The Essence of God in the World Religions

Most of the world religions have disparate views of God, even amongst the monotheistic religions one finds widely different views. So far this disparity has induced many to reject the essential unity of religions. For Bahá'ís the principle of progressive revelation explains this relation.

Let us consider the Bible. Within its confines we find three disparate thoughts regarding the Divine.

In the most primitive sections of the Bible we find practical monotheism, which is to say the belief in the existence of other deities, which, however, are not to be worshiped. An example of this is to be found in Exodus:

Exodus 34:14 "for thou shalt worship no other god: for Jehovah, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:" [ASV]

The theme of Yahweh as a Jealous God is to be found both in the Hexateuch and the Prophets. Jealousy (KNA) presupposes that there is something to be jealous of.

This is to be contrasted with idea that the reason for not worshipping other deities is that those other gods are not real. This perspective is most apparent in deutero-Isaiah:

Isaiah 37:19 "and have cast their gods into the fire: for they were no gods, but the work of men's hands, wood and stone; therefore they have destroyed them." [ASV]

These, and like verses, show a transition from practical to theological monotheism.

This is also the position of much of the early church, but here also a new theology won way. It was a theology that had its roots mainly in Diaspora Judaism, Wisdom theology.

This paved the way for the beautiful prologue in John, which describes Jesus as the incarnate Wisdom (sophia) or Word (logos). So within the body of the literature of the Bible we may discern the progression of the understanding of the transcendent God. The understanding of transcendence is dependent of the audience. The incomprehensible is of no use to man, so God speaks to man not according to His high station, but in accordance to mans lowly state.

The relation of Jesus to other founders of religions

Mr. Grider in the first chapter writes:

"But Jesus too would have known about these eastern religious leaders. He not only does not make any attempt to 'endorse' their theologies, on the contrary, He promotes doctrines that are, for example, mutually contradictory with the agnosticism of Buddhism. He makes no attempt to draw these past religions into a religious melting pot while it must be recognized that the opportunity was already there for Him to espouse Baha'u'llah's view of a common basis for those religions if it had been His belief. We can see that Jesus had no problem uncompromisingly professing the truth, even to the point of death. If Baha'u'llah's theology was true, Jesus had the knowledge and ability to preach that 'gospel' and die for that 'gospel' then, as He did for the true Gospel. He did not support Baha'u'llah's Spiritual world view. He tacitly rejects conflicting spiritual theologies He certainly was aware of, and did not 'endorse'."

Now this opens to another related topic, namely how does Jesus relate to other prophets? First let us ask about the eastern prophets of the past. Why did Jesus never mention them? Let us consider that Jesus knew about Buddha, why should he not mention him? The answer lies in another question. What would the followers of Jesus make out of some comment made by Jesus about a person of whom they had never heard of, living in a land they did not know existed? The answer: nothing. Even if He had said something about Buddha it would not have survived transmission. This all relates back to the principle that God does not speak according to His station, but according to the state of men.

Jesus related to past prophets. He related to those who were known to His audience, Moses and the prophets. This was logical in a community of Jews.

What about future prophets? Why didn't Jesus preach the gospel of Bahá'u'lláh if it was a true gospel? The answer is that the message or gospel of Bahá'u'lláh presumes that globalisation process is underway, without this human condition His gospel is not intelligible.

"Still one would have to observe that even from within the extended history of Judaism he had the opportunity to preach these doctrines and did not. His spiritual message was always one that quoted the Old Testament for justification of authority for a conservative stance, that always conservatively, not progressively, hearkened back to things 'as they were from the beginning' and saw any deviation from God's eternal truths as being 'because of the hardness of men's hearts'."

This is an interesting observation, which I believe suits my argument much better than it does Mr. Grider's. Surely "the hardness of men hearts" was a condition in humanity, which at the time of Jesus was no longer the case. Jesus also abolished the Sabbeth (at least in the Jewish sense) which was one of the most central Mosaic laws.

To say that Jesus never "progressed teachings" is certainly to ignore a substantial part of the Sermon on the Mount:

Matthew 5:21 "Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:"

Matthew 5:22 "but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire." [ASV]

This is the first of a series of intensification of the Law, each signalised by the word "Ye have heard" (hekusate). This could likewise be considered a progression.

Manifestations and sins

Mr. Grider provides quotes from Numbers and Deuteronomy to provide proof that Bahá'u'lláh mistakenly identifies Moses as sinless person. In "Some Answered Questions", a collection of table talks given by 'Abdu'l-Bahá and recorded and compiled by Laura Clifard, 'Abdu'l-Bahá presents an interpretation of the passages in question as follows:

"All the divine discourses containing reproof, though apparently addressed to the Prophets, in reality are directed to the people, through a wisdom which is absolute mercy, in order that the people may not be discouraged and disheartened." (Some Answered Questions, p. 167)

This is a very interesting interpretation of the tradition of the Mosaic falling. It is in fact a rather plausible interpretation when considers theories of tradition transmission. Often stories transmitted in a community reflect community life more than the historical situation. The story of the pagan-god worshipping Israeli in the Book of Exodus reflects a problem which is non-communal for those transmitting the story, however, the story in Numbers are quite different.

Here Moses is told to speak to the rock rather than striking it twice. This can hardly be considered a terrible crime. But Yahweh says:

Numbers 20:12 "And Jehovah said unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed not [LA-HAMNTM] in me, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them." [ASV]

(Belief in God in the biblical sense is trust in God.)

In its transmission this rebuke is likely to have been applied to two communal instances (perhaps combined into one individual) the priestly and the clan leader. In Jewish tradition the body of Moses was the object of dispute between Michael and the devil (see the Assumption of Moses and the Epistle of Jude) this is also likely to be reference to the Mosaic community.

A prophet (NBI) is a representative. Aaron was a prophet for Moses to the people, while Moses was a prophet for God. Representation or mediation is, however, a two-way act. When Jesus came He represented God and gave His word to mankind, but on the cross Jesus represented mankind.

Sonship and adoption

Mr. Grider next discusses the apparent theological difference in the position of the Qur'an, that God can have no sons or kin, and that of the NT where Jesus (and as we shall see his followers) is the son of God.

Jesus was, it is agreed, the Messiah (or from the Greek "Christ") which means that he was anointed. As such it was a given that he would be a son of God. In the Psalms of David we have:

Psalms 2:7 "I will tell of the decree: Jehovah said unto me, Thou art my son; This day have I begotten thee." [ASV]

For this reason it is not surprising that this was thought of the Messiah, not only by Christians, but also Jews. In Luke the Jews question Jesus if He is the Christ:

Luke 22:70 "And they all said, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am."

The Jewish-Christian gospels identified the moment of adoption with Jesus' baptism by having the divine voice using the words of the Psalm and the Codex Bezae has a similar gloss in Luke's account of the baptism.

In a very similar manner the followers of Jesus could be adopted:

Matthew 5:9 "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called sons of God." [ASV]

A note of hermeneutics

Mr. Grider charges, and it must be admitted with some justification, that Bahá'ís are responsible for a great deal of eisegetics. It is my hope that with this response I have avoided this trend. It should be noted, however, that Christians can be charged likewise. Certainly the Old Testament quotes in the NT more often than not are highly acontextual. Eisegesis has a long and significant religious history, however, for the purpose of dialogue we should certainly refrain from this practice.

Religion, exaltation and degradation

Mr. Grider has, in the second chapter, given consideration to the question of the spiritual evolution of humanity. Even after citing at length various explanations by Bahá'u'lláh and 'Abdu'l-Bahá he still comes to the conclusion that different aspects of the spiritual evolution of humanity are contradictory:

(1) Humanity develops spiritually and (2) the followers of past dispensation degrade themselves and reject the new spiritual message.

