Jesus and the Bahai Faith

[Sean H.]

Originally Posted by 17th Angel

I am kind of understanding this now... It's like, not putting all your eggs in one basket isn't it?

Not exactly 17th Angel. As said before the Bahai Faith is its own religion.

We believe that God sends his revelation to mankind progressively as they are ready for it. One example from Jesus's words is....

16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
16:8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
16:9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;
16:10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
16:11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.
16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
16:14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
16:15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
(King James Bible, John)

Mankind was not ready for all the teachings that could be brought to them. That is why he tells his followers to be ready for the coming of the Son of Man, and mentions that He will come like a thief in the night so that when He does come, they will not be left behind.

There's a great passage from Hinduism which highlights this idea as well

When Righteousness Declines, O Bharata! when Wickedness Is strong, I rise, from age to age, and take Visible shape, and move a man with men,
Succouring the good, thrusting the evil back, And setting Virtue on her seat again. Who knows the truth touching my births on earth And my divine work, when he quits the flesh Puts on its load no more, falls no more down
To earthly birth: to Me he comes, dear Prince!
(Hindu, Bhagavad Gita (Edwin Arnold tr))

Bahais simply believe that Baha'u'llah is the Son of Man promised from the New Testament, the Lord of Hosts from the Tanakh, the return of Jesus promised after the Mehdi from Islam, and the most recent Avatar of God from a Hindu perspective.

Krishna had teachings that mankind needed when he came and so did Jesus. We believe that Baha'u'llah has the teachings that this age of mankind needs.

Some of these teachings are the need for the unity of mankind, unity of science religion, equality of gender and race, unity of religion, and the unity and oneness of God.

Baha'u'llah talks of this topic often, here's one such passage

CVI. The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require.
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 212)

[Sean H.]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Hi Sean —

Interesting stuff!

As a Catholic, I would say the texts cited have to be viewed with the body of the NT as a whole, for the proper context to be understood, and also in light of traditional commentary. Historical Criticism, for example, buried so deeply into lexical nuance that soon they lost sight of the 'big picture' altogether ... but the issue should not be ignored. I applaud your scholarship.

I agree with you that when investigating, one needs to take a whole view of the text. I guess we differ in that I find that when investigating we should be wary of commentary and perhaps avoid it altogether.

I know in Islam, for example, some insist the Comforter is Mohammed, and it is he to whom the text refers (PBUH).

Oh, I think it can refer to Muhammad as well as I stated in another thread. However, I do feel that Baha'u'llah more directly fulfills it, and in fact it is Baha'u'llah who directly says that he is the Comforter.

This is the Father foretold by Isaiah, and the Comforter concerning Whom the Spirit had covenanted with you. Open your eyes, O concourse of bishops, that ye may behold your Lord seated upon the Throne of might and glory.
(Baha'u'llah, The Summons of the Lord of Hosts, p. 62)

Baha'u'llah sent a tablet to Pope Pius IX and this is a passage from it. You might enjoy reading it, and it can be found here Bahá'í Reference Library - The Summons of the Lord of Hosts, Pages 54-67

But a particular point is the Son of Man/Son of God.

It is notable that Jesus never refers to Himself as the Son of God,

Ah, thanks for pointing that out for me. I don't know why my I said that in one of my posts, although I ended up correcting myself later

although this is implicit, He teaches, He performs miracles, etc., all in His own name, a significant indicator in a Hebrew context.

And the hymn of Colossians is in no doubt about it.

It is also notable that the Adversary and his demons do refer to Jesus as the Son of God — His divinity is unquestioned as far as they are concerned.

Oh I totally agree with you that Christ has a divine nature. We might only different in that I believe that the station "Son of God" is a spiritual station and not a literal one. That it is used as a metaphor for the fact that a son takes on the characteristics of his father.

The Son of Man can imply any man, but in the sense inferred in the Book of Daniel, the Son of Man is divine, and this is what the Sanhedrin asked at His trial, to which He asserted, and on which grounds He was condemned as a blasphemer. It is often forgotten that Jesus' assertion of His divinity was what got him killed — if He did not believe himself to be divine, he could have poo-poo'd the question, and walked away a free man. There was no law against prophecy, and without his assertion, there would have been no grounds to convict Him.

