A JIG-SAW PUZZLE

The television series Empire was aired on the ABC for the second time in May-June 2010. I took a special interest in this six part miniseries, this historical drama set in the year 44 B.C., the year of the assassination of Julius Caesar, and the following years of civil war with their struggle of a young Octavius to become the first emperor of Rome. After teaching Roman history in the early 1990s to matriculation students in Perth Western Australia, more than fifteen years ago, I had some knowledge of this complex period in ancient classical civilization. This teaching experience increased my appreciation of this historical doco-drama and I felt moved to write this short prose-poem.

The foundation of the Roman empire, as some students and scholars of that first century B.C. will emphasize “is still too much like a great and endless jigsaw puzzle with most of the pieces missing.”1 My interest in the foundation of Christianity and, in the modern age, the Baha’i Faith was a critical stimulus that led to this poem. -Ron Price with thanks to 1Keith Richardson, Daggers in the Forum: The Revolutionary Lives and Violent Times of the Gracchus Brothers, Cassell, London, 1976, p.xi.

There is no simple schematic,
no single factor to preoccupy
us concerning the years before
or after the time of Christ,1 but
emperor worship…an imperial
cult did emerge in that series of
complex ways2 both before and
after the time of Jesus Christ as
an outpouring of Light from East
to West brought the people under
a heavenly banner and illumined
them with divine insight. Western
lands have been kindled by that
Light. Even now this same Light is
illumining the world and, in time,
a banner of unity will be unfurled
as the world receives a new, a very
spiritual education…..believe me!3

As day follows night, and after sunset
comes the dawn, so it was that Christ
appeared on the horizon of this world
like a Sun of Truth, but the world and
its peoples forgot His teachings and His
example. Slowly they grew tired of all
material things; this heavenly Star shone
once more in Persia, a new illumination
appeared and now a great light is spreading
throughout our new planetized civilization.4

1 “Rome and the Mediterranean To 133 B.C.,” The Cambridge Ancient
History, Vol. VIII, 2nd edition, 1989, p.171.
2 See the series of moves, or Settlements as they have come to be called by historians, which were taken by Octavian to fix his constitutional position after 31 B.C. as the first emperor of the Roman empire.
3 Abdu'l-Baha, Abdu'l-Baha in London, p. 48.
4 ibid., p.82; this is a revised and final edition of this poem.

Ron Price
25 May 2010

Concerning your Jig Saw Puzzle.
I am not sure where you get the idea that people grew tired of Jesus and his teachings as history plainly shows it to be as vibrant as it was when it first appeared. Check out the universities and the libraries and the churches and the hubbub of talk continuously buzzing throughout the world and tell me how it has become tiresome to people? As far as your point of people growing tired of material things this is also something I find odd. If anything materialism continues as it always has to influence people away from the spiritual and into idolatry.
Mike

You raise good points, mvastano6164. I guess it depends: amidst the hubbub of talk continuously buzzing throughout the world about Christianity there are millions for whom Christ is a dead letter and the topic of Christianity is tiresome; and there are millions more for whom, as you say, the subject of Christ and His teachings is very real. Can Christianity and its 1000s of divisions be expected to unite the global community and bring peace to humankind. The social gospel is and has been a complex entity.

I take your point too about material things being right at the centre of things. Thanks for the feedback. I have revised my poem thanks to your input.-Ron in Tasmania
-------------------------

A JIG-SAW PUZZLE

The television series Empire was aired on the ABC for the second time in May-June 2010. I took a special interest in this six part miniseries, this historical drama set in the year 44 B.C., the year of the assassination of Julius Caesar, and the following years of civil war with their struggle of a young Octavius to become the first emperor of Rome. After teaching Roman history in the early 1990s to matriculation students in Perth Western Australia, more than fifteen years ago, I had some knowledge of this complex period in ancient classical civilization. This teaching experience increased my appreciation of this historical doco-drama and I felt moved to write this short prose-poem.

The foundation of the Roman empire, as some students and scholars of that first century B.C. will emphasize “is still too much like a great and endless jigsaw puzzle with most of the pieces missing.”1 My interest in the foundation of Christianity and, in the modern age, the Baha’i Faith was a critical stimulus that led to this poem. -Ron Price with thanks to 1Keith Richardson, Daggers in the Forum: The Revolutionary Lives and Violent Times of the Gracchus Brothers, Cassell, London, 1976, p.xi.

There is no simple schematic,
no single factor to preoccupy
us concerning the years before
or after the time of Christ,1 but
emperor worship…an imperial
cult did emerge in that series of
complex ways2 both before and
after the time of Jesus Christ as
an outpouring of Light from East
to West brought the people under
a heavenly banner and illumined
them with divine insight. Western
lands have been kindled by that
Light. Even now this same Light is
illumining the world and, in time,
a banner of unity will be unfurled
as the world receives a new, a very
spiritual education…..believe me!3

As day follows night, and after sunset
comes the dawn, so it was that Christ
appeared on the horizon of this world
like a Sun of Truth, but the world and
its peoples forgot His teachings and His
example.4 People are sill immersed in a
sea of materialism; this heavenly Star has
shone once more in Iran, an Illumination
appeared and now a great light is spreading
throughout our new planetized civilization.5

1 “Rome and the Mediterranean To 133 B.C.,” The Cambridge Ancient
History, Vol. VIII, 2nd edition, 1989, p.171.
2 See the series of moves, or Settlements as they have come to be called by historians, which were taken by Octavian to fix his constitutional position after 31 B.C. as the first emperor of the Roman empire.
3 Abdu'l-Baha, Abdu'l-Baha in London, p. 48.
4 one commentator on this poem has argued that the world has not forgotten Christ’s teachings. Christianity is alive and well he emphasized and so it is and has been for 2000 years---but its "health" and its "wellness," I would argue, has been in question for centuries some would argue---I for one.
5 ibid., p.82; this is a second revision of this poem. Like the Russian writer Turgenev, I often rewrite a poem after incoming comments.

