LordOfGoblins

It doesnt really matter what argument you use. Orthodox has an uncanny nack of turning it against you. For example consider how we Bahais call ourselves united. He will take that and say the Bahais all have different interpretations of one truth therfore they are divided. Orthodox church however leaves no room for interpretation because people arnt allowed to think for themselves.

Livindesert

My goal is to rid the use of the 40,000 argument from the faith entirely.

Lunitik

Orthodox,

Baha'is are free to interpret things however they want provided they don't claim it as Baha'i... this is unity because there is one uniting source for Baha'i views. You see, unlike Christianity, there is very little room for interpretation in all matters that actually effect our practices. Things are so plain and simple to comprehend, explained so fully and succinctly that you simply cannot draw different conclusions unless you have not read something.

Contrasting with the Bible, most is discussed in parables, and thus there is a much higher chance to draw a different conclusion. I would argue, in fact, that this is by design. Depending on your level of spirituality, you are supposed to draw a different message from a given parable. The different branches of Christianity are formed based on the understandings of these parables, and each goes about trying to limit deviation in interpretation. This is deeply flawed in my opinion.

Lunitik

Care to elaborate? In this case, and in my own use, it is only aimed at proving Christianity is not united - far from it. It is nothing against Christianity as a whole, it is only positioned as evidence Christianity is not united.

He then disputes this stating Orthodoxy is united. It is united because everyone that disagrees isn't permitted, and those that disagree and stay fear vocalizing their difference. It becomes akin to mind control, and thus is quite poisonous. For me, it is quite astounding that Jesus calls his followers sheep and his church a flock, and yet people are fine with this. Last I checked, being called a sheep is a character flaw, not a strength in society today.

This is why I enjoy the Baha'i Faith, people are advised to think for themselves, to draw their own conclusions. It isn't only recommended, it is almost required, and this is because of the ample evidence that protects the faith from doubt. We are given liberty within this Faith to think for ourselves, where most branches of Christianity seem to deem free thought detrimental.

Orthodox

Lord of Goblins I have admitted that Christians do disagree, but I have qualified that statement with the church in that there is remarkable unity in both faith and practice within the church not all Christianity in general. So that example fails to compel me as it has been brought up and refuted like 10 times by now? Yet you insist on repeating it and not address the fact I consider the orthodox church the true church of Christ and that it is unified not all of Christendom as a whole.

And it doesn’t seem united, it is united lord of goblins. Can you say that every Sunday or whatever day you gather you have people listen and believe in the same liturgy, with the same creed? With Holy icons, with the gospel book and partake of the same Eucharist? No you cannot, this is what true unity is. Not this false unity in which people all have their individual interpretations of the faith as long as they don’t propagate it. This is an appearance of unity with no real unity. Now am I misrepresenting the bahai faith? I don’t think so, in its fundamental nature it is subjective. You can believe the Nicene creed as a Bahai right? And still be a bahai? You can believe that Christ is Not God and still be bahai right? You can believe that Christ rose physically right and still be bahai right? You can believe he didn’t rise physically right? No the fundamental nature except in a few things such as accepting Baha’u’llah and the council is ultimately subjective. You cannot say that fellow bahai is wrong for believing Jesus Christ as God (and you know what I mean as god don’t interpret it in your bahai contact), im not saying that such a thing exists, but it is possible right to be bahai and believe in Christian doctrine no? And Islamic doctrine? And Hindu doctrine and Buddhist doctrine which doesn’t emphasize God? You can have all these things? Is this true unity? No, this is subjectivity at its best.

Now I have taken efforts to understand the bahai faith, and I don’t think I am wrong. Is not what you believe dependant on personal belief? And that it doesn’t matter what you believe? About God and etc?

Now that statement is interesting that you can’t actually interpret scripture. Therefore your interpretation by your own addition is just personal interpretation of the scriptures. Subjectivity at its finest.

Actually the Orthodox church does have theolugumia if you must ask, which is differences in beliefs between orthodox, but I find the agreements far more so than the differences, such as the toll gate issue and the calander debate which is ultimately minor in comparison to the agreements. But there is room for interpretationa nd agreement and if you don’t agree with the church you are free to leave. You just cannot be apart of the church, certain beliefs are vital. Much like believing in Baha’u’llah and the Universal council of Justice is for you right? The same accusation applies directly to you.

