FYI...

---------- Forwarded message ----------

Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 12:56:35 EDT
From: ROHANIART@aol.com
Reply-To: bbst@yahoogroups.com
To: bbst@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [bbst] Response to the evangelical Web site, GTO

This is a response to an evangelical Web site (www.gto.org/Articles/b1.htm).

I'm just seeking to clarify and explain a few aspects of Baha'i teaching. I'm
posting the letter here--as Susan requested--before sending it to Russ
Williams. I'll also be posting a copy on my own Web site
(http://members.aol.com/msresearchnotes/sours_resources.html). I want to thank Ted
Brownstein and Daniel
Grolin for proofing the letter, for their grammatical correction and their
comments which encouraged me to add the references and a conclusion. Further
comments and corrections are welcomed.

Dear Russ Williams, president of GTO Inc.,

Recently several friends pointed out your article on the GTO Web site
containing citations from two of my books, "The Prophecies of Jesus," and
"Baha'u'llah's Tablet To The Christians." There are a few things I would like to
comment
on and clarify. But first I would like to say that I appreciate that you began
your article by mentioning the Baha'i appeal "to the collective brotherhood
of all mankind," the most important teaching for our troubled age. I also
respect the effort and thought you put into addressing the matters that concern
you
as a Protestant Christian.
��� Naturally, as a fellow believer in the Gospel and messianic station of
Jesus, I was surprised by the claims you made about orthodoxy. In the stated
goal of your article, you wrote that "In analyzing the BWF [Baha'i World Faith]
position, the purpose of" your study was to demonstrate that the Baha'i Faith's
stance is "totally alien to Christian orthodoxy." I can see how you arrived
at this view of orthodoxy, but I would like to suggest that there is another
way of looking at this matter. I understand that even you, as a Protestant,
might be considered unorthodox or even heretical by some Protestants or adherents
of the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox churches. Nevertheless, with all
these divisions of Christianity one can recognize certain common features that
might be viewed as a type of historical orthodoxy, such as belief in the God
taught in the Bible, general acceptance of most of the books of the Bible,
belief in the Sonship and divinity of Jesus Christ, belief that Jesus was truly
the historical Messiah foretold by the Hebrew Prophets, belief in the redemptive
power of Jesus' death on the cross, belief that Jesus would return, belief in
the Virgin Birth, the sanctity of Mary, the divine inspiration of the Gospel,
Christianity's continuing importance as a light to the world, the spiritual
efficacy of prayer, Christian charity, and so forth. These basic beliefs enable
us to recognize all these sects as "Christian." And, more than many other
beliefs, they represent the beliefs that have historically been accepted by most
Christians as correct, or "orthodox." Beyond these beliefs, many Christians
today are at a complete loss to understand the doctrinal hairsplitting and
issues that caused so many Christians in the past to break away from one another
to
form competing Churches. Since we Baha'is uphold all these orthodox beliefs
too, I think it is beyond Christian fairness to argue that the Baha'is are
"totally alien to Christian orthodoxy"--especially on the basis of such things as
how Baha'is interpret some prophecies.
��� Having said that, I don't wish to imply any malice on your part, rather I
just want to put the question of orthodoxy in a new and contemporary light,
one that best shows the consistency that actually exist between most Christians
and even Baha'is.
��� Judging from your article I can see that many of our differences of
understanding are due to different approaches to the interpretation of the Bible.
You apparently take the Bible literally, whereas Baha'is believe the Bible
contains many literary forms, including symbols. You write, for example, "The BWF
has turned the Biblical presentations and even the words of Jesus and His
disciples into nothing more than symbolic, figurative pictures." Truthfully, I'm
not sure what this claim actually means or how one would arrive at it. Scholars
of literature and religion concur that the Bible contains much symbolic
language, especially those portions now recognized as one of the genres of ancient

