(Usage note:
The correct orthographies are "Bahá'í", "Bahá'ís",
"Báb", and
"Bahá'u'lláh". In this paper the forms
"Bahai", "Bahais",
"Bab", and "Baha’u’llah" are often used.)
The gist of this paper is written to scrutinize the claim that the Bahai Faith is the religion for this age. First I will introduce the Bahai Faith, it’s history and teachings, and then attempt to show why the Bahai Faith cannot be considered as the Faith for this age. I will also include testimony from former Bahais who have left this faith. Their testimony is to be taken to heart.
I have no malice toward the Bahai’s. In fact, I was a Bahai for several years until the Holy Spirit directed me away and brought me to Christ. After many years of searching and being a practicing Buddhist, Moslem, Bahai, Taoist, etc., Christ found me and brought me to His Love. For all individuals who are a part of the Bahai Faith, I urge you to read this paper and think about what is written within these pages. And for those who are not Bahais but are attracted to their message, I also urge you to think about what is written in these pages.
Let us now turn to the Bahai Faith……….
The
Baha’i World Faith at a cursory glance appears to be the perfect model of the
postmodern universal religion. Its appeal is to the collective brotherhood of
all mankind, a “One World Order” type of creed, which includes spiritual,
social and governmental development of the individual and society. Although the
Bahai do not have any women in their highest governing body, the Universal
House of Justice, the BAHAI WORLD FAITH professes a total equality of the
genders. On the surface the BAHAI WORLD FAITH appears to be the ideal for man’s
future, but in actuality it is just another attempt to degrade the idea of a
holy and just God, who requires punishment for sin and man’s inability to
supply his own salvation from that punishment. They join the postmodern role
call of detractors, including many liberal Christians, Mormons who claim hell
is only for the “sons of perdition” and apostate former LDS, and the Jehovah’s
Witnesses who assert there is no hell, but eternal “destruction” for those who
don’t believe.
In
its attempt to appeal to Christians, the BAHAI WORLD FAITH professes an
acceptance of the divinity and role of Christ, but then “spiritualize,”
redefine and minimize them. They also redefine every term in the Christian
lexicon having to do with: the nature of God, of man, of salvation--including
sin, the devil, and hell; and the nature of heaven as a progressive state open
to all, even those who die having denied Jesus as their savior. The BAHAI WORLD
FAITH has turned the Biblical presentations and even the words of Jesus and His
disciples into nothing more than symbolic, figurative pictures. They assert
that Jesus has returned in the person of Baha’u’llah, who has now interpreted
the Scriptures the supposed way Jesus had originally intended. They claim Jesus
Christ as one of their “Manifestations” of God, no better or worse than any of
the others, but affirm that only they can truly interpret Christ’s parabolic
words and the meanings of the other Biblical Scriptures. Their postmodern,
universalistic theology is unbiblical, and totally antithetical toward
orthodox, historic Christianity.
The Bahá'í Faith is
a monotheistic religion. Although the Baha'i Faith is not
traditionally included among the Abrahamic
religions, it recognizes the same
prophets, plus its own.
In 1844 the Persian
prophet Siyyid `Alí-Muhammad, who adopted the title "the Báb", which
means "the Gate" in Arabic, established a new religion. It is
distinct from Islam but grew out of the
Islamic matrix in the same way that
Christianity grew out of Judaism or
Buddhism out of Hinduism. Followers of the
Báb were known as Bábís and their religion
as "the Bábí Faith". The Bábí Faith
has its own scriptures and religious
teachings, but its duration was short.
The Báb's primary
purpose was to prepare the way for "Him whom God shall
manifest," the One promised in the
scriptures of all of the world's great
religions.
The large numbers of people who quickly became attracted to these new religious teachings alarmed the ecclesiastical and political authorities. The Báb and his followers were persecuted relentlessly. The Báb was imprisoned and eventually executed by a firing squad in Tabriz, Persia (present-day Iran) on July 9, 1850. His mission lasted six brief years.
Bahá'u'lláh
Glory of God", was a Persian nobleman
who became one of the early, prominent
followers of the Báb. He was arrested and
imprisoned during a period of severe
persecution in 1852. While incarcerated in
the dungeon of the Siyáh-Chál in
Tehran, He received the first intimations
that He was the One anticipated by the
Báb. Nine years later, in 1863, while
exiled in Baghdad, Iraq, He formally
announced His mission to His family and a
small number of followers.
The machinations of
the Persian and Ottoman authorities took Bahá'u'lláh further and further into
exile, from Baghdad to Constantinople (present-day Istanbul), then to
Adrianople (present-day Edirne), and finally, in 1868, to the penal colony of
Acre, on the edge of the Ottoman Empire.
Bahá'u'lláh remained there until His passing on May 29, 1892, after forty years
of exile and
imprisonment. Bahá'ís regard His resting
place outside the city as the holiest
spot on earth, to which they turn in prayer
each day.
Shrine of the Báb, located on the slope of
Mount Carmel in Haifa. The remains of
the Báb were brought secretly from Persia
to the Holy Land and were eventually
interred in the Shrine built for them in a
spot specifically designated by
Bahá'u'lláh.
Abdu'l-Baha
Before His passing, Bahá'u'lláh appointed His eldest son, `Abdu'l-Bahá, as His successor and the sole interpreter of His teachings. Bahá'u'lláh designated him "Center of the Covenant" and directed all Bahá'ís to turn to `Abdu'l-Bahá as the Head of their Faith. (In the Bahá'í Faith, "Covenant" refers specifically to the succession of authority from Bahá'u'lláh to `Abdu'l-Bahá, and from `Abdu'l-Bahá to the Guardianship and the Universal House of Justice. Those who publicly deny and rebel against this established succession of authority are known as
"Covenant-Breakers", and are
subsequently excommunicated from the Bahá'í
community. The purpose of the Covenant is
to safeguard the unity of the Bahá'í
community, protecting it from the influence
of schismatics.)
`Abdu'l-Bahá had
shared his Father's long exile and imprisonment. This
imprisonment continued until `Abdu'l-Bahá's
own release as a result of the
"Young Turk" revolution in 1908.
Shortly after his release, `Abdu'l-Bahá
traveled to Europe and America, proclaiming
the teachings of his Father and
nurturing the fledgling Bahá'í communities
that had sprung up in various centers
in Europe, the United States and Canada.
Many of his talks were recorded and
have been published in books entitled "Paris
Talks" and "The Promulgation of
Universal Peace." Another important
work of `Abdu'l-Bahá, which set the course
of the expansion and consolidation of the
Bahá'í world community, is a series of
documents called "Tablets of the
Divine Plan". He also carried on a voluminous
correspondence with Bahá'í communities and
individuals over a period of many
years, and many of these letters, or
"Tablets", have been translated and
published in various languages.
`Abdu'l-Bahá died in Haifa on November 28, 1921.
The Administrative Order of the Bahá'í Faith
Abdu'l-Bahá's Will
and Testament is the charter of the Bahá'í administrative
order. In this document `Abdu'l-Bahá
established the twin institutions of the
Guardianship and the Universal House of
Justice, and he appointed his eldest
grandson, Shoghi Effendi, as the Guardian
of the Bahá'í Faith. Again, because of
the clear directions in the Will and
Testament, there was no question as to the
succession of leadership in the Faith.
Grandfather's passing, served as the
Guardian of the Bahá'í Faith until his
passing in 1957. For thirty-six years he
developed the Bahá'í community and its
administrative structure in order to prepare
it to support the election of the
Universal House of Justice. Because the
Bahá'í community was relatively small
and undeveloped when the Guardian assumed
the leadership of the Faith, it took
many years to strengthen it and develop it
to the point where it was capable of
supporting the administrative structure
envisioned by `Abdu'l-Bahá. Shoghi
Effendi pursued this goal energetically and
systematically.
As outlined in the Will and Testament of `Abdu'l-Bahá, the roles and functions of the institutions of the Guardianship and the Universal House of Justice were clearly complementary: the Guardianship's function was interpretive, while the function of the Universal House of Justice was legislative. Neither should infringe upon the role of the other. Throughout the period of the Guardianship, Shoghi Effendi exercised his interpretive function. He translated the sacred writings of the Faith; he developed global plans for the expansion of the Bahá'í community; he developed the World Center of the Bahá'í Faith in Haifa; he carried on a voluminous correspondence with communities and individuals around the world; and he built the administrative structure of the Faith, preparing the community for the election of the Universal House of Justice.
The Will and Testament of `Abdu'l-Bahá clearly anticipated that there would be a succession of Guardians, but this was not to be. `Abdu'l-Bahá had indicated that the first born of the Guardian should be his successor, but if that individual
did not inherit the Guardian's spiritual qualities, then he should appoint another male descendant of Bahá'u'lláh. However, Shoghi Effendi did not have children, and through the years all of the members of his family had rebelled against the authority conferred upon him, becoming "Covenant-Breakers". Thus, it was not possible for him to appoint a successor as Guardian. It was also clear from `Abdu'l-Bahá's Will and Testament that only the Universal House of Justice had the authority to resolve questions not explicitly dealt with by either Bahá'u'lláh or `Abdu'l-Bahá, and this issue would obviously need to be taken up by that body. And so Shoghi Effendi had laid the foundations for the election of the Universal House of Justice. This nine-member body, which governs the international Bahá'í community, was first elected in 1963. That same year, it determined that there was "no way to appoint or to legislate to make it possible to appoint a second Guardian to succeed Shoghi Effendi."
Bahá'u'lláh and then carried forward by
`Abdu'l-Bahá, accepted this decision
made by what they believe is the divinely
guided central authority of their
Faith.
There is no clergy
in the Bahá'í Faith. At the grassroots level, Bahá'í
communities are governed by freely elected nine-member councils called "Local
Spiritual Assemblies". Similarly,
National Spiritual Assemblies direct and
coordinate the affairs of national Bahá'í
communities. The Bahá'í electoral
process is unique. There is no system of
candidature, electioneering or
campaigning, and the purpose is to elect
members who best possess those
spiritual qualities that enable them to
serve the community.
BASIC BELIEFS OF THE Bahái
Bahá'is
BELIEVE IN ONE GOD, they are monotheistic (who sends messengers which
the Bahá'í call “the Manifestation of God”). “He restates in every age
God's purpose and will. His teachings are a revelation from God. Abraham,
Moses, Krishna, Buddha, Zoroaster, Christ, and Muhammad were Manifestations of
God. Each gave men divine teachings by which to live. Bahais believe that true religion is the real
basis of civilized life.
10 basic teachings of the Baha'i Faith:
Here
are some of the teachings given by Bahá'u'lláh more than a hundred years ago
for this new Day: The oneness of mankind, Independent investigation of truth,
The common foundation of all religions, The essential harmony of science
and religion, Equality of men and women, Elimination of prejudice of all kinds,
Universal compulsory education, A spiritual solution of the economic
problem, A universal auxiliary language. Universal peace upheld by a world
government.
“Bahá'u'lláh
is the focal center toward whom the followers of all religions may now turn for
spiritual guide through whose Teachings the high level of civilization foretold
by all the prophets will be established throughout the world. A new, divine
order has been ushered in. You can help establish it.”(Bahá'í Tract)
3 principles are Oneness of God, Oneness
of religion, Oneness of mankind
The Oneness of mankind
THE
ONENESS OF MANKIND is like a pivot around which all the teachings of
Bahá'u'lláh revolve. This means that men and women of all races are equal in
the sight of God and equal in the Baha'i community. People of different races
must have equal educational and economic opportunity, equal access to decent
living conditions and equal responsibilities. In the Bahai view there is no
superior race or nation. (Tract on Basic facts of the Bahá'í faith Bahá'í
publishing trust Wilmette Illinois)
“It
is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him
who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country and mankind its
citizens” (Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 250)
“The
Bahá'í Faith regards the current world confusion and calamitous condition in
human affairs as a natural phase in an organic process leading ultimately and
irresistibly to the unification of the human race in a single social order
whose boundaries are those of the planet. The human race, as a distinct,
organic unit, has passed through evolutionary stages analogous to the stages of
infancy and childhood in the lives of its individual members, and is now in the
culminating period of its turbulent adolescence approaching its long-awaited
coming of age” (Universal House of Justice Bahá'í World Center Haifa,
Israel,1985).
The Oneness of religion
This
New age religion has two main teachings: First, there is only one God. However,
this God: “...is a completely unknowable essence, who is manifested through the
creation of the world itself and various prophets” (USA Today, p. 9 March 2,
1984).
“All
men will adhere to one religion, will have one common faith, will be blended
into one race, and become a single people. All will dwell in one common
fatherland, which is the planet itself.”(Abdu’l Baha The promised day is
Come, p.126)
“O’
ye people of the world! The religion of God is for the sake of love and union;
make it not the cause of enmity and conflict…the hope is cherished that the
people of Baha shall ever turn to the blessed word: LO: ALL ARE OF GOD” (Bahá'u'lláh
Last Will and Testament)
“The
revelation of Bahá'u'lláh should be viewed as the marking of the last and
highest stage in the stupendous evolution of man’s collective life on the
planet. (It marks) the emergence of a world community, the consciousness of
world citizenship, the founding of a world civilization and culture” (Shogi
Effendi The World Order of Bahá'u'lláh p.163).
“Christ
was the Prophet of the Christians, Moses of the Jews - why should not the
followers of each prophet recognize and honor the other prophets also? If men
could only learn the lesson of mutual tolerance, understanding, and brotherly
love, the Unity of the world would soon be an established fact” (The Wisdom
of Abdul Baha p.43).
“One
God has given men one Faith through progressive revelations of His Will in each
age of history and Bahá'u'lláh reveals the will of God for men and women of the
present age. This basic belief enables Bahá'í’s to unite and work together in
spite of different religious backgrounds” (Tract on Basic facts of the
Bahá'í faith Bahá'í publishing trust Wilmette Illinois).
“All
these divisions we see on all sides, all these disputes and opposition, are
caused because men cling to ritual and outward observances, and forget the
simple, underlying truth. It is the outward practices of religion that are so
different, and it is they that cause disputes and enmity -- while the reality
is always the same, and one. The Reality is the Truth, and truth has no
division. Truth is God's guidance, it is the light of the world, it is love,
and it is mercy. These attributes of truth are also human virtues inspired by
the Holy Spirit.” (`Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks, pp. 120-1)
Oneness of God-To
see the Harmony between the religions, science, and reason
“Religion
and science are the two wings upon which man's intelligence can soar into the
heights, with which the human soul can progress. It is not possible to fly with
one wing alone! Should a man try to fly with the wing of religion alone he
would quickly fall into the quagmire of superstition, whilst on the other hand,
with the wing of science alone he would also make no progress, but fall into
the despairing slough of materialism” (Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks, p.143).
“In
this great dispensation, art (or a profession) is identical with an act of
worship and this is a clear text of the Blessed Perfection. Therefore, extreme effort
should be made in art and this will not prevent the teaching of the people in
that region. Nay, rather, each should assist the other in art and guidance. For
instance, when the studying of art is with the intention of obeying the command
of God this study will certainly be done easily and great progress will soon be
made therein; and when others discover this fragrance of spirituality in the
action itself, this same will cause their awakening. Likewise, managing art
with propriety will become the means of sociability and affinity,' and
sociability and affinity themselves tend to guide others to the Truth.
“Concerning
sciences, crafts and arts. Knowledge is like unto wings for the being, and is
as a ladder for ascending To acquire knowledge is incumbent on all, but of
those sciences which may profit the people of the earth, and not such sciences
as begin in mere words, and end in mere words.”
“To
study sciences and arts of all descriptions is allowable,' but such sciences as
are profitable, which lead and conduce to the elevation of mankind. Thus has
the matter been decreed on the part of God, the commander, the wise!”
“Such
arts and sciences, however, as are productive of good results, and bring forth
their fruit, and are conducive to the well being and tranquility of men have
been, and will remain, acceptable before God. Wert thou to give ear to My
voice, thou wouldst cast away all thy possessions, and wouldst set thy face
towards the Spot wherein the ocean of wisdom and of utterance hath surged, and
the sweet savors of the loving-kindness of thy Lord, the Compassionate, have
wafted.”
“In
the treasuries of the knowledge of God there lieth concealed a knowledge which,
when applied, will largely, though not wholly, eliminate fear. This knowledge,
however, should be taught from child-hood, as it will greatly aid in its
elimination. Whatever decreaseth fear increaseth courage. should the Will of
God assist Us, there would flow out from the Pen of the Divine Expounder a
lengthy exposition of that which hath been mentioned, and there would be
revealed, in the field of arts and sciences, what would renew the world and the
nations” (Bahá'í Scriptures tract authorized by National Spiritual assembly
of Bahá'í’s Australia).
Abolishing the extremes of wealth and
poverty, to eradicate racism and have a brotherhood of mankind
“We
see amongst us men who are overburdened with riches on the one hand, and on the
other those unfortunate ones who starve with nothing; those who possess several
stately palaces, and those who have not where to lay their head. Some we find
with numerous courses of costly and dainty food; whilst others can scarce find
sufficient crusts to keep them alive. Whilst some are clothed in velvets, furs
and fine linen, others have insufficient, poor and thin garments with which to
protect them from the cold. This condition of affairs is wrong and must be
remedied. Now the remedy must be carefully undertaken” (`Abdu'l-Baha, Paris
Talks, p.151).
Universal peace for all
“The
time must come when the imperative necessity for the holding of a vast, an
all-embracing assemblage of men will be universally realized. The rulers and
kings of the earth must needs attend it, and, participating in its
deliberations, must consider such ways and means as will lay the foundations of
the world's Great Peace amongst men. Such a peace demandeth that the Great
Powers should resolve, for the sake of the tranquility of the peoples of the
earth, to be fully reconciled among themselves. Should any king take up arms
against another, all should unitedly arise and prevent him. If this be done,
the nations of the world will no longer require any armaments, except for the
purpose of preserving the security of their realms and of maintaining internal
order within their territories” (Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh,
p. 249).
“World
peace is not only possible but inevitable. It is the next stage in the
evolution of this planet -- in the words of one great thinker, “the
planetization of mankind”… The scientific and technological advances occurring
in this unusually blessed century portend a great surge forward in the social
evolution of the planet, and indicate the means by which the practical problems
of humanity may be solved. They provide, indeed, the means for the administration of the complex
life of a united world” (Universal House of Justice Bahá'í World Center Haifa,
Israel 1985).
All
religions have spoken of or addressed the idea of a golden age of peace. Jesus
Christ made it clear it would not take place until His second coming. For
mankind would be in wars and in great turmoil. If He did not intervene the
Bible (Matthew 24) says no flesh would survive. Yet Bahá'í has this perfect
society and world planned without Jesus Christ, and they tell people they
believe in Jesus. This appears to contradict Jesus' own words.
Religious truth is progressive
“The
foundation of all the divine religions is one. All are based upon reality....
Some have been Zoroastrians, some are Buddhists, some Jews, Christians, and
Mohammedans and so on.... If we abandon these timeworn imitations and
investigate reality all of us will be unified.... The dark and gloomy clouds of
blind imitations and dogmatic variances will be scattered and dispelled; the
Sun of Reality will shine most gloriously” (Bahá'í Teachings For A World
Faith, pp. 5-6).
Bahai’s believe in continual revelations
by different messengers
“Since
there is one God these manifestations of God have each taught the same
religious faith” (Bahai tract Wilmette, Ill.) Baha’u’llah is considered a
theophany, or mirror in which the ultimately unknowable nature of God is
reflected on earth in some way. Bahá'ís believe manifestations are sent by God
to guide humanity toward a higher level of consciousness and they teach all
religions are the same at the core differing only in their time and culture.
“When
the period of decay is reached a new seed is planted in the hearts of men by a
new messenger and a new growth begins” (Bahá'í Faith p. 42). Was there
decay when Bahá'u'lláh, came on the scene in 1840's? What of the decay today?
It would seem it is much worse than the 1840's.
“The
high prophet brings always a new name of God-not only a new title but a new
attribute; that is, he admits into the human consciousness a new
attribute by which God is realized, a fuller conception of God” (Townshend,
Promise, p. 50). The Bible teaches 1840 years before Bahá'u'lláh the
fullness and complete revelation of God (Col.1:15, 19, 2:9) was found in Jesus
Christ. They ignore this revelation and diminish it to prove their own prophet
as greater.
The
Persian founder of the nineteenth-century religion of Bahai (the Bab) believed
in numerous prophets and continual manifestations of God for their time.
Bahá'u'lláh, the founder of the Bahá'í religion, the successor of the Bab, is
the most recent manifestation, and the one we should now listen to for our
spiritual instructions. There will be no other for about 1,000 years.
Interesting that they use the number the
Bible says Jesus will be ruling as king on the earth (Rev.20:6).
“The
fundamental principle enunciated by Bahá'u'lláh. The followers of his faith
believe, is that religious truth is not absolute, but relative, that divine
revelation is a continuous and progressive process, that all the great
religions of the world are divine in origin, that their basic principles are in
complete harmony, that their aims and purposes are one and the same,
that their teachings are but facets of one truth, that their functions are
complimentary, and that their missions represent successive stages in the
spiritual evolution of human society.” (Call to the Nations, p.11)
“Each
takes the work from the hand of his predecessor and carries it toward at the
appointed hour he resigns his completed work to his successors.” (Bahá'í
World Faith, pg. 49)
Bahá'u'lláh
stated, “ Every age has its own problems, and every soul its own 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.”
“We
can well perceive how the whole human race is encompassed with great, with
incalculable afflictions. We see it languishing on its bed of sickness, sore-tried
and disillusioned... they cannot discover the cause of the disease, nor have
they have any knowledge of the remedy.” (Bahá'u'lláh Gleanings, pg. 213)
Neither
can the Bahá'í find the remedy for they deny the only one who has it, Jesus
Christ the only Messiah.
They Welcome Independent Investigation of
Truth
“Furthermore,
know ye that God has created in man the power of reason, whereby man is enabled
to investigate reality. God has not intended man to imitate blindly his fathers
and ancestors. He has endowed him with mind, or the faculty of reasoning, by
the exercise of which he is to investigate and discover the truth, and that
which he finds real and true he must accept.” (Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation
of Universal Peace, p. 291)
“Bahá'u'lláh
does not wish anyone to accept his revelation blindly. He asks each individual
to look into it himself. Use his own eyes and ears, his own faculty of
reasoning and make up his own mind” (Bahá'í Faith pg.45). (Although
this is espoused, the Bahai do not permit the reading of books “banned” by the
Universal House of Justice. You will
learn more about this further on in this paper.)
The following list
of 12 "beliefs" are frequently listed as a quick summary of
Bahá'í teachings. They are derived from a
variety of such lists extracted from
transcripts of speeches given by
Abdu'l-Bahá during his tour of Europe and
circulate.
The Oneness of God
The Oneness of religion
The Oneness of mankind
Equality of men and women
Elimination of all forms of prejudice
World peace
Harmony of religion and science
The need for universal compulsory education
Obedience to government
Non-involvement in [partisan] politics
A spiritual solution to economic problems
Elimination of extremes of wealth and poverty
Another Bahá'í principle is that of moderation in all things (specifically liberty, civilization, religious zeal and scriptural literalism.) Bahá'ís believe that although the current age is quite dark, the future of humanity is gloriously bright and that world peace is inevitable. To be a Bahá'í means that a person believes that Bahá'u'lláh is the manifestation of God for this time. A Bahá'í strives to follow His teachings, and observes His laws.
Rituals
The rituals in the Bahá'í Faith are simple
and few in number:
There is a specified set of marriage vows.
There are a few specified funerary practices.
Bahá'ís are enjoined to:
recite an obligatory prayer each day,
facing in the direction of the Qiblih (the
Point of Adoration)
read the sacred writings of their Faith
each morning and evening
perform a pilgrimage once in their life if
they are able to afford it
support their Faith with material
offerings.
Soliciting of funds from individuals is
strictly prohibited, and Bahá'í
institutions are forbidden from accepting
contributions from people who
are not Bahá'ís.
Laws and Ordinances
Bahá'ís in good health between the ages of 15
and 70 observe a nineteen-day
sunrise-to-sunset fast each year March 2 to
March 21.
There are no dietary restrictions, but Bahá'ís
are forbidden to drink alcohol
or to take recreational drugs, as these
interfere with an individual's spiritual
growth and progress.
Family life is, in the Bahá'í view, a
cornerstone of society. Marriage is
encouraged.
Chastity outside marriage is required.
Couples wishing to marry must obtain the
consent of all living natural
parents, as the Bahá'í teachings state that
marriage is more than a union of
individuals; it is the union of families.
Partners are expected to remain absolutely
faithful within the marriage
relationship.
Interracial and inter-religious marriages
are accepted.
Divorce is permitted, although regarded
with the utmost seriousness, and is
granted if, after a year of separation, the
couple is unable to reconcile
their differences.
The Bahá'í Calendar
The Báb
established the Bahá’í calendar. The year consists of 19 months
of 19 days,
and 4 or 5 intercalary days, to make a full solar year. The New Year
occurs on
the vernal equinox, March 21, at the end of the month of fasting.
Bahá'í
communities gather at the beginning of each month at a meeting called a
"feast"
for worship, consultation and socializing. While the name may seem to
suggest
that an elaborate meal is served, that is not necessarily the case.
Sometimes
refreshments are plentiful, but they can be as simple as bread and
water.
Bahá'ís
observe 11 Holy Days throughout the year, with work suspended on 9 of
these.
These days commemorate important anniversaries in the history of the
Faith.
Mashriqu'l-Adhkár
Most Bahá'í
meetings occur in individuals' homes, local Bahá'í centers, or
rented
facilities. There are currently only seven Bahá'í Houses of Worship. The
name used
in the Bahá'í writings for Houses of Worship is Mashriqu'l-Adhkár
(Dawning-place
of the Remembrance of God). The Mashriqu'l-Adhkár forms the
center of a
complex of institutions of the Baha'i community.
Statistics
Today,
there are some six million Bahá'ís living in 236 countries and
territories
around the world. They come from more than 2,100 different ethnic
and tribal
groups and live in more than 127,000 localities. The 2002 World
Almanac
lists 133,500 Bahá'ís in the USA and 28,500 in Canada.
Involvement
in the Life of Society
Bahá'ís
actively promote issues of social justice and spirituality wherever they
are found,
holding the concept of the unity of mankind as the standard for their
actions.
Bahá'ís have also become increasingly involved in projects of social
and
economic development around the world.
Bahá'u'lláh
wrote of the need for world government in this age of humanity's
collective
life. Because of this emphasis Bahá'ís have actively supported the
United
Nations since its inception. The Bahá'í International Community has
consultative
status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and with
the United Nations Children's Fund UNICEF, and has undertaken joint development
programs with United Nations agencies. (See [1]
(http://www.bahai.org/article-1-6-0-6.html)
further information] on the
relationship
between the Bahá'í International Community and the United Nations.)
Brief Chronology of the Bahá'í Faith
May 23, 1844 Declaration of the Báb in
Shiraz, Iran.
July 9, 1850, Martyrdom of the Báb in Tabriz,
Iran.
1852, While imprisoned for four months in an
underground dungeon in Tehran,
Bahá'u'lláh receives the first intimations
that He is the One foretold by the
Báb.
January 12, 1853, Exile of Bahá'u'lláh from
Tehran to Baghdad.
April 23, 1863, Declaration of Bahá'u'lláh in
Garden of Ridván in Baghdad on
the eve of his exile to Constantinople.
August 31, 1868, arrival of Bahá'u'lláh into
the Prison-city of Acre in the
Holy Land.
May 29, 1892, Ascension of Bahá'u'lláh.
1893 First newspaper mention of the Bahá'í
Faith in United States.
1898 First pilgrimage by Western believers,
including Phoebe Hearst and the
first African-American believer, Robert Turner,
to the Holy Land where they
visited with 'Abdu'l-Bahá in prison.
September 1908, 'Abdu'l-Bahá is released from
a lifetime of exile and
imprisonment at 64 years of age.
