arthra

"That night I saw, as never before, the Glory of 'Abdu'l-Bahá.

Nine of us were gathered at His table. He sat at the head, Mr Mills
on His left, I on His right. Just above Him hung a big round lamp,
so that He sat in a pool of strong light while the rest of us were
in shadow. In His

ivory-coloured 'aba over the long white robe, His white hair spread
out upon His shoulders, He was like some massive statue of a deity
carved in alabaster.

For a while He was silent and we surrounded Him, silent. But after
He had served the food He began to speak. He told us of the play
The Terrible Meek which he had seen that afternoon. It is based on
the Crucifixion.

"But such a representation should be complete," He said, and taken
from its inception to its consummation. It should be an
impersonation of the life of Jesus from the beginning to the end.

"For example: His baptism. The disciples of John the Baptist
turning to Him, Jesus. The dawn of Christianity. Then the Christ
in the Temple, well portrayed. The meeting of Jesus and Peter on
the shore of Tiberias, where Jesus called Peter to follow Him that
he might become a fisher of men. The gathering together of the
Jews. Their accusations against Jesus. For they said: 'We are
expecting certain conditions at the time of the appearance of the
Messiah and unless these conditions are fulfilled it is impossible
to believe. It is written that He will come from an unknown place.
Thou are from Nazareth. We know Thee and Thy people. According to
the explicit text of the Scriptures, the Messiah is to wield a
sceptre, a sword. Thou hast not even a staff. The Messiah is to be
established on the throne of David. But Thou -- a throne! Thou hast
not so much as a mat. The Messiah is to fulfil the Law of Moses,
which will be spread throughout the world. Thou hast broken the
Mosaic Law. The Jews, in the time of the Messiah, are to be the
conquerors of the world and all men will become their subjects. In
the Cycle of the Messiah justice is to

reign. It will be exercised even in the animal kingdom, so that
wolf and lamb will quaff water at the same fountain, eagle and
quail will dwell in the same nest, lion and deer pasture in the
same meadow. But see the oppression and wrong rampant in Thy time!
The Jews are the captives of the Romans. Rome has uprooted our
foundations, pillaging and killing us. What manner of justice is
this?'

"But His Holiness Jesus answered: 'These texts are symbolic. They
have an inner meaning. I possess sovereignty, but it is of the
eternal type. It is not an earthy empire. Mine is divine, heavenly,
everlasting. And I conquer not by the sword. My conquests are by
Love. I have a sword, but it is not of iron. My sword is My tongue,
which divides Truth from falsehood.'

"Yet they persisted in rejecting Him. 'These are mere
interpretations,' they said. 'We will not give up the letter for
these.'

From The Diary of Juliet Thompson p.103

LordOfGoblins

Jesus in many ways seemed far from what the Jews expected from the promises of the book. Yet he was true. Strange then that Christians seem to expect Baha'u'llah to be coming from the clouds literally. This is even more far removed than what the jews of the time expected of Jesus. Look the jews are still expecting a literal king to come. This is not wholly unrealistic. They failed to recognise him because God tested them with a different interpration to their expectations. How much more far removed from realism though is the literal coming in the clouds than the literal king of the jews?

Orthodox

See we expect Christ himself to come not someone who is not Christ as you have admitted or another has admitted in another forum. I have little reason to trust Baha'u'llah and every reason to trust the church.

tonyfish58

As per the biblical prophecy This is why the last will be first and the first will be last in excepting the new revelation

<< Mark 10:31 >>

New International Version (©1984)
But many who are first will be last, and the last first."

New Living Translation (©2007)
But many who are the greatest now will be least important then, and those who seem least important now will be the greatest then."

English Standard Version (©2001)
But many who are first will be last, and the last first.”

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"But many who are first will be last, and the last, first."

International Standard Version (©2008)
But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first."

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first."

King James Bible
But many [that are] first shall be last; and the last first.

American King James Version
But many that are first shall be last; and the last first.

