Francis Beckwith , born in 1960 in New York, is an American philosopher, researcher, speaker, writer and lecturer. Currently, he is a professor of Philosophy, Political Science, Religion-Government Studies, Comparative Studies of Religions, and Vice-Chancellor of the Philosophy Graduate Program at Baylor University. A condensed version of Beckwith’s 1984 master’s thesis was published as a book in 1985 titled “Baha’i: A Christian Response to Baha’ism”. Beckwith considers Baha’ism as an opportunistic cult focused on political power. In his research about Baha’ism, he has discussed the following points and evaluated Baha’ism by presenting Baha’i views and reciprocally Christian beliefs and documents:
*Denial of the special nature of the birth and mission of Jesus Christ and the physical ascension and physical return of Christ.
*Commentary on the opinion of Abdul Baha and the Baha’i missionaries and attributing weak and illegal content to the books of the Old and New Testaments to prove that Baha’u’llah is the Heavenly Father and/or the return of Jesus Christ in a physical and new form!
*The inner contradiction of the theological claims of the Baha’i leaders about the divine manifestations and their teachings.
* Baha’ism has no new message for modern and civilized human. Its possible appropriate literature and rulings have been adopted from the teachings and rulings of Abrahamic religions, and the specific Baha’i rulings have a medieval and uncivilized aspect. Therefore, although the Baha’is have translated their preaching pamphlets into more than 800 popular and local languages, but they strongly prevent translation of the Baha’i holy book – Kitab-e Aqdas – which is considered as the only heavenly book of Mirza Hossein Ali Nouri and for the next 9 centuries, in the golden age of Baha’i rule over the whole world, as the life-giving laws of human society!
آنچه در ادامه می خوانید
Introduction
Since the emergence of the Baha’i faith, the teachings of this school of thought have always been subject to criticism and various objections have been raised against it. By writing various books, Muslim and Christian scholars and in general the supporters of divine religions have brought the most scientific criticism to the Baha’i religion and its teachings – which considers itself the evolved stage of Islam and divine religions. In addition to the supporters of monotheistic religions and religious thinkers, Baha’ism has also been criticized strongly by non-theistic writers and thinkers, and each of them has criticized the originality and teachings of these Iranian innovations and raised serious objections to it.
By assassinating the character and labeling the opponents and accusing them of being illiterate, unfamiliar with Baha’i concepts, ambitious and hostile, or anti-Baha’i and mercenary, the Baha’i organization is trying to reduce the impact of critics’ words on Baha’is and discredit their words, and of course, so far, they have achieved many successes in this path and have been able to create deep gaps between the Baha’i masses and the informed people and critics of Baha’ism and cut off the communication between Baha’is and the opposition.
By rejecting and invalidating the books and articles of the critics, the Baha’is are trying to make their research look small and somehow keep them away from the eyes of experts and researchers. The Baha’i organizations refer researchers and those interested in the Baha’i field only to books and pamphlets authored by Baha’i leaders and missionaries; while these manifestos were written in a biased and selective manner and were published after audit and correction by the national Baha’i circles and Bait-ul-Adl or the House of Justice, they usually lack documented evidence and contradict historical facts and they are more like a promotional teaser and brochure than a scientific and research work.
In the field of reviewing and criticizing Baha’ism, (in addition to Muslim scholars), Christian writers and researchers have also been pioneers and have published valuable research while studying and reviewing Babism and Baha’ism.
At first, it was thought that Christianity, considering the belief angle it has with Islam, viewed Baha’ism as an aligned cult and did not oppose it, but soon the Christians of the world realized the fact that Baha’ism not only poses a danger of deception for Muslims; It will also be a cause of concern and a problem for the followers of other divine religions, culturally, socially and politically. Thus, some Christian thinkers did not tolerate the missionary efforts of the Baha’is and tried to confront their missionary and developmentalist and mainly political goals.
On the other hand, the Baha’i community tried to present its existence as safe and in the way toward world peace with the slogan of inter-religious unity, but by examining the Bábí- Baha’i history and studying its teachings, it becomes clear that the Baha’i organization not only considers Baha’u’llah to be the return of Christ, but also seeks to achieve ambitious goals, such as “creating a single global Baha’i government” and “confiscating the savior and promise of divine religions.” Such deceptive movements of the Baha’i organizations caused Christian thinkers to think about enlightenment and try to expose the true face of the leaders of the cause and the deviant teachings of the Baha’i to the eyes of researchers and Christian believers.
Among the well-known Christian researchers who conducted studies in the field of Baha’i and tried to publish various books and articles, we can mention the names of Professor Edward Brown, William McElwee Miller, Francesco Fitcchia, Herman Zimmer, Samuel Graham Wilson and Francis Beckwith.
This series of articles tries to outline and review the opinions and views of some Christian critics. However, it is necessary for other educated researchers to enter this field and provide more complete articles to those interested in this field. It is necessary to remember that the scientific expression of Christian critics’ opinions about Baha’i does not mean accepting and confirming other religious, social, political opinions and views and their practices.