April 1912 – December 1912, Travels of
'Abdu'l-Bahá in North America.
1914-1918, World War I. 'Abdu'l-Bahá writes
the Tablets of the Divine Plan.
April 27, 1920, 'Abdu'l-Bahá is knighted by
the British Empire in recognition
of His humanitarian work during WWI.
November 28, 1921, Ascension of 'Abdu'l-Bahá
in Haifa
(This date marks the close of the
"Heroic Age of the Baha'i Faith" and the
opening of the "Formative Age.")
1937, Shoghi Effendi launches the
"Divine Plan" for the diffusion of the
fragrance of the Cause.
1944, Publication of "God Passes
By" by Shoghi Effendi.
1951, eleven functioning National Spiritual
Assemblies.
1951-1957, appointment of 32 additional
"Hands of the Cause of God" by
Shoghi Effendi.
November 1957, passing of Shoghi Effendi.
1957 – April, 1963. 27 remaining Hands of the
Cause guide faith.
April 1963, Election of first Universal House
of Justice by representatives of
56 National Spiritual Assemblies gathered in
Haifa.
Even
as He saith: “Muhammad is not the father of any man among you, but He is the
Messenger of God.” Viewed in this light, they are all but Messengers of that
ideal King, that unchangeable Essence. And were they all to proclaim, “I
am the Seal of the Prophets,” they, verily, utter but the truth, beyond the
faintest shadow of doubt. 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. … “Thus in moments in
which these Essences of Being were deep immersed beneath the oceans of ancient
and everlasting holiness, or when they soared to the loftiest summits of Divine
mysteries, they claimed their utterances to be the Voice of Divinity, the Call
of God Himself.” (Gleanings from The Writings of Bahá'u'lláh p.54-55)
One
would hear no difference from a New Age speaker communicating revelation from
the ascended masters. In this explanation we have them all being as part of the
one, as part of one person. However Bahá'ís will deny Mohammad is the seal of
the prophets, for they claim it is Baha’u’llah for this age, which will last
for one thousand years. At the end of
one thousand years another manifestation will appear.
Bahá'ís
consider Baha’u’llah a theophany, or mirror in which the ultimately unknowable
nature of God is reflected on earth in some way. He is no greater or lesser
than any that have gone before him. Bahá'ís believe manifestations are sent by
God to guide humanity toward a higher level of consciousness, and they teach
all religions are the same at the core differing only in their time and
culture. These manifestations are endowed with
the Holy Spirit (who is the Christ, the anointing spirit, though not the Holy
Spirit of which Christians are familiar) so that God could work through them.
Each one has a religion named after them. Despite that none of the religions
use this term (Christ) except those who came after Jesus, they insist this to
be true. Some even claim Jesus referred to Baha’u’llah as “Father.” So now we have the Father coming a man who
died on earth, not for sin, but died from persecutors. Even though Jesus said
no man has seen the Father.
“Wherefore,
should one of these Manifestations of Holiness proclaim saying: “I am the
return of all the Prophets,” He, verify, speaketh the truth. In like manner, in
every subsequent Revelation, the return of the former Revelation is a fact, the
truth of which is firmly established...”(Gleanings from the writings of
Bahá'u'lláh p.52)
With
a succession of Revelator's there stems a confusion of terminology about God's
nature. And why not! When you believe anyone who was famous in history had a
religion or spiritual thoughts they must have come from God.
Not
only that, they can't agree on how many manifestations there are. In 1908 Abdul
Baha said there was Abraham, Moses, Christ, Mohammed, the Bab, and Bahá'u'lláh,
That is six. In October, 1912 Abdul Baha said there was to be included
Zoroaster, Krishna, Buddha, and Confucius, which makes nine. Why the sudden
change? We have a man deciding who the
manifestations of God were; the list changes.
The
Bab, who is included in this list, said Adam was a manifestation. Bahá'u'lláh
who came after the Bab said, “there was Noah, and Hud and Salih from the Koran.
Also Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed and his predecessor the Bab.
There
are four different lists with 14 manifestations; all of them must be
accepted. One cannot add another to this
list after Bahá'u'lláh because he said that there would be no new manifestation
for at least one-thousand years. Bahá'u'lláh states that these manifestations
will continue throughout the life of the world “ God has sent down his
messengers to succeed Moses and Jesus, and he will continue to do so till the
end of the world.“ (World Order pg.116) {Source used Francis Beckwith's
book, Bahá'í, p.12}
“These
attributes of God are not and have never been vouchsafed specially unto certain
Prophets, and withheld from others. Nay, all the Prophets of God, His well
favored, His holy and chosen Messengers, are, without exception, the bearers of
His names, and the embodiments of His attributes. They only differ in the
intensity of their revelation, and the comparative potency of their light ....
(Book of Certitude pp.99-100)
We
are told that “each time a manifestation appears on earth it is as if the
spirit of all the former manifestations return with him.” This sounds like some
type of unified reincarnation.
“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 Revealers 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” (Gleanings from
the writings of Bahá'u'lláh p.50).
“Each
takes the work from the hand of his predecessor and carries it toward at the
appointed hour he resigns his completed work to his successors” (Bahá'í
World Faith pg. 49).
This
concept is foreign to the Bible which states Jesus Christ completed God's work,
being the final revelation to man as God in the flesh. So there is no one
afterward that can add to His perfect work. While there were apostles afterward
they proclaimed what He taught, they did not come up with a new prophet or one
to follow.
Here
is a sample of their appeal from one of their tracts…”If you are of the
Christian Faith, which had its origin approximately the year 1, your prophecy
concerning the return of Christ in the glory of the Father has been
in new name In this day this new name is “The Glory of God.”
“If
you are of the Jewish Faith, which had its beginning about the thirteenth
century B.C., your prophecy of the of the coming of the Lord of Hosts has also
been fulfilled in Bahá'u'lláh.”
“If
you are a Muslim, whose Faith dates from A.D.622, you will find that your
prophecy concerning the “Great Announcement” likewise has been fulfilled with
the appearance of Bahá'u'lláh.”
“If
you are of the Buddhist Faith, which began about 560 B.C., your prophecy, too,
about the coming of the Fifth Buddha has found fulfillment in Bahá'u'lláh.”
“If
you are a Hindu, whose Faith began several thousand years B.C., your prophecy
concerning the return of Krishna has at last been fulfilled by the same new
Prophet, Bahá'u'lláh.”
“If
you are of the Zoroastrian Faith, which dates back to the sixth or seventh
century B.C., you also will find that Bahá'u'lláh fulfills your awaited coming
of the Shah Bahram.”
“After all these centuries, do you not
think it is time for God's Messenger to come again? Bahá'í's believe that He
has come, the One Who fulfills the promises of all the Prophets, and that He
has released the spiritual power which will unite all mankind in one universal
faith and establish peace and brotherhood.” (Bahá'í tract in Hawaii from
Wilmette Ill.)
(WHAT THEIR SPIRITUAL RELATIVISM BOILS DOWN
TO IS TO ACCEPT ALL AND DENY NONE. THE BAHAIS WILL FIND SOMETHING THEY CAN
ACCEPT FROM EVERY FAITH TO MAKE IT ALL FIT INTO THE BAHAI PHILOSOPHY.)
The
second of the two major works composed by Bahá'u'lláh… is The Book of
Certitude, a comprehensive exposition of the nature and purpose of
religion. In passages that draw not only on the Quran, but also with equal
facility and insight on the Old and New Testaments, the Messengers of God are
depicted as agents of a single, unbroken process, the awakening of the human
race to its spiritual and moral potentialities. (Bahá'u'lláh, p.10, 1991
by the National spiritual Assembly of Bahá'ís, Canada)
If
they are all from the same God, we would then expect them to agree, but this is
not the case. While the Hebrew prophets spoke in unity concerning God, sin, and
the coming Messiah, this is not so with the major and minor religions of the
world.
Krishna - Hinduism has an impersonal God who is part of the
universe. God is part of all things, man can discover his true self through
yoga and meditation and that he is God. Unlike Hinduism, the God of the Bible
is transcendent, He is beyond creation, He existed before it, is not part of
creation but lives outside space and time. He is not dependent on anything but
is self-sufficient. Hinduism teaches there are millions of Gods. Not even the
Bahá'í's or Muslims would agree with this. Christians certainly do not. However, the Bahais want us to believe we can
incorporate Hinduism with other religions. Hinduism teaches that there is no evil, that all
reality seen is maya, an illusion. Hindus believe in reincarnation, the cycle
of death and rebirth. It is through this process of universal law that one
eventually becomes reunited with God. The Bible teaches only one life, that
each of us have, and then a resurrection. This is totally different concerning what happens to the body after
death. These are mutually exclusive. Jesus taught and practiced resurrection,
He said of Himself, “I Am the
resurrection and the life”, meaning that He gives physical life to those who
believe in Him at death.
This
religion is in conflict with Buddhism, Christianity and Islam.
Zoroaster-
Was a 7th B.C Century Persian
prophet who was confused with the problem of evil. He couldn’t solve the
problem of the conflict of good and evil so he created a system of dualism. He
had Ahuru Mazda as the Supreme Being and then a literal personal devil (Angra
Mainyu, Ahriman, Spirit of evil ) as equals in the conflict of light vs.
darkness. Bahais deny a literal devil. Zoroaster was a polytheist. He spread
his faith with two Holy wars with the aid of a ruler of Iran (Hystaspes). He
also said, “ man is in god, god is in man.”
This
religion is in conflict with Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam.
Bahá'í
claims the manifestations are not educated “As a man, he is marked by his simplicity
and gentleness and a lack of personal ambition. Often he is born of lowly
parents, is obscure and impecunious. He is always a man of little human
learning.” (Bahá'í World Faith, p.49)
Gautama
Buddha was born into royalty (his father was king Suddhodana Gautama, they were
a family of warriors and nobility.) He grew up in luxury until he observed the
human misery around him. He then forsook it all at the young age of
twenty-nine.
Moses
was educated in the royal court of Egypt. He grew up in the Pharaoh's palace.
This can hardly considered an impoverished lifestyle.
Confucius
was a learned man. He had started a school in which he had 3,000 students .
So,
what Baha’u’llah stated, that al the manifestations are not educated, appears
not to coincide with the facts. Some
were highly educated in relation to the era in which they lived.
Buddhism- Arose as a sect of Hinduism. Gautama Buddha lived
around 560 BC. In Buddhism there is no teaching of God. At best Buddhists are
agnostic and also pantheistic. The ultimate end of the soul is to become a drop
of water in the vast cosmic ocean. There is no individuality. Buddhism believes
in transmigration of the soul, which contradicts both Islam and the Bible.
Buddha gave man the eight-fold path; a system of self-works to enter nirvana,
which is the ultimate extinguishing of self.
One uses the self to extinguish the self.
This
religion appears to be in conflict with reality, other religions, and even
itself.
Confucius-
(Master Kung) 551 B.C. was a
polytheist and practiced ancestor worship, which is forbidden in the Bible. We
have Buddha and Confucius living as two manifestation's at the same time,
teaching different philosophies, contradicting each other. Neither one was
teaching about God, so how can they be a Light for God.
Islam-
Mohammed states there is no Son of
God. Which is a denial of what the Bible states in the Old and New Testament.
The same angel that gave Mohammed his revelation also said to Mary Jesus will
be called the Son of God (Luke 1:35 and he will be called Emmanuel- God with us
(Mt. 1:23).
The
Islamic God is capricious, unknowable and far away. God is a singular person,
no triune nature. Mohammed is the last and greatest Prophet, and there are no
more after him. To call Mohammed a manifestation of God is held by only 10% of
Islam who believe in Imam's, the Shiite sect, from which the Bahai Faith
originates. Islam is derived from some truth but mostly distortions of their
Judaic roots by way of Abraham. Bahá'í is an Islamic offshoot, which goes even
farther away from the source of authenticity than does Mohammed.
Islam
is in conflict with Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism.
Judaism-
Moses -Believed in one God. Jews are strictly monotheistic. God is
personal and knowable (God spoke to Moses as a man speaks to another man.). Man
is a sinner in need of redemption. Man was given the law and the sacrificial
system so that he would become aware of his sin and his need for cleansing
before approaching God. All this points
to one person- Christ and his cleansing for sin. Judaism prophesies of the one
who would come as the Messiah. The Law ended with Christ for those who have
faith in Jesus (Galatians 2-3).
Judaism
is in conflict with Islam, with Hinduism, Buddhism, and Bahá'í.
Christianity-Jesus claimed to be the invisible God- to know Him
is to know God. All the Prophets spoke of Him, He is the final revelation at
the end of the age. He taught that men are sinners in need of salvation. He is
the only one who has taken care of sin; the only one who rose from the dead and
is now alive ruling from heaven.
1
John.5:20: “ And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an
understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true,
in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.” The true
God and eternal life. By believing in Him, we believe in the true God,
and are in possession of eternal life. John warns against any others who come
along, no matter what display of religion they may have. Jesus Christ is the
one and only express image of God's person approved for all time, the only true
manifestation of God. Any other representations that claim to be of God are
forbidden to be followed by Christ Jesus, and are no more than idols, being
mere men. This is according to the Bible.
When
Jesus asked his followers, “Who do men say I am?” they gave only names of the
Hebrew Prophets not Krishna, or Buddha or anyone else. Christ only quoted the
Bible, no other literature. But all these supposed manifestations coming after
Jesus, refer to Him.
Christianity
is in conflict with Islam, with Hinduism, Buddhism, and Bahá'í and anyone who
would deny that sin exists.
SUMMARY OF THE MANIFESTATION IN THEIR
DOCTRINE OF GOD
Krishna--A Mixture of polytheism and
pantheism. The universe is eternal. The universe is God, and so are we.
Zoroaster--One good god and one evil god
(religious dualism).
Moses--One personal God. The universe is not
eternal, but was created by the eternal God; sin needs to be cleansed by a
sacrifice.
Buddha--God is not relevant; essentially
agnostic. The 8-fold path attempts to negate desiring, which, in turn, will
lead to Nirvana—the absolute extinguishing of self
Confucius--Polytheistic.
Jesus Christ--The true God who is personal
(Mark 12:29; John 4:24; 5:18-19; etc.).
Muhammad--One personal God who has no Son,
Jesus did not die or resurrect. Sin is done away by doing good.
Bahá'u'lláh --God and the universe are an
emanation of God, and are co-eternal. Jesus is only one of many manifestations.
Baha’u’llah is the last manifestation of this age. Another manifestation will arise in a
thousand years.
Jesus is not just one in a progressive line
of manifestations of truth in history that includes Buddha, Krishna and
Mohammed -- He is the Alpha and the Omega; the author and finisher of those who
embrace Christianity; the Lord of lords, the King of Kings; the Light of all
men; Savior of our souls; Counselor; Prince of Peace; the Mighty God; the Way,
the Truth, the Life; the eternal I Am. Without Him nothing would exist.
Bahá'í
teaches the manifestations are sinless- “ For these holy souls are pure from
every sin, and sanctified from faults” (Abdul Baha, Some Answered Questions pg.
195).
“He hath ordained
that in every age and dispensation a pure and stainless Soul be made manifest
in the kingdoms of earth and heaven. Unto this subtle, this mysterious and
ethereal Being He hath assigned a twofold nature; the physical, pertaining to
the world of matter, and the spiritual, which is born of the substance of God
Himself (Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, pgs. 66-67).
Sinless
representatives--Moses didn’t think he was, Mohammed didn’t think he was. They
sacrificed for their sins. You do not do
this if you are sinless.
When
we look at their examples of those who are supposedly sinless as
representatives we see the truth of their teaching as not coinciding with reality.
Adam was the first sinner, he brought sin into the world and to every man. Therefore, he is disqualified. Abraham
sacrificed because he was a sinner. God, because he killed a man, sacrificed
for his sins. Mohammed admitted he was a sinner. Allah said he was a sinner,
Quran 48:1-2: “Lo, We have given thee
(Mohammed) a signal victory, that Allah may forgive thee of thy sin that which
is past and that which is to come...” In Sura 40:55 He asks for forgiveness of
his sin. The Hadith states that Muhammad had to ask forgiveness for sin more
than seventy times a day. (Bukhari vol. I, no. 711, 78; vol. V, no. 24)
So
if these prophets were sinners, then they are not a manifestation of God
according to the Bahá'í standard.
The
Bible says no man is without sin, Rom.3. Jesus, according to what is written in
the Bible, was sinless. Therefore, one can see that Jesus is more than a man.
Only God is sinless. Jesus is sinless
because of his Holy Ghost conception.
Man
is dealing with the same problems that he has had from the beginning--he's a
fallen creature, a sinner in need of repair, and only Jesus has the cure. The
Bible says, “Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin.”
Christ is the sinless lamb sacrificed to take away the sin of the world. John announced
Him as this.
“We can well
perceive how the whole human race is encompassed with great, with incalculable
afflictions. We see it languishing on its bed of sickness, sore-tried and
disillusioned... they cannot discover the cause of the disease, nor have they
have any knowledge of the remedy” (Gleanings from the writings of
Bahá'u'lláh pg. 213).
Prophets of God
should be regarded as physicians whose task is to foster the well being of the
world, and it is that, through the spirit of oneness, they may heal the
sickness of a divided humanity. There
is little wonder if the treatment prescribed by the physician in this day
should not be found to be identical with that which he prescribed before. How
could it be otherwise when the ills affecting the sufferer necessitate at every
stage of his sickness a special remedy? (Book of Certitude p.99)
Jer.17:9
“The heart is deceitfully wicked” (incurably sick). God the creator is the only
one capable of fixing what is broken in man. We need a touch from a divine
agency, the great physician himself. There is only one universal remedy to
restore our alienation from God and cleanse us from guilt. God has given
mankind the blood of Christ as the cure to remove the innate problem of sin.
The Bahais have no solution for the fallen state of man.
No
other religion claims to solve the sin factor because these other religions do
not believe it exists. This includes the Bahai Faith. Only when people see
their sickness and how desperate they are in need of cleansing from their sin,
will they be willing to go to the great physician. The Bahais are no different
than anyone else. They need the Gospel
to be saved from sin and judgment, since Baha’u’llah, though a wise man, can
not save a man from sin. Only Jesus, one
who is free from the thralldom of sin, can save those who are slaves to
sin. A slave cannot free a slave. One who is free is only capable of freeing
others. It is so in this world. It is also the case in the spiritual
realm. What Jesus does is from the
inside out, what man does is from the outside which can never affect our fallen
nature inside. Religion gives us rules and regulations to live by; Jesus
reforms us from the inside and sets us free.
Those
who are sinners die. “ The wages of sin is death”. Only those without sin do not die. Jesus
stands as a beacon among all the rest of these so-called manifestations because
he alone was without sin. He didn't die for anything he did. He died as a
sacrifice for us. Only someone with no sin could die in our place as the
sinless lamb. These other men proved
they were sinners, because they all died. Jesus sacrificed His life for ours
yet death could not hold Him; He raised Himself from the grave bodily. Only God
can do such a feat.
What
Bahai has done is synthesize all the different religions into one whilst
ignoring all the differences and looking for any type of agreements found in
the principles. This is the spirit of our age, tolerance at the expense of
truth. Jesus is not just one manifestation in a progressive line in history.
No, He is the Alpha and the Omega, the Lord of lords, the King of Kings, the
light of men, Savior of our souls, Counselor, Prince of Peace, the Mighty God;
The Way, The Truth, The Life, the Great I Am.
The coming new world religion…..
Baha'u'llah
announced to the few remaining followers of the Bab that he was the chosen
Manifestation of God for this age. He called upon people to unite;
He said that only in one common faith and one order could the world find an
enduring peace. He declared that terrible wars would sweep the face of the
earth and destroy the institutions and ideas that keep men from their rightful
unity. (Basics of Bahai faith tract)
The
Bahai religion fits perfectly with what Jesus warned of, especially in His
Sermon on the Mount. Bahais believe that we need to unite with all the
religions of the world to have a world government and peace. They also teach
that Baha'u'llah is the second coming of Christ. (Which fulfills Mt.24, where
Jesus warns many will say they are Christ and claim to represent him.)
OVER
1,800 YEARS BEFORE Baha'u'llah came Jesus not only promised this, but also did
this. The faith has been delivered to all the saints once for all. The order is
still future, as we await Christ to come back and fulfill His promise.
(Jesus
did not condone any other religion, but Baha'í says they are all from the same
God.)
“Likewise, the divine religions of the holy Manifestations of God are in reality one, though in name and nomenclature they differ.”… The strife between religions, nations and races arises from misunderstanding. If we investigate the religions to discover the principles underlying their foundations, we will find they agree; for the fundamental reality of them is one and not multiple. By this means the religionists of the world will reach their point of unity and reconciliation. They will ascertain the truth that the purpose of religion is the acquisition of praiseworthy virtues, the betterment of morals, the spiritual development of mankind, the real life and divine bestowals” (`Abdu'lBaha: Promulgation of Universal Peace, pp. 151-152)
Eph.
1:19-22 "and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who
believe, according to the working of His mighty power, which He worked in
Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the
heavenly places, far above all principality and power and might and dominion,
and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that
which is to come. And He put all things under His feet, and gave
Him to be head over all things to the church."
The
Bible tells states that the Bahais are wrong, Christ is above all in all ages,
not just for his time.
To the Peoples of
the World: "The Great Peace towards which people of good will throughout
the centuries have inclined their hearts, of which seers and poets for
countless generations have expressed their vision, and for which from age to age
the sacred scriptures of mankind have constantly held the promise, is now at
long last within the reach of the nations. For the first time in history it is
possible for everyone to view the entire planet, with all its myriad
diversified peoples, in one perspective. World peace is not only possible but
also inevitable. It is the next stage in the evolution of this planet -- in the
words of one great thinker, "the planetization of mankind". ( A
Statement by the Universal House of Justice Bahá'í World Center Haifa, Israel,
Oct. 1985 )
"The world is
in greatest need of international peace. Until it is established, mankind will
not attain composure and tranquility. It is necessary that the nations
and governments organize an international tribunal to which all their disputes
and differences shall be referred. The decision of that tribunal shall be
final." (Abdu'l-Bahá, Promulgation of Universal Peace, Bahá'í Publishing
Trust, 1982, p. 301.)
Clearly
a one-world government is not the answer when sinful men seek their own wants.
While it is a wonderful gesture on paper, reality is quite different. Real
peace will come when the Prince of Peace rules over the earth by setting up his
kingdom.
"Bahá’u’lláh
exhorted the rulers of the earth to peace and international agreement, making
it incumbent upon them to establish a board of international arbitration; that
from all nations and governments of the world there should be delegates
selected for a congress of nations which should constitute a universal arbitral
court of justice to settle international disputes". (Abdu'l-Bahá,
Promulgation of Universal Peace, Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1982, p. 203.)
If
I didn't know better I would think they were referring to the UN. As they work with the UN toward their
religious agenda of unity for all people, they want to see a universal system
of education, a universal code of human rights, and a universal system of
currency, weights and measures. This all sounds like it is right out of the
Bible..Revelation 13.
Bahá'u'lláh
made the oneness of humankind the central principle and goal of His Faith. When
the organic and spiritual unity of the nations it signals the "coming of
age of the entire human race." (Shoghi Effendi, The Promised Day Is Come, p. 117 1980)
"One God has
given men one Faith through progressive revelations of His Will in each age of
history and Bahá'u'lláh reveals the will of God for men and women of the
present age. This basic belief enables Baha’i’s to unite and work together in
spite of different religious backgrounds."(BAHAI PUBLISHING TRUST WILMETTE,
ILLINOIS)
“He (Bahá'u'lláh)
sets forth a new principle for this day in the announcement that religion must
be the cause of unity, harmony and agreement among mankind. If it be the cause
of discord and hostility, if it leads to separation and creates conflict, the
absence of religion would be preferable in the world."(Abdu'l-Bahá, Bahá'í
World Faith: Selected Writings of Bahá'u'lláh and `Abdu'l-Bahá, Bahá'í
Publishing Trust, 1976. p. 247.)
It's
hard to take someone seriously who wants to unite all religions and then says
if there is no cooperation that the world is better off without religion of any
kind. Any one religion can be implemented as a unifying principle for mankind
and we would have that harmony the Bahai seek, even if the religion be false.
If all religions are from the same God, and there are disagreements (of which
there are many) then who is to say which one is to go. I wonder which one this
would be? Who decides? I will not leave you guessing, the only religion that
would not co-operate with this type of surrender would be Christianity. Why?
Because Christians believe there is absolute truth and there is falsehood. If
we stand to our convictions we cannot compromise what Christ taught.
The Bahai solution
is the elimination of extremes of both Wealth and Poverty. "Through the
manifestation of God's great equity the poor of the world will be rewarded and
assisted fully and there will be a readjustment in the economic conditions of
mankind so that in the future there will not be the abnormally rich nor the
abject poor. The rich will enjoy the privilege of this new economic
condition as well as the poor, for owing to certain provisions and
restrictions they will not be able to accumulate so much as to be burdened by
its management, while the poor will be relieved from the stress of want and
misery. The rich will enjoy his palace, and the poor will have his comfortable
cottage. " (Abdu'l-Bahá, Promulgation of Universal Peace, Bahá'í
Publishing Trust, 1982, p. 132)
While
it is more than desirable to see the needs of the poor provided, to make it a
law through one world government is another story. This should be done, not through law, but
through the understanding one derives that in helping the poor one helps himself.
"They must
conclude a binding treaty and establish a covenant, the provisions of which
shall be sound, inviolable and definite. They must proclaim it to all the
world and obtain for it the sanction of all the human race... All the forces of
humanity must be mobilized to ensure the stability and permanence of this Most
Great Covenant. In this all-embracing Pact the limits and frontiers of each and
every nation should be clearly fixed, the principles underlying the relations
of governments towards one another definitely laid down. In like manner, the size of armaments of
every government should be strictly limited, for if the preparations for war
and the military forces of any nation should be allowed to increase, they will
arouse the suspicion of others. The fundamental principle underlying this
solemn Pact should be so fixed that if any government later violate any one of
its provisions, all the governments on earth should arise to reduce to utter
submission, nay the human race as a whole should resolve, with every power at
its disposal, to destroy that government. Should this greatest of all
remedies be applied to the sick body of the world, it will assuredly recover
from its ills and will remain eternally safe and secure. (Abdu'l-Bahá, The Secret
of Divine Civilization, p. 64-65.National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá'ís of
the USA, 1957)
This
is exactly what is written in the Daniel 9:24-26 vision of the 70 weeks (a 490
year period.) 483 years are fulfilled by the beginning of vs.26 at his first
coming; the latter portion of vs.26 the prince that shall come, is the
Antichrist not the true Messiah who is of the same lineage as those who
destroyed the Jewish temple in 70 Ad. The Tribulation begins with the signing
of the peace treaty with Israel v.27. Israel needs to be at peace for the
world to be at peace, this is the area of greatest conflict in the world.
Everyone wants to be located there, even the Bahai have a temple in Haifa.
Isa.28:14-15-This
covenant is made to guarantee security to Israel and the world. God's
perspective of this covenant is that he calls it a covenant of death and hell.
What Israel and the world thought was best for their security turns out to be
their worst nightmare.Vs.16 tells us what happens to those who do not go along
with this covenant.
Dan.
11:30-32 talking about this one who makes a covenant to replace Gods.
"Then he will turn back and vent his fury against the holy covenant. He
will return and show favor to those who forsake the holy
covenant. "His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the
temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the
abomination that causes desolation. With flattery he will corrupt those
who have violated the covenant, but the people who know their God will firmly
resist him."
Jesus
warns about a great tribulation and a ruler that comes in on the promises of
peace through a one-world government. It is here where we see the Bahai's
fulfilling prophecy. Matt. 24:9-14: "Then shall they deliver you up unto
tribulation, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all the nations for
my name's sake. And then shall many stumble, and shall deliver up one
another, and shall hate one another. And
many false
prophets shall
arise, and
shall
lead many astray."