Could you show me some quotes about your belief that the Son of Man can imply any man?

The Gospels, of course, are in no doubt about His absolute divinity. Quite how that worked, they were not sure, that is what the Church has been working out ever since ... indeed the Doctrine of the Trinity springs from the fact that Jesus is the Incarnate and only-begotten Son of God.

John's Gospel, for example, was produced by the Church in Ephesus, founded by John, to refute the teachings of Cerinthus that Jesus was not divine in any absolute sense, as such Cerinthus was a precursor to the gnostic debate that would spring up a century later.

Christology is an ongoing and very lively debate in Catholic theology!

I hope it gives you as much joy as it does me,

Thomas

I mentioned the first quote on this thread because the phrase "only begotten" tends to come up and to show that there is no word begotten in the text leaving us with "only Son of God." Another interesting tidbit is that the word unique may be a better translation than the word only "unique Son of God." Which might slightly change a few things no?

But really though whether the original intention was meant to be closer to unique or only isn't all that of a big deal to me. I think its true nevertheless. My entire point of listing all the passages that I did is that it highlights that Christ may indeed be a station rather than a one time event. I find his prophecies on the coming of the Son of Man, the new name, and the need to follow the Comforter very compelling.

I didn't see anything about Church of Ephesus in the Wikipedia article Gospel of John - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia but I claim not to know much about this topic. And in any case John 3:16 comes from well John! And, John says some important things about Jesus and his relationship with God.

4:12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.
(King James Bible, 1 John)

14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
(King James Bible, John)

and there's a good one in Matthew too

19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
(King James Bible, Matthew)

In fact when we see those quotes, the following quotes make more sense.

14:7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
14:8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.
14:9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
When you see Jesus, you see God. That doesn't have to mean that you literally see God. I would say that you see in Jesus the spiritual attributes and virtues of God, love, kindness, generosity, etc. This collaborates with I John 4:12

10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
10:30 I and my Father are one.
(King James Bible, John)

You could interpret John 10:30 to mean that Jesus and God are the same thing, but based on the previous lines in the same passages and the quotes above, it seems more likely to me that "I and my father are one" means that they are united in purpose.

So, based on the above, it seems reasonable to conclude that there is something deeper to this issue, hmm?

PS: I want to apologize for my first page in general. I didn't realize that I had repeated some stuff, and I would edit it if I could.

[Thomas]

Hi Sean —

I don't want to get into a back-and-forth debate about the meaning of texts, as indeed we'd be talking about the interpretations/commentaries we favour.
The following is offered only to show how we read things differently.

Originally Posted by Sean H.

Oh, I think it can refer to Muhammad as well as I stated in another thread. However, I do feel that Baha'u'llah more directly fulfills it, and in fact it is Baha'u'llah who directly says that he is the Comforter.

Yes, but we would say that would be according to Baha'u'llah's commentary on the text, wouldn't it?

Originally Posted by Sean H.

Oh I totally agree with you that Christ has a divine nature. We might only different in that I believe that the station "Son of God" is a spiritual station and not a literal one. That it is used as a metaphor for the fact that a son takes on the characteristics of his father.

The Apostles were quite specific on the point of that not being the case.

There are three 'spiritual stations' spoken of in the Hebrew scripture, that of prophet, priest and king — all being 'annointed' of God. Jesus actually combines all three, superceding them as the Logos of God. He was condemned by the Sanhedrin for claiming a divine status, but passed off to the Romans as claiming kingship — and thus was executed by them as a criminal 'terrorist'.

And, as Judaism is anything it is monotheist, you are either God, or you are not; you are divine, or you are not ... no halfway measures for them.

This was actually thrashed out in the Arian controversy in the 3rd century, when Arius got himself in all sorts of a mess trying to say Jesus was more divine than man, but less divine than God ... his argument was eventually shown to be logically untenable, without asserting the idea of a demigod, which is fundamentally contra any Hebrew or indeed prior orthodox Christian teaching.

Originally Posted by Sean H.

Could you show me some quotes about your belief that the Son of Man can imply any man?

"This was the vision of the likeness of the glory of the Lord. And I saw, and I fell upon my face, and I heard the voice of one that spoke. And he said to me: Son of man, stand upon thy feet, and I will speak to thee."
Ezechiel 2:1. In this text, as in others, God addresses the prophet by the generic term.

