The Bahá'í Faith: Teachings, History, and Practices

[mikesw]

To test your assumption, we would need to observe the daily lifes of religious people who believe or not believe in a specific doctrine.

Take, for example, the physical resurrection of Jesus.
How believing vs not believing such doctrine makes people love more or love less God and their neighbors?

Or take the fate of the wicked.
Is the crime rate lower in those who believe in the eternal lake of fire vs those who believe in annihilation or the universalists?
On what basis we say that people who do not believe in X doctrine enjoy less eternal life?

It is hardly measurable who truly has faith toward God. It is not the exact doctrine. Christians are saved by faith not the doctrine, but it can be suspicious if they don't recognize the basics. And there are people who have taught correct doctrine but end up not following Christ.
As to less or more eternal life? there is no such thing as having half life. Eternal life is knowing God so if people know Christ they know God. Otherwise they don't have eternal life.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

It is hardly measurable who truly has faith toward God. It is not the exact doctrine. Christians are saved by faith not the doctrine, but it can be suspicious if they don't recognize the basics.

I agree with you, my friend.

Certainly, different churches and religions differ in what to consider "the basics".
My position is that, regardless of our views on Theology, we should not demand from anyone, as a requisite for salvation, to practice something or to believe something that God did not demand as requisite for salvation.

 

[mikesw]

I agree with you, my friend.

Certainly, different churches and religions differ in what to consider "the basics".
My position is that, regardless of our views on Theology, we should not demand from anyone, as a requisite for salvation, to practice something or to believe something that God did not demand as requisite for salvation.

But it is only the gospel of Christ that is God's calling of people. They are saved by recognizing God's voice where the gospel of Christ is preached. If justification through Christ is not preached, people are not getting saved. If they do not hear from the only way and truth and life, of our Lord Jesus, they have nothing. If a church strays far from the truth about Christ, they probably are not sharing the gospel either. So people will not receive eternal life there.
Also, we cannot demand someone have certain doctrine. Your denial of the deity of Christ is a dark sign of you pretending to accept the message of Christ while denying the essence of it.

 

[synergy]

I appreciate that there are a lot of arguments in favor of opposite views about this issue, and it is better to confine the bulk of that discussion to the threads about the Trinity.

I'm fine with just talking only about the Baha’i faith and its views.

In this thread I may only add Baha'i-specific views on top of those also held by Unitarian Christians.
This is one of them:

Bah'au'lláh said that Christ, being a Manifestation of God, could in all truth have said "I am God" .
He uses the analogy of a mirror and the sun. He asks us to imagine a the rays of the sun being reflected on a perfect mirror on earth. Whoever looked into the mirror, could say "Hey! Look! The sun is here!" and that person would be right.

If Bah'au'lláh had read the Biblical account of the Transfiguration of Christ then he would have definitively known that there were no "mirrors" present during the Transfiguration, whether in the metaphorical sense or in any other sense whatsoever. That's the thing. People like him carelessly promote falsehoods, thus distorting facts and the truth. That's a perfect example of one's presuppositions violating stated facts.

In contrast with Jehovah Witnesses or Muslims, Baha'is don't feel a need to refute the Trinity. When I participate in the debate, my purpose is to let other people know that Unitarians are neither ignorant nor dishonest in believing what they believe, so that we establish the ground for mutual appreciation as children of God. However, my interest in the debate is rarely seen across Baha'i communities. You won't find pamphlets, magazine articles or Youtube videos trying to persuade Christians against the doctrine of Trinity.

You certainly did not help the Unitarian cause in their quest to superimpose their presuppositions on Biblical stated facts. .

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

. Your denial of the deity of Christ is a dark sign of you pretending to accept the message of Christ while denying the essence of it.

The deity of Christ is not essential to His message, my friend.
I'm not debating here whether such view is right or false. What I am saying is that, even if it were right, it is not essential for salvation.

There is no unequivocal statement in the Bible in which Jesus or his apostles ask a person to believe in the deity of Jesus as a condition or requisite to be forgiven, healed, or baptized.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

If Bah'au'lláh had read the Biblical account of the Transfiguration of Christ then he would have definitively known that there were no "mirrors" present during the Transfiguration, whether in the metaphorical sense or in any other sense whatsoever.