American Standard Version
But many that are first shall be last; and the last first.

Bible in Basic English
But a great number who are first will be last: and those who are last will be first.

Douay-Rheims Bible
But many that are first, shall be last: and the last, first.

Darby Bible Translation
But many first shall be last, and the last first.

English Revised Version
But many that are first shall be last; and the last first.

Webster's Bible Translation
But many that are first shall be last; and the last first.

Weymouth New Testament
But many who are now first will be last, and the last, first."

World English Bible
But many who are first will be last; and the last first."

Young's Literal Translation
and many first shall be last, and the last first.'

Cheers Tony

Orthodox

And this refers specifically to Baha'u'llah and Muhammad how? I fail to see the connection. Please dont bring up the verse about the comforter (whom we know is the Holy spirit and we know the Holy spirit is not Muhammad as Muhammad did not dwell within the apostles).

LordOfGoblins

Know that return spoken of in the holy books never means the self-same person (essence).
please read this link carefully and it will demonstrate this point from the bibles perspective.

Some Answered Questions, Pages 131-134


Question.--Will you explain the subject of Return? Answer.--Bahá'u'lláh has explained this question fully and clearly in the Íqán. [1] Read it, and the truth of this subject will become apparent. But since you have asked about it, I will explain it briefly. We will begin to elucidate it from the Gospel, for there it is plainly said that when John, the son of Zacharias, appeared and gave to men the glad tidings of the Kingdom of God, they asked him, "Who art thou? Art thou the promised Messiah?" He replied, "I am not the Messiah." Then they asked him, "Art thou Elijah?" He said, "I am not." [2] These words prove and show that John, the son of Zacharias, was not the promised Elias. But on the day of the transfiguration on Mount Tabor Christ said plainly that John, the son of Zacharias, was the promised Elias.

2 In chapter 9, verses 11-13, of the Gospel of Mark, it is said: "And they asked Him, saying, Why say the scribes that Elias must first come? And He answered and told them, Elias verily cometh first, and restoreth all things; and how it is written of the Son of man, that He must suffer many things, and be set at nought. But I say unto you, That Elias is indeed come, and they have done unto him whatsoever they listed, as it is written of him."

3 In chapter 17, verse 13, of Matthew, it is said: "Then the disciples understood that He spake unto them of John the Baptist."

4 They asked John the Baptist, "Are you Elias?" He answered, "No, I am not," although it is said in the Gospel that John was the promised Elias, and Christ also said so clearly. [3] Then if John was Elias, why did he say, "I am not"? And if he was not Elias, why did Christ say that he was?

The explanation is this: not the personality, but the reality of the perfections, is meant--that is to say, the same perfections that were in Elias existed in John the Baptist and were exactly realized in him. Therefore, John the Baptist was the promised Elias. In this case not the essence, [4] but the qualities, are regarded. For example, there was a flower last year, and this year there is also a flower; I say the flower of last year has returned. Now, I do not mean that same flower in its exact individuality has come back; but as this flower has the same qualities as that of last year--as it has the same perfume, delicacy, color and form--I say the flower of last year has returned, and this flower is the former flower. When spring comes, we say last year's spring has come back because all that was found in last year's spring exists in this spring. That is why Christ said, "You will see all that happened in the days of the former Prophets."

Orthodox

Needless to say I dissagree with such interpretations. So I have yet to see a clear prophecy of Baha'u'llah. It doesn't exist.

Lunitik

What trustworthiness does the church provide, exactly? You say Baha'u'llah is a normal man, but certainly any priest is nothing more. Look at instances of molestation and tell me the hierarchy of the church is infallible and perfect, that they are all of the Holy Spirit.

Trusting any man simply because he wears a fancy robe is truly strange. Do you not have a mind of your own? Of course your priest doesn't want you to believe the Messiah has returned, how else will he make a living?

