"Was Christ within god, or God within Christ ? No in the name of God. " (Abdul Baha Questions pg 97)
THE CORRECT REFERENCE IS TO SOME ANSWERED QUESTIONS, PP. 84-85. WHEN YOU SEE THE PASSAGE IN CONTEXT YOU SEE THAT THE AUTHOR OF THE WEBSITE JUMPED TO A CONCLUSION:
. . . the human spirit is an intellectual, not sensible reality. In explaining these intellectual realities, one is obliged to express them by sensible figures because in exterior existence there is nothing that is not material. Therefore, to explain the reality of the spirit -- its condition, its station -- one is obliged to give explanations under the forms of sensible things because in the external world all that exists is sensible. For example, grief and happiness are intellectual things; when you wish to express those spiritual qualities you say: "My heart is oppressed; my heart is dilated," though the heart of man is neither oppressed nor dilated. This is an intellectual or spiritual state, to explain which you are obliged to have recourse to sensible figures. Another example: you say, "such an individual made great progress," though he is remaining in the same place; or again, "such a one's position was exalted," although, like everyone else, he walks upon the earth. This exaltation and this progress are spiritual states and intellectual realities, but to explain them you are obliged to have recourse to sensible figures because in the exterior world there is nothing that is not sensible.
So the symbol of knowledge is light, and of ignorance, darkness; but reflect, is knowledge sensible light, or ignorance sensible darkness? No, they are merely symbols. These are only intellectual states, but when you desire to express them outwardly, you call knowledge light, and ignorance darkness. You say: "My heart was gloomy, and it became enlightened." Now, that light of knowledge, and that darkness of ignorance, are intellectual realities, not sensible ones; but when we seek for explanations in the external world, we are obliged to give them a sensible form.
Then it is evident that the dove which descended upon Christ was not a material dove, but it was a spiritual state, which, that it might be comprehensible, was expressed by a sensible figure. Thus in the Old Testament it is said that God appeared as a pillar of fire: this does not signify the material form; it is an intellectual reality which is expressed by a sensible image.
Christ says, "The Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father." Was Christ within God, or God within Christ? No, in the name of God! On the contrary, this is an intellectual state which is expressed in a sensible figure.
‘Further than this (Bahá'u'lláh) man has no other point for concentration. He is god." (Star of the West Feb.7,1914)
Star of the West has some reliable materials and some that are not authentic; I don't know which category that quote is in, whether it's from a Tablet or a pilgrim's note. But these letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi may shed some light:
"In regard to your question: we must not be rigid about praying; there is not a set of rules governing it; the main thing is we must start out with the right concept of God, the Manifestation, the Master, the Guardian -- we can turn, in thought, to any one of them when we pray. For instance you can ask Bahá'u'lláh for something, or, thinking of Him, ask God for it. The same is true of the Master or the Guardian. You can turn in thought to either of them and then ask their intercession, or pray direct to God. As long as you don't confuse their stations, and make them all equal, it does not matter much how you orient your thoughts." (The Compilation of Compilations vol II, p. 241)
"If you find you need to visualize someone when you pray, think of the Master. Through Him you can address Bahá'u'lláh. Gradually try to think of the qualities of the Manifestation, and in that way a mental form will fade out, for after all the body is not the thing, His Spirit is there and is the essential, everlasting element." (The Compilation of Compilations vol II, p. 242)
"Were any of the all-embracing Manifestations of God to declare: "I am God," He, verify, speaketh the truth, and no doubt attacheth thereto. For ... through their Revelation, their attributes and names, the Revelation of God, His names and His attributes, are made manifest in the world. ...."(Gleanings p.50-55)
As we can see even within their own belief framework they contradict themselves. The claim Jesus cannot be God or have God dwell in him and then they can say the other manifestations are God. (which would include Jesus). which is it? It is also contending God is the same by many names in different religions.
GOD DOES DWELL IN JESUS; IN FACT, MUCH MORE THAN THAT. IF THE AUTHOR TOOK THE TIME TO REFLECT ON BAHA'I LITERATURE AND TREAT IT FAIRLY HE WOULD REALIZE THIS.
This also contradicts the Scripture of which Jesus said,
John 14:10: "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? "
John 14:11: "Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me"
John 10:30: "I and My Father are one."
AGAIN THESE MATTERS ARE FULLY DISCUSSED IN SOME ANSWERED QUESTIONS AND IN THE BOOK OF CERTITUDE; AND THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE AMONG ANY OF THE MANIFESTATIONS OF GOD AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO GOD.