Why do you say that? I'm intrigued.

That's the thing. People like him carelessly promote falsehoods, thus distorting facts and the truth. That's a perfect example of one's presuppositions violating stated facts.

Which facts? Can you specify, please? I don't understand what you're talking about in reference to transfiguration.

 

[synergy]

What do you say that? I'm intrigued.

Which facts? Can you specify, please? I don't understand what you're talking about in reference to transfiguration.

Here is one of many accounts of the Transfiguration of Christ where three Disciples witnessed the Divine Uncreated Splendor and Glory of Jesus Christ. No mirrors anywhere, whether in the metaphorical sense or in any other sense whatsoever.

Mat 16:28 Truly I say to you, There are some standing here who shall not taste of death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.
Mat 17:1 And after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, and brought them up into a high mountain apart.
Mat 17:2 And He was transfigured before them. And His face shone as the sun, and His clothing was white as the light.
Mat 17:3 And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Elijah talking with Him.
Mat 17:4 And Peter answered and said to Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here. If You will, let us make here three tabernacles; one for You, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah.
Mat 17:5 While he yet spoke, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them. And behold a voice out of the cloud which said, This is My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased, hear Him.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Here is one of many accounts of the Transfiguration of Christ where three Disciples witnessed the Divine Uncreated Splendor and Glory of Jesus Christ. No mirrors anywhere, whether in the metaphorical sense or in any other sense whatsoever.

Mat 16:28 Truly I say to you, There are some standing here who shall not taste of death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.
Mat 17:1 And after six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, and brought them up into a high mountain apart.
Mat 17:2 And He was transfigured before them. And His face shone as the sun, and His clothing was white as the light.
Mat 17:3 And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Elijah talking with Him.
Mat 17:4 And Peter answered and said to Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here. If You will, let us make here three tabernacles; one for You, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah.
Mat 17:5 While he yet spoke, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them. And behold a voice out of the cloud which said, This is My beloved Son in whom I am well pleased, hear Him.

Are you sticking to facts?

In Mat 17:2, the text says "He was transfigured before them. And his face shone as the sun, and His clothing was white as the light".

To me, this is exactly the point of Bahá'u'lláh's analogy. Jesus is like a mirror that reflects the sun and its light. That's why his face shines as the sun, and his clothes get white as the light. You can get dazzled by a mirror that reflects the sun. The mirror is NOT the sun, but it doesn't matter, you get dazzled anyway.

So, just in this verse, I invite you to appreciate 3 things:

1. You are not stating a fact. The verse does not say that Jesus is God. The verse says that Jesus face shone as the sun, and his clothing got white as the light. Period.
2. I am not stating a fact. The verse does not say that Jesus is like a mirror of God. The verse says that Jesus face shone as the sun, and his clothing got white as the light. Period.
3. We both are sharing our interpretation of the verse.

There is nothing in your appreciation that is more "factual" that my appreciation. Can you see it?

 

[synergy]

Are you sticking to facts?

In Mat 17:2, the text says "He was transfigured before them. And his face shone as the sun, and His clothing was white as the light".

To me, this is exactly the point of Bahá'u'lláh's analogy. Jesus is like a mirror that reflects the sun and its light. That's why his face shines as the sun, and his clothes get white as the light. You can get dazzled by a mirror that reflects the sun. The mirror is NOT the sun, but it doesn't matter, you get dazzled anyway.

I still do not see anything even close to a mirror (metaphorical or not) mentioned in those verses. Do you? I see a comparison being made between the intensity of the Sun and His Glory but I see no "mirrors".

So, just in this verse, I invite you to appreciate two things:

1. You are not stating a fact. The verse does not say that Jesus is God. The verse says that Jesus face shone as the sun, and his clothing got white as the light. Period.
2. I am not stating a fact. The verse does not say that Jesus is like a mirror of God. The verse says that Jesus face shone as the sun, and his clothing got white as the light. Period.
3. We both are sharing our interpretation of the verse.