And Yes I do like to turn bahai logic against itself, because the bahai logic system is ultimately self destructive.

Livindesert

To me I could care less weather there is one church or 40,000. What matters to me is that the Apostolic church before it started to schism had become Pharisees.

Some Orthodox think that by adding some things like organs to the music or having pews brings people close to heresy.To much time is spent following the form of religion when the form really dose not matter. Some think adults are too sinful to have the Eucharist more than four times a year. Others believe you have to have leavened bread and cannot use unleavened bread in the Eucharist. Jesus would be the first person to use whatever drink he had in front of him for the Eucharist and he would have danced to whatever music was played to glorify God. My thoughts anyways.

Lunitik

lol... so for however long you've been on this site, you have been disputing against difference in interpretation, and now we discover that this exists within Orthodoxy too... within a group consisting of 8% of the entire faith, there is still divergence? Laughable.

The only reason you don't see how Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity are exactly the same is because you only comprehend them from the surface. Religion is like an iceberg, 90% of it is hidden beneath the surface, you are concentrating on however much of the 10% you have actually learned.

Livindesert

I believe this also.

Lunitik

I apologize, I am not sure what you mean by "Pharisees"?

tonyfish58

What I beleive as a Baha'i is not personal Belief by any means, it is all scriptural and revealed by God. What I quote as belief will be backed up by Baha'i Scripture, thus it matters what I beleive. You will find that Baha'is have been corrected many times on this forum when they quote or say something that is not based in scripture. So can we put this to bed once and for all

This statement is exactly the opposite of what we have just explained. Interpretations that we use are to be found within the BAHA'I WRITINGS. Anything that is not backed by our writings is personal and is told as such.

Boy you just like turning everything round and round - So this will be the last time I will state this fact

If you used the Logic without trying to discredit it to prove it false, you would find that Gods word is the ultimate Logic

Regards Tony

Livindesert

When form matters more than the spirit of the teachings.

Lunitik

Ahh, yes, thank you

tonyfish58

I agree it has been used widely, and I personally see no problem, but lets look at what the writings hint to

Selections From the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá

"O captive of the love of God! The letter which thou didst write at the time of thy departure hath been received. It brought me joy; and it is my hope that thine inner eye may be opened wide, so that unto thee the very core of the divine mysteries may be disclosed.
Thou didst begin thy letter with a blessed phrase, saying: ‘I am a Christian.’ O would that all were truly Christian! It is easy to be a Christian on the tongue, but hard to be a true one. Today some five hundred million souls are Christian, but the real Christian is very rare: he is that soul from whose comely face there shineth the splendour of Christ, and who showeth forth the perfections of the Kingdom; this is a matter of great moment, for to be a Christian is to embody every excellence there is. I hope that thou, too, shalt become a true Christian. Praise thou God that at last, through the divine teachings, thou hast obtained both sight and insight to the highest degree, and hast become firmly rooted in certitude and faith. It is my hope that others as well will achieve illumined eyes and hearing ears, and attain to everlasting life: that these many rivers, each flowing along in diverse and separated beds, will find their way back to the circumambient sea, and merge together and rise up in a single wave of surging oneness; that the unity of truth, through the power of God, will make these illusory differences to vanish away. This is the one essential: for if unity be gained, all other problems will disappear of themselves....

..O honoured lady! In accordance with the divine teachings in this glorious dispensation we should not belittle anyone and call him ignorant, saying: ‘You know not, but I know’. Rather, we should look upon others with respect, and when attempting to explain and demonstrate, we should speak as if we are investigating the truth, saying: ‘Here these things are before us. Let us investigate to determine where and in what form the truth can be found.’ The teacher should not consider himself as learned and others ignorant. Such a thought breedeth pride, and pride is not conducive to influence. The teacher should not see in himself any superiority; he should speak with the utmost kindliness, lowliness and humility, for such speech exerteth influence and educateth the souls. 31
O honoured lady! For a single purpose were the Prophets, each and all, sent down to earth; for this was Christ made manifest, for this did Bahá’u’lláh raise up the call of the Lord: that the world of man should become the world of God, this nether realm the Kingdom, this darkness light, this satanic wickedness all the virtues of heaven—and unity, fellowship and love be won for the whole human race, that the organic unity should reappear and the bases of discord be destroyed and life everlasting and grace everlasting become the harvest of mankind. "

If you are a Christian you are a Christian, so denomination does not matter

Cheers Tony

arthra

Orthodox:

You can believe the Nicene creed as a Baha'I right?