LordOfGoblins

It is not so much an interpretation as a way of explaining the apparant contradiction of the statements of John the Baptist and Jesus the Christ. Abdul'Bahas explanation reconciles this problem and indeed explains it in such a way that it is now solved. Thus whether you reject it or not it stands as its own suffiecient testimony to prove that the return of Jesus need not be a return of the self-same person. And indeed many statements by Jesus himself support this. In addition never has a prophet come that has claimed to be the return of the essence of a previous prophet, again this supports Abdul'Bahas explanation. So you have no evidence at all for your theory. It has no foundation. We on the other hand have the testimany of all the religions of the past.
So my question therefore for you is: how can you reject Abdul'Bahas explanation when it makes perfect sense? Have you a better explanation on this? If so I would like to hear it.

LordOfGoblins

no reason to trust Baha'u'llah? What kind of statment is that. God can well dispense with his creatures. In all truth you no not how to show humilty. I dont know how the other Bahais can tolerate you mouthing off about our prophet. I really feel offended by these kind of statements, I dont know about other Bahais. Would I go to a Christian forum and say things like "I have no reason to trust Jesus"-> implying Jesus is some kind of schemer. No really, this is not in the spirit of good-will. I dont know how the Bahais can put up with this because you offend me by showing no respect to my prophet..

arthra

Recalling that the Glory of Abdul-Baha is the subject above is a photo of Abdul-Baha walking along Riverside Drive, New York taken close to the time of when the diary entry of Juliet Thompson was wrtten.

"The Terrible Meek" was a short play about the crucifixion of Jesus that Abdul-Baha had just seen .. Here is the text of that play:

http://books.google.com/books?id=cnQ...page&q&f=false

BruceDLimber

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orthodox [W]e know the Holy spirit is not Muhammad.

"We" know no such thing, Orthodox, and it's presumptuous of you to imply we do!

Further, we've already explained to you many times that Baha'u'llah is not the return of Jesus the man but of the Christ Spirit.

So unless you want to be ignored yet again, kindly cease the hassles and put-downs.

Bruce

tonyfish58

Wow - That started a bit of Tit for Tat - That was not meant to be

Orthodox - "But many who are first will be last, and the last first."

I beleive this to mean that The Christians will not be the first to beleive in the new message, it will be others that are not Christians that will first beleive.

The Thief in the Night has come.

Cheers Tony

arthra

Actually I only partially quoted the text of Juliet Thompson's Diary.. and see what the response was?

Here is the continuing text..

"Then they rose against Him, accusing and persecuting Him,
inventing libels according to their superstitions.

"'He is a liar. He is the false Christ. Believe Him not. Beware
lest ye listen. He will mislead you, will lure you from the
religion of your fathers, and will create a turmoil amongst you.'

"Then the scribes and Pharisees consult together: 'Let us hold a
conclave and conceive a plan. This man is a deceiver. We must do
something. What?'" (The Master gaily mimicked their confusion.)
"'Let us expel Him from the country. Let us imprison Him. Ah! Let
us refer the matter to the government. Thus the religion of Moses
shall be free of Him.'

"After this, the betrayal of Jesus, not by an enemy, not by an
outsider, but by one of His own disciples. Dr

Farid! (I was startled by the sudden, peremptory call of that
name.) "By one of His own disciples. Had you been there, Dr Farid.
Had you been there, you would have seen that Mary of Magdala even
looked like Juliet."[103]

"Then," continued the Master, "the government will summon Jesus,
will bring Him before Pontius Pilate, and these scenes should be
fully portrayed ..."

Here I ceased to take notes. I was stabbed to the heart. As He
flashed each scene to us with His vivid words and gestures I felt
that He was reliving it. When He came to that walk to Golgotha:
Jesus, the Saviour, stumbling beneath the weight of His Cross while
the mob capered about, bowing backward, mocking "the King of the
Jews," I knew He was telling us of remembered anguish.

"And when all this is finished," He said, "then the Terrible Meek
will be expressed."

- pp. 103-104 of The Diary