From the point of view of Baha’i Science magazine, Baha’ism is not a divine religion; Rather, it is a power-oriented social and political group (cult) and therefore its thoughts and teachings cannot be accepted.
Biography
Francis “Frank” Beckwith (born November 3, 1960 in New York) is an American philosopher, professor, researcher, speaker, author, and lecturer. He is currently Professor of Philosophy, Political Science, Religion-Government Studies, Comparative Studies of Religions, and Associate Professor of the Graduate Program in Philosophy at Baylor University, where he first served as Associate Director of Baylor’s J. M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies.
Beckwith teaches in the fields of ethics, philosophy of law and politics, philosophy of religion and jurisprudence in the field of religion and government. Beckwith is known for his legal and philosophical work on abortion and has appeared in several academic publications, including “In Defense of Life” (published by Cambridge University Press, 2007) and Politically Correct Death (published by Baker Publishing Group,1993) argues about this. Beckwith has also published several books that examine current philosophical issues in religion, law, and politics. His book, Taking Rites Seriously: Law, Politics, and the Reasonableness of Faith (Cambridge University Press) won the American Academy of Religion’s 2016 Book Award for Excellence in the Study of Religion in the category of Constructive-Reflective Studies.
He returned to the Catholic Church of his youth in May 2007, after decades of following the Evangelical Protestant Church. This prompted him to write a book titled Return to Rome: Confessions of an Evangelical Catholic, published by Brazos Press. This book, along with Scott Hahn’s Rome Sweet Home, is considered a major work of “Catholic theology.”
Francis Beckwith received a BA in Philosophy from the University of Nevada. Beckwith then earned his master’s in theology from Simon Greenleaf University in Anaheim, which merged with Trinity International University in Illinois in 1996. He received his PhD from Fordham University (PhD and M.A. in Philosophy) and his LL.M. from Washington University School of Law (St. Louis).
Bethany House published a condensed version of Beckwith’s 1984 master’s thesis on the Baha’i faith as a book, Baha’i: A Christian Response to Baha’ism, in 1985.
In 2001, Beckwith completed his dissertation on incorporating intelligent design into the public school science curriculum. In 2003, Rowman and Littlefield Publishing Group published a revised and expanded version of his thesis, Law, Darwinism, and Public Education: The Establishment Clause and Challenge of Intelligent Design.
Before joining Baylor University in July 2003, he was a Visiting Scholar (2002-2003) in the James Madison Program at Princeton University’s School of Politics. He was also a full-time professor of philosophy (1996-1989) and assistant professor of philosophy (1997-1996) at the University of Nevada, Whittier College, and an associate professor of philosophy, culture and law at Trinity International University (2002-1997).
Beckwith has also held two endowed research opportunities: Senior Visiting Fellow at the Nicola Center for Ethics and Culture at the University of Notre Dame (2009-2008) and Visiting Scholar in Conservative Thought and Politics at the Benson Center for the Study of Western Civilization, Thought, and Politics at the University of Colorado (2016-2017).
In November 2006, Beckwith became the 58th president of the Evangelical Theological Society. In May 2007, just one week after returning to the Catholic Church, he resigned from his presidency and membership. Over a decade later, he became the 90th president of the American Catholic Philosophical Association. From 1995 to 2007, he was a member of the Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity.
Subsequently, he published works criticizing intelligent design and genetic manipulation of reproduction, including chapters in Taking Rites Seriously, in 2015, and Never Doubt Thomas: The Catholic Aquinas as Evangelical and Protestant, in 2019. He currently resides in Texas with his wife.
His colleagues and students know him as an excellent teacher. On April 25, 2006, Baylor College awarded him a scholarship for “outstanding scholarly contributions.” In November 2004, the faculty of Baylor University introduced him as one of the distinguished faculty members. Students at Trinity Graduate School (California campus) selected him as Professor of the Year for the 1997-98 academic year. During his seven years at the University of Nevada, he received the Award of Merit (presented by the Office of Multicultural Student Affairs) in 1995 and was a finalist for University Teaching Awards in 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1996.
Both colleagues and students have recognized him for teaching excellence. On April 25, 2006 he was awarded a certificate by Baylor’s undergraduate journal (The Pulse) for his “outstanding contributions to undergraduate scholarship.” In November 2004 he was recognized as a distinguished faculty member by Baylor University`s Mortar Board. The students of Trinity Graduate School (California campus) selected him Professor of the Year for the 1997-98 school year. During his seven years at UNLV he received a 1995 merit award (given by the Multicultural Student Affairs Office of UNLV), a professor of recognition award by the UNLV alumni association (1992), and was a finalist for university-wide and/or college-wide teaching awards in 1996, 1993, 1992, and 1991.