Jesus is called the Only Begotten son of God for a reason- there is no other like Him.
THE BAHA'I TEACHINGS STATE THAT JESUS WAS BORN OF A VIRGIN AND HAD NO PHYSICAL FATHER; HIS CONCEPTION WAS MIRACULOUS. HOWEVER, WE ALSO BELIEVE THAT THIS DOES NOT ENDOW HIM WITH A GREATER STATION THAN THE OTHER MANIFESTATIONS OF GOD, AND THAT IT IS WRONG TO SPEAK OF GOD FATHERING A CHILD IN THE SENSE THE CHRISTIANS DO. ALSO, PRIOR TO THE COMING OF JESUS TO THE EARTH, WAS IT NOT TRUE THAT HE WAS THE SON OF GOD FROM THE BEGINNING THAT HAS NO BEGINNING? IT WAS TRUE, AND THIS SHOWS THAT HIS SONSHIP IS A SPIRITUAL REALITY, AND NOT RELATED TO HIS MIRACULOUS CONCEPTION IN THE WOMB OF THE VIRGIN MARY.
Baha'u'llah continues...'And were any of them to voice the utterance, "I
am the Messenger of God," He, also, speaketh the truth, the indubitable truth.' (Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 54).
So anyone who claims to be a messenger of God speaks the truth? How Can Bahá'í' know this, or do they just accept it? How would this be possible if the messengers contradict each other? Is God confused? Or are the messengers of the different religions delivering different concepts of God and what He requires of man and the Bahai do not understand this.
AGAIN THE AUTHOR HASN'T READ FAIRLY OR CAREFULLY. THE POINT IS THAT IF A MANIFESTATION IDENTIFIES HIMSELF AS A MESSENGER, THIS IS THE TRUTH. IF HE IDENTIFIES HIMSELF AS A PROPHET, THIS IS THE TRUTH. IF HE IDENTIFIES HIMSELF AS GOD, THIS IS THE TRUTH. AND IF HE IDENTIFIES HIMSELF AS A MAN, THIS IS THE TRUTH. AND THE BIBLE IDENTIFIES ALL OF THESE STATIONS WITH JESUS. I HAVE COMPILED THESE BIBLE VERSES IN A PAPER ONLINE AT http://bahai-library.com/essays/iqan.bible.html
LOOK HALFWAY DOWN THE PAGE.
Baha'u'llah thought of himself as more than just a messenger or manifestation. He wrote: “O Jews! If ye be intent on crucifying once again Jesus, the Spirit of God, put Me to death, for He hath once more, in My person, been made manifest unto you” (Gleanings, p.100).
Here their prophet claims to be like Jesus in the incarnation. He even wrote to Pope Pius IX the following: “O Pope! Rend the veils asunder. He Who is the Lord of Lords is come overshadowing with clouds,...He, verily, has come down from Heaven even as He came down the first time” (Proclamation of Baha'u'llah, p.83)
Here it is plain what Baha'u'llah thought of himself. He made himself a competitor with Jesus. He denies that Jesus was God but then states he is as the Lord that came the first time.
BAHA'U'LLAH DOES INDEED CLAIM TO BE THE RETURN OF JESUS CHRIST. HERE IS WHAT HE WROTE IN THE "TABLET TO THE CHRISTIANS":
"Open the doors of your hearts. He Who is the Spirit verily standeth before them. Wherefore banish ye Him Who hath purposed to draw you nigh unto a Resplendent Spot? Say: We, in truth, have opened unto you the gates of the Kingdom. Will ye bar the doors of your houses in My face? This indeed is naught but a grievous error. He, verily, hath again come down from heaven, even as He came down from it the first time. Beware lest ye dispute that which He proclaimeth, even as the people before you disputed His utterances. Thus instructeth you the True One, could ye but perceive it." (Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 10)
Here is the very opposite of Bahá'í's previous statements.
"Ten thousand prophets, each a Moses, are thunderstruck upon the Sinai of their search at his forbidding voice "thou shalt not behold me!" whilst a myriad of messengers, each as great as Jesus, stand dismayed upon the heavenly thrones by the interdiction, "mine essence shalt never be apprehend." (Gleanings from the writings of Bahá'u'lláh p.62)
Myriads as great as Jesus, really. Did any rise from the dead, did any do miracles like him ? No. What of Moses? The Bible says " But since then there has not arisen in Israel a prophet like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face" (Deut. 34:10).