times--"apocalyptic" writing--a genre that includes the Book of Daniel,

Revelation, and Jesus' Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24). Take, for example, verse 12:2
of
the Book of Daniel--"those who turn many to righteousness [will be] like the
stars forever and ever." In this case, "those who turn many to righteousness"
refers to the righteous believers, saints, sages, and preachers of the Word.
Its a simile, and naturally I don't take this to mean that they will literally
be turning into gaseous stars in the outer universe or omitting light such as
actual stars do. Rather I think it means that like stars guide navigators,
such people will be spiritual guides to others. So when Christ said the "stars"
of heaven will fall, it seems very reasonable that He meant this as a metaphor,
representing religious leaders who once guided people. This interpretation is
aided by referring to the simile in the Book of Daniel, as Jesus directed us
in the same Sermon where He made this prophecy.
��� Which interpretation of this verse presents us with a more significant
meaning--a literal meteor shower (not an uncommon event), the literal stars
descending on the planets (which would terminate humanity, ending all discussion),

or the inability of religious leaders to guide humanity to the right path? If

we say it is the symbolic meaning, why argue that this makes it "nothing
more" than symbolic? For me, the assertion that something is symbolic, is an
assertion that it represents something real, but something other than its literal
meaning.� Such religious guidance isn't nothing, a mere picture, not for those
who deeply value the spiritual life.
��� But what I would like to stress more than any particular interpretation
is that there a broader� problem with insistence on literal
interpretations--and I raise this matter as a fellow believer and promoter of the
divinity Jesus
Christ and the inspiration of the Bible. This is something that may be of
fundamental importance to religious faith in these difficult times. The
presumption that the meaning or intent of the Bible is indeed always the literal
meaning, as argued by some Christians, I suspect is one of the chief reasons so
many
people have turned away from Christianity altogether, resigned to a secular
and materialistic world view, just as similar beliefs in other traditions evoke
the same skeptical reaction. The arguments that the Bible teaches that the
world is only 6000 years old, that an exclusivist God wants the Temple to be
restored with animal sacrifices made in His name in Jerusalem, that the stars will

fall (literally), that there will be this world-embracing genocidal massacre

of Jews and unbelievers in the last Days, etc., are simply untenable to many
people today, because such teachings are seen as contrary to known evidences
and present a picture of a God that is neither loving nor just, but one Whose
penalties and ways are disproportionate and cruel. You, as a Christian, and I,
as a Baha'i, share in common the truly central beliefs of biblical orthodoxy,
and what I want to say to you with all sincerity is that I believe we can best
promote belief in God and the Bible, and attract people to the life of faith,
if we don't needlessly insist on adherence to such literal interpretations of
the prophecies or narrow definitions of doctrines. The New Testament set forth
a simpler and authoritative criterion in 1 John 4:2--that is, those who
accept that Jesus is the Messiah in the flesh are of God!
��� Because Christians themselves hold to such varied points of view about
the meaning of the prophecies it probably would not be that useful to respond to
every individual point you raised. Josh MacDowell--perhaps the most popular
and widely read Evangelical Protestant apologist of our time--for example,
appeals to some of the very interpretations of Daniel that you seek to refute (see

Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict 171-5). McDowell cites these
traditional Christian interpretations to add support to the truth of Jesus
Christ, and perhaps in that way he has confirmed some in the life-giving faith of
Christ. Christians are clearly of many opinions about how to interpret such
prophecies, which edict, which calendar, and so forth, and you must already know
that in arguing with Baha'is you are likewise arguing with many Christians.
��� If however, you wish for a point-by-point reply, just let me know and I,
or some other Baha'i, will provide such information as addresses each
question. For the present I would like to limit myself to only a few of the points
you
raised: 1) The significance of the chronological prophecies to Baha'is, 2) no
one knows the time of Christ's return, 3) the meaning of the return of
Elijah, 4) the promised new name the believers will receive, 5) the successor to
the
Bab, 6) the Edict of Toleration, and 7) Islam and the Temple site in
Jerusalem.