He has presented academic papers, chaired sessions, and offered commentaries at the conferences of a number of professional societies including the American Philosophical Association, the American Political Science Association, the Society of Christian Philosophers, the Evangelical Philosophical Society, the American Bar Association (Science & Technology Section), the Christian Legal Society, the Evangelical Theological Society, the American Academy of Religion, the Southwestern Political Science Association, the Society of Catholic Social Scientists, the University Faculty for Life, and the Conference on Faith and History. He has served on the executive committees of both the Society of Christian Philosophers (1999-2002) and the Evangelical Philosophical Society (1998-2003, 2015-2017). The 2018 President of the American Catholic Philosophical Association, he served as the 58th President of the Evangelical Theological Society (November 2006-May 2007) as well as a member of the American Philosophical Association’s Committee on Philosophy and Law from 2005 through 2008.
Beckwith’s written works
His articles have been published in a number of academic journals including Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy; San Diego Law Review; Synthese; International Philosophical Quarterly; Nevada Law Journal; Public Affairs Quarterly; Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy; Journal of Law & Religion; American Journal of Jurisprudence; Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly; Chapman Law Review; Journal of Medicine & Philosophy; Social Theory & Practice; Journal of Law, Medicine, & Ethics; Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society; Cleveland State Law Review; Santa Clara Law Review; Christian Bioethics; Ethics & Medicine: An International Journal of Bioethics; Josephinum Journal of Theology; Journal of Church & State; Sacred Tribes Journal; University of St. Thomas Journal of Law & Public Policy; Human Life Review; Journal of Social Philosophy; Studies in Christian Ethics; Journal of Libertarian Studies; Journal of Medical Ethics; Ratio Juris; Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture; The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology; The Heythrop Journal; Catholic Social Science Review; and Philosophia Christi.
Professor Beckwith has been quoted in a variety of publications including the New York Times, the Dallas Morning-News, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, Christianity Today, World Magazine, the Las Vegas Review-Journal, the Las Vegas Sun, the Chronicle of Higher Education, the Los Angeles Times, the Waco Tribune-Herald, the Washington Times, Touchstone Magazine, the National Catholic Register, Commonweal, Moody Magazine, Christian Research Journal, the Baptist Standard and the Salt Lake Tribune.
Among the books in which his writings appear as chapters are:
–The Achievement of David Novak: A Catholic-Jewish Dialogue
-A History of Apologetics: A Biographical and Methodological Introduction
–Do Christians, Muslims, and Jews Worship the Same God? Four Views
-Philosophy: The Quest for Truth
-Political Philosophy and the Claims of Faith: Reason, Revelation, and the Civic Order
-Today’s Moral Issues: Classic and Contemporary Perspectives
-Contemporary Moral Arguments: Readings in Ethical Issues
-Journeys of Faith: Evangelicalism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Anglicanism
-Persons, Moral Worth, and Embryos: A Critical Analysis of Pro-Choice Arguments
-What’s Wrong? Applied Ethicists and Their Critics
-The Rationality of Theism
-Bio-engagement: Making a Christian Difference Through Bioethics Today
-In Defense of Miracles: A Comprehensive Case for God’s Action in History
-Philosophy: The Quest for Truth
-Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Political Issues
Beckwith’s view of Baha’i beliefs and teachings
In view of Francis Beckwith’s field of thought and education – Christian theology, religion and politics, philosophy, ethics and comparative studies of religions – it is clear that in this field, he examined and criticized the central teachings and the main texts written by Baha’i leaders. His most important work in criticizing Baha’i is his master’s thesis entitled: “Baha’i, A Christian response to Baha’ism, the religion which aims toward one world government and one common faith.”
The book has an introduction and six chapters, along with some notes and a bibliography. Beckwith writes in the preface:
In times when doubt and uncertainty are praised and pessimism is considered a virtue, a serious discussion about religious truth is more or less considered a form of tolerable negation…! Blind people, looking for illusory black cats in a dark room!” Although this way of thinking is characteristic of our secular age, I, like Socrates, will not succumb to this popular way of thinking. History tells us that masses of people have been wrong, usually in the past (remember, for example, the theory of the flat earth) and there is no reason to think that our age and period in history is an exception. For this reason, I write this criticism of Baha’i with openness and courage and, without shame, I defend Christianity.
In this book, we examine two aspects of the Baha’i religion: the main Baha’i teachings (theoretical theology) and the Baha’is’ use of the Bible and citing it to defend their beliefs (Baha’i reasoning). In addition, we answer a few questions about the relationship between Christianity and Baha’ism: First, can we introduce the teachings of Jesus Christ into Baha’i teachings and beliefs, without damaging the original and true meaning of Christian teachings? Second, is the Baha’is’ use of the Bible successful, correct, justified, and legal? And finally, does Baha’ism have an objective reason for its beliefs and claims? What about Christianity? Is there a difference between the two? We intend to give clear and adequate answers to these questions.