Basically the question is how can humanity simultaneously progress and digress?

Now let us consider the relation of these two propositions in context of Judeo-Christian history.

I have already demonstrated that there was a development between the mosaic laws and the ones instituted by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. Can there be any question that the Jews were opposed to Jesus and orchestrated His crucifixion? These are simple facts, but let us consider the logic of this:

Laws and spiritual principles are static and become a part of society, this was certainly the case with Palestine at the time of Jesus. Now when Moses revealed the Law many of these laws radically changed social norms of the Israeli people, at the time of Jesus, however, these had been fully integrated into Jewish life-style, and some Jews resented Jesus' radicalism.

Jesus Himself says:

Matthew 9:16 "And no man putteth a piece of undressed cloth upon an old garment; for that which should fill it up taketh from the garment, and a worse rent is made."

Matthew 9:17 "Neither do men put new wine into old wine-skins: else the skins burst, and the wine is spilled, and the skins perish: but they put new wine into fresh wine-skins, and both are preserved." [ASV]

The new wine, which is the teachings of Jesus, could not be contained in the old frame of Judaism, therefore Christianity came into being so that it become the reservoir of the spirit of Christ.

Material and spiritual progression

Mr. Grider alleges:

"Doctrinally, Baha'i theology confuses the difference between intellectual knowledge and advancement, and Spirit led faith knowledge that is able to accept the 'power of God' beyond 'words of (human) wisdom'."

Mr. Grider misunderstands the connection that the Bahá'í Faith sees between spiritual and material progress. Material progression does not in at by itself cause spiritual progress. It does, however, create the circumstances for spiritual progression. Let us consider the scripture used by Mr. Grider to demonstrate the philosophy or earthly knowledge is "foolishness".

1 Corinthians 1:22 "Seeing that Jews ask for signs, and Greeks seek after wisdom:"

1 Corinthians 1:23 "but we preach Christ crucified, unto Jews a stumblingblock, and unto Gentiles foolishness;"

1 Corinthians 1:24 "but unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." [ASV]

This beautiful passage from a Pauline epistle describes the limitations that are imposed on human perception. The Jews seek signs (miracles) and the Greeks seek wisdom, but, says Paul, they are unable to find the object of their search because they are missing the perception of faith. We should not, however, misunderstand what Paul intends in this passage. He was not discouraging seeking signs or wisdom, but merely saying that the search is doomed without faith.

Sin and the human soul

A central question for Mr. Grider remains the nature of sin and it is not surprising that he considers the doctrine of "original sin" to be a Biblical doctrine. But even Leslie C. Allen wrote in her commentary on Romans (to be found in the conservative F. F. Bruce's "The International Bible Commentary"):

"One must therefore not expect to find in these verses a clear-cut comprehensive doctrine of original sin." (p. 1326)

Let us look at the verses in question and ask why indeed we can not read the doctrine of original sin into it.

Romans 5:10 "For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by his life;"

Romans 5:11 "and not only so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation."

Romans 5:12 "Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned:--"

Romans 5:13 "for until the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law."

Romans 5:14 "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a figure of him that was to come."

Romans 5:15 "But not as the trespass, so also is the free gift. For if by the trespass of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God, and the gift by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound unto the many" [ASV]

Now Jesus came to reconcile humanity with its creator (v. 10-11). Through Adam's sin, Paul explains, sin entered the world and as a consequence death too came into the world and so all die because all sin (v. 12). Two points are important here to note. Because Adam sinned death came into the world, which is a very accurate description of the curse placed on Adam which concludes:

Genesis 3:19 "in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." [ASV]

What humanity has inherited through Adam is the human condition, we all sin and we all die. The second point is that Paul says that all sin (pantes hmarton) not that all are sinners (which would be pantes esmen amartooloi). The difference is significant, it is the difference of being or doing, of the freedom to commit sin and being from birth a sinner. Paul goes on to explain that as long as there was no Law one was not accountable for ones sins after all one can not be blamed for missing a target that one can not see (v. 13). (Paul makes a similar statement about the present in places where the Law is unknown.) In that period of time where there was no Law (from Adam to Moses) death reigned even over those who had not sinned like (too omoioomati) Adam (v. 14). Paul goes on to discuss the gift of Christ which given freely (v. 15-18). Finally it is important to note the remark:

Romans 5:19 "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." [ASV]

Not all (panta) but many (polloi) were sinners. The ASV here translated katestathhsan as "made" which poorly reflects the sense of the word. The word means "appointed" (and appears only 22 places in the NT). Again this does not point to having anything to do with the nature as much as it points to circumstances.

Poverty in spirit and in mater.

"Baha'u'llah tells us we are destined to 'eliminate extremes of wealth and poverty' in the world. Christ tells us that in this world the 'poor will be with us always'. They are certainly both telling us what we will find, but it's not the same thing. Baha'i religion would like us to believe that Christ's words refer to the 'spiritually poor'. But that interpretation distorts the necessarily primary intention of the verse in its proper context. Given that context, the only way Christ could have had the SOLE meaning Baha'i interpretation wants to attach to it, is if He had purposefully deceived those He was speaking to."

Certainly, it would be misrepresenting the text to say that the remark in question could, in context, be understood as referring to the "spiritually poor". But to use the text to disprove Bahá'u'lláh's lofty principle is to misrepresent something that lies at the core of the Gospel of Jesus of Nazareth.

Luke 6:20 "And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said,

Blessed are ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God."

Luke 6:21 "Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh." [ASV]

Let me propose something quite challenging. The "poor" here are not "poor in spirit" (as Matthew suggests), but are quite simply poor. Just like those that hunger are actually hungry for food (and not just for justice as Matthew suggest). Now note the symmetry of the beatitudes, each piece of unconventional wisdom (i.e. conventional wisdom has it that the rich are blessed) is mirrored by a promise containing an antinomy (i.e. hunger - filled, weep - laugh). Interestingly, the poor are promised the kingdom of God, so that the kingdom of God becomes an antinomy poverty.

Mark 10:25 "It is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." [ASV]

The story itself witness to the fact that the early Christian community did its own to eliminate poverty. Indeed the sources available on the how the early Christian community functioned demonstrate that poverty was very much at the fore. The Jerusalem was a share community and such documents as Didache demonstrate how the sharing of property was done in isolated communities. Consider the eucharistic tradition and its significance. Consider Paul's condemnation of the rich who would eat prior to the share meal, so as to not have to share of their wealth (1 Corinthians 11:19ff).

I find it disconcerting that Mr. Grider on a point where Christianity and Bahá'í Faith share such unified vision, wants to make division where dialogue should create co-operation.

The human nature and condition

Mr. Girder concentrates, in the second chapter, on what he proposes to be a major difference between the teachings of Christ and those of Bahá'u'lláh. I have previously pointed out that the fallacy of this proposition lies in not distinguishing between nature and condition. Mr. Girder cites Bahá'u'lláh:

"His (God's) purpose, however, is to enable the pure in spirit and the detached in heart to ascend, by virtue of their own innate powers, unto the shores of the Most Great Ocean (heaven)." (Gleanings p. 71)

Mr. Grider interprets the term "Most Great Ocean" as a reference to heaven. This is not a very accurate interpretation rather the term should be interpreted as a reference to the Manifestation. What Mr. Grider, however, more significantly fails to note is that Bahá'u'lláh speaks of "enabling" souls to ascend to the recognition of the Manifestation. In other words there are two aspects to deal with when considering this passage and like passages in for example Romans. One is the human condition which blinds man from his true spiritual station.

To bolster his proposition that the Bible teaches that the nature of the soul is stagnant he cites Romans 3:10ff, but fails to explain how these verse deal with the nature of man. Paul says that under the Law he himself is judged as a sinner (v. 7), therefore one needs to turn to Jesus to receive his grace. Jesus, through His life and death, enabled souls to recognise Him.

Yet another place Mr. Girder refers to Romans 7:7 for support. This and the following passages discuss the fact that the Law places responsibility on man. Paul explains that until he was able to accept the Law (v. 9) the law was dead to him. But when he grew up he came to know the difference between good and evil (Isaiah 7:16) and so sin could make its claim on him (v. 11).

The day that shall not be followed by night

Mr. Grider also states:

"Though Baha'u'llah has certainly made this promise, it flies in the face of Abdul Baha's universal model of cyclical spiritual regression and progression (Answered Questions pg 74). It contradicts the established principle by which ALL of religion is supposed to operate."

This is an example of a rather unfortunate hermeneutic practice. If an author makes a general statement, that same author is of course able to qualify his statement without contradicting himself.

"As to the most great characteristic of the revelation of Baha'u'llah, a specific teaching not given by any of the Prophets of the past: It is the ordination and appointment of the Center of the Covenant. By this appointment and provision He has safeguarded and protected the religion of God against differences and schisms, making it impossible for anyone to create a new sect or faction of belief."

(Promulgation of Universal Peace, pages 455-456)

Of those risen

Mr. Grider continues in his third chapter to deny progressive revelation, but presents little new material. However, he does present a Matthean (Q) verse regarding John the Baptist which he employs thus:

"Jesus said that NO (mortal) MAN BORN OF WOMAN was holier than John. YET, even though this was true in the world, John was said by Jesus to be "less than the least in the Kingdom of heaven." You can't get "holy" enough to make it without faith in Jesus' Salvation, faith in the cross and Resurrection."

I am puzzled by Mr. Girder's use of the word "holy" which is no where to be found in the text. The word "mazoon" is rather consistently rendered as "greater" in most common translation. The Greek word for "holy" is "agioon"

Matthew 11:11 "Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." [ASV]

Let us consider this verse in more detail. "[T]hem that are born of women", this would exempt all in the strictest sense except Adam. What does it mean to "arise" (egegertai)? In the NT it is used about raising from the dead and about prophets arising to proclaim their mission. This also includes Jesus (Luke 7:16). But what is the scope of this statement? Is John greater than Jesus?

Jesus goes on to say that not withstanding the greatness of John he is the least amongst those of the kingdom of God. The translators of ASV understand John as being part of the kingdom, but this is not necessarily how the text is to be understood. In this instance "en" should be understood as "amongst".

Matthew 11:11 "Verily I say to you, there hath not risen, among those born of women, a greater than John the Baptist, but he who is least in the reign of the heavens is greater than he." [YLT]

This is not about holiness or salvation, it is about the greatness of being part of the kingdom of God.

Resurrection

Though the issue of the resurrection has little direct significance on the question of "the station of Jesus", it is nonetheless the first subject of the fourth chapter. Let us, however, deal with it here anyway.

Mr. Grider writes:

"These are, as Baha'is seem to concede, Jesus' 'divinely ordained' words. The problem however, with respect to Baha'i doctrine about His Resurrection, is that, 1) He said them AFTER His death on the cross. And 2) He obviously goes way out His way to demonstrate graphically that not only was His person literally resurrected, but His Physical body was too... 'a Ghost does not have FLESH AND BONES AS YOU SEE I HAVE.' Neither does a ghost, much less a symbol, ask for fish to eat. For a symbol does not do things the point of which is to specifically prove that symbolism is NOT intended."

This takes its substance from the two latest gospels John and Luke. Before we deal with these let us look at our earliest sources to give us the benefit of hindsight.

2 Corinthians 12:2 "I know a man in Christ, fourteen years ago (whether in the body, I know not; or whether out of the body, I know not; God knoweth), such a one caught up even to the third heaven."

2 Corinthians 12:3 "And I know such a man (whether in the body, or apart from the body, I know not; God knoweth),"

2 Corinthians 12:4 "how that he was caught up into Paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter." [ASV]

Whether Jesus was physical or not after the resurrection was not known to Paul (though the story in Acts certainly does not suggest so), but obviously was not a cardinal issue to his doctrine regarding the crucifixion. Paul knew stories of the resurrection appearances to James, Peter and the twelve, five hundred others (1 Corinthians 15). Yet with so many witnesses Paul is still not certain.

Mark, our earliest gospel, does not give us any appearance stories. In Matthew the appearance story seem to suggest a non-physical appearance too. The body of Christ disappears without the opening the tomb.

The story in Luke has a very specific purpose. Christians had heard stories not unlike those of Paul and Matthew, and some were starting to think that Jesus was a ghost. This would have been a very common thing. People regularly feel like a loved person comes back to them and this was generally assumed to be the spirit of the person who had returned to solace those who had been deprived of his company. Luke was, with this story, setting the record straight, the resurrection of Jesus was a non-trivial event.

But the resurrection was not only an experience where individuals met a dead person, rather it was a communal event. Paul writes:

Galatians 2:20 "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me."

Jesus' act was not an individual act it was a communal act. When Jesus died, Christians died to their sins. When Jesus resurrected, Christians came to a new life.

Galatians 3:1 "O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?"

Here we see how the event of the crucifixion continues to take place throughout the Christian community as the gospel was proclaimed. Certainly Jesus was not crucified amongst the Galatians, not in a physical sense.

The authority of Scripture

"Baha'is, at this point in discussion, will often reassert that they definitely believe that any words uttered directly by Jesus are inspired to the highest degree. But, they will add, in all Baha'i Scriptures (and by extension all Scriptures) it is only the direct writing of the person or an approved transcript that are considered 'perfect' texts while unapproved (by the actual manifestation personally) texts are considered 'hearsay' and less reliable. Clearly, Baha'is hasten to add, all of the words in the Gospels were written after the death of Jesus so none was ever approved by Him and none are ascribed to Him directly either. In fact, say Baha'i adherents along this line of reasoning, the Gospels seem to have been written decades after the fact as attested to by almost every biblical scholar (Christians, not Baha'is). Thus, Baha'is conclude flatly, none are of the highest Baha'i authenticity. Additionally, this Baha'i line of thought further denigrates the reliability of Scripture saying that there have been language and culture changes including the Hebrew Midrash traditions (symbolic writing style) before we ever see the 'original Greek' of 300 AD. At this point Baha'is will explain that this gives them license to consider Scripture as merely 'hearsay accounts', considered valuable ONLY if interpreted in a Baha'i way (reshaped in meaning with symbolism that disregards, in many instances, the original intent of the passages)."

This conclusion by Mr. Grider is of course quite unwarranted. The use of symbology in Scripture has nothing to do with the fact that they went through an oral stage. Or rather it is certainly not a line of reasoning that I find common amongst Bahá'ís, and most certainly not in the Bahá'í Writings. There is no doubt that by Baha'i standards the words of Jesus in the NT are "hearsay" as are the stories. But their value has nothing to do with their historicity, it has to do with its spiritual value.

"But Baha'is who think Jesus' words were inspired must accept what He says by way of Scripture (the only source, and definitively so by His own commission), or it becomes a meaningless statement to say that 'any words uttered directly by Jesus are inspired to the highest degree'. In other words, Baha'is who follow this line of thought are trying to say that, although Jesus words were totally inspired, we have no way of knowing what they were because the Bible is an unreliable source for them."

It is certainly not meaningless to say that the words were inspired but they were not reliably recorded. Though Mr. Grider may not like this statement, there is no breach of logic.

"That reasoning is indefensible even from within Baha'i doctrine that constantly uses direct quotes from the New Testament as an authoritative source to promote its own ideas through what Jesus 'said' in the New Testament. If what Baha'is say is true about the NT when they argue that Scripture is less than reliable in the validity of its intended Message, then Baha'u'llah and Abdul Baha would have to be seen as depending, themselves, on faulty material as being authoritatively correct in terms of what Jesus said."

This proposition falsely assumes that when Bahá'u'lláh cites something it because He relies on its authority. Mr. Grider doesn't realise that Bahá'u'lláh claims for Himself the ultimate authority to pronounce on truth. However, when He cites other source be they Scripture or secular, it is because His hears trust them.

According to the gospels not only Scriptures were quoted by Jesus, but also contemporary authorities:

Matthew 7:12 "All things therefore whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even so do ye also unto them: for this is the law and the prophets."

In the Talmud we may read a tradition about Rabbi Hillel, Jesus' senior contemporary:

"... a certain heathen came ... before Hillel, he said to him, 'what is hateful to you do not to your neighbour : that is the whole Torah, ...'."

(Shabbath 31a)

I wonder if Mr. Grider believes that Jesus endorsed all of what was said by Hillel.

The Station of Jesus

Finally Mr. Grider starts to discuss the subject in the title line:

"Yet Scripture says of Jesus Christ at John 1:3 that,

"Through Him (Jesus) all things were made, without Him nothing was made that has been made." "

Mr. Grider helpfully supplies "Jesus" in parenthesis, it is, however, not Jesus that "autou" refers to, but the "logos" which is also masculine. Jesus was a historical incarnation of the Word, as John explains that the word was made (egeneto) flesh (John 1:14). As is often the case throughout this debate Mr. Grider appears to be making a point, but fails to make it. He quotes Scripture and presumes that anyone can see how it supports his point of view.

This quote is followed by a long list of quotes from Isaiah, which Mr. Grider seems to presume refer to Jesus, but he shows no evidence in favour of this point of view, since I don't share Mr. Grider's conviction it makes no sense for me to discuss them.

"The Gospel of John does not portray Jesus as a teacher or mortal mirror of God's truth but says in John 1"

No, indeed John does not only portray Jesus as a teacher, though one might certainly understand it as portraying Jesus as a mirror or incarnation of God's truth.

Jesus is portrayed as a teacher elsewhere in the gospels, examples are found in Mark 4:38, 5:35, 9:17,38 etc.. Jesus is not portrayed in any monolithic manner in the gospels.

I suggest that Mr. Grider try to understand John 1 in context of the wisdom literature that went before it:

Sirach 1:4 "Wisdom hath been created before all things, and the understanding of prudence from everlasting."

Wisdom 9:9 "And wisdom was with thee: which knoweth thy works, and was present when thou madest the world, and knew what was acceptable in thy sight, and right in thy commandments."

Wisdom 9:10 "O send her out of thy holy heavens, and from the throne of thy glory, that being present she may labour with me, that I may know what is pleasing unto thee."

(Wisdom (sophia) is referred to here is in the feminine in accordance with the rules of grammar.)

Wisdom 9:18 "For so the ways of them which lived on the earth were reformed, and men were taught the things that are pleasing unto thee, and were saved through wisdom."

Sirach 24:1 "Wisdom shall praise herself, and shall glory in the midst of her people."

Mr. Grider then cites Philippians:

"Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made Himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to death- even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted Him to the highest place and gave Him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

Once again Mr. Grider uses an extremely questionable translation. What Mr. Grider's translation has as "nature", the KJV has the much more literal "form" (morphe).

Philippians 2:6 "who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped," [ASV]

and:

Philippians 2:6 "who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped," [RSV]

The NIV, the NJB & the NEB carry a similar reading as does most other modern translations I have consulted.

The question, of course, arises as to the proper translation of the word which is both rendered "snatched/seized" or "robbed" i.e. does the word entail a criminal act? Would claiming equality with God be considered an unlawful act?

The word "harpagmos" stems from the word "harpazo". According to Zodhiates' "The Complete Wordstudy Dictionary, New Testament" the word differs from "klepto" (to steal) in that it is an open act of theft, or robbery. It is admitted that it is not exclusively used thus, but also in a more general sense of forcible seizure. In Chadwick's "Lexicographica Graeca" the word is said to mean [seizure] "executed rapidly", "saisir l'instant", "to be caught" or "got by chance". Hickie's "Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament" has "to seize", "take by force" & "snatch away" for "harpazo", but for the word in question (harpagmos) it has "a thing to be seized; an accidental acquisition".

Let us look at the word translated as "considered" or "thought" (gegsato). The word is in the Aourist form which means an action initiated and completed in the past. It does not make sense for one who is eternal to have an aourist thought about His station compared to that of God. Was it only when Jesus was in the flesh, that He did not consider it robbery? No. He did not consider an auorist action, the act of seizure. Hence, the verse should be translated to something like: "Who, being in the form of God, did not consider the seizure of being like (or equal) God" which fits well with the following verse: "but emptied himself taking the form of a slave ..."

If we consider the purpose of the verse, namely that Christians should take Jesus' example and follow it, this interpretation also suits that purpose better.

Mr. Grider goes on to write:

"In John 11:25 Jesus says,

'I am the Resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live even though he dies. And whomever lives and believes in me will never die.'

According to Baha'i' interpretation of who Christ knew Himself to be this statement would be in gross error."

This is absolute non-senses. There is probably few statements in the NT that are so in tune with Bahá'í theology. John here presents the view that Jesus brought the resurrection, which is just what Bahá'ís claims happens whenever God sends a Manifestation to Judge and revive mankind.

"Jesus Says in John 3:13,

'No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven- the Son of Man. For God so loved the world that He sent His one and only Son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.'

Jesus' claim that no one but Himself has ever been to heaven definitively sets Him apart and above every other prophet and religious leader for all time."

I suggest that Mr. Grider reconsider this position. Enoch is well known in the Jewish-Christian tradition as having ascended into heaven (see 1 Enoch, Jude 1:14). Elijah is also clearly portrayed as ascending into heaven (see 2 Kings). What the Johannine verse means is that the one who ascends must also descend as did Jesus. Mr. Grider elsewhere explains that to point these out is "to miss the point", because to him the point is that no one has come back to tell about it. But a) Elijah did come back in the person of John the Baptist and b) clearly the text makes the second clause dependent on the first and not the other way around.

"Jesus said, 'The Father judges no one but has entrusted all judgment to the Son.' How much clearer a distinguishing aspect of the differentiation between Father and Son could there be? And yet how much more importance could be attached to the Son's person than that He, and not the Father, is the Judge of all Mankind? How much clearer could Christ's godhood be proclaimed than that He, and not the Father, judges us. No one but God owns such authority."

What, however, if we were to consider the implication of the word "entrusted" (dedoken)? I think it is plain that the Father has the authority and that it Him that gives it to the Son, who would not have it otherwise.

Mr. Grider must, however, concede: "Thus, though we cannot have perfect understanding of the relationship within the Godhead between Father and Son, we see that both carry different omnipotent authorities independently. We can see that Jesus' saying 'Why callest me thou good?', in no way detracts from His dual godly nature."

Let us look at this last assertion. The full text is:

Mark 10:18 "And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good save one, even God." [ASV]

I think that any unbiased exegesis of this verse will suggest that Jesus simply did not consider Himself to be God.

"Matthew 22:41, Mark 12:35, and Luke 20:41, however, tell us something different. They all relay the same account. It is a dramatic one in which Jesus reveals the deity of the Messiah. At Matthew 22:41 we read,

'While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, "What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?" "The son of David", they replied. "How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls Him Lord? For he says, 'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet." ' If then David calls Him "Lord" how can he be his son?' No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask Him any more questions."

How indeed could Jesus, the Messiah, be both son and Lord of David? Christ does not answer the question, for the answer is obvious to one who has faith in the Word and power of God. If Jesus' person is that of a mortal man, He must only be David's son. The mortal lineage of the Messiah is from David who lived and died long before Jesus' incarnation. But as God in the flesh Christ assumes a duality in His nature."

The first gospel to recount this apophthegem is Mark and Mark, as you may have noted, does not trace Jesus' genealogy to David. The question asked by Jesus presumes two things: 1) that Jesus had claimed to be Messiah, and 2) that Jesus did not trace His genealogy back to David. The issue is not Jesus presenting the divine nature of the Messiah, but whether or not Jesus qualified as Messiah.

" 'Let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.'

Jesus was both Lord (God), and Christ (man). If God confirms Him both Lord and Christ who can refute it? If David calls Him both Lord and son who can deny Him?"

So God made (epoihsen) Jesus both God and man. Very unlikely. Especially in view of the verses that precede the quote from Psalm 110.

Acts 2:33 "Being therefore by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath poured forth this, which ye see and hear." [ASV]

"And so we see that, according to Scripture, Abdul Baha is wrong when he tells us that '...for every being their is a point which it cannot overpass; that is to say, he who is in the condition of servitude, however far he may progress in gaining limitless perfections, will never reach the condition of Deity.' There is ONE man who clearly meets the qualifications for the 'condition of Deity'; Jesus Christ."

Mr. Grider here clearly does not understand what 'Abdu'l-Bahá is talking about. He is clearly talking about humans, in this very respect Manifestation are clearly different.

"Thus, the Scriptural Christ is not the same as the Baha'i one. I maintain that it is not enough to say, 'we honor Christ', as Baha'is insist they do, when the Christ they honor, in real terms, bares little or no resemblance to the one portrayed in Scripture. All Christians believe that Christ came to die for their sins, because God's Word unswervingly proclaims it. This is a basic underlying theme of Scripture. It is the non-Christian, the anti-Christian, who does not hold this faith because he does not believe what the Scriptures tell us of Him. Just a few of the many verses from God's Word that proclaim this truth will suffice to show that Baha'i's assertion that Christians misinterpret Scripture concerning Christ's Mission first and foremost as 'Messiah' is a wrong assertion. It is not according to our misguided 'perception' that Christians hold their Messianic belief in Christ. It is by universal and original intention of the Gospel message."

Mr. Grider is not very skilled in the art of inter-religious dialogue. First he misrepresents the position, of the other party and then he castigates them as "anti-Christian". Mr. Grider appears to be writing not to Bahá'ís, but to Christians.

After quoting extensively from the Pauline literature, about the importance of the crucifixion of Christ on our behalf he states:

"Now a common observation can be seen in this dichotomy. I have often pointed it out with respect to other definitively objective clashes between Scripture's CLEARLY INTENDED MESSAGE (The Bible), and Baha'i theology.

1) Baha'i religion obviously does not accept Scripture's portrayal of and defining of 'Jesus', 'The Christ', 'The Messiah'. No more does it accept the Scriptural portrayal of Him as Messiah than did the Pharisees. It redefines Him in a totally different way than the Bible does. The comparison of Baha'i's appraisal of Christian's supposedly naive 'perception' of Jesus as Messiah (as opposed to His having just been a 'good teacher'), with the Scriptures I have cited points this out clearly. There is a basic and legitimate rift between what the Bible tells us, and what Baha'i doctrine asserts, symbolism notwithstanding, concerning the prime Mission of Christ."

No, what there is, is a rift between what Mr. Grider thinks the Bible says and Bahá'ís think the Bible says. Not so few academically inclined Christians will accept many of the points posited by Bahá'ís.

"2) This reality crumbles the integrity of the Baha'i doctrinal foundation that would have us believe that all religions are really saying the same thing. There is no justification by symbolism here. Scripture itself, not just Christian 'interpretation', paints an objectively different definition of Jesus than Baha'i religion can accept."

Scriptural literalism does not produce unity even amongst conservative Christians. The fact is that a completely literal reading of the Bible produces non-sense. The question is not whether the Bible is symbolic, but where it is symbolic.

" 'Whoso maketh the slightest possible difference between their persons, their words, their messages, their acts and manners, hath indeed disbelieved in God, hath repudiated His signs and betrayed the Cause of His Messengers.'

On the contrary we find at Hebrews 3:3, for example, that,

'Jesus has been found worthy of greater honor than Moses (a supposed "manifestation"), just as the builder of a house has greater honor than the house itself. For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything.' "

Mr. Grider should realise that he once again has not properly understood Bahá'í theology. Bahá'u'lláh cites the Qu'ran "some Messengers we made to excel others", this has nothing to do with nature, it has to do with "honour" (as the author of Hebrews formulates it).

"For Colossians 1:15 tells us about Jesus;

'He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. ... For God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him.'

But this passage also reveals that He was infinitely more than just a 'reflection' of God."

Colossians 2:9 " for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily," [ASV]

This in itself is not a bad translation, but unfortunately the expression "Godhead" is not entirely clear, and is liable to be understood, in a casual examination, as meaning God. This does not appear, however, to have been what was intended by the author who could have stated this plainly by using the words "tou theou" (of God). Instead he employs the words "tes theotetos", which only appears this one place in the NT and not at all in the Septuaginta, making is precise meaning slightly more difficult to understand.

The Latin Vulgate reads:

"quia in ipso inhabitat omnis plenitudo divinitatis corporaliter"

Hence it is the Divine quality which is completely and fully embodied in Jesus Christ. As the verses that follow show, the interest of the author is in Jesus' authority to redeem or "circumcise". The question of essence is not addressed in this verse, but rather that of authority, of rulership and of power.

Miracles

Mr. Grider, in his fifth chapter, returns to the subjects of miracles. Here he deals with the statement made by George Townsand, to the effect that early on the spiritual message of Jesus was materialised (Christ and Bahá'u'lláh p. 29).

"We are left to believe that the Apostolic authors, whose accounts include the first hand reports of many eyewitnesses, either lied or were chosen by Christ to share His entire ministry only to be left by Him so deluded as to entirely miss the point!"

Perhaps. If that is the intention of Mr. Townsand then I disagree with him. The error lies not with the early Christians, but with Christians today loading present day concerns into texts of the past. This does not only materialise spiritual concepts, but also to spiritualise practical aspects. The error lies in hearing the sayings and the stories of the past and drawing radically different conclusions from those that the intended audience drew.

I have already discussed some of the details of the appearance stories in detail, there are, however, a few points that need to be addressed in connection with this chapter.

Mr. Grider objects to the Bahá'í interpretation of the resurrection as a spiritual event.

"Clearly the Gospel and very words of Christ, (spoken after the crucifixion), intend for us to believe that Christ literally rose from the dead, in the flesh, (and bones). He was resurrected in the person of Himself, able to be touched, converse, and eat physical food! There can be concocted no theory of symbolism that does not pervert the intended meaning of the Gospel and very words of Jesus."

Such a conclusion presupposes that the intention behind the stories of the resurrection is to represent history. But the evangelists have no such interest. Each evangelist's story is widely different from the other's reflecting not only different traditions, but also widely different concerns. Let us consider John's account.

When Mary Magdalene first meets the Risen Lord, at first she does not recognise him

John 20:17 "Jesus saith to her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended unto the Father: but go unto my brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God."

One should not touch the Risen Lord. Why? Because He is risen but not ascended. Eight days later Jesus returns and is touched by Thomas. Why? Because He is no longer the Risen Lord, but the Ascended Lord.

Touching the Ascended Lord is to see and believe, but some (the community of John) are blessed, those that believe without seeing. This last point is crucial because it explains the point of the story. Thomas (of the rivalling community) is depicted as "the faithless", the point of the story is to not be like Thomas.

It appears that what Mr. Grider wishes to do very much goes against the spirit of the point of John. To want a historical proof is to be like Thomas, to seek the symbol is to believe without seeing.

"At Acts 17:31 Luke tells us that Paul says, 'For God has set a day when He will judge the world with justice by the man (Jesus) He has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising Him (Jesus) from the dead.'"

This is interesting. He has given "proof"? Now what translation renders "pistin" as "proof"? "pistin" can not be translated as anything other than "faith" or "belief".

Acts 17:31 "inasmuch as he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead." [ASV]

All right "assurance" is a possible translation, ASV has this only once out of 244 occurrences in the NT, whereas in 239 other cases it is translated as "faith". Assurance in this context means guarantee, a sign of good faith.

Mr. Grider then refers to a story from Acts 23 where Paul is being tried for preaching his Christian faith. Sensing the mixed presence of Pharisees and Sadducees, he proclaims himself a Pharisee.

"We can observe in this the historical fact that by associating himself with the Pharisaic belief in resurrection of the dead, he was revealing the non Baha'i view of Jesus' literal Resurrection as a real, not symbolic, event, as 'firstborn from the dead', as opposed to the symbolically distorted Baha'i outlook that would have no connection to pharisaical belief in Resurrection."

This is a terrible misuse of a story which clearly lends no strength to his argument. It should be clear that one can place no more value in Paul's statement about the resurrection than we can in his statement about being a Pharisee. Pharisees did not believe that the Messiah would be the "first fruit" of the resurrection.

Discussing the story in Acs 28, where Festus discusses the case of Paul with King Agrippa, makes the following point:

"In this we must observe that Scripture includes here the report of an independent third party (even a man of great authority) who, in commenting upon the intended Message that Paul was relaying, reflects how that intended Message concerning Christ's Resurrection, was, in fact, assumed to be taken as an absolutely a literal one."

This can hardly be considered a third party report, at best it is a popular tradition. Further more it states nothing more than the fact that Festus had come to understand that Paul believed in Jesus who was dead and resurrected. That Paul believed this is not disputed.

"Though he is a central figure in it, Paul did not write Acts. But it is better that he didn't. For Luke's independent testimony, even including third party witnesses, builds a stronger case for authenticating the legitimate Christian perspective concerning Christ's Resurrection. We see this borne out as we read what Paul himself writes in Romans."

Romans 8:10, "But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of Him who RAISED JESUS FROM THE DEAD is living in you, HE WHO RAISED CHRIST FROM THE DEAD will also give life to your MORTAL BODIES through His Spirit, who lives in you. Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation--but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it."

Mr. Grider emphasis the side remark by Paul in which God is referred to as the one "who raised Jesus/Christ from the dead", and fails to address the real point of the verse which is the dwelling of Jesus and the dwelling of the Holy Spirit in the body of believers. In what sense did Jesus dwell in the body of believers? In a physical/literal sense?

A final clarifying remark regarding the crucifixion is in place. Many Christians consider the resurrection to be proof of the nature of His person and/or His mission. They further suggest that the belief in this event caused people to become Christians and that the genesis of the Christianity can be explained thusly.

Such a thesis, however, completely ignores the abundance of resurrection stories that circulated in the life-time of Jesus and those that followed Him. Stories of disciples eating with their master, of empty tombs and of plain view ascensions before a congregation, were not uncommon. To suggest that such experiences had proof value, at that time, to anyone except those who had this religious experience, is to force ones own concerns into a text that does not support it.

That the crucifixion had a great mythic value is beyond dispute. By a myth I mean a story (which may or may not be historically true) which somehow defines a community. It served to explain the continued existence of the community after its founder had died. Just like God is not the God of the dead, but of the living (Mark 12:27), then Christians did not follow a dead Messiah, but a living one.

If one wants to gain some value today of the resurrection myth, then one needs to perceive this spiritual truth, that Jesus is alive, not in the sense of flesh and blood, but in the Christian community. Otherwise one misses the great and beautiful spiritual truth enshrined in the resurrection myth, and is left to consider matters of little spiritual value.

The Holy Spirit in Early Christianity

Mr. Grider next switches to the subject of the Pentacost:

"Also, the first two chapters of Acts in which that 'Spirit of truth' already had come at the Pentecost are in bold disagreement with the forced symbolism of Baha'i interpretation of the Pentecost. In Acts ch1 Jesus SPECIFICALLY refers to the promise referred to in John 16, telling the Disciples to wait 'for a few days' (not until the 19th century) for the one He promised would come, the indwelling of God's Spirit. Acts chapter 2 describes that coming."

Acts 1:5 does not refer specifically to John 16, it specifically refers to the events of the second chapter. John also has a description of a Pentecost, different but with the same point: the guidance continued in the Church even after the ascension of Jesus.

John 20:22 "And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit:" [ASV]

The special terminology of John 16 is not used and no efforts are made by John to describe the Farewell Discourses' fulfilment.

"Abdul Baha's interpretation of what the Pentecost was supposed to mean, utterly ignores Christ's direct association with the promises He had made concerning the coming of the "Comforter" or "Counselor" that Baha'i religion is so anxious to attribute to Baha'u'llah. We must compare Abdul Baha's "version" of what the Pentecost meant with that of the Scripture's."

No, 'Abdu'l-Bahá does not have a different "version" of the Pentecost, what He is saying that the Farewell Discourse is not about the Pentecost. The Farewell Discourse is probably an old apocalyptic/eschatological text that John redacted towards more of a Pentecostal idea, yet even after the redaction many of the original themes shine through (revelation, judgement, etc.). While this is not the place for a thorough discussion of these matters, I think it is necessary to point out what it is that 'Abdu'l-Bahá is doing. Mr. Grider even quotes Some Answered Questions in which 'Abdu'l-Bahá gives a fairly orthodox explanation of the Pentecost, yet he seems unable to see that 'Abdu'l-Bahá clearly distinguishes between that and the coming of the Paraclete (comforter).

The station of Bahá'u'lláh

Mr. Grider continues in his sixth chapter to point out what he describes as "internal doctrinal contradiction" which "still remains a glaring problem."

The initial half of that chapter is devoted to the exposition of the Bahá'í teaching about the station of the Manifestation. Once again Mr.Grider ignores a score of hermeneutic rules in order to present what he considers a "internal doctrinal contradictions." What is disturbing is not that Mr. Grider is unable to understand the Bahá'í teachings about the station of the Manifestations of God, but that he seems uninterested in understanding and more interested in "proving" the Bahá'í Faith fraudulent.

Bahá'u'lláh teaches that each Revelation is bound to be superseded by a later Revelation. This has nothing to do with the specific Person of the Manifestation, but has to do with the condition of the people, this is what titles and greatness is all about, nothing else.

False prophets

From this Mr. Grider goes on to attempt to prove that Jesus foresaw not only that there would be false prophets, but also that he made provisions to identify Bahá'u'lláh as such. First he quotes Luke:

Matthew 24:3 "And as he sat on the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?"

Matthew 24:4 " And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man lead you astray."

Matthew 24:5 "For many shall come in my name, saying, I am the Christ; and shall lead many astray."

Matthew 24:11 "And many false prophets shall arise, and shall lead many astray."

Luke 17:22 "And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it."

Luke 17:23 "And they shall say to you, Lo, there! Lo, here! go not away, nor follow after them:"

Luke 17:24 "for as the lightning, when it lighteneth out of the one part under the heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall the Son of man be in his day." [ASV]

There is no doubt that Luke warns about the rising of false prophets. From Acts (5:36,7) we know that prior to Jesus false prophets had arisen, but I suspect that this is not what this refers to. There are, in my opinion, two other candidates: a) local Christian prophets who allocated prerogatives that were not theirs. Didache chapter 11 regulates the local prophets and their activities. B) Theissen proposes another context, namely the great imperial prophets, the Roman Emperors, in particular Caligula of the 40ies.

Regarding Luke 17:24 I suspect that it is not lightning that is intended by astrape, though that is undoubtedly the classical meaning of the word. Luke has one occurrence of the word where it is used differently (11:36), it is translated as shining brightly. I suspect that in this context it refers to the sun, since this would be consistent with it coming from the east and shining into the west. As a simile one would expect a lightning to fall (Luke 10:18).

"Jesus even goes on in this passage to remind us that these false prophets will indeed come as would be "holy" bringers of enlightenment.

"Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'" "

Mr. Grider is here citing Matthew 7:22, if he were to have cited the verse before, he would have to see that the prophets referred to were Christian prophets, the prophets of Didache.

"However Christians are told that Baha'u'llah unsealed the Scripture's true meaning, which was formerly sealed. Having lived in the 19th century, his then must be "another Gospel" than that of Paul and the Apostles who presumably misunderstood the Bible and Christ's intentions. Paul tells us in Galatians 1:6,

'I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different Gospel- which is really no Gospel. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the Gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from Heaven should preach a Gospel other than the one WE preached to you, let him be eternally condemned. As we have already said, so now I say again. If anybody is preaching a Gospel other than what you accepted let him be eternally condemned.' "

This is yet another instance of Mr. Grider's odd translation. Which is "really no Gospel" is not only an incomplete translation, but is inaccurate for what it deals with. ASV writes it as "which is not another gospel only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ." The problem for Paul was that Jewish-Christian missionaries had come to Galatia and these were preaching a message that was much like that of James (see the epistle of James). To use it as a reference to Baha'u'llah is highly anachronistic and disregards the very present concerns. It was a very specific "other gospel" that concerned Paul.

Chapter seven presents Mr. Grider's problems with the Bahá'í doctrine of the non-existence of evil active forces. As an example he quotes:

John 8:44 "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and standeth not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof." [ASV]

Jesus (or John) is not teaching about Satan, but is using a common myth about a mythological figure to illustrate the nature of his "children". The theme of Satan as a murder is particularly apt here since the Jews would later become responsible for the death of Jesus.

"No. There is no silly fork tailed man with horns. Yes. There is an evil spiritual being that opposes God's truth, one who is the father of murder and lies. Jesus used the symbol of 'father' for Satan. He also used the term to represent God the 'Father'. Jesus intentions were clear and not coincidental in using this term. For just as God is the Father of those who love Him, Satan is the father of those who love evil. In reading Christ's words we can no more call Satan a primitive symbol out of step with the times than we can God Himself."

The "spirit" seems quite material in the temptation account. The fact is that in all religious literature, including Bahá'í, Satan is a useful myth, a significant anthropomorphism. The existence of Satan as a personal spirit or force is assumed by Jesus' (and John's) contemporaries, and as such He does not challenge that belief, rather He used it as a meaningful symbol of that which He intended.

"1Peter describes Satan as a roaring lion, prowling for someone to devour. The lion is the symbol, not Satan. One does not symbolize a symbol."

No, Satan is a symbol (or myth). The roaring lion is a parabolic expression of what he (or rather it) does. The expression a "roaring lion" is perhaps borrowed from Proverb 28:15 where it is used about the wicked ruler.

"A typical Baha'i example argues that the Gospel says that a, 'slave should be subservient to his master as his master should be subservient to God'. The Baha'i reasoning concludes that to bring back slavery and justify it because the Bible says so would be an obviously unacceptable and immoral act. Divine laws are thus argued to be subject to abrogation by later, more advanced concepts of religious truth. Baha'i teaching asserts in a similar example that Jesus changed the laws of Moses. It argues that if divine laws were not mutable, and Moses had a divine revelation, then why wouldn't we just stick to his words?

But this argument wrongly implies that Scripture ever condoned slavery. What Scripture does do is to show us that evil circumstances must be dealt with in non evil ways. As slavery was part of the unchangeable world system of that day, Scripture taught slaves how to live honorably with God within those adverse circumstances. The passage is thus not teaching the acceptability of slavery. It is however establishing universal groundrules for living righteously within an unrighteous and often oppressive world. Did Jesus condone oppressive taxes when he said to 'give unto Caesar what is Caesar's'. No. But He showed man that there is a higher priority in always 'giving to God what is God's'. Scripture cannot be made to seem to suggest that Jesus honored the oppressive rule of the Roman yoke around the throat of His homeland. But in the world evil circumstances must be met with a godly attitude that may well have to bear injustice. Thus the Gospel obviously does not suggest the bringing back of slavery or the condoning of it in biblical times."

Mr. Grider here fancies the Gospel as socially revolutionary in places where it was not. I am not suggesting that Jesus approved of slavery, quite on the contrary. However, Jesus does not address the issue of slavery directly, simply because He does not move in circles where slavery is common (upper class). Paul, however, unlike Jesus, operated in those social spheres. He did not encourage giving up all property (as did Jesus Mk 10:17ff) and his dealing with the issue of slavery shows anything but a radical attitude. Not in his particular case of Philemon and not in his casual mention (Gal 3:28) in his general letters.

Biblical Errors

Here Mr. Grider takes on the whole issue of Biblical inerrence, which lies at the heart of his approach to this dialogue.

"The Baha'i, however, will fail to observe several crucial points in this line of thought. First, it needs to be observed that the Baha'i writings, unlike the Bible, are incredibly voluminous contemporary documents. Interpretation of their intended meaning, literal or symbolic, is not the same thing as biblical exegesis which involves careful scholarly work on ancient documents, including the consideration of ancient Greek and Hebrew cultural idiom and language usage. Also, one will discover that the litany of Bible errors consists of either trivializing discrepancies of detail, controversies involving non essential issues, the taking of text out of context so as to read meaning into the text that was never intended by the writer, or scholarly mistakes in the interpretation of the text of these ancient documents."

Mr. Grider both invokes the use of scholarly (in fact makes it necessary) reading the Bible and at the same time condemns it as a source of mistakes. It appears that the criteria for whether something is "careful scholarly work" or "scholarly mistakes in interpretation" is not a scientific criteria, but whether or not the returned verdict suits Mr. Grider.

"As we read the following litany of alleged Bible inconsistencies, we can observe that the foundation these arguments themselves rest on is the very literal and narrow legalism they presume to criticize in Christian belief, only turned inside out. The arguments are utterly dependent upon a rigid reading to create "literal" errors while ignoring context, culturally idiomatic and linguistic considerations that bear upon the writing of Scripture, and spiritual intent obvious in the verses in question. It is a literal, fundamentalist, perspective, only on the opposite extreme of the literal fundamentalist Bible fanatic. The extremist Bible fundamentalist refuses to concede that any scribe ever forgot to cross a "t" or dot an "i". The legalistic cynic, on the other hand, is ready to trash Scripture's inerrancy as soon as he finds an undotted "i". Such religious head banging is as wrong on the one extreme as the other. Many of the Baha'i lines of argument that present Bible "errors" in an attempt to demonstrate the Bible's general lack of "literal" reliability are ones borrowed from such a blatantly cynical anti Bible perspective."

Mr. Grider here clearly demonstrates that he has not studied the extent to which Greek manuscripts vary, and that there is ongoing debates regarding which readings are more original. That there are variant readings in manuscripts can not be questioned, but these do not constitute errors as such, nor are they such as to explain any of the discrepancies that are to be found in the Bible.

"It is worth noting that trivial discrepancies in Bible detail actually help authenticate the believability of the Bible's message. Any historical scholar would view such insignificant differences in multiple versions of any ancient documents as strong evidence that the otherwise overwhelming agreement in the stories independently reveals a common root of authentic truth. The authors reveal in the subtle kinds of differences Bible cynics call 'errors', that there was no conspiracy to compare notes and 'get the story straight' as it were. When this point is realized, the overwhelming 'sameness' in what are obviously four independent Gospel versions is a strong authenticating aspect of the Bible, not one that deters from its authenticity. It is what one would expect to find if, in fact, the Gospel versions were written somewhat independently. Even living witnesses of an event will tell slightly different versions of an event in terms of details when asked to recall what happened. Certainly we don't compare their differences and accuse them of lying. We gain a truer picture of what happened by comparing what they have to say in common, observing that they share those mainly common aspects of their separate versions totally independent from one another. Now this is not to say that the New Testament authors were blind to one another's work or that there is no sharing of material whatsoever across the Gospels. It is simply to point out that where these minor discrepancies occur, they reflect the inevitable variation one would expect from various witnesses telling the same story through the filter of personal perspective. It is significant to point out that these 'errors' do not affect the spiritual themes and intentions of the Bible authors. Neither do they affect the general 'plot' of the stories. What they do is reveal the genuinely independent liberty in authorship of the various versions. That proof of independent authorship is far more significant in defending Bible accuracy about what really happened than the nature of any of the trivial differences in detail are that reveal overall independent agreement concerning the vital points in the story of Jesus."

The accuracy that Mr. Grider assumes to prove here through discrepancies in the gospels is gratuitous. The discrepancies between the gospels can not be explained in such simple terms, nor can conclusion of this nature be drawn from them. The complex relationship between the gospels are the subject of much scholarly debate and should not be needlessly trivialised.

At this juncture I would like to state for the record that the "errors" do not prove anything about the allegorical nature of the gospels. Are the gospels reliable historical records? Not really. Is this significant for its spiritual message? No.

Now I will comment on a few of the issues addressed in the "Biblical errors" section:

It is quite true that the Peter of the gospels is quite different from the one in Luke's Acts. That is because Mark portrays Peter (and also the other disciples and Jesus' family) very negatively. The historical Peter was probably more like the person we find in Acts.

The "sign of Jonah" is interpreted in two different ways. In Matthew it is a reference to the resurrection, In Luke it is a reference to the preaching of Jesus. There is a consensus amongst scholars (see Tuckett for example) that the version in Luke is the most original and that Matthew's interpretation is secondary. Now does this mean that Matthew's version is not inspired? No. But it should be taken into account when trying to make an argument about the Historical Jesus.

Now to try to explain away "three days and three nights" as being Hebrew idiomatics, is sheer rubbish. The expression is explicit and does not leave room for wishful exegesis. Matthew's topological interpretation is meaningful. Quibbling over whether it fits exactly misses the point completely.

Though I have personally given plenty of thought to the issue of authority (that of the Bible, the Inner Light and the Church), I have yet to see any Bahá'í line up the sort of argument presented by Mr. Grider, much less as an argument on Biblical inerrency. That "scholarship is alive and well within Christianity" can not be doubted, that it is used by used by Christians in general is extremely questionable. To further suggest that scholarship can determine what is canonical and what is not seems unfounded.

I don't mind Mr. Grider's use of McDowell, but there should be no doubt that McDowell is generally not to be considered an academic, but an apologist (and his book "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" is generally viewed as such) and that his historical evaluations are subject to some criticism. If Mr. Grider wishes to debate the specifics of McDowell's work I am quite willing to do that, but I suspect that that would really be besides the point.

Elsewhere Mr. Grider seems to put up a Bahá'í straw dummy that is a Christian academic rather than a Bahá'í. For example the issue of the difference between the synoptic Jesus and the Johannine. I don't know of any Bahá'ís who have ever made this an issue. It is interesting that Mr. Grider at this juncture uses the expression "spiritual inerrency of Scripture."

Also I am having a hard time imagining any Bahá'í quibble over the translation in the KJV of a passage in Isaiah 11:10 and the one in Romans 15:12. Paul is using the Septuaginta here, even if there had been a difference between the Masoritic and the LXX this could hardly count as an error.

"Jesus, we recall, asked the rhetorical question, 'Why do you call me good', to a man who had addressed Him as 'good <TEACHER>'. In fact, that is as far as Jesus goes. He does not answer the question in the immediate context of this story. He reflects upon the manner in which the man addressed Him, correctly pointing out that if the man only thought of Him as a 'good <TEACHER>', then he mistakenly calls Him 'good' (for only God is good). Jesus does not say not to call Him good. He only tells us that mortal 'teachers' aren't. His conception of Himself as Scriptural 'Messiah' is distinctly a different station than that of 'good teacher'. It carries with it implications that are more lofty than that of a "teacher" to the degree of infinity, to the degree of God."

Mr. Grider's interpretation of Mark 10:17 is simply unsustainable. It is interesting that in this instance he suggests that we should not see the saying in "context of this story". Jesus was not saying it was wrong to call Him "teacher", it was wrong to call him "good". One may well discuss why Jesus says this and what exactly is implied by "good" (agathe), but one can not make it an issue of the title of "teacher".

As I have already discussed the issue of genealogy previously, I wont reiterate here, I should, however, point out that Mirza Abu'l-Fadl was familiar with the sort of arguments put forth by Mr. Grider. He found it to be "more likely to provoke laughter than to silence the skeptic". (Miracles and Metaphores, p. 65) While it should be obvious from my presentation so far, that I don't share Mirza Abu'l-Fadl's opinion of Jesus' origin I do agree with his conclusion that the genealogies are unreliable.

Mr. Grider goes on to explain that the reason why Jews did not recognise Jesus was not 1) that Scripture was vague nor 2) because He did not fulfil its prophecies.

Jesus, certainly claimed to fulfil prophecy, but not those of the Suffering Servant. When Jesus was asked when the Kingdom of God (i. e. the messianic fulfilment of prophecy) would come:

Luke 17:20 "And being asked by the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God cometh, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:"

Luke 17:21 "neither shall they say, Lo, here! or, There! for lo, the kingdom of God is within you." [ASV]

Jesus did not say "wait I will be back to establish the kingdom." No! He interpreted Scripture symbolically. He said that He fulfilled Scripture not outwardly so that it could be observed, but in the hearts of men.

Against a physical resurrection Mr. Grider points to 1 Corinthians (15:50) "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption." So Mr. Grider suggests that there is a difference between the normal body and the glorified body.

Consider that 1 Corinthians writes of flesh (sarx) and not of body (soma):

Philippians 3:20 "For our citizenship is in heaven; whence also we wait for a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:"

Philippians 3:21 "who shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation, that it may be conformed to the body of his glory, according to the working whereby he is able even to subject all things unto himself." [ASV]

The body "of our humiliation" is a communal body, so is that "of his glory", which is, by the way, the body known as the Church.

The realised eschatology of Hebrews (11:35) seems to be equally problematic for Mr. Grider, and he is forced to refer to a few stories of resurrections told of in the Bible. Any fair minded reading of the text (like that of John) will have to recognise that it presumes that the resurrection was happening in the present.

Conclusion

Mr. Grider goes for another three chapters, but raises no issue worth addressing at this juncture. My concluding remarks are not so much on any particular subject matter relating to Mr. Grider's articles, but rather on the problem of dialogue.

While Mr. Grider may feel that he has been impartial in his evaluation of the Bahá'í Faith, he has failed to start a dialogue by taken the polemicist/apologist role. One does not come into a dialogue proposing that one can find "errors" of logic in another system of belief, rather one should in such cases presume that ones own unfamiliarity with its source writings is at fault. What is frustrating is not Mr. Grider's inability as an exegete, it is that his failure does not lead him to enquire, it merely leads him to conclude that there is an inconsistency.