Jesus
warned us about those like Baha'u'llah, "For many will come in my name,
saying, "I am the Christ," and will deceive many.. At that time if
anyone says to you, "Look, here is the Christ!" or, "There he
is!" do not believe it" (Matt. 24:5; 23).
Matthew
24:24, 26: "For there shall arise false Christ's, and false prophets, and
shall show great signs and wonders; so as to lead astray, If possible, even the
elect. See I have told you beforehand.... If therefore they shall say unto you,
Behold, he is in the wilderness; Do not forth: Behold, he is in the inner
chambers; believe it not.'
"Since
there is one God these manifestations of God have each taught the same
religious faith" (Bahai tract
Wilmette, Ill.) Synthesizing all of the history’s religions is
certainly the last stroke of genius for the coming false Christ who is called
anti-Christ, who replaces the true one for a short period of time. A one
world political and religious center, peace at last right? Wrong!
Tolerance at the expense of truth is not the way of sanity, and certainly not
the way of Christ.
Bahá'u'lláh
teachings are for peace and unity of families, nations and the entire world.
Bahá'u'lláh has revealed, in over 100 books, the message of God for the NEW
WORLD ORDER." (the Return of Christ p.8)
There
is a great deception coming (2 Thess.2). And he will fulfill in himself all
that Bahá'í claims to look for in religions. He will be the great synthesizer
appearing tolerant to all. It appears that the Bahá'í religion is helping
pave the way for many who will come as Bahá'u'lláh did, except they will
exhibit all power in signs and wonders, something that will be hard to refute
without heeding Christ's warning and having him as the standard.
Bahais and the message of the Bible….
The
Bahá'í's claim that they uphold the Bible; however, what they actually do is
re-interpret it so that it no longer means what the writers had intended. “For
God to descend into the conditions of existence would be the greatest of
imperfection's. “ (Abdul Baha Questions pgs. 129-130 )
While
someone can claim God is unwilling to become a man, they cannot say it is
impossible. Like their counterpart, Islam, they deny this is possible, but God
is able to do all things. The scriptures say God would become a man and visit
his people, and die for their sins. Isaiah 63:8 ... “so he became their
savior in all their affliction he was afflicted and the messenger of his
presence saved them.”
Luke
2:11 “for there is born to you this day in the city of David a savior who is
Christ the Lord” (Meaning God).
“Jesus
was not the only-begotten Son of God come down from Heaven, crucified and
resurrected, nor was He the unique Savior. (Firuz Kazemzeden World Order summer
1978 p.39 the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahais of the United States)
The
Bible is absolutely clear on this, Jesus is called the only begotten son,
meaning unique, one of a kind. To deny this, which is what the Bahai
representative did, is to deny the Father who said this and to deny Jesus who
also said this.
“Was
Christ within god, or God within Christ ? No in the name of God.” (Abdul
Baha Questions PG 97)
Col.2:9
states that Jesus is the fullness of deity in bodily form. This means He was
completely God. So who is right, those who were commissioned by Jesus or some
religion that comes 1800 years later?
Matthew
1:21 “And you shall call his name Jesus for he will save his people from their
sins.” V. 23 “and they will call his name Immanuel, God is with us.” Rom. 9:5
... “ according to the flesh, Christ came. Who is over all, the eternally blessed
God, amen.”
“The
Purpose of the one true God, exalted be Hs glory, in revealing Himself unto men
is to lay bare those gems that lie hidden within the mind of their true and
inmost selves.”(Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah p.287) The Bible states that there is
nothing good that dwells in man, he is fallen and sinful, though the Bahais
claim that man is essentially good. Man
is not plagued with the sin nature.
Bahá'í's—Seem
to deny God can be known by man in a personal sense; Deny the reality of sin
and the existence of a literal devil and Hell. They claim that the universe is
without beginning, that it is a perpetual emanation of the first cause. After
death the spirit can progress to a state of perfection.
Bahá'í's-Deny
the atonement of Christ which is to wash sins away. Abdul Baha stated that
there is no sin-atoning value in Christ's sacrificial death on the Cross. His
denial of redemption of Christ led him to think of himself: “Fix your gaze upon
Him who is the Temple of God amongst men. He, in truth, hath offered up his
life as a ransom for the redemption of the world.” Bahá'u'lláh thought of
himself as this without sacrificing his life. Certainly even if he did it could
have no redeeming value as Christ, since Baha’u’llah was not sinless.
Does
a Bahá'í believe that we are born in sin? that we die because of sin? that we
are separated from God because of our sin? For one to become a Bahá'í there is
no acknowledgment of a sinful nature in a person. The Jesus Christ of
Christianity of the Bible is ALL about SIN and God reconciling us ONLY through
his Son.
With
particular regard to the Bible, a letter dated 28 May 1984 written on behalf of
the Universal House of Justice in response to questions raised by an individual
believer outlines two principles to be observed in studying this book. “In
studying the Bible Bahá'is must bear two principles in mind. The first is that
many passages in Sacred Scripture are intended to be taken metaphorically, not
literally, and some of the paradoxes and apparent contradictions that appear
are intended to indicate this. The second is the fact that the text of the
early Scriptures, such as the Bible, is not wholly authentic...”
“...we cannot be sure how much or how little of the four Gospels are accurate,
including the words of Christ and His undiluted teachings. All we can be sure of, as Bahais is that what
has been quoted by Bahá'u'llah and the Master ('Abdu'l-Baha) must be absolutely
authentic. As many times passages in the Gospel of St. John are quoted we may
assume that it is his Gospel and much of it (is) accurate.” (Shoghi
Effendi)
However,
Jesus said heaven and earth would pass away but not his word. He entrusted and
was able to oversee the Bible being written. How? Because Jesus was, and still
is, ruling in heaven.
All
these descriptions of the different religions have obvious irreconcilable
differences with God's nature and man's relationship to him. All religions are
not the same. There are major contradictions in fundamental core beliefs of all
the religions of the world.
All
but one religion have mankind attempting to please God by the work of their own
hands. Christianity teaches man is unable to reach God. God reached downward
from heaven, He became a man to accomplish the solution of our dilemma-the
sinful nature of man.
What
good is a pantheon of new guides with new information of God that contradicts
the old revelation if good only for their time.
We would have no absolute truth in which to judge. This goes against the
law of non-contradiction. Either the revelators are all wrong or only one is
right, but all cannot be right. The problem lies in the root of relativism,
that there is no absolute truth. The Bahai syncretism is one of its major
weaknesses.
The
founders of ancient religions served only to originate moral or spiritual
systems that could BE ACCEPTED by any other men. These men who began these
systems did not remain as the source of all that they taught. Even within Judaism and Christianity men like
Moses and Paul might have been replaced by other equally good men, but it is
not so with Christ. Christ predicted His
death and resurrection. And it
occurred.
Bahá'í's DENY a physical resurrection….
Abdu'l-Baha
explains the meaning of the resurrection as: "The disciples were troubled
and agitated after the martyrdom of Christ. The Reality of Christ, which
signifies His teachings, His bounties, His perfection's and His spiritual
power, was hidden and concealed for two or three days after His martyrdom, and
was not resplendent and manifest. NO, rather it was lost; for the
believers were few in number and were troubled and agitated. The Cause of
Christ was like a lifeless body, and, when after three days the disciples
became assured and steadfast, and began to serve the Cause of Christ, and resolved
to spread the divine teachings, putting His counsels into practice, and arising
to serve Him, the Reality of Christ became resplendent, and His bounty
appeared; His religion found life, His teachings and admonitions became evident
and visible. In other words, the Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body,
until the life and the bounty of the Holy Spirit surrounded (Ferraby, p. 178.)
This
is blatantly false. Abdul Baha, though a
wise man, misinterprets the Bible. In
effect, he is denying that the physical body of Christ was resurrected. He is essentially calling all the disciples
of Christ purveyors of falsehood. One
who denies Christ’s physical resurrection can not share in the Holy Spirit and
is not a reliable witness to the Spirit of Christ and God, and cannot possibly
interpret the Bible accurately.
The
resurrections of divine manifestations are not of the body…his resurrection
from the interior of the earth is also symbolic… like wise his
ascension to heaven is a spiritual not material ascension".(Abdul Baha
Questions pp.199-120)
This
is also false. By spiritualizing this
event Christ is lowered to be just another teacher in the timeline of history.
Paul the apostle who was literally interfered by this so called dead person
preached in 1 Cor.15 that if he was not literally raised in the body we are
most pitied of men and even liars. If this event is not true than neither is
anything else Christ said. The teachings
we have from the apostles (Paul included) resurrected a lie. The whole message
of Christianity is encompassed with it being the truth in a world of lies, a
light in a world of darkness.
"Behold
how the generality of mankind hath been endued with the capacity to hearken
unto God's most exalted word the Word upon which must depend the gathering
together and spiritual resurrection of all men. . . ."(Gleanings
of Bahá'u'lláh, p.97)
The
Bible explicitly states that Jesus rose physically from the dead. Only what
dies can to be brought back to life. There is no spiritual meaning to this event
except the plain meaning that Jesus rose in his own body just as he said he
would. The resurrection is a proven fact. Over five hundred witnesses attested
to seeing the Christ after He was crucified.
His physical body has been missing for over 1960 years. All that was needed was to have someone
produce the body of Jesus. This would
have quelled this new teaching, but no one could produce the body. Why? Jesus was raised from the dead and then
ascended to heaven in front of his disciples.
Jesus
said, "I am the resurrection and the life"( Jn.11:25). He also stated that He would raise people
from the dead on the last day (Jn.6:39-40).
Buddha, Mohammed, and Bahá'u'lláh do not have the ability to do this and
did not say they could. Only God could
accomplish this work. Jesus is God.
DID JESUS PROPHESY the COMING of Bahá'u'lláh?
Speaking
of Bahá'u'lláh, "He is the Promised One of all Religions, whose coming was
foretold in all the sacred scriptures," (Welcome to the Bahá'í' House of
Worship, p. 2).
Jesus
said in John 16:12-13: "I have much more to say to you, more than you can
now bear. But when he, the Spirit of Truth, comes, He will guide you into all
truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he
will tell you what is yet to come."
"I
go away and come again unto you." And in another place He said: "I go
and another will come, Who will tell you all that I have not told you, and will
fulfill all that I have said." Both
these sayings have but one meaning, were ye to ponder upon the
Manifestations of the Unity of God with Divine insight.'
"Every
discerning observer will recognize that in the Dispensation of the Quran both
the Book and the Cause of Jesus were confirmed. As to the matter of names, Muhammad
declared: "I am Jesus." He recognized the truth of the signs,
prophecies, and words of Jesus, and testified that they were all of
God." (GLEANINGS FROM THE WRITINGS OF BAHA'U'LLA'H p.21)
I
take issue with Mohammed declaring he is Jesus, for I could find nowhere where
Mohammed ever said such a thing. He
certainly did not believe all the words of Jesus. It would seem that
Bahá'u'lláh had little knowledge of what Islam teaches. Bahais use the same
argument from Islam about their prophet being the one who should come. After
all, the Bahai are a sect that broke off from Islam. They deny everything
Jesus said, minus the virgin birth, which they insert as a whole different
story. While Islam's position is that Jesus was a prophet in a line of
succession of prophets, Bahá'í's say he is one of many manifestations
Abdul
Baha said, "At the first coming he came from heaven though apparently from
the womb, in the same way also, at his 2nd coming, he will come from heaven
though apparently from the womb".(Abdul Baha questions pg. 127)
Jesus made it clear that He would come again in the same way He left the first
time. He came from heaven to earth
(invisibly). He would come back to earth visibly, the same way He left from
earth to heaven from the Mount of Olives.(See Acts.1; Mt.24:30)
Does
this mean there will be another virgin birth? No, the Bahais claim that
Baha’u’llah has fulfilled this coming, so we need not look for another. This is
exactly what Jesus warned about, "For many will come in my name,
saying, "I am the Christ," and will deceive many. At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look,
here is the Christ! or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it.” (Matt. 24:5. 23) The
reason there was a virgin birth was to preserve His sinlessness. Baha’u’llah made no claim to be
sinless. Christ supposedly (through
Bahá'u'lláh) went from being sinless to being sinful?
Bahai
claims as Islam does for Mohammed that Jesus came back in Baha’u’llah as the
Holy Spirit. A simple look at the broader context of John chapters 14-16 shows
their interpretation is wrong. Jesus clearly identifies the Spirit of truth as
being the Holy Spirit not a human person. (John 14:16, 177 26.)
Jesus
calls this Spirit of Truth the Counselor (John 15:26). Earlier in the discourse
He calls this Counselor the Holy Spirit: “All this I have spoken while still
with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my
name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have
said to you.” (John 14:25-26).
The
function of the Holy Spirit is to make known the teachings of Jesus and not to
replace them with the teaching of another prophet who comes 600 years later,
like Mohammed, or 1,800 years later, like Baha’u’llah.
The
Bahai teach that, "All these divisions we see on all sides, all these
disputes and opposition are caused because men cling to ritual and outward
observances, and forget the simple, underlying truth. It is the outward
practices of religion that are so different, and it is they that cause disputes
and enmity -- while the reality is always the same, and one. The Reality is the
Truth, and truth has no division. Truth is God's guidance, it is the light of
the world, it is love, and it is mercy. These attributes of truth are also
human virtues inspired by the Holy Spirit. (Abdu'l-Bahá, Paris Talks: Addresses Given by `Abdu'l-Bahá in Paris 1911-12,
pp. 120-121. Bahá'í Publishing Trust 11th ed. 1969)
Does
the Holy Spirit inspire human virtues? Does the Holy Spirit lead people to lay
down their beliefs for unity? What did Jesus say was the truth? His Word is
the Truth, which is why we are supposed to follow the Scriptures as our
only guide and Jesus as our savior. This is rejected by Bahá'í in the
ingenious way of conglomeration with other teachers.
When
Jesus said he would send the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5 ) it was fulfilled a few
day's later recorded in Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost. Acts 1:5 "Do not
leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard
me speak about. For John baptized with water, but in a few days from now you
will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."
The
counselor, the Spirit of Truth who is the Holy Spirit, was received by the
disciples on the day of Pentecost.
Acts
2:1-2 Luke writes, "When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together
in one place. Suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty
wind, and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed
to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest upon each one of them. And
they were all fired with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as
the Spirit enabled them." (The
Bahais also reject that Christians may be able, through the Holy Spirit, to
speak in tongues. They, in effect, label
St. Paul, and the other disciples as liars.
Pentecost, to the Bahais, could not have taken place.)
The Biblical record proves that the disciples and
others received the Spirit just as Jesus said they would. In John 14:16 Jesus
said the Holy Spirit would be with us forever. How can this be when Bahá'u'lláh
lived only 75 years and died in 1892. What makes this even more illogical is
that the Holy Spirit is living in Christians.
How can the Holy Spirit be Bahá'u'lláh who was a flesh and blood person
who died? Only something that is eternal
can be with people forever. The Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit was there in
the beginning of creation, that he is the creator, being God. This does not apply to Baha’u’llah. Baha’u’llah is gone.
"Baha’u’llah
claims that he is the teacher from God for this day, that
he is the return of Christ."
(The Return of Christ, p.2) It is
questionable whether Bahá'u'lláh claimed this for himself or it was his
faithful followers who bestowed this appellation.
Rev.
1:7--Look he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him. It
is a literal second coming like the first. The Bahais change the meaning as
they do with everything else in many of the religions saying that the meaning
is to be understood with the inward, spiritual eye. The Biblical meaning is to
view the occurrence as natural as it is described in Mt.24:30: "At that
time the Son of Man will appear in the sky and all the nations of the earth
will mourn. They will SEE the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with
power and great glory." It is not a
secret coming, where only some see (Jehovah's Witness interpretation). His
coming is from the sky. Acts 1:9-11
explicitly states that Jesus’ return will be to the earth in the same manner as
He left. Any other way is to be rejected as counterfeit.
Jesus
will not come back as Mohammed or Baha’u’llah, He will not sport a different
name. 1 Cor.1:8, "We wait for the
Son who will appear from heaven.” His
coming is not from the earth but from heaven where he now resides.
Bahai
teaching espouses that no prophecy is of any private interpretation. However,
Baha’u’llah applies prophecies of Christ to himself, which makes him a false
prophet. What is claimed is that Baha’u’llah is the second coming, and that he
is the Holy Spirit. If this is so, then
what is he stating? The Holy Spirit is
God, an eternal person of the Godhead, not a human being who died never to rise
again. However; Bahais do not aver the
Holy Spirit as a “person” of God. In
their belief system the Holy Spirit is not the same as what Jesus taught. The Bahais believe that the Comforter is
Baha’u’llah, and that the Holy Spirit does not indwell in a Christian and by
inference did not dwell in any of the Apostles.
Jesus
states, "He will pray the Father and He will send you another Comforter
even the Spirit of Truth." (allos paracletos in Greek.) Allos is the word for of the same kind, the
Holy Spirit is another of the same type in substance and activity. He is the
invisible comforter to Christians. He
leads them into the words of Jesus only. He is of the same kind in that Christ
was Spirit before He came to earth and took on an additional nature of the
flesh. The Holy Spirit is eternal and so is the Son. Micah 5:2, "Out of Bethlehem will come
forth to me the ruler in Israel whose goings forth are from old from eternity
past.”
Jn.
1:1, "In the beginning was the word (meaning he was already there from the
beginning) the word was with God (towards God in relationship) and the word was
God (God is the word). Verse 14 states
who this word is, the word became flesh and did tabernacle among men, and we
beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father full of grace
and truth. Verse 18, "No one has
seen God at any time. The only begotten
God (Son) who is in the bosom (in relationship with) of the Father, He has
declared him (made him known).
In
Jn: 5:39 Jesus states that the Scriptures testify of Him. Verse 46, "If you believed Moses you
would believe me for He wrote about me."
On the road to Emmaus He caught up with two men who were in disbelief of
his resurrection. Verse 27, “And
beginning at Moses and all the prophets He explained to them in all the
scriptures the things concerning himself.
Jesus always referred to the OT scriptures to validate who He was.
Jesus
is the only begotten (unique, one of a kind, no more like him); however, the
Bahais insist he is just one in a succession of many who are no more or less
like him.
In
Jn 5:43 Jesus warned, "I have come
in my Father’s name and you do not receive me.
If another comes in his own name him, you will receive.
"Bahá'u'lláh came in his own name!
One
Bahai was so sure of himself years ago that he informed me by saying,
Bahá'u'lláh is the "Everlasting Father", the "Prince of
Peace", the Voice that spoke to Moses in the Burning Bush, Jehovah, the
Father of Christ, the Great Announcement, and the Ancient of Days. I also
believe that if it were not for Bahá'u'lláh not a word of the Sacred Scriptures
or Holy Books (including the Bible) would have been written. Jesus referred to
Baha’u’llah as "Father." There is no mention of Bahá'u'lláh in the
Old or New Testament.
The
Bahais claim that all manifestations were sent from the same God. If this is so, then why is there a complete
lack of their teachings and names in the Bible?
It appears that several faiths desire to incorporate Jesus into their
religion. Mohammed refers to Jesus and
the Bible, so does Baha’u’llah. However,
the Bible never states that there will be other manifestations. The Bible actually avers the exact opposite. Heb.1: 1, "God, who at various times in
various ways spoke in times past by his prophets has in these last days
spoken to us by His Son, who He has appointed heir of all things through
whom also He made the worlds. Who being the brightness of His glory and express
image of His person and upholding all things by the word of His power when He
purged our sins, sitting down at the right hand of the majesty on high."
Eph.1:21
makes it clear: "Far above all
principality and power and might and dominion and EVERY NAME that is named, not only in this age , but also
in that which is to come." There is no other manifestation to come
in the future because God came once to be incarnated in human flesh. Christ is
the final revelator. If this is
rejected, it follows that God is rejected.
Comparing Christianity and Bahai
|
|
Bahai
View |
Christian
View |
|
Scripture |
Writings
of Baha'u'llah |
Bible
alone |
|
God |
Unknowable |
Knowable
and personal |
|
Jesus |
Manifestation
of God |
Absolute
deity |
|
Jesus’
Death |
No
salvific value |
Atoned
for sins of man |
|
Second
Coming |
Baha'u'llah |
Jesus
Himself |
|
Spirit of
Truth |
Baha'u'llah |
The Holy
Spirit |
|
World
Religions |
Truth in
all |
Only
Christianity true |
|
Sin |
Man
imperfect, not fallen |
Man
fallen in sin |
Comparing Baha’u’llah with Jesus:
Jesus Baha’u’llah
|
Jesus is
sent from heaven by God and identified as the only son of God (Messiah) by
John. |
Born a
sinner and sent from earth. Announced by the Bab. |
|
Prophesied
specifically in the Old Testament over 300 times, fulfilled all the first
coming prophesies. |
Not
prophesied in the Old Testament, no prophecies fulfilled except about the
false Christs by the Christ. |
|
Jesus’
name means God is Savior, Immanuel-God with us. |
Bahá'u'lláh
means the glory of God in Arabic. |
|
Born of
the Virgin Mary (Isa.7:14) had no earthly father Mt.1. |
Mirza
Husayn Ali (Baha’u’llah) born of earthly parents. |
|
Jesus did
numerous miracles and healings of all kinds of diseases. Jn.20 says there are
not enough books to write it all. |
Baha’u’llah
has no written record of miracles. |
|
Col.2:9
states Jesus is the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form. He is unique as
the only God/man |
Baha’u’llah
is another manifestation of God like other teachers from other religions. He
is not unique but only one in a long line. |
|
Has the
Father’s testimony by eyewitnesses |
No one
ever heard the Father speak to him. |
|
Jesus’
name is above all others, is the name above all names in this age and in all
ages (Eph.1:21). |
Is one
name among many as progressive manifestations, crowned himself with God's revelation. |
|
Asked his
followers to follow Him. |
Asks
followers to follow the current manifestation. |
|
Prophesied
by more than 300 scriptures for his first coming, fulfilled them all, has
more in the 2nd coming. |
Bible
does not mention Bahá'u'lláh once, never saying another instead would be sent
as the Christ. Jesus said He would come back physically the same way he left
(Acts 1:11). |
|
Lived a
sinless life, never once prayed for forgiveness. |
Claimed
God's manifestations are sinless, but his life did not prove his sinlessness. |
|
Died by
crucifixion for others in Jerusalem at age 33, being innocent of any crime.
Sinless. |
Died by a
fever in exile at the age of 75. |
|
Arose
from the dead on the third day just like he predicted, emptying His tomb,
promises to raise everyone else and be their judge. |
Never
rose from the dead nor claimed he would. Although he claimed to be the 2nd
coming of Christ, he gave no proof. |
|
Jesus
sent the comforter to the disciples from heaven right after He left, just as
He promised. He lives only in Christians, those who believe the gospel and
said the comforter would be with them forever. |
Baha’u’llah
claims to be the comforter coming 1800 + years later and died. Unable to keep
the promise of being personally with believers throughout the ages. No
miracles were performed. |
|
Over
1,500,000,000 claim to be His followers are known for their dedication, love,
and caring for others. Building hospitals, feeding the poor and helping to
educate people all over the world. Giving the message of being saved from the
outcome of their sins. |
Bahais have
6 million people. Which can be considered proof he was not the 2nd
coming, since Christ would set up his kingdom and reign forever at his 2nd
coming. All the world would know for
he would judge the world. |
|
Jesus did
numerous miracles, healing all kinds of diseases, cast out demons,
resurrected people from the dead. Was
resurrected from the dead |
Baha’u’llah
died as do all men and woman. He was
not resurrected, performed not one miracle.
Complained that no one was as maltreated as himself, forgetting
Christ’s and his disciples treatment. |
It would appear that the Bahai message is
founded on sand. But wait…there is more.
Expanded Critique of the Bahai Faith
The Bahai Faith does not have the power
of God, but a philosophy…
The
Baháí teach "Every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God is endowed
with such potency as can instill new life into every human frame, if ye be of
them that comprehend this truth. All the wondrous works ye behold in this world
have been manifested through the operation of His supreme and most exalted
Will, His wondrous and inflexible Purpose. Through the mere revelation of the
word 'Fashioner', issuing forth from His lips and proclaiming His attribute to
mankind, such power is released as can generate, through successive ages, all
the manifold arts that the hands of man can produce. This verity is a certain
truth. No sooner is this resplendent word uttered, than its animating
energies, stirring within all created things, give birth to the means and
instruments whereby such arts can be produced and perfected. All the wondrous
achievements ye now witness are the direct consequences Of the Revelation of
this Name. In the days to come, ye will, verily, behold things of which ye have
never heard before. Thus hath it been decreed in the Tablets of God, and none
can comprehend it except them whose sight is sharp" (Bahá'í scriptures
tract authorized by National Spiritual Assembly of Bahá'í's, Australia).
This
is a perfect example of spiritual philosophical meandering in old English. This
sounds profound, yet gets one nowhere! It is well meaning, but any man
with a modicum of insight could predict this.
Cor.1:18--"For
the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us
who are being saved it is the power of God." The Baháí religion does not
have life changing power because that power is found in the Gospel. The Gospel
is eternal because it is centered around the person of Jesus and His work,
which is also eternal. Without the Jesus Christianity is a religion with no
power. It is the source of salvation for
one to have a right relationship with God and to receive his Holy Spirit. While
Bahá'í claims to believe in Christ they deny the reason He came. Everything
starts with the Cross. Without the Cross
and the meaning behind the Cross, one has denied Jesus' purpose for coming.
In
2 Cor.2:5 Paul states, "That your faith should not be in the wisdom of men
but in the power of God." This tells us the power of God is the Cross.
Only through this means can one become a new creation.
The
Bahá'ís believe in the wisdom of men. Bahá'u'lláh, who was a prolific writer
who, wrote in King James vernacular to communicate his own spiritual thought's
about God. It is not focused on what God did for us but what we can do for God,
by our own power of service. Scripture is clear that one is first saved to do
good works, which are only found in Christ (Eph.2:8-10). The Bahá'ís claim to
believe the Bible but, in effect, they deny its teachings of grace.
Only
in Christ can one find the perfect representation of God. Jesus declared that
He proceeded forth from God, being the infinite invisible God in human
flesh. “I am from above, you are from
below” was His statement. None of these so called manifestations of other
religions claim to have come down from heaven, none had a virgin conception,
none are the only begotten Son of God, making Jesus, in effect, equal with His
Father.
The
Bahá'í' also claim God cannot incarnate himself: "Know thou of a certainty
that the unseen can in no wise incarnate his essence and reveal it to men"
( Bahá'u'lláh Gleanings, p. 49).
"Was
Christ within God, or God within Christ? No in the name of God."
(Abdul Baha, Some Questions Answered p. 97)
If
Christ is not whom He claimed to be then all of Christianity is a fraud and
Jesus should not be included in their procession of manifestations. There goes
one of their main manifestations. In fact they wouldn't even know about Christ
without the Bible. The Bahá'ís deny the core of the Bible and what Christ
himself claimed. It is not that He did not incarnate but that He could not:
"For God to descend into the conditions of existence would be the greatest
of imperfections " (Abdul Baha Some Questions Answered pps. 129-130). The
Bible states the essence of God was revealed visibly in one man, Jesus. Jesus stated, "If you have seen Me you
have seen the Father." While someone can claim God is unwilling to become
a man, that person cannot say it is impossible. God is able to do all things
through His sovereign power. The Scriptures say He would become a man and visit
his people, and die for their sins.
Isaiah 63:8 ... "So he became their savior. In all their affliction
he was afflicted and the messenger of his presence saved them."
Luke
2:11: "For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior who
is Christ the Lord." Bahá'ís reject this.