THERE ARE TIMES WHEN BAHA'U'LLAH USES WHAT MIGHT BE TERMED DIVINE EXAGGERATION TO MAKE A POINT. HERE, THE POINT IS THAT GOD IS GREATER THAN ALL OF THE MANIFESTATIONS OF GOD.
Whose right about Moses? The Bible or Bahá'í.
Abdul Baha " writes therefore all that the human reality discovers & understands of the names the attributes and the perfection of god refer to his holy manifestations, there is no access to anything else. THE WAY IS CLOSED & SEEKING IS FORBIDDEN. (Abdul Baha, Questions pg. 169 )
THE POINT HERE IS THAT MAN'S STATION IS BENEATH THAT OF THE MANIFESTATIONS OF GOD. WE CAN NEVER REACH TO THEIR STATION. IT'S MY VIEW THAT THIS WAS THE SIN OF ADAM, SYMBOLICALLY DEPICTED AS HIS EATING FROM THE TREE OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL; THAT IS, STRIVING FOR THE STATION OF PROPHET OF GOD. AS HE EXPLAINS IN SOME ANSWERED QUESTIONS:
"The tree of life is the highest degree of the world of existence: the position of the Word of God, and the supreme Manifestation. Therefore, that position has been preserved; and, at the appearance of the most noble supreme Manifestation, it became apparent and clear. For the position of Adam, with regard to the appearance and manifestation of the divine perfections, was in the embryonic condition; the position of Christ was the condition of maturity and the age of reason; and the rising of the Greatest Luminary [Baha'u'llah] was the condition of the perfection of the essence and of the qualities. This is why in the supreme Paradise the tree of life is the expression for the center of absolutely pure sanctity -- that is to say, of the divine supreme Manifestation. From the days of Adam until the days of Christ, They spoke little of eternal life and the heavenly universal perfections. This tree of life was the position of the Reality of Christ; through His manifestation it was planted and adorned with everlasting fruits. (Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 124)
The infallible Center of the Covenant (Abdu’l Baha) said that Confucius was a Manifestation (Promulgation of Universal Peace, p.346), which is the position held today.
The infallible Guardian (Shoghi Effendi) states, "Confucius was not a Prophet (Manifestation)" (Lights of Guidance, p.349). He's right, he was a philosopher.
EARLY TRANSLATIONS OF PROMULGATION DID SAY THAT CONFUCIUS WAS A PROPHET. HOWEVER, NEWER TRANSLATIONS, REFERRING TO THE PERSIAN TEXT OF HIS REMARKS, CLARIFY WHAT ABDU'L-BAHA ACTUALLY SAID. THERE IS A LETTER ON THIS SUBJECT FROM THE UNIVERSAL HOUSE OF JUSTICE BUT I CANNOT LOCATE IT AT PRESENT.
We have Abraham triumphing over the forces of Nimrod (Bahá'í Faith pg. 15). These two men lived in very different times at least in the Bible. Interesting that we would not even read of this in their book except for the fact of the Bible recording it.
PERHAPS HE MEANS THE "FORCES" OF NIMROD, MEANING THAT EVENTUALLY HE CONQUERED HIM; IN THE SAME WAY, THE CAUSE OF CHRIST CONQUERED, AND ROME FELL, BUT NOT DURING THE LIFETIME OF JESUS.
"Thus hath Muhammad, the Point of the Qur'an, revealed: "I am all the Prophets." Likewise, He saith: "I am the first Adam, Noah, Moses, and Jesus." Similar statements have been made by Imim 'Ali" (Gleanings from the writings of Bahá'u'lláh p.51).
If Mohammed claimed this he certainly was proven wrong, but I don't think he ever said this. He claimed he was the last prophet which is ignored by Bahá'í and so they make the same mistake for Bahá'u'lláh and claim he is the last prophet for our age.
MUHAMMAD SAID THIS IN TRADITIONS QUOTED BY BAHA'U'LLAH.