There is nothing in your appreciation that is more "factual" that my appreciation. Can you see it?

I never claimed that those verses explicitly state that Jesus is God. There are other verses that do that. So you can take item 1 out of your statement and rework your questions. I am not backtracking on the Divinity of Christ. I am just making a statement on how presuppositions violate facts.

 

[synergy]

The deity of Christ is not essential to His message, my friend.
I'm not debating here whether such view is right or false. What I am saying is that, even if it were right, it is not essential for salvation.

There is no unequivocal statement in the Bible in which Jesus or his apostles ask a person to believe in the deity of Jesus as a condition or requisite to be forgiven, healed, or baptized.

Read John 8:24. The name "I Am" is the name of God in the Old Testament. (Ex 3:14).

(John 8:24) Therefore I said to you that you shall die in your sins, for if you do not believe that I AM, you shall die in your sins.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

I still do not see anything even close to a mirror (metaphorical or not) mentioned in those verses. Do you?

I do. I've seen a mirror reflecting the sun, and snow reflecting the sun. I know how this looks.

I never stated that those verses explicitly state that Jesus is God.

By the same token, Bahá'u'lláh never stated that those verses explicitly state that Jesus is the mirror of God.
So, I don't find any reason for what you wrote, my brother:
This is what you wrote (highlight in red is mine)

If Bah'au'lláh had read the Biblical account of the Transfiguration of Christ then he would have definitively known that there were no "mirrors" present during the Transfiguration, whether in the metaphorical sense or in any other sense whatsoever. That's the thing. People like him carelessly promote falsehoods, thus distorting facts and the truth. That's a perfect example of one's presuppositions violating stated facts.

So, what are the facts that Bahá'u'lláh is violating?

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Read John 8:24. The name "I Am" is the name of God in the Old Testament. (Ex 3:14).

(John 8:24) Therefore I said to you that you shall die in your sins, for if you do not believe that I AM, you shall die in your sins.

I've read it hundreds of times, INCLUDING the whole chapter.
I've provided the full refutation of the misuse of this verse to claim that Jesus (or his apostles) demanded to recognize his deity as a condition to forgive, heal or save.

I am glad to repeat the refutation below, and I will keep doing it as many times as needed or requested.
After you read it, I invite you and all our friends in the Forum to provide a single verse in which unequivocally Jesus or his apostles demand a person to believe in the deity of Jesus as a condition for forgiveness of sins.

• POINT 1. Jesus did not say "I am God" (although He would have all the right to say it, as Messenger of God)
• POINT 2. Jesus always said who He was. So, the sentence "I am..." must be complemented with the things He explicitly and repeatedly did say He was, not by the things people make up to fit in. He said he was The One Sent by God, the Son of God, the Son of Man.
• POINT 3. The person who spoke to Moses in the bush was an "angel", a messenger. The Angel of Jehovah can speak as Jehovah and act as Jehovah... that's precisely why he is an angel. Otherwise, the term "angel" would be pointless. Theories that claim the Angel of Jehovah to be God Himself are plain wrong. So, if as many think (I don't), Jesus was recalling the event of the burning bush, He was re-enacting his role as Messenger of God, not God.
• POINT 4. If believing in the deity of Jesus were a condition for salvation, it would not have been presented in a single verse and ambiguos language, and in only one of the gospels. It would have been presented over, and over, and over, and over, across all gospels, such as any other essential teaching of Jesus, like repentance, love, faith, mercy, or the kingdom of God. It would have appeared in the parable of the Prodigal Son, the Pharisee and the Tax Collector, and the King who forgives the debt of his subject. It would have appeared in those instances in which Jesus forgave sins. It would have appeared in the speech of the apostles after Pentecost when their audience asked them "What shall we do?".

 

[synergy]

I do. I've seen a mirror reflecting the sun, and snow reflecting the sun. I know how this looks.

By the same token, Bahá'u'lláh never stated that those verses explicitly state that Jesus is the mirror of God.
So, I don't find any reason for what you wrote, my brother:
This is what you wrote (highlight in red is mine)

So, what are the facts that Bahá'u'lláh is violating?