1) The significance of the chronological prophecies to Baha'is

You wrote: "The BWF maintains that the Daniel prophecy gives a timeline in
"prophetic years" not days, for the ending of a period of desolation during
which the sanctuary of the "Temple" in Jerusalem was to be profaned. This period
of time according to ... the founder's son Abdu'l-Baha, began with the edict
given by King Artaxerxes to Ezra (Ezra 7:12-26) to restore and build Jerusalem.
This 2,300-year period ended, according to the BWF, in 1844, the year that the
Bab, as the forerunner of Baha'u'llah, much the same as John the Baptist was
for Jesus, made his declaration to the world that he was a Manifestation of
God. To the BWF this is one of the major proofs that Baha'u'llah is the return
of Christ."

Not everyone will appreciate this distinction, but what the Baha'i Faith
maintains is that this is a "traditional" proof, which is to say, this
interpretation and form of calculation was commonly accepted and in the 19th
century even
acceptance of the specific terminus of 1844 was wide spread. Ministers like
William Miller, who propagated such interpretations, were building on a long
tradition of Christian interpretation. For Baha'is it is a major "traditional"
proof, but one that doesn't originate with Baha'is, but rather with Jews and
early Christians, something documented well by scholars (see for example, Le Roy
Froom's four volume "The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers," vols. I-IV). But
for Baha'is it is still only a traditional proof. It is not one of the major or
essential proofs of the truth of Baha'u'llah's station, nor a proof that
either the Bab or Baha'u'llah ever mentioned directly. In the early years the
Faith
spread in the Middle East with no mention of these prophecies. For Baha'is,
the truth of Baha'u'llah's station is entirely independent of such traditional
proofs. Baha'u'llah is a manifestation of God, because He actually did in word
and deed manifest God. So we look to His teachings and His sacrifice first
and foremost as the truly major proofs of Baha'u'llah. These proofs are so
self-evident and sufficient that interpretations of prophecies--which at best are
always circumstantial evidence--are not essential. Likewise, the truth of
Christ is independent of similar interpretive arguments used by Christians.
���
2) No one knows the time of Christ's return

The difficulty of correctly interpreting prophecies is suggested by the Bible

itself. In the Book of Daniel the meaning of these cryptic verses is "sealed
up" till the end times. This suggests that it will be in the final days, when
the prophecies are about to be or already actually fulfilled, that the true
meaning will be made known and confirmed--which is not to say they will be
apparent to everyone even in the end times! (see Daniel 12:10) If for example, the

prophecy of the "new name" is only known to those who receive it, perception
of this prophecy's fulfillment will remain unknown to many. So too, I think it
is not hard to see that this may well be the case for some of the other
prophecies too.
��� You mentioned that Christ said, "It is not for you to know times or
seasons which the Father has put in His own authority." And from this you argued,

"So, according to Jesus, Gabriel an angel of heaven, who relayed the prophecy
of Dan 8:14, did not know the time of Jesus' return. So this 2,300-day time
period cannot be a specific timetable about the return of Jesus, since Gabriel
as an angel did not possibly know. This was nearly 500 years before Jesus'
statement that neither He nor the angels of heaven, at His first coming, knew the
exact time of His return. It would seem contradictory for Jesus to claim that
the angels of heaven did not know when He would return, 500 years after an
angel had told Daniel the precise year when He would return."

The angel mentioned in the Book represents the divine nature of this
revelation given to Daniel. While the Book represents the angel as understanding
that
the prophecies refer to the end time, nowhere does it suggests that the Angel
knows the full meaning of the message he was delivering to Daniel or the exact
date of the future events mentioned. In fact, he says the book is sealed
until the time of the end. Likewise, he doesn't say the meaning cannot be
understood at all. Rather, those purified will come to understand it. And its a
simple
fact that it was Christians who first realized that these verses seemed to
correspond to the first appearance of Jesus, and later, using the same
interpretive method, calculated 1844 as a possible date of return. And likewise,
even
when that very year dawned, few appreciated that the Day of their Lord had
indeed dawned in the very biblical lands of Daniel, rather than in the United
States as some seemed to have expected.
��� From a Baha'i point of view, the greatest evidence suggesting that these
Christians interpretations have spiritual merit is that this date, 1844, does
in fact mark the birth of the Baha'i Revelation.