Ron Price
26 May 2010

Ron, I take your point seriously. However, these thousands of divisions as you call them I guess you are referring to the many denominations that came about as a result of the reformation. Is this problematic? C.S. Lewis said that Christendom is like a hallway with many doors that lead to different denominations but in each God is revealed to the person of faith. I do believe that the only way the world will change for the better is one person at a time. Only this cannot be accomplished by humanitarian efforts solely. It takes a God to get it up and running. Lewis also said, as people ingest him (Christ) by faith he changes them making bad people good and then making good people better. They then are useful in helping change the world for the better as they are now made right with both their maker and their neighbor. How this is done can only be by the power of God himself. (See John 1:12)
I hope I am clear about this as I am trying to present something of a comparison between the power of the social gospel with its limitations and that SUPER-GOOD NEWS that is by faith.
Mike

Just to give you more of an idea where I am coming from, Mike. I am a Baha'i. Baha'is believe Christ has already come again and one-by-one and through many doors is slowly bring a new age to humanity as promised in the Old and New Testaments. If you don't know about Baha'i you can google its official international site at: bahai.org-Ron

Ron, I went to the site you gave me and was surprise by what I read. The following is an excerpt>Throughout history, God has revealed Himself to humanity through a series of divine Messengers, whose teachings guide and educate us and provide the basis for the advancement of human society. These Messengers have included Abraham, Krishna, Zoroaster, Moses, Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad. Their religions come from the same Source and are in essence successive chapters of one religion from God.
Forgive me but when you get a chance tell me how you view the coming of christ as you say he already came again. I am unaware of this notion. I am a conservative evangelical christian and I look to the bible for doctrine and truth concerning my faith. This being the case I also do not understand your viewing or clumping together various personages of faith. I guess it looks to me that your world life view is a type of universalism. Is this true?
Mike

If you go to the following site, Mike, you will get a Baha'i view of the coming of Christ:

Baha'u'llah : Return of Christ and Founder of the Baha'i Faith and Baha'u'llah - second coming of Christ - of Persian Jewish ancestry of the throne-line of King David from the Exilarch Bostanai fulfills prophecy for 'the ...
www.uhj.net/bahaullah
--------------------------If you go to the following site you get some idea of how the Baha'i Faith views other religions:

Other Religions - The Baha'i Study Center: Jump to Is the Baha'i Faith judgmental against other people and religions?‎: We believe that all the world's major religions come from God.
-------------
The Baha'i Faith is no more of a clumping together of various personages, as you put it, than Christianity is a clumping together of personages. The Baha'i Faith is the most recent of the Abrahamic religions.-Ron

So you believe in muhammad pbuh? But he told us that there will be no messenger in the line of abrahamic link! He was the last and god has sent his messengers only in the family of abraham . So how do you believe the both at once: bahaullah is abrahamic descendent and that bahaullah is a messenger of muhammad s sort?

And can you tell me the names of the parents of bahaullah?

Hey Ron, I guess what I meant to say is you clump together various personages of different faiths whereas the bible is a clumping together of various personages of similar faith , right!
Mike

The issue has nothing to do with "clumping together" within or without the Baha'i Faith. It is, rather, and among other things, about Baha'u'llah fulfilling prophecy for the second coming of Christ in the potency of the Everlasting Father seated upon the throne of David that is to last for ever (Isaiah 9:6-7). Like Jesus Christ, the Herald of the Kingdom, Baha'u'llah fulfills prophecy by His prophesied name (Mark 8:38), His prophesied date, the time in which He was to appear, His prophesied address, or the place He was to come (Mt. Carmel, see Isaiah 35), and His prophesied profession or mission to reveal and establish the Kingdom of God on earth as it is in Heaven, by revealing the blue print for the House of the Lord with the Davidic King seated on the Throne of David as its president. Baha'u'llah does not do away with true Christianity, He fulfills it! Whereas Judaism is the root and Christianity is the branch, the Baha'i Faith is the leaf, flower, and fruit of this same tree of everlasting life planted by God of which if man eats, he lives for ever and ever.---Ron(PS...if you google these subjects Mike you can get much more information)

Christianity is not a sect of Judaism. No, it is an independent religion, following Divine Instructions from Almighty Allah and heralding a Message which is
more advanced spiritually than the Message of Moses. This, I wouldargue, is an Islamic view.

Similarly, although raised in the Muslim Faith, and first delivering His Message to Muslims, Baha'u'llah, (His name means "The Glory of God) Founded a new Faith, the Baha'i Faith, which is also an independent religion, not a sect of
the Muslim Faith, in the same manner that Christianity is a new Faith, not a sect of the Hebrew Faith of Moses.

The Instructions for humankind which have been revealed for Baha'is are independent of the Islamic Faith, and the Baha'i Faith heralds a spiritual message of unity for the modern world. Baha'u'llah has made the claim in writing that He has fulfilled the role of the return of Isa bin Maryam. He similarly claims to be the Promised One foretold to come in all of the main Faiths, including the Hindu, Buddhist, Zoroastrian and Islamic Faiths. The Islamic Faith also predicted the return of Isa bin Maryam, and foretold in Ahadith that He would have a Ministry of forty years on Earth, marry and have children, and die a natural death.

His Holiness Baha'u'llah fulfilled that Islamic Prophecy, spoken by His Holiness Muhammad. A billion Christians desperately need to understand that Holy Islamic prophecy, because they are all looking for His appearance in the wrong place. They all expect Him to appear in the sky, riding on the literal clouds of the sky, with brilliant light like lightning, and to immediately sweep them all away to eternal Glory. They need to know that Holy Islamic Prophecy, a more recent Revelation than the Christian Revelation, informs us that He would have ministry of 40 years on Earth, at His return. I have spoken to many, many dozens of Muslims and I have not yet found any who have displayed interest to know and understand their own Holy Prophecies, spoken by His Holiness, Muhammad, not to mention sharing understanding of those Holy Prophecies with Christians, other Muslims, and others.