Nope...that's a church credo not Baha'i ...You re confusing this forum with your catechumen class?

You can believe that Christ is Not God and still be Baha'i right?

Never said He was God..that's a Christian belief..God doesn't incarnate..

You can believe that Christ rose physically right and still be Baha'i right?

Nope.. Christ's resurrection was spiritual..

You can believe he didn’t rise physically right?

Yep..sure do..

No the fundamental nature except in a few things such as accepting Baha’u’llah and the council is ultimately subjective.

What council? Christians have church councils.. Baha'is accept Baha'u'llah.

You cannot say that fellow Baha'i is wrong for believing Jesus Christ as God

Jesus is God is a Christian belief.

(and you know what I mean as god don’t interpret it in your bahai contact), im not saying that such a thing exists, but it is possible right to be bahai and believe in Christian doctrine no?

No.. Baha'is are not members of Christian churches for this reason..

And Islamic doctrine?

Baha'is accept Prophet Muhammad and the Qur'an as authentic revelation.

And Hindu doctrine and Buddhist doctrine which doesn’t emphasize God?

Hindus believe in God Baha'is believe in Krishna as a Manifestation of God.. Buddhists believe Maitreya will appear .. Baha'i accept that and accept the Buddha as a Manifesattion.


You can have all these things? Is this true unity? No, this is subjectivity at its best.

Yep... We have former Muslims, Jews, Zoroastrians, Christians..even Orthodox. All accept Baha'u'llah and His dispensation..

So there are specific Baha'i teachings on a variety of subjects.. but don't hold them up as creeds as many Christians do..

Regarding the forty thousand denominations and growing article.. each would claim to be the true church.. Ever hear of a church that denied it? So what develops is a hydra headed monstrosity growing new heads all the time. Even the guards who crucified Jesus would not tear His garment apart but they gambled for it and threw lots for it.. This is a very serious issue for Christians and I met a Secretary for the NCC (National Council of Churches) at a Disciples of Christ convention.. They had invited me to speak briefly as a Baha'i and so this disunity among them is really a primary issue.

Awhile ago Orthodox mentioned that Jesus had a glorified body..after resurrection... I believe he means they have glorified Jesus body but forgotten His Spirit...

LordOfGoblins

As I said the reason why your church is united is because people who had varying views to your Orthodox have already have gone off and started their own church or joined a branch of christianity that is closer to their views. Your overall religion however is very much divided.

Orthodox most of those things happened many thousands of years ago. Even the resurection are you going to spend your life bickering with people to prove it happened when you have no way of doing so?
And earlier religions you have even less ability to know what really happened. Many things about earlier religions we dont know and they are not mentioned directly in the writings. So people have might have different opinions on it. So what does that mean? We are all a divided bunch all of a sudden because we are allowed to think and have an opinion?

Lunitik

I especially appreciate the last paragraph, I believe you are eluding to the same thing as I did with my iceberg example

Livindesert

O.k. I see no reason why we even would bother pointing out others faults. It seems like a very unBaha'i thing to do. We should focus on our positive points and let the Christians do whatever they want. I don't care if there was only one church they were superseded by Islam. I don't see any reason other than interfaith events as a reason to talk theology to others who are not Baha'i.

Lunitik

I don't think anyone is pointing out Orthodox's faults, he is surely not to blame! I am not even sure of the reasons to discuss theology generally with Baha'is, let alone within interfaith events, however. Certainly, within things like Study Circles they are valid discussion, it just strikes me as strange conversation.

My personal motivation with Orthodox is to get him passed a point where he emphasizes differences and begin looking into similarities. I want him to finally grasp the fact that Baha'is are just as steadfast as any within his church, but we are all striving towards the same ideals. He is beginning to show some give, and thus I feel validity in continuing. I do not have the goal of causing him to convert, only to have a more open and accepting mind. To this end, I have attempted recently to point him towards the exact nature of the harmony between faiths.

Orthodox

I have no way of proving the ressurection? Lord have mercy. I believe the historical evidence demands one believe in the ressurection. There are generally some accepted facts of Jesus by Historians.