3) The Return of Elijah

Concerning Elijah, you argued that,

"...when the people were promised Elijah's return, they were not expecting a
re-incarnation, they were expecting the actual flesh and bones Elijah that God
had taken away physically. (c) The real Elijah did actually appear at Jesus'
first advent when he presented himself with Moses and Jesus on the Mount of
Transfiguration—Matt 17:3. So not only did the "spirit and power" of Elijah
return in the mission of John the Baptist, but the actual physical body of that
Old Testament prophet came back as well at the first coming of Christ."

Jesus affirms that John the Baptist himself was indeed the return of the
expected Elijah, and we know John was born on earth of a women, not a bodily
Elijah of old returned from the clouds. This fact alone is inescapable and
establishes a biblical president to understanding the meaning of return in a
spiritual
manner. Whether Elijah also appeared in an apparition or even physically on
the "Mount of Transfiguration" is a separate matter from whether or not John
the Baptist was himself the return of Elijah, as Jesus taught.

4) The new name the believers will receive

Concerning the promised "new name" (Rev 3:12) you acknowledged that the Bible
"does state that Jesus will write on His followers His new name." But then as
a refutation to Baha'i teaching, you write:

"All one has to do is read further in the Book of Revelation, especially Rev
19:9-16, to see several of Jesus' "new names,"—the Lamb; Faithful and True
(see also Rev 3:14); Lord of Lords and King of Kings; the Word of God; and a
name which no one knows but He Himself. Nowhere among these names is the
conqueror of Revelation 19 called the "Glory of God" which is Baha'u'llah's
self-fulfilling title."

If the name is a name which no one knows but He Himself, would it not follow
that it would not be among these names listed in Revelation 19, none of which
appear to have been new when the Book of Revelation was written? You argue
that "The secret name is one that only Jesus knows. The term 'glory of God' is
found in numerous other places in Scripture and is not a new 'secret' name that
no one knows." But where in the Bible is the term "Baha" (glory) identified as
a name for the believers? You added,

"Plus, it does not say that He will come bearing a new name! It says He will
give the people who overcome (meaning those who die without losing the faith)
several new names, His God's, the New Jerusalem (which was to come out of
heaven at the time of His naming of the followers), as well as His new name.
Baha'is are not known by any of the names listed in Revelation."

There's another way of understanding this passage. The Hebrew term "kAbOd"
used to refer to the "presence" of God in the Hebrew Bible means "glory" and is
commonly translated with either terms "glory" or "presence." So, for example,
in the Bible "the glory of the LORD appeared [to Moses] in a cloud" (Exod.
16:10, NKJV), is also rendered "there, in a cloud, appeared the Presence of the
Lord" (Exod. 16:10, Jewish Publication Society). In the Hebrew Bible, Glory
"denoted the manifestation of light by which God revealed himself, whether in the
lightening flash or in the blinding splendor which often accompanied
theophanies. Of the same nature was the disclosure of the divine presence in the
cloud
which led Israel through the wilderness and became localized in the
tabernacle." See Elwell, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology 443. Explaining the
phrase
"glory of God," the Christian scholar, William E. Vine, wrote: "When applied
to God, the word represents a quality corresponding to Him and by which He is
recognized. ... The word is said to point to God's sovereignty over history and
specifically to a future manifestation of that 'glory' (Isa. 40:5)." See
Vine, Vine's Expository Dictionary 115. The "glory of God" that appeared on Mount
Sinai and in other instances has been understood in Christian theology to
represent the full manifestation of the attributes of God: "Glory of God expresses

the sum total of the divine perfections. .. . It is the goal of Christian

hope: see Rom. 5:2; 8:18, 21; Tit. 2:13" (Vincent, Word Studies, vol. IV, 27).
The University of Oxford lecturer in Aramaic and Syriac, L. H. Brockington,
writes, "The 'glory of God' is, in effect, the term used to express that which men

can apprehend, originally by sight, of the presence of God on earth"