Here follows another vital Holy Prophecy spoken by His Holiness, Muhammad:

"Moreover, in a remarkable tradition, which is
contained in Shaykh Ibnu'l-'Arabi's work entitled
"Futuhat-i-Makkiyyih", and which is recognized as an
authentic utterance of Muhammad, and is quoted by
Mirza' Abu'l-Fadl in his "Fara'id", this significant
prediction has been made: "All of them (the companions
of the Qa'im) shall be slain except One Who shall reach
the plain of 'Akka', the Banquet-Hall of God".

As soon as women and men discover why His
Holiness Muhammad spoke of 'Akka'as "the Banquet-Hall of God", they find themselves partaking of that very 'Banquet' which we have been invited to enjoy. Of course, that "Banquet" Of which His Holiness Muhammad speaks is a spiritual "Banquet", spiritual Truth, not delicious literal fruits and food like fresh dates and grapes etc.

The Founder of the Baha'i Faith wrote:

"The Earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens."

Today people reconstruct their genealogies using census, baptismal, and church records, and personal papers like diaries. No censuses and other records were even created systematically before the Roman Empire, and then not again until the Islamic flourishings of 800-1250 and the 1600s in Europe. The Roman records were lost long ago, as have been most Islamic records. Families almost never keep detailed genealogies (that is, giving the name of everyone in the ancestral line). Furthermore, it was extremely common in the Middle Ages and earlier, all around the world, to invent genealogies if one was from an obscure family that suddenly became famous. So as a historian I an sceptical that a real genealogy covering 3,700 years (from about 1800 to about 1900 BC, when Abraham lived) is possible for anyone.

But in a way it does not matter because we can prove Baha'u'llah was descended from Abraham mathematically. Everyone has 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great grandparents, etc.; how many ancestors does one have 3,700 years earlier? If one assumes 3 generations per century, that's 37 x 3 = 111 generations. That makes it 2 to the power of 111.(2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256, 512, 1024.....you get the idea....)

Baha'u'llah was born in the city of Tehran in 1817. His given name was Husayn-Ali Nuri. The name 'Baha'u'llah' is an Arabic word meaning 'Glory of God' and is a title that Husayn-Ali adopted as an adult. Baha'u'llah's family was from the village of Takur in the district of Nur, which is situated to the north of Tehran. Baha'u'llah's father held high office in the Iranian government until he became a victim of political intrigue and lost his position in 1835.
---------------------
Just to finish this notion of geneology: 2 to the power of 111 after some 4000 years, one's ancestors is already equal to the total human population of the earth (which was less than a billion, 1,000 years ago). After 111 generations one's ancestors number almost a billion billion billion times MORE than the total human population. CONCLUSION: Everyone in nineteenth Iran is very likely descended from Abraham. For that matter, all modern Iranians are descended from Him, as is everyone in the Middle East (unless they just migrated there from an isolated aboriginal reserve in Australia, or some other very remote population that was isolated from the rest of humanity until a hundred years ago).

That's another reason I say the genealogy is probably symbolically important, not materially important.
--------------------

Who ever told you that bahai is a religion developed from muslim? I asked you only 3 question
1 why do you call him a messenger of muhammad's, jesus' and moses' rank?
2 What is his fathers name
3 what is his mothers name
where are your answers?

If you google "Baha'u'llah's Family," AbdulKalam, you will get the following information from Wikipedia:

Bahá'u'lláh was born in 1817 to Khadíjih Khánum and Mírzá Buzurg of Nur in the province of Mazandaran. He was a Persian nobleman, and went on to be a leader in the Bábí movement, and then established the Bahá'í Faith in 1863.
--------------
The Baha'i Faith grew out of an Islamic milieux, namely, Iran, as Christianity grew out of a Jewish historical context.-Ron in Tasmania
---------------------
To answer your question "why I consider Baha'u'llah a messenger of the same stature/rank as Muhammad, Jesus and Moses," if you go to the following site you will get a comprehensive answer. You may not agree with this answer but it is one possible answer.-Ron
--------------GO TO THE SITE BELOW---------------
Baha'u'llah: The Great Announcement of the Qur'an
As to Muhammad, the Apostle of God, let none among His followers who read ... the glowing tribute paid by Baha'u'llah in the Kitab-i-Iqan to Muhammad and ...
bahai-library.com/books/announcement.quran/

Wow what a quick reply ok which country are you from

Ron, According to the new testament Jesus is the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant. So I do not understand why there should be another to take his place??

Have you not read this?> "Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch DAVID, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ TO SIT ON HIS THRONE; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that His soul was not left in hell, neither His flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, He hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, UNTIL I make thy foes thy footstool. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:29-36).
Mike

After more than 50 years as a Baha'i talking to Christians about the Return of Christ, I often feel like the Christians feel like talking to the Jews. The Jews have never in 2000 years accepted His first coming and the Christians have trouble with His second. There are so many views of both His 1st and His 2nd coming. Here is more on the subject below.-Ron
----------------------------
In February 1988 on a Boston radio program one Christian spokesman and evangelist had the opportunity to dialogue with Robert Stockman, a Baha'i leader and doctoral candidate at Harvard Divinity School. Stockman argued that just as the Jewish leaders were mistaken about Jesus' fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, so also the Christian church has failed to see how Baha'u'llah fulfilled a number of biblical prophecies. In his view, Jesus was rejected because the Jews interpreted the Old Testament prophecies literally, and in the same manner, Christians do not see Baha'u'llah as the Second Coming of Jesus because they interpret the New Testament prophecies literally.
-------------
In the Bible there are prophecies of the coming of Christ. The Jews still await the coming of the Messiah, and pray to God day and night to hasten His advent.

