedic

He did attempt to clarify, but they still left Him. (John 6:66).
I think that whole chapter in John is worth reviewing, as it touches upon other symbolism as well, such as His descent from heaven. They thought He was speaking literally when He said He came from heaven. (first coming)

Everyone now knows it was symbolic, but back then they didn't. But God used it as an opportunity to test the purity of their hearts. It was a great test for them, and people lost salvation as a result of such an "apparently" simply misunderstanding.

The absolute most difficult thing in life is the recognition of God's Manifestation and full obedience to Him. There is no point for God to make it easy. If Jesus returns from the physical sky, it would be impossible for a person to not believe in Him - it takes away from the opportunity to exercise free will and defeats the purpose of creation.

arthra

I find the essay by Julio Savi really seems to present a good summary of what a Manifestation of God is.

See:

The Eternal Quest for God: Chapter 6

You can also peruse the contents of his book:

Julio Savi's The Eternal Quest for God

Lonemedic

Thanks for sharing this link. This is a paragraph from this essay.

Their proofs

Through what signs is mankind enabled to identify these Perfect Men, these Unique Teachers? Thus Bahá'u'lláh answers such an important question: `The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proofs of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God.'62

Thus `Abdu'l-Bahá explains this important issue: `One of the proofs is through the fulfillment of former prophecies, the second proofs are the creative words and phrases which salute the hearts of humanity, the third are their deeds and the fourth are their teachings.' `Abdu'l-Bahá does not seem to attach great importance to prophecies, very difficult to interpret and very easy to refute. He does not ascribe a great value to their miracles, `convincing to a limited number only'.[63]

He attaches the greatest importance to their deeds, to their teachings and to the power of their words. Regarding their deeds, `Abdu'l-Bahá writes: `... the Divine Educator must teach by word and also by deed, thus revealing to all the straight pathway of truth'. Among their deeds He mentions particularly their `strength and endurance'64 under tests and trials. Regarding their teachings and the power of their words, He says: `The proof of the validity of a Manifestation of God is the penetration and potency of His Word, the cultivation of heavenly attributes in the lives and hearts of His followers and the bestowal of divine education upon the world of humanity. This is absolute proof. The world is a school in which there must be Teachers of the Word of God.' Else-where He says: `If we wish to discover whether anyone of these Souls or Messengers was in reality a Prophet of God, we must investigate the facts surrounding His life and history, and the first point of our investigation will be the education He be-stowed upon mankind.' And moreover: `It is evident, then, that the proofs of the validity and inspiration of a Prophet of God are the deeds of beneficent accomplishment and greatness emanating from Him. If He proves to be instrumental in the elevation and betterment of mankind, He is undoubtedly a valid and heavenly Messenger.' And finally: `The essential requirement and qualification of Prophethood is the training and the guidance of the people.'[65]

This transformation produced by virtue of the influence exercised by the Manifestation of God upon His followers is such that some of them go so far as to offer their lives, rather than recant their faith: these are the martyrs, the pride of all revealed religions.[66]

History, therefore, is -- once more -- the tribunal which will judge, by demonstrating his meanness, anyone who may unduly lay claim to prophethood, whereas the fruits manifest in the lives of the followers of any true divine Messenger and in the characters of the civilization he has ushered in are clear evidence of his truth. When Christ was asked by His disciples how they could distinguish the false from the true prophet, He answered: `Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?'[67]

Iconodule

Then what was the point if jesus ultimately failed in getting accross the Bahai message? Indeed his apostles because they believed him to be ressurected from the dead (physically) seemed to have a renewed faith in Christ but this was a misunderstanding on their part according to the bahai, and henceforth from that point there has been no turth posited about Christ for 2000 years. I find it odd that God does this, sends Christ when he knows it would lead people astray, Divide them (the must fundamental wrong in Bahai) and keep people from uniting, and then islam and further divide people and then send Bahai which further divides people. It seems throughout History if the Bahai are correct God would have us divided rather than united.

Lonemedic

Christ did not fail in preparing us for His second coming. We failed ourselves, as we always have. But eventually, mankind will realize its failure. The physical resurrection appears to be quite literal, but that does not mean that people must necessarily fail to recognize Baha'u'llah as the return of Christ.

