Duane
New member
Right, we can be honest without being mean.
The Bahá'í Faith: Teachings, History, and Practices
- Thread starter Administrator
- Start date
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
Good morning Johann
I opened a thread about the claims of exclusivity made by Jesus in the CHRISTOLOGY section of the Forum and it would be great to have your opinion there as well.
We baha’is believe in progressive revelation.
The Collection of manuscripts that we know as the Bible kept growing even decades after Jesus was gone from this earth.
Many things that Jesus didn't teach were taught by his apostles. So, this is evidence that Jesus's revelation was not the final one.
We could easily identify 20 or more teachings believed by many Christians that were not given by Jesus, but by Paul or another apostle.
Jesus Himself predicted two main components of successive revelation (John 14:25-27):
I have spoken these things to you while I am still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will
1) teach you everything and
2) remind you of all that I told you
The first component is to teach "everything", implying that Jesus did not reveal everything He wanted or needed to reveal.
The second component is to remind about things that Jesus had already taught.
This is exactly what happens with successive revelations by God through Jesus apostles, and then through Muhammad, The Báb and Bahá'u'lláh.
They teach new things but also remind people from things already taught by previous Messengers.
The appearance of future prophets was predicted in the Book of Revelation (11:3): I will give power to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for one thousand two hundred and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth.” In the Baha'i Faith we identify these witnesses as Muhammad and Ali, who conveyed the messages from God during the 1260 lunar years that elapsed from the beginning to the end of the Islamic era.
There are also messianic prophecies in the Tanakh that were not completely fulfilled in the era of Jesus, and that make us see as understandable the reluctance of Jews to accept Jesus as the Messiah. These are prophecies that are being fulfilled in the era of Bahá'u'lláh.
Last edited:
No need for a sledgehammer but I did my research and exposed his "Holy" Quran's demonic verses of racism, savagery, and polygamism. We can't just give in to political correctness each time and not warn our brothers of what Christ already warned everyone of.
Again, peace is only found in truth. If I don't alert others to errors in a respectful way then I am an accomplice to that error.
Johann
Well-known member
He has been "warned/alerted" multiple times so what do you want to do? He is a member on this Forum.
Unless of course, you want to be a moderator and ban/excommunicate @Pancho Frijoles for life-right?
J.
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
Bad people have taken many verses from the Bible, including both Old and New Testament, to defend their hatred and crimes.
The same has happened with the Quran.
Good Jewish people, on the other hand, do NOT need the New Testament to defend gay people from being stoned.
Could you quote which verse of the New Testament abrogates slavery?
Could you quote which verse of the New Testament allows women to freely ask questions and teach at church?
Only in defense of life, where there is no other alternative
No. That would not be justifiable... and millions of modern Muslims would uphold your right to challenge and criticize the Quran.
Surah 5 ayah 32 does not promote the killing of a person who exercises free speech
No. It is not vigilantism. But can be manipulated, as many other verses, to justify wickedness.
Last edited:
Huh? That's not part of the rules of this Forum. Read up on the rules.
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
Indeed, dear @synergy and @Johann , the vast majority of children of God who inhabit this planet do not share the same views on theology and will die unconvinced about our particular views.
What are we going to do then? Ban each other from our lives? Weep every night thinking they all will go to hell?
No. We are all called to build together the Kingdom of God on this earth.
This means the transformation of our economy, science, health system, education system, safety and security, protection of the environment, and particularly, love and care for those who need it most.
We need each other.
Pancho Frijoles needs synergy and Johann. Johann needs synergy and Pancho Frijoles. Synergy needs Johann and Pancho Frijoles
And we all need the @Administrator!
Johann
Well-known member
Brother-
Progressive Revelation: The Bible presents a form of progressive revelation, but within a distinct biblical framework where Jesus’ coming represents the ultimate revelation. Hebrews 1:1-2 emphasizes this, stating, “In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son...” This passage suggests that Jesus' coming was the climactic act of God's self-revelation, not one part in an open-ended sequence. Here, Jesus is described as the "final word" from God.
The Bible’s Growth after Jesus: It’s true that the New Testament writings were completed after Jesus' earthly ministry. However, Christians traditionally view the teachings of the apostles as inspired interpretations and applications of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. In passages like John 16:12-15, Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would guide the apostles into all truth, showing that their teachings, though post-resurrection, are considered divinely guided expositions of Jesus’ message rather than "new revelations" beyond what He represented.