Chapter 1: A History of the Baha ’i Faith
Life and teachings of Bab
Bab, along with his followers – who were called Babis – called for drastic and radical social and religious changes. For example, the Bab advocated the promotion of women, which was contrary to the prevailing conditions of his day… Women were allowed to go to the mosque for worship at night (Bayan-i-Farsi) – although today, for Babi and Baha ‘i women, pilgrimage is not allowed, even during the day! The social and religious reforms of the Bab had other dimensions that most Baha’is are not familiar with because the works and books of the Bab are not allowed to be published from the viewpoint of the Baha ‘is. For example, in his main book, the book Bayan-i-Farsi, which contains his rulings and instructions, the Bab has prohibited learning and studying any kind of book in the field of knowledge of law, logic, philosophy, non-common languages and grammar (unit 4, Bab 10) and all Islamic books must be erased and destroyed (Unit 6, Bab 6). Another teaching of the Bab was that the kings and sultans of the Babis should force their subjects and others to become Babis, and those who do not become Babis should be expelled from the country and their sphere of influence or executed, and their property should be confiscated and distributed among the Babis. (Unit 4, Bab 2 and Unit 7, Bab 16). Of course, it should be said that according to current Baha’is, the Bab is a divine manifestation, like Buddha and Christ, but his commandments are no longer valid, because the Bab is not a divine manifestation today. Therefore, the decrees and orders of the Bab are not binding for the followers of Baha’u’llah!
The period of Baha ’u’llah’s leadership (1853-1892)
Mirza Hossein Ali Nouri, one of the followers of Bab, was the son of one of the famous Noor families in the north of Iran. Due to his kinship with Mirza Agha Khan Nouri, the chancellor, he escaped from the death penalty for those involved in the assassination of Nasereddin Shah, but was imprisoned in Tehran. This unsuccessful assassination caused pressure and harassment on Babian. Mirza Hossein Ali, during the 4-month imprisonment in Tehran and the ten-year exile period in Baghdad, found out that the person referred to by the Bab is Man Yazharullah i.e. “He Whom Allah Shall Manifest”, who must have arrived! Baha ’u’llah and his companions, after enduring bitterness and going from one exile to another, were transferred to the city of Acre. Although over time, he gained more freedom and his restrictions were reduced, he spent the rest of his life under the supervision of the Ottoman government in Acre. Although Baha’u’llah was under watch, he was able to meet with his clients and guests, send missionary and preaching delegations here and there, and write books and letters during the remaining days of his life. Among the books he wrote was his collection of laws, Kitab-i-Aqdas. This small book has been introduced as “His most precious and sacred work”. Baha’u’llah wrote letters and messages to the heads of nations, including the Pope, the leader of the world’s Catholics in which he announced his purpose and destination. He died in Acre in 1892, at the age of 75.
The leadership of Abdu’l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi and the years after that
After Baha’u’llah, the leadership of the Baha’is passed to Abbas Effendi, his eldest son, later known as ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. Unlike Bab and his father, he never claimed to be a divine manifestation, but was only the leader of the community and the expositor and interpreter of the words and teachings of Baha. Abdu’l-Bahá, like his father, was prolific in writing and gave many lectures. After Abdu’l-Bahá’s custody and surveillance was lifted by the young Turkish officers, he spent the rest of his life traveling through Europe and North America, propagating Baha’ism and forming Baha’i assemblies.
The British Empire, in 1920, awarded Abdu’l-Bahá the title of sir and knighthood for his services. After Abdu’l-Bahá’s death in 1921, the leadership of the Bahá’í community was transferred to his grandson, Shoghi Effendi. Shoghi continued his efforts to spread the Baha’i faith. After his death in 1957, the leadership of the Bahá’ís was stopped by the children and successors of Baha’i and the leadership of the community was entrusted to a select group of Baha’is around the world. (Universal Justice) was not as easy and effortless as the Baha’is would like to make it out to be. Of course, it must be remembered that the transfer of leadership and power from Shoghi to the Baha’i representative group (the Universal House of Justice) was not as smooth and effortless as the Baha’is would like to portray it.
The tensions and conflicts that rose after Shoghi Effendi’s death caused the spread and increase of opposing Baha’i groups and caused the split. The right-wing Baha’i group (Orthodox Baha’is) organized by the rejected Mason Remey has differences on the issue of the unity of the great world religions with the view of the Haifa Baha’is. Of course, their main dispute with the current governing group of Baha’is in Haifa goes back to the leadership of the Baha’i community. Orthodox Baha’is do not accept Bait al-Adl or House of Justice as Shoghi Effendi’s successor. They believe that Mason Remey was the true successor of Shoghi Effendi
Chapter 2: Baha’i Theology – Baha’i doctrine and theory about God
Baha’ism teaches that God is an unknowable entity. According to Abdu’l-Bahá, “the reality of divinity is hidden from all understanding and hidden from the minds of all people.” It is absolutely impossible to climb that high.”
“He has always been and is hidden in his essence from eternity, and remains in the truth of his eternity, which is hidden from the eyes of every human.”
The first question that comes to mind is: if the Baha’is believe in a God about whose nature they know nothing, how can they be sure of his existence?