Consider this... many scientists decide to accept the Bible as the Word of God, even though they can't reconcile the creation story with modern science. That does not mean that the Bible is faulty; nor does it mean that mankind is ignoring common sense. Since BOTH the Bible is true as well as science. They accept it "despite" the apparent contradiction. I am sure we can all find many other examples of things that don't seem to fit, but we don't deny God because of our own lack of understanding. (at least, we shouldn't)

Humanity has spent the last several thousand years preparing for the promised age of all religions, ushered in by the Promised One of these religions. The Prophetic Cycle has culminated in the Baha'i Cycle. There have been divisions in religion and in understanding, but now, these major divisions cease to exist. Baha'u'llah has established what Baha'is call the "Lesser Covenant" which prevents any division in the Faith. No other religion has this unity and cohesion. The Baha'i Faith is the largest democratically elected multi-national organization on the planet, the second most widespread religion, and (arguably) the fastest growing. It can only do this by nature of its fundamental unity, and its emphasis on promoting unity.

The only division that Baha'u'llah states He has brought is the division of "truth from error".

Iconodule

Well I must dissagree, if Christ came to teach people truth, he did not succeed in this message as no one for 2000 years understood Christ according to the Bahai. Christ failed to select worthy canidates as Apostles and have them lead the church as his body when he left, Christ failed to get accross anything to the apostles and instead we ended up with Christianity as opposed to the gnosticism envisioned by the Bahai. Men might have failed, but they only failed because Christ selected them who were not able to come to the task thus he represents a failure of him self, and of God as he is a direct mirror of God in everyway, Thus God had failed with Christ.

And Yes the physical ressurection has prevented everyone from recognising Baha'u'llah, as well as many of the other things clearly portrayed in scripture. Why did not Muhammad say he was Christ? Why did only Jesus claim to be the Christ and then later Baha'u'llah? It seems that the New testament from my point of view, on the Bahai understanding, should be considered a failed experiment, a relic of the old God who improved over time and then revealed true religion Baha'u'llah, of course you have no garuntee you understand Bahai as much as the Apostles and the followers of Muhammad did their founders.

But No God in the Bahai view has brought forth so much division, why did he not simply leave it with Judaism? Unity is the one thing to be kept over all things right? It is the very dynamic of the Bahai faith, but when he introduced every other religion he cased mankind to become more distant from one another, perhaps due to his own failure in getting the true message accross with these religions.

Lonemedic

I am truly finding your viewpoint interesting and unique.

I think that you are correct, from a certain standpoint. Christ failed to present His Message in a way which would allow everyone to clearly recognize Him. But He does this intentionally.

Baha'u'llah (who is the return of the Spirit of Christ) states that He could utter one single word and cause all the peoples to recognize Him immediately. God (and His Manifestations) have supreme power.

But why would God want us to obey Him out of force? Is not true love and yearning far more valuable?

Iconodule

Christ on purposely let people misunderstand him to cause the worlds largest false religion? I couldn't attribute such deception to Christ.

And its not a question of force its a question of God properly revealing himself in a clear unambigious way, which the Bahai seem to think is their special priveledge.

InvestigateTruth

Muhammad also said He was all the Prophets according to recorded Islamic Traditions, and Baha'u'llah also confirmed that:

"As to the matter of names, Muhammad, Himself, declared: “I am Jesus.” He recognized the truth of the signs, prophecies, and words of Jesus, and testified that they were all of God. In this sense, neither the person of Jesus nor His writings hath differed from that of Muḥammad and of His holy Book, inasmuch as both have championed the Cause of God, uttered His praise, and revealed His commandments."
"Thus hath Muḥammad, the Point of the Qur’án, revealed: “I am all the Prophets.” Likewise, He saith: “I am the first Adam, Noah, Moses, and Jesus.” Similar statements have been made by ‘Alí. Sayings such as this, which indicate the essential unity of those Exponents of Oneness, have also emanated from the Channels of God’s immortal utterance, and the Treasuries of the gems of divine knowledge, and have been recorded in the scriptures."

Baha'u'llah, Book of Iqan

Iconodule

Muhammad nowhere said that in the quran or the Hadith messages, he said he was the seal of the prophets. And never claimed to be JEsus Christ. The Quran shows the distinction between the two showing no understanding that the concept of the Christ is something transmutable from one manifestation to another (infact it shows no understanding of those bahai concepts at all).

Lonemedic

Moses and the other prophets also did not fully explain Who Christ would be. That does not make them wrong. The people generated an impression that Christ would be a literal king of this world.

Only Christ could clarify the meaning of the true kingship that was prophesied.

arthra

"Thus hath Muḥammad, the Point of the Qur’án, revealed: “I am all the Prophets.” Likewise, He saith: “I am the first Adam, Noah, Moses, and Jesus.” Similar statements have been made by ‘Alí..."

~ Baha'u'llah in the Kitab-i-Iqan

I do have some sources which were attributed to Imam Ali ...

The Sermon of Ma'rifat bin-Nurániyyat
[Recognition with Luminousness]



This is that which Salmán[2] and 'Abú Dharr[3] related of the utterances of the Commander of the Faithful, 'Alí - Peace be upon Him!