Jesus Foretelling of the Holy Spirit’s Teaching Role: In John 14:25-27, Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would “teach you everything” and “remind you of all that I told you.” Here, Jesus is promising His disciples guidance into a deeper understanding of His teachings rather than introducing new, future prophets. In John 16:13, Jesus calls the Spirit “the Spirit of truth,” who would lead the apostles to understand and interpret the significance of His life and works. This promise of the Spirit was a fulfillment completed through the apostles, rather than an indication of future, extrabiblical revelations.
Regarding Future Messianic Figures: The passage in Revelation 11:3 concerning the two witnesses is symbolic and open to various interpretations, but most Christian scholars view it as part of an apocalyptic vision rather than a roadmap for future prophets. Christian exegesis typically sees these figures as representing God’s prophetic voice within the church's mission on earth, rather than indicating specific individuals in later religions.
Unfulfilled Prophecies in the Tanakh: Christians often see Old Testament prophecies as fully or partly fulfilled in Jesus, but some prophecies are indeed anticipated to be fulfilled in His second coming. This distinction between the first and second advent of the Messiah aligns with passages like Zechariah 14 and Isaiah 11, which Christians interpret as descriptions of a future, messianic kingdom rather than a message to be fulfilled by later prophets.
I appreciate the way Baha'i teaching values religious continuity, and progressive revelation is indeed an interesting concept. From a biblical perspective, Christians generally understand Jesus as the full and final revelation of God (Hebrews 1:1-2). This doesn’t diminish earlier prophets but rather completes what they foretold, with His return being anticipated as the fulfillment of all remaining promises (Revelation 22:12-13). The Bible shows Jesus’ life and teachings as the cornerstone, with the Holy Spirit guiding the apostles to further explain His message. But thanks for sharing your insights @Pancho Frijoles.
J.
Johann
Well-known member
Reminds me of this-Indeed, dear @synergy and @Johann , the vast majority of children of God who inhabit this planet do not share the same views on theology and will die unconvinced about our particular views.
What are we going to do then? Ban each other from our lives? Weep every night thinking they all will go to hell?
No. We are all called to build together the Kingdom of God on this earth.
This means the transformation of our economy, science, health system, education system, safety and security, protection of the environment, and particularly, love and care for those who need it most.
We need each other.
Pancho Frijoles needs synergy and Johann. Johann needs synergy and Pancho Frijoles. Synergy needs Johann and Pancho Frijoles
And we all need the @Administrator!
One Body with Many Members
1Co 12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
1Co 12:14 For the body is not one member, but many.
1Co 12:15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
1Co 12:16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
1Co 12:17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
1Co 12:18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.
1Co 12:19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?
1Co 12:20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.
1Co 12:21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
1Co 12:22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:
1Co 12:23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.
1Co 12:24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked:
1Co 12:25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.
1Co 12:26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.
1Co 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
1Co 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
1Co 12:29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
1Co 12:30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?
1Co 12:31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.
J.
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
Many exalted titles of that kind are given to Bahá'u'lláh, but we Baha'is do not think He is God.
Indeed, the very title "Bahá'u'lláh" is a divine name. It means "The Glory of God".
Jesus promised He would return "in the glory of God (The Father)".
We believe Jesus came in "Bahá'u'lláh".
Johann
Well-known member
Kabod (כָּבוֹד, Hebrew) and doxa (δόξα, Greek) are terms frequently used to denote God’s “glory,” His divine presence, honor, and authority. When we see expressions like “glory of the Father” or “in the Father’s glory” in New Testament Greek (e.g., Matthew 16:27; Mark 8:38), this refers specifically to the divine glory belonging uniquely to God.
The title “Bahá'u'lláh” (meaning “Glory of God” in Arabic) differs contextually, as it does not equate to “kabod Yahweh” (כָּבוֹד יְהוָה) or “doxa tou Theou” (δόξα τοῦ Θεοῦ) in biblical usage, where glory is a manifestation of divine essence, not a separable name or title transferable to a created being.
