The New Testament is Anti-Semitic

[shunyadragon]

Is that why you believe the Jews were accursed? That sounds rather anti-Semitic to me. Cursed? Seriously? That seems like very strong negative language for the Bahá’u’lláh.

No Robrecht. To reject the Revelation of God and face the consequences of the conflicts and violence between and among religions is a consequence of this rejection. This is true for Christianity and Islam throughout history. When you reject the Guidance and Blessing of a Revelation and the grace, spiritual unity and harmony of which that Revelation offers. There is nothing in the Baha'i Revelation that advocates hatred, and intolerance of Jews, as in the NT, and nothing in the history of the Baha'i Faith that advocates any such violence against the followers of other religions.

It is being self accursed to reject the Revelation of God, and suffer the consequences.

[shunyadragon]

Individual believers such as Abdu’l-Bahá, also known as ‘Abbás Effendí, the eldest son of Bahá'u'lláh.

If Abdul'baha is quoted in something like 'Pilgrims Notes,' then it is not scripture nor authoritative. If it is from an authorized publication as a authored by Abdul'baha then I consider it authoritative.

[robrecht]

No Robrecht. To reject the Revelation of God and face the consequences of the conflicts and violence between and among religions is a consequence of this rejection. This is true for Christianity and Islam throughout history. When you reject the Guidance and Blessing of a Revelation and the grace, spiritual unity and harmony of which that Revelation offers. There is nothing in the Baha'i Revelation that advocates hatred, and intolerance of Jews, as in the NT, and nothing in the history of the Baha'i Faith that advocates any such violence against the followers of other religions.

But you believe that the Jews were cursed, yes or no?

[shunyadragon]

But you believe that the Jews were cursed, yes or no?

My previous post was clear and specific. To reject the Revelation of God is to be self accursed of ones own free will.

[robrecht]

My previous post was clear and specific. To reject the Revelation of God is to be self accursed of ones own free will.

I see you have added the 'self accursed' part to your earlier post. Thanks for clarifying. I do not think 'the Jews' would agree with your contention that they are self accursed.

[shunyadragon]

I see you have added the 'self accursed' part to your earlier post. Thanks for clarifying. I do not think 'the Jews' would agree with your contention that they are self accursed.

Actually no one would admit to this when they reject the Revelation of God. There is an important point here as to what anti-Jewish, anti-semitism, or specifically anti anything means in this context. It means to be aggressively hate, condemn, mock and literally attack which ever group you oppose. The problem with the NT is anti-Jewish, and not the broader vaguer anti-semitism.

[Adrift]

By the way, Shuny, you never bothered to document your claim that Sen 'claimed some kind of authority comparable or competitive with the infallible International House of Justice'. Would you like to retract that perhaps?

I never made such a claim of Sen.

A quick Google search shows that, actually, you did!

You can find it in a post you made back on 6/29 of this year here:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ll=1#post72713

Referring to Sen, you wrote, "The above is an example of the problem of one 'claiming to be an authority' over the authority of the elected Universal House of Justice as the interpreter of Baha'i scripture."

When pushed on this by robrecht, who asked you "Did he (Sen) really claim any kind of authority comparable or competitive with the infallible International House of Justice?", you answered, "It is my understanding that he did."
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ll=1#post72766

In the very next post you were asked if you had a reference to support your understanding, but you never replied.

[robrecht]

I never made such a claim of Sen.

Let me refresh your memory. When I first brought up the case of Sen McGlinn here, you said that “it was a case of one 'claiming to be an authority' over the authority of the elected Universal House of Justice as the interpreter of Baha'i scripture.”

...The above is an example of the problem of one 'claiming to be an authority' over the authority of the elected Universal House of Justice as the interpreter of Baha'i scripture.

To become a Baha'i, is to embrace the core theistic belief of the Baha'i Faith and the authority of the scriptures and the Universal House of Justice. Personal opinions beyond this is wide open, and not an issue unless one claims an unwarranted claim of authority as an individual.