You mentioned that Bahá'u'lláh uses "the analogy of a mirror" concerning the Trinity:

I appreciate that there are a lot of arguments in favor of opposite views about this issue, and it is better to confine the bulk of that discussion to the threads about the Trinity.

In this thread I may only add Baha'i-specific views on top of those also held by Unitarian Christians.
This is one of them:

Bah'au'lláh said that Christ, being a Manifestation of God, could in all truth have said "I am God" .
He uses the analogy of a mirror and the sun. He asks us to imagine a the rays of the sun being reflected on a perfect mirror on earth. Whoever looked into the mirror, could say "Hey! Look! The sun is here!" and that person would be right.

Can you please forward what Bah'au'lláh explicitly said about Christ's Divinity, His Transfiguration in particular, and the Trinity (which are one and the same topic of discussion)?

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

You mentioned that Bahá'u'lláh uses "the analogy of a mirror" concerning the Trinity:

Not concerning the transfiguration. I hadn't even thought in the transfiguration, my friend. You brought the passage.

Can you please forward what Bah'au'lláh explicitly said about Christ's Divinity and the Trinity (which are one and the same topic of discussion)?

I will do it gladly, mi friend.
But first, as a token of courtesy, I would beg you to retract temporarily from your statement that Bahá'u'lláh "carelessly promote falsehoods, thus distorting facts and the truth."
I am asking you to do this because, SO FAR, you haven't proven that. Probably you will do later, but not so far.
We are sticking to facts and not to presuppositions, right?

 

[synergy]

I've read it hundreds of times, INCLUDING the whole chapter.
I've provided the full refutation of the misuse of this verse to claim that Jesus (or his apostles) demanded to recognize his deity as a condition to forgive, heal or save.

I am glad to repeat the refutation below, and I will keep doing it as many times as needed or requested.
After you read it, I invite you and all our friends in the Forum to provide a single verse in which unequivocally Jesus or his apostles demand a person to believe in the deity of Jesus as a condition for forgiveness of sins.

• POINT 1. Jesus did not say "I am God" (although He would have all the right to say it, as Messenger of God)

Jesus identified Himself as the OT God "I Am" whose name all Pharisees were well aware of.

• POINT 2. Jesus always said who He was. So, the sentence "I am..." must be complemented with the things He explicitly and repeatedly did say He was, not by the things people make up to fit in. He said he was The One Sent by God, the Son of God, the Son of Man.

The name "I Am" is the name of God in the Old Testament. (Ex 3:14). There is no getting around that fact. Christ had many other names which takes nothing away from the fact that he identified Himself as the OT God "I Am" both here and in other parts of the New Testament.

• POINT 3. The person who spoke to Moses in the bush was an "angel", a messenger. The Angel of Jehovah can speak as Jehovah and act as Jehovah... that's precisely why he is an angel. Otherwise, the term "angel" would be pointless. Theories that claim the Angel of Jehovah to be God Himself are plain wrong. So, if as many think (I don't), Jesus was recalling the event of the burning bush, He was re-enacting his role as Messenger of God, not God.

That Angel also declared that He is the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ So, there is more than just a typical Angel here. Do you seriously what to challenge these statements?

30 “And when forty years had passed, an Angel [a]of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire in a bush, in the wilderness of Mount Sinai. 31 When Moses saw it, he marveled at the sight; and as he drew near to observe, the voice of the Lord came to him, 32 saying, ‘I am the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ And Moses trembled and dared not look.

• POINT 4. If believing in the deity of Jesus were a condition for salvation, it would not have been presented in a single verse and ambiguos language, and in only one of the gospels. It would have been presented over, and over, and over, and over, across all gospels, such as any other essential teaching of Jesus, like repentance, love, faith, mercy, or the kingdom of God. It would have appeared in the parable of the Prodigal Son, the Pharisee and the Tax Collector, and the King who forgives the debt of his subject. It would have appeared in those instances in which Jesus forgave sins. It would have appeared in the speech of the apostles after Pentecost when their audience asked them "What shall we do?".

I think something needs to be clarified here. I don't think that you must be thoroughly convinced that Jesus is God before God saves you. Salvation is more a matter of the heart than of the mind. I think it's more of a case that Jesus must be God or else we are not saved. Isaiah 43:11 clearly states that the OT God is the only Saviour. So if Jesus is not God then we're in deep deep trouble.

Isa 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no Saviour.

 

[mikesw]

The deity of Christ is not essential to His message, my friend.
I'm not debating here whether such view is right or false. What I am saying is that, even if it were right, it is not essential for salvation.

There is no unequivocal statement in the Bible in which Jesus or his apostles ask a person to believe in the deity of Jesus as a condition or requisite to be forgiven, healed, or baptized.

You create a false diversion here. The deity of Christ indeed is essential to his message. It is the basis of his effective ministry of justification to humanity through his death and resurrection. To rip that detail out is to despise the message. If a person lacks knowledge of that, it is similar to a person lack knowledge of how cell division works in growing the parts of a person's body. He or she grows because of that cell growth despite not knowing how the body grows. The cell-growth still is vital to that person's existence.
If a wide body of Christians are uniformed about the divinity of Christ, it leads to many heresies even where the message of Christ can be overshadowed. To purposely argue against this for one's alternative religion is just a display of can amount to hatred toward God and the sending of his Son. Except for those details, you make a valid point.
If you are willing to say that your religion is distinct from Christianity such that there is no reasonable association with it, just share that message. Yet to this point you try to destroy the message of Christ. It is in no ways reasonable to diminish the message of Christ just to squeeze it into the mold you want to convey.

 

[synergy]

Not concerning the transfiguration. I hadn't even thought in the transfiguration, my friend. You brought the passage.


I will do it gladly, mi friend.
But first, as a token of courtesy, I would beg you to retract temporarily from your statement that Bahá'u'lláh "carelessly promote falsehoods, thus distorting facts and the truth."
I am asking you to do this because, SO FAR, you haven't proven that. Probably you will do later, but not so far.
We are sticking to facts and not to presuppositions, right?

No problem there. I'll gladly wait for explicit statements from Bahá'u'lláh concerning Christ's Divinity and the Trinity with hopefully references to the New Testament.

 

[Obadiah]

It's nice to see such a thoughtful conversation taking place.

I've always liked Emmanuel "God with us". For me that ends the debate.

Who Is Christ to Baha’is?

Who is Jesus Christ to Baha'is? A good man? A mere prophet? The short answer: Baha’is believe Jesus is who he says he is.

bahaiteachings.org

 

[synergy]

It's nice to see such a thoughtful conversation taking place.

I've always liked Emmanuel "God with us". For me that ends the debate.

Who Is Christ to Baha’is?

Who is Jesus Christ to Baha'is? A good man? A mere prophet? The short answer: Baha’is believe Jesus is who he says he is.

bahaiteachings.org

I agree.

As for the article, it is not clear whether or not the Baha'i believe that Jesus is God.

 

[Obadiah]

I agree.

As for the article, it is not clear whether or not the Baha'i believe that Jesus is God.

I noticed that also, If you follow the link they provide it gets even less clear. Expounding on the station of the Messengers of God, the Baha’i teachings say:

Bahá’í Reference Library

It seems to be teaching that Jesus is a messenger of God not God in the flesh.

Hath not Muḥammad, Himself, declared: “I am all the Prophets?” Hath He not said as We have already mentioned: “I am Adam, Noah, Moses, and Jesus?” Why should Muḥammad, that immortal Beauty, Who hath said: “I am the first Adam” be incapable of saying also: “I am the last Adam”? For even as He regarded Himself to be the “First of the Prophets”—that is Adam—in like manner, the “Seal of the Prophets” is also applicable unto that Divine Beauty. It is admittedly obvious that being the “First of the Prophets,” He likewise is their “Seal.”

The Kitáb-i-Íqán​

I'll go with this one:
The Bible says Jesus is unique in both His person and His purpose. He wasn't just some spiritual individual during His time on earth; He was both God's Son (John 3:16) and God Himself—God in human flesh (1 Timothy 3:16). Yes, He was fully man, but He was also fully God (Colossians 2:9).