That Jesus died on the cross

That the apostles had experiences in which they saw JEsus and this motivated them to spread the faith.

That the tomb of Jesus was empty

And the Buriel in the tomb of Joseph of Arimithia.

Historians accept these facts, Even liberal historians. One Liberal historian in an attempt to explain these, tells us Christ had an unidentified twin brother who was seperated at birth, Stole the body of Jesus and appeared to the apostles. This is the sort of lengths people have to go to not believe in the ressurection.

Now Arthra, you are contradicting what I have been told on this site by many bahai in that there are only certain things you have to believe Are you telling me you have to believe Jesus rose Spiritually in order to be a bahai? This is good on your part, it shows that bahai is not subjective and I am glad you seem to feel this way. It is very logical.

LordOfGoblins

really?
I have reason to beleive that outside of the christian context very little is recorded about his life. Therefore I find it hard to beleive the claim "most scholars (non-christian)" are in agreement of his resurction. Please provide a source of this claim.

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Orthodox

Yes very little is recorded of his life by non Christian sources. But historians don't say, because non Christians didnt mention him alot he didn't exist or certain things about his life as described the NT are not true. Historicity has standard and we ought to follow those standard. The examples I gave can be demonstrated by the historical method.

But even then we do have accounts of Jesus by non Christians and this is remarkable for a man of relative obscurity in the ancient world.

Now I did not say most historians are in agreement on the ressurection i said they agree on the historical facts surrounding Jesus at this time you need to read what I say properly.

Wikipedia =/= scholarly source

My sources is Nt Wright and William Lane Craig.

LordOfGoblins

historicity does have a standard and i bet its not going on the accounts of christains that saw Jesus resurection. As I said before that is Within the christian context. Your statment schollars agree on certain things like a tomb is empty? Im sorry that doesnt prove it historically.
But in any case your claim that schollars agree that Jesus tomb is empty they generally agree on this- (as you say I misquoted saying that they agree on his resurction which is not in fact what you claimed apparently).
So then give me a source that shows scholars are generally in agreement Jesus tomb was empty...
from what I read historians assume Jesus was killed on the cross from the NT not even from any historical records themselves.

LordOfGoblins

Burial and empty tombScholars are split on whether Jesus was buried. Craig A. Evans contends that, "the literary, historical and archaeological evidence points in one direction: that the body of Jesus was placed in a tomb, according to Jewish custom."[117] John Dominic Crossan, based on his unique position that the Gospel of Peter contains the oldest primary source about Jesus, argued that the burial accounts become progressively extravagant and thus found it historically unlikely that an enemy would release a corpse, contending that Jesus' followers did not have the means to know what happened to Jesus' body.[118] Crossan's position on the Gospel of Peter has not found scholarly support,[119] from Meyer's description of it as "eccentric and implausible",[120] to Koester's critique of it as "seriously flawed".[121] Habermas argued against Crossan, stating that the response of Jewish authorities against Christian claims for the resurrection presupposed a burial and empty tomb,[122] and he observed the discovery of the body of Yohanan Ben Ha'galgol, a man who died by crucifixion in the 1st century and was discovered at a burial site outside ancient Jerusalem in an ossuary, arguing that this find revealed important facts about crucifixion and burial in the 1st century Palestine.[123] Other scholars consider the burial by Joseph of Arimathea found in Mark 15 to be historically probable.[124]

Bart Ehrman points out that historians try to determine which events most probably occurred.[43] Even if Jesus' followers did find his tomb empty, any improbable explanation for its being empty is historically superior to the explanation that Jesus rose from the dead, which would be a virtual impossibility.[43] Some scholars think that the story of the empty tomb is a late development and that Mark's account of the women telling no one explains why the story had not been widely or previously known.[125] Likewise, scholars Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz conclude that "the empty tomb can only be illuminated by the Easter faith (which is based on appearances); the Easter faith cannot be illuminated by the empty tomb."[126]


[edit] Resurrection appearancesMain article: Resurrection appearances of Jesus

The Incredulity of Saint Thomas by Caravaggio (16th century), depicts the resurrected Jesus.Since supernatural events cannot be reconstructed using empirical methods, the resurrection of Jesus qualifies as a point of Christian dogma unamenable to the historical method.[129][130] What can be debated in scholarship is whether the accounts of the resurrection appearances have been present in the original gospel or whether they are later insertions. The point of view that the accounts reflect historical visions by the followers of Jesus is known as the vision hypothesis. The alternative hypothesis assumes that the resurrection appearances are legendary and were inserted during the decades following Jesus' death.