When Christ came they denounced and slew Him, saying: `This is not the One for whom we wait. Behold when the Messiah shall come, signs and wonders shall testify that He is in truth the Christ. We know the signs and conditions, and they have not appeared. The Messiah will arise out of an unknown city. He shall sit upon the throne of David, and behold, He shall come with a sword of steel, and with a sceptre of iron shall He rule! He shall fulfil the law of the Prophets, He shall conquer the East and the West, and shall glorify His chosen people the Jews. He shall bring with Him a reign of peace, during which even the animals shall cease to be at enmity with man. For behold the wolf and the lamb shall drink from the same spring, and the lion and the doe shall lie down in the same pasture, the serpent and the mouse shall share the same nest, and all God's creatures shall be at rest'.

According to the Jews, Jesus the Christ fulfilled none of these conditions, for their eyes were holden and they could not see.

He came from Nazareth, no unknown place. He carried no sword in His hand, nor even a stick. He did not sit upon the Throne of David, He was a poor man. He reformed the Law of Moses, and broke the Sabbath Day. He did not conquer the East and the West, but was Himself subject to the Roman Law. He did not exalt the Jews, but taught equality and brotherhood, and rebuked the Scribes and Pharisees. He brought in no reign of peace, for during His lifetime injustice and cruelty reached such a height that even He Himself fell a victim to it, and died a shameful death upon the cross.

Thus the Jews thought and spoke, for they did not understand the Scriptures nor the glorious truths that were contained in them. The letter they knew by heart, but of the life- giving spirit they understood not a word. The Jews read the Old Testament night and day, memorizing its words and texts yet without comprehending a single meaning or inner significance, for had they understood the real meanings of the Old Testament, they would have become believers in Christ, inasmuch as the Old Testament was revealed to prepare His coming. As the Jewish doctors and rabbis did not believe in Christ, it is evident that they were ignorant of the real significance of the Old Testament. It is difficult to comprehend even the words of a philosopher; how much more difficult it is to understand the Words of God.
---------------------
The Christians are now in the same position as the Jews in relation to Baha'u'llah Who, as Baha'is believe, is that 2nd coming....back to you, Mike.-ron

Ron,
It is interesting how the Jews who had so much knowledge of the scriptures had so much trouble with Jesus. Like many today the contemporaries of Jesus were quite willing to patronize Jesus as another prophet whom by his miracles and words was instructing many in righteousness. However, there were those who knew Jesus personally and together with the religious leaders of that time were unwilling to see how this Jesus dare to call himself the Messiah. They could not or would not plumb the depth of this concept. It was too much for them! Imagine this Jesus of Nazareth calling himself the Messianic Messiah! It is also interesting to know that even Jesus’ own apostles had trouble with this concept as they too were expecting a glorious savior who would come with a sword to deliver the Nation of Israel from the grip of those who held Isreal under its ungodly control. During that period of time it was expected that God would fulfill the prophecy of David and institute his kingdom on earth. They believe in and they looked for a Messiah who would lead them in victory over its oppressors. Jesus did not fit the mold and therefore was not taken seriously . Still there were those who believed in Jesus in spite of his rather weak role as a lamb figure rather than the strong armed zelot which Isreal had expected. But what the disciples and the Jewish nation failed to realize was that god had a eternal plan that he had not completely revealed to those old testament prophets. That plan of salvation was not to be fully known until the old tudor was replaced with the new tutor. What the old tutor of the Law and its ordinaces and rites and many animal sacrifices could not do the new tutor of Grace is doing by bringing about a change in mens hearts as it is calling for all men everywhere to repent and follow the Son. The type of Messiah God had in mind was rather unique in that He would be sending a sin bearer and as such, a suffering servant. Isaiah chapter 53 is probably the most comprehensive text relating this concept. Many people still do not understand this text and would rather avoid or denigrate it to either a redactive forgery or a mysterious myth. This is the point of the New Testament. It is God's final message as it is the consummation of what God was planning to bring about through the nation of Isreal. That plan was what Jesus was trying to convey when he spoke of the kingdom of God and how it related to Him and His message. Imagine the following scene as Jesus himself faces the unbelieving crowd:
In the Gospel of Luke 4:14-30, Jesus reads a text from Isaiah 61:1
1 The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me,
because the LORD has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim freedom for the captives
and release from darkness for the prisoners, [a]
,
After reading the scripture, Jesus takes his seat. All eyes are upon him, waiting for his exposition of the text. Here is how Jesus’ sermon started: "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing." The time that the faithful people of God have been waiting for has arrived. The time is now! What a statement! God’s salvation has now arrived! The blessings of God are being poured out on his people today!

To appreciate what is happening, it is useful to understand the synagogue service order. We have ancient Jewish sources like the Mishnah that tells us how synagogue services were run in ancient times. The congregation would recite Deuteronomy 6:4-9, which was called the Shema. The scripture begins, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might." After reciting the Shema, they would share in prayer and singing songs. After the prayer and songs there was a reading from the Law of Moses and then a reading from the Prophets. Once the readings were completed, there would be an exposition of the text that usually would tie the readings together. The service closed with a benediction, the pronouncing of a blessing on the people.

Now we can understand what is going on here in Luke 4. The scroll of the prophet Isaiah is given to Jesus. We are in the part of the synagogue service where the prophets were read. Jesus opens the scroll to Isaiah 61. This passage in Isaiah was predicting the coming of the Messiah, who would bring salvation to the nation. The figure of Isaiah brings a message of God’s deliverance to the exiles. The Spirit of the Lord being upon this Messianic figure means that he would be God’s designated servant with a special task given by God. The Messiah was not going to be a self-proclaimed messiah, but one designated by God .