According to Abdu’l-Bahá, one of the ways that God reveals Himself is through His manifestations. He knows and understands the attributes and perfections of God, it goes back to these holy manifestations. There is no access to anything else. The way is closed and the search is forbidden.” “For contemporary Baha’is, God is understood only through people who are known as His manifestation. With the revelation of these manifestations, all the names and attributes of God, such as knowledge and power, sovereignty and rule, mercy and wisdom, glory, forgiveness and mercy are manifested.
Shoghi Effendi writes: “The basic principle announced by Baha’u’llah, whose followers believe in, is that religious truth is relative and revelation and manifestation is a continuous and progressive process. All the popular and great religions of the world are heavenly and their basic principles are in harmony with each other, their goals and objectives are the same, their teachings are different aspects of the same truth, their functions are complementary to each other and they differ only in non-essential aspects, their mission is to present the stages of the sequence in the spiritual evolution of human society.”
In Baha’i principles, whenever there is a common belief among all major religions, unity is found. When the Baha’is find contradictory cases that are to some extent irreconcilable, when fundamental differences create an obstacle, Baha’is dismiss those differences as insignificant! In this way, the Baha’i teaching is protected from any criticism about the contradictions between the teachings of the manifestations of the evolutionary revelation. We should know that being immune from criticism is a double-edged sword; because it is equally empty of reasoning. This lack of accountability is a kind of defense that deprives every religion of proof and makes its official beliefs meaningless. For example, what would you think if you were told that there is a planet a little further than Pluto, but no telescope can see it? Someone may say that this cannot be denied, but what is the point of this matter? This theory cannot be criticized, nor can it be rejected, therefore it is worthless.
Since innumerable religious movements and leaders have existed throughout history, how can Baha’ism distinguish the true form from the false form? To solve this problem, the Baha’is have proposed criteria. The following is a list of the main criteria found in Baha’i literature:
۱-the greatest proof of the truth of his mission is his own person.
۲- Every prophet in his appearance, as part of his credibility, takes action to fulfill the correct promise of the previous manifestation and predicts the continuity of his mission line before his death.
۳- Whether a manifestation says in his prophecy: “I will come again” or says: “Someone else will come like me”, the meaning is the same! And the meaning in both statements is testimony to the continuity of revelation. It is not recorded in any mission line that a person has returned to earth to continue his work.
۴-Each takes over the work from the previous person and continues until he hands over the completed work to his successors.
۵- As a human being, he is known for his simplicity, decency and lack of ambition. He is often born from low-level parents and is anonymous and empty-handed. He is always an almost illiterate man.
۶- These holy souls are free from any sin and purified from any mistake.
۷- These holy messengers in their lives reveal divine attributes such as love, mercy, justice and power in a degree beyond the capacity of ordinary people.
۸- The magnanimous Prophet always mentions the name of God, not just a title, but an attribute; in the sense that he gives a new attribute by which God is understood to human consciousness, a more complete concept of God.
۹- He unites people. the people who were rejected for a long time due to racial and class prejudices, find themselves united with others with strong bonds, harmony and compassion.
۱۰-He has nothing to do with external powers, but transforms hearts. He transforms the economy of nations by transforming people’s hearts, not by displaying foreign power, and the results of his actions are not immediately emerged.
Now let’s take a closer look at the faces that Baha ‘is recognize as divine manifestations. In 1908, Abdu’l-Bahá said that the manifestations of God are Abraham, Moses, Christ, Muhammad, peace be upon him, the Bab, and Baha’u’llah. In October 1912, he also said that the manifestations of God are Jesus, Zarathustra, Krishna, Buddha, Confucius and Muhammad (PBUH), in addition to the Bab and Baha’u’llah. The Báb, who came before Baha’u’llah and Abdu’l-Bahá, also introduced Adam as one of the manifestations. Baha ’u’llah said that the manifestations of God are Noah, Hud, Saleh, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad (PBUH) and the Bab. According to another list, these nine people revealed the world religions of Sabeii, Hinduism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Babism and Baha’ism. However, according to Hugh Chance, the nine religions that the Baha ‘is recognize are Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Baha ism!
However, authoritative Babi-Baha’i sources, at another time, confirmed these people as manifestations of Divine Right: Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Krishna, Zarathustra, Jesus, Buddha, Confucius, Muhammad (PBUH), Hud, Saleh, Bob and Baha. Although Baha’is have currently declared only nine persons as divine manifestations, they have never denied the validity and acceptance of others. Because such a denial means that the Baha ‘is will go into conflict with the officials who have already confirmed their position and manifestation, and this is not possible.
Baha ism and Jesus Christ
To assess the main Baha ’i teachings, we examine the Baha ’i view of Jesus Christ. Traditionally, in Christian theology and the New Testament, it has been said that Jesus Christ has distinguishing characteristics that set him apart from other human beings. Four of these features are:
۱) He is a special creation and the word of God.
۲) He has ascended to heaven with material body.
۳) He comes back with his material body and returns to the earth.
۴) He is the savior and intercessor of the human world.