Paul recorded his vision in an epistle and lists other reported appearances. He does not describe any of the appearances, and he makes no distinction between his and the others. Acts reports that Paul's vision did not involve seeing Jesus in the flesh. The oldest extant versions of the Gospel of Mark report Jesus' empty tomb, but Matthew, Luke, and John all include significant resurrection appearances. In general, the appearance stories from the last three gospels do not match each other.

The inconsistent resurrection stories probably arose from competition over who was first among the witnesses rather than from deliberate fraud.[131] The Jesus Seminar favors the vision hypothesis, that the appearance stories are based on visionary experiences of Peter, Paul, and Mary."[132]

Orthodox

Yes John Donnimic Crossan the most liberal of scholars of Jesus who follows the fool hardy Jesus seminar way of thought which presupposes so many things about the historical Jesus and then rejects anything that is not inline wiht those baseless presupositions. Thats wikipedia for you. A Great scholarly source. My source is a renowned Philosopher Dr Willam Craig, who knows what he is talking about in this subject, as well As Nt Wright.

Quoting wikipedia just makes you look foolish at this point.

Actually the historical standard does judge the New tesatament and the New testament holds out well. it fulfills much of the criteria of histocity, Embarressment, Multiple attestation, sources from different places and times not bearing on and another, and the works.

Now what makes it funny is that you don't consider the New testament a historical document. That is just so sophmoric.

Livindesert

From what I have read in the Gospels I don't see a bunch of stuff that would lead me to believe that Christ did not live. He makes sense for his time and place. I definately think he was crucified as he cried out "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" you generally would not make something like that up if you are writing about a Manefestation/Messiah.

But after the burial the stories from all four do not match up which lead me to believe the ressurection story was written after to explain what happened after Jesus death. My take anyways.

Orthodox

There is no evidence of that. As teh ressurection account appears in Paul's letter to the corinthians 15, in which he recites an early creed coming from the Jeruselum Christian community which shows the signifficant early attestaiton of the physical ressurection And I know what verse you will bring up in Paul to counter this.

But the apostles do all agree in that basic account of the ressurection afterwards, but they do omit details. For instance one gospel say one mary wento the tomb, this does not exclude the other accounts because it does not say only one mary went to the tomb. WE see an them talking to an angel (refferred to as a man in some gospels) that Christ has risen and that there is an empty tomb, this is in all the gospels. Now you have the appearences to the apostles, the only gospel of which, that doesn't include this, is the gospel of Mark, which has lead some to suggest it was unfinished and then the later verses 9-18 were written to finish mark by a very eaarly editor.

The accounts are consistent, but minor differences or contradictions (though I have yet to see some) do not historically deny the ressurection.

arthra

William Craig mentioend above by Orthodox is an evangelical Christian apologist at Talbott theological seminary, Biola University..a private Christian school.

The Jesus Seminar includes scholars of varying views and while it is dismissed by many church people I know it has provided a good focus for Jewish, Christian scholars.

Jesus Seminar Forum - Home Page

Here's a partial list of the particpants in the Seminar:

http://westarinstitute.org/Fellows/list.html

Actually Wikipedia is improving itself all the time and becoming more widely accepted..

Quest for the historical Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The problem for some though is that dismissing scholarship today means denying inquiry and scientific findings...

Baha'is have a principle that religion and science should be in harmony and that findings of scholars should have a hearing and for the most part be appreciated..

Someone who believes literally in the Bible that saints literally rose from their graves after the crucifixion of Jesus is not someone who would likely respect much scholarship anyway..in my view.

Orthodox

The Jesus seminar does not represent all scholars regarding Jesus and even they would dissagree with the bahai and their claims. But I also mentioend the highly respected Jesus Scholar an anglican Bishop NT Wright who has written so many books and done aot of talks on this subject.