So I asked you: Did he really claim any kind of authority comparable or competitive with the infallible International House of Justice? It sounded more like he just claimed to be a Baha'i believer with some theological training and wrote a book for other Baha'i believers to read. Did he insist that his authority was such that his readers must agree with him in order to remain Baha'i in good standing? What exactly was his unwarranted claim to authority? Do you happen to know what was so destructive or dangerous about his views? Were his views as subversive of Baha'i faith as, for example, the dissenting or controversial theological views of St Thomas Aquinas, Henri Cardinal de Lubac, Hans Küng, Edward Schillebeeckx, or Karl Rahner's in their Roman Catholic contexts, where all were allowed to remain not only Catholic but active priests in good standing?

You chose only to answer my first question: Did he really claim any kind of authority comparable or competitive with the infallible International House of Justice?

It is my understanding that he did.

I asked if you had a reference to support this? And repeated the questions you had declined to answer. After six weeks, I asked again. After a few more days you said you needed to ‘check it more’. That was over 3 months ago so today, with the arrival of Sen in this thread, I thought it might be a good time to ask if you wanted to retract your earlier statement.

[robrecht]

Actually no one would admit to this when they reject the Revelation of God. There is an important point here as to what anti-Jewish, anti-semitism, or specifically anti anything means in this context. It means to be aggressively hate, condemn, mock and literally attack which ever group you oppose. The problem with the NT is anti-Jewish, and not the broader vaguer anti-semitism.

Well, since you admit they would not admit to being self accursed, perhaps you should not use the modifier 'self'; perhaps you should just stick to the words of Baha'i sacred scripture and just say "accursed".

[shunyadragon]

Let me refresh your memory. When I first brought up the case of Sen McGlinn here, you said that “it was a case of one 'claiming to be an authority' over the authority of the elected Universal House of Justice as the interpreter of Baha'i scripture.”



So I asked you: Did he really claim any kind of authority comparable or competitive with the infallible International House of Justice? It sounded more like he just claimed to be a Baha'i believer with some theological training and wrote a book for other Baha'i believers to read. Did he insist that his authority was such that his readers must agree with him in order to remain Baha'i in good standing? What exactly was his unwarranted claim to authority? Do you happen to know what was so destructive or dangerous about his views? Were his views as subversive of Baha'i faith as, for example, the dissenting or controversial theological views of St Thomas Aquinas, Henri Cardinal de Lubac, Hans Küng, Edward Schillebeeckx, or Karl Rahner's in their Roman Catholic contexts, where all were allowed to remain not only Catholic but active priests in good standing?

You chose only to answer my first question: Did he really claim any kind of authority comparable or competitive with the infallible International House of Justice?



I asked if you had a reference to support this? And repeated the questions you had declined to answer. After six weeks, I asked again. After a few more days you said you needed to ‘check it more’. That was over 3 months ago so today, with the arrival of Sen in this thread, I thought it might be a good time to ask if you wanted to retract your earlier statement.

I was unable to find a reference that provided sufficient clarification of the case. The best I could do was state it was my 'understanding,' and I still have not been able to find a source with a specific clarification. As with all dialogues I am perfectly willing to be corrected based on reliable sources, and continue the dialogue.

[shunyadragon]

Well, since you admit they would not admit to being self accursed, perhaps you should not use the modifier 'self'; perhaps you should just stick to the words of Baha'i sacred scripture and just say "accursed".

Well, I if you read the whole reference your citation came from. The matter of being accursed referred specifically the decision of those to reject the Revelation, and I have to problem with this being a decision on the part of the believers, and that my friend is self inflicted decision.

[robrecht]

Well, I if you read the whole reference your citation came from. The matter of being accursed referred specifically the decision of those to reject the Revelation, and I have to problem with this being a decision on the part of the believers, and that my friend is self inflicted decision.

Yes, I saw that. What is the underlying Arabic (Farsi?) term and form used here for 'accursed'?

[shunyadragon]

How about this, is it a valid Baha'i source?

"... ‘The hand of God,’ say the Jews, ‘is chained up.’ Chained up be their own hands; And for that which they have said, they were accursed. ..."

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/GWB/gwb-13.html.utf8?

Or this?