Originally Posted by Sean H.

My entire point of listing all the passages that I did is that it highlights that Christ may indeed be a station rather than a one time event. I find his prophecies on the coming of the Son of Man, the new name, and the need to follow the Comforter very compelling.

In our view this is often the case when texts are read out of context.

Originally Posted by Sean H.

I didn't see anything about Church of Ephesus in the Wikipedia article

Ephesus was where John founded his community.

Originally Posted by Sean H.

When you see Jesus, you see God. That doesn't have to mean that you literally see God. I would say that you see in Jesus the spiritual attributes and virtues of God, love, kindness, generosity, etc. This collaborates with I John 4:12

But other texts balance this.
"Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am." John 8:58
And, of course, the Prologue of the Gospel of John.

Again, in the kingdom parables, it is implicit that the Kingdom has come in Jesus.

Originally Posted by Sean H.

[/]You could interpret John 10:30 to mean that Jesus and God are the same thing, but based on the previous lines in the same passages and the quotes above, it seems more likely to me that "I and my father are one" means that they are united in purpose.

You could ... but then if seeking certainty, you should inquire of Scripture and Tradition. These were the arguments the Apostles and their successors used to refute that.

Originally Posted by Sean H.

So, based on the above, it seems reasonable to conclude that there is something deeper to this issue, hmm?

Indeed ... The Trinity.

Thomas

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

I'll address two different points here.

As to the names of God, He has many names, all equally acceptable! (This is simply a matter of linguistic differences.) Just a few of them are: Boje, Dios, Wankantanka, Dieu, Bog, and Gott. There are many more!

And I think it might help to bear in mind what we Baha'is call the "dual stations" of the Divine Messengers:

We Baha'is teach that all the major religions of the world are divine in origin, sent by God as stages in a single divine plan. (There is only one Faith, the Faith of God.)

A Messenger has a dual station; He is both a man (who was born, died, etc.) and also a Manifestation of the eternal spirit of God. He may be likened to a mirror reflecting the sun. It is correct to point to the mirror and say, "That is the sun." It is also correct to say "That's not the sun, only a mirror." Thus Jesus said, "Why callest thou Me good? There is none good but the Father in Heaven" (Jesus the man speaking), but also said "Before Abraham was, I am" and "No one comes to the Father but by Me" (the eternal spirit speaking, here called "Christ"). This latter "but by Me" quote refers to the fact that only through these Messengers can humankind know God.

In the Baha'i scriptures, it's expressed like this:

[quote]
[I]{161}t is evident ...that the Bearers of the trust of God are made manifest unto the peoples of the earth as the Exponents of a new Cause and the Bearers of a new Message. Inasmuch as these Birds of the Celestial Throne are all sent down from the heaven of the Will of God, and as they all arise to proclaim His irresistible Faith, they therefore are regarded as one soul and the same person. For they all drink from the one Cup of the love of God, and all partake of the fruit of the same Tree of Oneness. These Manifestations of God have each a twofold station. One is the station of pure abstraction and essential unity. In this respect, if thou callest them all by one name, and dost ascribe to them the same attribute, thou hast not erred from the truth. Even as He hath revealed: "No distinction do We make between any of His Messengers!" For they one and all summon the people of the earth to acknowledge the Unity of God, and herald unto them the [river] of an infinite grace and bounty. They are all invested with the robe of Prophethood, and honoured with the mantle of glory. Thus hath Muhammad, the Point of the Qur'an, revealed: "I am all the Prophets." Likewise, He saith: "I am the first Adam, Noah, Moses, and Jesus."... Sayings such as this, which indicate the essential unity of those Exponents of Oneness, have also emanated from the Channels of God's immortal utterance, and the Treasuries of the gems of divine knowledge, and have been recorded in the scriptures. These Countenances are the recipients of the Divine Command, and the day-springs of His Revelation. This Revelation is exalted above the veils of plurality and the exigencies of number. Thus He saith: "Our Cause is but one." Inasmuch as the Cause is one and the same, the Exponents thereof also must needs be one and the same...