O Salmán! God, exalted be He, saith: "He causes the Spirit to descend upon any Servant He willeth."[43] This Spirit but descends unto the One entrusted with the Command and the Decree. I give life to the dead. I know what is in the heavens and what is on the earth. I am, in truth, the Perspicuous Book.[44] I give life unto the dead and with Me is the knowledge of all that is in the heavens and the earth.

I am the Perspicuous Book. O Salmán! Muhammad is the Upraiser of the Proof,[45] and I am the Proof of the One True God unto His creatures. It is this Testimony that empowered the Spirit of God[46] to ascend unto heaven. I am the One who enabled Noah to sail his Ark. I was present with Jonah in the belly of the Whale.[47] I argued with Moses in the sea.[48] I caused earlier peoples to suffer loss; I bestowed the knowledge of the Prophets and Saints and Their Decisive Utterance unto them. With Me is the Prophethood of the Prophet Muhammad completed. I caused rivers and oceans to flow and caused fountains to burst forth. I caused the world to be revolutionized and I bring about the Chastisement of the Day of Overshadowing Gloom.[49] I am Khidír Who taught Moses.[50] I taught David and Solomon.[51] I am Dhu'l Qarnayn.[52] I am the One who raised the Firmament[53] and flattened the Earth.[54] I am the Summoner from a near Place.[55] I am the Creature on the Earth.[56]

The Prophet addressed Me saying: "O 'Alí! Thou art the One endowed with the Two stations. Thou art present both in the Beginning and the End." O Salmán! The One slain with Us will not die. The One Who is in Occultation from amongst Us is never absent. None can compare with Us.

I am the One Who spoke through the Utterance of Jesus when He was still cradled.[57] I am Noah. I am Abraham. I am Sálih Who possessed the She-Camel as His Sign.[58] I am the One Who causeth the Commotion.[59] I am also the Trembling.[60] I am the Protected Tablet[61] and in My possession is all Its Knowledge. I appear in Appearances[62] as God willeth. He that seeth Them seeth Me. He that seeth Me seeth Them. In all truth, We are the Light of God that changeth not and His effulgence that is not extinguished. O Salmán! The honour of every Sent One is through Us, but do not call us Lords; praise Us as thou willeth. Salvation and Perdition both are effected through Us.

Khazeh Fananapazir - Provisional Translations and Papers

InvestigateTruth

The concept of Unity of Prophets can also seen in both Islam and Christianity.

All the Prophets reveal the same truth: “Our Cause is but one.” Qur’án 54:50.

All the Messengers are the same in essence: “No distinction do We make between any of His Messengers!” Qur’án 2:285.

Also the Christian belief regarding return of Elijah as John the Baptist, is in agreement, that by return of prophets, is meant, spiritual return, not physical.

For islamic hadithes from Muhammad, saying I am all the prophets, at least I know one similar hadith from Muhammad: "By the term "Prophets" I am meant" Bihar'ul-Anwar vol. 7 by Majlesi

But I believe there are more in original farsi/arabic books which probably not translated to english, or maybe not on internet.

In adition to these, Bhagavad-Gita, the hindu manifestation, also made statement about his own return.

arthra

Allah's Apostle said, "Both in this world and in the Hereafter, I am the nearest of all the people to Jesus, the son of Mary. The prophets are paternal brothers; their mothers are different, but their religion is one."

Sahih-Volume 4, Book 55, Number 652:

"The prophets are brothers of different mothers, but their religion is one. Of all men I am the most deserving to be the brother of Jesus Son of Mary, for there was no prophet between me and him."

[Al Hendy, Kanzol 'Ummal, Vol. 17, Hadith No. 1033.]


Salman al-Farsi (RA) narrated that:

I heard the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) saying: "I myself, and Ali were one light in the hands of Allah fourteen thousand years (14,000) before He created Adam (AS). When Allah created Adam (AS) He divided that light into two parts, one part is me and one part Ali."

"Anas ibn Malik said, one day the Messenger of God, peace be upon him, offered his morning prayer and ascended the pulpit. His face was resplendent as the full moon. We asked the Messenger of God to interpret the verse of the Qur'an: "... they are with those unto whom Allah hath shown favor of the Prophets and the saints and the martyrs and the righteous." [4:69] He said, (ama-an-nabiyoona fa-ana ...) By the term "Prophets" I am meant, by the term "saints" Ali ibn Abi Talib is meant, by "martyrs" my uncle Hamzah is meant and the "righteous" are my daughter Fatimah and her two sons Hasan and Husayn."

[Bihar'ul-Anwar vol. 7 by Majlesi, cited from Riyaz ul Janan by Fazl'u'llah ibn Mahmood al-Faresi]