Biblical Reference to Christ and “The Glory of God”:
In John 17:5, Jesus speaks of the unique glory (doxa) He shared with the Father “before the world began,” denoting pre-existence rather than a future bearer of divine glory. The Greek phrase, "δόξασόν με σὺ, πάτερ" (“glorify me, Father”), emphasizes a shared, eternal glory within the Godhead, incompatible with a subsequent, humanly bestowed title.
Philippians 2:6-7 further supports this, using the Greek term morphē (μορφῇ), to affirm that Jesus existed “in the form of God” (morphē theou), indicating equality with God by nature, not a later-received title of “glory.”
The Title “God” and “Divine Name” in Hebrew Scripture:
The concept of God’s name in Hebrew (e.g., YHWH) is central, signifying His unshareable identity (Exodus 3:14, “I AM” in Hebrew Ehyeh). Isaiah 42:8 makes it explicit that God will not give His “glory” (כָּבוֹד) to another, reinforcing the idea that divine glory, name, and nature are reserved exclusively for God Himself.
Jesus’ statement in John 8:58, “Before Abraham was, I AM” (Greek, ἐγώ εἰμί), associates Him with God’s eternal “I AM,” denoting divinity and pre-existence, not just prophetic honor or a title like “glory.”
“Many exalted titles may be given to esteemed religious figures, but in biblical theology, terms like ‘glory’ (Hebrew: kabod; Greek: doxa) refer to God's unique, unshareable essence.
Jesus didn’t promise a future revelation but identified Himself as sharing God’s eternal glory (John 17:5), highlighting His divine nature. Titles like ‘Glory of God’ cannot replace the Hebrew understanding of divine kabod (Isaiah 42:8), nor the Greek morphē theou in Philippians 2:6, which defines Jesus as inherently God.”
This approach emphasizes distinctions between the biblical use of divine terms and how they differ from later interpretations while clarifying the unique, eternal nature of Christ in both Greek and Hebrew contexts.
J.
How can someone promote evil and the Beatitudes of Jesus at the same time? It's impossible.
As for the "Holy" Quran, it's easy to promote racism, savagery, and polygamism in this day and age. Proof of that is the verses I sent you.
The Law of Moses required Hebrew slaves to be set free after six years of service (Exodus 21:2-4, Deuteronomy 15:12). Adults could sell themselves, and parents could sell their children, into servitude for six years. After that they must be released (Leviticus 25:39-46).
Huh? Women not allowed to teach or ask questions at Church??? Most of our Teacher are Women these days.
except for mischief. You forgot that part of the verse.
See how the Quran is intentionally open ended so that it's free to command the execution of all the racist and savage verses you conveniently skipped over.
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
Hi, Johann
It's a pleasure interacting with you in this Forum
The quote in Hebrews 1:1-2 refers to the revelation of Jesus as the most recent one: "but in these last days..."
It does not say that there would be no revelation after that.
Indeed, by the time the epistle of Hebrews was written, there had been other teachings given by the apostles that Jesus had not spoken, right?
In 1 Corinthians 13, Paul talks about a future, distant time in which prophecies would cease.
Indeed, each successive revelation can be seen in a sense as full and final, in the sense that it summarizes, completes of fulfills the previous, so that it is now what the people in each time or civilization needs to know.
The Prophet Muhammed, for example, was considered "The Seal of Prophets" and Muslims do not accept any further revelation after Him, reason why Baha'is are considered heretical.
I encourage you to think in Jesus words: Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill.
If Jesus did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets, why ritual laws and symbols, that we believe were given by God, were in fact abolished by the apostles (ie, made optional and even irrelevant)?
Is God's revelation renewed from scratch every time, or perhaps preserved in essence but changed in other things?
civic
Well-known member
The difference is Jesus unlike everyone else declared salvation is found in Him alone, one must believe He is I Am or they will die in their sins. He alone is the Savior, Redeemer, Lord of all. He alone is who the gospel is about. Belief in the gospel. message about Him is what saves a person. There is no other name other than His name that a man can be saved.
Salvation is not in the Father but the Son. One must confess He is Lord to be saved . Romans 10:9-13. He alone dies for the sins of the world. And by no means can any man give his life to redeem anyone else. Psalm 49:7.
hope this help !!!
Last edited:
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
That's the same question atheists ask us about the Bible. That's the same question that keeps millions as unbelievers of the Bible.
Well, then the Torah can be used to justify slavery for six years.
