Messengers of God

[Simon]

I am seeking clarification on something;

Are the manifestations of God as follows; Zoroaster, Abraham, Moses, Krishna, Buddha, Christ, Mohammed, the Bab, Baha'u'llah ?

I read recently that Baha'u'llah said that there have been many manifestations / messengers ?? (are the 2 the same thing ?).

If he did say this, was he referring to prophets e.g. Noah, Elijah, Samuel, Nathan etc ? Are they put into a separate category if they founded a world religion, or is there no difference in this regard.

Please help me to understand.

[Amalcas]

You listed the Independant Manifestations (perfect mirrors of God). There have been an unknown number of dependant (imperferfect mirrors of God) manifestations. Article here:
http://www.bahai.org/article-1-4-0-3.html

[brettz9]

The Messengers you have listed are independent Manifestations of God Whose followers are still in existence. Abraham and Moses might be considered together for Judaism, and the Founder of Sabeanism (Whose name is unknown) could be added in.

Noah and Elijah actually were, we believe, independent Manifestations of God as well, though Their immediate followers are no more. Others, such as David and Samuel, etc. are of a lower station, considered to be lesser prophets who, while great champions of God's Faith, were dependent on, and under the Law of an independent Manifestation of God.

We have attempted to begin a collaborative page at http://bahai9.com/wiki/Prophets which tries to gather the scriptures which can shed insight on their respective stations, but the Ones you listed are the most important today. There is also some discussion at http://bahai-library.com/articles/jbs.5-3.fazel.html under the section on prophets and Apostles.

best wishes,
Brett

[Darrick Evenson]

There is no complete "list" of the Manifestations of God. However, in the Kitab-i-Iqan (by Baha'u'llah) He lists Joseph (son of Jacob, viceroy of Egypt) as a Manifestation, as well as John the Baptist, and Hud, and Salih.
Manifestations are the incarnations of the Names/Attributes of God. In the Qur'an God has 99 Names/Attributes. Muslim tradition says His Greatest Name shall be revealed "in the Last Days". Baha'u'llah revealed the Greatest Name of God, and each Baha'i Community displays it (in Arabic letters) somewhere in their center or place of worship. It is called simply "The Greatest Name" and means in English "O Glory of the All-Glorioius".

Darrick

I am seeking clarification on something;

Are the manifestations of God as follows; Zoroaster, Abraham, Moses, Krishna, Buddha, Christ, Mohammed, the Bab, Baha'u'llah ?



I read recently that Baha'u'llah said that there have been many manifestations / messengers ?? (are the 2 the same thing ?).

If he did say this, was he referring to prophets e.g. Noah, Elijah, Samuel, Nathan etc ? Are they put into a separate category if they founded a world religion, or is there no difference in this regard.

Please help me to understand.

[brettz9]

As I recall, John the Baptist is considered a lesser prophet, but not a Manifestation of God...I couldn't find anything confirming him to be so in the Qur'an...Do you have some reason to say so, or was it an oversight?

King David is confirmed as a lesser prophet (e.g., see http://www.bahai-library.com/writings/a ... l.html#164 )

thanks,
Brett

[hihellowhatsup]

As I recall, John the Baptist is considered a lesser prophet, but not a Manifestation of God...I couldn't find anything confirming him to be so in the Qur'an...Do you have some reason to say so, or was it an oversight?

Actually, John the Baptist is a Manifestation. He didn'y draw his laws from any other sorce. If I can recall, John the Baptist baptized Jesus, meaning he was converting him to another faith. There are still followers of his; the Mabeans, a small religious community in southern Iraq and Iran, are his followers, who acknowledge John as the return of Elijah, but don't recognise Jesus as anything.

[brettz9]

But those Sabaeans, I understand, are different than those Sabaeans who trace their reilgion even before Abraham...

'Abdu'l-Bahá explains baptism as symbolic of purification, and Jesus' family followed the rites of Judaism, showing that He thus thereby fulfilled the law...I don't know of any Scriptural evidence that He (John the Baptist) was in fact a Manifestation of God...

Brett

[Dawud]

Those Iraqi followers of John the Baptist are called Mandaeans. Basic information about them can be found in Kurt Rudolf's book "Gnosis".

The term "Sabean" has been claimed by any number of groups whose members wished to secure protection for their religious beliefs. In all likelihood it originally referred to some sort of Yemeni astral cult, possibly Hermetic in nature. Its nearest modern equivalent would therefore be the New Age movement.

[Felix]

Chris Buck has convincingly argued that there should be a category "Native Messengers of God", as their existence is explicitly endorsed in one of Abdu'l-Baha's authenticated texts.

You can read his piece "Native Messengers of God?" in "Reason and Revelation: New directions in Baha'i thought" (Kalimat, 2002).

[Dawud]

Several big problems with "native messengers of God" category.

(1) Who gets to be considered a "native"? Examples: the Tibetan Bon religion, Mongolian worship of Genghiz Khan, Chinese folk religion. (There seems to be a fundamental tension between the concept of aboriginality, and the insistence on some sort of human prophet-founder.)

(2) How do you decide if a native deity / prophet has any historical basis? Examples: Shiva, Durga, Laozi, the Yellow Emperor. (When Baha'is say that Krishna was a prophet, what aspects or historical details do they mean to affirm, other than his name? Surely not four arms and blue skin...?)

(3) Would the Baha'is have to reject a priori, all prophetic claimants who appeared after 1844 (or some other date)? Examples: the Ghost Dance religion, Caodaism, Altaic Burkhanism. (Interestingly, these modern religious movements often have points of similarity with the Baha'i teachings.)

[brettz9]

Dear Dawud and all,

As far as point 1 you raise, that is true; we cannot easily identify exactly what kind of inspiration there may have been for specific "native" Prophets. If there is such a Tablet, then we of course, would accept that there must have been such an inspiration, but as the quote I supplied earlier stated, we cannot add (concretely) to those mentioned in our Writings.

As far as point 2, we also could not come to any fixed conclusions, beyond those in our Writings, which we of course believe to be divinely-inspired. However, as the statement below indicates, this does not mean, as you alluded to, that we would therefore accept all traditions related to those Who were confirmed in our Writings as being Manifestations of God.

"In a letter written on behalf of the beloved Guardian to an individual believer there appears the following statement:

""The nine religions to which you have referred include both the Babi and Bahá'í Dispensations, Bahá'u'lláh being the Ninth Prophet in the series. The other Prophets included are Zoroaster, Krishna, Moses, the Christ, Muhammad, Buddha, the Prophet of the Sabeans whose name is unrecorded, the Bab and Bahá'u'lláh."

"It can, therefore, be confidently stated that the teachings of the Faith name Krishna as a Manifestation of God. In light, however, of the other statements of the Guardian, in which he stresses the paucity of our information about the beginnings of Hinduism, we should be cautious not to assert the historical accuracy of specific stories related about Krishna. A similar case where allegorical statements and legends surround the figure of a known Manifestation of God is that of Adam."

(On behalf of the Universal House of Justice, at http://bahai-library.com/?file=uhj_kris ... -asma.html )

As far as point 3, the answer is yes, we would reject them a priori, as our Writings indicate that no one has even the right to claim the station of Guardianship for 1000 years. This would not preclude someone from being inspired by the currents of the time (e.g., Wordsworth and Emerson were mentioned as inspired by the times, for example, and pilgrim's notes, if we can trust them, as considering Joseph Smith a seer (but not a prophet)).

Actually, we would need to reject any Prophet since Jesus' time (besides Muhammad, the Bab, and Baha'u'llah), and given that it is stated that the name of the Founder of Sabaeanism is unknown, I wonder whether we can even speculate on that (though Seth and Idris/Enoch have been suggested as possible candidates). However, we are encouraged to focus on the common points between those of other Faiths, including specifically those of more recent movements.

Although it is ideal to focus on commonalities, and perhaps, if necessary, err on that side, I think it would be helpful to balance out a little the sometimes excessive desire to twist other movements, into the mold shaped by our expectations:

"It would be absolutely impossible for anyone to answer all the questions that might be asked by the curious, whether scholars or ordinary people, on any subject. If the Prophets of God only came to this world in order to answer people's questions, and elucidate all the 'nonsense', for the most part, that people have gotten together and formed into cults and philosophies, they would have no time to instruct man by their example and through their teachings in a new way of life."

(On behalf of Shoghi Effendi, in Lights of Guidance, no. 1822)

The following quote cited in an earlier discussion, while also emphasizing commonalities, mentions that some movements come from "human perversity":

There can be no doubt whatever that the peoples of the world, of whatever race or religion, derive their inspiration from one heavenly Source, and are the subjects of one God. The difference between the ordinances under which they abide should be attributed to the varying requirements and exigencies of the age in which they were revealed. All of them, except a few which are the outcome of human perversity, were ordained of God, and are a reflection of His Will and Purpose. Arise and, armed with the power of faith, shatter to pieces the gods of your vain imaginings, the sowers of dissension amongst you. Cleave unto that which draweth you together and uniteth you.

(Baha'u'llah, cited in http://bahai-library.com/published.uhj/ ... aders.html )

Brett

[Dawud]

In all probability, the original Sabaeanism had no founder.

So Baha'is accept prophets called "Krishna" and "Adam" (or other-language equivalents), but know nothing about them other than (a version of) their names? This makes the affirmation meaningless. It's like saying that I believe in Jesus, but doubt that he lived in first-century Palestine--perhaps he was a twentieth-century football player, or a two-headed dog from Mars, or whatnot. (In that case, what is it that I am saying I believe in, other than the name?)

It seems to me that for all their talk of accepting other religions, Baha'is actually have a difficult time coming to grips with teachings that disagree with their own. They want to make everything fit into their little system. The Unification Church (the Moonies) does almost exactly the same thing, with about the same success.

[brettz9]

Actually we are taught to refer to historians of religion for resolving these questions.

And we do believe They are Manifestations of God. The important thing for most people is a recognition of the truth animating each religion. It would be quite impossible to unify the followers of each religion based on their present beliefs, however. The question, in our view, is whether it is possible for the religious followers of the world to be united, through a progressive reconsideration and possible revising (though not requiring utter abandonment) of old views.

Our Writings also state:

As there were no followers of the Báb or Bahá'u'lláh derived from the religions of the Far East in Their days, this may be the reason that They did not address any Tablets directly to these people. Also we must remember that every religion springs from some root, and just as Christianity sprang from Judaism, our own religion sprang from Islám, and that is why so many of the teachings deduce their proofs from Islám.

(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi - 5 March 1957 at http://bahai-library.com/?file=compilat ... aster.html )

Similarly with Hinduism not being addressed in any great detail. The point for us now is to focus on Baha'u'llah, the reincarnation of the same Spirit animating Krishna and the Others we believe to be Manifestations of God. We affirm the truth inspiring these great traditions and the legitimacy of love for their Founders that the followers of these religions have for Them, as well as those truths which have been accurately passed on to them over time, and we also recognize that all cultures have evolved their own wisdom which ought to be respected and even emulated.

But, yes, we do have trouble, as you say, "coming to grips with teachings that disagree" with our own, and it would be very strange, I think, if we didn't!

Especially as we are talking about what we believe to be a divinely-inspired, infallibly guided religion, it wouldn't make sense to merely pick-and-choose from our teachings, whose Founder claimed to be a perfect Manifestation of God--and yet call ourselves Baha'is.

As you presumably are aware, there are a number of ways in which differences between the religions (actually in our view the differences are in the understanding between religious followers--an important distinction) can be explained according to our perspective.

We can discuss what we think might be different reasons for these discrepancies (when our Writings don't address them directly), but we are all entitled to our respective opinions as to whether we find the reasons plausible or not.