{162}It is clear and evident ... that all the Prophets are the Temples of the Cause of God, Who have appeared clothed in divers attire. If thou wilt observe with discriminating eyes, thou wilt behold them all abiding in the same tabernacle, soaring in the same heaven, seated upon the same throne, uttering the same speech, and proclaiming the same Faith. Such is the unity of those Essences of being, those Luminaries of infinite and immeasurable splendour. Wherefore, should one of these Manifestations of Holiness proclaim saying: "I am the return of all the Prophets," He verily speaketh the truth. In like manner, in every subsequent Revelation, the return of the former Revelation is a fact...

{191}We have already in the foregoing pages assigned two stations unto each of the Luminaries arising from the Daysprings of eternal holiness. One of these stations, the station of essential unity, We have already explained. "No distinction do We make between any of them." The other is the station of distinction, and pertaineth to the world of creation and to the limitations thereof. In this respect, each Manifestation of God hath a distinct individuality, a definitely prescribed mission, a predestined Revelation, and specially designated limitations. Each one of them is known by a different name, is characterized by a special attribute, fulfils a definite Mission, and is entrusted with a particular Revelation. Even as He saith: "Some of the Apostles We have caused to excel the others. To some God hath spoken, some He hath raised and exalted. And to Jesus, Son of Mary, We gave manifest signs, and We strengthened Him with the Holy Spirit."

{192}It is because of this difference in their station and mission that the words and utterances flowing from these Well-springs of divine knowledge appear to diverge and differ. Otherwise, in the eyes of them that are initiated into the mysteries of divine wisdom, all their utterances are in reality but the expressions of one Truth. As most of the people have failed to appreciate those stations to which We have referred, they therefore feel perplexed and dismayed at the varying utterances pronounced by Manifestations that are essentially one and the same.

{193}It hath ever been evident that all these divergences of utterance are attributable to differences of station. Thus, viewed from the standpoint of their oneness and sublime detachment, the attributes of Godhead, Divinity, Supreme Singleness, and Inmost Essence, have been and are applicable to those Essences of being, inasmuch as they all abide on the throne of divine Revelation, and are established upon the seat of divine Concealment. Through their appearance the Revelation of God is made manifest, and by their countenance the Beauty of God is revealed. Thus it is that the accents of God Himself have been heard uttered by these Manifestations of the divine Being.

{194}Viewed in the light of their second station - the station of distinction, differentiation, temporal limitations, characteristics and standards, - they manifest absolute servitude, utter destitution and complete self-effacement. Even as He saith: "I am the servant of God. I am but a man like you."

{195}From these incontrovertible and fully demonstrated statements strive thou to apprehend the meaning of the questions thou hast asked, that thou mayest become steadfast in the Faith of God, and not be dismayed by the divergences in the utterances of His Prophets and Chosen Ones.

{196}Were any of the all-embracing Manifestations of God to declare: "I am God!" He verily speaketh the truth, and no doubt attacheth thereto. For it hath been repeatedly demonstrated that through their Revelation, their attributes and names, the Revelation of God, His name and His attributes, are made manifest in the world. Thus, He hath revealed: "Those shafts were God's, not Thine!" And also He saith: "In truth, they who plighted fealty unto thee, really plighted that fealty unto God." And were any of them to voice the utterance: "I am the Messenger of God," He also speaketh the truth, the indubitable truth... For they are all but one person, one soul, one spirit, one being, one revelation. They are all the manifestation of the "Beginning" and the "End," the "First" and the "Last," the "Seen" and "Hidden" - all of which pertain to Him Who is the innermost Spirit of Spirits and eternal Essence of Essences. And were they to say: "We are the servants of God," this also is a manifest and indisputable fact. For they have been made manifest in the uttermost state of servitude, a servitude the like of which no man can possibly attain. Thus in moments in which these Essences of being were deeply immersed beneath the oceans of ancient and everlasting holiness, or when they soared to the loftiest summits of divine mysteries, they claimed their utterance to be the Voice of divinity, the Call of God Himself. Were the eye of discernment to be opened, it would recognize that in this very state, they have considered themselves utterly effaced and non-existent in the face of Him Who is the All-Pervading, the Incorruptible. Methinks, they have regarded themselves as utter nothingness, and deemed their mention in that Court an act of blasphemy. For the slightest whispering of self, within such a Court, is an evidence of self-assertion and independent existence. In the eyes of them that have attained unto that Court, such a suggestion is itself a grievous transgression. How much more grievous would it be, were aught else to be mentioned in that Presence, were man's heart, his tongue, his mind, or his soul, to be busied with anyone but the Well-Beloved, were his eyes to behold any countenance other than His beauty, were his ear to be inclined to any melody but His voice, and were his feet to tread any way but His way.

(The Book of Certitude, pages 152-154, 176-180)
[end quote]

Best regards, :-)

Bruce

[Popeyesays]

Thomas,

"The Apostles were quite specific on the point of that not being the case.

There are three 'spiritual stations' spoken of in the Hebrew scripture, that of prophet, priest and king — all being 'annointed' of God. Jesus actually combines all three, superceding them as the Logos of God. He was condemned by the Sanhedrin for claiming a divine status, but passed off to the Romans as claiming kingship — and thus was executed by them as a criminal 'terrorist'."

Do you have scriptural reference to support this point of view? I certainly don't want to start an argument, but you have made the claim here, so: Do you have scriptural reference to this? As to passing it off to the Romans, of course they did--the sanhedrin had no legal right to execute anyone and if they had they would themselves have been tried and executed for rebellion against Rome.


"But other texts balance this.
"Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am." John 8:58
And, of course, the Prologue of the Gospel of John.

Again, in the kingdom parables, it is implicit that the Kingdom has come in Jesus."

You take John 8:58 out of all context yourself, you know.
Yes, the Kingdom comes with Jesus--but it also came with Moses before Jesus and Muhammed after Jesus.

"You could ... but then if seeking certainty, you should inquire of Scripture and Tradition. These were the arguments the Apostles and their successors used to refute that. "


What weight does tradition have, when compared to the word of God?



Regards,

Scott

[Thomas]

Hi Scott —

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

Do you have scriptural reference to support this point of view? I certainly don't want to start an argument, but you have made the claim here, so: Do you have scriptural reference to this?

A reading of the Old Testament will show these three stations as primary components of the Abrahamic Tradition. In fact I think it was Calvin who first coined the phrase, but it has since passed into common usage.

Prophecy goes without saying. The Priesthood was established by the Sinai Covenant in the House of Levi and the High Priest as descendants of Aaron. Kingship, implicit is in the recognition of Israel's patriachs (eg Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) who provided the pattern. Saul was the first king, annointed by the Prophetic and Priestly office, but David was appointed by God.

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

As to passing it off to the Romans, of course they did--the sanhedrin had no legal right to execute anyone and if they had they would themselves have been tried and executed for rebellion against Rome.

Actually this is not the case. The Sanhedrein had every right, and exercised that right as they chose. Think of the woman taken in adultery who was to be stoned, and Jesus himself 'slipped away' from a mob intent on stoning him when preaching in Jerusalem. The martyrdom of Stephen, a few years later, is another example.

A careful reading of the text shows that Pilate did not want to execute a Jew on religious grounds, the Sanhedrin could claim it was not their fault, and he would be a martyr. But the sanhedrin made it explicit that Jesus was a threat to Roman order, and if the Romans did not act, they would ferment further discord against Rome (they whipped up the mob to call for his execution). Pilate was caught between 'a rock and a hard place', so he had the man executed, but washed his hands of the affair.

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

Yes, the Kingdom comes with Jesus--but it also came with Moses before Jesus and Muhammed after Jesus.

Neither Moses (nor Mohammed, I think) make such a claim — the Primised Land is not the Kingdom, in Moses' case — both are messengers, whereas Jesus is Himself the Message incarnate.

[QUOTE=Popeyesays;129823]
[COLOR=black]What weight does tradition have, when compared to the word of God?
The Word of God comes to us from Tradition ... the Christian Tradition produced the Christian Scriptures, as did the Jews, as did Mohammed.

Thomas

[Popeyesays]

Thomas says:
"The Word of God comes to us from Tradition ... the Christian Tradition produced the Christian Scriptures, as did the Jews, as did Mohammed."

Actually the Qur'an is directly fromj God it is NOT tradition in any meaning whatsoever.
In the case of the Torah and the TaNakh in general it is not "tradition" in the sense that you mean it, the Talmud is tradition, but not the TaNakh.