And the epistles from Paul can be used to justify slavery, as long as the master treats the slave nicely... and certainly, with the slave's obligation to obey his master!
In conclusion, Jews and Christians reject slavery, no matter the number of years, and no matter how nice the master is, IN SPITE OF clear verses in their sacred textbooks that justify slavery.
Unfortunately, many Evangelical Christians still use certain verses in the Bible to justify the eternal physical and psychological torture of million people from other religions. Some Evangelical Christians already see me burning in hell, feeling pain day and night, day and night, without hope nor relief... while they praise God. And they think my suffering will be just what I deserve.
I am glad to hear that. Then please provide the verse of the New Testament that supports the decision made by your elders at church, defying the explicit recommendation of the NT for women to remain in silence.
You are putting in the Quran secret intentions without knowing the true intentions and the brutal circumstances of wartime in a primitive country like Arabia.
This behavior can be applied also to the Bible to justify many kinds of crime.
Johann
Well-known member
Likewise-
Analysis of Hebrews 1:1-2
Greek Structure and Syntax:
The Greek text of Hebrews 1:1-2 emphasizes a transition in the manner of God’s revelation. It begins, "Πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως πάλαι ὁ Θεὸς λαλήσας τοῖς πατράσιν ἐν τοῖς προφήταις" ("In many parts and in many ways, God spoke to the fathers by the prophets"). This phrase sets up a contrast between earlier, fragmentary revelations through the prophets and a completed revelation in Jesus.
The pivotal clause here is: “ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν Υἱῷ” (“in these last days, He has spoken to us in [the] Son”). The aorist verb “ἐλάλησεν” (elalēsen, "has spoken") implies a definitive act in Greek, often emphasizing completeness or a past action with enduring significance.
Definite Article Use: “ἐν Υἱῷ” (“in [the] Son”) places emphasis on Jesus not as one among many revelators but as the unique and ultimate revelation.
Unlike the indefinite “prophets” mentioned earlier, the Son is presented as the culmination of God’s revelation.
Implications of “Last Days”: The phrase “ἐπ’ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων” (“in these last days”) conveys the sense of eschatological finality, a term often signaling the completion or climax of God’s plan (e.g., Acts 2:17). This suggests that the revelation through the Son represents not just another message but the full, complete revelation from God.
Addressing your Claim About Continued Revelation
The structure of Hebrews 1:1-2 supports the view that Jesus is the culmination of divine revelation, rather than merely the latest in an ongoing series. Other New Testament texts support this interpretation:
John 14:26 - Jesus promises the Holy Spirit would “teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” This indicates that the Spirit’s role is not to introduce new, independent revelations but to illuminate and apply Jesus’ teaching, reinforcing its finality.
1 Corinthians 13:9-10 and the Cessation of Prophecies
Greek Context:
In 1 Corinthians 13:9-10, Paul writes, “For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect [τὸ τέλειον, to teleion] comes, the partial will pass away.” Here, the term “τὸ τέλειον” (to teleion, “the perfect” or “completion”) suggests a point when the need for partial revelations will cease.
Paul does not specify that this will introduce additional new revelations but implies that prophecies and knowledge will conclude when this “completion” is reached.
Thank you for the thought-provoking points. @Pancho Frijoles - It’s true that the apostles expounded on Jesus’ teachings, and the Holy Spirit helped clarify His words.
However, Hebrews 1:1-2 uses a unique grammatical structure that suggests God’s ultimate revelation came through His Son.
The phrase ‘in these last days’ and the use of the aorist verb ‘has spoken’ imply a completed, climactic revelation. Additionally, in 1 Corinthians 13, Paul speaks of a time when prophecies will cease, but he links this to the coming of ‘the perfect,’ rather than to additional future revelations. This might imply that the fullness we need is already in Christ’s teachings.”
At the end of these days (ep' eschatou tōn hēmerōn toutōn). In contrast with palai above.
Hath spoken (elalēsen). First aorist indicative of laleō, the same verb as above, “did speak” in a final and full revelation.
In his Son (en huiōi). In sharp contrast to en tois prophētais.
“The Old Testament slopes upward to Christ” (J. R. Sampey). No article or pronoun here with the preposition en, giving the absolute sense of “Son.”