On one point you make, I think it is indeed worth considering for each of us, whatever our belief or lack of belief, whether we are trying to "make everything fit into" our own "little system". Sometimes by trusting our own convictions too much (whatever system or lack of system they hinge upon), I think we can deprive ourselves of not only greater knowledge, but also of a greater possible unity with others.

best wishes,
Brett

[Dawud]

I do appreciate the difficulty. Of course I too have my own "little system" which I try to stuff everybody else into (though on the other hand, I don't claim that other religions really secretly agree with me deep down).

Appeal to historians' judgment might be a good basis for discussion (many, perhaps most, would doubt the existence of Abraham and Moses), but I fear that Baha'is have been very uncomfortable about applying them to the tenets of their own religion. You've even kicked people out for reaching the wrong conclusions, apparently.

[brettz9]

We don't claim that other religions secretly agree with us either.

On the historian topic, well, again, it would be strange to take some historian's conjectures about something occurring (or not occurring) in prehistoric times over One we believe to be divinely inspired (presuming we correctly understand what the Prophet has said).

Insistently and consistently advocating a position contrary to any organization on topics fundamental to them can lead one to being "kicked out".

Brett

[Dawud]

You believe that certain other religions are animated with a spiritual spark which legitimizes them, but which you possess in greater abundance--by which I mean, you see yourselves as more suitable for the modern age. Everybody else ought to join you, if they only understood their own religions aright. I say "secretly" because this is of course unbeknownst to them.

Suppose I were to tell you that I accept Baha'u'llah etc. as containing some truth, but as a dim reflection of (fill in some central concept of some other religion here--Krishna Consciousness perhaps, or Buddha Nature, or the One True Pipe of Bob Dobbs). You would likely find that interpretation annoying, even condescending. And yet, because of your religion's authority structure, it is difficult for you to see other religions as true equals--that you stand with respect to them, in much the same way that they stand with respect to you.

As for sacred cows, if I were to propose to Jews that Moses or Abraham never existed (which is very likely true), reactions would vary a lot, but many would be open-minded about it. (Actually it is Jews who are driving this research.) Christians are more doctrinaire on average, but educated Catholics and mainline Protestants will have heard this sort of thing before, and their more liberal wings will even agree with such ideas as Mary not really being a virgin, or Jesus not really rising from the dead. Muslims, I'm sorry to say, are more likely to describe themselves as bad Muslims than as liberal Muslims, but there do exist liberal sects such as the Alevis of Turkey. Western Buddhists have driven the comparable debates within that religion, challenging such things as reincarnation or the anti-gay passages. Hindus are all over the map theologically--you can literally find Hindus championing almost any view of God or gods imaginable. The same is true for Chinese religion.

The key difference between Baha'is and the major religions (or older, historical religions), I think, is that the others feel more secure about their traditions. Nothing anyone says is going to topple Catholicism, let alone a decentralized religion like Hinduism. But Baha'is are more vulnerable, since the authority structure of the religion depends on certain interpretations being true rather than others. If Baha'u'llah wasn't the beneficiary of a divine mandate, or if he wasn't really responsible for the Baha'i bureaucracy of today, then the whole edifice comes crumbling down. And yet, there's no particular reason to believe these claims (or any other spiritual claims), barring private spiritual revelation.

[brettz9]

You believe that certain other religions are animated with a spiritual spark which legitimizes them, but which you possess in greater abundance--by which I mean, you see yourselves as more suitable for the modern age. Everybody else ought to join you, if they only understood their own religions aright. I say "secretly" because this is of course unbeknownst to them.

I don't Baha'is are unwilling to share this thought. It's not like we're saying that we are more clever than them; actually, we are saying that it is only by Baha'u'llah that we really have this understanding--an understanding which we believe was promised to be delivered to them in their own religion. For example, the Bible talks about the Spirit of Truth coming to bring them truth. One can either wade through the various (contradicting) claimants within the Christian church as to who really has the Holy Spirit animating them, or one can consider that this Spirit is not accessible to common human beings (the real meaning of the "Way, the Truth, and the Life") and that it requires a Prophet, first Muhammad, then the Bab and Baha'u'llah, to elucidate these meanings. It is not possible that one human-founded sect is going to win out in unifying people seeking the Truth promised to them; but only a purely divine Source. You are free to reject particular claimants, but I do believe there is actual evidence for each of these Prophets which one can consider.