(Brockington, word study for "Glory," see A Theological Word Book 175).
Brockington
also writes, "On earth the glory of God was made known in him [Christ], and men
apprehended through him the presence of God" (see A Theological Word Book
175). This concept takes a central position in the New Testament, "Throughout the
New Testament Christ is presented as the glory of God made visible on earth to
*those whose eyes are open to see it*; but it is perhaps in the Fourth Gospel
that this conception is most strongly stressed. Behind the Johannine doxa
(Greek "glory") we must recollect the full biblical richness of the word, as we
have described it above. 'We beheld his doxa, glory as of the only-begotten
from the Father' (John 1:14). The miracles of Christ manifested his doxa (2:11).
His doxa is not the glory of men but of God (5:41, 17:5, 17:22)" (emphasis
added, see A Theological Word Book 175–6). This is a station Baha'u'llah
attributes to all Manifestations of God in the Book of Certitude (p. 143). But
what is
especially important is this--this theme is most evident in passages
concerning Christ's return! Brockington writes, "glory slowly became
eschatological,
so that in the New Testament we find it as an integral part of the life of the
Kingdom of God, both realized now and expected in the future" (see A
Theological Word Book 175). The Christian author M. R. Vincent likewise writes:
"The
Gentiles, in receiving the manifestation of Christ, did not realize all its
glory. The full glory of the inheritance was a hope, to be realized when Christ
should appear 'the second time unto salvation' (Heb. 9:28)" (Vincent, Word
Studies, vol. III, 480).
Likewise, in biblical language, the term "name" signifies more the attributes
of a person than what we think of when we use the term "name"in modern
English. "In the thought of the ancient world a name does not merely distinguish a

person from other persons, but is closely related to the nature of its bearer"
(from O.S. Rankin's word study "Name," see A Theological Word Book of the
Bible 157). When the holy Book says "I will write on him the name of My God and
the name of the City of My God, the New Jerusalem" it is apparent that "name"
and "city" both refer to one thing--the presence or glory of God. The main
reason Jerusalem was ever truly important was because it housed the holy Tablets
(the ark of the Covenant) and Temple which both signified God's presence among
His chosen people. "The bulk of occurrences where God's glory is a visible
manifestation have to do with the tabernacle (Exod. 16:10; 40:34; etc.) and with
the temple in Ezekiel's vision of the exile and restoration (9:3, etc.). These
manifestations are directly related to God's self-disclosure and his intent to
dwell among men. See Harris, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, vol.
1, 427. Yet, the verse also ends with the reiteration: "And [I will write on
him] *My* new name," which I take to be suggestive that this new name will have
an actual form by which the persevering believers will be distinguished, a
name that connects them with His name and expresses the greatness of the
revelation of God's glory in this age.

5) The successor to the Bab

Concerning who the Bab appointed to succeed Him, I just want to point out
that even if one accepts the argument that He appointed Baha'u'llah's
half-brother, rather than Baha'u'llah, it is of no consequence to the real issue
at hand.
The role that Baha'u'llah's half-brother claimed to have received concerns a
position within the Babi community until the time of the appearance of the
expected Manifestation. Baha'u'llah was that Manifestation, and as such all other
positions are subordinate to Him and wholly dependent on His decree. Had John
the Baptist appointed one of His followers to guide them until the Messiah
came, what would such a position matter when Jesus made known His station and
appointed His own Apostles?