This sermon leads the people to a conflict. The people are amazed at his gracious words, but they are troubled because they know who Jesus is. Jesus is in Nazareth. They know his parents and they watched Jesus grow up. Jesus has now placed upon himself the Isaiah 61 scripture, declaring himself to be the prophesied servant that Isaiah spoke about. The people are thinking, "Wait a minute! We know who you are. You can’t be the one! You are not messianic material!" Mark’s account records the words of the people. "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?" (Mark 6:3). Essentially, "You cannot be the one! Your family is right here!" Luke shortens this thought process with the concise, "Is not this Joseph’s son?" So Jesus preached a good sermon, but they did not accept the point Jesus made. You see the people were willing to accept another prophet figure like Jesus who had been making a statement through his many miracles and signs. But when He made himself into the fulfillment of the Messianic messenger of Isaiah they just would not hear of it! They would not believe that Jesus was literally fulfilling that prophecy. Ron , Isn't this the same response you have toward Jesus!

Mike

Well, Mike, as I said at the start, your response to the Baha'i Faith is the same as the response of the Jews to Christianity. You have a certain view and, if Baha'u'llah does not fit into your prescription, you will not examine it seriously. It has been the same for the Jew. The Jew has said, "Christ does not fulfill exactly what the Old Testament prophesized, so I won't take it seriously."

I understand your dilemma, Mike; I have been dealing with it for over 50 years. The Christians have been dealing with the Jews for 2000. In the end, we simply have to agree to differ or the conversation just goes on and on with no resolution. I wish you well in your path, Mike. To each their own it seems to me. I can list endless quotes and you can do the same but, in the end, they will have no effect. We are each entrenched in our respective positions as, I might add, the Jews have been for 2000 years. It happens to millions of believers in the previous religion in the long chain going back to Abraham in the Western religious tradition. Cheers!-Ron

Ron, I beg your pardon but I have a biblical view and as such it is not my personal view. It is required that all be in fidelity to God's calling as portrayed in the Gospel and so you have mistakenly reinterpreted the message and made it into a separate doctrine outside of the accepted cannon. So how are you justified with God on this new doctrine? It is apparent in scripture that the reason Christ came was to fulfill the law by keeping it perfectly. And since the Scriptures declare that there is not a just man upon earth (no, not among those of the highest attainments in grace) that doeth good and sinneth not (Eccl. 7:20), we are sure that this will be the case of all the children of God.
That men could not do on this on their own is evidenced by history. Then how are we justified? We are justified by Faith. But who’s Faith is being addressed? Are we justified by our belief? Does God as a sufficient cause to impute righteousness to us view our personal faith? No other person in history was able to keep the law perfectly so all fall short of the Glory of God on this fact. You cannot tell me you are within the proper hermeneutic when you compare or clump others beside Christ! He has no comparison in this aspect and so He is the only way to salvation. Sorry, but you are not being honest with me or yourself in this attempt to give credence to another gospel as you have been led astray and refuse to see what God was doing in Christ. Remember the Bible says God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ on the cross and so the gospel message is telling us to be reconciled to God through Christ, and no one else!
Give me a few more paragraphs of time to make a case for you on this and see if this makes any sense to you.
Romans 3: 22
Even the righteousness of God through faith of Jesus Christ unto all them that believe; for there is no distinction.

It will be noted that "faith of Jesus Christ" has been used instead of "faith in Jesus Christ," as appears in the English Revised Version (1885) and many other versions. There are many reasons for staying with the KJV in this place, and similar places, of which there are a number, throughout the New Testament; because the same tampering with the word of God which resulted in the monstrosity of "a" righteousness of God (3:21; 3:21 and 1:17) is in evidence here. The true scriptural justification "by faith" has no reference at all to the faith of stinking sinners, but to the "faith of the Son of God." Note the following:

The scriptures have concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe (Galatians 3:22).
In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him (Ephesians 3:12).
And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith (Philippians 3:9).
Knowing that the works of the law does not justify a man, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law (Galatians 2:16).
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ lives in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me (Galatians 2:20).

Now, all of the above scriptures were changed in the English Revised Version (1885) to read, in each instance, "faith in Christ," the translators taking note of the alternate translation only in the form of a single note on Romans 3:22. Without a doubt the KJV is correct in all these places, a fact confirmed by the total agreement of the Emphatic Diaglott in each case. Most of the older commentators, such as James Macknight and Adam Clarke, likewise agree with the KJV rendition of these places. Even Greathouse, although in disagreement, mentioned some interpreters who,

Insist that the phrase [Greek: pisteos Iesou Christou] means "the faith of Christ" (like the "faith of Abraham" in Rom. 4:16).

This interpreter is not convinced by the reasons alleged as the grounds of changing these passages in God's word and is certain that the only end served by their change was that of bolstering the "faith only" theory of justification.

That the true grounds of justification cannot ever be in a million years the faith of fallible, sinful people, would appear to be axiomatic. How could it be? The very notion that God could impute justification to an evil man, merely upon the basis of anything that such a foul soul might either believe or do, is a delusion. Justification in any true sense requires that the justified be accounted as righteous and undeserving of any penalty whatever; and no man's faith is sufficient grounds for such an imputation.

On the other hand, the faith of Jesus Christ, as revealed in the scriptures, is indeed a legitimate ground of justification, because Christ's faith was perfect. "Faithful is he that called you" (1 Thessalonians 5:24); and, in the absolute sense, only Christ is faithful. Only he is called "the faithful and true witness" (Revelation 3:14). Moreover the faith of Christ was obedient. It was a perfect and complete obedience, lacking nothing whatever; and therefore the obedient faith of the Son of God, sinless and holy, is the ground and only ground of any justification of any such thing as a human being; and Christ only therefore might righteously be justified in God's sight. How then are people saved at all? They are saved "in Christ," having been incorporated into him, and thus being justified as a part of him.
The great commentator Charles Hodge was very close to this truth when he wrote: Faith is not the ground of our justification; IS IT NOT the righteousness, which makes us righteous before God. Let me know what you think about this?
MIKE

The Jew have been quoting scripture to the Christians for 2000 years saying "Christ is not the fulfillment of prophecy" and "we can not accept him as our Lord." The Christians do the same in relation to Baha'u'llah with endless quotations from scripture. I have listened to and read long quotations like yours from Christians for over 50 years, Mike. You and I have different positions in relation to prophecy and interpretation of the Bible generally. These views will not be resolved by backs-and-forths in these little posts at this site. It is better to simply agree to differ.