In rejecting this, they reject any possibility of being saved. It appears that Bahais do not believe they
sin to the point where they would need a savior. Baha’u’llah cannot save anybody for he did
sin. He is merely a man. He could not heal anyone. He even claimed that no man was so maltreated
as was he. He rambled this many times
while in prison. Did He forget that Jesus
died on the Cross? Did he forget that
John the Baptist was beheaded? Did he
forget that Paul was beheaded? Did he
not know that all the Disciples of Jesus, save John, met horrible deaths? Did he not know that many Muslims were
persecuted and killed, as well as Sufis, (Al Halaz, as an example)? Baha’u’llah, did he know Christ? How in the world could He be a manifestation
of God if he did not know what others faced in their Spiritual journey on this
earth. The Glory of God would know all
these happenings and therefore would not claim that he was the only man who was
so maltreated.
Matthew
1:21 ... "And you shall call his name Jesus for he will save his people
from their sins." Matthew, 1:.23
"And they will call his name Immanuel, God is with us." Bahá'í's
don't have the revelation of God in Christ. So even if they accept Jesus as a
great teacher, if He is not God who took on a human body it is a different
Jesus. Maybe one thinks there is no such thing as a different Jesus. Paul
certainly did and warned us in the Scripture. Read 2 Cor.11:4.
Rom.
9:5 ... " according to the flesh, Christ came. who is over all, the eternally
blessed God, amen." Can a Bahá'í say amen to this? No!
If
one turns away from the revelation of Jesus they turn from God. This is not so
with Buddha, Krishna, Mohammed or Bahá'u'lláh. Christianity is based on the
person of Christ. If one were to take these other teachers out of their
religions their teachings would still be intact. If one were to remove the
person of Christ from the Bible, Christianity crumbles. This is why
Christianity is not just a religion, but also a relationship with a living
savior. Bahá'í has nothing to offer as far as solution of the sin of man, a new
life with power to live unto God, nor a future afterlife. Accept Christ as the
only way to get off the broad road to destruction and return to the narrow way
to life eternal.
BAHA'IS AND THE NATURE OF GOD
Although Baha'is teach that God is unknowable in his
essence, they believe that God does reveal something of himself to man,
especially through his "manifestations" (i.e., Krishna, Buddha,
Jesus, Muhammad, Baha'u'llah, et. al.).1 For those familiar with the
conflicting doctrines of the major world religions associated with these
"manifestations," however, it is also apparent that they cannot all
be true (see Table). Yet this is exactly what the Baha'is maintain, namely,
that each of these religious leaders was a manifestation of God for his own era
and therefore spoke some truth about God's nature.
|
The
Doctrine of God Taught by the Alleged Manifestations 2 |
|
|
MANIFESTATION |
IMPORTANT ELEMENTS IN HIS DOCTRINE OF GOD
|
|
Moses |
One
personal God. The universe is not eternal, but was created by God (Gen. 1-3;
Deut. 6:4; etc.). |
|
Krishna |
Mix of
polytheism and impersonal pantheism. The universe is eternal. |
|
Zoroaster |
One good
god and one evil god (religious dualism). |
|
Buddha |
God not
relevant; essentially agnostic. |
|
Confucius |
Polytheistic. |
|
Muhammad |
One
personal God who cannot have a Son. |
|
Jesus
Christ |
One
personal God who does have a Son (Mark 12:29; John 4:24; 5:18-19;etc.) |
|
Baha'u'llah |
God and
the universe, which is an emanation of God, are co-eternal.3 |
The fact that the various alleged manifestations of
God represented God in contradictory ways implies either that manifestations of
God can contradict one another or that God's own nature is contradictory. If
the manifestations are allowed to contradict one another, then there is no way
to separate false manifestations from true ones or to discover if any of them
really speaks for the true and living God. Yet the Baha'is obviously do not accept
every person who claims to be a manifestation of God (e.g., Jim Jones, founder
of Jonestown). If, on the other hand, God's own nature is said to be
contradictory, that is, that God is both one God and many gods, that God is
both able and not able to have a Son, both personal and impersonal, etc., then
the Baha'i concept of God is reduced to meaninglessness.
Can Christian Doctrines Withstand
Scrutiny?
Steven McConnell, a Bahai, asked at one time whether
the Christian concept of God could measure up to this sort of scrutiny that
Christians pay to the Bahai Faith. He asserts, "Subjected to the glossy
examination you give the Baha'i God, the paradox of Jesus being fully human and
fully divine as well as the paradox of the unity and individuality of the Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit would be mere contradictions!" He then asks, "So
why are Christianity's paradoxes (contradictions) more virtuous than
Baha'i's?"4
Several comments are in order. First, Christian
thinkers take an entirely different attitude toward their problematic doctrines
than the Baha'is. For example, many Christian philosophers and theologians have
spent much time trying to explain these doctrines in a way that is coherent and
philosophically sound.5 Christians believe that these problematic doctrines
are logically reconcilable because they are in fact ultimately
non-contradictory. On the other hand, the Baha'is do not seem particularly
concerned about whether their doctrine of God is internally consistent.
Second, the paradoxes inherent in the Christian
doctrines of the Incarnation and the Trinity are not comparable to the
contradictions inherent in the Baha'i concept of God. When the Bible asserts
both the humanity and the deity of Jesus it is not asserting something
that is self-contradictory by definition. Christians do not believe that Jesus
was both God and not-God, but rather that Jesus was both God and man. In other
words, when Christians assert that God became man they are not asserting that
God became merely man (although He was fully man), but rather
that the Son of God took on a human nature in addition to His
divine nature. Although we may not fully comprehend how the divine and human
natures interacted in the person of Jesus, this is not the same thing as saying
that the concept of a God-man is self-contradictory.
Likewise, the doctrine of the Trinity, although
paradoxical, is not self-contradictory. The doctrine of the Trinity asserts
that three divine persons share the same substance or essence . It does not
assert that there are three individual substances that are one substance or
that there are three gods that are also one god, either of which would be
contradictory. That is, Christians are not saying that God is both one
substance and not one substance, but that God is both one substance and three
persons. Even if God's trinity cannot be fully comprehended by man, at least
the Christian is not involved in a contradiction when he asserts that the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God.
On the other hand, the Baha'i is required to accept
that blatantly contradictory concepts of God were all infallibly revealed by
God through his "manifestations." For instance, monotheism (what
Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad taught) and polytheism (what Confucius and Zoroaster
taught) cannot both be true, since it is contradictory to say both that there
is only one god and that there is more than one god. Therefore, unlike the
Christian doctrines of the Incarnation and the Trinity, the Baha'i view of God
implies mutually exclusive concepts of God.
BAHA'IS AND BIBLICAL PROPHECY
The Baha'is claim that Baha'u'llah is the fulfillment
of the Biblical prophecies of the return of Christ.6 Taken
literally, of course, the Biblical prophecies of Christ's return do not fit
Baha'u'llah. The Bible speaks of Jesus Himself returning in the skies before
the entire world in a cataclysmic fashion to judge the living and the dead
(e.g., Matt. 24). By contrast, Baha'is recognized as the "Christ"
another person (Baha'u'llah) who came into the world in relative obscurity
through natural means (i.e., conception and birth).7
How, then, can the Baha'is claim that Baha’u’llah
fulfills the Biblical prophecies of Christ's return? They can do this only by
insisting that the literal meaning is to be ignored. According to Baha'i
doctrine, Jesus' description of His second coming in the Bible should be
understood spiritually rather than literally. That is, the text of the Bible is
said to have some symbolic meaning that is contrary to the ordinary meaning of
the words used.
Literal and Symbolic
The Baha'is do not, however, follow this line of
interpretation consistently in their reading of the Bible. Whenever they find a
Biblical passage that clearly states that Jesus will return at the end of the
world in a way contrary to Baha'u'llah's arrival, the Baha'is simply assert
that we should not take that passage literally. No reason for this assertion is
ever produced from the text of the Bible itself. However, on other occasions
where a literal interpretation might seem to the Baha'is to support their views
(e.g., Dan. 8:13-17),8 they not consider interpreting the passage
non-literally.
This clip-and-paste view of Biblical interpretation
proves little. After all, by the same rationale one could "prove"
that any number of different individuals was Christ returned. Accepting as
literal only those texts which seem to fit one's doctrinal views while pleading
for a non-literal interpretation for passages which contradict one's position
is a favorite tactic of pseudo-Christian groups. For example, this interpretive
technique is employed by the Unification Church to show that Sun Myung Moon is
the Messiah.9
With this method of interpreting Biblical prophecy
Baha'is employ circular reasoning (in which the arguer assumes what he or she
is trying to prove). Because the Baha'i accepts Baha'u'llah's claim to fulfill
Christ's second coming, he (or she) thinks he is justified in interpreting
Biblical prophecies symbolically which, if taken literally, would disprove
Baha'u'llah's claim, but if taken non-literally can be used to prove it.10 Thus without even realizing it, the
Baha'i is assuming the point that he is trying to prove in citing Biblical
prophecy.
Jews, Christians, and Baha'is
One
Bahai argument is, as the Jews were mistaken about Jesus' fulfillment of Old
Testament prophecy (that is, the Jews as a nation; many individual Jews
accepted Jesus), the Christians of today are mistaken about Baha'u'llah's
fulfillment of New Testament prophecy. There are two ways of understanding this
argument. Perhaps it is meant to be a proof that Baha'u'llah fulfills Biblical
prophecy, in which case the argument might be stated more formally in the
following manner:
1. The Jews thought that Jesus was not
the Messiah, and they were wrong.
2. Christians today think that Baha'u'llah was not the Messiah (or Christ
returned).
3. Therefore, Christians are wrong to reject Baha'u'llah.
Such
an argument would certainly be another case of faulty reasoning. By this
reasoning Christians and Baha'is alike would be wrong to reject Jim Jones as a
manifestation of God, or Sun Myung Moon as the second coming of Christ.
Clearly, the mere fact that the Jewish rejection of Jesus was unjustified does
not prove that the Christian rejection of Baha'u'llah is also unjustified.
There
is another way of interpreting this, however, which is not so obviously
fallacious. Perhaps it is intended to argue only that the Christian rejection
of Baha'u'llah is based on the same sort of error that led the Jews to reject Jesus.
Baha'is
generally argue that in both cases the error that led to the rejection of the
"manifestation" was an overly literal interpretation of Biblical
prophecies. Such an argument would take the following form:
1. The Jews rejected Jesus because they
interpreted the Bible too literally.
2. Christians today reject Baha'u'llah
because they interpret the Bible too literally.
3. Therefore, Christians are wrong to
reject Baha'u'llah on the basis of their literal interpretation of the Bible.
This
argument, unlike the one discussed previously, has some logical value. If its
premises go unchallenged, they lend strong support to its conclusion. However,
both of the premises of this argument do invite challenge.
In
the case of the second premise, for Baha'u'llah one could substitute any of the
other modern religious leaders claiming to be a manifestation of God or a
fulfillment of the Second Coming of Christ. A follower of Sun Myung Moon could
argue with equal validity as follows:
1. The Jews rejected Jesus because they
interpreted the Bible too literally.
2. Christians today reject Rev. Moon because they interpret the Bible too
literally.
3. Therefore, Christians are wrong to reject Rev. Moon on the basis of their
literal interpretation of the Bible.
In other words, the second premise is really
immaterial. It amounts to saying that if the actual words of the Bible are
ignored, anyone at all can be claimed to be a fulfillment of the Bible's
"spiritual" or symbolic meaning.
As for the first premise, as a matter of historical
fact it is simply false. The Jews rejected Jesus as the fulfillment of Biblical
prophecy not because they interpreted it too literally, but because they did
not interpret it literally enough. The Bible clearly predicted that the Messiah
would be God (Ps. 45:6; Isa. 7:14; 9:6), but the Jews found Jesus' claim to be
God scandalous and blasphemous in the extreme. The Bible also clearly announced
that the Messiah would suffer and be killed as an atonement for Israel's sins
(Isa. 53; Dan. 9:26), but the Jews regarded Jesus' crucifixion as proof that He
was not the Messiah.
Not every Old Testament passage applied to Jesus in
the New Testament was understood by first-century Jews as referring to the
Messiah. However, there were a fair number of Old Testament prophecies which
Jewish leaders and scholars in the first century did regard as literal
predictions concerning the Messiah and which were fulfilled literally by Jesus.11
Since Jesus fulfilled these prophecies, what caused most of His contemporaries
not to recognize this?
The answer is that the Jews allowed their assumptions
about the Messiah to color and even distort their reading of the Biblical text.
Specifically, it was their expectation of a conquering political Messiah that
led first-century Jews to reject the literal meaning of the text, which
presents the Messiah as both suffering and conquering.12
Consequently, they had a concept of the Messiah which Jesus could not fit.
Their desire for a political Messiah incited them to ignore or twist Biblical
passages predicting a suffering Messiah that were literally fulfilled in
Jesus.
Similarly, the assumption made by the Baha'is that
Baha'u'llah is God's manifestation for this age leads to distortions in their
reading of the New Testament. (At least the Jews had some warrant in the
Biblical text for their view of the Messiah; the Baha'is have none.)
They too are forced to ignore or twist Biblical passages concerning Christ (in
this case those concerning His return), which they do in order to apply them to
Baha'u'llah. Ironically, then, it turns out that argument actually has things
turned around. The truth is that the Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah
for much the same sort of reason that Baha'is accept Baha'u'llah (which,
in effect, is also rejecting Jesus): in both cases, religious
assumptions about the Messiah interfered with a plain reading of the text. Like
the Jews in Jesus' day, the Baha'is fail to interpret the Bible literally
enough.
Also like the Jews, Baha'is are forced to explain why
the Old Testament presents both a suffering and a conquering Messiah. The
Baha'i answer is that the Old Testament really predicts two "Messiahs":
Jesus was the suffering Messiah and Baha'u'llah the conquering one.13
This interpretation ignores the critical fact that
both descriptions of the Messiah can be found within the same passages and are
obviously referring to one person. For example, Daniel 9:25 calls the Messiah a
"Prince" and 9:26 states that he will be "cut off," that
is, killed.14 Jesus fulfilled in detail those prophecies referring
to the Messiah's place of birth (Mic. 5:2), time of ministry (Dan. 9:24-27),
death (Dan. 9:26; Isa. 53; Ps. 22), and resurrection (Ps. 16:10), as well as a
number of others.15 Therefore, we should accept Jesus' claim (e.g.,
Matt. 24-25) and the teaching of the rest of the New Testament (e.g., Luke
1:33; Acts 1:9-11; 1 Thess. 4:14-17; Rev. 1:7; 22:16-21) that He will personally
return to fulfill the remaining prophecies which describe a conquering Messiah.
Certainly there is no reason to accept Baha'u'llah's
claim to be that Messiah. He failed to fulfill any of the Biblical prophecies
concerning Christ's second coming,16 and Baha'i's cannot produce a
single text from the Bible that suggests that Jesus will not Himself fulfill
those prophecies.
The preceding discussion of the interpretation of
Biblical prophecy should be understood in the light of a more general
appreciation of proper Biblical interpretation.17 I am saying that
what is understood as symbolic and what is taken more literally should be based
on the text itself (as when Daniel interprets his visions as symbols, or when
Jesus interprets His parables as earthly illustrations of spiritual truths).
Where the Baha'is go wrong is in reading into the Bible doctrines that are
totally foreign to its text and can only be justified by assuming their truth.
BAHA'IS AND
RELIGIOUS UNITY
The third Baha'i argument against Christianity that
should be addressed is the claim that the Bahai Faith must be God's true
religion for this age because, unlike Christianity, it has not suffered any
schisms. One Baha'i writer takes this so far as to proclaim that "there are
not Baha'i sects. There never can be."18
There are two problems with this argument: (1) It
rests on a false premise — The Bahai Faith has in fact suffered divisions. (2)
The conclusion does not follow — an undivided religion is not necessarily the
true religion.
Division in the Bahai Faith
First, the fact is that the Bahai Faith has
suffered several divisions, from its early days to the present. One group,
known as the Free Baha'is, has published a book denouncing Shoghi Effendi (who
took over leadership of the Baha'i World Faith after Baha'u'llah's son
'Abdu'l-Baha died).19 Another
group, the Orthodox Baha'i Faith, was formed after Shoghi Effendi died, and
recognizes Jason Remey as Effendi's successor.20 Yet another group,
Baha'is Under the Provision of the Covenant (BUPC), is led by Montana
chiropractor Dr. Leland Jensen. Though it has "Baha'i" in its name,
it is not endorsed or recognized by the main body "as a legitimate Baha'i
organization."21 As Vernon Elvin Johnson concludes in his
Baylor University dissertation on the history of the Bahai Faith "obvious
schism has occurred in the Baha'i religion, for various factions each claiming
to belong to the Baha'i religion have existed in the course of the faith's
history."22
Some Baha'is may be tempted to counter that anyone
who breaks off from the Baha'i World Faith is automatically not a Baha'i and
therefore no schism has really occurred. Such an argument is circular in nature
and commits what Antony Flew calls the "no-true-Scotsman" fallacy
("No Scotsman would do such a thing....Well, no true Scotsman
would").23 As Johnson points out, the Catholic and Mormon
churches have used similar reasoning to defend their claim to be the one true
church24 (although the Catholic church no longer tends to take such
an exclusive stance).
Division and
Truth
Second,
it simply does not follow that a religion that is undivided must be the true
religion, or that a religion that is divided cannot be the true religion. For
the Baha'i argument to be persuasive it must be shown, and not simply assumed,
that the true religion must be unified organizationally. This is not a Biblical
teaching: unity of the faith is presented in the Bible as a goal for
the church to reach, not a prerequisite for the church to be God's
people (Eph. 4:11-16).
Since
on independent grounds we know that Christianity is true (for example, the
evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus,25 which Baha'is deny26),
we may justifiably conclude that organizational unity is not a requirement for
a religion to be true. The argument can be stated more formally as follows:
1. Either the true religion is unified or
it is not.
2. Christianity is the true religion and it is not unified.
3. Therefore, the true religion is not unified.
The truth of Christianity is independent of whether
its adherents congregate under the same organizational banner. Its truth
depends rather on the truth of the Bible's teachings concerning the person,
life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
This is not to deny that Christians have an obligation
to exhibit unity and love as a testimony to the world of the truth of Jesus
Christ (John 13:34-35; 17:21-23).
To our shame we confess that although Christianity
is true, Christians have not always been true to Christ. Nevertheless,
this does not alter the fact that Jesus Christ is the only Savior from sin and
God's last word to man prior to the consummation of history (John 14:6; Acts
4:12; Heb. 1:1-3; 13:8). On this basis Christianity stands vindicated as true
and the Bahai Faith stands condemned as a rejection of God's truth as revealed
in Jesus Christ.
It would appear that the Bahai Faith is founded on
falsehoods. But wait. There is still more…..
NOTES
(The only book-length Christian critiques of
The Bahai Faith in print are Francis J. Beckwith, Baha'i (Minneapolis:
Bethany House Publishers, 1985), and
William McElwee Miller, The Baha'i Faith: Its History and Teachings
(South Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library Publications, 1984)
1 Beckwith, 8, and works cited there.
2 This table is based on Beckwith, 17.
3 Concerning God's relation to the universe, Baha'i writer J. E.
Esslemont writes, "Baha'u'llah teaches that the universe is without
beginning in time. It is a perpetual emanation from the Great First
Cause." J. E. Esslemont, Baha'u'llah and the New Era, 3d ed. (BPT,
1970), 204. It should be noted that it is untenable both philosophically and
scientifically to maintain that the universe is without a beginning. See
J. P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity
(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), 18-42, and works cited there; and
Francis J. Beckwith, David Hume's Argument Against Miracles: A Critical
Analysis (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1989), chapter 5.
4 McConnell, 2.
5 Thomas V. Morris, The Logic of God Incarnate (Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press, 1986).
6 Abdu'l-Baha, 110-12.
7 Esslemont, 214.
8 Beckwith, Baha'i, 28-39.
9 James Bjornstad, Sun Myung Moon and the Unification Church,
rev. ed. (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1984), 19-52.
10 Esslemont, 222-26; `Abdu'l-Baha, 110-12.
11 Norman L. Geisler, Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids:
Baker Book House, 1976), 340-41; Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands a
Verdict, rev. ed. (San Bernardino, CA: Here's Life Publishers, 1979), 141-77.
12 Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Jesus Was a Jew (San Antonio, TX:
Ariel Ministries, 1981), 23-64.
13 Esslemont, 214-16; see also Beckwith, Baha'i,
35-37.
14 Fruchtenbaum, 23-24; Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of
Jesus the Messiah (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971),
160-80.
15 See n. 14.
16 Beckwith, Baha'i, 23-25.
17 James Sire, Scripture Twisting: 20 Ways the Cults Misread the
Bible (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1980).
18 David Hofman, The Renewal of Civilization, Talisman Books
(London: George Ronald, 1960), 110.
19 Hermann Zimmer, A Fraudulent Testament Devalues the Bahai
Religion into Political Shoghism, trans. Jeannine Blackwell, rev. Karen
Gasser and Gordon Campbell (Waiblingen/Stuttgart: World Union for Universal
Religion and Universal Peace — Free Bahais, 1973).
20 Vernon Elvin Johnson, An Historical Analysis of Critical
Transformations in the Evolution of the Baha'i World Faith (Ann Arbor, MI:
University Microfilms, 1974), 362-80.
21 Joel Bjorling, "Leland Jensen: The Prophet Who Cried
'Wolf,'" Understanding Cults and Spiritual Movements 1, 3 (1985):6.
22 Johnson, 410.
23 Antony Flew, Thinking Straight (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus
Books, 1975), 47.
24 Johnson, 412.
25 William Lane Craig, Knowing the Truth about the Resurrection
(Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Publications, 1988), and Gary Habermas, The
Resurrection of Jesus: An Apologetic (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
1980).
26 Beckwith, Baha'i, 14, 25-26.
Additional Critique of the Bahai Faith…
Principles
Many
of the thirteen core principles stressed by the Baha'i Faith have merit and
make this religion appealing to its members. The abolition of religious,
racial, class and national prejudice, the desire for equal opportunity for men
and women and for education for all people, justice for everyone, and the idea
that all persons should work and contribute to the overall society are all
noble ideals.
Christians
agree that all human beings have the same origin and are of equal value in the
eyes of God (Mal. 2:10; Acts 17:26; Gal. 3:28). The concept that there is
harmony between science and God’s revealed truth is compatible with
Christianity. So too is the view that people should search for that objective
truth apart from superstition. However, Christians must strongly disagree with
other Baha'i principles.
There
cannot be a basic unity of all of the major religions of the world because they
clearly contradict each other in their essential doctrines (this will be
discussed later). Christians are constrained to reject this plank in the Baha'i
platform because the Bible reveals the exclusivity of Jesus Christ as the only
way of salvation and the only one through whom a right relationship with
God can be had (John 10:27-28, 14:6, 17:3; Acts 4:12; 1 Tim. 2:5).
The
elimination of wealth and poverty may sound good in theory, but it is
unrealistic. In practicality, in a fallen world, this is impossible. Jesus said, “For you have the poor with you
always” (Matt. 26:11). The Baha'i ideal fails to take into account that most
people who are wealthy worked hard to obtain their wealth and that the poor are
often poor (at least in the West) because of their own habits, either through
the absence of a proper work ethic or through wasting their resources on
unhealthy or profligate living. If everyone were given or allowed to keep the
same amount of material possessions (as impossible as this would be to
achieve), it would destroy human initiative and contradict the Biblical
directive that we are to work to provide for ourselves and our families,
knowing that God enables us to work and blesses us for it (Deut. 8:18; Luke
10:7; Gal. 6:5-7; 1 Cor. 9:9; 2 Thess. 3:7-13; 1 Tim. 5:18).
The
idea that there should be one universal language and a one-world government,
complete with an international police force, may appeal to the wisdom of the
world, but to the Christian these goals evoke memories of another time in
history when men tried to use these conditions to pridefully rid themselves of
the God that Baha'is want to serve (Gen. 11:1-9). If these goals were to be
realized, the outcome would probably be similar. This may indeed come about,
and the results will be devastating (Psalm 2).
Manifestations
While
Christians can agree with Baha'is that man can only know about God that which
He has chosen to reveal (Deut. 29:29), Christians must strongly disagree with
the premise that His truth has been progressively revealed throughout human
history through the founders of the major religions of the world. Because of
the wide diversity of theology taught by these various men, this claim is
contrary not only to Scripture but to logic.
Three
assertions made by Baha'i founders about the manifestations of God need to be
addressed: that their teachings are in complete harmony, that they are
infallible, and that they are each sinless.
Atheist
philosopher Bertrand Russell aptly sums up that there are irreconcilable
disagreements among the tenets of the prominent religions of the world:
I think all the great religions of the
world - Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, and Communism - both untrue
and harmful. It is evident as a matter of logic that, since they disagree, not
more than one of them can be true.
While
Christians disagree that all of these faiths are untrue and harmful,
there can be no doubt, because of the law of non-contradiction, that
either all of the religions of the world are false or one of them is
true.
Adherents
of each faith think that theirs is true, but when one considers what the
founders of each movement taught (according to the sacred writings of each
religion), the inescapable conclusion is that these religions hopelessly
contradict one another. This is evident from a comparison of their doctrines on
the nature of God, the most basic tenet of any theistic belief system.
Moses
wrote that there is one personal God who created all things. Krishna taught a
mix of polytheism and pantheism and believed that the universe is eternal.
Zoroaster was a duelist, claiming that there are two equal forces, one good and
one evil, eternally battling each other. Buddha was essentially agnostic; God
was not relevant to his teachings. Confucius was a polytheist, but did not
emphasize worship of gods. Jesus Christ declared that there is only one true
and living God and that He was the incarnation of that God (God the Son) (John
5:17-18, 8:58, 10:30-33, 17:3). Muhammad also maintained that there is one God,
but that He cannot have a son. The Baha'i doctrine of God is that the one God
and the universe, which is an emanation of God, are co-eternal. Baha'u'llah
teaches that the universe is without beginning in time. It is a perpetual
emanation from the Great First Cause. The Creator always had His creation and
always will have. Worlds and systems may come and go, but the universe remains.
Thus the Baha'i concept of God contradicts all of the previous teachers.
In
order for the Baha'i teachings to be acceptable, either the infallible
manifestations are allowed to contradict each other, or there are
contradictions within the nature of God. If the manifestations can contradict
one another, then there is no way to discern a genuine manifestation from a
counterfeit one, and Baha'u'llah was wrong when he said their messages were
identical. If there are contradictions within the nature of God (e.g. God is
both one and many gods, both personal and impersonal, both triune and not
triune), then the Baha'i perception of God is both illogical and absurd.
The
pronouncement that all of the manifestations were sinless is also contradicted
by the writings associated with each religion. Moses murdered an Egyptian
(Exod. 2:11-15) and was not allowed by God to enter into the Promised Land
because of his trespass against the Lord (Num. 20:7-13; cf. Deut. 32:51). Moses
recorded in Genesis that Adam committed the first sin, causing the cursing of
creation (Gen. 1-3) and that Noah got drunk (Gen. 9). Confucius admitted
defects in his conduct, and Muhammad was exhorted several times in the Quran to
seek forgiveness for his faults. The only person in the Baha'i list of
manifestations to be declared sinless by both friend and foe alike was Jesus
Christ (Matt. 27:4; John 8:46, 18:38; 1 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 4:15; 1 Pet. 1:19,
2:22).
Baha'is
attempt to circumvent the fact that their manifestations (except of Jesus) were
neither in harmony, infallible, nor sinless by simply denying the validity of
any scripture or historical record that disagrees with their preconceived
notions. They do not cite other
extant ancient writings that support their position. They merely declare that
any contradiction to the teaching of Baha'u'llah must be in error, and they
attribute any clear statement in the Bible that is antithetical to Baha'i
doctrine as either a corruption of the original text, an exaggeration, or a
legendary account.
Their
bias against both the Old Testament and the New Testament is unfounded. The
Bible has been proven to be the reliable, inerrant, inspired word of God over
and over again, by manuscript evidence, internal evidence, external evidence
and archaeological evidence. Jesus confirmed the Old Testament (Matt. 5:18,
19:4-5, 22:29,43, 24:15; Luke 16:16, 17:27; John 10:35) and promised the New
Testament (John 14:25-26, 16:13). Jesus Christ proved that His teachings and
prophecies were trustworthy not only by the miracles He performed by the power
of God (John 3:2; Acts 2:22), but also by fulfillment of His promise that He
would rise from the dead (Matt. 16:21; John 2:19-21, 10:17-18; cf. Luke
24:13-32, 36-43; John 20:27-31).
There
is no question of the sincerity of the majority of Baha’is, or of their
general pacifity and good moral lifestyle. It is also clearly evident that the
majority has a deep devotion, commitment, and obedience to their Covenant and
Cause (the Baha’i Faith and its spread throughout the world).
The
following comments are just a brief summary of some disturbing elements of the
Baha’i Faith of which the public is generally not aware. I acknowledge that
there are many good things in the Baha’i Faith (as there are in all
Faiths) but our purpose here is not to enumerate them. Such positive promotion
is self-evident in most Baha’i publications. The purpose here is to
present another side that does NOT usually appear in any of the Baha’i
public promotions material and which shows light to the true nature of the
Bahai Faith.
Many
of the concepts and approaches of the Baha’is are admirable human
qualities. But there are more major problems and inconsistencies in the Baha’i
Faith, and they are………..
World
control and domination
A
wide variety of approaches and activities are used by Baha’is to promote
their Cause (religion) and make it more acceptable to the general
community - including active involvement in, and initiation of, community
programs on issues such as: peace, unity, the environment. The Baha’i
Community has a deliberate agenda of using education/educational
situations/educational programs to promote their activities and their faith
(see books such as: Each One Teach One - A Call to the Individual
Believer [e.g. pp.10-11], Baha’i Education, Education - A
Baha’i Perspective, The Individual and Teaching - Raising the Divine
Call, Teaching the Baha’i Faith). The Baha’is also have a
deliberate policy of targeting prominent people, including teachers and other
educationalists - as well as indigenous people (e.g. see chapters 5 and 6 Teaching
the Baha’i Faith). They often join with, or collaborate with, other
groups when community issues or concerns can be mutually raised or addressed.
But Baha’is are reminded of the real purpose of all such ventures: ‘In
their collaborations with such associations they would extend any moral and
material assistance they can afford, after having fulfilled their share of
support to those institutions that affect directly the interests of the Cause.
They should always bear in mind, however, the dominating purpose of such a
collaboration which is to secure in time the recognition by those with whom
they are associated of the paramount necessity and the true significance of the
Baha’i Revelation in this day’ (p.125-126 Baha’i Administration,
see also pp. 348-369 [chapter 15] in the 3rd edition, 1996, Local
Spiritual Assembly Handbook).
The
ultimate goal and hope for all Baha’is is the ushering in of a Golden
Age where the world will be unified under the Baha’i Faith and the complete
rule of its ultimate authoritative body, the Universal House of Justice.
This New World Order, which ALL Baha’is are hoping and praying
for, and working towards, ‘must in no wise be regarded as purely
democratic in character’ (The Dispensation of Baha’u’llah
p.61). This coming centralized, autocratic and anti-democratic Baha’i World
Government will enact legislation in order to introduce and enforce the
obligatory laws of Baha’u’llah (which will include total submission to
the ‘Will of God’ - as interpreted by Baha’u’llah, the ‘Guardians’
who followed him, and the Universal House of justice; obligatory daily
prayers; keeping special Holy Days; fasting; and more). (ibid. p.61-62)
These Baha’i laws will be introduced world-wide by ‘a world
executive, backed by an international Force.’ A uniform and
universal language, monetary system, literature, communication system,
religion, science, and more, will be introduced throughout the world. It will
be ‘a system in which Force is made the servant of Justice’ -
that is the justice of the Baha’i Universal House of Justice! (e.g. see The
World Order of Baha’u’llah pp.201-205).
Local
Baha’i Assemblies will become the local representatives for the rule and
world government of the Universal House of Justice.
Unequal equality
The
Baha’is often refer enthusiastically to their stated belief and practice
of the equality of men and women. There is no clergy class, and women, as well
as men, are involved in local leadership.
However,
the absolute and supreme ruling authority in the Baha’i Faith is the Universal
House of Justice, ‘membership is confined to men’ (9 men and NO
women) - there are clear indications that it is not envisaged for any women to
be part of that authoritative body in this era. The statement: ‘As women
are the educators of the next generation, the education of girls takes
precedence over that of boys’ must also raise some questions about the
much promoted total equality (e.g. see pp.76 and 231 A Basic Baha’i
Dictionary).
Lack of Acceptance
Baha’is
pride themselves, publicly, for their loving openness and acceptance of
everyone, including those of other religious faiths. In theory they can make it
sound good, and convincing. In reality, they are no different to many other
religious groups who are intolerant of those whose religious viewpoints
disagree with theirs, and especially of those who dare to leave the Baha’i
Faith.
The
Baha’is promote and practice ‘SHUNNING’ - as much as Jehovah’s
Witnesses, Exclusive Brethren, or similar groups.
The
message is that Baha’is are ‘to shun entirely all Covenant
breakers as they are afflicted with what we might try and define as a
contagious spiritual disease…most of them don’t want to repent’ (p.17, Directives
from the Guardian). Those who leave the Baha’i Faith are
considered Covenant Breakers and regarded as a cancer to be cut out of
the body.
The
much-promoted Baha’i concept of Unity is a ‘Unity amongst
friends’ that includes ‘the absolute shunning of whomsoever we
feel to be an enemy of the Cause’ (our underlining - see p. 16, Baha’i
Administration).
Covenant
Breakers are those who have been Baha’is
but who then dare to contradict or ‘attack’, especially publicly, any aspects
of the Baha’i Faith or any of its leaders, including the Universal
House of Justice. The message is currently reinforced with statements such
as: ‘Baha’is must shun Covenant-breakers entirely in order to preserve
the unity of the Faith.’ Such an attitude, behavior and action is
regarded as ‘One of the greatest and most fundamental principles of the
Cause’ (see p.346 in the 3rd edition, 1996, Local
Spiritual Assembly Handbook. See also Directives from the
Guardian, Will and Testament).
The
reading of material by Covenant Breakers (often referred to as Apostates
in other cultic groups) is discouraged with warnings such as: ‘The
friends are warned in the strongest terms against reading such literature
because Covenant-breaking is a Spiritual poison and the calumnities and
distortions of the truth which the Covenant-breakers give out are such that
they can undermine the faith of the believer and plant the seeds of doubt
unless he is fore-armed with an unshakeable belief in Baha’u’llah and His
Covenant and a knowledge of the true facts’ (p.347 in the 3rd
edition, 1996, Local Spiritual Assembly Handbook).
FORGOTTEN FACTS AND DISUNITY
Like
most cultic groups there are some true facts of which the Baha’i leaders would
prefer the followers NOT to have any knowledge or awareness. These
include some aspects of Baha’i history and the continuing disunity amongst the
Baha’is themselves.
Baha’u’llah
(Mirza Husayn Ali - who gave himself the title, ‘Baha’u’llah’ -
‘Splendor/Glory of God’) was supposedly a close follower of the Bab
(the followers were known as the Babis), who later discovered that he
was the special manifestation of God referred to by the Bab as ‘He-Whom-God-Will-Manifest.’
What is rarely acknowledged is that the Bab declared that he
was a special manifestation of God and that the next manifestation would not
come before 1511 years, but not later than 2001 years, after the Bab,
which would disqualify Husayn Ali - Baha’u’llah!
Also
omitted from official Baha’i writings are references to the fact that the Bab
actually appointed Husayn Ali’s younger stepbrother, Mirza Yahya Subh-i-Azal,
as his official successor. After some years Husayn Ali rejected his younger
stepbrother’s authority and position, claimed a greater one for himself, and
gathered followers. Followers of Husayn Ali/Baha’u’llah (Baha’is) killed
many of the followers of the official successor to the Bab, the
stepbrother, Subh-i-Azal (Azalis). And at least one of the brothers
tried to poison and kill the other. The Turkish government separated the two
warring factions in 1868, with Subh-i-Azal and the Azalis being sent to Cyprus,
and Husayn Ali/Baha’u’llah and the Baha’is sent to Akka (Acre) in Turkish ruled
Palestine. In Akka Baha’u’llah and his followers did not use his full title,
kept much of their Baha’i activity secret and pretended to be Sunni Muslim. They
were so successful in this deception that, after their deaths, Sunni Muslim
clergy conducted the funerals of both Baha’u’llah and his son and successor,
Abbas Effendi.
The
Baha’is under the authority of the Universal House of Justice, and the
general public, are not informed of another schism that occurred after the First
Guardian of the Faith, Shoghi Effendi, died in 1957. For several years a
small group known as the Hands of the Cause led affairs, and then in April 1963
the Universal House of Justice was established. It has been claimed, by
the mainstream Baha’i movement, that there was no appointed successor to the First
Guardian of the Faith. However, this is disputed by a group of Baha’is lead
by The Mother Baha’i Council of the United States, in Roswell, New
Mexico. This group of Baha’is claims that Shoghi Effendi DID appoint a
successor, the president of the original Universal House of Justice
- which they say Shoghi Effendi proclaimed in embryonic form in 1951. This
president, Charles Mason Remey, proclaimed his accession to the Guardianship
in 1960. In 1961 he appointed Joel Bray Marangella as his future
successor, and in 1966 publicly handed the authority of the Guardianship
over to Joel Marangella. The Third Guardian, Joel Bray Marangella,
has been living in Western Australia and first notified the Australian
public about the existence of the (‘True’) Orthodox Baha’i Faith
in AN OPEN LETTER TO THE HETERODOX BAHA’IS published in the West
Australian newspaper in April 1982. Members of the ‘Orthodox’ Baha’i
Faith seem fearfully reluctant to confirm the current (December 1996)
whereabouts of the Third Guardian of the Faith, Joel Bray Marangella.
Many of the mainstream (‘Heterodox’) Baha’is seemingly have either not
heard of the Third Guardian, or don’t want to hear of him.
So much for all the talk of peace and
unity.
The
more one examines Baha’i primary sources, and other historical information, the
more disturbing the picture becomes. Exaggerated stories of mass persecutions
are used to emotionally cloud issues (There have been persecutions of
Baha’is - which are wrong and unacceptable - but evidence also suggests that
some claims have been exaggerated). Documentary evidence shows that the image
of peace loving, open and tolerant people, firmly united throughout the past as
well as in the present, is a false image. The Baha’is were described, not many
decades ago, as a ‘small obscure Islamic sect’ - they have worked
hard to change their image and to become acceptable in a naďve and ill-informed
Western Society. They have misused the Bible and distorted both theology and
history to conceal their true nature and promote an image of being a
respectable major world religion with a message of love, peace and unity. Be
aware of the Baha’is - their true cultic nature and ultimate agenda.
******************
In
the mid-nineteenth century Mirza Husayn Ali, a Persian nobleman, founded the
Baha’i World Faith, assumed the title of Baha’u’llah (“Glory of God”) and
claimed:
. ..with power and
authority. . .to the Christians of the world that He fulfills the Bible’s
sacred promises concerning the Return of Christ: “Jesus, the Spirit of
God...hath once more, in my person, been made manifest unto you.”1
Followers of the
Gospel, behold the gates of heaven are flung open. He that had ascended unto it
is now come. Give ear to His voice calling over land and sea, announcing to all
mankind the advent of this Revelation—a Revelation through the agency of which the
Tongue of Grandeur is now proclaiming: “Lo, the sacred pledge hath been
fulfilled, for He, the Promised Ones is come!”2
He
also wrote in a letter sent to Pope Pius IX:
O Pope! Rend the
veils asunder. He who is the Lord of Lords is come overshadowed with clouds,
and the decree hath been fulfilled by God, the Almighty, the Unrestrained...He,
verily, hath again come down from Heaven even as He came down from it the first
time...Beware lest any name debar thee from God. . ..3
Beware lest any
celebration hinder you from the Celebrated and worship hinder you from the
Worshipped One! Behold the Lord, the Mighty, the All-Knowing! He hath come to
minister to the life of the world, and for the uniting of whatever dwelleth
therein. Come, O ye people, to the Dawning –place of Revelation! Tarry not,
even for an hour! Are ye learned in the Gospel, and yet are unable to see the
Lord of glory? This beseemeth you not, O learned concourse! Say then, if ye
deny this matter, by what proof do you believe in God? Produce your proof. . ..
4
These
astounding assertions and many other claims are recorded in various writings by
the authors of the religion Baha’u’llah founded, the Baha’i World Faith (henceforth
BAHAI WORLD FAITH). These writers include Abdu’l-Baha, the founder’s son and
official spokesperson, Shoghi Effendi, the “Guardian of the Faith,” Gary L.
Matthews, William Sears, J.E. Esslemont, and Michael Sours and William Hatcher.
It would appear their primary intent is to offer Biblical proofs and logical
arguments to substantiate Baha’u’llah’s declaration found in Matthews’ He
Cometh with Clouds: A Baha’i View of Christ’s Return:
Many
Christians, considering Baha’u’llah’ s claim for the first time, understandably
find it difficult to accept that “the Lord of Lords is come.” This book is an
effort to address their concerns. It explores the relationship between Christ
and Baha’u’llah in light of the Bible’s teachings concerning the Second Coming.5
Matthews
and the other BAHAI WORLD FAITH authors attempt systematically to validate the
Baha’i proposition that “the Christ” is a type of divine being they call a
“Manifestation of God” who periodically takes on a human form and comes to
earth to explain God’s truth for that contemporary generation or dispensation.
This proposition seems to have three main objectives: (1) to reduce the unique
nature, person and role of Jesus Christ to a mere “Manifestation of God,” one
of many such “Divine mirror images of God.” These include: Abraham, Moses,
Zoroaster, Buddha, Krishna and Mohammed, and “the Bab,” (2) to show that “the
Christ” of Judaism and Christianity, “the Mahdi” or twelfth Imam of Islam, the
“ninth Avatar of Vishnu” of the Hindus, “the Maitraya Buddha” of the Mahayana
Buddhists, “Shah Bahram” of the Zoroastrians, and “the Prophet” of Moses—in
essence the “…Promised One of all these Prophets, the Divine Manifestation in
Whose era the reign of peace will actually be established”6--
appeared in 1844 in the person of Baha’u’llah, and (3) to elevate Baha’u’llah
to the role of “Supreme Manifestation” as the latest and most correct of all
the Manifestations in God’s continuing revelation since he is the latest and
greatest appearance of “the Christ.” This universal appeal of the BAHAI WORLD
FAITH serves several purposes, including making it one of the world’s fastest
growing independent religions. The BAHAI WORLD FAITH pamphlet titled
Christianity and the Baha’i Faith states:
In just over 100
years, the Baha’i Faith has become the second most widespread of the world’s
independent religions. Embracing more than five million members from at least
2100 ethnic, racial and tribal groups, it is quite likely the most diverse
organized body of people on the planet.
According
to BAHAI WORLD FAITH author William Hatcher, “The Baha’i Faith is perhaps
unique in that it unreservedly accepts the validity of the other great faiths.”7
The founders of the world’s great religions are all purveyors of an equal and
valid salvation for all mankind and Baha’u’llah as the “supreme Manifestation”
upholds and synthesizes all of them as the return of Christ for this
dispensation. In analyzing the BAHAI WORLD FAITH position, the purpose of this
part of the paper is to demonstrate that its stance is illogical,
contradictory, and totally alien to Christian orthodoxy. These pages will show how the BAHAI WORLD
FAITH’S endeavor to evangelize members of the major world religions, especially
Christians, demonstrates that their methodology becomes scriptural and
doctrinal manipulation and abuse. The BAHAI WORLD FAITH attempts to appeal to
Christians through postmodern relativistic theology. It is anti-Biblical, since
it redefines or renders symbolic every Biblical prophecy, promise, definition or
implication regarding the return of Jesus Christ and His role in the Kingdom of
God. Francis J. Beckwith points out in See the Gods Fall:
The
Baha’is believe that there is no final, complete, or finished Word of God. They
believe that there is no absolute objective standard of religious truth. The
late leader of the faith, Shoghi Effendi (d.1957), writes, “The fundamental
principle enunciated by Baha’u’llah...is that religious truth is not absolute,
but relative...” 8
According
to Beckwith the problem with this statement is that it is self-refuting. To
state that all religious truth is relative is itself a statement of absolute
religious truth.
Besides
being relativistic and virtually “anti-literal” regarding other religions’
sacred writings, the BAHAI WORLD FAITH borrows a page from the Gnostics in an
effort to adapt the beliefs of these various religions to fit its own
presuppositions. One must understand the BAHAI WORLD FAITH technique of
relegating scriptures and resulting doctrines, which disagree with theirs, to
the level of “symbolic” or “spiritualistic,” interpretations. They then claim
to be the only ones qualified to understand the symbolic meaning hidden within.
They argue there must be a special-knowledge or revelation “key” to unlock the
mysteries of the Word of God and Baha’u’llah and his successors are the only
possessors of that key. Baha’u’llah adds:
As the adherents of
Jesus have never understood the hidden meaning of these words, and as the signs
which they and the leaders of their Faith have expected have failed to appear,
they therefore refused to acknowledge, even until now, the truth of those
Manifestations of Holiness that have since the days of Jesus been made
manifest. They have thus deprived themselves of the outpourings of God’s holy grace,
and if the wonders of His divine utterance. Such is their low estate in this,
the Day of Resurrection!9
An
example used by ‘Abdu’l-Baha to show just how the adherents of Jesus have no
understanding of the “hidden meanings” of their own Scriptures is the case of
Adam and Eve and the origin of sin in Genesis. ‘Abdu’l-Baha writes:
If we take this
story in its apparent meaning, according to the interpretation of the masses,
it is indeed extraordinary. The intelligence cannot accept it, affirm it, or
imagine it; for such arrangements, such details, such speeches and reproaches
are far from being those of an intelligent man, how much less of the
Divinity...
We must reflect a
little: if the literal meaning of this story were attributed to a wise man,
certainly all would logically deny that this arrangement, this invention, could
have emanated from an intelligent being. Therefore this story of Adam and Eve,
who ate from the tree, and their expulsion from Paradise, must be thought of
simply as a symbol. It contains divine mysteries and universal meanings, and it
is capable of marvelous explanations. Only those who are initiated into the
mysteries, and those who are near the Court of the All-Powerful, are aware of
these secrets. Hence these verses of the Bible have many meanings.10
These
few paragraphs will propose to explain and clarify how and why the BAHAI WORLD
FAITH “symbolic/spiritual” renderings of the Bible in general and the return of
Jesus in particular are totally without warrant. They will also attempt to
answer many of the BAHAI WORLD FAITH claims for its founder and for his
doctrine. They will put forward a comprehensive list of philosophical, logical
and Biblical reasons why Baha’u’llah cannot be the return of Jesus Christ as
promised in Matthew 24 and elsewhere. The NKJV is used for Biblical citations
unless otherwise noted.
‘Jesus
Returned in 1844 in the Person of Baha’u’llah’
The
BAHAI WORLD FAITH claims that Baha’u’llah came in 1844 as a fulfillment of the
promise given by Jesus to His disciples to return, following His resurrection
and ascension into heaven, and the prophecy given to the prophet Daniel by the
Angel Gabriel:
Dan
8:13--Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to him, “How
long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled—the vision concerning the
daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, and the surrender of the
sanctuary and of the host that will be trampled underfoot?” (14) He said to me,
“It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be
re-consecrated.”
The
BAHAI WORLD FAITH maintains that the Daniel prophecy gives a timeline in
“prophetic years” not days, for the ending of a period of desolation during
which the sanctuary of the “Temple” in Jerusalem was to be profaned. This period
of time according to Matthews and several other leading BAHAI WORLD FAITH
scholars, including the founder’s son Abdu’l-Baha, began with the edict given
by King Artaxerxes to Ezra (Ezra 7:12-26) to restore and build Jerusalem.11
This 2,300-year period ended, according to the BAHAI WORLD FAITH, in 1844, the
year that the Bab, as the forerunner of Baha’u’llah, much the same as John the
Baptist was for Jesus, made his declaration to the world that he was a
Manifestation of God. To the BAHAI WORLD FAITH this is one of the major proofs
that Baha’u’llah is the return of Christ. Let’s look a little closer at this
assertion.
There
are many problems with the BAHAI WORLD FAITH timeline claim for the return of
Jesus in 1844, but six main ones stand out among the others.
(1)
The first and most important problem is that Jesus states in Mark 13:32 no one,
“not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father,” knows the
time of His return, (see also Matt 24:36, 42-44, 25:13) In Acts 1:6 the
disciples asked Jesus--“Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to
Israel?” He answered them--“It is not for you to know times or seasons which
the Father has put in His own authority.” So, according to Jesus, Gabriel an
angel of heaven, who relayed the prophecy of Dan 8:14, did not know the time of
Jesus’ return. So this 2,300-day time period cannot be a specific timetable
about the return of Jesus, since Gabriel as an angel did not possibly know.
This was nearly 500 years before Jesus’ statement that neither He nor the
angels of heaven, at His first coming, knew the exact time of His return. It
would seem contradictory for Jesus to claim that the angels of heaven did not
know when He would return, 500 years after an angel had told Daniel the precise
year when He would return. All Jesus would have had to say was, “Read Daniel 8
and you will know the exact year.” But He didn’t. He told them only the Father
knows the hour, the time and the season.
BAHAI
WORLD FAITH author Michael Sours attempts to maneuver around Mark 13:32 and in
doing so demonstrates how the BAHAI WORLD FAITH gives its own “symbolic”
definitions to manipulate or spiritualize Scripture to suit their purposes:
In
the Kitab-i-Iqan, Baha’u’llah explains that by ‘angels’ is meant individuals
who ‘reinforced by the power of the spirit, have consumed, with the fire of the
love of God, all human traits and limitations, and have clothed themselves with
the attributes of the most exalted Beings’ [and of the Cherubim] (this latter
group is mentioned by Sours in Prophecies, p.132, but is curiously missing in
Tablet p.81 without any ellipsis or explanation.) Abdu’l-Baha stated to a small
group of Baha’is in 1912: ‘Array yourselves in the perfection of divine
virtues. I hope you may be quickened and vivified by the breaths of the Holy
Spirit. Then shall ye indeed become the angels of the heaven whom Christ
promised would appear in this Day…to gather the harvest of divine planting.’12
Logically,
it appears the BAHAI WORLD FAITH leaders and Jesus are talking about two
totally different types of beings. The BAHAI WORLD FAITH makes angels into
believers who are “on fire” for the cause, and renders symbolic such Biblical passages
as 2 Thess 1:7-8:
(7)
and to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from
heaven with His mighty angels, (8) in flaming fire taking vengeance on those
who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus
Christ.
Obviously
Paul in this passage is not saying, nor was Jesus in Mark 13:32, “that angels
signify or can refer to persons living in this world whose lives are completely
sanctified,” as Sours states.13 Jesus said “angels in heaven” and
Paul wrote, “when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty
angels” positionally and grammatically meaning they were with Him in heaven,
not people on the earth. Some commentators construe the “angels” of the churches
in the Book of Revelation to mean the pastors of those churches, but these are
churches on the earth, not called “angels in heaven.” These are beings dwelling
around the throne of God that are mentioned throughout both testaments.
Especially in regard to the Cherubim, that Sours drops from his quote in
Tablets without showing that it had been left out. Nowhere in all of Scripture
are human beings called “Cherubim.”
It
is a sad statement for the Christian Church, but from the time of the Church’s
inception, as seen in the disciples’ question in Acts 1:6, believers have
attempted to set the date for Jesus’ return. The early 19th century was no
exception, and actually runs a close second to the furor at the end of the
first millennium after Christ’s death. The BAHAI WORLD FAITH scholars
repeatedly quote several Christian writers who apparently fell into the
date-setting predicament just before the 1844 time period. In his summation of
how the entire scholarly world was involved in this expectation of Christ’s
return BAHAI WORLD FAITH author William Sears names William Miller, a Baptist
minister and founder of the Millerites, as the American scholar so involved.14 Many Christian scholars have been highly
critical of Mr. Miller’s “scholastic” findings. Sears also concedes that even
“These Bible scholars did not all agree on the exact date, nor did they all
explain the prophecies in a like manner.” 15 The late Christian
apologist Walter Martin writes:
“One need only read
the words of the Lord Jesus Christ to realize that Miller was teaching in
contradiction to the Word of God. Jesus said, ‘But of that day and, hour
knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.’ (Matthew
24:36; also 24:42; 24:44; 25:13) The gospel of Mark also shows that dates
cannot be set, for in verse 33 of chapter 13 our Lord stated, ‘Take ye heed,
watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is.’ And almost His last words to
His disciples are a rebuke to those who set dates: ‘It is not for you to know
the times and seasons which the Father has put in His own power.’ (Acts 1:7).
Certainly
this should have been deterrent enough for William Miller who lacked academic
theological training, and his associates, but sad to say it was not.16
Michael
Sours attempts to solve this problem:
“Jesus’ emphatic
statement that no one knows this hour is therefore believed by many to bring
into question all attempts to calculate the time of Christ’s return. It seems a
direct contradiction that, on the one hand, no one knows the hour, and on the
other, many Bible scholars who interpreted Scripture indicate the hour as the
year 1844. For some who reject that the Second Advent occurred in 1844, verse
36 appears an added confirmation that the rejection is sound. In actuality,
verse 36 should be a warning to the critics that they cannot be certain that
the predicted ‘hour’—that is 1844—was not the right hour.”
To
those who accept that 1844 was the ‘hour’ foretold in Scriptures, ‘no one
knows’ must at least suggest the uncertainty of human knowledge and human
interpretations of Scripture—even though they may later prove right. Scripture
therefore demands humility from the believer. The most important point is this:
no one can say with certainty what date was foretold and then assert that
Christ has failed to fulfill the promise of Scripture. Nor can the critic say
with certainty that the scholars and believers who calculated the date 1844
were wrong.
The
proof, or truth, of a Prophet is not dependent on our fallible interpretations
of Scripture, but is made evident through His own perfections and divine
teachings. The phrase ‘no one knows’ addresses the arrogance of rejecting a
Prophet owing to demands that Scripture be fulfilled according to our
expectations.17
The
underlying premise for Sours’ statement seems to be that since no one knows the
exact date of Christ’s return, to reject the 1844 date is both arrogant and
unfounded. To a certain extent, he is correct. Logically speaking, since we do
not know the exact date of Christ’s Second Advent, we cannot outright reject
any date in history as being the correct one. But he is incorrect in saying
that because a few people predicted the return of Christ in 1844 it is a
contradiction to say that no one knows the day or the hour. If these people
used information from Gabriel, an angel who did not know the date of Christ’s
return, as the source for their information, then forced their own
interpretation on it, their findings are faulty. Gabriel did not know when
Christ would return, so his prophetic 2,300 days must have been about some
other future happening.
Regardless
of one’s religious affiliation, to go directly against Christ’s declaration
that no one but the Father knows the time of His return is actually the
arrogant stand, and is tantamount to calling Jesus a liar. Although such
regarding the Return of Christ is interesting, but forcing Christ’s second
coming into a rigid and dogmatic time frame on which to build a new religion is
unbiblical and indefensible.
John
the Baptist Returned as Elijah”
(2)
BAHAI WORLD FAITH author Michael Sours claims that there are two “main opposing
Christian views” concerning the return of Jesus—the first is non-literal, that
the return:
“. . . will occur,
or has occurred, in a general spiritual unfolding of the Church in the world.
Christians who adhere to this view believe that many of the prophecies use
symbolic language that should be understood spiritually. The other view holds
that the same Jesus of Nazareth will return bodily and literally out of the
clouds. Christians who await Jesus to return in this manner usually interpret
prophecy literally.”