But the problem with liberal scholars who reject miracles is the same problem you have. Presupposed naturalism a belief which has no support for it and upon that basis we are to dismiss the accounts of the NT? No, thats not how history works.

tonyfish58

This was an interesting read, copied from a Catholic web site, but is valid to all that do not read scripture to get their own understanding - Private Interpretation of Scriptures

Private Interpretation of the Bible

Question: How can you interpret the Bible for yourself? I must warn you that the Bible cautions against that: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation" - 2 Peter 1:20 (KJV).

Answer: You probably don't realize the inconsistency of your argument. You try to persuade me not to interpret the Bible for myself by showing me a Bible verse that supposedly proves your point. But if I cannot interpret the Bible for myself, how can I understand the meaning of the verse you quoted? Moreover you don't even abide by your own rule. For you read the Scriptures and use your mind to understand the meaning of the text.

What you really want to say is this: Read the Bible as much as you like, as long as you don't question any doctrine taught by the Roman Catholic magisterium. And if you find any variation between the teaching of the Bible and the teaching of the Vatican, then surely you must be misunderstanding the Bible. The Roman magisterium refuses to be held accountable and to be examined in the light of God's Word!

The Roman Church has had a long history of withholding the Bible from the common people. One effective way was to give the Bible in Latin, an unknown tongue to the great majority. For centuries it was a sin to possess and read the Bible in one's own native language. The Council of Toulouse (1229) forbade the laity to read the vernacular translations of the Bible. Various Bible translations were included in the Index of Forbidden Books (Index Librorum Prohibitorum), first published in 1559. Pope Pius IV instructed bishops to refuse permission to lay persons to read even Catholic versions of Scripture unless their confessors or parish priests judged that such reading was likely to prove beneficial. [See Appendix]

It was Protestants - men like Wycliff, Tyndale and Luther - who first gave the Bible in the common language of the people, at the same time when the Roman authorities were busy burning every copy of the Bible they could lay their hands on.

History forced the Roman Church to change tactics. Today many Catholics have their personal copy of the Bible at home and many are reading the Bible for themselves. However, the Word of God is rendered void and ineffective by the presuppositions in the Catholic mind. For example, the Catholic is not bothered by the fact that the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, auricular confession, purgatory and the veneration of statues are absent from the pages of the Bible. They have been convinced from infancy that God's revelation does not come in the Bible alone, but also in Sacred Tradition; and since no-one can check the contents of oral Tradition, they have no way to verify whether a particular doctrine is really based on the Word of God or not. They simply have to trust the magisterium.

Another method that Rome employs is to persuade the people that the Bible is too difficult to understand by oneself. Interpretation is not for the common people but for the wise and intelligent leaders of the Church alone. "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God...has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone...This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome" (Catechism, paragraph 85). With one hand Rome gives the Bible to the people, and with the other hand, Rome takes it away!

Now let us see what the apostle Peter meant by saying that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. To do so, we must open our Bible and read that verse in its context and employ the familiar rules of language to discover its meaning. In other words, we must interpret the Bible for ourselves! The apostle Peter writes:

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:20-21).

The verb "is" in verse 20 is the translation of the word 'ginomai' which according to Strong's Lexicon means, "to cause to be, to become, come into being." Hence the sense of this verse is this: "no prophecy of Scripture 'came into being' by any private interpretation." The apostle Peter is here speaking about the process by which the Scriptures came into being, namely, their origin, and not about the understanding of Scripture already given.

Peter says that no scripture came into being by 'private interpretation' - that is by one's own explanation. Whom does he have in mind? Is it the reader, or the men who penned the Scriptures? Since Peter is speaking about the origin of Scripture, it seems likely that he is talking about the prophets themselves. In other words, Peter is saying that the Scriptures did not originate in the prophets' own understanding. This could be confirmed if we read the following verse since the apostle Peter gives the reason why scripture did not come into being of the prophets' own understanding, "for" he continues, "prophecy never came by the will of man." The prophets did not invent the scriptures. Rather, they were God's instruments to write his Word: "...holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."

So, rather than discourage us from reading and understanding the Bible for ourselves, this verse give us full confidence why we should trust the Scriptures. Though written by men, the Scriptures do not have their origin in the human mind but in the mind of God the Holy Spirit. The Bible is the Word of God!

