Ah ... this is the fault of men, not doctrine.
Common doctrine and a Baha'i-Christian dialogue
- Thread starter Thomas
- Start date
I would argue that the above text warns against the Bahi'a teaching:
1 Thessalonians 5:19: "Extinguish not the spirit."
As I understand it, the Bahai regard the Christian teaching of the Holy Spirit to be false.
1 Thessalonians 5:20-21 "Despise not prophecies. But prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
In our discussions on the Christian doctrine of the Holy Spirit elsewhere, I showed how the Baha'i interpretation of John was flawed, and you offered no substantial reply. Therefore I read that as a false prophecy, and I 'hold fast to that which is good'.
Matthew 16:13-17 "He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."
There is simply no correspondence between what you claim and the words of Christ.
Matthew 15:18 "This people honoureth me with their lips: but their heart is far from me. And in vain do they worship me (alongside many others), teaching doctrines and commandments of men (which require dismissal of doctrines founded on the words of Christ).
But you have no clergy, no Liturgy, no Sacraments – it is an empty church, a hollow shell.
There is simply no correspondence between what you claim and the words of Christ.
Matthew 15:18 "This people honoureth me with their lips: but their heart is far from me. And in vain do they worship me (alongside many others), teaching doctrines and commandments of men (which require dismissal of doctrines founded on the words of Christ).
Do you? I see no metaphysical reason to assume that.
As I understand religion, the Divine Source is not subject to seasons – such belongs to nature, and the Work of the Lord transcends nature – so personally I discount that idea.
These texts would suggest the seasons analogy is not applicable:
John 4:13-14 "Jesus answered, and said to her: Whosoever drinketh of this water, shall thirst again; but he that shall drink of the water that I will give him, shall not thirst for ever: But the water that I will give him, shall become in him a fountain of water, springing up into life everlasting."
John 6:35 "And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst."
2 Timothy 1:1-2 "I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine."
With regard to doctrine ...
2 Timothy 1:3-5 "For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry. Be sober."
So I remain vigilant ... and pray that you will read these words and take them into your heart. I realise you were probably not a Christian to begin with, but for Christians, the advice is clear – Don't be led astray by those who would change doctrine to suit themselves.
But you eviscerate the Catholic Church. Christ was hung on a cross, you would have Him drawn and quartered.
So back to my original point –
You would have a Catholic Church with no clergy, no tradition, no liturgy, no sacraments, and a redacted scripture ... a Baha'i glove puppet.
Tony Bristow-Stagg
One Planet One People Please
Tony Bristow-Stagg
One Planet One People Please
There is a quandary all faiths have and will face. All Messengers have faced those that have done this.
Regards Tony
Tony Bristow-Stagg
One Planet One People Please
I personally see ample evidence in Biblical Scriptures to support the comment. Many passages could be offered.
I will leave this alone now though, there is no fruit in this discussion.
Regards Tony
talib-al-kalim
Well-Known Member
Got to differentiate. The Quran just states that Jesus is neither God nor a physical son of God, but a very particular human Messenger and Messiah), and that Monastism has never been prescribed. But yes, the Quran calls for correction on those points. Jesus also pointed out that there are Jewish traditions that have never been decreed. Equally, there are traditions and ideologies in Islam that have never been decreed or supported. A person who points out that it is so is not wrong.
There is not so much wrong in what his suggestions on human ethics but his claim to be a prophet and a reappearance of Jesus is unacceptable to both Christians and Muslim.
His teachings may be tolerated in contradiction but they can't be accepted.
Although he comes from (Shia) Islam, I don't have the impression that he had a profound knowledge of it, either.
Yes.
talib-al-kalim
Well-Known Member
Jesus didn't teach to have a clergy (Don't say "father" to any human but God alone; he didn't mean the natural father but just the "patres" and the popes (papa). He founded two sacraments, the baptism and the communion. But he didn't teach to baptise infants and to have the Roman Catholic doctrine being associated to the Eucharist.
He might well have criticised this to be hollow shells, see below:
That's not an answer ...
That in itself is no guarantor of authenticity.
Jesus grew up in liturgical world administered by the clergy of the day, and never sought to dismantle it – rather he challenged institutional hypocrisy.
In founding His church (cf Matthew 16:18) clearly established a need to minister to the community. The New Testament authorises presbyters, deacons and, arguably, bishops.
When Jesus appeared to the Disciples after His Resurrection, He says "Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost." (John 20:21-22) and furthermore says "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained." (v23). St Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:18–23 that the same God “who through Christ reconciled us to himself” is also the one who “gave us the ministry of reconciliation”.