The Baha’is do not accept these beliefs. What they believe is that Baha’u’llah, as the manifestation of God, is the same Messiah who has returned. The Baha ’is attempt to justify this belief by quoting prophecies from the Bible, which, according to Baha ’i interpretation, apparently apply to Baha ’u’llah. Abdu’l-Bahá writes about the Second Coming of Christ:
“In the first return, he comes from the sky, although apparently it is from the mother’s womb. In the same way, in his second return, he comes again from the sky, although apparently he is from the mother’s womb!
It is clear that Baha ‘ism denies the traditional belief of Christians about the ascension and return of Jesus Christ with a material body. When Abdu’l-Bahá was asked about the meaning and importance of this issue, he replied:
“The ascension of the divine manifestation is not with a material body… His ascension from the earth is symbolic; This is a spiritual and sacred truth; also, his return is spiritual, not physical!” He continues… the truth of Christ, which implies his teachings, forgiveness, perfections and spiritual power, remained hidden for two or three days and was not revealed and manifested… and when the apostles began to publish his spiritual teachings, the truth of Christ manifested and his forgiveness appeared; his religion found life again, his teachings and guidelines became evident and appeared.
Simply put, Baha ‘ism interprets Christ’s resurrection as merely symbolic or spiritual. From the viewpoint of Baha ’ism, it was his words and teachings—not Christ himself—that found new life to empower the Church to spread Christianity and fundamentally transform the Roman Empire.
Chapter 3: Criticism of Baha ’i beliefs about God
What follows are details about the nature of God as taught by the seven leaders and manifestations that the Baha ’is identify as previous manifestations:
Moses (۱۲۰۰ years BC) believed in a single God who was the creator of the world. According to Deuteronomy 4:6, Moses said: Hear, O Israel: God, our ruler, is one. So he affirmed the Jewish belief about Yahweh that God is one.
Krishna (۶۵۰-۸۵۰ BC) taught that there are many gods:
By sacrificing, you must honor the gods so that they will love you… If they are satisfied with your sacrifice, the gods will grant you happiness in all your desires.
Krishna also taught that everything is a part of that Supreme Being, that is Brahman: He is invisible; he cannot be seen. He is far and near, He moves and does not move, but is within and without everything. He is one in all, but seems to have been many. He supports all beings and creation and decay belong to him. When man sees that the infinity of different beings has settled in that “one” and evolve from that one, then he becomes one with Brahman.
Krishna also claimed to be an incarnation (avatar) of the Hindu god Vishnu. So for Krishna, there are many gods (polytheism), but in the real world, along with all existence, part of the Supreme God is Brahman (unity of existence).
Zoroaster (600-700 BC) taught that there was a good god named Ahuramazda and an evil creator named Angra Mainyu. He learned that “the special name ” Angra Mainyu ” refers to a great hostile spirit, although it is mentioned only once in Zoroastrian teachings,” but the text clearly states “that since the beginning of existence, two incompatible natures and two opposing spirits have existed in the world (Yesna 45:2).”
Siddhartha Gautama (۴۸۰-۵۶۰ BC, better known as the Buddha), “did not teach monotheism and individual worship or prayer.”
“There is no category for God… because there is no belief in God in Buddhism. The Western god-worshipper should not expect from Buddhism an image of God like the Bible or the Qur’an”.
Although there are many sects of Buddhism in modern times that consider the Buddha or other beings to be God, the main teachings of the Buddha do not deal with God as a relevant subject.
Confucius (۴۹۷-۵۵۱ BC) believed in the unity of existence and believed that the need for social order is more important than honoring the gods. Lewis Hoff writes: Confucius seems to have believed that since existing gods and worship and rituals were only worth bringing people together, these things were of secondary importance compared to a just social order.
Jesus Christ taught that God is a real (personal) thing (Luke 23:34), He is superior to the material world (John 4:24) and that God created Himself (John 8:58). Jesus taught the basic Jewish view and concept of God: The One Omnipotent Almighty God.
Muhammad (۶۳۲-۵۷۰ AD) taught a clear and firm monotheism, but rejected the fact that Jesus is the Son of God (Baqarah 110, Al-Nisa 169, Ma’idah 77-76, An’am 100-102).
God and the leaders of the great religions of the world
It seems that there is a difference between the alleged manifestations of Baha ‘ism regarding the introduction of God. Although Shoghi Effendi has said that the divine manifestations only differ about the “non-essential dimensions of beliefs”. This can lead to the idea that the nature of God is one of these unnecessary dimensions. God cannot be personal and general, special and sublime, omniscient, one, capable of having children, incapable of having children, and an important or unimportant issue! If it is true that God is all these things, then we are pushed towards polytheism. A god so irrational can never be known based on the contradictory information provided by his manifestations. Inconsistent data does not give us any knowledge about God.
Criticism of the criteria of divine manifestations
We must reject the criteria for divine manifestations presented by some Baha ’i writers, because some manifestations do not meet the criteria they should. For example, George Townsend writes: “The Holy Prophet confirms all the teachings of the previous advent…”.