As to the stonings ( or rather, stonings (aslmost). These were not the act of the Sanhedrin or the priesthood--it was the action of a mob. Mob violence could not be pinned on the Sanhedrin. The arrest of Jesus, on the other hand was directly on the responsibility of the Sanhedrin, and any trial and execution would have been against Roman law and easily pinnable on the Sanhedrin.

In the lands of Rome ONLY the state had the right to try and execute.

Regards,
Scott

[Thomas]

Hi Scott

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

Actually the Qur'an is directly from God it is NOT tradition in any meaning whatsoever.

Sorry, I was using the term 'tradition' in the classical sense of religious revelation, "that which is handed down"

In this way, the Angel 'handed down' the Word to the Prophet, who handed it on to his people as an oral tradition ...

God on Mount Sinai 'handed down' the Law to Moses, who handed it on to the people at the foot of the mountain.

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

In the case of the Torah and the TaNakh in general it is not "tradition" in the sense that you mean it, the Talmud is tradition, but not the TaNakh.

By traition I refer to the Revelation as a whole, I accept I did not make that point clear.

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

As to the stonings ( or rather, stonings (aslmost). These were not the act of the Sanhedrin or the priesthood -- it was the action of a mob. Mob violence could not be pinned on the Sanhedrin.

But it was 'permissable' under Roman Law — the authorities took no action as long as things did not get out of hand.

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

The arrest of Jesus, on the other hand was directly on the responsibility of the Sanhedrin, and any trial and execution would have been against Roman law and easily pinnable on the Sanhedrin.

Not quite. Jesus' trial was on religious grounds, and the Romans allowed the Jews (almosy uniquely) religious freedom of expression.

Rome was very pragmatic in the way it worked, allowing a degree of local autonomy within the context of Roman Rule — in Greece trial by jury was in place of which at least half the jury were non-Roman citizens. Across the empire local authorities acted outside of their authority (such as the execution of criminals) without interference ... in effect Rome 'turned a blind eye' so long as things didn't effect the Pax Romana.

In the days of Christ, a letter could get from the Scottish borders to Asia Minor in about three days ... a fantastic achievement ... and travel was likewise swift and relatively safe ... all this was achieved by Rome by the allowance of a significant local autonomy.

The Sanhedrin could and did pass sentence of death. The Romans technically then would carry out, but most often the Jews simply went ahead to cut the red tape and spare the hassle.

In the case of Jesus the Sanhedrin knew He was popular, with significant local support in Judea and Galillee, so they wanted the Romans to be seen to be the villains. Rome would not execute on grounds of blasphemy, but they would a revolutionary. However Jesus was not preaching revolution nor, indeed, anything against Rome. For Pilate this was a religious and an internal affair to be settled by the Jews (that's why he sent Jesus back to Herod, with no case against him).

Herod let Pilate know that if he did not execute Jesus, Herod would complain to Pilate's superiors that Pilate was allowing insurgency to happen without taking effective measures. It was blackmail.

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

In the lands of Rome ONLY the state had the right to try and execute.

Yes, but the Romans were practiced at 'devolved government'.

Remember the Sanhedrin even had its own militia, quite a freedom, Rome was not in the habit of allowing armed units to be independent of Roman authority.

Rome was happy to let Herod, who was suspect of murdering the prior members of the Sanhedrin and replaced them with his cronies, enjoy a fair degree of freedom. They had him in their pocket, as far as they were concerned.

The histories of Josephus and others confirm the practice of local authorities executing even capital crimes.

Thomas

[bananabrain]

the talmud is many things, not just tradition. it includes legends, law, jurisprudence, jokes, history, anecdotes, philosophy, folk wisdom, demonology, magic, precedent, procedure and many, many other things. i recommend this book: Amazon.com: Everyman's Talmud: The Major Teachings of the Rabbinic Sages: Books: Abraham Cohen if you are interested in getting an overview of the content and structure.

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

As to the stonings ( or rather, stonings (aslmost). These were not the act of the Sanhedrin or the priesthood--it was the action of a mob. Mob violence could not be pinned on the Sanhedrin.

in fact, if you understand sanhedrin procedure at all, none of these things could have occurred without the sanhedrin itself being technically "arrogant" or "murderous". only a court of 71 people (the "great sanhedrin") is authorised to carry out capital punishment and then only once in 75 years. also, the appeals process is lengthy and lenient. even the procedure for stoning someone is minutely detailed and contains many ways to be commuted. the trial of jesus as described in the gospels could only have been conducted by a corrupt, "kangaroo" court. correct procedure is not followed in terms of either the prosecution, witnessing or any other respect; there is no way on earth that was a halakhically valid trial or anything else if it indeed happened as reported. it is understood that the romans had been able to corrupt the priesthood and much of the legal establishment (see josephus, talmudic sources agree) but even so there was still enough knowledge of the proper procedure for the trial to have been invalidated.

as for the execution, halakhah provides for only four methods of it and crucifixion is most certainly not one of them. that is a roman method and a particularly nasty one at that. halakhically executed criminals would have to be buried by nightfall, not left out to hang dying by inches. whatever the sanhedrin may have been like at the time, nobody could countenance such treatment but the romans. you should hear what they did to rabbi akiva and the ten martyrs of the hadrianic persecutions.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Popeyesays]

Thomas where did you get the idea a physical letter could travel some 1500 miles in threee days in Roman times? The actual distance from Aberdeen to Ankara is 1,967 miles AS THE CROW FLIES.
That's a steady travel rate of 28 miles an hour. The Titanic had a speed to accomplish that--horse and sailing ship could not acheive that rate of speed, or were you postulating air mail?

Regards,

Scott

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

Thomas where did you get the idea a physical letter could travel some 1500 miles in threee days in Roman times? The actual distance from Aberdeen to Ankara is 1,967 miles AS THE CROW FLIES.
That's a steady travel rate of 28 miles an hour. The Titanic had a speed to accomplish that--horse and sailing ship could not acheive that rate of speed, or were you postulating air mail?

Regards,

Scott

Yes, my error ... please discount.

Thomas

[Sean H.]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Hi Sean —

I don't want to get into a back-and-forth debate about the meaning of texts, as indeed we'd be talking about the interpretations/commentaries we favour.
The following is offered only to show how we read things differently.

You certainly do not have to respond if you do not wish. I have no wish in debate, only discussion. In fact it is against the teachings of the Bahai Faith to argue about religion. So if it appears that I am arguing please let me know because that is not my intention.

Yes, but we would say that would be according to Baha'u'llah's commentary on the text, wouldn't it?

I feel that Baha'u'llah more directly fulfills the conditions of the Comforter. That is my opinion.

Baha'u'llah says directly that he is the Comforter. It is up to the individual whether they believe that Baha'u'llah is who he says he is.

Baha'u'llah doesn't speak about how he fulfills the station. He has led a virtuous life, and given humanity a bounty of divine knowledge, with this one can judge for themselves.

The Apostles were quite specific on the point of that not being the case.

There are three 'spiritual stations' spoken of in the Hebrew scripture, that of prophet, priest and king — all being 'annointed' of God. Jesus actually combines all three, superceding them as the Logos of God. He was condemned by the Sanhedrin for claiming a divine status, but passed off to the Romans as claiming kingship — and thus was executed by them as a criminal 'terrorist'.

Care to give some quotes about these 3 spiritual stations? I'd be interested in hearing about them.

I don't think these contradict what I said though. And in fact, the idea of a son of a god was not an uncommon one during the early Christian years. In my opinion, it's possible that this added to the idea of taking the sonship literally.

And, as Judaism is anything it is monotheist, you are either God, or you are not; you are divine, or you are not ... no halfway measures for them.

Oh I agree that Judaism is monotheistic, but we're not talking about Judaism

This was actually thrashed out in the Arian controversy in the 3rd century, when Arius got himself in all sorts of a mess trying to say Jesus was more divine than man, but less divine than God ... his argument was eventually shown to be logically untenable, without asserting the idea of a demigod, which is fundamentally contra any Hebrew or indeed prior orthodox Christian teaching.

I don't agree with everything that Arius said either. Of course that doesn't mean that he was necessarily wrong about everything. I agree with him that Jesus is not literally God.

(The internet is strange sometimes and certain statements can be interpreted as rudeness when they are not meant to be, and I want you to imagine me saying this to you in person in a calm demeanor with a smile on my face). To be fair, the idea of a 3 person God is contrary to the Hebrew Bible.