The
Baha’i Faith argues that some elements of both these views are correct. Baha’is
believe Christ will return as a historic and individual Person, but not with
the same body or name as that of Jesus of Nazareth. Instead, the return of
Christ will be in spirit, that is, the same divine qualities will be made
manifest once more in the world by an actual historic Person.18
Sours
then proposes that the Biblical account of Elijah’s return, as John the
Baptist, is a model of how the BAHAI WORLD FAITH believes Jesus was to return.
He writes:
“Later, the
Scripture indicates that the same Elijah will return again (Mal 4:5)…John the Baptist
was not was not literally the same Elijah, i.e. the bodily return of Elijah,
rather Elijah had returned in ‘spirit and power’ in the person of John the
Baptist (Luke 1:17).”19
In
regard to the relationship between Elijah and John the Baptist, there are
several points to consider: (a) More than one person possessed the “spirit and
power” of Elijah as did John the Baptist. Elisha, Elijah’s prophetic successor
prayed for a double portion of Elijah’s power and spirit and was granted it by
God—2 Kings 2:9, 15. This certainly was not the same as Elijah himself
returning? (b) We must remember that Elijah and Enoch were different from all
other men in that they never died. God took Elijah to heaven while he was still
alive according to 2 Kings 2:11. So when the people were promised Elijah’s
return, they were not expecting a re-incarnation, they were expecting the
actual flesh and bones Elijah that God had taken away physically. (c) The real
Elijah did actually appear at Jesus’ first advent when he presented himself
with Moses and Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration—Matt 17:3. So not only did
the “spirit and power” of Elijah return in the mission of John the Baptist, but
the actual physical body of that Old Testament prophet came back as well at the
first coming of Christ. (d) Jesus stated that although John came in the spirit
and power of Elijah, and Elijah did actually appear with Jesus on the Mount,
Elijah’s all-encompassing return was still future: Matt 17:11—“Indeed Elijah is
coming first and will restore all things,” most probably at the second coming
of Christ. (e) Finally, in answer to Jesus’ returning with a “new body and
name.” The full title of the last book of the New Testament is the Revelation
of Jesus Christ, taken from the wording of the first verse of the book. It does
not mention the “revelation” of any one else. The speaker in the first chapter
quoted by John in Rev 1:18 is unmistakably Jesus:
I am He who lives,
and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of
Hades and Death.
He
also is quoted in Rev 2:8:
“And to the angel
of the church in Smyrna write, ‘These things says the First and the Last, who
was dead, and came to life.’”
Rev
3:12 does state that Jesus will write on His followers His new name. All one
has to do is read further in the Book of Revelation, especially Rev 19:9-16, to
see several of Jesus’ “new names,”—the Lamb; Faithful and True (see also Rev
3:14); Lord of Lords and King of Kings; the Word of God; and a name which no
one knows but He Himself. Nowhere among these names is the conqueror of
Revelation 19 called the “Glory of God” which is Baha’u’llah’s self-fulfilling
title. The secret name is one that only Jesus knows. The term “glory of God” is
found in numerous other places in Scripture and is not a new “secret” name that
no one knows. Most Jews and Christians know of the “shekinah glory.” Plus, it
does not say that He will come bearing a new name! It says He will give the
people who overcome (meaning those who die without losing the faith) several
new names, His God’s, the New Jerusalem (which was to come out of heaven at the
time of His naming of the followers), as well as His new name. Baha’is are not
known by any of the names listed in Revelation.
It
is a commonly held belief by many BAHAI WORLD FAITH members that the Bab,
forerunner to Baha’u’llah, who was shot to death in 1850 by a firing squad, is
the actual “Lamb of God” and Baha’u’llah himself is the “Promised Redeemer.”
They try to synthesize the ministries of the two men into one in an attempt to
fulfill the prophecy of Rev 5:5-13.
They
claim that the Bab is the Lamb of God who takes the sealed scroll from the hand
of Baha’u’llah in Rev 5:7. There is no Biblical evidence for this supposition
and in fact it is totally impossible even with this forced synthesis. Simply,
if one looks at Rev 22:16 there is a direct quote in the name of Jesus, calling
Himself “the Root and Offspring of David.”
What
is the answer for those Baha’is who claim that the Bab is the “Lamb of God”?
Let us look at the other mentioning of the “Lamb of God” in the New Testament
and attempt to determine who is being described. John 1:29--“The next day John
saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, ‘Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away
the sin of the world!’ ” As if some may have missed John’s words in the first
instance, he repeated the phrase the next day when he again saw Jesus in John
1:36--“And looking at Jesus as He walked, he said, ‘Behold the Lamb of God!’ We
must note that he said the, definite article, not a, indefinite article, that
would have showed that Jesus was but one of many so called “Lambs.”
To
further support this statement we need to look at Rev 5:9 in which the Lamb of
5:5-6, the descendant of Judah and David, is called “...worthy to take the
scroll, and open its seals; for You were slain, and have redeemed us to God by
Your blood...” The Bab was not related to Judah or David, and according to Rev
5:5-6 it is the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, the Root of David who is called the
Lamb of God. Baha’u’llah was not this Redeemer, since He did not redeem anyone
by his blood, dying of old age and not by shedding his blood. There are other
Revelation verses pertaining to the identity of this Lamb of God who actually
shares the throne of God. (Rev 22:1, 3) Look at the following:
Rev 17:14--These
will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, for He is King of
kings and Lord of lords; and those who are with Him are called, chosen, and
faithful.
So
here, the conqueror from Rev 19:11-21, who is also called King of kings and
Lord of lords, is the Lamb, since there can’t be two King of kings and Lord of
lords. Next look at,
Rev 14:1--Then I
looked, and behold, a Lamb standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred and
forty-four thousand, having His FATHER’S NAME written on their foreheads.
Even
Baha’u’llah called Jesus the Son of God, and never referred to himself as the
Son of God. In fact the BAHAI WORLD FAITH associates Baha’u’llah in the “station
of the Father”—
“Surely the Father
hath come and hath fulfilled that which you were promised in the Kingdom of
God.”20
With
regard to titles “everlasting Father,” “Prince of Peace,” Baha’u’llah
repeatedly refers to Himself as the manifestation of the Father, of whom Christ
and Isaiah spoke, whereas Christ always referred to Himself as the Son.21
Esslemont
calls this coming of the Father, the advent of the “Supreme Manifestation.” The
Father comes, as promised in the parable of the vineyard, to destroy the wicked
husbandmen. Esslemont adds:
“The Day of
Judgment of which Christ speaks is evidently identical with the coming of the
Lord of Hosts, the Father, which was prophesied by Isaiah and the other Old
Testament prophets; a time of terrible punishment for the wicked, but a time in
which justice shall be established and righteousness rule, on earth as in
heaven. In the Baha’i interpretation, the coming of each Manifestation of God
is a Day of Judgment, but the coming of the supreme Manifestation of Baha’u’llah
is the great Day of Judgment for the world cycle in which we are living.”22
This
is included here to show, that Baha’u’llah was not the Son, mentioned in Rev
14:1 as being the Lamb of God, nor the Redeemer of God’s people in Revelation
5.
If
this “Lamb of God” were the Bab, why would people have his Father’s name
written on their foreheads? We are told the saints will have Almighty God’s
name written on their foreheads—Rev 22:4. Since Jesus is the Only Son of God
(John 3:16), it must be He and not the Bab. And finally look at,
Rev 21:14--Now the
wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the
twelve apostles of the Lamb.”
This
is the wall of the New Jerusalem and on it is written the names of the Lamb’s
12 apostles. Neither the Bab nor Baha’u’llah had 12 apostles. Jesus did. The
Bab’s first 18 disciples were called “Letters of the Living.” And the closest
disciples of Baha’u’llah were called “Hands of the Cause of God.” A “few” were
chosen by Baha’u’llah during his lifetime, and great grandson Shoghi Effendi
who led the religion from 1921 to 1957 named 32 Hands of the Cause to assist
him. Neither of these groups is called “apostles” and none of them numbered 12
as did those who led the Christian church after the death of Jesus. There are
certain qualifications to be the Lamb of God, and neither the Bab nor
Baha’u’llah fits any of them in the Book of Revelation.
Before
this section is ended it is important to point out that the Bab never mentioned
Baha’u’llah as his successor. In fact, he personally named Baha’u’llah’s half
brother Mirza Yahya as the leader of the “Babi” religion. In an apparent
attempt to soften the blow of this obviously embarrassing fact Matthews writes:
“John the Baptist,
though he showed great reverence towards Jesus, never explicitly identified the
Messiah of whom he said: ‘He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me,
whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose’ (John 1:27) The Bab likewise
showed similar reverence towards Baha’u’llah but likewise refrained from naming
the promised Redeemer, praising Him instead with veiled statements…”23
Is
that truly the case? Did John the Baptist fail to publicly identify Jesus as
the one whose shoelace he was unworthy to tie? Let’s look at John 1:30-34:
(30) This is He of
whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who is preferred before me, for He was
before me.’ (31) I did not know Him; but that He should be revealed to Israel,
therefore I came baptizing with water. (32) And John bore witness, saying, ‘I
saw the Spirit descending like a dove, and He remained upon Him. (33) I did not
know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, “Upon whom you
see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with
the Holy Spirit.” (34) And I have seen and testified that this is the Son of
God.’
From
this, we can tell that John is addressing the people he had previously told
about the identity of the One who was coming after him—the Messiah. And also
those listeners knew he was claiming that Jesus was the Messiah, since in verse
1:41 Andrew one of John’s disciples, who later became one Jesus’ apostles,
says--“We have found the Messiah.” Matthews must look elsewhere for his support
material as to why the Bab not only didn’t mention Baha’u’llah, but also
actually picked his half-brother over him as the successor to the leadership of
the faith.
As
we can see, for several reasons the Elijah/John relationship cannot be used as
a viable example for Jesus returning in the person of Baha’u’llah. There are too
many missing, dissimilar, incongruent or contradictory elements involved.
(3)
Let’s look at the 2,300 “day for year” prophecy of Dan 8:14. There are four
problems with the BAHAI WORLD FAITH and even some Christian scholars’
interpretation of this Daniel prophecy: (a) the “day for year” interpretation
is totally without substance in this instance, (b) this prophecy was already
literally fulfilled before Christ’s birth (c) the starting point for the
prophecy is incorrect in light of modern archeology, (d) the actuality of
outside influence on the Jewish people.
First
of all, the prophecy is an answer to the question posed in the previous verse
8:13--“How long will the vision be concerning the daily sacrifices and the
transgression of desolation, the giving of both the sanctuary and the host to
be trampled underfoot?” The answer, from a literal translation, states--“2,300
evenings and mornings then the sanctuary shall be cleansed.” The text uses the
two Hebrew words--EREB “evening or night” and BOQER “morning.” This usage
reinforces the fact that these are not claiming to be “prophetic years,” but
2,300 evening and morning literal days. In some Bible prophecies a day is used
to represent a year, but nowhere in Biblical prophecy does “evenings and
mornings” mean prophetic years as BAHAI WORLD FAITH scholars.24
Was
Dan 8:9-14 ever historically fulfilled? Yes. The “he-goat which is the king of
Greece,” according to Dan 8:21, was Alexander III called the Great. When he died
in 323 BC his kingdom was divided into four portions. One of these divisions
became the Seleucid Empire. It eventually took control of Palestine and
Jerusalem under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (“the Glorious One” or “God made
Manifest”) in 171 BC. He set up Jason as his own high priest. Antiochus
immediately caused all sacrifice and worship of the Jewish God to be stopped
and killed many thousands of Jews. This prohibition lasted 2,300 days, from
171-165 BC.25
Accordingly
the Temple in Jerusalem was converted into a sanctuary of Jupiter the
Olympian...On the fifteenth day of Chislev 168, a statue of the god was set up
on the altar, the image of the ‘lord of heaven,’ which the pious Jews spoke of
as ‘the abominable thing causing horror’; on the twenty-fifth day of the month
heathen sacrifices were offered on what had been the altar of God...swine’s
blood was poured upon the altar.26
For
2,300 literal “evenings and mornings” there were no “holy” sacrifices offered
on the altar and the sanctuary was “trodden underfoot” by the Gentiles. But
then, Judah Maccabeus (“the Hammerer”) overcame the Greek army and captured
Jerusalem and the temple for the Hebrew people.
A
new altar was built of whole stones, and new holy vessels were made. On the
25th day of Chislev, 165 BC, exactly three years after its desecration, the
Temple was solemnly rededicated; the morning sacrifice was offered on the new
altar, and the lamps upon the golden candlestick were lighted.27
The
Jews still honor this event annually as Hanukkah, the Feast of Dedication. John
10:22 informs us--“Now it was the Feast of Dedication in Jerusalem and it was
winter.” The Temples had previously been dedicated in the Spring, but Judah
rededicated the temple on the 25th of Chislev, which is during the winter. So,
the Grecian “little horn” of Dan 8:9-14 caused the sacrifice and worship to
stop for 2,300 evenings and mornings and desecrated the temple with the
“abomination of desolation” but the sanctuary was cleansed in 165 BC. This is
an historical event--it already happened. The 2,300 evenings and mornings are
literal evenings and mornings----not years.
Some
question the relevancy of this historical event to what Jesus was telling the
apostles was a future event. At times in
Biblical Scripture, there is a double fulfillment of a prophecy. For Gabriel to
tell Daniel that this prophecy was also for the end times could point precisely
to the events Jesus was telling the apostles to watch out for in Matt 24:15.
Jesus tells His apostles to watch for certain signs. He does not give them a
time frame, but a series of events that would lead up to His return. In Matt
24:14 He told them what must happen before the “abomination of desolation”
stands in the “holy place.” He said the “gospel of the kingdom shall be preached
in the whole world for a testimony unto all the nations; and then the end shall
come.” After the gospel of Jesus has been preached to all the world, the 2300
evenings and mornings could possibly then begin, when the abomination of
desolation stands in the holy place and ends the sacrifice, just as Daniel had
prophesied. In Matt 24:21-22 Jesus also ties this event in with a (21) “. . .
great tribulation, such as not been from the beginning of the world until now,
no, nor ever shall be. (22) And except those days had been shortened, no flesh
would have been saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened.”
This great period of tribulation appears to agree with the Book of Revelation
and other New Testament verses as well as several Old Testament passages
warning readers to be prepared for the “great and terrible day of the Lord.”
This great tribulation has obviously not occurred. Nothing has happened on this
planet that can compare with the flood of Noah for causing death and
destruction, and Jesus says this will be worse when it happens. BAHAI WORLD
FAITH author Michael Sours writes:
“These passages
demonstrate that the verses of the Bible may be all-inclusive only in their
specific contexts. In the case of the tribulation, the context is likely to be
the Christian era. Every religion, from its beginning, undergoes crises and
tribulations. But these tribulations must naturally worsen as the religion
declines until they reach a degree of severity, which threatens to extinguish
entirely the spiritual life of all the believers. Hence the words: ‘unless
these days were shortened, no flesh would be saved’ (v.22) The word flesh is
commonly interpreted literally…In the opinion of this writer, Jesus is simply
conveying the graveness of the tests that lie ahead and which nearly extinguish
people’s faith in God, the true ‘flesh’ and bones of the Church. The outward
form of the religion may remain but its real meaning and practice become
increasingly ignored and rejected.”
In
the Book of Certitude, Baha’u’llah elaborates on the meaning of chapter 24 of
the Gospel of Matthew. The term ‘tribulation’ is rendered according to its
actual Greek meaning ‘oppression’. Therefore, in the Book of Certitude, the
verse reads ‘immediately after the oppression of those days’. Baha’u’llah
indicates that the oppression, or tribulation, is a time when people seek spiritual
truth but can find no guidance…the tribulation will be a time of great
spiritual confusion and destruction. It is this confusion that Baha’u’llah
suggests is the primary meaning of ‘tribulation’.28
The
Jewish nation has undergone tribulation, both spiritual and physical, since the
time of the sojourn in Egypt. Jesus, knowing of these times, says in Matt
24:21--“For there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the
world until now—and never to be equaled again.” He had just mentioned “Fleeing
to the mountains . . .Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take
anything out of his house . . . Let no one in the field go back to get his
cloak . . . How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and
nursing mothers . . . Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on
the Sabbath.” These are times of physical as well as spiritual distress. People
are fleeing for their lives.
The
NIV translates Matt 24:22--“If those days had not been cut short, no one would
survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.” By
stating “The term ‘tribulation’ is rendered to its “actual Greek meaning
‘oppression’ ” Baha’u’llah seems to be accusing the Biblical translators of
using too forceful of a rendering for the Greek word THLPSIS, but both Strong’s
and Vine’s use ‘tribulation’ as the correct one, and neither even mentions
‘oppression.’ By using ‘oppression’ instead of ‘tribulation’ Baha’u’llah
attempts to lessen the connotation of the actual physical attack the people
will be undergoing. After lessening the force of the ‘tribulation’ he then
attempts to change the definition to a time of “great spiritual confusion”
rather than actual physical pain and suffering that ‘tribulation’ implies. He
further elaborates by saying that this period will be a time “ . . . when the
reins of every community have fallen into the grasp of foolish leaders, who
lead with their own whims and desires.”29 Does this actually sound
like the worst tribulation the world has ever seen, that people should flee
from their homes and not return to them or when no flesh would be saved except
that God intervened for the elect? It does not seem so.
Michael
Sours acknowledges the possible fulfillment of the Daniel prophecy at the time
of Antiochus, but questions its significance to Jesus and future events:
“However this does
not preclude Daniel’s prophecies from also referring to the same type of event
occurring at a later time, which in fact Jesus clearly indicates to be the
case. It may be that Jesus intends that these literal events associated with
Antiochus IV foreshadow an even greater spiritual crisis that would occur in
the future. Whatever its significance, it is, at least, clear that Jesus saw
the things spoken of in Daniel’s prophecies as symbols of events that would
occur in the future. What then remains is to discover which future events Jesus
wants us to consider as the meaning of Daniel’s prophecies.”30
What
Sours appears to be saying on the surface is generally true, but he subtly
introduced two words into his discussion in an attempt to color the
understanding of Daniel’s prophecy. Sours uses the words “spiritual” and
“symbols.” By introducing these two words, he is attempting to alter Daniel’s
prophecy from a literal one to a “symbolic” or “spiritual” one. Since the
prophecy of Daniel 8 was fulfilled literally in the situation with Antiochus
IV, there is no reason to believe that the events Jesus was prophesying about
are not to be taken just as literally. The spiritual crisis during the Seleucid
rule of Jerusalem was extreme, thousands of Jews were tortured and killed for
their religious beliefs (see 1 Maccabees 1:25-45) and failure to bow to the
Greek gods. Jesus knew that his apostles would understand what to look for in
this type of situation.
Sours
mentions that many Christians feel that the abomination of desolation has
already occurred. But there was no “abomination” offered in the temple by Titus
Vespasian who destroyed the temple in 70 AD, and he was also not a Greek, as
Daniel 8 requires, but a Roman. William Sears clouds the issue by forcing his
own interpretation on the passage:
“Thus with amazing
accuracy, Daniel had given the time for the first coming of Christ. No wonder
Jesus Himself was so emphatic about Daniel’s prophecy concerning His second
coming or return. He told His disciples to ‘stand in the holy place’ when
Daniel’s prophecy about the ‘abomination of desolation’ was fulfilled.”31
Grammatically
speaking, Mr. Sears’ assertion is without warrant. Much to his credit, Michael
Sours corrects his fellow Baha’i, in a footnote in his book, The Prophecies of
Jesus regarding the same passage:
“The KJV renders
the Greek as ‘stand in’, and therefore the text appears to be telling the
reader or believer to stand in the holy place. However, this is misleading and,
hence, an attempt has been made to render it in a clearer manner in newer
translations. Cf., e,g., NIV and RSV, which render the Greek as ‘standing in.’”32
Sears
adds to his thought by writing:
“Thus Daniel
prophesied that two thousand three hundred days (2300) would pass before the
sanctuary would be cleansed. Following this time, all things would be made pure
again. Before this time, the people would have fallen into a state of
‘abomination’ without love for God or man; then the Messiah would appear and
restore their Faith and the purity of their belief.33
Sears
then renders the 2,300 days to be prophetic years, as do other BAHAI WORLD
FAITH authors. Besides this questionable point, he has added other things to
the prophecy that aren’t actually there. It should be concluded that what Sears
wrote is basically religious propaganda with little truthful merit.
(4)
The “sanctuary” Daniel is writing about is the temple in Jerusalem, the site of
the “burnt-offerings.” One might say that since the temple in Jerusalem has
been destroyed this prophecy cannot take place in the end times or as the BAHAI
WORLD FAITH claims is actually a spiritual rather than literal sanctuary. The
same objection, though, could have been raised during the time of Daniel!
Nebuchadnezzar had destroyed the temple in 586 BC and it was not standing
during the time when Daniel wrote this prophecy, yet there is no doubt he was
describing the Jerusalem temple rebuilt by Ezra and Nehemiah many years later.
For Daniel 8 to take place both directly after Daniel’s time and again in the
end times the temple would have to be rebuilt and its sanctuary trampled
underfoot for 2,300 days before those same temples are “cleansed.” Baha’u’llah
or anyone else did not re-dedicate this latter day temple, since it still has
not been rebuilt more than 100 years after his death. But many Christian and
Jewish scholars believe it will be some time in the future. The same temple or
“holy place” that Jesus mentions in Matthew 24 and is mentioned in Daniel 8
that is defiled must be “cleansed” as required by Dan 8:14. Antiochus Epiphanes
and Judas Maccabbes showed the “type” in the fulfillment of the prophecy the
first time, and it was a literal fulfillment. One thing is certain, no one in
1844 “cleansed” the temple, as is required by the prophecy of Dan 8:14. There
is no reason to doubt that the second fulfillment shall also be a literal one.
Michael
Sours proposes the idea that there is no reason to believe that the temple
spoken of by Daniel is the Jerusalem temple. First he states that Jesus
“indicated that He now represented that for which the Temple in Jerusalem had
formerly stood.”34 He uses John 2:19-22 as his proof text, in which
Jesus says to the Pharisees “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will
raise it up.” Next he states, that the Church, which Jesus established, was the
“…temple Christ raised up in three days and became the sign and source of unity
between once divergent peoples.”35 If the temple was the body of
Christ that he raised up in three days, when was it trampled underfoot by the
Gentiles for the required time period (2300 years/days)? If it was the Body of
Christ (the Church) raised by Jesus on the third day, when was the Church
trampled underfoot by the Gentiles for 2,300 years/days? It was only about 1810
years between Jesus’ death and the Bab’s proclamation. Spiritualizing the
passage brings in all kinds of unanswered predicaments, none of which is
answered feasibly by the Baha’is.
It
is difficult to show a relationship between these ideas with Jesus’ statement
in Matt 24:15--“So when you see standing in the holy place the ‘abomination
that causes desolation’ spoken of through Daniel the prophet . . ..” Sours also
attempts to draw a parallel between Daniel and Rev 11:2, which says that “the
court which is without the temple leave without, and measure it not; for it has
been given unto the nations: and the “holy city” shall be tread underfoot for
forty and two months.” If this has a relationship to Daniel 8, then the temple
that is spoken of in each must be the temple in Jerusalem, for there is no
other “holy city” for the Jews. We must remember that Daniel 8 and 9 are
written for the Jewish nation. Daniel is told in Dan 9:24 –“Seventy weeks are
decreed upon thy people and thy holy city.” Jesus the Messiah, whose coming
Daniel 9 foretells, was a Jew. The abomination of desolation of Daniel 8 and of
Matthew 24 pertains to the Jewish people and something that happens to their
sanctuary, their temple, and their city. Abdu’l-Baha states, in attempting to
force his presuppositions on history:
In the beginning of
the seventh century after Christ, when Jerusalem was conquered, the Holy of
Holies was outwardly preserved—that is the house which Solomon built; but
outside the Holy of Holies the outer court was taken and given to the Gentiles.
“And the holy city shall they tread underfoot forty and two months”—that is to
say, the Gentiles shall govern and control Jerusalem forty and two months,
signifying twelve hundred and sixty years, which is the duration of the Qur’an
. . . This prophesies the duration of the Dispensation of Islam when Jerusalem
was trodden underfoot, which means it lost its glory—but the Holy of Holies was
preserved, guarded and respected—until the year 1260.36
Regard
the actual words of Rev 11:2:
But leave out the
court that is outside the temple, and do not measure it, for it has been given
to the Gentiles. And they will tread the holy city underfoot for forty-two months.
First
of all, Abdu’l-Baha’s mathematical calculation seems to be a little suspect in
this situation. If we add 1260 years to
638 AD when the Arab Muslims actually conquered Jerusalem, we are left with the
date 1898, not 1844. The major problem with the 638 AD date is that the city of
Jerusalem and the temple had been trodden underfoot and destroyed by the
Gentiles in the form of the Roman army in 70 AD, when, as Jesus prophesied in
Luke 19:44, there was “not one stone standing on another,” not the beginning of
the seventh century. The Holy of Holies, which housed the Ark of the Covenant,
was the most sacred part of the temple, “the House which Solomon built.”
Abdu’l-Baha attempts, in typical BAHAI WORLD FAITH methodology, to spiritualize
the literal place by stating:
Briefly, what is
meant by the Holy of Holies is that spiritual Law which will never be modified,
altered or abrogated; and the Holy City means the material law that may be
abrogated; and this material Law, which is described as the Holy City, was to
be trodden under foot for twelve hundred and sixty years.37
It
seems that Abdu’l-Baha is giving contradicting statements here. Is the Holy
City Jerusalem as he claims in the previous statement or is it the “material
Law” as he proposes here? Is the Holy of Holies part of the “house that Solomon
built” or is it some type of unalterable “spiritual Law”? Scripturally, Solomon
did not build any unalterable “spiritual Law.”
In
the real Holy of Holies, the high priest was the only person permitted to
enter, and then only on the Day of Atonement.38 By the end of the
first century, there was no Holy of Holies, since the entire temple was
destroyed, not just sections of it. Historically, the Gentiles in the form of
the Romans, the Muslims and the Christians at various times ruled Jerusalem
from 70 AD until Israel reclaimed it 1968. BAHAI WORLD FAITH author Sours
attempts to clarify the Baha’i stand but makes an astounding change to the
Scripture:
. . . outwardly,
Jerusalem was trodden underfoot by the followers of Islam not for 1,260 years,
but by a people whose era lasted 1,260 years. The literal treading underfoot of
Jerusalem was a later outward appearance of the treading underfoot of the
spiritual city that had already begun.39
Sears,
in agreeing with Sours, adds:
According to the
second promise of Christ, these Gentiles (Romans-Muslims) would tread the city
underfoot until the hour of His return, which would be 1260 years by the
measurement of prophecy. During all that time, the Jews would be banished from
their own land. But, in the hour of Christ’s return, the privilege of going
home would be restored to them, and the ‘times of the Gentiles’ would be ended.