I posted the following at over 100 internet sites and have engaged in discussions like the one I am having with you as a result. In the end one must cease the endless hairsplitting. But I leave you with that post I have been using for years to engage in discussions. Some of these discussions have been fruitful but many simply end with---an agreement to disagree and that is what you and I must do, Mike. -Ron
------------------
Since there are so many questions raised and issues discussed concerning people’s basic assumptions about life, about their philosophy, about their religious beliefs, indeed, about their very approach to reality and the way their society goes about organizing things, it seemed like a useful exercise, useful at least to me and hopefully to some others at this site, to say a few things about: My Position and Beliefs: My Religion. I do this at this site and dozens of other sites on the internet and I use this post as an opening note. I get a wide range of reactions.

Religion, in the sense that I am using it here, is the set of values, beliefs and attitudes each of us has as we go about our daily life at a particular moment in time, in this case, at the time of my writing of this post on the internet and in the case of the person reading this post, at the time of the response of that reader to what he has just read in my writing. My apologetics, then, is strengthened by the common witness and testimony of my fellow human beings about the role of values, beliefs and attitudes in our lives and in relation to the world in which we live.

The religion I belong to---the set of values, beliefs and attitudes that represent my life as a member of the Bahá'í Faith---is an outgoing and dynamic organization. It is not distracted by internal controversy as many if not most other religions are in their spiritual life. It is a Faith highly focussed on the new Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, the Bahá'í Faith’s Prophet-Founder and this Faith is responsive to the world’s need for united action. I hope this opening note of some 2200 words provides a general, a useful, a helpful context for any continuing discussion you and I may have. If the note I strike is too long, I advise readers to just click me off, a simple enough exercise of the hand and the mind.-Ron Price in Australia.
_______________________
Apologetics is a branch of systematic theology, although some experience its thrust in religious studies or philosophy of religion courses. Some encounter it on the internet for the first time in a more populist and usually much less academic form. As I see it, apologetics is primarily concerned with the protection of a position, the refutation of the issues raised by that position's assailants and, in the larger sense, the exploration of that position in the context of prevailing philosophies and standards in a secular society, a religious society, indeed, any society past or present. All of us defend our positions whatever these positions are: atheistic, theistic, agnostic, humanistic, sceptic, cynic, realist, pragmatist and any one of a multitude of religions, denominations, sects, cults, isms and wasms.

Apologetics, to put it slightly differently, is concerned with answering both general and critical inquiries from others. In the main, though, apologetics deals with criticism of a position and dealing with that criticism in as rational a manner as possible. Apologetics can help explore the teachings of a religion or of a philosophy in the context of the prevailing religions and philosophies of the day as well as in the context of the common laws and standards of a secular society. Although the capacity to engage in critical self-reflection on the fundamentals of some position is a prerequisite of the task of engaging in apologetics, apologetics derives much of its impetus from a commitment to a position.

Given the role of apologetics in religious and philosophical history and in the development of the texts and ideas that are part and parcel of that history, it is surprising that contemporary communities generally undervalue its importance and often are not even aware of the existence of this sub-discipline of philosophy. Authors, writers, editors of journals and leaders known for defending points in arguments, for engaging in conflicts or for taking up certain positions that receive great popular scrutiny and/or are minority views engage in what today are essentially forms of secular apologetics.

Anyone concerned with the history of apologetics is also involved with the history of hermeneutics and they all confront the question of interpretation. Questions of interpretation concern biblical interpreters. They concern lawyers who debate the meaning of the Constitution. They concern psychiatrists as they reflect upon their interpretation of case histories, and anthropologists and historians who ponder the data of their disciplines.

Naturally in life, we all take positions on all sorts of topics, subjects, religions and philosophies. Often that position is inarticulate and poorly thought out if given any thought at all. With that said, though, the apologetics I engage in here is a never-ending exercise with time out for the necessary and inevitable quotidian tasks of life: eating, sleeping, drinking and a wide range of leisure activities. The apologetics that concerns me is not so much Christian or Islamic apologetics or one of a variety of those secular apologetics I referred to above, but Baha'i apologetics.

As a Bahá'í whatever proof I offer about my beliefs as I try to help others to make sense of them, this proof I offer is relative. It depends on the total context of the statements which I make. It depends on the explicit and implicit conventions concerning their meaning as well as the experiential component of my statements and much else. My findings, rooted as they are in subjectivity, relativism and pragmatism, can be verified only by individuals capable of assuming and willing to assume my point of view. This is true in all scientific endeavour: in the physical and biological sciences, in the social sciences and in the various studies in the humanities of which religion is but one of these many fields.

One can be convinced of the truth of something, have a sense of certitude and know little to nothing at all about the object. Often, faithful self-abandonment is more valuable than cerebral consent. Society and the millions of individuals in it are caught in cross-fires between noncommitment, scepticism, cynicism and defensiveness on the one hand and the upholding of categorical imperatives, the justifying of arbitrary absolutes, the insistence on finality and agreement, irrational commitment and aggressiveness on the other.

This is the general climate in which apologetics takes place with an interdependence of diverse points of view, with passionate expressions and proofs all lying along linking lines and lines that cannot be linked. The world has become very complex for the votaries its multitudinous faith positions.

There are many points of comparison and contrast between any form of apologetics which I won't go into here. Readers here might like to check out Wikipedia for a birds-eye-view of the subject. Christians and Muslims will have the opportunity to defend their respective religions by the use of apologetics; secular humanists can also argue their cases if they so desire here. I in turn will defend the Baha'i Faith by the use of apologetics. In the process each of us will, hopefully, learn something about our respective Faiths, our religions, our various and our multitudinous positions, some of which we hold to our hearts dearly and some of which are of little interest.