Baptism is not disputed.
Regarding the Eucharist – The Catholic Church sees in the command “Do this in remembrance of me” evidence that Jesus instituted the apostles as a ministerial priesthood. Offering sacrifice is a duty that belongs to priests (cf Leviticus 9:7, 14:12; Hebrews 8:3). Furthermore, they are priestly actions because He was offering bread and wine as Melchizedek did (cf. Genesis 14:17–20) and Hebrews makes it abundantly clear that Jesus is a priest in the line of Melchizedek.
So if it could be shown that Jesus is commanding the apostles to offer the Last Supper as a sacrifice when he says “Do this in remembrance of me,” then the Catholic Church’s position would be justified.
In the language of the New Testament, Jesus' command 'Do this' in the Greek is the verb poieo, which can be translated as 'offer' – in the sense of offering a sacrifice. (Cf Exodus 29:36-41 in the Septuagint poieo is used five times in reference to Moses offering sacrifice as part of the ritual for ordaining Aaron and his sons as priests.
This conclusion is further supported by the use of the word “remembrance,” (Gk: anamnesis. Anamnesis has sacrificial meaning in both the Old and New Testaments: Numbers 10:10 the sacrificial offerings “serve you for remembrance (anamnesis) before your God.” Anamnesis is also used in Hebrews 10:3 in reference to the Old Testament sacrifices that serve as a “reminder” year after year.
"But be not you called Rabbi (Gk: rabbi from the Hebrew, meaning 'elder' or 'master' ). For one is your master (Gk: kathēgētēs 'guide, master, teacher'); and all you are brethren. And call none your father (Gk: pater) upon earth; for one is your father (pater), who is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters (kathēgētēs); for one is your master 9kathēgētēs), Christ." (Matthew 23:8-10).
The context here was Jesus criticising the Pharisees for placing burdens upon the community which they neither shouldered themselves not offered assistance.
Taken literally, this text forbids the use of the clerical title of 'Father' for the clergy (a fundamentalist could argue against the use of the term father for a biological parent). Without going to such extremes, it is possible to argue that the spirit of the text precludes the use of 'mister' (master), 'reverend' or, indeed, 'imam' (for example) in the Islamic world.
Yet 'father' is used for people other than God, and in 1 Corinthians 4:14-15 "I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you. For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers (pater) : for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel." Paul explicitly calls himself a 'father' in relation to a congregation.
In the Latin world, the term 'father' as a form of address for priests is recent. I think in the Early Church, it was applied only to bishops. Of course we study the 'Church Fathers' (patristics), although the Aramaic 'abba' is used as a term of address in the Desert Fathers. The term for priest was 'presbyter', meaning 'elder'.
The term 'father' has its origins in the monastic world. The head of a monastery was an 'abbot', the father of the community. Abbots were almost always ordained priests, and people referred to the monastics in general as 'the fathers'.
By the 18th century in Europe only the priests under monastic vows were called 'father'. With the abolition of the Catholic hierarchy by the Reformers, Catholic priest missionaries were all monastics – it was about this time that 'father' came to be applied to all Catholic priests.
talib-al-kalim
Well-Known Member
minister means serve.
Presbyters, Elders are the council of the community. Deacons are responsible for giving and coordinating charity. Larger Muslim communities have such people as well, but, of cause, everyone may and should do that also by own initiative.
Supposing it is authentic, it's not meant to create an earthly institution for forgiveness.
For us, there are three who need to forgive the trespasser
Those who were wronged (if any).
God.
The sinner.
All three are important if forgiveness is really complete.
Minister reconciliation - help people to forgive and to repent.
We already discussed that point
talib-al-kalim
Well-Known Member
His speech is directed to his disciples.
"Mister" is a remains of feudalism, which is not really a Christian thing.
"Reverend", from "honoured" is also problematic if it is applied only because of the position. Islam use to add honorifics to prophets and great scholars, but not to living persons.
Imam means "examplary"; at first because he leads the prayer as an example. An Imam is supposed also to give an example to others in religious life. We Sunni reject the Shia practice to attribute divine authority to an Imam.
But is he right in this? Maybe he felt to old to call himself brother (which he also did occasionally).
But indeed, he had a tendency to assume a bit to much authority i.m.o., and Christians do so as well.
For us, it is.
Much the same. Genuine contrition is a pre-requisite of the validity of reconciliation.