Interestingly, Confucius, Buddha, Zoroaster and Krishna fail this test. Christ never mentioned Confucius, who was his predecessor. In his works, Confucius did not mention Buddha, who was a manifestation before him (and at the same time his contemporary) and there is no name of Buddha. Buddha does not refer to Zoroastrian, who was a manifestation before him. Zarathustra does not mention the manifestation before him, which is Krishna. Moreover, Krishna does not say anything about his predecessor, Moses. Townshend offers another false standard: as a human being, he is known for his simplicity and decency and lack of ambition. He always has little human education and learning.
This does not apply to Moses or Confucius. Josh McDowell and Dan Stewart write about Moses: It should be explained at the very beginning that Moses was in a position to write the five books. He was trained in the high school of Egypt, which was very advanced in terms of science.
Confucius has said about himself that “at the age of fifteen, my mind was filled with science and knowledge.” Confucius was a successful educator and started a private school that had 3,000 students. He had various interests and taught various subjects such as history, poetry, literature, physics, chemistry, government, natural sciences and music.
Another one of Townshend’s criteria is that the divine manifestation “has nothing to do with external powers, but transforms hearts.” He transforms the economy of nations by manipulating people’s hearts, not by displaying foreign power, and the results of his effects are not immediately emerged.
Jesus Christ does not fit into this category. When the Jews asked him, “What miracle can you show to prove that you have the power to do all these things?” (John 2:18), Jesus replied: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again” (John 2:19). According to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, it is an external display of power that revives the hearts of the apostles and people.
Peter, the man who denied Christ three times (Luke 22:55-62), cried out to a large crowd: Men of Israel, listen to me! As you know, God performed strange miracles through Jesus of Nazareth to prove to everyone that Jesus came from him.
It is crystal clear that Christianity is based on the external power of Christ. It is the external power of Christ that has revived the inner life of many. This is the testimony and confirmation of the new covenant.
Baha’i sm and Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ will return from the heavens with physical and material body
In referring to the return of Christ and the biblical texts that mention this issue, the Baha’is and Baha’i scholars, before examining each biblical text, begin with this premise: the return of Christ is the same way; the signs and conditions about which have been talked have meanings and one should not be satisfied with their apparent meaning.
In other words, no text can convince a Baha’i that Christ will come again from the heavens in a physical body. His presumption prevents him from any kind of inquiry about the facts of the matter. This is highly unscientific and it is somehow the exact opposite of what Baha’is claim they are not. They talk about the necessary unity of science and religion, but fail in practice when examining the Bible.
Some Baha’i defenders point to the fact that the Bible says that the Messiah will come like a “thief in the night”. “He will come to a world that is immersed in spiritual neglect and those to whom the Messiah will come will not see him.”[ ۴] However, when one reads these passages (Matthew 24:42-44; Thessalonians 5:2-4), it is clear that they are referring to the surprise factor of Christ’s return, not its secrecy. In Matthew chapter 24 verses 42:44, it is said, “Be ready therefore, for you do not know on what day your master will return: if the owner of the house had known at what hour the thief would come, he would have stayed awake and would not have let the thief enter his house. In the same way, you should always be ready for my sudden arrival so that you will not be surprised”.
However, Abdu’l-Bahá wrote that Christ’s return will be like His first coming (His birth as a baby). Don’t the scriptures tell us something else? Luke has recorded the ascension of Christ in Acts of the Apostles 1:9 to 11. He writes: “After Jesus finished these words, before their eyes he ascended to heaven and disappeared in a cloud. They were still staring at the sky when they suddenly noticed that two men in white were standing between them. They said: “O man of Galilee, why are you standing here and staring at the sky? Jesus went to heaven and as he went, he will return one day. Apart from Abdu’l-Bahá’s (non-verbal) presupposition, if we define this on its own, it is crystal clear that the above text claims that Christ will return as He ascended to heaven, therefore He will return in the same manner.
The Baha’i faith claims that Baha’u’llah is the Christ who has returned! They use many biblical texts to show it. Baha’u’llah’s misfortune is that he does not have the criterion of returning from the heavens. He also fails the test of Revelation 1:7, which says, “Behold, he is coming with clouds, and every eye will see him…”. Baha’u’llah was not seen by any eye; therefore, He is not the return of Christ. The Baha’is attempt to interpret Revelation 1:7 so that the eye does not refer to the outward eye but to the inner eye and insight, as Jehovah’s Witnesses have claimed. However, the examination of the Greek word eye makes the discussion meaningless. The same Greek word for the eye of the head is used by John in Revelation 7:1.
Matthew 24:30, another text that teaches about Christ’s return, says: “And finally the sign of my coming will appear in heaven. And all the peoples of the world will see me coming in the clouds of the sky with amazing power and glory”.
The New Testament does not say anything about the return of Christ in the form of a baby and another human being. His return will be the beginning of a global transformation that all human beings will witness. Baha’u’llah greatly underestimates the return of Christ in the Gospel narrative. In fact, Christ has warned us about people like Baha’u’llah. He says:
“Because many will come and say that they are the Messiah and will mislead many… In those days, if someone tells you that the Messiah has come to such and such a place, or that he is here or there, do not believe him”. (Matthew 24:5 and 23).