At the outset, then, in this my first posting, my intention is simply to make this start, to state what you might call "my apologetics position." This brief statement indicates, in broad outline, where I am coming from in the weeks and months ahead. -Ron Price with thanks to Udo Schaefer, "Baha'i Apologetics?" Baha'i Studies Review, Vol. 10, 2001/02.
----------------------------------
I want in this second part of my first posting to finish outlining, as best I can, my basic orientation to Baha’i apologetics. To save me reinventing the wheel so to speak, may I suggest readers here google the official Bahá'í site at bahai.org so that they have some idea what the Bahá'í faith is, what are its teachings and its history. Then these same readers can post a reply to this post with specific questions and critiques. Critical scholarly contributions or criticism raised in public or private discussions, an obvious part of apologetics, should not necessarily be equated with hostility. Questions are perfectly legitimate, indeed, necessary aspects of a person's search for an answer to an intellectual conundrum. Paul Tillich, that great Protestant theologian of the 20th century, once expressed the view that apologetics was an "answering theology."-Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, U. of Chicago, 1967, Vol.1, p6.
-------------------------
I have always been attracted to the founder of the Baha'i Faith's exhortations in discussion to "speak with words as mild as milk," with "the utmost lenience and forbearance." This form of dialogue, its obvious etiquette of expression and the acute exercise of judgement involved, is difficult for most people when their position is under attack from people who are more articulate, better read and better at arguing both their own position and the position of those engaged in the written criticism than they are. I am also aware that, in cases of rude or hostile attack, rebuttal with a harsher tone, the punitive rebuttal, may well be justified, although I prefer humour, irony and even gentle sarcasm rather than hostile written attack in any form. Still, it does not help an apologist to belong to those "watchmen" whom the prophet Isaiah calls "dumb dogs that cannot bark."(Isaiah, 56:10)
-----------------
In its essence apologetics is a kind of confrontation, an act of revealing one's true colours, of hoisting the flag, of demonstrating the essential characteristics of one's faith, of one's thought, of one's emotional and intellectual stance in life. “Dialogue does not mean self-denial,” wrote Hans Kung, arguably the greatest of Catholic apologists. The standard of public discussion of controversial topics should be sensitive to what is said and how; it should be sensitive to manner, mode, style, tone and volume. Tact is also essential. Not everything that we know should always be disclosed; not everything that can be disclosed it timely or suited to the ears of the hearer. To put this another way, we don't want all our dirty laundry out on our front lawn for all to see or our secrets blasted over the radio and TV. Perhaps a moderate confessionalism is best here, if confession is required at all—and in today’s print and electronic media it seems unavoidable.

I want to thank Udo Schaefer, "Baha'i Apologetics," Baha'i Studies Review, Vol.10--2001/2, for some of what I write here. Schaefer, a prominent Baha’i writer, scholar, lawyer and man of many intellectual seasons, emphasizes that one's views, one's faith, should not be opportunistically streamlined, adapting to current trends, thus concealing the real features of these views, features that could provoke rejection in order to be acceptable for dialogue. To do this, to be opportunistic and saying what others want to hear often puts one in the danger of losing one's identity, if not one’s honesty and integrity.

It is almost impossible, though, to carry the torch of truth, partial truth, of one’s convictions, indeed, of any set of words in any colour, through a crowd without getting someone's beard singed. If one has no beard one’s emotions can be equally fried and hung out to dry in the process of verbal or written exchange. In the weeks and months that follow, my postings quite possibly may wind up singing the beards of some readers and, perhaps, my own. Emotions, if not fried when exposed, are often behind barricades of self-defence and that is natural because what is being considered is at the centre of a person’s life. Such are the perils of dialogue, of apologetics.

Much of Baha'i apologetics derives from the experience Baha'is have of a fundamental discrepancy between much secular thought and the Baha'i teachings on the other. In some ways, the gulf is unbridgeable but so, too, is this the case between the secular and much thought in the Christian or Islamic religion or, for that matter, between variants of Christianity or even within what are often the muddy and pluralistic waters of secular thought itself.

Anyway, that's all for now. It's back to the winter winds of Tasmania, about 3 kms from the Bass Straight on the Tamar River. The geography of place is so much simpler than that of the philosophical and religious geography that the readers at this site are concerned with, although even physical geography has its complexities as those who take a serious interest in the topic of climate change are fast finding out. Whom the gods would destroy they first make simple and simpler and simpler. I look forward to a dialogue with someone, anyone who is inclined to respond to what I’m sure for some is this overly long post. Here in far-off Tasmania--the last stop before Antarctica, if one wants to get there by some other route than off the end of South America--your response will be gratefully received.-Ron Price, Tasmania, Australia.

Ron, How are you? How are the winter winds of Tasmania treating you? I know you appreciate the wonder of God's creation, as it seems from your post you enjoy the simple graces of nature itself. Now concerning apologetics and unbridgable gulfs. I read your post and did a little more research on the principals of the Bahai religion. I wonder if you will give me a little more of your time as I try to make sense of some ideas that you made mention of in your last post.
I am taking the liberty of quoting you as I have some questions concerning what you said as follows:
These are your own words and as such I cannot understand how you who call yourself and portray yourself as an intellectual would stoop to such narrow-minded assumptions about truth when you and I both know that there are absolutes in life! You stated the following >My findings, rooted as they are in subjectivity, relativism and pragmatism, can be verified only by individuals capable of assuming and willing to assume my point of view. You even end this sentence stating the fact that it is your point of view! I mean, come on now how in the world do you expect rational people to accept this bias as a starting point for truth. Truth is objective not subjective! Right! If so then there has to be a consensus within the community of believers when we think about apprehending the truth about something that we need to know I need to know when I go out to buy gasoline that the price at the pump is an absolute. It has to be that when it is posted as 3.00 a gallon that that is all I will pay. Everyone will agree to this! Now I know this is a simple example but it does prove something about what people will agree to when stating objective truths.
Now according to the Bahai site it is stated that the Bahai faith is the youngest independent religion of the world, which was founded in the mid 19th century by Mirza Husayn Ali (1817-1892), son of a government minister in Tehran (Iran). Mirza Husayn Ali is known to the world as ‘Baha Ullah’ and regarded by Bahais as the most recent in the line of Messengers of God.
The Bahai religion originally grew out of the Baptism faith, Tell me Ron, how is this an objective truth? Anyone can claim to be a messenger but how do you know that he is telling you the truth? Where did he get this information and why should we believe him? Is this something you just decided to believe with no backing? What credentials did he possess that people should put their faith in his message? And if he really is God’s messenger then what was god doing with Christ and those other messengers. You see the Bahai faith says that your new messenger came to overturn old beliefs and customs. It seems you believe in a God whose mind changes through history making any doctrine expendable when he feels it necessary. What kind of God do you serve who changes and therefore cannot be trusted to be taken at his word seeing he does away with older doctrines of truth. This is not the kind of God that many others and I envision when we think of God. When you think of God do you see him in this way as mutable and whimsical with truth? Pointing millions of people to the truth in one dispensation and then telling others in another dispensation that those old ways were not necessarily true. This is not an objective way of looking at God! It rather is a limited and temporal way of perceiving him and his nature. This is the point you need to spend time with. What is the nature of God? Is he faithful to his word when he sends his messengers? If not then he is rather more like us temporal beings who say one thing and then do another or forget what he said at one time and now has another truth. How many truths are there? Are there many truths? Will there come a day when God grows tired of the Bahai faith and sends another messenger and does away with your religion? Why would this be so difficult to conceive of? He did it before and if he is true to his nature he will do it again. Right!

Again you said, One can be convinced of the truth of something, have a sense of certitude and know little to nothing at all about the object. Often, faithful self-abandonment is more valuable than cerebral consent.
What planet are you from that you would abandon you mind in pursuit of truth! Whose minding the shop while the owner is away?? Would you sell all you own and purchase something you had little knowledge of or knew nothing about what you were buying into? This seems a dangerous game to be playing with your eternal soul!
You have presented a resume that shows how much time you have spent in pursuing knowledge and teaching others and now you want me to agree with this anti-intellectual /blind faith approach to truth. Have you lost your mind? It is fantastic to think that you would follow this line of reasoning in any other pursuit in life yet you wholeheartedly are headlong into a doctrine that defies reason!!

Lets look at the Principles and Beliefs of the Bahai

Baha Ullah taught that there is only one God, there is only one human race, and that all the world’s religions represent stages in the revelation of God’s will and purpose for humanity. God, who in his essence is unknowable, can be made known to man through manifestations through His messenger, including Abraham, Krishna, Moses, Zoroaster, Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab, and Baha Ullah. Baha Ullah being the most recent in this succession of divine Messengers. All these messengers were sent at various stages of human progress as part of a divine plan to educate the human race. Essentially, they all taught an identical truth.
Now in the above paragraph Bahai faith states that all these messengers taught an identical truth.
If you would be so open on this please answer the following questions.
1>How is Bahai identical with the Christian idea of the revelation of God? According to the New Testament Jesus is God incarnate.
2> What is the nature of God according to Bahai? According to the old and new testaments God is immutable and therefore does not change his truths over time.
3> What miraculous proofs did your messenger offer in relation to those old testament prophets and Christ who cleanse the lepers and healed the sick and raised the dead?
4> How does Bahai even come close in being similar to the biblical idea of man being dead in sins and therefore unable to help himself so as to change the world into a better place?
5> Platonic theology states God is timeless and therefore essentially cannot relate to the world in its tensed frames of time. The implication of this doctrine removes God and makes him a nonrelational God! Your doctrine aligns itself with the tenseless theory of time which is not biblical. You turn God into a deistic creator who can only relate through mediums. How is this similar to Christian thesim.
There are only dissemilarities between Bahai and Christian theism so I just find it fantasitic that you would even assume any real similarities to the truth as portrayed in the biblical texts!
Mike
In what ways is it identical and if it is then why do away with the others?
Mike

You raise several points which I will deal with briefly because I have some domestic tasts that require my attention.

1. The Bahai religion did not originally grow out of the Baptism faith. Indeed it has nothing to do with the Baptists in any one of their forms.
2.Society and the millions of believers/individuals in it are caught in cross-fires between the noncommitment, scepticism, cynicism and defensiveness of others on the one hand and the upholding of categorical imperatives, the justifying of arbitrary absolutes, the insistence on finality and agreement, irrational commitment and aggressiveness on the other. There is nothing wrong with having absolutes but invoking the fire of God on those who do not share them is unwise. Religious truth, in the end, is relative even if the person holding the belief sees it as absolute. It's absolute for him ut not for others who do not share his views.
3. the Baha'i Faith does not teach that all the religions teach the same things. It is obvious that they don't. But, as I say: “Dialogue does not mean self-denial,” wrote Hans Kung, arguably the greatest of Catholic apologists. The standard of public discussion of controversial topics should be sensitive to what is said and how; it should be sensitive to manner, mode, style, tone and volume. Tact is also essential as we discuss our mutual absolutes, as we share our truths.
4. Much of Baha'i apologetics derives from the experience Baha'is have of a fundamental discrepancy between much secular thought and Christian thought and the Baha'i teachings on the other. In some ways, the gulf is unbridgeable but so, too, is this the case between the secular and much thought in the Christian or Islamic religion or, for that matter, between variants of Christianity or even within what are often the muddy and pluralistic waters of secular thought itself.
---I must run, Mike. I encourage you to do some googling of the Baha'i teachings. The Bahai Faith and its topics are all over the internet. Just google: Baha'iFaith and add any word that summarizes your particular interest: trinity, baptism, truth, other religions, etc.-Ron in Australia