I need to make some final comments, especially to my Evangelical brethren. We need to reiterate to our Catholic friends the elementary truth that the Bible was written in such a way that it can be understood. In the meantime, we must continually remind ourselves the equally basic fact that the Bible can be misunderstood! The apostle Peter later on in his epistle warns us that in the Scriptures "are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:16). Therefore we must be diligent in our studies, and make use of all the God-given means, especially listening to godly teachers.

Let us read and study the Bible, both privately and publicly, and exercise our minds to understand it correctly. Let us listen attentively to biblical sermons, and read books that expound the Word. "As newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby, if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is gracious." (1 Peter 2:2,3).

Appendix

Forbidding the Bible to the people

"In early times the Bible was read freely by the lay people...New dangers came in during the Middle Ages...To meet those evils, the Council of Toulouse (1229) and Tarragona (1234) forbade the laity to read the vernacular translations of the Bible. Pius IV required bishops to refuse lay persons leave to read even Catholic versions of Scripture unless their confessors or parish priests judged that such reading was likely to prove beneficial." (Addis and Arnold, Catholic Dictionary, The Catholic Publications Society Co., N.Y., 1887, p. 82).

"In early times, the Bible was read freely by the lay people, and the Fathers constantly encourage them to do so, although they also insist on the obscurity of the sacred text. No prohibitions were issued against the popular reading of the Bible. New dangers came during the middle ages. When the heresy of the Albigenses arose there was a danger from corrupt translations, and also from the fact that the heretics tried to make the faithful judge the Church by their own interpretation of the Bible. To meet these evils, the Council of Toulouse (1229) and Tarragona (1234) forbade the laity to read the vernacular translations of the Bible. Pius IV required the bishops to refuse lay persons leave to read even Catholic versions of the Scripture, unless their confessors or parish priests judged that such readings was likely to prove beneficial." (Shea John Gilmary Ed, The Catholic Educator: A Library of Catholic Devotion and Instruction, New York, Peter J. Ryan, p 61).

Council of Toulouse, 1229, Canon 14: "We prohibit the permission of the books of the Old and New Testament to laymen, except perhaps they might desire to have the Psalter, or some Breviary for the divine service, or the Hours of the blessed Virgin Mary, for devotion; expressly forbidding their having the other parts of the Bible translated into the vulgar tongue" (Pierre Allix, Ecclesiastical History of Ancient Churches of the Albigenses, published in Oxford at the Clarendon Press in 1821, reprinted in USA in 1989 by Church History Research & Archives, P.O. Box 38, Dayton Ohio, 45449, p. 213).

Council of Trent: Rules on Prohibited Books, approved by Pope Pius IV, 1564: "Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed them over to the ordinary. Bookdealers who sell or in any other way supply Bibles written in the vernacular to anyone who has not this permission, shall lose the price of the books, which is to be applied by the bishop to pious purposes, and in keeping with the nature of the crime they shall be subject to other penalties which are left to the judgment of the same bishop. Regulars who have not the permission of their superiors may not read or purchase them."

cire perdue

To become a Baha'i I had to do away with "personal beliefs" such as reincarnation which was previous belief, not to mention the many erroneous beliefs about myself. IF/when Christ returns, He will clear up my "personal beliefts" and generally held incorrect views that are current. Do you think He will say, "The Roman church was wrong and the Orthodox church is right." What if it was vice versa? I think both were wrong to split. When there are questions only about the position of right and wrong, black and white, either/or, then there will be no answer Baha'is can give to those questions. Answering may only strengthen the defense.

cire perdue

I wanted to say that after enough time with growth, I can look back and say, "Only God could have changed that in me....and this here was a miracle...and this could have happened and did not..." That is how I can see God in my life and how I really come to know him. That is what I think knowing self means.

BruceDLimber

In fact, CP, the Return of the Christ Spirit was indeed spiritual in nature and took place about a century and a half ago with the Advent of Baha'u'llah!

Best! :-)

Bruce

Rani

I think this verse from Shoghi Effendi is probably well-known, but I believe it is relevant to the verse from Baha'u'llah that you quoted.

391. Through the Search for God, We Become Acquainted with Ourselves

"The more we search for ourselves, the less likely we are to find ourselves; and the more we search for God, and to serve our fellow-men, the more profoundly will we become acquainted with ourselves, and the more inwardly assured. This is one of the great spiritual laws of life."

(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, February 18, 1954)

(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 114)

cire perdue

I think it is very relevent.