" ... What harm could come from a statement by the Jews that Jesus was also a Manifestation of the Word of God? Have the Christians suffered for their belief in Moses? Have they experienced any loss of religious enthusiasm or witnessed any defeat in their religious belief by declaring that Moses was a Prophet of God, that the Torah was a Book of God and that all the prophets of Israel were prophets of God? It is evident that no loss comes from this. And now it is time for the Jews to declare that Christ was the Word of God, and then this enmity between two great religions will pass away. For two thousand years this enmity and religious prejudice have continued. Blood has been shed, ordeals have been suffered. These few words will remedy the difficulty and unite two great religions. What harm could follow this: that just as the Christians glorify and praise the name of Moses, likewise the Jews should commemorate the name of Christ, declare Him to be the Word of God and consider Him as one of the chosen Messengers of God?"

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/P...120.html.utf8?

Or this?

Through failing to understand the meaning of the prophecies about the dominion of the Messiah, the Jews rejected Christ. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá says:—
The Jews still await the coming of the Messiah, and pray to God day and night to hasten His advent. When Jesus came they denounced and slew Him, saying: “This is not the One for Whom we wait. ..."

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.

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/o/BN...170.html.utf8?

Or this?

The greatest cause of bereavement and disheartening in the world of humanity is ignorance based upon blind imitation. It is due to this that wars and battles prevail; from this cause hatred and animosity arise continually among mankind. Through failure to investigate reality the Jews rejected His Holiness Jesus Christ. They were expecting his coming; by day and night they mourned and lamented, saying, “O God! hasten thou the day of the advent of Christ,” expressing most intense longing for the Messiah but when His Holiness Christ appeared they denied and rejected him, treated him with arrogant contempt, sentenced him to death and finally crucified him. Why did this happen? Because they were blindly following imitations, believing that which had descended to them as a heritage from their fathers and ancestors; tenaciously holding to it and refusing to investigate the reality of Christ. Therefore they were deprived of the bounties of His Holiness whereas if they had forsaken imitations and investigated the reality of the Messiah they would have surely been guided to believing in him.

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/c/FWU/fwu-22.html.utf8?

Or this?

This was realized when peoples of all religions, nationalities and dispositions became united in their beliefs and followed Christ in humility, associating in love and brotherhood under the shadow of his divine protection. The Jews, being blind to this and holding to their bigoted imitations, were insolent and arrogant toward His Holiness and crucified him. Had they investigated the reality of Christ they would have beheld his beauty and truth.

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/c/FWU/fwu-22.html.utf8?

Or this perhaps?

Consider the symbolical meanings of the Words and teachings of Christ. He said, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever.” When the Jews heard this, they took it literally and failed to understand the significance of His meaning and teaching. The spiritual truth which Christ wished to convey to them was that the reality of Divinity within Him was like a blessing which had come down from heaven and that he who partook of this blessing should never die. That is to say, bread was the symbol of the perfections which had descended upon Him from God, and he who ate of this bread, or endowed himself with the perfections of Christ, would undoubtedly attain to everlasting life. The Jews did not understand Him, and taking the words literally, said, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Had they understood the real meaning of the Holy Book, they would have become believers in Christ. ... Most of the Jews had memorized the texts of the Old Testament and repeated them night and day, but inasmuch as they were ignorant of the meanings, they were deprived of the bounties of Christ.

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/P...136.html.utf8?

One clarification concerning these sources. The first one by Baha'u'llah is Revelation. The third one citation from the book by J E Esslemont is from a book he wrote and he acurately cites Abdul'baha. Is is considered a good accurate reference . The other references are accurately recorded talks by Abdul'baha from books published by the Baha'i Faith and I consider authoritative. As I said before they are good references

[shunyadragon]

Yes, I saw that. What is the underlying Arabic (Farsi?) term and form used here for 'accursed'?

I do not know the languages, but I will assume the translation is accurate. Do you understand Arabic or Farsi sufficient to understand the translation?

[paramount]

Is that why you believe the Jews were accursed? That sounds rather anti-Semitic to me. Cursed? Seriously? That seems like very strong negative language for the Bahá’u’lláh.

You would be amazed at the amount of negative language from Baha'u'llah in Baha'i writings. There are instances where he calls those who deny him and his enemies pigs, dogs, and donkeys amongst a range of other titles.