Here the idea is not merely what Jesus said, but what he is (Dods), God’s Son who reveals the Father (Joh_1:18). “The revelation was a son-revelation” (Vincent).
Hath appointed (ethēken). First aorist (kappa aorist) active of tithēmi, a timeless aorist.
Heir of all things (klēronomon pantōn). See Mar_12:6 for ho klēronomos in Christ’s parable, perhaps an allusion here to this parable (Moffatt).
The idea of sonship easily passes into that of heirship (Gal_4:7; Rom_8:17). See the claim of Christ in Mat_11:27; Mat_28:18 even before the Ascension.
Through whom (di' hou). The Son as Heir is also the Intermediate Agent (dia) in the work of creation as we have it in Col_1:16.; Joh_1:3.
The worlds (tous aiōnas). “The ages” (secula, Vulgate). See Heb_11:3 also where tous aiōnas = ton kosmon (the world) or the universe like ta panta (the all things) in Heb_1:3; Rom_11:36; Col_1:16. The original sense of aiōn (from aei, always) occurs in Heb_6:20, but here “by metonomy of the container for the contained” (Thayer) for “the worlds” (the universe) as in lxx, Philo, Josephus.
Robertson.
Therefore I cannot accept your interpretation brother, or rather, re-interpretation, respectfully.
Johann.
Huh? I don't follow your logical. The Beatitudes clearly show that the NT cannot be used for evil. The Quran, on the other hand, can be used for savagery and racism.
First of all it's voluntary and temporary as opposed to the Quran slitting one's throat which is involuntary and permanent.
If one voluntarily makes himself a slave then one is obliged to carry that term to completion. The Quran, on the other hand, wants you forever under its slave trade or deimmitide.
There is now economic slavery. Does the Quran have anything to say about bettering mankind's situation against all forms of slavery? Or is it mute as usual, never offering any solution, being content to promote the cutting of nonbelievers' throats.
You can demand that they produce the verses to justify that.
The Bible cannot abrogate that which has not been previously put into law. I think there is a verse that women not be chatterboxes during the service but that's it.
That proves that the Quran is for that time period only and can now be disposed of. Thank you for that confirmation.
You have failed to do so.
Runningman
Well-known member
Some of these are correct, but some of these are just dishonest. Please provide a citation for all of your claims.
Pancho Frijoles
Well-known member
Good morning, Johann.
Thank you very much for the comprehensive review of the sense of the text.
I don't know Greek to understand the nuances of the shades of meanings that each word can convey. I thank you for sharing your knowledge and also your opinion based on that knowledge.
What I can share, though, is what baha'is believe in regards to progressive revelation.
We believe that it is totally appropriate that each successive revelation era / dispensation / stage brings this sense of completeness or fullness, because certainly, it encompasses everything said before, and it is the one relevant for the time and people in question.
Each revelation, in such sense, is the ultimate revelation. Each new cycle is, in a sense, "The Day of the Lord".
When we review the messianic texts in the Tanakh, they do not point out to the Messiah as teaching or revealing new things. The Messiah was supposed to restore and propell Israel to spiritual and material prosperity, not to "teach doctrines" or "make revelations". If the Messiah was to announce something, it was indeed that the Kingdom had come... not a new creed !
So, any scribe of that time could have easily challenged you and me asking "Why would Jesus have to teach or reveal something new, if the Tanakh has been complete over the last 400 years, since Malachi wrote his last word?"
Even the promise of the return of Elijah by Malachi was not explicitly associated with new teachings or revelations, but with a spiritual renovation leading to unity between generations.
" I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreaded day of the Lord. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the earth with a curse."
Jesus explained that Elijah had already come. But then, when was the "Day of the Lord" going to be?
For early Christians, the Second Coming of Christ and the visible establishment of the Kingdom of God was imminent. Do we agree?
For Baha'is, the Day of the Lord is the period of time where a new cycle of revelation is started.
Elijah came before the Day of the Lord because the Day of the Lord was the period of time that Jesus appeared and founded his church.
Jesus revelation, therefore, was appropriately felt as complete, full and ultimate.
Johann
Well-known member
I rely solely on the Scriptures, @Pancho Frijoles, and my response to you was rooted in biblical texts, without introducing any new revelations.
If you desire the truth as it is clearly presented in Scripture, free from circular reasoning-of which I am well aware-please let me know.
J.