Denial of the material miracles of Jesus Christ by Abbas Effendi
According to Abdu’l-Bahá, Christ’s ascension to heaven is symbolic. It was the teachings and perfections of Jesus that spread among the nations and became alive and flourished. There is no physical ascension. In fact, Abdu’l-Bahá ignores the whole concept of it being miraculous and writes (without considering the facts): wherever in the books they talk about the resurrection of the dead, it means that the dead have been granted eternal life; whenever it is said that the blind can see, it means that he has reached the right understanding; Wherever it is said that the deaf can hear, it means that he has heard about the spiritual and heavenly world! This is clear from the text of the Gospel, where Christ says: “These are like what Isaiah said, they have eyes with which they do not see, ears with which they do not hear”.
Once again, Abdu’l-Bahá repeats the mistake of the past. Without examining the text of the New Testament, he assumes from the outset that any reference to miracles is symbolic. However, in this case, the presumption is justified by a text that the Baha’is willingly assume is non-symbolic (the above saying has been quoted from Jesus in Isaiah), but in Matthew 14:13 He speaks of a symbolic interpretation of miraculous healings, as Abdu’l-Bahá imagines. And his ascension does not speak. He talks about feeding four thousand and five thousand people:
Jesus understood what they were talking about. So he said: “I never meant that. Why don’t you understand? Have you lost your mind? You who have eyes, why don’t you see? Why don’t you open your ears to hear? Have you forgotten how I fed 5000 men with five loaves of bread? How many baskets were filled with leftovers? They answered: “Twelve baskets” He said: “When I fed 4000 people with seven loaves, how much was left?” They said: “Seven baskets.” He said: “Then why don’t you understand the meaning of my words?” (Mark 8:17).
In another text, where Christ gives a more direct statement from Isaiah, he speaks about the spiritual blindness of the unbelievers and their inability to understand his message, without using an allegory. His wording does not correspond in any way to the Baha’i presupposition. The text says: “That is why I speak these words so that people may hear and see but not understand. In the book of Prophet Isaiah, it is said about these people that: They hear but do not understand, they look but do not see”.
In Matthew 13:13 when we examine the text of the New Testament, it becomes clear to the reader that the text teaches the bodily ascension of Christ.
John (2:19) says: Jesus answered: “Very well, the miracle I will do for you is that you destroy this house of God and I will rebuild it in three days!” They said: “What are you saying? It took forty-six years to build this house. Do you want to make it in three days?”
So Jesus told Thomas to put his fingers on a physical object, not a symbolic illusion. (John 20:27) When the apostle of Thomas mistook Christ for a spirit, Jesus replied:
“Look at the places where the nails are in my hands and feet! You see that I am really myself. Touch me to remember that I am not a ghost. Because the soul does not have a body, but as you can see I do”. (Luke 24:39).
Since Abdu’l-Bahá and the Baha’i s are empty of miracles, they cannot change their presupposition about the spiritual interpretation of the Bible, and since the text of the New Testament clearly teaches the bodily ascension of Jesus Christ, we must accept Paul’s words where he says: “And if Christ has not ascended to heaven alive, so all our preaching are lies and your trust in God is also baseless and useless. (1 Corinthians 15:14).”
Baha’i’s approach to other religions
Udo Schaefer says that his rejection of historical Christianity was not based on science (in the sense of facts), but on his faith in Baha’u’llah’s claim that all religions are one. Assuming this, religions should not have “any fundamental contradictions”, “because God does not contradict himself”, but the truth is that every religion in the world has conflicts with other religions.
The simple fact is that historical manifestations, even according to Baha’i rules, are not part of divine manifestations!
Conclusion of chapter 3
۱- We have already shown that Baha’u’llah is not the return of Christ, because it does not correspond to specific biblical criteria (for example, being seen by everyone’s eyes, coming down through the clouds, etc.), therefore the end of time and the end of the age have not happened yet. It is enough for a person to refer to chapters 24 and 28 of the Gospel of Matthew and read Christ’s description of the end of time, and immediately realize that the end of time includes the return of Christ which we showed previously that it does not apply to Baha’u’llah. It doesn’t matter whether we call it “the end of the world”, “the end of time”, or “the end of the age”. Since Christ has not yet returned, we have not reached the end of any of them.
۲- The attributes of God, as revealed by his so-called manifestations, are not compatible with each other. The Baha’i beliefs have an internal conflict and the criteria proposed for the so-called manifestations of God are not compatible with all those that have been proposed as manifestations. The objections and objections of Baha’is to the belief in the ascension, the return (Rej’at) and the privileges and attributes of Jesus Christ are all based on weak arguments. Therefore, based on this research, the Baha’i belief and teachings are neither logically nor theologically convincing enough to influence our beliefs.
https://mohtadyan.com/