An examination of
the calendar of the Muslims, who held the Holy Land captive, revealed to these
millennial scholars an astonishing thing: the year 1260 of the calendar of the
Muslims coincided with the year 1844 of the calendar of the Christians.40
There
are still other problems that must be answered. Rev 11:2 as in the Daniel 8
prediction does not mention that the prophecy is definitely or even possibly a
day for a year prophecy. Later, in Rev 11:9, 11 we are told that the dead
bodies of the two witnesses who are killed lay in the streets of Jerusalem for
3 ˝ days. Are we to interpret that this means their bodies lay there for 3 ˝
years? Yes, and then some, according to the spiritualizing of Scripture done
again by Abdu’l-Baha:
“Their bodies”
means the Religion of God, and the street means in public view. The meaning of
“Sodom and Egypt,” the place “where our Lord was crucified,” is this region of
Syria, and especially Jerusalem, where the Umayyads then had their dominions;
and it was here that the Religion of God and the divine teachings first
disappeared, and a body without spirit remained. “Their bodies” represents the
Religion of God, which remained like a dead body without spirit…As it was
before explained, in the terminology of the Holy Books three days and a half
signify three years and a half, and three years and a half are forty and two
months, and forty and two months twelve hundred and sixty days; and as each day
by the text of the Holy Book signifies one year, the meaning is that for twelve
hundred and sixty years, which is the cycle of the Qur’an, the nations, tribes
and peoples would look at their bodies—that is to say, that they would make a
spectacle of the Religion of God.”41
Initially,
this may seem to make logical, mathematical and exegetical sense, except for a
few important points, which blatantly appear upon further examination. First of
all, we are given 3 ˝ days as our starting time period. If we grant that a day
in prophecy equals a year, then we are given 3 ˝ years or also forty-two
months. The months then could then be converted to 1, 260 days. This could all
well be true. But then the computation falls completely apart. Abdu’l-Baha then
reconverts the days into years a second time. There is no logical reason, nor
Biblical precedent to exchange those days into years a second time—we’ve
already done it once. There is no Biblical example or standard whatsoever for a
double day-to-year conversion. It isn’t logical to do it twice. If twice, why
not three times or four times or even more until it fits whatever time one
desires? If the same procedure were performed with the 2,300 days of Dan 8:14
and converted them into years and then months, there would be 27,600 months
which converts into 828,000 days which equals 828,000 years. The entire process
becomes meaningless then, but consistency requires doing it the same in both instances.
There
are also problems when William Sears’ attempts to clarify the BAHAI WORLD FAITH
position. His timeline for Rev 11:2-3, which he claims could now be read--“And
the Holy City (Jerusalem) shall be tread under foot for 1260 years.”42 If one were logically looking at the passage
and granting Sears’ presupposition regarding its meaning, we would begin with
the year 70 AD when the Romans totally destroyed the city and “left not one
brick upon another,” and the Jewish nation was dispersed throughout the world.
If we add 1,260 prophetic years to AD 70 we arrive at the year 1330 AD. That’s
514 years short of the 1844 goal. So if we take the 1,260 years from the
conquering Muslims in 637 AD, disregarding the hundreds of years of Roman
treading, we arrive at the year 1897. That is 53 years past the hypothetical
1844 date needed for this fulfillment. How does Sears answer this dilemma? He
equivocates. If the calendar doesn’t fit one’s presuppositions---change
calendars:
An
examination of the calendar of the Muslims, who held the city captive, revealed
to these millennial scholars an astonishing thing: The year 1260 on the
calendar of the Muslims coincided with the year 1844 of the calendar of the
Christians.
The
year 1260 given in Revelation as the time when the days of the ‘Gentiles’ would
be ended and the Jews permitted to return to their homeland, was the same year
as that of 1844 when the Muslim rulers were forced to sign the Edict of
Toleration permitting the return of the Jews to Israel.”43
Sears
alters the language of Scripture so that instead of stating that Jerusalem will
be trodden underfoot for 1,260 years it now reads that Jerusalem would be
trodden underfoot until the year 1,260 on the Muslim calendar, which coincides
with the year 1844 on the Christian calendar. This is totally without
grammatical, hermeneutical or scholastic foundation.
Actually
Rev 11:2 matches the Dan 9:27 seven-day/year prophecy much better when taken as
a day/day literally. Forty-two months equals the 3 ˝-year time period that
elapses between the forming of the covenant linking the Jewish people with the
“prince who shall come” from Dan 9:26. At the end of the “so-called” 1,260-year
era of Islam, the Jews still did not control the holy city of Jerusalem. If
1844 were the actual date of the fulfillment of the prophecy, then it would be
a false prophecy. The Gentiles controlled the holy city, treading it underfoot,
until more than 100 years later in 1968 when the Jews recaptured it from the
Muslims. In fact, the Gentiles are still controlling the temple site both inner
and outer parts.
There
is no authority whatsoever for Abdu’l-Baha’s statement that the beginning of
the seventh century is the starting place, other than his own say-so. Actually,
the Jews did not control the city of Jerusalem even before 70 AD. It was part
of the Roman province of Palestine after having been conquered by Pompey in 63
BC. For Abdu’l-Baha to say that the Holy of Holies was preserved goes directly
against the history of the Jewish temple. According to Josephus’ works in his
chapters on the Jewish wars, when Titus attacked the city, his men burned the
temple to the ground in such a frenzy that they actually trampled one another
in carrying out the deed against the general’s orders. Sours again attempts to
soften the blow of Abdu’l-Baha’s interpretation by writing about the capture of
the city by the Muslims:
The Caliph was not
setting up an idol in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. He did not ask anyone
to worship him or anything other than God, the same God of Judaism and
Christianity . . . Omar had come to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher to show
reverence for the sacred site. So it would be wrong to confuse the pious
intention of Omar for an act of abomination.44
Not
only does Michael Sours attempt to change the length of time for the treading
underfoot, change the literalness of the treading upon God’s Holy City to a
“spiritual” treading, he then attempts to change the site from the temple to
the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Omar did commit an abominable practice, by
building the Mosque of Omar directly on the ruins of the former temple.
In
order to further the idea that the Bible presents the Baha’i religion as the
natural successor to Christianity and Islam, Abdu’l-Baha claims that the two
witnesses mentioned in Rev 11:3-12 who will prophesy for 1,260 days are
Mohammad and Ali. The Books of Matthew and Revelation are written for
Christians. Why would Jesus warn His followers that when they see two Arabs in
600 years start a new religion that they should take heed? Rev 11:1 gives
specific instructions, as are found in the Book of Ezekiel, to “Rise and
measure the temple of God and the altar . . . ” to measure with a measuring rod
the dimensions of the sanctuary. This is in regard to the literal temple and
its dimensions with the outer court not included, since it had been given to
the Gentiles. This is not a “spiritual” temple, or the body of Jesus, or the
Church as the Body of Christ, it is the literal temple of God in the Jerusalem.
Since
the time of the conquering of Jerusalem by the Muslims doesn’t coincide with
the actual timeline of prophecy, Sours then tries to mesh the 1260 years of
Daniel and Revelation with the beginning of Mohammad’s “hegira” or flight from
Mecca to Medina in 622 AD. He reckons that if one takes the date of the
“hegira” and adds the 1260 years one arrives at 1844. Again, several problems
arise. First, the year 622 AD is reckoned from the Western or Gregorian
calendar. To then switch from the Gregorian/solar calendar, to the Islamic/lunar
calendar that uses a 360-day cycle is fraught with inconsistencies. If we begin
with the Western calendar we must stick with the Western calendar since we
arrive at the year 622 AD by figuring from solar 365 1/4-day years. If we begin
with the Islamic or lunar calendar, then we must divide the 227,030 days that
occurred between the year 1AD and the year 622 AD in the Western calendar by
the 360 days of the Islamic/lunar calendar. That takes us to a beginning date
of 630 AD for Mohammad’s famous flight. If we then add the 1260 lunar years to
that date we arrive at the year 1890. If we begin with the Western calendar
date of 622 AD and add 1260 years to that, we arrive at the year 1882. If we
subtract 622 from 1844 we arrive at 1222 solar years that equal 446,356 days.
By taking the 446,356 days and dividing by 360 days we arrive at 1240 lunar
years, not 1260. The 2,300 “year” statement of Daniel 8 is also fraught with
the same timeline problems. The 2,300 years are prophetic lunar years, which
equal 828,000 days. When the 828,000 days are divided by 365 Ľ days to equal
solar years and the conventional calendar we arrive at 2,267 years. If the
starting point is 457 BC and we count 2,267 solar years from there we arrive at
the year 1810. This differs greatly from the words of Matthews who states:
Taking 457 BC as
the starting point of the 2,300 years, we find that 2,300 minus 457 equals
1843. As noted above, however, we must add a year to make up for the lack of
any ‘year zero’ in the Gregorian calendar. Thus 2300 years from 457 BC bring us
precisely to 1844 AD. The only logical way to deny that 1844 represents the
culmination of the 2300-year cycle is to deny that 457 BC is its starting
point. If we do this, however; we must also deny that the latter date is the
starting point of the 490-year interval that encompasses the various prophecies
about the Messiah’s first advent.45
It
must be remembered that the words of Rev 11:1-2 are specifically in regard to
the “holy city” of Jerusalem and the “temple of God” in that holy city.
Another
problem arising here is that the Book of Revelation in which we find the
"two witnesses" is written in Greek. So the word we find in Rev 11:3
translated “witness” is the Greek word MARTUS from which we derive the English
word MARTYR that has to do with suffering martyrdom as a witness.
Muhammad
was not martyred for the Islamic faith. Some Baha’i scholars claim that the
witnesses are actually the sacred books of Islam the Qur’an and the Hadith. How
can a book be killed as the witnesses are in Rev 11:7? How can books' dead
bodies lie in the street? When did books have live bodies? How many dead books
are refused burial in a grave? Do books have feet on which to stand? Do they
have the Breath of Life from God? Did these two books ascend into heaven at
God's request to “Come up here”? Rev 11:1-13 is speaking about actual people,
not books, and for 1,260 days, not years. As stated before, the word MARTUS
used to describe the witnesses has the connotation of a "martyred witness."
(5)
The choice of the starting date of 457 BC as the proper decree for Dan
9:25--“to restore and build Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there shall be
seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; the street shall be built again, and the wall,
even in troublesome times…” has definite problems. Abdu’l-Baha’ writes in Some
Answered Questions:
To conclude: in the
Book of Daniel, from the rebuilding of Jerusalem to the martyrdom of Christ,
seventy weeks are appointed; for by the martyrdom of Christ the sacrifice is
accomplished and the altar destroyed. This is a prophecy of the Manifestation
of Christ. These seventy weeks begin with the restoration and the rebuilding of
Jerusalem, concerning which four edicts were issue by three kings…But Daniel
refers especially to the third edict that was issued in the year 457 B.C.
Seventy weeks make four hundred and ninety days. Each day, according to the
text of the Holy Book, is a year. For in the Bible it is said: ‘The Day of the
Lord is one year.’ Therefore, four hundred and ninety days are four hundred and
ninety years. The third edict of Artaxerxes was issued four hundred and
fifty-seven years before the birth of Christ, and Christ when He was martyred
and ascended was thirty-three years of age. When you add thirty-three to four
hundred and fifty-seven, the result is four hundred and ninety, which is the
time announced by Daniel for the manifestation of Christ.46
Choosing
this decree and the remainder of Abdu’l-Baha’s date reasoning is seriously
flawed. First of all and most importantly, the decree of 457 BC found in Ezra 7
does not once mention “the restoration and the rebuilding of Jerusalem” as he
states. One must question whether he ever read Ezra 7:12-26 in which the edict
appears. These verses mention only “the house of God which is at Jerusalem” and
its construction. There is no mention whatsoever of the city, the walls, or the
streets of the City of Jerusalem----just the temple. When Nehemiah asks his
relative in Neh 1:3, which occurs 12 years after the decree in Ezra 7,
“concerning Jerusalem” he is told, “The wall of Jerusalem is also broken down,
and its gates are burned with fire.” When he personally views the wall of
Jerusalem in Neh 2:13 what does he find? “ . . . the walls of Jerusalem which
were broken down and its gates which were burned with fire.” He writes in
2:17--“You see the distress that we are in, how Jerusalem lies waste and its
gates are burned with fire. Come and let us build the wall of Jerusalem, that
we may no longer be a reproach.”
Ezra
was given the decree in 457 BC, but almost nothing was done in regard to
Jerusalem the city. Jewish historians Max Margolis and Alexander Marx
elaborate:
Ezra realized that
in order to defend Jerusalem from a sudden attack the city should be fortified
and therefore made preparations to rebuild the walls. That undertaking was in
excess of the royal authority granted to him. And so his enemies seized
opportunity to denounce him to the king...the king gave orders for the
immediate cessation of the work and for the razing of the part already
constructed...News of the calamity was brought near the end of 446 to Nehemiah,
who as the king’s cupbearer stood in high favor with the court. He succeeded in
obtaining permission to go to Jerusalem and rebuild the walls of the city.47
This
cessation of building is found in Ezra 4:12-24. The king obviously knew the
scope of the power he had given Ezra, and it did not include rebuilding the
walls of the city. The city was later completed because of Nehemiah’s decree,
which the Encyclopedia Judaica lists as occurring in 445 BC and names Nehemiah
as the person who completed the construction of the walls of the city of
Jerusalem,48 not Ezra.
There
are other problems with Abdu’l-Baha’s statements regarding the timeline in
Daniel 9. He claims that the third edict was: issued four hundred and
fifty-seven years before the birth of Christ, and Christ when He was martyred
and ascended was thirty-three years of age. When you add thirty-three to four
hundred and fifty-seven, the result is four hundred and ninety, which is the
time announced by Daniel for the manifestation of Christ.
Jesus
was not born 457 years after the edict of 457 BC (which is the incorrect edict
anyway). Most modern scholars believe He was born between 4-2 B.C. depending on
where the death of Herod is placed. So he was born either 453 or 455 years
after this particular edict. If the lower of the two numbers is used, 2BC, then
Jesus was crucified in the spring of 32AD, just before His 34th birthday.
Secondly, the prophecy states that Messiah the Prince would be “cut off”
(killed) after the 69th week, not during or after the 70th week. So 69 weeks of
years is 69X7=483 years; 483X360= 173,880 days. The correct decree was given to
Nehemiah March 14 (1st of Nisan), 445 BC. Beginning with March 14, 445 BC and
counting 173,880 days, we end up on April 6, 32 AD. April 6, 32 AD was Palm
Sunday, the day Jesus rode into Jerusalem and the first time He accepted
worship as the Messiah, (Mat. 21:9). A few days later He would be “cut off”
from the living.49
The
seventy weeks of Dan 9:25 are for the people of Israel and the city of
Jerusalem—not necessarily for the Messiah. He is a part of the 70 weeks, but
only a part. According to Dan 9:24 several things would happen at the end of
the 70th week: (1) To finish the transgression, (2) To make an end of sins, (3)
To make reconciliation for iniquity, (4) To bring in everlasting righteousness,
(5) To seal up vision and prophecy and (6) To anoint the Most Holy. According
to the BAHAI WORLD FAITH since the 70th week of Daniel occurred at the death of
Jesus all of these things should have happened at that time. But have they? Was
there an end to sin? Was transgression finished? Was everlasting righteousness
brought in to the earth? No! Jesus’ death on the cross did make reconciliation
for iniquity, but the other five items are still pending. The earth is just as
sinful as ever, in fact maybe more so if Matt 24:12 is in effect. Did visions
and prophecy end? If so, then there could be no “prophets” named Mohammad or
the Bab or even Baha’u’llah.
With the “Edict of Toleration in 1844”’
(6)
The BAHAI WORLD FAITH scholars claim that the “times of the Gentiles” ended in
1844 when the Bab declared who he was to the world. The proof of this, they
say, can be found in a quote from author George Townshend:
. . . the strict
exclusion of the Jews from their own land enforced by the Muslims for some
twelve centuries was at last relaxed by the Edict of Toleration and the ‘times
of the Gentiles’ were fulfilled.50
The
governing authorities supposedly issued this Edict of Toleration in 1844. In
the search for information about this important ‘Edict of Toleration of 1844’
this author has searched in over 40 encyclopedia sets and nearly 100 Jewish and
Ottoman texts and did not find even one word about it. Seems odd that the
16-volume Encyclopaedia Judaica wouldn’t even mention such a turning point of
enormous import in Jewish history! It mentions the “Edict of Toleration” of
1782 for Vienna and Austria, but not even a hint of the 1844 “edict.”51
The Encyclopedia of Jewish History does reference that in 1839 the Sultan
passed an edict, which took away the heavy taxes that burdened the Jews’ lives
and had prohibited them from voting. It also says that at the end of the first
half of the nineteenth century (1850) there were only 8,700 Jews living in all
of the Palestine area, and the vast majority of them had been there for
decades. This would be six years after the passing of the ‘edict’ that
supposedly ended the “times of the Gentiles.” Fifty years later, in 1900 there
were still only 35,000 Jews living in the entire area. Seems like they didn’t
know the “times of the Gentiles” had ended for them.
The
Encyclopedia of Jewish History further states: “Improvement of the Jews’ legal
and political status in the Ottoman Empire began in 1839 with the royal decree
to end the poll tax. Jews’ civil and legal status was made equal with the rest
of the population.”
But
this is in 1839 and Palestine was under the rule of the Ottoman Empire. How
many Jews returned to the Holy Land after the Edict of Toleration--several
hundred--a thousand? This was hardly the return of the exiled Jewish nation.
One must ask: After the Edict of Toleration was Jerusalem still under the
control of the Gentiles? If so, then this obviously could not be the end of
their “times.” The Jews must take over control of Jerusalem and rule over their
own lands to end the “times of the Gentiles.” According to many contemporary
Christian scholars it occurred 100 years later at the end of W.W.II. The
“Servitude of the Nation,” which began with the first siege of Jerusalem by
Nebuchadnezzar in 606 BC, did not end until May 14, 1948 and the “time of the
Gentiles,” which began with the third siege in which the city and temple were
utterly destroyed in 586 BC, did not end until June 7, 1967 when the Jews
regained control of their sacred city. The Edict of Toleration did not grant
the Jews the right to rule their own land as is required to end the “time of
the Gentiles.” Although the Jews were granted several new political and
economic concessions in the early 1800’s they were not free as a people or
nation to rule themselves. The Gentiles were still treading down Jerusalem and
their control of the sacred places did not end with the Edict of Toleration.
Sears’
second tactic would appear to be a ‘faulty appeal to authority.’ He mentions
celebrities of the 1800’s such as Edgar Allan Poe and Ralph Waldo Emerson, as having
been in attendance at certain millennial gatherings of the time. Given the
mental history of these two talented poets, one must wonder how they give
theological or historical credence to the BAHAI WORLD FAITH case. Sears then
quotes a periodical entitled the Star of the West Magazine, “ . . . In America,
Europe, and Asia the clear message of the ending of the prophetic time in 1844
was proclaimed with power by many voices.”52 He does not offer any
explanation as to why this magazine is any type of authority on Biblical
prophecy or theology.
Baha’u’llah: The
Branch From Jesse, the Root and Son of David
The
BAHAI WORLD FAITH claims that Baha’u’llah is the promised descendant of King
David who ruled on the throne of his ancestor and instigated the peace process
that will eventually encompass the entire world, in fulfillment of many Old
Testament prophecies including those given to David, 2 Sam 7:12, 28-37, Isa
9:7, Dan 7:14, Mic 5:2. In Ps 89:3-4, 29, 35-37 God promises:
(3)
I have made a covenant with My chosen; I have sworn to David My servant, (4) I
will establish your seed forever, and build up your throne to all generations.
(29) I will establish his descendants forever, and his throne as the days of
heaven. (35) Once I have sworn by My holiness; I will not lie to David. (36)
His descendants shall endure forever, and his throne as the sun before Me. (37)
It shall be established forever like the moon, and the witness in the sky is
faithful.
Baha’u’llah’s
assertion is found in the writings of his great grandson, Shoghi Effendi who
claimed that their family was descended from Jesse, David’s father. The claim
is made that when King Jehoiachin and the Jews were in exile during the
Babylonian captivity, which began with the first invasion of Nebuchadnezzar in 606
BC, many of the Jewish royal family intermarried with the native Persian
royalty. Since Jehoiachin was a direct descendant of King David through Solomon
the children produced through these intermarriages would then have King David’s
blood in their veins and thus could lay claim to David’s throne. The problem
with this line of thinking is that Almighty God cursed King Jehoiachin and his
family line, as he had his father King Jehoiakim before him. There is a double
blood curse on the “seed” of these two men. The first, on the father, is found
in Jer 36:30-31:
(30)
Therefore thus says the Lord concerning Jehoiakim king of Judah: ‘He shall have
no one to sit on the throne of David, and his dead body shall be cast out into
the heat of the day and the frost of the night. (31) I will punish him, his
seed and his servants for their iniquity…
The second curse,
on the son, is found in Jer 22:30:
Thus says the Lord:
“Write this man down as childless, a man who shall not prosper in his days; for
none of his descendants shall prosper sitting on the throne of David, and
ruling anymore in Judah.”
Jehoiachin
the son did not prosper on the throne of King David, since he only ruled for
three months and ten days. He had five sons, and none of them ever ruled on the
throne of David in Judah. When the Jews returned to their land following the
captivity, they did not have a king ruling over them. Zerubbabel, the son of
Shealtiel, the eldest son was one of the overseers of the move back to
Jerusalem with Ezra, but he never served as king of the Jews. Jesus is a
bloodline descendant of King David through his mother Mary. The lineage of Mary
is found in Luke 3:23-38. Here it can be noted that Mary’s father Eli (Heli) is
a descendant of David’s line, not through Solomon’s cursed line, but through
his other son Nathan. Jesus was adopted by Joseph into the Solomonic or ruling
side of the lineage, but he did not have the cursed blood in his veins. For
these six reasons at least, the 1844 date for Jesus’ return is incorrect.
1
Gary Matthews, He Cometh with Clouds (Oxford: George Ronald, 1996), xi.
2
Ibid.
3
Shoghi Effendi, The Promised Day is Come (Wilmette, Illinois: Baha’i
Publishing Trust, 1980 ed.), 31.
4
J. E. Esslemont, Baha’u’llah and the New Era (Wilmette, Illinois: Baha’i
Publishing Trust), 126.
5
Gary Matthews, He Cometh with Clouds, xii.
6 J. E. Esslemont, Baha’u’llah and the New Era, 47.
7 William S. Hatcher and J. Douglas Martin, The Baha’i Faith: The
Emerging Global Religion (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985), 83.
8
Francis J. Beckwith and Stephen E. Parrish, See The Gods Fall (Joplin,
Missouri: College Press, 1997), 194.
9
Baha’u’llah, The Kitab-I-Iqan: The Book of Certitude (Wilmette,
Illinois: Baha’i Publishing Trust, 1983 Pocket Ed.), 81.
10
Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions (Wilmette, Illinois: Baha’i
Publishing Trust, 1994 Printing), 123.
11
Gary Matthews, He Cometh with Clouds, 107.
12
Michael Sours, Baha’u’llah’s Tablet To The Christians (Oxford: Oneworld
Publications, 1990), 81.
13
Michael Sours, The Prophecies of Jesus (Oxford: Oneworld Publications,
1991), 132.
14
William Sears, Thief in the Night: The Case of the Missing Millenium
(Oxford: George Ronald Publishing, 1995 Printing), 5.
15 Ibid.
16
Walter R. Martin, Kingdom of the Cults, 2d. Revised.(Minneapolis:
Bethany House, 1985), 412.
17
Michael Sours, The Prophecies of Jesus, 146-147.
18
Ibid., 20-21.
19
Ibid.
20J. E. Esslemont, Baha’u’llah and the New Era, 125.
21
Ibid., 215.
22
Ibid., 220.
23
Gary Matthews, He Cometh with Clouds, 114-115.
24
Ibid., 104.
25
John F. Walvoord, Major Bible Prophecies (New York: HarperCollins,
1991), 176.
26
Max L. Margolis and Alexander Marx, A History of the Jewish People
(Philadelphia: The Jewish publication Society of America, 1938), 137-138.
27
Ibid., 140.
28
Michael Sours, The Prophecies of Jesus, 92-93.
29
Baha’u’llah, The Kitab-I-Iqan, 29.
30
Michael Sours, The Prophecies of Jesus, 66.
31
William Sears, Thief in the Night: The Case of the Missing Millennium,
19.
32
Michael Sours, The Prophecies of Jesus, 63.
33
William Sears, Thief in the Night: The Case of the Missing Millennium,
20.
34
Michael Sours, The Prophecies of Jesus, 32.
35
Ibid., 33.
36
Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, 46.
37
Ibid., 48.
38
Roth, Cecil, ed. “Holy Places,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, Vol. 8,
(Jerusalem: Keter Publishing, 1972), 919.
39
Michael Sours, The Prophecies of Jesus, 195.
40
William Sears, Thief in the Night: The Case of the Missing Millennium,
16.
41
Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, 52.
42
William Sears, Thief in the Night: The Case of the Missing Millennium,
16.
43
Ibid.
44
Michael Sours, The Prophecies of Jesus, 196.
45
Gary Matthews, He Cometh with Clouds, 110.
46
Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, 40-41.
47
Max L. Margolis and Alexander Marx, A History of the Jewish People, 123.
48
Cecil Roth ed., “History,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, Vol.8, 768.
49
Mark Eastman and Chuck Smith, The Search for Messiah, 80-81.
50
William Sears, Thief in the Night: The Case of the Missing Millennium,
13.
51
Cecil Roth, “Toleranzpatent,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, Vol.15, 1209.
52
William Sears, Thief in the Night: The Case of the Missing Millennium,
5-6.
Conclusion
Any
system that makes a claim to be a universal religion invites the appraisal of
all who are seeking for God and for true life in this world and the next. The
“Baha’i World Faith” is not just a crusade for world peace, unity and
equity. As has become clear in the this
paper, it claims to he the one true faith far the whole world for a thousand
years, uniting in itself and taking the place of all previous religions. As is
stated in the Introduction to vol. XIII of The Baha’i World, “It is the
avowed faith of Baha’is that this Revelation has established upon earth the
spiritual impulse and the definite principles necessary for social regeneration
and the attainment of one true religion and social order throughout the world.”
Whoever
peruses the thousands of pages of the thirteen large volumes of The Baha’i
World will be impressed by the fact; that the Baha’i Faith is indeed a
world faith. For Baha’is, as well as for Christians and Muslims, “the field is
the world,” and it is their aim to bring to all peoples the Good News of
Baha’u’llah, and to unite all the conflicting religions in one. In a world that
deeply divided, any effort to unite mankind in the bonds of true brotherhood is
to be commended. To convert the people of the world to this Faith, Baha’is have
been most zealous in their missionary work. Believing that they have the latest
and best religion in the world, they use every means in their power to
propagate it, not only in their home communities, but also in foreign lands,
where, in obedience to the command of their leaders, they have gone to reside.
One cannot but admire the zeal of those who with heart, mind and hands work for
a cause in which they believe.
Of
course zeal, and even the readiness to die for a cause, do not prove the
validity and value of the cause, for history reminds us there have been many
martyrs who have died for error as well as for truth. Whether the devoted
missionaries are Mormons or Muslims, Baptists or Baha is, their message must be
examined and evaluated on its merits. What then shall we say of the teachings
of the Baha’i Faith as set forth in the writings of Baha’u’llah and those who
followed him? It would seem that in the official literature of the Faith
special emphasis is placed on the “Principles”.
Although the tabulation of these Principles should be attributed to
Abdu’l-Baha rather than to his father, and although they are not original with
him, certainly most persons of good will would readily assent to the importance
of “Independent national peace,” “Conformity of religion to science and reason”
(provided it is true science and sound reason), “Banishment of all prejudice,”
“Equality of men and women,” “A world parliament, “Universal education” and “A
universal language.” These teachings that people of most religions, or of no
religion, might adopt. They are not strictly religious principles, and there is
no mention of God in connection with them.
To
evaluate the Baha’i system as a religion it is necessary to go back of the
Principles to the Laws of Baha’u’llah that are contained in his
Kitab-i-Aqdas. As the unprejudiced reader peruses the regulations which
Baha’u’llah gave for worship in the Arabic language for the 19-day fast, for
the division of inheritance, for or the establishment of a 19-month calendar of
19 days in each month, for severe punishment for an arsonist and light
punishment for an adulterer, for polygamous marriages, etc., is he convinced
that this is the code of laws by which the lives of all the people of the world
should be regulated for the next one thousand years? It has been said by some
Baha’is that the world is not yet ready to receive the laws of the
Kitab-i-Aqdas. This is no doubt true. But will it ever be ready to adopt
this code of laws?
Moreover,
it is clear from the Aqdas and from the writings of later leaders that
the Baha’i Faith is political as well as social and religious in its belief
that nations will become this belief system and will use their political power
to support the Baha’i Faith and enforce its laws, when the Universal House of
Justice will become the Supreme Court of the World, and when not only the
personal lives of believers but also the political affairs of the world will be
ordered according to the laws of Baha’u’llah. In the Baha’i system there is to
be no separation of Church and State. Prior to the death of Shoghi Efendi in
1957, one of the chief merits of the Faith, according to Baha’i writers, was
the abiding presence in the world at all times of a living infallible leader
and guide, who would be the supreme head of the world “Church-State.” Since the
First Guardian died without appointing a successor (though this is hotly
contested as was elucidated in this paper) most of the Baha’is agree that the
rule now resides in the 9-member Universal House of Justice, and for this body
also infallibility is claimed. It would indeed be a welcome and wonderful
change to live in a world the rulers of which were infallible, but Baha’u’llah
himself has shattered such a hope when he stated that infallibility belongs to
the Manifestation (Baha’u’llah) alone.
Since
“the tree is known by its fruit,” we may ask how effective Baha’is have been in
practicing their Principles and obeying their Laws. It seems that their
greatest success has been in demonstrating the absence of racial prejudice and
promoting good race relations. From the early days in America “Amity” meetings
were held to bring together members of different races, to the present time
when it is said that one-third of the believers in America are blacks, the
efforts of the Baha’is here and in other lands are most commendable, and it is
not surprising that members of minority groups are attracted to a movement that
cordially accepts them. It would seem that in America and probably also in other
lands the strongest appeal of the Faith is not so much its teachings as the
fellowship which it offers, the feeling of belonging to a community, something
which had not been found elsewhere. Since the local Baha’i units are usually
not large, the members are drawn close together in the service of the Cause.
A young
man in California who was urged by an acquaintance to attend Baha’i meetings
wrote of his experience as follows: “The bond of community was strong. I
noticed that strangers from out of town would appear at a meeting, declare
themselves Baha’is, and the following week other Bahais had found them a job
and a place to stay. I thought the practice of embracing every Negro and
Oriental that came to the meetings terribly patronizing. Out of a history of deception and intrigue
has come the paradox of a community of earnest and generous souls. But an intense community life can be a
hideous thing when it turns a deaf ear to the suffering of human beings outside
the cozy club.”
As for
“International Peace,” Bahai is like many other groups religious and secular
that have talked much about peace and have no doubt done what they could to
achieve the goal predicted by the ancient prophets of Israel and announced by
Baha’u’llah as the “Most Great Peace.” In addition to what individuals may have
done in their writings and addresses, The Baha’i World, vol. XIII, contains
a proposal submitted by the “Baha’i International Community” to the United
Nations for a revision of its Charter. Here is a portion of the long statement:
“The Baha’i concept of world order is defined in these terms: A World
Super-State in whose favor all the nations of the world will have ceded every
claim to make war, certain rights to impose taxation, and all rights to
maintain armaments, except for purposes of maintaining internal order within
their respective dominions. This State will have to include an International
Executive adequate to enforce supreme and unchallenged authority on every
recalcitrant member of the Commonwealth, a World Parliament whose members are
elected by the peoples in their respective countries and whose election is
confirmed by their respective governments, a Supreme Tribunal whose judgment
has a binding effect even in cases where the parties concerned have not voluntarily
agreed to submit their case to its consideration.” It seems that the United
Nations did not view this proposal for revision of its Charter with favor.
In their
understandable desire to show that the Baha’i Faith has had an influence for
good on the history of the world, Baha’is have sometimes made the mistake that
others have made of claiming credit far something that was not theirs. An
example is the statement made by Guy Murchie: “Woodrow Wilson’s daughter was an
ardent student of the Baha’i teachings; it is said that she was instrumental in
influencing her father to include the Baha’i principles in his ’Fourteen
Points’ at Versailles.” (Questioned as to the accuracy of this statement which
has been frequently repeated by Baha’is, Francis Sayre, grandson of President
Wilson and Dean of the Cathedral in Washington, D.C., replied that his aunt had
no interest in the Baha’i movement, and there was no foundation for the claim
that the “Fourteen Points” were in any way influenced by her or by the Baha’i Principles.)
In education and
medicine and other fields Baha’is in Iran and in other lands have rendered
valuable service, usually in a private capacity and not in the name of their
Faith. In vol. XIII of The Baha’i World
that reports fully the activities of believers
in all lands for the years 1954-1963 it was found that only one mention of a
Baha’i service institution was made, which was a home for the aged in Wilmette.
Baha’is have not
been outstanding in their practice of the fine Principle designated “Independent
investigation of truth.” One wonders how it would be possible for an open
minded Baha’i to investigate the history and doctrine of his religion while
under the rule of an infallible Center of the Covenant or Guardian or House of
Justice which claims the only authority to interpret the sacred writings. Such
investigation becomes yet more difficult when the Kitab-i-Aqdas, ranked
by Shoghi Efendi as “the brightest emanation of the mind of Baha’u’llah,” have
been strictly forbidden to read a translation of the Aqdas by non-Baha’i
scholars. Anyone who questions the accuracy of the authorized version of
Babi-Baha’i history is denounced as an enemy of the Cause of God.
Important as are
the laws and ethical and social teachings of a religion, its basic beliefs
about God and man on which all else depends are of yet greater importance. What
answer does it give to the questions that men in all ages have been asking –
Who or What is God? What is man? How can man know God? What must man do to be
accepted by God? How can he get rid of the sin and evil that darkens his life
and separates him from both God and man? What does God want man to be and to
do? Is there life after death? The value of any religion depends to a
considerable degree on its ability to provide adequate answers to questions
such as these.
What does the
Baha’i Faith tell us about God? Baha’u’llah taught that God is unknowable,
except through his Manifestations, who are Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus,
Muhammad and Baha’u’llah, each Manifestation being more perfect than the one
who preceded it. He held that all the
Manifestations are one, as the sun of today is the same as the sun of
yesterday. However, anyone who takes a close and careful look at these “Suns”
will realize that they differ greatly from one another, and it would seem that
on each appearance God has changed his character as well as his laws, and not
always for the better. When later Zoroaster, Buddha and finally Krishna were
included in the Manifestations, the confusion became compounded. The Bahai had
taught that there could be only one Sun in the heavens at a time to reveal the
One God. But if Zoroaster, Buddha and Krishna also are Manifestations, then
there would have been two or more Suns in the sky at once, and it would seem
that God had become twins or triplets. Hence the message of the modern Baha’i
Faith about God is far from clear and is by no means adequate. It could be said
that each believer brings into his Baha’i faith the conception of God that he
had gotten from his previous faith, or no-faith. The Jews, Christians and
Muslims would think of God as One and the Hindus might continue to believe in a
multitude of gods. The reply of the Baha’is would be that in this age God
is revealed more perfectly than ever before in Baha’u’llah. Is it improper to
inquire which of the divine attributes are revealed more perfectly in
Baha’u’llah than in the great prophets of the Old Testament and in Jesus
Christ? And whether God’s love is more perfectly manifested in Baha’u’llah’s
service to the world than in the service of any other messenger of God?
One of the phrases
frequently found in Baha’i literature is “progressive revelation.” It is said
that people usually think of prophets as men who lived and revealed God in the
distant past, and do not imagine it possible for God to reveal himself now.
“Yet Baha’u’llah not only lived in our time, but was contemporary in the
fullest sense of the word. His teachings are “...extremely advanced,” says one
Baha’i writer. We are compelled to ask,
“Is Baha’u’llah really contemporary?” He
died in 1892, eleven years before the Wright brothers made their first flight,
before automobiles were seen on our roads, before TV pictures were shown to
incredulous eyes, and before anyone dreamed that bombs would be made that could
blow up the world. If it is God’s plan in “progressive revelation” to send new
Manifestations to guide the people of the world in new situations, surely
something more relevant than the Kitab-i-Aqdas is needed for today, and a
person closer to us than Baha’u’llah. But, according to Baha’u’llah, no new
Manifestation will come before 2866 A.D. If many of Baha’u’llah’s
pro-nouncements seem to fit our modern situation, so do the Ten Commandments of
Moses and the Sermon on the Mount of Jesus. A study of the Aqdas
will make it clear that Baha’u’llah is closer to the Middle Ages than to the
world of today.
What is the Baha’i
doctrine of man? Since in Baha’i teaching God is not usually called Father,”
save when Christians are being addressed, man is considered not a child of God
but a servant or slave of God. However, the Baha’i view of man is quite
optimistic, for it is thought that all man needs is laws and precepts and an
Educator. The evil that resides in man’s heart be he savage or civilized, evil
that causes the horrible crimes that have blotted the pages of the histories of
the most “advanced” nations, is largely ignored. In none of the Bahai leaders, except when they are denouncing
their enemies, is there any adequate consideration of man’s deadly disease that
is sin. Few are the appeals to men to repent of their sins as the prophets of
old appealed, few the assurances of God’s love for sinners and his promises to
them of forgiveness and a new life of holiness.
Since the diagnosis
of man’s disease is faulty, the provision that the Baha’i faith makes for his
cure is inadequate. In all Baha’i literature can there be found a promise of a
Savior from sin, or a picture of welcome by God to a penitent as appealing as
the parable of the Prodigal Son? What would Abdu’l-Baha have said to give hope
to a drug addict on skid row, or to guide and comfort a convict on death row? Sinners need salvation, and the
Baha’i Faith fails to provide that.
"If a man die
shall he live again?” asked Job. To this vital question the reply of
Baha’u’llah is vague and unsatisfying. “Resurrection” in the Baha’i system
means the coming of a new Manifestation. Such terms as “entering the Abha
Kingdom,” “drinking the wine of immortality,” “hastening to the Supreme Concourse,”
“Paradise of Abha, the everlasting abode of glorious, sacred souls,” are found
in the Aqdas and other writings. But it is not clear whether personal
immortality is promised, or merely the merging of man with the Infinite.
For many students
of Baha’i history, one of its most disappointing aspects is the failure of its
founders and leaders to reveal in their personal lives, and in their dealings
with members of their families and others who differed with them, the spirit of
love of which they so often spoke and which they enjoined on others.
Baha’u’llah in his relations with his brother Subh-i-Azal, Abdu’l-Baha in his
relations with his brother Mirza Muhammad Ali, and Shoghi Efendi in his
relations with numerous relatives and former friends revealed an attitude of
bitterness that was hardly a worthy example for their followers. We are
reminded of the question asked by an apostle of old, “He that loveth not his
brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?” And how
can he adequately and effectively manifest God’s love to others?
With its lack of
clarity in its doctrine of God; with its legalism which characterizes its Most
Holy Book; with its prescription in this Book of practices long since outdated;
with the inadequacy of its treatment of sin and of its provision for the cure
of evil in man; with the vagueness of its teaching about life after death; with
the failure of its founders to exemplify among their own families the love they
so strongly advocated – with the asseveration of the equality of men and women
yet practice it not in the hierarchy of their “church”, these and other defects
which are manifest in its history, can the Baha’i World Faith be an adequate
religion for the world for today, and for the millennium to come? Only one
answer is possible, and that is a resounding, NO!
There is hope, peace, and life outside the Bahai Faith. That peace, life and hope is to be found with
Jesus, the Christ.
How does one who has realized the above statement approach a
Bahai, to convince him or her that what Bahai teaches is not the truth. A person must appeal to the Bahai sense of
the private investigation of truth. No
organization that professes the private investigation of truth can deny a Bahai
(even the Bahai Faith cannot deny this right since it is this right that is
espoused to the world as its main “selling point”. If a Bahai cannot do this, then the Bahai
Faith is even false to its own supposed truth.) the privilege of reading what
others say about the Bahai Faith in the privacy of the home. Emphasize this to a Bahai--Christians are not
banned from reading anything. In Christ,
we are free. (Though Christians are not
banned from reading anything, Christians do not desire to read everything. I suppose that if Christians were told not to
read a certain book, many Christians would read it to see why it should not be
read.)
Also emphasize the unity that Christ and Paul taught. Paul stated that in Christ there is no Jew,
no Gentile, no rich, no poor, no male or female. We are one in Christ Jesus, all members of
the Body of Christ, each with a certain function, all necessary for the perfect
functioning of the Body of Christ. Christ
came to bring the Jew and Gentile together.
There is much emphasis placed on the fact that Christ died for you and
me. Well, that is true; however, He
walked to the Cross willingly not just for you and me. He died to bring the world’s peoples together. In his death He desired to show the world
that the way to love is to forget this self, this me and you, and to begin
thinking of the us in me and you.
Although men and women on the surface appear to differ, the blood is the
same color, air supports all, and water is the main composition. All depend upon the earth for sustenance. The Bahai attempt to assume that this
teaching stems from Baha’u’llah. BUT
IT DOES NOT. The Cross annunciates
this teaching. Paul expounds on it in
his letters.
But, there is so much discord in the Church, so many sects. This is a good thing. It shows us that Christ is inclusive. The Bahais cannot show disagreement without
being excommunicated. Christ never
excommunicated anyone. He said that if
anyone would come to Him, He would not turn that person away. Christ understood that the human mind cannot
grasp everything. But He wants us, as
Christians, to unite to Him and learn from Him.
The Bahais do not have this, this is foreign to their way of thinking. They do not have a diversity of opinion about
Bahai teaching. If you don’t agree then
you are shunned. Show the Bahai that
Christians do not shun, that a person can disagree and still be part of the
family. Christians are much more
forgiving than Bahais. Bahais will say
otherwise, but I know from experience that Bahais are rigid and legalistic and
will only help those who they think will become a Bahai through the help. Christians are not this way. Christ did not
act this way. Christians are not as
un-united as it appears on the surface.
Bahais are not as united as appears on the surface. Emphasize Unity in diversity. This will make the Bahai question what they
have been taught.
Show the Bahai love without expecting anything in return. Love freely given is sooner or later freely
returned. Bahais, though they speak of
love, are not as loving as they appear on the surface. They expect something in return, and if they
do not receive it, then they soon forget.
I have seen this. I know of what
I speak. The Bahai establishment will
not come to a person’s assistance without that person asking for it, and if you
are not a Bahai you won’t get any help (In fact, even if you are a Bahai, you
may not get assistance from the Bahai establishment. I know this from experience.)
Christians do the opposite. They come to
assist without asking and expect little in return. (I am referring here to the way the
respective faiths adherents act towards those outside the fold.) Show the Bahai Christian love. Bahai Love and Christian Love are so
different that there is no comparison.
Christian love is all encompassing.
Bahai love is reserved for those who only profess Bahai. CHRIST enjoined as a commandment to love one
another.. This is a commandment. Who are
we to love? Those who are the world
casts as undeserving.
Show the Bahai what Love actually is. Show the Bahai that Christ professed unity
long before Baha’u’llah ever came into being.
Show the Bahai that Christians can question and doubt, can read whatever
they want to read, can investigate truth, philosophy, science, learning. Essentially allow the Christ in you to
touch the Bahai. No Bahai can resist
that. That is what they lack and what
they need. They have no loving savior,
essentially. Christians have a power in them
that can change the face of the earth…if they would only use it. What is that power? Christ in us, the power and the glory.
May God
bless….
Ronald
Coleman
Addendum:
Individuals Who Have Left the Bahai Faith
and reasons
Codi Del Mundo:
I used to be a member of the Baha'i Faith, and though it has some good points, it ultimately fails to pass the test of independent investigation.
Baha'is usually seek an image as being liberal and open-minded, to attract seekers no doubt. Once within the community however, you are limited in terms of how you should feel about any aspect of life... it has to be the "Baha'i Way" or no way. In fact, you may find yourself in a ridiculous situation if you have unique family situations...
Are you adopted? Oh, too bad if you were wanting to get married.... Better hope you can track down your biological parents, or you will face a real nightmare, because you need their permission before you can marry if they are still living. If they, let's say, don't like "Negroes" and you want to marry interracially, then despite the fact that they have never seen you before in their lives (because they dumped you at an orphanage) you are forbidden to marry, and face severe penalties if you do so anyways.
Have you, or anyone you know, had an experience where you faced a four-fold conflict with: the love of your life, a biological parent you've never met (or a hard-headed parent with prejudices against your love's race), the Baha'i religious administration, and your own conscience.
I hesitated for quite some time before finally resolving to
say (albeit anonymously) something about why I left the Bahai Faith. I will
keep this as brief as possible.
I
joined in the mid-80's, attracted by the global perspective of the religion
during the Cold War, which I was convinced would lead to the end of man-kind. I
now realize that on top of what I know consider the Faith's empty and hollow
rhetoric, what I was fed were lies on top of lies. A number of web pages have
chronicled extensively the current domineering structure of the Faith's
hierarchy, censorship in publishing, limitation of personal freedoms, and false
chronicling of history.
And
how do so many Bahais react to these truths...denial, denial, denial (and
Bahais would deny that they are in denial, too!). Have a Bahai try to explain
away the "Some Qur'an Verses Contradicted" link of http://www.geocities.com/athens/acropolis/5111.
They lie to your face (and I think attempt to convince themselves, too). The
attempt is disgusting in any case.
I
have since been shunned by Bahais, including my closest friends, but how can I
continue to pretend in a farce? Just because 20th and 21st Century Persian and
Arabic were translated into 17th Century English (a sorry attempt to give the
text an air of religiosity by mimicking the language of the King James Bible)
does not mean that the source was divine.
An individual who wished to remain
anonymous for fear of reprisals….
The reasons I resigned from the Bahai Faith
are:
(1)
The Bahais on the one hand preach removal of prejudice of all kind, but on the
other hand believe in certain types of prejudice against certain people. For
example the Bahais believe that people who do not believe in God are
untrustworthy and untruthful individuals. This view is mentioned in the
Gleanings (passage CXIV, paragraph 3). In my opinion this is a prejudice
against the atheists and agnostics. Since I myself am an agnostic I find such a
view offensive. What would happen to an atheist whose case is being decided by
a Bahai judge? Can we have a society where Bahais are allowed to serve as
judges? In my opinion the answer is no. We must have zero tolerance for people
with prejudiced mind occupying positions of authority. Secondly the Bahais
believe that women are inferior to men in certain intellectual endeavors viz.
legislation on matters not expressly recorded in the holy text. This is
precisely the reason women are banned from serving in the UHJ. In my opinion
this is a prejudice against women. Thirdly in the Aqdas it is mentioned that in
the event a Bahai dies without leaving a Will, then his non-Bahai relatives
cannot inherit his wealth because in the sight of God non-Bahais do not exists.
In my opinion this is a prejudice against non-Bahais. Also it is illogical that
the Faith allows a Bahai to marry a non-Bahai but does not respect the rights
that come along with relationships. Besides being illogical, not respecting the
rights that come along with relationships is immoral, unjust and unethical
behavior.
(2)
The UHJ functioning without a Guardian in my opinion violates the Will of
Abdul-Baha who has clearly mentioned the composition of the UHJ in his Will.
The current UHJ composition is different from the one Abdul-Baha has mentioned
in his Will viz. the Guardian is absent in the current UHJ whereas Abdul-Baha's
Will clearly mentions the Guardian as a member of the UHJ. Therefore the
current UHJ is not the same UHJ mentioned in the Bahai Writings.
According
to the Bahai Writings the power of the UHJ is to legislate on matters not given
in the Writings. Its job is not to change what is clearly given in the Writings
in the name of legislation. The composition of UHJ is clearly given in Abdul
Baha's Will and it includes a Guardian. No Bahai institution can change that
composition. The fact that the current UHJ changed what is clearly given in the
Writings (viz. the composition of the UHJ given by Abdul Baha in his Will)
clearly shows that it is not the same UHJ mentioned in the Bahai Writings.
The
current UHJ justifying its legitimacy is like a UHJ elected by the members of
LSA, and not NSA as mentioned in Abdul Baha’s Will, justifying its legitimacy.
If the latter case does not make sense so does the former since in both cases
there is a clear deviation from the composition of the UHJ given by Abdul Baha
in his Will.
Also
the current UHJ in its effort to prove its legitimacy has interpreted a passage
from the Aqdas as meaning the line of Guardians coming to an end and the UHJ
functioning without a Guardian. The passage I am referring to is about
endowments being passed down (passage number 42 in Aqdas). The point is that
the UHJ mentioned in the Bahai Writings does not have the authority to
interpret the Writings of Baha’u’llah. The current UHJ has done just that since
it interpreted passage 42 of the Aqdas in order to prove its legitimacy. In a
letter dated 7 December 1969 the current UHJ writes the following:
"Future
Guardians are clearly envisaged and referred to in the Writings, but there is
no where any promise or guarantee that the line of Guardians would endure
forever; on the contrary there are clear indications that the line could be
broken... One of the most striking passages which envisage the possibility of
such a break in the line of Guardians is in the Kitab-i-Aqdas itself: (passage
42 of the Aqdas is given here)."
This
paragraph is a proof that the current UHJ interpreted passage 42 of the Aqdas
as meaning a break in the line of Guardians. Giving meaning to the Writings of
Baha’u’llah is interpreting his Writings. In the above paragraph the current
UHJ gave meaning to passage 42 of the Aqdas and therefore they interpreted the
Writings of Baha’u’llah. The fact that the current UHJ has interpreted the
Writings of Baha’u’llah clearly shows that it is not the same UHJ mentioned in
the Bahai Writings.
The
truth is that one can reach different conclusions based on different interpretations
of passage 42 of the Aqdas. For example, if one interprets the word “Aghsan” in
passage 42 of Aqdas as referring to Abdul Baha (and not Abdul Baha plus
Guardians as has been interpreted by the current UHJ) and the “people of Baha”
in passage 42 of the Aqdas as referring to the Guardian of the Bahai Faith (and
not the Hands of the Cause as has been interpreted by the current UHJ) then one
reaches the conclusion that passage 42 of the Aqdas does not envisage a break
in the line of Guardians. It is interesting to note that Shoghi Effendi in God
Passes By (chapter 14) interprets the word “Aghsan” as referring to
Baha’u’llah’s sons and not his male descendents as has been interpreted by the
current UHJ.
In
the Bahai Faith the power to make authoritative interpretations of the Writings
of Baha’u’llah are assigned to certain individuals only i.e. Abdul Baha and the
Guardian. Shoghi Effendi has made it clear that although individual Bahais can
interpret the Writings of Baha’u’llah their interpretations are personal and as
such lacks authority. Shoghi Effendi has also made it clear that the UHJ does
not have the authority to interpret the Writings of Baha’u’llah. Therefore only
Abdul Baha or Shoghi Effendi can tell us whether passage 42 of the Aqdas means
a break in the line of Guardians or not, since making such a statement involves
interpreting the Writings of Baha’u’llah. Only Abdul Baha or Shoghi Effendi can
tell us who "people of Baha" in passage 42 of the Aqdas refers to,
since making such a statement involves interpreting the Writings of
Baha’u’llah. Therefore the right question to ask is: has either Abdul Baha or
Shoghi Effendi interpreted passage 42 of Aqdas? If neither has interpreted
passage 42 of Aqdas then we will never know the true meaning of passage 42 of
the Aqdas. Any interpretation by individual Bahais, including the Hands of the
Cause and Mr. Adib Taherzadeh, carries no weight as it lacks authority.
Bibliography:
Miscellaneous promotional pamphlets,
brochures, and personal letters.
Baha’i International Community Office of
Public Information (nd) Education - A Baha’i Perspective
Leicestershire: Baha’i Publishing Trust.
Baha’i Publications Australia (1995) Teaching
the Baha’i Faith Mona Vale: Baha’i Publications Australia.
Baha’i Publishing Trust (1992)
Becoming
a Baha’i - An Introduction to the Baha’i Faith and its Teachings London:Baha’i
Publishing Trust.
Baha’i Publishing Trust (nd) Directives
from the Guardian New Delhi:Baha’i Publishing Trust.
Baha’u’llah, The Kitab-I-Iqan: The
Book of Certitude (1983 Pocket Ed) (Wilmette, Illinois: Baha’i
Publishing Trust,)
Abdu’l-Baha (1994 Printing) Some
Answered Questions (Wilmette, Illinois: Baha’i Publishing Trust)
Beckwith, Francis J. and Stephen E. Parrish
(1997) The Gods Fall (Joplin, Missouri: College Press)
Effendi, Shoghi (1974) Baha’i
Administration (rev. ed.) Illinois:Baha’i Publishing Trust.
Effendi, Shoghi (1980 ed.) The
Promised Day is Come (Wilmette, Illinois: Baha’i Publishing Trust)
__________ (1977) The Dispensation of
Baha’u’llah New Delhi:Baha’i Publishing Trust.
Esslemont, J.E. (1970) Baha’u’llah and
the New Era - An Introduction to the Baha’i Faith (3rd rev.
ed.) Illinois:Baha’i Publishing Trust.
Hatcher, William S. and J. Douglas Martin
(1985) The Baha’i Faith: The Emerging Global Religion (San
Francisco: Harper and Row,)
Marangella, Joel Bray (Third Baha’i
Guardian) (1986) An Appeal to the Heterodox Baha’is.
advertisement in The Weekend
Australian Sydney, April 26, 1986.
__________ (1986) personal letter to W.A.
van Leen dated December 9, 1986.
Margolis, Max L. and Alexander Marx (1938), A
History of the Jewish People (Philadelphia: The Jewish publication
Society of America)
Martin, Walter R. (1985) Kingdom of the Cults, 2d.
Revised.(Minneapolis: Bethany House)
Mathews, Gary (1996) He Cometh with
Clouds (Oxford: George Ronald)
Miller, William McElvee (1974) The
Baha’i Faith: Its History and Teachings California: William
Momen, Wendi (general edit.) (1989) A
Basic Baha’i Dictionary Oxford:George Ronald.
Mother Baha’i Council of the United States
(1981) The Orthodox Baha’i Faith - An Introduction New
Mexico:Mother Baha’i Council of the United States of America.
National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’is
of Australia (1989) The Covenant Mona Vale:Baha’i Publications
Australia.
__________ (1984) Now You’re a Baha’i
(rev. ed.) Mona Vale:Baha’i Publications Australia.
National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’is
of the United States (1969) The Advent of Divine Justice (4th
ed.) Illinois:Baha’i Publishing Trust.
__________ (1956) Baha’i World Faith
(2nd ed.) Illinois:Baha’i Publishing Trust.
__________ (1975) Each One Teach One -
A Call to the Individual Believer Illinois: Baha’i Publishing Trust.
__________ (1977) The Individual and
Teaching - Raising the Divine Call Illinois:Baha’i Publishing Trust.
__________ (1982) The Light of
Baha’u’llah Illinois:Baha’i Publishing Trust.
__________ (1964) Some Answered
Questions (collected and translated from the Persian of Abdu’l-Baha by
Laura Clifford Barney) (3rd ed.) Illinois:Baha’i Publishing Trust.
__________ (1974) The World Order of
Baha’u’llah - Selected Letters (Shoghi Effendi) (2nd rev.
ed.) Illinois:Baha’i Publishing Trust.
Orthodox Baha’i Faith (Winter 1974/75)
Herald
of the Covenant - Special edition - Violation of the Covenant New
Mexico:Orthodox Baha’i Faith.
Orthodox Baha’is of Australia, (1982) An
Open Letter to the Heterodox Baha’is in the West Australian
April 17, 1982, Perth, Western Australia
Roth, Cecil, ed. “Holy Places,” (1972) Encyclopaedia
Judaica, Vol. 8, (Jerusalem: Keter Publishing)
Sears, William (1995 Printing) Thief
in the Night: The Case of the Missing Millenium (Oxford: George Ronald
Publishing)
Sours, Michael (1990) Baha’u’llah’s
Tablet To The Christians (Oxford: Oneworld Publication)
Sours, Michael (1991) The Prophecies
of Jesus (Oxford: Oneworld Publications)
Walvoord, John F. (1991) Major Bible
Prophecies (New York: HarperCollins)