But despite the knowledge we believe Baha'u'llah has brought, this does not mean that we believe we are at all more worthy or that we are more capable of grasping spiritual truths. We do believe that Baha'u'llah can help these individuals gain a better understanding relative to their present knowledge, just as we feel we can gain a better understanding through a deeper understanding and closeness with Him.

Again, when you refer to our religion, I think it is important to make the distinction that our Writings do (if Baha'is do not always do) that there is a difference between the religion as God brings it to us, and the way it is carried out and the persons who carry it out. We are repeatedly counseled in our Writings not to think that this gift has anything to do with our own inherent worthiness.

I think it is also worth considering that many religionists have been persuaded that Baha'u'llah does help explain their own religion and corrects age-long misunderstandings. These people do not find it condescending because they feel that it is understandable that the human beings who have presumed to interpret their religion will make mistakes and propagate these throughout time.

It is also not as if we as Baha'is do not have to correct our own understandings and behaviors which we have inherited, if not from having a different religious background, than from the understandings of the people of our nation, race, gender, and so on.

Suppose I were to tell you that I accept Baha'u'llah etc. as containing some truth, but as a dim reflection of (fill in some central concept of some other religion here--Krishna Consciousness perhaps, or Buddha Nature, or the One True Pipe of Bob Dobbs). You would likely find that interpretation annoying, even condescending.

Well, firstly, the analogy is not exact, since we do not view other religions' Prophets as any less in stature than Baha'u'llah, nor do we think our religion will be the last. Nor do we think of these religion's followers as in any way inferior to ourselves.

It would be more appropriate to ask what we would think if someone claimed that the Holy Spirit animating Baha'u'llah and all the Other Manifestations of God had now returned again with a more full message.

In that case, I would not think that it was condescending, but rather that it could potentially advance my understanding of God's Faith.

However, with the very explicit instructions as to the minimum duration needed to elapse before the next Manifestation of God, I would be extremely skeptical of such a claim at this point of time, especially since the Baha'i Revelation has barely been unfolded.

And yet, because of your religion's authority structure, it is difficult for you to see other religions as true equals--that you stand with respect to them, in much the same way that they stand with respect to you.

Again, it depends what you mean by religions. As far as the Manifestations of God, we do not view any of them as lesser in station than any other, nor that any were less essential than any other--just as we do not view our primary school teachers as (necessarily) lesser in knowledge or importance than our high school teachers.

As far as the other religionists, again, the basic moral truths are timeless, and it is quite possible that another religionist could have a beter understanding of these truths. It is the social teachings which we believe must be changed, and which God by design and out of His mercy, has done for us ("us" as in all of us on earth willing to accept His message).

As far as religious Writings of prior religions, for those which, due to historical circumstances and timing, have been able to have their scriptures reliably preserved, our Writings not only respect them (just try counting the terms praising the Bible and especially the Qur'an in our Writings), but which explicitly state that Baha'u'llah's Revelation was intended for us to go back and discover more of their truths.

It would be pretty ignorant of us not to take advantage of the understanding which other religionists (or those originally from other religious backgrounds) could be able to share with us in such an exploration.

As for sacred cows, if I were to propose to Jews that Moses or Abraham never existed (which is very likely true), reactions would vary a lot, but many would be open-minded about it. (Actually it is Jews who are driving this research.) Christians are more doctrinaire on average, but educated Catholics and mainline Protestants will have heard this sort of thing before, and their more liberal wings will even agree with such ideas as Mary not really being a virgin, or Jesus not really rising from the dead. Muslims, I'm sorry to say, are more likely to describe themselves as bad Muslims than as liberal Muslims, but there do exist liberal sects such as the Alevis of Turkey. Western Buddhists have driven the comparable debates within that religion, challenging such things as reincarnation or the anti-gay passages. Hindus are all over the map theologically--you can literally find Hindus championing almost any view of God or gods imaginable. The same is true for Chinese religion.

I think you are discussing some very different things here.

If a Jew does not belive in Abraham or Moses, that person is not a Jew! By ethnicity they could be, but we have not been talking about ethnicity. (There are those of Jewish ethnicity, who are quite capable of deciding for themselves whether to accept Christianity, Islam, the Baha'i Faith, or whatever, and they do, despite the internal and external tendencies to force them into certain convictions because of their ethnic background--even if they remain--as they should--proud of what their ancestors have contributed to civilization and if they choose to celebrate certain secular aspects of their culture).

The Baha'i Writings do make clear to us that each generation is to gain a far more mature understanding of our Writings than did the previous; we are in fact encouraged to reevaluate current assumptions in the community. But our religion does rest on certain basics being shared by the community as a whole; and more than that, unlike in prior religious history, it has a means of safeguarding its integrity so that certain inviolable principles are not obscured, as they have been in past religions, due, not to any inherent difference in merit between its followers and Baha'is (or between the stations of prior Manifestations of God and Baha'u'llah), but because, as we believe, God has, deemed it timely in this age to set up such an unprecedented, inviolable Covenant.

If a religion does not have certain inviolable principles, then it is not really a religion, nor do those who claim to belong to such traditions, really merit being considered as followers of that religious tradition. (I am not at all saying that questioning the authenticity of prior scriptures or interpretations is invalid, but rather that religion rests on the belief in some higher authority. So-called "liberal" thinkers who question the divine inspiration of their traditon's Prophet can hardly be seen as being just a different strand of that Faith (even while they admittedly have likely had their thinking shaped to some degree by it).

The key difference between Baha'is and the major religions (or older, historical religions), I think, is that the others feel more secure about their traditions. Nothing anyone says is going to topple Catholicism, let alone a decentralized religion like Hinduism. But Baha'is are more vulnerable, since the authority structure of the religion depends on certain interpretations being true rather than others.

In my view, one can feel much more secure about something that can be disproved (and has not been) than something which is unprovable. It is like saying that scientists are more vulnerable than witchdoctors because their theories can come crumbling down if facts are found to dispute them.

However, just as with scientistis (e.g., classical physicists coming to terms with quantum mechanics), Baha'is adhering to a certain interpretation, may find that facts will force them to revise their understandings, while they also realize that it may not have been the system that was at fault (science or religion), but rather their understanding of it.

If Baha'u'llah wasn't the beneficiary of a divine mandate, or if he wasn't really responsible for the Baha'i bureaucracy of today, then the whole edifice comes crumbling down. And yet, there's no particular reason to believe these claims (or any other spiritual claims), barring private spiritual revelation.

Well, this is an interesting point. Although there are many logical proofs offered in the Baha'i Writings for the validity of itself and prior religions, which I think are quite convincing to someone who reflects deeply enough on them, I think that much of the proof lies in the applicability of the teachings one finds for oneself and society (actually many of the proofs do focus on this). This does not necessitate clear spiritual revelation, though many have experienced this too, but the life-giving, regenerative, transformative power of religion in one's spiritual outlook and moral character are proofs in themselves.

But, it is a Faith, after all, and demanding that God deliver one a physical miracle as proof or the like, may not suffice (and I think there is a moral lesson in that fact)...

Brett

[Darrick Evenson]

ADAM:
It is not necessary to have the teachings of Adam to know what He taught. He was a Manifestation of God, and, as such, taught the same as all. The Mandaeans of Iraq believe that Adam is the founder of their religion; so, would would expect they continued some or more of His teachings, although they probably corrupted His teachings over time. Since the Manifestations of God are ONE, it follows that They would teach the same things, but not emphasize the same things, nor use the same terminology. You will say, "Krishna and Buddha taught reincarnation but the other Manifestations did not". I would say that Krishna nowhere taught the return of the soul to THIS planet; nor did Buddha. The Baha'i Faith allows for other lives on other planets, but for this world only one. You will say, "Krishna taught the existence of many gods, and Buddha of no god" and I will say, "Krishna taught the existence of one GOD". The Devas and Asuras are not "Gods"; they are not eternal, although they have extremely long lifespans. Buddha did NOT deny the existence of GOD, Whom He called BRAHMAN and UNBORN and UNCREATED. He did not deny the existence of Devas or Asuras. In fact, in Buddhism, humans may be reborn as Devas or Asuras or Humans or Ghosts or Demons or Animals. The Baha'i Faith does not deny any of this. The Faith denies that a soul can return to THIS planet in any form.

KRISHNA:
Baha'is generally would agree that the Bhagavad-Gita contains teachings of Krishna. However, are they the "pure" teachings? We have no way of knowing that.

JESUS:
Baha'is accept Jesus as how the Gospels describe Him; as virgin-born, divine, miracle-working, etc.
Please read:
THE BAHA'IS: Christians of the SECOND Advent
http://www.angelfire.com/mo/baha/2ndAdvent.html

In all probability, the original Sabaeanism had no founder.

So Baha'is accept prophets called "Krishna" and "Adam" (or other-language equivalents), but know nothing about them other than (a version of) their names? This makes the affirmation meaningless. It's like saying that I believe in Jesus, but doubt that he lived in first-century Palestine--perhaps he was a twentieth-century football player, or a two-headed dog from Mars, or whatnot. (In that case, what is it that I am saying I believe in, other than the name?)

It seems to me that for all their talk of accepting other religions, Baha'is actually have a difficult time coming to grips with teachings that disagree with their own. They want to make everything fit into their little system. The Unification Church (the Moonies) does almost exactly the same thing, with about the same success.

[Dawud]

Part of the usual definition of "Adam" is "the first man." If I say that I believe in Adam, but not that he was the first man, what on earth am I saying? It sounds like Baha'is would change it to "the first prophet," no matter who he/she was or what his/her name was. (Alley Oop, perhaps.)

The same problem comes up in the case of Krishna and all the sources of his lore. (The Bhagavadgita teaches reincarnation, if that helps you decide.)

[MWaldie]

What a great conversation.

Just a point from a very less learned man's point of view Dawud.

In my view we are our souls first. And spirituality or food for our souls is what the manifestations all brought. Putting the "First man" in context is more important then claiming him to be the "First man on the face of the earth" But the first messenger of God giving the quickening that changed us all from just animals to mankind.

Just how I see the scripture. As far as the other point of the "immaculate conception" My view on that is also along the spiritual side. A spiritual "virgin" no real need to me to be factual simliar to the ressurrection being of a spiritual kind in the followers of Christ.

From my point of view the prophets of God are mirrors of God's spirit and thus there physical name is more important then there physical being. So even the discovery of prophets physical non-existance does not take away the reflections power since there is no doubt from the works left to us that there was a reflection of some kind leaving us the words of God the same reflection of God over and over again. And will return again.

But I am not as learned as many here. And these are my opinions from my own personal search for truth encouraged in the faith I love and the love I profess in Bahaullah.

I also point out how much the heart not just the intellect has in uderstanding the faith's of God. Bahaullah has written that many times over.

Mat

[brettz9]

In fact, in Buddhism, humans may be reborn as Devas or Asuras or Humans or Ghosts or Demons or Animals. The Baha'i Faith does not deny any of this. The Faith denies that a soul can return to THIS planet in any form.

No, I'm sorry, I have to disagree with you on this point (though the rest of your comments were I think on track)...Our Writings deny that a soul can return at all (except metaphorically as the attributes being manifest in another similar being)...Some quotes below I think demonstrate this quite clearly for us.

'We must use the Writings of the Prophets as our measurement. If Bahá'u'lláh had attached the slightest importance to occult experiences, to the seeing of auras, to the hearing of mystic voices; if He had believed that reincarnation was a fact, He, Himself, would have mentioned all of these things in His Teachings. The fact that He passed over them in silence shows that to Him, they had either no importance or no reality, and were consequently not worthy to take up His time as the Divine Educator of the human race.

'We must turn our faces away from these things, and toward the actual practice of His Teachings in our everyday life through our Bahá'í Administration, and in our contact with other people and the examples we give.'"

(From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer, August 30, 1984, citing a statement on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, in Lights of Guidance, no. 1771)

"In regard to your question concerning evil spirits and their influence upon souls, Shoghi Effendi wishes me to inform you that what is generally called evil spirit is a purely imaginary creation and has no reality whatever. But as to evil, there is no doubt that it exerts a very strong influence both in this world and in the next. Abdu'l-Bahá in the 'Some Answered Questions' gives us a thorough and true analysis of the problem of evil. You should preferably refer to that book for further explanation on that point."

(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, November 1, 1934, in Lights of Guidance, no. 1772)

"It is clear from the teachings of Bahá'u'lláh about the nature of the soul and of life after death as published in 'Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh', that the Bahá'í position on this subject is wholly incompatible with the theory of reincarnation. We suggest that you refer this friend to the explanation of 'return' as given by Bahá'u'lláh in the Kitab-i-Iqan and the statements made by Abdu'l-Bahá in 'Some Answered Questions'.

"...for your additional information we give the following quotations from letters written on behalf of the beloved Guardian on this subject:

'No revelation from God has ever taught reincarnation; this is a man-made conception. The soul of man comes into being at conception.' (To an individual believer, April 1, 1946)

'The Bahá'í view of 'reincarnation' is essentially different from the Hindu conception. The Bahá'ís believe in the return of the attributes and qualities, but maintain that the essence or the reality of things cannot be made to return. Every being keeps its own individuality, but some of his qualities can be transmitted. The doctrine of metempsychosis upheld by the Hindus is fallacious.' (To an individual believer, March 27, 1938)

'Evolution in the life of the individual starts with the formation of the human embryo and passes through various stages, and even continues after death in another form. The human spirit is capable of infinite development.

'Man's identity or rather his individuality is never lost. His reality as a person remains intact throughout the various states of his development. He does not preexist in any form before coming into this world.' (To an individual believer, November 26, 1939)

'We as Bahá'ís are not influenced by the categorical assertions of scholars. We believe that what Bahá'u'lláh has revealed and Abdu'l-Bahá has written is from God, and divinely inspired; that Bahá'u'lláh is a Manifestation of God, and has access to a knowledge denied to ordinary human beings.'" (Letter written to an individual believer, April 22, 1954 on behalf of the Guardian)

(From a letter of the Universal House of Justice to the National Spiritual Assembly of Monaco, August 5, 1969; cited in Lights of Guidance, no. 1820)

As far as demons or ghosts, our Writings are also clear that we do not believe in such things, except symbolically:

"Regarding your question as to the meaning of Jin or Genii referred to in the Qur'an, these are not beings or creatures that are actually living, but are symbolic references to the power of men of evil and may be likened to evil spirits. But the point to bear in mind is that these have no positive existence of any kind."

(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, June 26, 1936: Bahá'í News, No. 105, p. 1, February 1937)

"As to the question of evil spirits, demons and monsters, any references made to them in the Holy Books have symbolic meaning. What is currently known among the public is but sheer superstition."

(From a Tablet of Abdu'l-Bahá: Spiritualism and Psychic Phenomena, p. 3)

"You have asked regarding the influence of evil spirits. Evil spirits are deprived of eternal life. How then can they exercise any influence? But as eternal life is ordained for holy spirits, therefore their influence exists in all the divine worlds."

(From a Tablet of Abdu'l-Bahá to Mrs. Ella Goodall Cooper: Daily Lessons Received at Akka, p. 78, 1979 ed.)

(from Lights of Guidance, no. 1667, 1731, 1732)

Moreover, animals do not have souls, as was discussed in a previous thread here.

best wishes,
Brett