"This was the vision of the likeness of the glory of the Lord. And I saw, and I fell upon my face, and I heard the voice of one that spoke. And he said to me: Son of man, stand upon thy feet, and I will speak to thee."
Ezechiel 2:1. In this text, as in others, God addresses the prophet by the generic term.

Thanks for the quote and in fact in the Bahai Faith in the Hidden Words, Son of man is used to refer to any man. I was thinking of quotes from the New Testament that could possibly refer to a generic man.

It's certainly possible that the son of man to come mentioned in Mark, Matthew, and Luke is a generic son of man. On the other hand, it's just as equally likely that its referring to someone like Jesus. And, when looked at with the quotes that refer to Christ speaking about himself coming back, it seems even more appropriate to me to think that it would refer to someone like Christ.

In our view this is often the case when texts are read out of context.

I don't see how I read any of those out of context. In fact I used the original Greek to remove some of the forced context from previous translators

But, please though, tell me where you think I took something out of context / got something wrong.

But other texts balance this.
"Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am." John 8:58

All this quote means is that Jesus is pre-existent (which is kinda cool ), but it doesn't mean that Jesus is God.

And, of course, the Prologue of the Gospel of John.

Indeed the beginning of John is great. These two quotes are often given together.

1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
[...]
1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

I've never seen the following line included with it though....

1:18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
(King James Bible, John)

Jesus can't be God because no one has seen God at any time. Thus, the preceding lines need to be interpreted in a spiritual not literal manner.

Again, in the kingdom parables, it is implicit that the Kingdom has come in Jesus.

Oh I agree with you totally. I still don't think that this means that Jesus is God though, John 1:18 has already aided us.

You could ... but then if seeking certainty, you should inquire of Scripture and Tradition. These were the arguments the Apostles and their successors used to refute that.

I'd like to point out just for the fun of it () that the Jewish scholars of Jesus's time used the traditions and their interpretations of what the messiah was going to fulfill.

In doing so they failed to recognize his holiness Christ and deprived themselves and their kindred of true hapiness. They should have been the ones to have accepted Christ the easiest since they were aware of all the prophecies, yet it was the Gentiles who, not immersed with literal expectations, were able to see the beauty of Christ and accept him much more than their Jewish counterparts.

I say that the same has happened again in history.

Indeed ... The Trinity.

Thomas

Actually, I would say the exact opposite. John 14:9-14:10 and John 1:18 (which I just showed) present overwhelming evidence I think.

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

For the record, the trinity is essentially a man-made doctrine cooked up by a committee several centuries after Christ!

While there is a single mention of "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" in the Bible, there is clearly nothing to justify the huge edifice of doctrine later Christianity has erected around this concept.

Peace,

Bruce

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by BruceDLimber

For the record, the trinity is essentially a man-made doctrine cooked up by a committee several centuries after Christ!

The term 'Trinity' was coined by Tertullian (160-235), however the acknowledgement of Father, Son and Holy Spirit as being equal is in St Matthew (although disputed), St John, St Paul (Corinthians), whilst the activity of the three Persons is implicit in Acts.

The tripartite formulae is written of in the Didache (c110AD), as well as by St. Ignatius (35-107), St. Irenaeus (2nd c), St. Hippolytus (d.235), St. Cyprian (d 258), and St. Gregory Thaumaturgus (213-270) amongst others, so it's late first, early second century at the latest.

Just for the record.

Peace,

Thomas

[Ahanu]

Originally Posted by Thomas

The term 'Trinity' was coined by Tertullian (160-235), however the acknowledgement of Father, Son and Holy Spirit as being equal is in St Matthew (although disputed), St John, St Paul (Corinthians), whilst the activity of the three Persons is implicit in Acts.

The tripartite formulae is written of in the Didache (c110AD), as well as by St. Ignatius (35-107), St. Irenaeus (2nd c), St. Hippolytus (d.235), St. Cyprian (d 258), and St. Gregory Thaumaturgus (213-270) amongst others, so it's late first, early second century at the latest.

Just for the record.

Peace,

Thomas

Oh, if it was written by St. Ignatius, then it was rather early. Did he come into contact, or hear about, the worship of the Egyptian triad Isis, Serapis, and the child Horus? This or some other trinities during the time may have accustomed the early church theologians to the idea of a triune God.