6) The Edict of Toleration

Its a minor point, but you mentioned the "Edict of Toleration," something
never referred to in our authentic scriptures, but which unfortunately was
referred to by a number of Baha'i authors, all quoting from Mr Sears. You are
correct in your suspicion that such a document as described does not seem to
exist.
I researched this document independently and uncovered all the extant material
and while it existed, it was not at all any of the things it was thought to
be. In my research it became apparent that Mr Sears misunderstood the Christian
sources that he cited, who themselves also misunderstood the significance of
the documents. I made known my findings in an article in the Journal of Baha'i
Studies some years ago. (See "The 1844 Ottoman "Edict of Toleration in Baha'i
Secondary Literature" The Journal of Baha'i Studies. Vol. 8 no. 3. (1998) pp.
53–80.)

7) Islam and the Temple site in Jerusalem

I believe deeply that we can help foster the collective brotherhood of all
mankind, as Christians and as Baha'is, if we look at the underlying devotional,
moral, and spiritual phenomenology present in the different religious
traditions, rather that just the conflicting man-made interpretations or historic
disputes that have evolved from them. With that in mind, I want to comment on the
Temple site in Jerusalem. You wrote: "Omar did commit an abominable practice,
by building the Mosque of Omar directly on the ruins of the former temple."
When considering this matter, I think it is important, whatever you think of
Islam, to view this matter with Christian fairness. The structure to which you
referred, the Qubbat as-Sakhrah--not a Mosque, nor built by Omar---might be best
described as a shrine or religious monument. It was built much later than
Omar, around 691, and for the purpose of protecting the rock there, which is
believed by tradition to be the rock on which Abraham was to sacrifice His son.
For this reason and more it is holy to Jews, Christians, and Muslims. In
fairness, the Muslims who built this wonderful structure believed in Moses, Jesus
Christ, and God and everything about it testifies to their deep religious faith
and reverence for this holy site. Personally, I think it is hard to imagine a
more appropriate and fitting structure on this site, as it is both beautiful
and the most prominent structure in view on the Jerusalem skyline. I hope you
will have a chance to see this building yourself, if you haven't already. When I
was in Jerusalem some years ago, wearied from travel and the tourists that
crowded the sacred sites of Christianity, I longed for a quiet place of beauty
and peace for contemplation and prayer. It was in the Mosque near the Qubbat
as-Sakhrah or Dome of the Rock that I found such a place.

��� In conclusion, I wish to stress that the Baha'i Faith affirms the first
and everlasting principles that animate and underlie Christianity, its
God-given authority, and it Divine origin. Christianity is regarded as none other
than
a "different stages in the eternal history and constant evolution of one
religion, Divine and indivisible, of which [the Baha'i Faith] forms but an
integral part." The Baha'i Faith acknowledges the magnitude of the colossal
achievements of Christianity and in no wise seeks to distort its features, or
belittle
their value, or stultify the truths it instills, or detract one jot or one
tittle from the influence it exerts or the loyalty it inspires or to seek to
undermine the basis of anyone's allegiance to the cause of Christ nor to pursue
the intention of downgrading the station and Lordship of Christ, or of whittling
down the eternal verities of His teachings. Baha'is believe in Christ and the
Gospel. Moreover, Baha'is are instructed not to "arrogate to the Faith [they
have] embraced powers and attributes intrinsically superior to, or essentially
different from, those which have characterized any of the religious systems
that preceded it" or to seek "to discard any of their revealed Books." (See
Shoghi Effendi, World Order, pages 58, 114). The Baha'i Faith teaches clearly
that the divine origin of Christianity is "unconditionally acknowledged, that the
Sonship and Divinity of Jesus Christ are fearlessly asserted," and that "the
divine inspiration of the Gospel is fully recognized" (Shoghi Effendi,
Promised Day 109). While I wish to clarify some of the issues raised in your
article
I do not wish to criticize you or anyone or to convey anything other than the
spirit of friendliness and fellowship that Baha'is seek to establish between
the followers of all Faiths.

Sincerely,
Michael Sours