"That which thou hast heard concerning Abraham, the Friend of the All-Merciful, is the truth, and no doubt is there about it. The Voice of God commanded Him to offer up Ishmael as a sacrifice, so that His steadfastness in the Faith of God and His detachment from all else but him may be demonstrated unto men. The purpose of God, moreover was to sacrifice him as a ransom for the sins and iniquities of all the peoples of the earth. ( Gleanings from the writings of Bahá'u'lláh p.75 -76 )
This is the teaching of Islam not the Bible, so we have an absolute contradiction. Not only the fact that Ishmael was never considered a ransom for the sins of the world, but to be a ransom for sin according to Islamic teaching is false. There was never any ransom of sin for the whole world in the Old Testament in Judaism, only for the nation Israel. Only in the New Testament with Jesus is this found. It is in Islam where we find the teaching of Ishmael being raised instead of Isaac. They believe Abraham was a true prophet but he said it was Isaac not Ishmael. Besides, Bahá'ís do not believe in sins needing to be forgiven with a sacrifice. This passage is inimical at the least.
"As to the question raised by the Racine Assembly in connection with Bahá'u'lláh's statement in the 'Gleanings' concerning the sacrifice of Ishmael, although this statement does not agree with that made in the Bible, Genesis 22.9, the friends should unhesitatingly, and for reasons that are only too obvious, give precedence to the sayings of Bahá'u'lláh which, it should be pointed out, are fully corroborated by the Qur'án, which book is more authentic than the Bible including both the New and the Old Testaments. The Bible is not Wholly authentic, and in this respect is not to be compared with the Qur'án, and should be wholly subordinated to the authentic writings of Bahá'u'lláh."
(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to the National Spiritual Assembly of United States and Canada July 28, 1936: Bahá'í News, No. 103, p. 1, October 1936; Lights of Guidance, p. 501)
“Allah or Yahweh, God or Brahma…we are speaking about the same unique Being.” (The Bahai world, the Bahai concept of God)
How is this possible when Allah has no son and Brahama is impersonal, that god exists in everything increation. The God of the Bible has a son and is personal. These are different Gods- that is why they are different religions.
DIFFERENCES IN THE CONCEPTION OF GOD IN THESE ANCIENT RELIGIONS HAVE CHANGED OVER TIME DUE TO CORRUPTION OF THE RELIGIOUS TEXTS. BUT WHAT BUDDHA ORIGINALLY TAUGHT AND WHAT JESUS ORIGINALLY TAUGHT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE QUR'AN AND WITH THE BAHA'I TEACHINGS.
"Within a compass of two hundred pages it [the Book of Certitude] proclaims unequivocally the existence and oneness of a personal God . . ."
(Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By, p. 139)
"What is meant by personal God is a God Who is conscious of His creation, Who has a Mind, a Will, a Purpose, and not, as many scientists and materialists believe, an unconscious and determined force operating in the universe. Such conception of the Divine Being, as the Supreme and ever present Reality in the world, is not anthropomorphic, for it transcends all human limitations and forms, and does by no means attempt to define the essence of Divinity which is obviously beyond any human comprehension. To say that God is a personal Reality does not mean that He has a physical form, or does in any way resemble a human being. To entertain such belief would be sheer blasphemy."
(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, April 21, 1939; Lights of Guidance, p. 477)
Bahá'í's John Esslemont explains that, "Bahá'u'lláh teaches that the universe is without beginning in time. It is a perpetual emanation from the Great First Cause." (J. E. Esslemont, Bahá'u'lláh and the New Era, 3d ed. 1970,p. 204.)
Gen. 1:1 in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. That is a complete difference of no beginning and having a beginning.
BAHA'U'LLAH WAS SPEAKING OF THE PHYSICAL CREATION. GENESIS IS SPEAKING SYMBOLICALLY OF THE EMERGENCE OF THE WORD OF GOD IN EACH NEW DISPENSATION. THE PROOF IS THAT IN GENESIS 1:3 GOD SAYS "LET THERE BE LIGHT" AND THAT WAS ON THE FIRST DAY. THEN ON THE FOURTH DAY, GENESIS 1:16 HE CREATES THE SUN AND THE MOON. WHERE DID THE LIGHT COME FROM ON THE FIRST DAY, IF THIS IS A LITERAL EVENT? RATHER, IT IS SYMBOLIC OF THE EMANATION OF THE WORD OF GOD IN EACH DISPENSATION.
Dr. John Esselmont heard and recorded that Abdu'l Baha stated which year "Universal peace will firmly be established...and misunderstandings will pass away." This was 1957 (BAHA'U'LLA'H AND THE NEW ERA 1923 p.212) later editions were changed after Esselmont's death as 1963 and gave an indefinite meaning to the year.
THIS IS FULLY EXPLAINED HERE: