By Dale Grider, howdybud@bellsouth.net

I would like to respond to Daniel Grolin’s "In answer to "The Baha'i Christian Fireside Letters". Daniel, as a Baha’i, attempts to give an apologetic response to my Christian perspective as shared on the Fireside Letters website, http://personal.sdf.bellsouth.net/sdf/h/o/howdybud

This kind of response is very important because through it communication can begin and misunderstanding may be averted. As far as I know, Daniel’s response is the most in depth attempt to respond to the Fireside Letters to date. Though I only discovered it inadvertently on the Australian discussion group website, Bahá'í - Christian Dialogue Interest Group, www.ozemail.com.au/~cdibdin , it’s discovery lends me a greater opportunity to refine my perspective and share with greater clarity, not only objective problems within Baha’i religion, but more significantly what is true and right about the historic Christian Faith of Scripture by comparison. The goal, I’m sure we all agree, is to find "Truth", not just be right or win arguments .

As we will discover however, apologetics is wrestling. It is confrontational by nature and anyone who wishes to engage in meaningful discussion in terms of comparative world religion is going to have to come to grips with the factual reality that diversity means just exactly that. It is diverse (ie different). And it is different over meaningful, fundamental, and highly significant points of belief, not just trivialities. Buddhists come out of a basically agnostic perspective. Indo European religions are polytheistic or pantheistic. We, as Semetic based peoples of faith, are monotheistic. According to the Aristotelian law of non contradiction only one way of approaching our understanding of the Creator is right. They can’t all be. This, of course, is only one of many such possible observations that define the diversity across the world’s religions. We have to approach our discussion from a perspective based upon rational reality or there is no point discussing at all.

Thus, it is crucial to respect other people’s right to believe as they choose. And we must pray in love for all people. But it is distinctly not bigotry to express the distinct and singular doctrines of one’s faith as being the "Truth", fully realizing that that necessarily means you assume and believe by way of your own distinct beliefs that those with divergent beliefs are "wrong" by definition. Now some of what diverse belief systems might disagree over could be seen as not being critical to "Salvation" (a term in and of itself over which diverse definitions abound). Yet, far beneath the threshold point of spiritual survival, the validity of a discussion group involving comparative world religion, to be worthy of its very existence, needs to investigate and consider openly ALL of the diverse assertions concerning the truth about God and humanity, not just the minimums of survival. We are presumably gathered to delve deeply and thoroughly into who God is, who we are, and what our relationship to Him, and to one another should be like. Thus, while respect and love must temper all, it is delusional in the extreme to approach our discussion as if the differences that separate us in belief were simply illusory smoke. Where there is smoke there is fire, as they say, and our differences reflect real, true, and meaningful friction concerning important spiritual matters. I think a fundamental aspect of respecting other’s "diverse" beliefs lies simply in acknowledging that those differences are true, legitimate, and distinct points of difference that need to be taken seriously and approached with such a respectful recognition. The idea of defining the respecting of diversity as a whitewash job that proclaims., "I’m OK your OK", really respects no one’s diverse beliefs, but denies the very existence of the definitive points of difference that DEFINE the diversity. We cannot assume an a priori presupposition that in our religious diversity, "I’m OK your OK", is necessarily true. The whole point of our discussion is to find out through openly comparing our differences, just what being "OK" with God means, not downplaying or even denying the objective basis of the differences at the outset!

This seems to be a bad problem with Baha’is whose basic worldview simply doesn’t respect the original, legitimate, true, and definitive reality of the diverse beliefs across the world’s religions. As a fundamental part of the Baha’i world view, anyone’s beliefs that differ from Baha’i teachings get the Baha’i spin put on them that assumes,

"Oh, Your "true" religion doesn’t really teach that, your beliefs are only a later "aberration" that has distorted your religious founder’s original intentions."

Thus Buddhism is consistently denied its truly agnostic basis. And Christians are forever told that their doctrines don’t really represent the original teachings of the Apostles or Jesus, that they are only latter corruptions. It becomes hard even to "agree to disagree" with someone who won’t acknowledge the originally grounded, concrete legitimacy of the diversity itself. Ironically, Baha’i teaching which proclaims an all embracing love and respect for the fundamental truth of all the World’s religions, preaching "unity" as its hallmark, does so at the expense of really not at all respecting the true reality of the objective diversity that actually defines those religions! With respect to comparative world religion, "diversity", in Baha’i meaning, is thus really defined as simply meaning "corruption" away from the Baha’i oriented intent of some manifestation. It is rooted in the presumption that all religion is "really" Baha’i religion at its heart and according to the original teachings of its founders (manifestations). The followers of other religions whose beliefs diverge from the Baha’i teachings are told that they just don’t realize how what they believe is merely the result of corruption away from originally intended Baha’i concepts by way of men’s bad teaching over time.

I submit that this is anything but a respect for diversity across the world’s religions. It is a convenient way of rationalizing away the diversity and redefining other people’s belief systems to conform to the Baha’i outlook. That is a hard enough pill for Semetic based religions to swallow (Islam, Judaism, Christianity) where there is indeed still some common ground. But it becomes hard to imagine how presumptuous such rationalizing must seem to someone whose Indo European beliefs (polytheistic or pantheistic or agnostic foundations) are so far removed from the Semetic, monotheistic based Baha’i outlook as to exaggerate for them the Baha’i religiocentricity that presumes to superimpose a Semetic outlook over an Indo European one, amazingly telling them that their "true" religion too is "really" Semetic (Baha’i) in its "original" fundamentals, if the truth be known!

Much as we need to concede the genuine reality of other people’s diverse beliefs, respecting the original and intentional reality of that diversity all the way back without denying by redefining the original roots of that diversity, we must be certain that we debate only doctrines, not the fate of men’s souls which rests in God’s hands alone. I have often had to correct those in discussion who attempted to set up a straw man against me, presuming to have me condemning Baha’is to Hell. I have never presumed to judge men’s souls. We do, on the other hand, have a mandate from Scripture concerning men’s beliefs professed. We are commanded to "test all things, Keep what is good and reject the rest". We are warned that false teachers and false prophets will abound. Therefore let us understand at the outset that any discussion that would be valid from a biblical perspective, assumes the right (the duty) to be candid concerning doctrines, while always hoping in love and prayer on the behalf of those souls with whom we speak, even in the heat of controversy. Anything less, I think, is hypocrisy and a waste of time.

Having said that, I am prepared to address the response Daniel has offered to the Fireside Letters. I hope that I (and we all) can benefit from discussing the issues frankly and honestly, and in hope and love toward one another as we face the exciting prospect of spiritual growth through prayerful interaction. Daniel has conveniently broken up his response into topical sections and I will retain that structure as I respond to each of his sections.

Daniel begins with consideration of the diversity of the world religions. He says,

"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."

As is clearly brought out in the Fireside letters, Daniel brings up an issue that carries an inherently problematic Baha’i doctrinal contradiction. He invokes the doctrine of progressive revelation as an explanation for the mutually contradictory beliefs evident in today’s world religions. In the sense that the Baha’i teaching on progressive revelation says that people are only given "doses" of revelation in accord with their level of "advancement", I can understand what Daniel’s statement seems to assume. In that interpretation of progressive revelation one would view the diversity as reflective of the varying levels of advancement of diverse people. One should note however, that the diversity observable in the world’s religions is not along any consistent progression of belief that leads in any one direction, much less the Baha’i direction. The diversity amongst the world religions simply exists in doctrinal systems filled with absolutely mutually contradictory concepts whose other mutual commonalities do not rescue their absolute clashes on major points of belief (the nature of God for instance), and whose clashes reveal a genuine diversity that would never rationally "progress" in any unified fashion toward a Baha’i worldview (ie. the duality of Zoroasterianism).

More significantly with respect to Baha’i theology however, it is not chiefly by way of progressive revelation that either Abdul Baha or Baha’u’llah explain the apparent diversity across the world religions. Progressive revelation is developed by them far more significantly as an apologetic argument to certify the ultimate "advanced" dispensation of Baha’u’llah who specifically tells us according to that concept that despite everything that he has said about the unity of all the world’s major religions, that we must ignore the teachings of any past manifestations’ dispensations if and when they seem to conflict with his own allegedly "ultimate" one in which as he says things like,

"Whenever My laws appear like the sun in the heaven of Mine utterance, they must be faithfully obeyed by all, though My decree be such as to cause the heaven of every religion to be cleft asunder." Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah, pg 333.

The main point with respect to progressive revelation seems to be that mankind has not, until the mid 19th century, been "advanced" enough to grasp the mighty revelation of Baha’u’llah. I have observed that such a doctrine, in its specific Baha’i application for Baha’u’llah, wrongly presumes that mankind’s progress has evidently reached its apex. This is evident in the writings.

"...other Manifestations will arise under his (Baha’u’llah’s) shadow...while remaining under His shadow. Abdul Baha Some Answered Questions pg 161.

"The promises of God, as recorded in the holy Scriptures, have all been fulfilled. (in Baha’u’llah)" Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah pg 12.

The "progressive revelation" tool needed to pool all under the authority of Baha’u’llah, afterward becomes a stumbling block for Baha’i religion that must screechingly slam on the breaks of progressive revelation lest Baha’u’llah too should become as trodden underfoot by his own subjectivizing religious doctrine as all those which he has dismissed as "primitive" in relation to his. But even as the Baha’i brakes of progressive revelation come to a screeching halt with the arrival of Baha’u’llah, the world begs to differ. The observant person who looks out into the world should easily recognize that Baha’i teaching is wrong in that mankind’s observable spiritual state, even at present and over 100 years after Baha’u’llah’s dispensation, does not exist in anything even approaching an apex of spiritual ascendancy worthy of the level of Revelation he claims for himself. This is especially evident as we recall that according to the idea of progressive revelation, revelation is only supposed to come in doses relative to the peoples state of advancement. There seems quite obviously in today’s world, including all the terrible actions of mankind in history since Baha’u’llah, no valid reason to presumptuously proclaim that all the promises of Scripture have been fulfilled in Baha’u’llah according to the dynamics of progressive revelation. This is a false statement. The degree of Revelation Baha’u’llah claims for himself stands in contradiction to the underlying dynamic preached of how and why progressive revelation would necessarily operate in human history.

However, as we notice this irrational inconsistency within the doctrine of progressive revelation itself, we are lead to an even deeper inconsistency within Baha’i theology wherein it DOES try to specifically address why it says the world’s religions are "diverse". This is in its doctrine of the universal spiritual degenerateness of mankind. Even the mention of such a universal regressive doctrine within the context of having just considered how Baha’i theology also separately asserts mankind’s universal "progressive" spirituality, highlights a basic irrational clash on two major points of fundamental doctrine. For example, how can there even be varied levels of progress amongst various peoples at various times for which there need to be compatibly varied levels of revelation, when the Baha’i principle of man’s regressive spirituality asserts clearly that mankind has always and in every era and religion, completely debased truth to the very bottom of the barrel? In other words, even beyond the fact that Baha’i doctrine of progressive revelation is not rationally expressed with even consistency when it is being promoted, there is yet another layer of Baha’i teaching that runs parallel to it within Baha’i theology which outright contradicts the whole concept of progressive revelation wholesale!

Abdul Baha’s explanation states quite clearly that the diversity across the world’s religions is anything but the result of "progressive" spirituality. Let’s see what Abdul Baha and Baha’u’llah say about the roots of religious diversity,

Abdul Baha, in Some Answered Questions, pg165,

"... It is, therefore, clear and evident that the Religion of God does not maintain its original principles among the people, but that it has gradually changed and altered until it has been entirely destroyed and annihilated...

...So it is with religions; through the passing of time they change from their original foundation, the truth of the Religion of God entirely departs, and the spirit of it does not stay; heresies appear, and it becomes a body without a soul."

And Baha'u'llah says from the Kitab al Iquan,

"Not one single Manifestation of Holiness hath appeared but He was afflicted by the denials, the repudiation, and the vehement opposition of the people around Him."

He then goes exhaustively through virtually every religious founder from every time and culture showing that mankind universally and with consistency behaves the same, and it isn't good. Mankind, he says, universally rejects the prophet, always has, always will.

In the Fireside Letters I observed,

"Abdul Baha, and Baha'u'llah, both observe that mankind universally degenerates the truth in every "dispensation" to the "utmost degradation", "lost in the blindest fanaticism", "decayed, ruined and upset", truth being "entirely destroyed and annihilated", all religions becoming "a body without a soul". Thus is explained the "apparent" differences amongst the world religions, and the hidden unity amongst their various founders. Spiritual regression. ...

...Either mankind progresses spiritually, or he degenerates from truth. It cannot be both. Both sides of this Baha'i doctrinal contradiction simultaneously define the basic nature of the human spirit with doctrinal principles for basic human behavior that are opposite. Doctrine A says mankind always corrupts the truth and thus is allegedly seen the "seeming" differences amongst religions. Doctrine B contradictorily says that mankind evolves by nature to ever higher levels of spiritual enlightenment and thus is supposedly explained the higher and superseding revelation of Baha'u'llah."

The four Baha’i analogies chapter from the Fireside Letters essays reveals very well the ingenious attempts to get around this logical observation about Baha’i theology, and in their utter failure to surmount the clash, underscores, I think, a fatally insoluble contradiction at the heart of the Baha’i doctrinal system of thought.

And this is not even to mention a third model of mankind’s spirituality presented by Abdul Baha in Some Answered Questions which presents a cyclical model incompatible with either of the other two! The Baha’i analogy revolving around the use of a helix as a model for his cycle (Fireside Letters four Baha’i Analogies) clearly considers the implications of how this cyclical view clashes with the other two, their being progressive and regressive continuums.

The bottom line Scripturally is to simply observe that mankind is fallen and sinful. From this starting point the Christian faith unfolds and develops with inevitable reason and lucidity. God is righteous, perfectly compassionate and forgiving, yet ALSO perfectly "just". We are not, and we are responsible for our sins before a perfect God who must demand the balance of justice. The wages of sin is eternal death, eternal separation from a Righteous God with whom we, as sinners, cannot have eternal fellowship. If we are unable to pay the debt of Justice (That is, when we realize our tendency toward rebellion as an observable dynamic of our carnal spiritual nature), then we realize that we have no hope without direct intercession on our behalf by someone who can pay our debt to Justice; God Himself alone. God, in order to define the justification to stand as Messiah, Savior, comes as a man to suffer "every temptation just as we have, yet was without sin." By putting Himself in our place, yet not falling, He certified the authority to carry the burden of responsibility that we owe. He who is wealthy can pay the debts of those who are destitute. He gained everything for us who had nothing. In this unique and singular way God revealed His most important spiritual characteristic, true Agape Love, demonstrated perfect compassion, forgiveness without cheating eternal Justice. It was a singular path, an only way, a dying "Once for all". If one is willing to follow the reasonable flow of this progression, one that begins in the honest self assessment of our falleness, one is able to realize the singularity of Jesus as our Savior. At this point the scales must fall from the eyes of those who have followed other teachers who tickled their ears with clashing and contradictory doctrines of falsehood. The Jesus way is ONE single way, a final and ultimate Revelation. And it is not the way of Baha’u’llah. For eternal Salvation bought at so great a price could never be seen as Baha’u’llah describes it, existing in a past dispensation of a Jesus whose Message was only for a primitive time and a primitive people. Such a Messianic Salvation could never be supplanted, even though "the heaven of every religion...be cleft asunder." If "the promises of Scripture have all been fulfilled", they were fulfilled for mankind’s eternal hope of Salvation by the Cross and Resurrection of Jesus. After and beyond that all else is passe’. There can be no higher revelation. No greater revelation of God’s Spiritual qualities exists than Jesus, God who gave Himself for us. The Christian experience is a uniquely distinct one with an independent legitimacy and singular authenticity very different than the Baha’i portrayal of it as some "corruption" of Jesus’ original intentions.

Daniel goes on to describe aspects of what he feels represent a biblical progression or layers of diverse belief in the Bible concerning deity. He says,

"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:"

But he badly misinterprets the true belief intended by the Israelite writers of the even the earliest Old Testament writings. The Bible is the story of one and only one God who is constantly troubled by creatures He has made in His own Image (given creative free will to) and who have abused their freedom to worship "God’s of their own making", false gods, in reality nonexistent gods. Thus God merely recognizes in Exodus 34:14 men’s perverse insistence to set up, create, and worship false gods of human design, not real god beings that actually exist, but that He does not want men to worship. That would be a polytheistic pantheon in which God Almighty was just the head God, the "Zeus" if you will, of the pantheon. Daniel is in left field suggesting that the God of the Bible OR its inspired authors ever present such a view in Scripture. The logic Daniel applies to support his assertion fails when he assumes a polytheistic belief from the Bible writers perspective since, "Jealousy (KNA) presupposes that there is something to be jealous of." God is jealous of men’s fickleness in abandoning Him for "gods" they have made up, not for "Gods" that really exist in some heavenly pantheon. God is jealous of men’s faithfulness toward Him apart from turning to imaginary gods. Grolin seems to be confusing Greek mythology for Judaic monotheism and reading nonexistent polytheistic belief into the text of Exodus 34:14. His motive is clear. He is attempting to "create" a Baha’i style progressive revelation by reading it into the text of Scripture. It is relatively easy however to demonstrate why that spin is impossibly wrong.

In absolute terms, Daniel can read the Bible writer’s (and God’s) own defining statement in the Pentateuch from Deuteronomy 32:39 establishing the background context confirming the interpretation I have just presented for passages like Exodus 34:14. This, by definition, would have been the Israelite’s understanding amongst those who kept the Word of the Lord,

"See now that I myself am He! There is no god besides me. I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my hand."

Now it is critical in revealing the invalidity of Daniel’s assertion that we recognize the exact view of the Bible author later at Isaiah 44:6,

"This is what the LORD says-- Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God."

In comparing these two passages it is important to observe that we do not see a "primitive" outlook in the Pentateuch that develops later in Isaiah in the way Daniel asserts. It is the same outlook; pure monotheism. Thus Daniel is wrong when he suggests that the writers of the Pentateuch held a , "practical monotheism, which is to say the belief in the existence of other deities." They believed in and reported ONE "real" God’s anger over the fickleness of men’s hearts who manufactured imaginary gods and yielded in evil to Satan (a created being not a god) by way of their idols.The Bible often observes and relays the deeds of men and their beliefs. We must be careful not to confuse the report of Scripture concerning men’s actions or beliefs with the teaching intention of Scripture itself. Scripture itself is consistently a book of pure monotheism, though it recognizes and reports the false polytheism of men (and always defines it as an "abomination").

Daniel considers Jesus silence concerning Eastern religious traditions. Daniel muses, " 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."

Now this is an interesting assertion considering the particulars of Jesus’ earthly Mission. He specifically established that God’s Salvation and Love were for the

"gentile" as well as the Jew, embracing a universal inclusion of all humanity. This consistent theme militates against Daniel’s assertion that inclusion of the Baha’i concept of the true unity of world religions (if it were true) would have been completely outside the realm of effective revelation for Jesus immediate audience. Jesus was, in a very true sense, preaching the common unity of mankind. But He specifically placed this universal concept exclusively within the context of the Judeo God of Scripture. Not an all inclusive view of religion but one all inclusive of mankind under One Religion. This is not compatible with the Baha’i view that Jesus would have vouched for Buddha as a true "manifestation" but didn’t mention him because he would have had no effective relevance to His ministry or Message. If Buddha, for example, were a true manifestation in Jesus’ estimation, Buddha would have provided a crucial example of the embracing aspect Jesus preached concerning the inclusion of the "gentile" (non Jewish) nations. Jesus’ world was not as blind to other Eastern influences as Daniel claims. It was a crossroads set in the middle of the civilized world. Yet Jesus tacitly rejects the validity of such an agnostic worldview as that of Buddha, preaching instead concepts that are mutually contradictory to it. It is assumed that if what He says is true, things contrary to that preaching need not be taken seriously enough to mention (Buddhist agnosticism). On the other hand, if Jesus’ universal embracing of mankind under the banner of God’s Salvation had included the Baha’i concept of unity in truth amongst the world religions, some specific inclusion of it would have formed an essential aspect of the Gospel of the universal inclusion of all humanity that He instead preached under One singular religious perspective. He did, in fact, preach a Message "unpopular" to the Jewish establishment. One we observe that got Him executed. So Daniel’s argument that Jesus wouldn’t have included mention of concepts hard for the Jews to accept simply fails to meet the facts that defined Jesus teaching. Jesus did not preach a message tailored for acceptance of the people He addressed. He just preached the singular Truth. Had Buddha been valid it would have also been, more than simply relevant, essential to His Message of the all inclusiveness of mankind beyond the 12 tribes.

Daniel says, "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."

But Jesus’ Message to mankind was that God loved all men, not just the Jews, His first "chosen" people. For they were "chosen" to be the gateway through which God would formally reveal Himself to all men. Jesus adhered to the Biblical outlook because it was the only one truly "Revealed" from God, spiritually inerrant. He ignored other theologies, not embraced them, in his call for all men of the world to come to God. His "audience" was, quite specifically, not limited to "a community of Jews", as is observable by way of the universal appeal of the Christian Message across all cultural boundaries.

In the Fireside Letters I had said,

"Still one would have to observe that even from within the extended history of Judaism he (Jesus) had the opportunity to preach these doctrines (progressive revelation) 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'."

Daniel comments,

"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 Sabbath (at least in the Jewish sense) which was one of the most central Mosaic laws."

What seems even more interesting to me is that Daniel can make such an assumption, ("Surely "the hardness of men hearts" was a condition in humanity, which at the time of Jesus was no longer the case") in the face of Jesus having been tortured to death by an establishment governed by men as hard of heart as is imaginable! In every age there are those whose receptivity is of the sort, if not degree, of Abraham. But the hardness of men’s hearts is also an observable reality in every age that certifies the sinful rebelliousness of man that Jesus referred to. He knew that that hardness, still very much alive amongst the mankind of His day, would ultimately cost Him His life for the Truth He uncompromisingly preached that revealed it’s darkness.

Jesus did not "abolish" the Sabbath. He did demonstrate spiritual precedents that condemned legalistic misrepresentation of the Sabbath, and all of the Law. But let us recall His own clear teaching that refutes Daniel’s assertion that Jesus "abolished" what God had taught men and still held them responsible for.

Matthew 5:17,

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Daniel tells us that,

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

But let us stop short here for a moment before we let assumptions slide by without scrutiny. The Baha’i meaning implicit in Daniel’s definition of "progressed" intends to mean far more than the valid recognition that Jesus certainly was "progressing" the Jews misrepresentation of what the Old Testament God had always taught. Jesus’ sermon on the mount expresses a perfect interpretation of the Law and the prophets, not a changing of it. There is a monumental distinction between the two. It is not "progressive Revelation". It is Revelation clarification, reform, and fulfillment. It is rebuke for misrepresentative, pharisaical legalism. We simply cannot compare Jesus perfect understanding of Old Testament Scripture, as opposed to the Jews contemporary misrepresentation of it, and automatically assume that Jesus was fundamentally changing the original spiritual intention of God’s Old Testament Word. He fulfilled, not changed.

Even in His teaching concerning mercy over "an eye for an eye" Jesus was still teaching a truth that God had already expressed clearly in the Old Testament. At Matthew 9:13, for example, Jesus tells us,

"But go and learn what this means: `I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

Jesus’ hearkening back to Hosea 6:6 demonstrates for us that He was not "changing" God’s truth established in the Old Testament. He was reaffirming God’s highest and true desire there, there already to be found in the Old Testament. God had always desired and favored mercy as a higher truth, a deeper righteousness. God had always taught that Justice would kill us, and only mercy could save us. The New Testament consensus even goes so far as to say that God gave the "Law" specifically to reveal to us our utter debasement and desperate need for God’s Mercy.

We must not look at the things men did, as reported in Scripture, (Moses gave you that...) and equate them with what God truly sought to teach even the people of that day as His perfect will in those Old Testament writings. Jesus points this out specifically in the case of Moses allowance for divorce. It was not God’s will even then but was given by Moses because men’s hearts were hard. And Jesus uses Genesis as the basis of His apologetic.

Many other evil actions are reported in the Old Testament, even ones presented as having been done by men who falsely assumed they were doing right. They are not put there to teach those things as God’s precedent, either for the people of that day or ours. Similar in principle to Daniel’s outlook on the Old Testament as a "primitive" religion whose polytheistic worldview needed upgrading, I have even heard it said, for example, that Jeptha’s murder of his daughter revealed a primitive "Old Testament" understanding in the writer’s beliefs that accepted human sacrifice! Such interpretation relates to the same kind of principle that Daniel appeals to in his suggestion that Old Testament writer’s had a "primitive" outlook revealed by a polytheistic, "functional monotheism", that assumed the writers’ belief in many God’s, with one main one who jealously wanted the people’s allegiance. Such a view of Scripture renders it’s true "inspiration" value as null and void and exists in a blatant blindness to context, and reading of Scripture devoid of the guidance of God’s Spirit. Inspired writers don’t teach belief in either human sacrifice or polytheism at ANY time. (what Daniel calls a "functional Monotheism", his definition of which ultimately renders the term as an oxymoron).

The next section of Daniel’s response deals with the Baha’i doctrine of Moses as a "sinless" manifestation. He observes that in the Fireside Letters,

"Mr. Grider provides quotes from Numbers and Deuteronomy to provide proof that Bahá'u'lláh mistakenly identifies Moses as sinless person."

Daniel then responds, citing Abdul Baha’s teaching on the subject,

In "Some Answered Questions"... '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)"

Daniel then comments,

"This is a very interesting interpretation of the tradition of the Mosaic falling. It is in fact a rather plausible interpretation when one considers theories of tradition transmission. Often stories transmitted in a community reflect community life more than the historical situation."

However I must submit that Abdul Baha’s and Daniel’s assessment is extremely implausible for a number of reasons. The key word that we need to look more deeply into from Abdul Baha’s quote cited is the word "apparently". For indeed even Abdul Baha concedes that the Scriptural references make it "apparent" that Moses was a sinner? Beyond that then, does he, or Daniel, give reasonable cause to go distinctly against what is "apparent" in the text? The following points are covered in the Fireside Letters. They demonstrate, I think rather clearly, that the hermeneutic used by Abdul Baha is one of forcing the text’s meaning to fit the presupposition, "all the manifestations of God are sinless and Moses is a manifestation. Thus Moses must be sinless" . The Baha’i interpretation is thus arbitrarily set in advance against any evidence that could possibly be given by the context of Scripture, no matter how compelling. That context, when looked at objectively, establishes that the true meaning is also the "apparent" meaning and one which militates against the Baha’i position.

I think one of the most revealing observations that support this point is found in the observable fact that virtually all of the texts that establish the context of intended meaning inseparably couple Aaron and Moses together, both equally, in terms of God’s accusation of sin against them, and the punishment which He sentences them both equally with. It is not Moses alone who "apparently" has sinned, but Moses and Aaron both who are equally implicated by God, and equally punished. Keep in mind that we are trying to establish one consistently coherent interpretative meaning for these texts in terms of God’s accusation of responsibility for sin and His sentencing of punishment. And the texts have a single unified "apparent" meaning that Daniel is arguing against. Yet Daniel (Baha’i doctrine) arbitrarily establishes an interpretation of sinless intercession on behalf of the people, completely external to the text, only for the one (Moses) which, if it were true, would also have to be equally true of the other (Aaron) who is inseparably coupled contextually in God’s accusation of personal sin and punishment with Moses in all of the passages. Of course Aaron is not considered a sinless manifestation. And so the Baha’i interpretation with respect to Moses is one that lifts him unreasonably out of the context where he exists accused of specific personal sin and punishment, together with Aaron, granting Moses an interpretation for the text, against the apparent meaning, and that then also creates a definitive double standard in interpretation when we consider Aaron within the same passages.

It is beyond unresonable to suggest that the passages are "community statements" with respect to Moses, while observing that they definitively are not such such kinds of statements when Aaron in considered, Aaron who is an inseperable part of the context of those passages.

Beyond that we have very objective evidence from outside the immediate context of these passages in Deuteronomy and Numbers that reflect back upon them in a way that refutes Daniel’s concept of "tradition transmission" being able to explain the breech in the Baha’i meaning and the "apparent" Scriptural one. Daniel suggests that,

"Often stories transmitted in a community reflect community life more than the historical situation."

My appeal is to what I would call a broad based biblical context that supports the immediate Biblical one on this issue, one which we all seem to agree is "apparently" historical and literal and against the not at all apparent Baha’i position.

At Psalm 106:32 we see this broader context established.The Psalmist reflects back upon and reestablishes the plain meaning of the text of those previous passages from Deuteronomy and Numbers. The Psalmist tells us that,

"By the waters of Meribah they angered the LORD, and trouble came to Moses because of them; for they rebelled against the Spirit of God, <<<AND RASH WORDS CAME FROM MOSES' LIPS>>>.

The critical point to be gained from this passage is in the fact that the only sense in which the people could be seen as "causing" Moses to come into trouble was in the fact that they most certainly were the source of his temptation. It is absolutely against the text, as seen from a fuller biblical context, to say that he was punished in some substitutionary sense for sins he himself had not committed. Such exegesis and interpretation is awful and impossible as doubly reinforced in the Psalm. To speak "rashly" in the position Moses was in, and in regards to the command of God before the people, is SIN Daniel, personal sin. Moses' sin. Such a specific passage reflecting upon the incident as Psalm 106 reinforces the plain and obvious meaning of the text in Numbers and Deuteronomy and completely breaks the already unreasonably strained Baha'i substitutionary interpretation, one we notice which is entirely subjective anyway and utterly unrepresented by the text itself. The Baha’i interpretation is read into the text with no support from the text, and it is even set against what Abdul Baha himself concedes is the "apparent" meaning. I submit that it is not only apparent on the surface, but inarguable by deeper investigation. God Himself tells Moses that he will not see the holy land because HE HIMSELF (and Aaron) "broke faith" before the people. And God’s Word forever certifies through the Psalmist that the sin under consideration unquestionably included Moses personal action. He himself is forever personally identified in sin by the "rash words" of his own mouth.

There is more of this sort of revealing Scriptural evidence fatal to the Baha’i view of Moses as a sinless manifestation within the chapter devoted to that issue in the Fireside Letters. Daniel has failed to address some of those key considerations. For instance, Daniel has chosen not to respond to my observation of Old Testament passages that tell us that God’s anger "burned" against Moses at times (ie. Exodus 4:14), or how such references could be made compatible with the Baha’i view of Moses as a "sinless", "perfect mirror" of God. God’s anger would never burn against a perfect mirror of Himself. Such observations reveal a contradiction in terms between the biblical Moses and the Baha’i one.

Also let us keep in mind that God’s anger did not "burn" against Jesus. This also helps to begin to distinguish a universal difference in station between Moses and Jesus in Scripture that is in bold contradiction to the Baha’i view of their mutual relationship in station. That, incidentally, is the reason the false Baha’i Moses needs to be brought out in the open and exposed. The ultimate truth that Scripture proclaims, and that Baha’i theology tries at every turn to alter, is the universal and eternally exclusive singularity of Jesus as God the Son incarnate amongst mankind, not a "manifestation" amongst many.

Daniel makes some comments about Jesus as Messiah and Son of God and presumes some assumptions that bear scrutiny. For example, he says that,

"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."

But, without having gone any further here in detail, Daniel needs to be careful that he observes that "Messiah" means a whole lot more than just "anointed". Many were "anointed" in Scripture with varied meaning intended for the term’s usage. One person only was (and is) "Messiah". There are additional biblical criterion necessary for identifying the Messiah. If we aren’t careful in defining terms accurately and thoroughly we may end up with such a subjective definition of Messiah that we could falsely interpret a host of "messiahs" from our weakly inaccurate definition. I say this with wariness that recognizes that Daniel is misdefining (under defining) the term in just that Baha’i way that would allow him license to elsewhere misuse the term as allowing for many "manifestations" to fulfill a singularly intended identity. We notice that Daniel has just spent considerable effort attempting to portray Moses as a type of substitutionary "Messiah" to get around his demonstrated sinfulness, and the same is observably true within Baha’i theology with respect to the Baha’i interpretation of Adam.

Mr. Grolin goes on to say,

"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."

This, I think, is a misstatement of what the Gospels clearly say. In the first place, Jesus is never portrayed as a Son by adoption. This distinction is critical with respect to defining His station. If we must find a Gospel passage that identifies the earliest moment of His identity within the mortal world as God’s "Son" we need to look at John1 which tells us that the Word was God, and that the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. And let us keep fully in mind that even Jesus’ incarnation by way of a mortal birth does NOT mark the inception of His being God’s "only begotten Son". Scripture may refer at times to Jesus incarnation as the point at which the mortal actualization of His sonship appeared within the temporal world, but it is a sonship otherwise proclaimed as eternal from the larger picture of Jesus’ identity. He was already the only begotten Son of God when He was born of the virgin Mary into a world He Himself had created long before any people had existed there. Scripture tells us clearly that Jesus’ being the only begotten Son of the Father is an eternal reality, not a temporal one. He is eternally begotten in person. He is "begotten", not created, and beyond that, an "only" begotten Son of God. That definitive starting point of utter exclusivity needs to lead us in our search for understanding just who the true Jesus really is, especially in relation to all other people who are only adopted by comparison. A truly "begotten" Son shares, by definition, the very essence and nature of His Father. Adopted sons (us) don’t. Scripture distinguishes Jesus as the only one of the former type.

Thus, it is invalid for Daniel to assert,

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

No, it is not "in similar manner" that we are "adopted" sons. He is the "One and only begotten Son", singularly begotten directly of the Father, in distinction from all other sons, not by adoption, but a true Son of the Essence of His true Father; God the Son. We are granted a gracious adoption, and only by way of that "ONE and ONLY" truly begotten Son, Jesus.

A note of hermeneutics

Daniel makes what he feels is a parallel observation between Baha’i and Christian apologetics. But he goes much further than he had intended. He first concedes that Baha’is often erroneously exercise in eisegesis (isolating of a Scripture passage out of context so as to pour new meaning into the text unintended by the original author, and that the original context would prevent). He then defends his own efforts in response to the Fireside Letters as hopefully not engaging in this invalid and dishonest approach. And, I note, he does not accuse me in these present comments of the practice either. He says,

"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."

Now continuing to follow his line of argument carefully here, Daniel next makes an astonishing statement. Rather than accusing me or other Christian apologists of such uninspired and dishonest practice in our interpretation of the Bible in a "tit for tat" counter argument, Daniel goes right ahead and actually accuses the New Testament authors themselves of eisegesis! He says,

"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."

In other words, not just "Christians" in their interpretation of Scripture are guilty of eisegesis, but Daniel accuses the writers OF Scripture themselves of the sinfully dishonest error. We see this again and again amongst those Baha’i apologists who only wish to render Scripture subjective enough to downgrade its objective basis so as to gain license to reinvent its meaning, but who inadvertently end up attacking the very basis of its inspiration in the process. If what Daniel says is true, then the New Testament is not God’s Word at all. Not just because it might or might not be utterly "in errant". But because it would then consist of the sinful and erroneous human efforts of men exercising dishonest means apart from any possibility of God’s inspiration being the source. One notes in reflection that Baha’is are, in fact, supposed to respect the New Testament as being God’s Word. I submit that Daniel’s assessment denies this by definition. But he is not at all alone in this hopefully unintentional blasphemy against the very basis of inspiration of God’s Holy Word. He is set upon a goal in defense of the Baha’i viewpoint which observably requires an overkill job with respect to (or lack of respect for) Scripture to make its point. He is in plentiful company. A Baha’i apologist as significant as George Townshend, who clearly represents the Baha’i outlook in his book Christ and Baha’u’llah, brazenly claims that all those surrounding Jesus during His ministry, and who wrote the New Testament, were completely deluded as to His intentions and evidently saw Him do and say things He did not do or say. Not the least of which was His literal Resurrection. Townsend tells us On page 29 of his book;

"Christ’s spiritual mission was, at an early date, materialized, specifically in regard to such things as miracles, curing the blind and deaf, raising the dead. Even His own resurrection was made physical, missing the point entirely."

Thus Townshend makes the same inconscienable mistake that Daniel has made. He does not only accuse the Christian interpretation of the Scripture of subterfuge and deceit. He accuses the Scriptures themselves! According to Townshend, Scripture passages like Luke 24 must be themselves inaccurate and misleading perversions.

"Touch me and see. For a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see I have."

Certainly if we do not at least share the common ground of assuming the basic inspiration of Scripture (which would necessarily assume valid writing in terms of intention and the basic honesty of its writers) we have not enough common ground to discuss much. I must note once again however, that Baha’i authority concludes the Old and New Testaments to be God’s inspired Word on some level and that comments like those just seen of Daniel Grolin or George Townshend would deny that assumption, by definition, in their careless arguments.

In this section Daniel offers the sketchiest of responses to what I had observed and thoroughly developed as a major doctrinal problem within Baha’i religion. Earlier in this rebuttal some of that development has already been shared in response to Daniel’s argument that progressive revelation can explain the diversity across the world religions. What we will find next is that Daniel’s present argument will either attempt to straddle the contradiction by generalizing apart from the specifics given in what the Baha’i authorities explicitly say in the writings, or he will evade the issue by appealing to biblical models without any consideration of the Baha’i texts where the problems actually exist.

Daniel sums up the relationship of the two doctrines, regress and progress, as follows;

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

However, unlike my thorough comparative look in the Fireside Letters at the authoritative writings on these issues, Daniel draws conclusions that are not compatible with what Abdul Baha or Baha’u’llah actually say in the writings. Like what most Baha’is that I speak with demand of me, I believe that Daniel needs to bring the Baha’i writings themselves to the fore instead of making generalizations. When we really look at the actual writings concerning regressive and progressive revelation we will find that the problems I have discovered remain unresolved by Daniel’s surfacy response.

Daniel is hasty to try to make his point from a biblical perspective, apart from the Baha’i writings themselves where the problems actually reside. He says,

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

But this is not at all where consideration of the problem needs to be investigated. My assertion is that there exists a fundamental internal doctrinal contradiction within the authoritative Baha’i writings themselves. So the place we need to first go is to those writings, not the Judeo-Christian ones, and see if my contention holds water.

In the Fireside Letters essay concerning mankind’s spiritual nature I cite extensive quotes from the writings of Abdul Baha and Baha’u’llah that describe and define the Baha’i doctrine of mankind’s spiritual nature as universally corrupt. Since the doctrine exists to explain what is called the "apparent" diversity amongst the world’s religions, and since that observable diversity is so pervasive across all the eras, cultures and places of human history, the doctrine must be defined in terms of a universal constant at the root of human spirituality. Also, since the observable differences across the world religions are so gargantuan, even mutually contradictory on major points of belief, the Baha’i doctrine of regression, to remain valid in support of its immediate proposition, must be defined as an utter loss of truth, a complete and total rejection of spiritual enlightenment across the span of human history. Without reciting all of those quotations, it is enough to restate my summing up reflection on them, effectively focusing upon the specific terminology used by Abdul Baha and Baha’u’llah which so clearly and definitively defines regression in the universal and utter manner that I describe,

Fireside Letters, ch. 2,

"Abdul Baha, Baha'u'llah,...all observe that mankind universally degenerates the truth in every "dispensation" to the "utmost degradation", "lost in the blindest fanaticism", "decayed, ruined and upset", truth being "entirely destroyed and annihilated", all religions becoming "a body without a soul". Thus is explained the "apparent" differences amongst the world religions, and the hidden unity amongst their various founders. Spiritual regression."

Now such a thoroughly developed doctrine as this indeed has tried to effectively offer a reasoned rationale to explain why the world’s religions are, in fact, so drastically different today. Mankind has universally, in every era, against every "manifestation", in each and every culture and place throughout human history, utterly rejected the truth of God’s Messenger, and all religions have become "a body without a soul" according to this Baha’i doctrine. It must be, as I say, a doctrine of universal extremes because the state of things as they observably exist across the diverse world religions of history demands that they be stated in such terms to address the point they want to make.

Now if the reader has followed me so far, it goes without saying that we have a doctrine here that simply precludes the possibility of progressive revelation. One cannot pass on to the second grade (to cite the popular Baha’i grade school analogy) when one ALWAYS flunks the first grade "to the utter depths of degradation". One can never achieve a vantage point for ongoing progress like a child does, who may fall "all the way down", but goes on to learn to walk distinctly because the child retains internalized lessons from the fall that would make his progress impossible if in his fall his ability to retain learning was "entirely destroyed and annihilated". The doctrine of regression then, as exhaustively described and defined in the writings, does not allow for Daniel’s terse rectifying of it with progressive revelation. Daniel fails to recognize or concede the necessarily universal, and utter degree of debasement that defines the doctrine of spiritual regression for mankind’s basic spiritual nature as developed in the writings. The fact of the matter is that the doctrine of regression is so defined because it must be to cover the territory it presumes to explain.

Likewise, the doctrine of progressive revelation is also necessarily defined in the way that it is because Baha’u’llah’s theology needs a rationale by which it may explain its assertion of an "advanced" revelation that allegedly supersedes all those of the past. In this doctrine mankind is seen as having evolved spiritually until he was finally ready to receive Baha’u’llah’s mighty revelation. That the two doctrines incoherently clash with one another seems to escape Baha’i adherents who will argue mankind’s universal regression to explain "seeming" differences in religious diversity on the one hand, and will argue a universal concept of progressive revelation to justify Baha’u’llah’s self proclaimed ascendancy on the other.

However,if we look more deeply into the application of these doctrines within Baha’i theology we are lead to the discovery of worse problems that spin off inexorably from the basic dichotomy itself. For when we scrutinize the actual application (or lack of it) of the regressive doctrine with respect to Baha’i religion itself, we find that Baha’u’llah simply does not allow the theory of regression, so universally established before, to disturb his own theology. We notice that Baha’i religion is not said to be subject to these hitherto universal regressive laws of man’s spirituality. Baha’u’llah arbitrarily promises (against the pervasive theory of regression he has established for all others) that his own dispensation will not pass into the "Winter State" described by Abdul Baha in Some Answered questions (He says that, "this Day will not be followed by Night", from the Covenant I believe). And Abdul Baha goes on to assert that any to follow Baha’u’llah in the future will yet "remain under his shadow" (Some Answered Questions pg 161).

Notice too that these claims not only contradict the dynamic of spiritual regression, but in a forward looking sense they also contradict the concept of progressive revelation as well. Baha’i theology arbitrarily freezes both regress and any substantial progress, concepts that were formerly asserted as universal dynamics of human spiritual behavior. Mankind suddenly no longer "in every dispensation" degenerates the truth to the "utmost degradation", "lost in the blindest fanaticism", "decayed, ruined and upset", truth being "entirely destroyed and annihilated", all religions becoming "a body without a soul". And now, mankind will no longer need ongoing more "advanced" revelations beyond Baha’u’llah’s. Progress, in contradiction to the operating principle of progressive revelation, is suddenly arbitrarily frozen as all future manifestations are said to remain under Baha’u’llah’s shadow and the promises of Scripture are all said to be fulfilled. No more regression, and evidently no more substantial progress either. On the one hand Baha’i religion fails to really accept for itself about mankind’s "regressive" nature what it has preached as being true of mankind for all other religions and "dispensations". However, it also wishes for all intents and purposes to basically freeze this suddenly contradictory "progressive" mankind at the point of Baha’u’llah, (having all to follow remain under his shadow) which contradicts even the theory of progressive revelation! Even though the two doctrines irrationally clash in and of themselves, careful scrutiny observes that Baha’i theology doesn’t even apply them with respect to itself, and thus creates an additional double standard negating any possibility of a coherent Baha’i view concerning mankind’s spiritual behavioral nature.

The truth, observable in light of the sad historical facts of its own persecution at the hands of Islam, is that Baha’i religion actually fits far more rationally into its doctrine of universal rejection of religions than it does in either its promises of no Winter State (No regress OR further meaningful progress), or its fully blown concept of progressive revelation (universal and constant progressive spiritual dynamic ongoing for mankind). Ultimately all three doctrinal outlooks are observably distinct concepts that mutually contradict one another.

As an aside on this topic, I have always found another tangentially contradictory comment of Abdul Baha’s fascinating in terms of any rational argument in defense of the Baha’i theory of progressive revelation. I submit this for Mr. Grolin to meditate upon and then to rationally explain how the Baha’i "Great Peace" shall come about if it is true???

Abdul Baha’, pages 109-110, Promulgation of Universal Peace,

"Evil always keeps pace with good along the continuum of mankind’s material progress."

In any event, the few biblical points that Daniel attempted to make to resolve the clash were completely irrelevant. As anyone should be able at this point to see, the problem exists wholly within the Baha’i teachings themselves. That was my point and I think Daniel utterly failed to address it. He does make one statement though that I think helps underscore the objective nature of the clash I have described. Daniel says,

And so Daniel asserts that there is an inherent "potential" that is afforded by material progress, a hitherto unavailable opportunity by way of it (telecommunications, transportation, etc). Certainly no one would argue with that. Material progress affords all sorts of "potential" opportunities. But it is irrelevant for two reasons in terms of the Baha’i writings. 1) As just cited, Abdul Baha tells us that evil ALWAYS "keeps pace" with good in the face of the potential to be found in such material advance. and 2) Beyond that, the Baha’i doctrine of man’s degenerate spirituality simply tells us that mankind NEVER takes positive advantage of the potential. Potential available, Mr. Grolin, does not equal potential realized. The regressive model as developed by Abdul Baha and Baha’u’llah describe a universally pervasive evil penchant that runs throughout the history of mankind’s spiritual legacy that ALWAYS rejects the opportunity, in every dispensation and era. Thus, once again, the citings of material progress, (which are observably the only examples ever offered as supportive evidence for progressive revelation in the Baha’i writings) are irrelevant as well as invalid. They are not examples of "spiritual" progress. They lend themselves to evil spiritual opportunity as much as good. Abdul Baha himself says that evil keeps pace with good along that materially progressive continuum. And the writings on regressive humanity flatly assert that mankind always rejects the spiritual opportunity to the "utter depths of degradation" that might be afforded across all the eras of mankind’s history of material progress (suspiciously, that is, until the mid 19th century!).

Daniel criticizes my belief in "original sin" as if it were my own invention. He says,

"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)"

Rather than defer to Daniel’s use of a short quote by Ms. Allen to have her seem to be generally denying that original sin is a valid concept, let us look at Romans, and more significantly to the Old Testament to see if the concept of "original sin" (mankind’s sinful fallen nature), is in line with what God says about humanity. And if there is no validity to mankind’s universally sinful falleness, then what relevance is there to be found in the concept of "Messiah" as expressed and fulfilled by Jesus?

As we look at the first chapter of Romans we see already some of the nuts and bolts that are part of a biblical context that inarguably proclaims our hopelessness in sin, and Jesus singular Salvation from that state offered through His death and Resurrection. Now notice I said "some" of the nuts and bolts. For, whatever Ms. Allen’s true and full perspective might be on the subject , anyone assessing such a doctrine with validity would not require that only one book of the Scriptures should need, in and of itself, to give, "a clear-cut comprehensive doctrine of original sin" for such a doctrine still to be recognizable as an otherwise still biblically sound concept. Eisegesis could be exercised at anytime the entire context of a matter is not considered. I am not accusing Ms. Allen of such eisegesis, only Daniel’s spin on what she evidently said about only Romans, his assuming that she means to deny the concept of original sin outright.

So Romans begins with the formal recognition that all men for all time are responsible for their sin. This is a sound logical beginning point. For sin without responsibility would still not necessitate judgment. We are told that our sin carries no innocence about it.

Romans 1:20

" For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

How much more "clear cut" Daniel would like Romans to be than the next quote I can’t imagine.

Romans 3:9

"We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one." Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit." "The poison of vipers is on their lips." Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness." Their feet are swift to shed blood; ruin and misery mark their ways, and the way of peace they do not know." There is no fear of God before their eyes." Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. ...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. "

Thus Daniel, however you want to define the term "original sin", three critical points dealing with sin and mankind are already solidly established within even just the first 3 chapters of Romans. 1) mankind is utterly responsible. 2) mankind is universally fallen and cannot functionally make himself pleasing or acceptable to God by ever hoping to do enough "good deeds". 3) The singular rescue offered is found in the mystery of Jesus’ death and Resurrection on our behalf. These points are enough to establish the fact of, consequences of, and hope we might have surrounding our sinfulness. Notice Daniel from the passage at Romans 3:9 that multiple references are drawn upon from the Old Testament in support of the concept being exhaustively emphasized there of our universal sinfulness. I submit that this is a solid indicator that should help us realize the truth of my former point that one need not find the full development of the doctrine of mankind’s sinful nature within only a study of Romans. Even the writer of Romans does not do so as he appeals beyond that present text to a broader biblical context of support.

Daniel creates a distinction that holds a separate meaningful difference than the one he assumes,

"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."

But the fact of the matter is that Paul says "all" people sin, all choose the "doing" of the sin, universally. Thus Daniel’s distinction is specifically "significant" only in the fact that by way of that "freedom to commit sin" that Daniel recognizes, our sin is distinctly sin of our "choosing", and thus, of utter personal responsibility. We are distinctly responsible for our sin for the very reason Daniel observes. The concept of original sin does not mean to assert that man is born an automaton who MUST sin without choice. It says that he is born with a nature whose tendency is to knowingly CHOOSE sin, and thus bear responsibility.

And Paul certainly does not say that there was a time or place without the "Law" when men could sin with impunity through ignorance. What Paul says in Romans is;

A) that "since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

That’s all inclusive Daniel.

And;

B) "Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them."

Thus Paul clearly asserts that the "target" has always been there for men to see, even those not formally given the Law.

Yet Daniel insists upon subtle linguistic nuances with which to alter these clear cut and solidly established concepts. He says,

"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."

I can only submit to you Daniel that in the context of Romans 3:9 just cited, your interpretation creates an unreasonable, and unnecessary contradiction on the part of Paul. "All" men are indeed "many" men Daniel, as compared relative to the one Adam. Thus, the spin you put on the text by way of your linguistic distinction, even in your isolation of the one passage, is not the only manner it might be reasonably interpreted there. However, when we look beyond your isolated interpretation to consider what else Paul has said in Romans, you stand objectively guilty of blatant eisegesis in your interpretation. According to the full context of Romans the "many" as contrasted by the "one" (Adam) in this instance MUST more specifically mean "all". Circumstances obviously vary with time place and person. But Paul says in Romans 3:9 that ALL men sin. That sounds like a universal aspect of basic human nature to me Daniel, and one that exists regardless of the particulars of circumstances.

Daniel next quotes a passage from the Fireside Letters wherein I had said,

"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."

Daniel comments,

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."

My use of the text and interpretation of it within its proper context was in rebuttal to the common Baha’i abuse of that text that Daniel seems to concede does indeed misrepresent Jesus’ words.

I suppose one could say that the "poor" might be forever with us, yet perhaps not the "extremely" poor. This could reconcile the two statements, at least on the surface. Certainly it is indeed a lofty goal to try to help the poor. No one argues that. Yet I sense that while Jesus is telling us that the mortal world we know and live in is sinful and corrupt and always will be, Baha’u’llah seems to presume that we might actually "fix" the world and make it truly holy. And this Jesus does not say. Daniel agrees that Jesus speaks literally of the fact that the materially poor will always be present in our carnal world. But he doesn’t seem to recognize just how that observation reveals a fundamental difference in the outlooks that Jesus and Baha’u’llah preach. Jesus certaily preaches that the poor must be supported in mercy by those more well off. But He distinctly preaches that such an effort is an internal war that the individual must wage against a basically sinful, selfishly fallen human nature. Beyond that, he teaches us that we can never hope to win that battle by human effort "unto Salvation". We will fall short. We need Salvation. We need a Messiah. We need God to directly intervene on our behalf to have a chance. And we must recognize the deperate state of our spiritual reality before we can appreciate with urgency the depth of that rescue. Baha’i religion distinctly downplays this first critical step and thus is busy with a works oriented plan for justification before God. But if we presume to carry our good deeds to the judgement seat of Christ, will not the weight of our unaccounted for evil deeds condemn us? Baha’i religion really has no reasonable rationale for dealing with the eternal consequences of sin.

Also, as long as the "poor", to any degree, are still with us, as "evil always keeps pace with good", how then should we view the "Most Great Peace" Baha’u’llah ultimately promises?

Daniel closes his consideration of the issue saying,

"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."

Perhaps I can alleviate some portion of Daniel’s distress if I agree with him openly again that the elimination of extremes of poverty would be a wonderful direction to move in. Our work, according to Jesus teaching, will never be finished in that regard, at least not in our present worldly realm. But it is a genuinely lofty striving to move in that direction with all our hearts. As long as we realize that a true society defined in purest heavenly treasure will ultimately only fully be enjoyed in heaven, we can find strength and endurance to carry on toward that ultimate goal. As long as we are forever in this world willing to suffer setbacks guided by the perseverance that comes by defining the reality of our present world according to Jesus own outlook, we can keep faith. But we may indeed become discouraged if we establish as an ultimate goal to truly accomplish something here that Jesus has told us in advance can never truly be a reality in the carnal world. Unrealistic goals, if clung to in naivete’, invite a weary heart and an ultimate defeat in spirit. So let us agree then, that though we will never utterly defeat sin in this present carnal world (the poor will always be with you), perhaps we can eliminate "extremes" of suffering as often and wherever opportunity affords us a chance. I join you in proclaiming the uplifting of the poor.

Daniel at this point proceeds to build his case upon the faulty foundation revealed earlier by his not really looking at what Romans has to say about sin. Nevertheless he confidently continues,

"Mr. Grider 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."

Considering what was just pointed out in Romans 3:9 and how the context established by this lengthy previous passage must define the interpretation of "many" at Roman’s 5:19, Daniel has distinctly not revealed a fallacy on my part through his acontextual eisegesis. Rather it reveals his own reading into the text rather than letting the context guide the interpretation. Daniel insists upon rendering meaning by way of an isolated linguistic defining of terms apart from context, making translational decisions for them based only upon his Baha’i presuppositions.

Daniel comments,

"Mr. Grider 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."

But this is not so. What Daniel fails to recognize is that the reference exists in typical Baha’i parlance with a double spiritualized meaning. Mr. Grolin needs to read back a bit in that section where Baha’u’llah asserts,

"Whoso hath recognized the Day Spring of Divine guidance and entered

His holy court hath drawn nigh unto God and attained His Presence, a Presence which is the real Paradise, and of which the loftiest mansions of heaven are but a symbol."

And so is Daniel right or wrong? Are we speaking of only the manifestation and not of "heaven"? According to the muddying waters of the ever present Baha’i penchant to symbolize everything, my interpretation is as correct as his. More so as we consider that Baha’i teaching always tries to downplay the literal and uplift the symbolic. I assert that the passage does, in fact, intend to mean ascending to "heaven", as Baha’u’llah asserts by way of Baha’i symbolic license.

In any event Daniel still evades the point evident in Romans as he continues to deny the real implications of Baha’u’llah’s assertion that we may ascend to the Most Great Ocean by way of our own innate powers. Daniel asserts,

"... 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."

But the whole point of Romans 3:9 is to define what Daniel calls "the human condition" as a perpetually evil rebellion in sin, and one for which we are all responsible. Shall we quibble over terminology here? A dead fish by any other name would smell as foul. As Scripture says that man is "saved" by Faith, apart from works, and that the good deeds of men (in terms of justification toward Salvation) are "as filthy rags", then what does Daniel mean by mankind’s "true spiritual station" as opposed to his sinful "human condition"? Does Daniel not assert a salvation by works, a justification before God by mankind’s "own innate powers"? I submit this kind of thinking presumes to put Jesus out of the Messiah business, and reviles the whole biblical concept of Salvation by Grace. Free will gives us but two choices. We may yield to God’s Spirit who then works God’s good through us, or we may yield to the evil that even Daniel seems to concede defines our normal "human condition". Beyond a wise decision to let God come in, the good we actually may do is God’s good, not our own. For every good thing comes from God. And the moment a man looks upon his good deeds as his own, the fatal sin of pride destroys the good his soul might have gained from it.

Daniel says that I assert a "stagnant" nature for the human soul,

"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."

But neither Paul nor I argue that man’s soul is "stagnant". Read from Romans 3:9 again Daniel. Man’s soul is extremely active. And that activity is given as a universally sinful constant, by definition an aspect of a fallen "nature".

The day that shall not be followed by night

Daniel next addresses my observation of Baha’u’llah’s "promise" that his own dispensation will suddenly revoke the principle of regressive spirituality formerly asserted universally for man’s nature. I recognized that such an arbitrary promise stands in contradiction to the developed dynamic of that former doctrine.

Daniel quotes me from the Fireside Letters;

"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."

Then Daniel comments and quotes Abdul Baha,

"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)

But let’s look at this assertion from several perspectives. 1) Baha’u’llah’s "promise" is not only an arbitrary one (a promise without a rationale), it is also one that irrationally demands that the regressive doctrine formerly established as a universal dynamic for all of mankind and all of human history suddenly vanish into thin air. It is suspiciously convenient that mankind stayed "regressive" just long enough to eliminate all the past religions and their teachings out of Baha’u’llah’s way don’t you think? And then suddenly mankind stopped being that way, in the mid nineteenth century, allowing Baha’u’llah to survive the implications of his own regressive doctrine indefinitely. A healthy (not cynical) skepticism should kick in at this juncture, to say the least. However, Daniel can’t seem to distinguish between a general assertion qualified, and a general assertion contradicted. Baha’u’llah’s promise arbitrarily contradicts a whole running dynamic for mankind’s spiritual behavior that has been, up to that point, universally used to render all former religious doctrinal competition with his theology as passe’. I submit that his promise amounts to brazenly and irrationally dismissing the regressive doctrine when its task is complete, and before it should paint him with the same brush.

This is doubly evident when we see that Baha’u’llah does the same thing with respect to the doctrine of progressive revelation. It’s dynamic too works fine for Baha’i teaching up to the point of Baha’u’llah. Mankind is said to progress by stages, only receiving doses of truth relative to his "advancement". But then, again with no rationale but only the brazen assertion, progress must evidently stop after Baha’u’llah according to the clear statements in the writings? His dispensation will not only not suffer a "nightfall after the day", but any to follow him will "remain under his shadow", and "all the promises of Scripture have been fulfilled." And this is despite a humanity evident in his day, and since, that is grossly unprepared by any standard of measure (according to the dynamic of progressive revelation) for anything nearly amounting to such an ultimate revelation as he claims for himself. And so, like with the regressive doctrine, the progressive one too is arbitrarily and irrationally nullified at the point it might interfere with future Baha’i theological authority, and that, in bold contradiction to the observable reality of even today’s general human spiritual condition. Read the newspapers Mr. Grolin!

Of those risen Daniel next takes exception to my interpretation of Matthew 11:11. He opens saying,

"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." "

Then Daniel comments,

"I am puzzled by Mr. Grider'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"...

...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)? ...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."

I quote only select statements from his comments to focus emphasis upon a point regarding an aspect of Daniel’s style. He rather likes to exercise linguistic arguments that don’t really change anything ("greater" as opposed to "holier"), but have a scholarly ring about them. I notice that he has offered original Greek words with the intent to show that they change the inherent meaning away from my interpretation. Like before however, Daniel uses linguistics to veil his own eisegesis. That is where the problem in his interpretation is to be found. For, like that former instance wherein context dictated that "many" specifically intended to mean "all" in the context of Romans, we will discover that context here dictates that "greater" must mean "greater in holiness" in the New Testament context. Daniel accuses me of linguistic naivete’ while the real problem here, once again, is his eisegetical disregard for context.

In fact, the context I appeal to is established by the same verses that John failed earlier to grasp the implications of in Romans 3:9. What is said there, whose very appeal pulls together many biblical passages and establishes a broad biblical context, is that literally every mortal person in the world (even Moses and John the Baptist) are sinners who must somehow be saved from their mortal condition. Of course Romans goes on to assert that Jesus is that singular solution to the pervasive human problem. But given such an overriding biblical context concerning the all encompassing invasiveness of sin throughout humanity, it is inarguable and much to the point, that Jesus would openly point out that even John the Baptist (who was still in the world at that time) would compare as less than least in the kingdom of heaven without Salvation. One should notice that "less than least" equates with not making it.

Daniel asserts here that,

"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."

But I disagree with Daniel here. Who else, raised from the dead in Scripture, ever prophesied their own Resurrection back into the mortal world? Who else in Scripture is said to be raised "eternally"? Presumably Lazarus went on to die as did the little girl Jesus raised. But Jesus is raised eternally. Jesus is also in Resurrection said to be "the first fruits" of everyone else who will ultimately be raised into such a state, having himself provided our ability to be adopted, adopted by He who was not adopted (the One and Only Son of God). I submit that the particulars of Jesus’ Resurrection do indeed bear upon a proper understanding of His station, and one which is infinitely above the Baha’i interpretation.

Yet Daniel will next attempt to relegate much of the Gospel (like Luke 24) to the level of what would have to be viewed as a purposefully deceptive fairy tale, given in absolute and exhaustive emphasis of literal intent, yet said by Mr Grolin to only be symbolic of some "community" message. He is here specifically trying to get around such passages as Luke 24 which are either true, or lies, when honestly assessing their actual development and emphasis. Daniel begins by falsely assuming that Paul’s vision experience at 2Corinthians 12:22 must relate to the Apostles’ literal post Resurrection experiences. He says,

"This (the apparent meaning in passages like Luke 24) 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. And I know such a man (whether in the body, or apart from the body, I know not; God knoweth)," 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."

Daniel goes on to suggest an overall view of the New Testament similar to that of the Jesus Seminar radicalism of Dominic Crossan. It fails for all of the reasons clearly given by Dr. William Lane Craig in the book Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up, Baker books1998, http://bakerbooks.com. Basically Daniel observes that Mark is the earliest Gospel and thus asserts that it is the only one that is relatively free of what he considers mythic additions. In this way he would like to simply dismiss Luke 24 as a fable, regardless of how exhaustively the writer emphasizes an absolutely literal intent. Daniel says,

"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...

... 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."

In other words, Daniel asserts that the post resurrection appearances were not historical events involving the literal and singular person "Jesus". They were myths to help the early church understand His teachings. Daniel creates a false distinction between the Jesus of history, as relayed in Scripture, and some created concept that there is a "Jesus of Faith" that goes beyond the Jesus of history in the mythic development of Scriptural fairy tales by the early Christian community.

I submit to Daniel the same four Scriptural/historical facts concerning Jesus Resurrection that Dr. Craig did in his debate with Dr. Crossan (and that Crossan was unable to deal with). Dr. Craig’s argument demonstrates that his 4 facts are historical and supported from earliest sources. 1. Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimethia 2. His tomb was found empty that Sunday 3. There were multiple instances of His appearing before many witnesses after that , alive from the dead 4. The original disciples believed He had risen from the dead despite their having had every reason not to.

One of the most revealing of these 4 facts is the last one. For if Daniel were correct in that the New Testament passages that emphasize Jesus’ literal Resurrection were mythic "communal" statements, these stories would not even have been expressed in terms of an "apparent" literal personal Resurrection as they are. Dr Craig points out three observations that support this observation,

"a. Their leader was dead. And Jews had no background of belief in a dying, much less rising Messiah.

b. According to Jewish Law, Jesus’ execution as a criminal showed Him to be a heretic, a man literally under the curse of God.

c. Jewish beliefs about the afterlife precluded anyone’s rising from the dead before the general Resurrection at the end of the world.

Nevertheless the original disciples believed in and were prepared to go to their deaths for the fact of Jesus’ Resurrection. C.F.D. Moule of Cambridge University concludes that we have here a belief for which no prior historical influence can account; the only plausible explanation is Jesus actual Resurrection."

Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up, pgs 28-29

Dr Craig continues this compelling line of argumentation in his rebuttal. I quote him at length beginning on page 42 where he says,

"When the New Testament writers speak of the Resurrection, are they speaking metaphorically? Well, I think this is very clearly not their intention; they intend the resurrection to be taken as a literal event. Raymond Brown, a great contemporary New Testament scholar, writes, ‘It is not really accurate to claim that the NT references to the Resurrection of Jesus are ambiguous as to whether they mean bodily resurrection-there was no other kind of resurrection.’ The Jews believed in a bodily, physical resurrection from the grave. And thus you find, for example, the apostle Paul in 1Corinthians 15 discoursing at length in answer to the question, ‘How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?’ (v35 RSV). The sermons in the book of Acts similarly present the resurrection as a literal event in history, just like the crucifixion and burial of Jesus -events verified by witnesses. And the whole empty tomb tradition shows that the resurrection was not thought of as a mere metaphor but as a literal event.

...the early Christians could have expressed the continuing presence of Jesus without recourse to a misleading metaphor like the resurrection. For example, in 1 Corinthians 5:3 Paul says, ‘Though absent in body I am present in spirit’ (RSV). Now they could have said exactly the same thing about the deceased Jesus, that He was still present in spirit among them. In fact, in the doctrine of the Holy Spirit of Christ they had a theologically rich and profound way of talking about Christ’s continuing presence without all this misleading terminology of resurrection from the dead. But they weren’t content to assert merely that Christ’s spiritual presence with them; they believed that Christ was literally, bodily, physically, raised from the dead. In any case, all of this is somewhat academic because we saw in my first contention that the majority of scholars do agree that the burial by Joseph of Arimathea, the discovery of the empty tomb, the appearances of Jesus, and the origin of the disciples’ belief are historical facts. Responsible historians must explain these facts. The best explanation, I think, is that Jesus rose from the dead."

Thus, from a sound historical or scholarly perspective, the invalid rationale behind Daniel’s redefining of Scriptural intention reveals a bad lack of genuine, unbiased scholarship driven by the ulterior motive of retrofitting Scripture’s intention to unbiblical Baha’i doctrines. Luke 24 intends to mean exactly what it says, and, opposite Daniel’s inventive rationalization, very much is intended as an "individual act" of history. The post Resurrection appearances are not suddenly intrusive mythic "community statements" (which would have had no time to develop), deceptively presented as historical narrative by first generation witnesses.

Daniel quotes me from the Fireside Letters where I had commented,

"Baha'is...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)."

Interestingly Daniel comments that,

"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."

I say this is interesting since Daniel himself, as we just saw, has spent a considerable effort proposing exactly what I observed of other Baha’is. Daniel, recall, believes and asserts that,

"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.

... 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."

So we see that Daniel himself is presently guilty of the very thing he asserts "is certainly not a line of reasoning that I find common amongst Bahá'ís." He is ascribing to Scripture that through some "oral stage" of development, mythological stories in the latter Gospels only "seem" to be historical narrative, but were really the creative mythical and symbolic development of the latter Christian community. I have already pointed out, much through Dr. Craig’s argumentation, why that is a bogus excuse for eliminating the genuine literal-historical intentions and implications of passages like Luke 24. Daniel uses the excuse of some theory of historical perversion based upon the "oral tradition" just as Dominic Crossan does. Basically the whole line of argument, as I formerly observed, relegates the Scriptures not only to hearsay, but to false hearsay that allegedly presents what for all intents and purposes would have to be taken as a misleading, deceptively erroneous historical presentation. If this is true, then Scripture would not be inspired at all. Not just uninspired by being "errant", but even by also being observably deceptive in its presentation as fact, what was only supposed to be a symbolic "communal" statement. I submit that Daniel is thus explicitly himself guilty of exactly what he denied as a basic Baha’i tactic. "...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 the original intent of the passages)." Daniel seeks a pseudo scholarly tool with which he might render the Scriptural passages relaying Jesus literal post Resurrection appearances subjective enough to alter their true, "apparent" and intended literal/historic meaning.

Daniel continues this manner of denigrating Scripture, while somehow attempting to retain it’s being "inspired". He says,

"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."

But of course there is and for a number of reasons. False statements and transmission of information that is less than "reliable" is the antithesis of inspiration Daniel. Keep in mind here that we are not speaking of scribal errors in genealogies that have no effect on the Message of Scripture. And we are not considering here the divergent reports of detail by witnesses that might be varied because of the varied perspectives of individual observation (like any reporter or criminal investigator would expect), but whose stories otherwise corroborate an intended core historical and factual reality (the literal, physical and personal Resurrection of Jesus). We are speaking here of a theory presented by Daniel that calls the basic intent of the story itself "unreliable". Daniel renders the intended Scriptural meaning as presented itself as being "unreliably" suspect. I submit that such a level of denigration of the basic reliability of Scripture castes the writers of Scripture as either misguided fools or dishonest men and Jesus as far less than an enlightened "manifestation" for allowing that this should become the only extant record of His Mission and teaching. Such a poor appraisal of Scripture’s "reliability" seems necessary in order for Daniel to remove the obstacles Scripture’s Message presents against his Baha’i presuppositions. But such a theory must ruin Scripture outright to do so, defeating any point he might have made and revealing the impossibility of reconciling the presuppositions with which he approaches Scripture, to the Scriptures themselves.

Let’s keep in mind that the New Testament writers were either contemporary wittnesses themselves of the events leading up to and following the death and Resurrection of Jesus (ie Peter, James or John). Or, they were writers in direct personal contact with them (like Paul, who also otherwise had his own supernatural experience with the personally risen "Jesus"). What is written is from direct first hand experience of events that they relay absolutely as historical facts, not mythic development, that one observes would have had no time to "develop" before these living witnesses had already chronicled what they had personally experienced.

Also, as far as denigrating the accurate transmition of their report is concerned, let us keep in mind that we have more manuscript documentation for comparative Scriptural analysis than any other ancient historical document in human history (see Josh McDowell’s Evidence That Demands a Verdict Vol. 1 & 2). Knowing the original writers’ intentions accurately is simply not as obscured as Daniel asserts.

I had made a logical observation in the Fireside Letters about this Baha’i style of Scripture bashing saying,

"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."

Daniel retorts,

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

But listen to what you are saying Daniel. If I may paraphrase, coupling two contentions you have made here;

"Bahá'u'lláh claims for Himself the ultimate authority to pronounce on truth. However, when He cites other sources be they ("unreliable") Scripture or secular, it is because His ears trust them."

If Daniel feels that Baha’u’llah then "trusts" what is "unreliable" material, perhaps Baha’u’llah is then a bit presumptuous to "claim for Himself the ultimate authority to pronounce on truth"?

Either the Scriptures are reliable in inspiration of their basic intended Message or they are not. You can’t have it both ways Daniel.

Daniel says,

"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.""

Certainly his proof text does not confirm his assertion concerning Jesus having quoted "contemporary" non Scriptural sources. We know that Jesus dealt with the Law (Old Testament), and the recognition of the Old Testament prophet’s prophesies were critical to His claims of fulfillment of those prophesies. How Daniel intends such a reference as Matthew 7:12 to indicate extra biblical sources is his own arbitrary assumption utterly unrepresented by the passage he cites. We also notice now that Daniel suddenly wishes to consider Matthew as a "reliable" source in making the point he wishes to assert. Nevertheless he continues,

"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 neighbor : that is the whole Torah, ...'."

(Shabbath 31a)

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

My comment would be to observe that even Jewish scholars as significant as Bernard J. Bamberger still only consider the Talmud as a "sequel" to the Hebrew Scriptures and not part of the Scriptures themselves (Grolier 98 Multimedia Encyclopedia). Even though this non -Christian Jewish assessment goes further in labeling the Talmud even as a "sequel" than the Christian perspective might allow, it is enough said that it is only supplementary, not an actual part of the canon of Scripture. Similarly, the deudocanonical books of the Bible, though not unanimously accepted as canonical Scripture, certainly contain useful material. The main point is that all of these sources are useful ONLY when and if they do agree with the canon of Scripture itself. Thus Daniel makes little or no point here. I would believe Hillel in as much as what he says agrees with the teachings of Scripture. Daniel is very presumptuous at any rate to assume that Jesus "endorsed" everything said by Hillel? Certainly Daniel’s present argument from Matthew 7:12 is completely invalid and insufficient as a proof text for such an assertion.

Daniel quotes me from the Fireside Letters saying,

"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." "

Then Daniel Comments,

"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."

Several things need to be pointed out in this paragraph filled with errors and assumptions. Any parenthetical "help" I have offered John by inserting Jesus is far beyond implicit in the text Daniel. We know that John is, in fact, introducing the story of Jesus. That is what a "Gospel" in the Bible is and his opening remarks are specifically defining Jesus’ station. Next, it is entirely irrelevant to make a distinction between the "Word" and Jesus. Daniel unwittingly points this out himself as he concedes that John is presenting a portrayal of "incarnation", not just manifestation. It does not say that the "Word", which is God, was just "reflected" in Jesus. It says that the "Word" was "made flesh" (Incarnation). It distinctly says God became man. The syntax here is inarguable Daniel.

I also think we need to bring out an invalid ad hominem at this point that intermittently is sprinkled throughout Daniel’s argument. His argumentation assumes that my perspective represents my singular opinion and presents that assumption in a way that would caste me as a somewhat eccentric, fringe, loner. He says things like, "He (Dale) quotes Scripture and presumes that anyone can see how it supports his point of view."

However, the perspective I defend is anything but odd and outlandish personal belief Daniel, as you should well know. I represent a longstanding theological perspective defended down through a history of thousands of years, and by many brilliant theologians and philosophers far more able than myself, then and today. Such a realization reveals a rather cheap ad hominem on Daniel’s part that attempts to set up a straw man that portrays me as a somewhat deluded loner without a legitimate perspective. I don’t represent a singular half baked personal opinion and Daniel knows it very well. I represent a historic Christian Faith, based upon the truths from Scripture that have long since been ironed out in the face of thousands of years of heresies, like those Mr. Grolin brings to the Gospel.

Also interesting to note at this point (and as an ongoing double standard throughout Daniel’s paper) is the fact that once again, Daniel now suddenly finds John’s Gospel quite a "reliable" source to quote for his own argument. When speaking of the post Resurrection appearances it was evidently "not reliable" and definitively false "hearsay". Now Daniel seems to think John can be cited as reliable, definitive support for his own arguments? If John consists of either unreliably dishonest or deluded material, whose "apparent" literal meaning includes historically errant myths on major doctrine, then why would John appeal to such a source at all?

Daniel continues,

"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 favor of this point of view, since I don't share Mr. Grider's conviction it makes no sense for me to discuss them."

But I think we do need to discuss them. Particularly since Daniel gave such a poor definition of "Messiah" earlier, and now presumes to dismiss out of hand, without discussion, my assertion that Jesus fulfills prophecy concerning that identity. The passages I cited from Isaiah have God observing that no mere mortal is worthy to be Savior ("Messiah" significantly means "Savior". Jesus presumed it to mean as much in His personal claims of fulfilling that role). At Isaiah 59:15 God says,"The Lord looked and was displeased that there was no justice. He saw that there was no one, he was appalled that there was no one to intervene;"

In His observation that no one could fulfill the mission as Savior, God goes immediately on to declare specifically that He Himself will be that Savior.

..."so His own arm worked salvation for Him, and His own righteousness sustained Him. He put on righteousness as His breastplate and the helmet of salvation on His head."

Even earlier in Isaiah this concept is developed where at 43:11 God tells us that He Himself will be the ONLY Savior.

"I, even I, am the Lord and apart from me there is no Savior."

Now the only point at which Daniel might wish to argue is whether Jesus intended to be Messiah, meaning Savior. But the entire emphasis of His Ministry, death and Resurrection, and all of the succeeding New Testament development that establishes the concept of Jesus having died for the sins of all humanity would militate directly against such an impossible argument.

Daniel next takes a passage quoting me from the Fireside Letters to make a false accusation. He snips from a passage from the chapter on Jesus’ Station,

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

Then Daniel concludes,

"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."

Then, Daniel continues by putting words in my mouth to the effect that I intended to assert that Jesus is not at all presented as a "teacher" in the Gospels. He argues against his straw man saying,

"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."

But I did not myself assert that Jesus was portrayed in a "monolithic manner" in the Gospels. And I certainly do not assert in the Fireside Letters that Jesus had no declared role as a teacher. In fact, in the same chapter Daniel quoted his snippet from, I say things like this,

"Jesus, as a teacher, taught us that loving our enemies was a higher spiritual love than loving those who "deserved" our love. He said to love our enemies and do good to those who revile us. He said that our love for those who love us showed little of high or advanced spiritual character compared to the love we might give to those who did not love or appreciate us. For He observed that even the wicked often love those who love them back. He defined high godly love in this way. Therefore, If Baha'is really believe that Jesus was a perfect mirror of God's truth, then how can they refuse the literal reality of His prime Mission as Messiah? How can they fail to recognize it as far above His role as teacher?"

It is abundantly clear, in context, that I fully recognize Jesus role as "teacher". I simply point out a greater priority that Baha’is refuse to concede as Jesus’ prime Role and Mission. In fact, my point is to observe that it is Baha’is themselves who view Jesus in a monolithic manner. They see Him functionally as a teacher only and give, at best, lip service to His far more significant role as "Savior", "Messiah." We see this in the Baha’i writings that stress only Jesus value as a seasonal teacher of truths relative to His day and time. We also see evidence of such a monolithic Baha’i viewpoint demonstrated in Daniel’s completely inadequate and even evasive manner of getting quickly and inaccurately past any proper consideration or defining of Jesus as "Messiah".

Daniel next addresses my citation of Phillipians: Phillipians 2:6 (NIV) reads,

"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."

Daniel comments confidently,

"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)."

But consideration of this passage is not as simple as Daniel wants to make it seem, either in the immediate Phillipians context of the usage for the word "morphe", or in how that word’s proper meaning there would necessarily have to be defined in light of the broader biblical context that must also steer interpretation. I’m afraid Daniel is going to get very frustrated at my continual insistence that his neat, isolated linguistic arguments based upon the meaning of terms lifted out of context must not only find agreement with the proximate context the terms are used in, but also must fit reasonably within the greater overall New Testament context as well. Daniel fails to do this time and again.

We notice from the immediate passage itself that the exact same word "morphe" used at 2:6 is subsequently used again in 2:7 to mean, quite literally, a human servant, which Baha’is and Christians, I think, would agree to be a literally correct interpretation of the text with respect to Jesus demonstrated life as a mortal human exercising purposefully modeled holy servitude.

2:7 "but made himself nothing, taking the very nature (morphe, form) of a servant, being made in human likeness."

Thus Daniel’s linguistic distinction works just as well against his argument as for it. No one suggests that "morphe" at 2:7 only means that Jesus was the "mirror" of a servant distinct from actually being one in a literal role. From the text itself it is just as accurate to interpret that Jesus was actually God made in the "form" of man as that Jesus was man made in the "form" of a servant. Daniel’s spin on the term "morphe" with respect to his Baha’i assertion of Jesus’ only being a reflection "in the form of God" is thus revealed as simply being his own arbitrary interpretation not supported by the full consideration of how the word is actually used in the passage. My interpretation, (the NIV) is the interpretation that demonstrates consistency in usage in the immediate context.

Consideration of the greater New Testament context that further supports the NIV interpretation (and which thus renders it far from arbitrary as Daniel’s is) would include the classic proof texts that I’m sure Daniel knows all too well. We just saw how John1 can be given no other meaning than that 1) the Word was God, and 2) the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. (This with the clear intention of "helping" Daniel realize that the Gospel introduction here is talking about Jesus, and that, as such, it is an entirely valid parenthetical reminder of just who that "flesh" that God was made is). We could add texts like Hebrews 1:8 (in the KJV since Daniel prefers it),

"1:8 But unto the Son he (God the Father) saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom."

There is much more but the point is already made that the greater NT context fully supports the NIV translation of morphe as "being in very nature" as the proper meaning in the usage at Phillipians 2:6 relating to Jesus’ being God in very nature. This stands apart from the degraded Baha’i interpretation of Him as just a "mirror", but not actually God "incarnate". Context establishes meaning Daniel with far greater priority than narrow linguistic defining of isolated terminology. As a matter of fact, apart from contextual consideration of usage, linguistic translational meaning cannot even be given to a word. As we have seen, one word can often have various legitimate though very different meanings depending upon usage within context. In this case consideration of the immediate usage of "morphe" at BOTH Phillipians 2:6 <<<AND>>> 2:7 renders your interpretation at 2:6 as really just being your own arbitrary one based upon your presuppositions. Your interpretation is not compatible or consistent with the exact same word’s subsequent usage in the adjacent verse at 2:7, which is still speaking of Jesus station. Beyond that, and as just demonstrated, the broader biblical context refutes your interpretation rather openly and supports the NIV.

Daniel quotes a passage from the Fireside Letters wherein I made an observation based upon John11:25. I had said,

"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."

Daniel retorts,

"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."

But Daniel chose not to cite enough of the quote to reveal the point I had attempted to make. The fuller quote is revealing,

"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. Jesus would have to have said,

"My Father is the Resurrection and the life. He who believes in Him will live even though he dies. And whoever lives and believes in Him will never die."

The latter statement is, of course, true, even as Jesus personal claim is true, since the Father and Jesus are one. The point is that Jesus makes a clear and unmistakable distinction, specifically attributing to Himself a personal station far beyond the Baha'i view of Him as a mortal "Messenger" who is only a reflection of the Father. They are both distinct and one despite Man's intellectual inability to understand it."

The point was to observe that the kind of language Jesus used was not such that indicated a self concept as a "mirror". Had he held that sort of self image He well could have communicated the Baha’i perspective concerning His station without confusingly framing such statements in the first person. If He were a "reflection" of God it would have been more accurate and less confusing in the avoidance of misunderstanding for Him to have just referred to the Father as the source of Life and the place where belief had to be placed. Why would Jesus speak such bold personal claims in the first person when we notice that He had an active ongoing and open manner of speaking wherein He referred distinctly to the Father separately when He intended to. My point is the valid observation that Jesus specific manner of speaking about Himself, and the Father, is distinctly set against the Baha’i interpretation of His own personal station. He does not make His personal claims as a "reflection". He makes them for Himself, and when He intends to speak of the Father He does so openly and distinctly.

Daniel next quotes the following from the Fireside Letters,

"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."

Then Daniel comments,

"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."

But let’s look at the facts. First, quite bluntly, Daniel makes Christ a liar or just plain wrong when Jesus’ claims that, "No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven- the Son of Man". Jesus, (however you want to interpret coming from heaven) says that He is the only One. Daniel objectively disagrees with Jesus, not just me, in that last paragraph. Enoch and Elijah, in person, were never in the position of Jesus who, as a mortal incarnation, "CAME" "from" (not went "to") heaven. The distinction is vast in its implications. In fact it’s the whole point of Jesus’ intended distinction. It is also vast, even universal, in the singularity of the claim. No one, Jesus tells us, has ever "come" from heaven incarnate upon the earth except Jesus. Daniel’s claim concerning Elijah and John the Baptist is a total red herring. John the Baptist came as a "type" of Elijah, not the reincarnation of the Old Testament person Elijah "from" heaven. This is easy to see the Biblical intention of as we observe that at the Transfiguration (after the death of John the Baptist), it is still the Old Testament Elijah himself who is recognized with Moses speaking to Jesus in the vision, not Elijah reincarnated as John the Baptist and then beheaded. They are two distinct persons. And Elijah does not come back incarnate as a man even at the Transfiguration, or to teach or even speak with anyone but Jesus Himself, but only in the supernatural vision. Jesus, claiming to be singularly from Heaven of all mortal men, and God’s "one and only Son" clearly has Him speaking as God incarnate in a station that was singularly above that of every human being, all other Baha’i "manifestations" notwithstanding.

Daniel quotes further from the Fireside Letters;

"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."

Daniel comments,

"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."

The judging authority in Scripture is variously delegated. From the Father to Jesus, and from Jesus to Peter and various of the Apostles. The final say, however, is clearly given to Jesus as to who will be, specifically, in the "Lambs" book of Life. Revelation clearly portrays the final judgment seat wherein all men stand for final and eternal Judgment as declaring Jesus, the Lamb that sits upon the throne, as the final Judge. I submit that Scripture’s inarguable teaching that God ultimately judges mankind makes the delegation aspect irrelevant as we see that, in the end, it is Jesus who personally renders eternal judgment. Not the Father. Not the Apostles. Only Jesus. Thus, there is a sound argument for viewing Jesus, the final judge of all mankind, as God incarnate.

Daniel next considers the passage where Jesus says at Mark 10:18,

"And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good save one, even God."

Daniel assumes upon reflection that,

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

But I would submit that Daniel sees in a shallow surfacy reading of the passage a nonexistent opportunity to have Jesus Himself degrading his own personal station. Without a Baha'i presupposed bias, and by considering the full New Testament context, we will find that the passage (Jesus) has no such intention, but the exact opposite.

At Mark 10:17 we read;

"As Jesus was setting out on a journey a man came running up, knelt down before Him, and asked, "Good teacher, what must I do to share in everlasting life?" Jesus answered, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone."

The first thing we need to observe is that although Jesus asks the question, "Why do you call me good?", it is Daniel alone who presumes to answer it with Baha'i presuppositions read into Christ's intent that ignore both the immediate and broader biblical context. Jesus Himself gives no immediate answer to His rhetorical question. One can find other instances of Jesus’ using such rhetorical questions to stimulate careful consideration on the part of those around Him. He often answered questions asked of Him with such questions. It was an observable technique common to His style of teaching. Thus, if we are going to presume to answer the question it needs to be 1) reasonable within the immediate context of Christ's conversation with the man, based on 2) compatibility with the broader biblical context of Jesus' other reflections upon His station in the New Testament.

We should immediately notice that the man approaching Christ wrongly addressed Him as "Good teacher". Within the larger context of Jesus' constant emphasis on His deific role as "Messiah" (not just teacher as Baha'i theology espouses), Jesus immediately perceives here that the man he is facing does not, in fact, appreciate just who he was talking to. The man presumes to ask Jesus a question directly relating to the necessity for Jesus' fully deific station (What must I do to share in everlasting life?), but with a title for Jesus that signified that the man did not have that proper understanding. A " teacher" could not be "good" much less have the gift of "Eternal life" to offer. Only God. Jesus indeed asks why the man calls Him good. However it is not as a criticism, but as a rhetorical stimulus for reflection upon the unenlightened manner in which the man had addressed Him with a request only God could provide. Thus, Jesus point was;

A) You ask me for the eternal life that God alone can offer, but call me "good teacher" and not "Messiah".

B) As far as calling me a "good teacher, you should know that no "teacher" is "good", but God alone. Men are sinners. Even John the Baptist, as a carnal man, though no merely mortal man is holier than he, is still LESS THAN LEAST, in the Kingdom. Even He is not a "good" teacher. All mere mortals fall short of the glory of God.

C) Thus, If you think that I am but a "good teacher" then you foolishly ask me a for something that you should not have expected me to have been able to provide.

D) I will, however answer your question. (Thus demonstrating His own conception of Himself as far more than a "teacher" who could never be "good", but that he was God, the Messiah, who, as Peter elsewhere in the Gospel notes, ALONE had the Words of eternal life.)

When we compare Jesus rhetorical question in this passage to other Scriptural instances such as John 8:46 where Jesus challenges the Pharisees, "Can any of you accuse me of sin.", we see that He did indeed conceive of Himself as "good", and thus, according to His own Words, God. Daniel's citation of Mark 10 provides us with an opportunity (especially within the broader biblical context) to see how Jesus specifically distinguishes Himself infinitely above every merely mortal person, and stresses that NO merely mortal "teacher" can claim a description as being "good". Even the holiest men are sinners. Did Jesus contradict Himself when He challenged the Pharisees to accuse Him of any sin? No. For if we read the words that are actually there in Mark 10, He never says that He Himself is not "good". Daniel reads that meaning into the text in a way that clashes impossibly against the Scriptural context set by passages like John 8:46.

Daniel continues to quote me from the Fireside Letters,

"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 (once again) does not answer the question, for the answer is obvious to one who has faith in the Word and power of God and basic reasoning ability. 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."

Daniel responds,

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."

Frankly I don’t see what Mark’s lack of genealogy has to do with the point Jesus is making? 1) Jesus claims to be Messiah. 2) The Pharisees correctly observed that to be "the Christ" one had to be David’s son in terms of lineage (in order to fulfill the prophecies). 3) Jesus points out that David refers to this Christ as being his "Lord", not just his "son". Jesus has already established all the inferences you need Daniel to see that He is bringing out His incarnate deity from David’s own recognition in the Psalm that the Messiah to come out of his lineage would be his "son", and also his "Lord".

Daniel’s interpretation that Jesus was trying to prove that he didn’t fulfill prophecy as being of the lineage of David, fails for several reasons. Daniel mysteriously says, "... Jesus did not trace His genealogy back to David.", and thus seems to assert that the point of Jesus’ observance of the Psalm was to somehow deny his lineage back to David? That is an impossible statement. Why would Jesus try to prove that He DIDN’T fulfill the prophecy as being the Christ of the lineage of David??? According to what you seem to be asserting he would have been attempting to prove something that was wrong! He did fulfill the prophecies and came as the Messiah from David’s lineage. Thus, you also make the prophets false ones by such an assertion and David deluded as he looks forward to a prophecy to be fulfilled by a nonexistent future son he calls Lord. You seem to have Jesus as denying in these Gospel passages that which He and the Gospel writers most certainly claim for Him to have fulfilled?

As far as "noticing" that Mark does not list Jesus’ lineage, there are other Gospels besides Mark’s that do assert Jesus’ lineage back to David, both through Mary biologically, and Joseph according to male based lineage (Virgin birth make both lineages necessary for the complete fulfillment of the prophecy). The question by Jesus simply points out that Jesus is "Lord", not just manifestation reflection of God, and not "just" son of David by way of the lineage that He certainly was descended from. When David called Him "Lord" within the specifically religious context of his prayerful Psalm, the legitimately intended meaning was "God". When David said "The Lord says to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.", he wasn’t speaking double talking nonsense. He was, in the Spirit, speaking of God the Father (his Lord) who was speaking to God the Son (also his "Lord", the Christ, Jesus, same word as used for God, same context). His "son" by human ancestry was also to be his "Lord", God incarnate. That, Daniel, is why Jesus asked the question of the Pharisees.

From the Fireside Letters Daniel quotes my use of Scripture,

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

I then commented,

"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?"

Daniel responds,

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

I found nothing in the preceding verses in Acts to support Daniel’s blanket statement that the "apparent" meaning Peter relays is "unlikely". I would make a distinction however in Daniel’s attempt to restate the Christian position. He says,

"So God made (epoihsen) Jesus both God and man."

I think it is much more accurate to say that Jesus was already God, and was made man, not "made" God. Scripture tells us that Jesus is "before all things", and that all things, whether in heavenly spiritual realms or earthly, were made by Him. He Himself said that, "before Abraham was I am". Clearly He precedes His incarnation as God eternally, made man incarnate by the purpose of God’s plan.

Daniel quotes my citation from Acts and my comments on that passage,

"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."

Daniel responds,

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

But no, Abdul Baha clearly points out that essentially the manifestation is a "human soul" in terms of discrete person, not God incarnate (as Daniel himself is so set to argue against Jesus’ Station) On page 151 of Some Answered Questions Abdul Baha says, (describing the "human" station of the manifestation),

"The second is the station of the rational soul, which is the human reality. This also is phenomenal, and the Holy Manifestations share it with all mankind.

Know that, although the human soul has existed on the earth for prolonged times and ages, yet it is phenomenal. As it is a divine sign, when once it has come into existence, it is eternal."

Thus he is indeed asserting, specific to manifestations’ personal, human, station (their personal identity as discrete persons) the same idea expressed in the quote I cited. For Abdul Baha, "Jesus", personal soul, was not "before all things", neither did He thus personally create all things as Scripture says, and according to Abdul Baha’s assertion that Jesus soul was "phenomenal" (had a beginning) he attempts to make Jesus’ person (soul) a created being instead of an eternally begotten Son.

Especially with respect to manifestations, Daniel himself has gone to extraordinary lengths to demonstrate the application of the passage I had earlier cited in terms of a manifestation’s (Jesus’) station. Again, the passage I had cited, which Daniel now self contradictorily asserts only is supposed to relate to mere humans, not manifestations, reads,

"...for every being their is a point which it cannot overpass; ...however far he may progress in gaining limitless perfections, will never reach the condition of Deity."

But with respect to his own argument against Jesus’ incarnate deity, it is Daniel himself who is applying the concept of this Baha’i assertion as one specifically including manifestations. Ultimately we notice that it is Daniel who fails to grasp the full extent of what Abdul Baha is saying and how it coincides with his own perspective against Jesus’ being "God the Son". For we must notice that when Abdul Baha speaks of "every being" in the passage, He is necessarily, and most significantly, including the manifestations Daniel. Applied to Jesus it is a false statement.

Daniel quotes only a summing up paragraph I had made to have me seem to be making assertions without support. He begins his quote only at the point where I say, "Thus", as I begin a conclusion that was very well grounded by the previous argumentation.

"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."

My point was to observe that since the Baha’i Jesus is so demonstrably different from the Scriptural Messianic One, that the Baha’i Jesus was not only "unchristian", but unbiblical as well, as developed in the previous argumentation. Nevertheless, Daniel, after quoting the summing up paragraph, boldly accuses saying,

"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."

My goal is to present to any honest seeker of truth, not just "Baha’i" or "Christian", the fruits of my own open and honest "independent search for truth", not to placate those who don’t wish to be confused by the facts or their implications. I assume the posture in the Fireside Letters of that potential seeker spoken of so often in Baha’i writings who is to conduct an independent search for Truth. We may agree to disagree and talk about it, but it is not my goal to be "politically correct", just correct, in my search for that truth. I recognize others’ right to disagree with me and I condemn no person, while I still reserve the same right to openly and frankly voice the specific things I feel that I have found in seeking God. You can’t have it both ways Daniel. Either we are free to believe what we feel called to as we "independently" seek, and admit the dichotomies inherent in diversity openly and honestly and go from there, or we play the "inter-religious dialogue" hypocrite. An independent search has to be left genuinely independent and free to draw independent conclusions based upon that freedom. The Baha’i "independent search for Truth" is contradictorily "dependent" upon Baha’i presuppositions from the outset. When and if our "independent" search seems to contradict Baha’i teachings we are told that we must simply defer faithfully to the teachings and assume that the problems our independent search might have uncovered are simply the results of our own misunderstanding. In other words, the Baha’i assertion that we are to conduct an "independent search for truth" is simply not true. What the Baha’i mandate really means by "independent search for truth" is, "discovery of the truth of Baha’i religion despite any problems that might arise through critical investigation."

Also, I notice that Daniel demonstrates a lack of skill "in the art of inter-religious dialogue" no less definitive in flavor in his own style in the critique he brings against the Fireside Letters than that which he accuses me of in the Fireside Letters themselves. Such ad hominem comments by Daniel are thus revealed to be at a minimum personally hypocritical. As I always suggest when observing such a hypocritical double standard in the dialogue, it would be better for Daniel to just stick to the issues, as I have done, and avoid the personal insults. They detract from his credibility. It is unpleasant even to have to point this out. But it is necessary to do so when taken out on that tangent.

I don’t think I have at all misrepresented the Baha’i position. The position I have discovered in Baha’i theology is distinctly unchristian by direct association of its being unbiblical as well as independently internally irrational. I have supported that contention reasonably and thoroughly in the Fireside Letters. As we have seen in this last example where Daniel can’t seem to grasp what Abdul Baha is saying, it is often the Baha’i who accuses me of misunderstanding or misrepresenting what they themselves have neither thought through carefully or studied accurately from within their own theological writings. Such a situation, I find, is inevitable. For if one really studies those writings in depth and with a critical expectation for coherence, one will indeed discover major internal contradictions on fundamental points of doctrine. How one responds to those discoveries depends upon the individual’s mindset and intentions at that point. Thus, it seems to me that the Baha’i adherent who hasn’t thoroughly investigated is going to accuse non Baha’is of "misunderstanding" what, in fact, they themselves don’t understand, due to their own lack of careful study. If they have gone in study beyond the point of discovering the problems that are there and decided to rationalize them anyway, they will then accuse the non Baha’i of "misrepresenting" the Baha’i position in their own rationalizing refusal to concede the inherent internal problems that others have observed and decided not to rationalize away. The latter category seems to be where Daniel stands. He knows the Scriptures well enough to be able to see the definitive differences Baha’i teachings have in comparison to Scripture (ie. Moses’ station). And he knows the Baha’i writings well enough to be able to perceive the internal clashes within Baha’i theology itself as brought out in the Fireside Letters essays. I feel this rebuttal to his critique shows him to be rationalizing mightily to try to hold them up. He is dedicated to demonstrating, for example, how mankind can be both regressive and progressive spiritually, simultaneously, as the fundamental dynamic of human spiritual behavior across the history of mankind. He is set to demonstrate how Baha’u’llah can establish a universal regressive dynamic for mankind for all of history, and then arbitrarily dismiss the principle relative to his own dispensation. Daniel is set to try to prove the rationality and reasonableness of Baha’u’llah’s asserting a doctrine of progressive revelation that claims that mankind will only get doses of "truth" relative to his advancement, after which he then turns right around and declares that with him, the ultimate Revelation to mankind has come and Abdul Baha asserts that anyone to follow will remain under his shadow! And this on the brink of two world wars the likes of which humanity had never seen! What happened to the principle of progressive revelation??? What happened to the concept that mankind would only receive advanced revelation when and as he was himself spiritually "advanced" enough to receive it??? In other words Daniel is set to defend the irrational , the contradictory, the un -understandable by logical definition. Of course he accuses me of misrepresenting. I point out the dichotomies within Baha’i theology itself that he refuses to recognize.

An example of this point is voiced in his next quote from the Fireside Letters website where I commented,

"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."

Daniel interrupts at this point to comment,

"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."

First, I have to remind Daniel again that my position is not the singular opinion of an individual. It is not just "what Mr. Grider thinks the Bible says". It is what 2,000 years of Christian scholarship in the face of heresy thinks the Bible says. I represent far more than a singular personal opinion. The "academic" Christian Daniel would have to appeal to to support the Baha’i worldview would be about as "Christian" as Arius was; a heretic who invaded the Church with false teaching. Beyond that observation, and considering Daniel’s blanket statement, we will have to wait for him to come forward with these "academic Christians" he feels embrace Baha’i theology and test whether they are Christian, or Christian heretic of the cloth of an Arius, who certainly claimed to be "Christian".

Daniel continues to quote me,

"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."

Daniel comments,

"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."

The point here is that Daniel sets up a blatant straw man. I have never asserted the kind of "Scriptural literalism" he describes. This would be evident for anyone who reads the Bible errors section of the Fireside Letters and is one of the chief reasons that chapter was written, because Daniel’s straw man is a common one that erroneously comes up in discussion. It is temptingly easy to argue against such an unthinking fundamentalism (in any thought system), though it is neither my position or that of legitimate Christian theology in general. Daniel is correct in that an uncritical and wooden literal reading of the Bible creates nonsense. So what? That is not the legitimate Christian position. It has not been mine. The legitimate Christian perspective posits a very rational and sensible interpretation of Scripture, careful to discover its intended Message, that is still light years away from Baha’i theological doctrines that attempt to refit Scripture’s meaning to Baha’i presuppositions by symbolic redefining.

I had quoted Baha’u’llah to show how his assertions often are in conflict with Scripture. Baha’u’llah claims of manifestations that,

"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, however, 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.' "

Daniel comments,

"Mr. Grider should realize 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 "honor" (as the author of Hebrews formulates it)."

It is good that Daniel cites the quotation he does, For he himself points out that Baha’u’llah not only contradicts Scripture, he can be found to contradict himself within his own writings. Daniel has found a passage where Baha’u’llah seems to be compatible with Hebrews. Let’s look at both of Baha’u’llah’s statements themselves however and see if he agrees with Himself concerning the station of manifestations.

"some Messengers we made to excel others"

or,

"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."

The point to be observed here (and Daniel is playing right into it) is that Baha’i apologists maddeningly skip to opposite positions (based upon the "writings") depending upon what is expedient for the moment in debate. Indeed, Daniel can cite quotes that have Baha’u’llah either absolutely commonizing the Manifestations (specifically in the all encompassing way just quoted), or he can find contradictory citations like the one he uses to reconcile Baha’i theology with Hebrews, "some Messengers we made to excel others". If we may not "maketh the slightest possible difference between their persons, their words, their messages, their acts and manners" without "disbelieving in God", Daniel, then it is pointless to quote Baha’u’llah saying that some excel others, unless to underscore my own point that Baha’i doctrinal statements are riddled with internal contradictions. Daniel’s distinction between "honor" and "nature" is revealed as both irrelevant and invalid when we simply observe that Baha’u’llah’s second assertion quoted categorically disallows ANY such distinctions being made, Daniel’s distinction notwithstanding. One notices that in the second citation Baha’u’lah’s all encompassing prohibition would necessarily include distinctions in honor, by definition.

Daniel cites my quotation and comments concerning Collosians,

"For Collossians 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."

Collossians 2:9 " for in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily,"

Daniel responds,

"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."

So Daniel says, " the expression "Godhead" is not entirely clear, and is liable to be understood, in a casual examination, as meaning God." I see. Another case of the "apparent" meaning being utterly obscured and the redefined Baha’i one being correct. I would have to say that the term "godhead" is crystal clear Daniel. There is simply no alternate or lesser meaning one could attach to it than the precise and singular meaning that defines the term. Used once or a thousand times "Godhead" defines incarnation relative to its application to Jesus, not just "reflection" OF the godhead, but union with it specifically defined as being in "fullness". Daniel obfuscates saying,

"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)."

He indeed could have just said "God" Daniel! He said "godhead" instead! In a sense, Daniel here argues that synonyms don’t mean that same thing because two different words are being used. But, in fact, if there is any distinction to be observed, the term "godhead" more than reveals the false simplicity of Baha’i "oneness" theology concerning God’s nature. It is more for Daniel to try to retrofit that term to his beliefs about God’s nature than me to mine. "Godhead", rather than the simple singular term "God", more than implies a multiplicity inherent in God’s nature. It points to, distinguishes, and supports Trinitarian doctrine.

Daniel argues that,

" The question of essence is not addressed in this verse, but rather that of authority, of rulership and of power."

I submit, however, that the specific sense in which Jesus is said to personally hold such "authority... rulership and ... power." is, in and of itself an apologetic for the Christian position of Him as God the Son.

Daniel next addresses the subject of miracles. He says,

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

Then Daniel quotes me from the Fireside Letters,

"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!"

Daniel comments,

"Perhaps. If that is the intention of Mr. Townshend 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 materialize spiritual concepts, but also to spiritualize 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."

Well, it is indeed clearly the intention of Townshend whose person and whose book are considered popularly within the Baha’i world as accurately representing Baha’i teaching. He is a respected Baha’i apologist. Unlike the ultra liberal to radical "Christian" perspective Daniel would appeal to for support, Townshend’s perspective is in line with mainstream Baha’i thinking. The irony here is that Townshend is actually saying much the same thing as Daniel himself earlier said in asserting that an "oral tradition" had transformed the history of Jesus individual story into "community" mythology in the Scripture stories of Jesus’ post Resurrection appearances. Now he suddenly "disagrees" with Townshend who makes the same sort of error. As with Daniel earlier, so too with Townshend. Once you crush the "reliability" of Scripture so as to rework its meaning, you destroy its "reliability" in terms of the new meaning just as effectively as you did the old. It is a self defeating means Daniel. You seem to recognize that in this present instance where you "disagree with Townshend". You don’t seem to realize that what he proposes is, in fact, the only way to get Baha’i interpretation out of text that simply doesn’t support that theology, and that you yourself used such tactics in your own argumentation only a few paragraphs ago!

You say that,

"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."

But that is simply wrong as I showed in Dr. Craig’s argument. As far as earliest sources and historically accepted facts of the majority consensus of modern scholarship, let’s recall the four facts Dr. Craig reminds us of.

1. Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimethia.

2. His tomb was found empty that Sunday

3. There were multiple instances of His appearing before many witnesses after that , alive from the dead

4. The original disciples believed He had risen from the dead despite their having had every reason not to.

The "original audience" was taught by men who firmly believed that Jesus had physically and in person risen from the dead Daniel. The "radically different conclusions" are obviously the Baha’i ones which even Abdul Baha himself concedes depart markedly from the "apparent" meaning the text offers. The only consideration would be whether this change of the apparent meaning is justified or not. Dr. Craig helps us to see that that radical Baha’i departure from the "apparent" meaning given is just what it would seem, uninspired and destructive human error.

Daniel says,

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

I do not reject the significance of Jesus’ Resurrection as a "spiritual event" at all. I object to the REPLACEMENT of the literal and personal reality of Jesus Resurrection with a "spiritualized", "symbolized" redefining of Jesus’ Resurrection that serves to eliminate Jesus’ personal and eternally risen identity as "the Christ", so that Baha’u’llah can have it. The implications of the whole truth intended in Scripture are not compatible with Baha’u’llah’s theological ambitions and thus are rationalized away despite their utter incompatibility with the true story relayed in Scripture (Scripture’s "apparent" meaning). If Jesus is raised personally and eternally as "the Christ", he still today retains that identity, no one else.

In the Fireside Letters I had said,

"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."

Daniel responds,

"Such a conclusion presupposes that the intention behind the stories of the resurrection is to represent history. But the evangelists have no such interest. "

That is an amazing statement Daniel that I submit either makes the writers of Luke 24 liars or cruelly deceptive men. Luke 24 exhaustively attempts to emphasize the fact that Jesus rose literally and physically as an amazing historical fact. There is not the least indication, however subtle, that the story was intended as a parable or "community myth". That, Daniel is an arbitrary fabrication completely unsupported by the text. The post resurrection stories are directly related in style and intention and circumstance as a continuation of the very historical story of the death and burial of Jesus, asserted to be certified by the testimony of "witnesses". Other than your Baha’i presuppositions that cannot abide the implications of a personal and eternal Resurrection of Jesus as the Christ, there is not the least objective thing you can bring from the text to support your argument Daniel. You accept the historicity of Jesus’ life and crucifixion, yet arbitrarily dismiss the same continuing "apparent" intended historicity given in the completion of the story of Jesus, only at and beyond the point of Jesus physical death.

Daniel continues, (again we note in the style that would AGREE with Townshend’s appraisal of Scripture, not disagree),

"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."

Daniel then goes on in typical style to point out discrepancies of detail that do nothing to change the fact that all of the stories are undergirded by the very clear intention to relay, as fact, that Jesus rose, was seen by many, was really literally risen, not just a ghost, and significantly was both still Jesus of Nazareth, and still the Christ. One can immediately hear Daniel’s complaint should the reports of the various witnesses from varied backgrounds and reported to various chroniclers at various times have been identical. "CONSPIRACY! The stories are obviously all made up because no set of such witnesses in reality would have such suspiciously identical reports! Daniel would have more justification for his rationalized Baha’i view of Scripture if the stories had NO discrepancies. For if they were identical, it would indeed by a more than suspicious case of probable conspiracy to "get the story straight". It’s true underlying and "apparent" intentions are certified by the clear indication that no such conspiracy, either on the part of the writers or the witnesses, ever occurred.

Daniel accuses me of being unspiritual saying,

"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."

Daniel here falsely assumes that even if there is something to be gained from symbolism , that a separate additional level of literal, historical intent can carry no significant spiritual implications in and of itself. This is obviously wrong. If it is true, the implications of Jesus having historically, personally, and literally risen in eternal retention of the identity of the Christ would obviously carry an independent significance apart from spiritual symbolism, and that would be profound. We see that those implications, by definition, would render other future claimants as "the Christ returned" (different persons from a literally, personally, eternally risen "Jesus of Nazareth") logically unsurvivable. Thus, whether Jesus was literally raised, historically and in person, as the eternal identity of the Christ is a very highly significant consideration, not a shallow one that misses the point.

But Daniel knows not the Scripture if he makes such an argument. Let us see if Scripture feels that historical verification or demonstrated signs to guide faith are unspiritual and always against God’s purpose and intent.

In defense against the Pharisees Jesus appealed to His miracles as a certification of His claims,

Jn.10:25

Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me,

Jn.10:38

But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."

When Jesus was told that Lazarus was dead and that it was too late to heal him Jesus responded (in recognition that He knew He was going to bring Lazarus back to life),

Jn.11:15

"and for your sake I am glad I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him."

Jesus acknowledges the legitimacy, even the importance, of performing the miracle distinctly as an appropriate aid to guide and confirm belief.

And at the end of the Thomas story, Daniel unfortunately fails to quote John saying the following,

John 20:30 "Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."

Evidently Daniel is mistaken about John’s outlook. For he specifically calls upon the record of Jesus’ miracles as the apologetic he himself appeals to in hope that we might believe. If we believe in the true Jesus of Scripture we will admittedly have to do so based upon a faith that goes beyond the simple recognition of the miracles themselves. No one argues that point. Scripture observes that for many, Jn.12:37 "Even after Jesus had done all these miraculous signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him." Yet for those who are inclined toward truth and dispose themselves receptively and honestly to it, Scripture definitely asserts that literal miracles were a vital part of what Jesus used to confirm His personal claims, " that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.", as John so aptly says.

Dr. Craig points out an important distinction on this whole issue as well in his debate with Dr. Crossan. He tells us that his four historical points lead up to a leap of faith, but that the jump must still be taken. Likewise the miracles of Jesus lead us to a well reasoned and important end point, beyond which we must take the leap of faith. Recognize however that Jesus leads us to only one jumping off point. He guides us to the point of accepting or rejecting Him as the Son of God, God the Son, eternally, literally, and personally raised as the Christ, the Messiah, through whom lies the singular hope all men have for Salvation of their immortal souls.

Going on, Daniel comments,

"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."

Daniel then quotes me,

"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."

And then Daniel retorts,

"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."

Again we find Daniel attacking the very basis of honesty, accuracy (and thus inspiration) of Paul’s words in Scripture. But beyond the recognition of that invalid perspective, Daniel has evaded my basic point. My point was to observe that the Pharisees whole concept of "Resurrection" was NOT symbolic, it was literal and bodily. Thus, to rework Jesus Resurrection into some symbolized spiritual myth for "community" statement simply contradicts the concept of Resurrection that was held. This observation is true whether or not they expected that literal understanding of Resurrection to play out in the manner Jesus fulfilled it. We recall Dr. Craig’s citation I quoted earlier from his debate with Dr. Crossan from Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up,

"Raymond Brown, a great contemporary New Testament scholar, writes, ‘It is not really accurate to claim that the NT references to the Resurrection of Jesus are ambiguous as to whether they mean bodily resurrection-there was no other kind of resurrection.’"

Discussing the story in Acs 28, where Festus discusses the case of Paul with King Agrippa, I had made 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."

Daniel responds,

"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."

Thus, again, Daniel must argue against the honest report of Scripture to make his point. In doing so he renders Scripture as uninspired by definition. Keep in mind that Daniel is not asserting discrepancies in detail here, but the core intent of the Scripture and the writer (inspired writer) getting it all wrong. Daniel is claiming that Paul, a) wrongly claims Festus as a specific historical witness at all. and b) falsely believed himself that Jesus was literally and physically risen as relayed in Acts.

Ac.25:19

"Instead, they had some points of dispute with him about their own religion and about a dead man named Jesus who Paul claimed was alive."

For when Daniel claims that there is "no dispute" as to Acts meaning to relay Paul’s belief that Jesus was "risen", let us be perfectly clear that Luke obviously does not intend to mean "risen" in the Baha’i symbolized sense. As Acts clearly reports, Paul is said to have believed that a "dead man", "was alive". It is not the observance of a symbolic belief Daniel. It is a third party observance of Paul’s literal belief.

I had said that,

"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."

Daniel responded,

"Mr. Grider emphasizes 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?"

But Daniel would dismiss one aspect of what Paul is definitively saying simply because he wishes to observe that what Paul is saying may have more than one "point". There is no reason for Daniel to label Paul’s declaration of Jesus having been literally raised from the dead as a "side remark" apart from Daniel’s Baha’i presuppositions that can’t accept that aspect. Paul does, in fact, assert Jesus literal Resurrection as "a", "point" of fact. Paul directly correlates the hope of resurrection for our specifically "mortal" bodies with that of the Resurrection of Jesus’. "...He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies...". Daniel is presumptuous to evade the consequences of this revealing evidence of Paul’s specifically literal intent by dismissing it as a "side remark". If Paul is not to be considered a liar, then Daniel has to face the point Paul is asserting, whether it is what Daniel considers the "main" point or just a "side point". It is asserted as a fact and it is not only against Baha’i theology, it is an assertion that precludes the possibility of anyone but Jesus being "The Christ". Jesus, eternally, literally and personally, risen as the Christ logically assumes that He still is, even forever more. It significantly presumes that when Baha’u’llah claimed the identity he did so as an impostor, by definition of the former observance.

Daniel goes on to close this section of his critique of the Fireside Letters,

"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."

But this is untrue by definition Daniel. For we are literally speaking of the text of Scripture itself, not separate non scriptural traditional myths or legends. The fact of the matter is that Resurrection, physical and literal, is what was intended in inspired Scripture, as supported by Jewish assumptions of what Resurrection meant, and other supporting passages relaying clearly literal intention, like the comments of third party observers concerning Paul’s belief at Acts 25:19 or what we just observed in Paul’s remarks at Romans 8:10. What Daniel, once again, contends to make his argument, is not that Scripture is less than literally in errant. He argues that it is fundamentally flawed on a level that would preclude any inspiration at all. If we relegate the intended Message of Scripture to mythology, deceptively presented as historical fact, we are hypocrites to call it God’s holy Word. Baha’is say, on the one hand, that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Yet they must present arguments fatal to any inspirational validity in their attempt to justify altering it’s "apparent" meaning. Daniel’s contention again in this present assertion is thus revealed as being self defeating. His argument assumes that the "apparent" meaning of Scripture in very clear and specific passages like Luke 24 concerning Jesus post Resurrection appearances consists of legends deceptively presented as "apparent" history. Thus he denies Scripture at the root.

Daniel again uses a diversionary observance of a truth, to evade a deeper truth and its implications. He comments,

"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."

He assumes that if the former of his assertions is true that the latter must also be. He is wrong. It is true that Jesus is alive today in Spirit in the Church. However, this does not at all preclude the fact of the literal bodily Resurrection of Jesus, or the significant implications of that reality, especially in dialogue with non Christian religions that make claims with respect to Jesus promised return and the identity of the Christ. Scripture tells us that Jesus left by miraculous ascension after appearing personally risen for a period of time to a number of witnesses (specific historic intent). After that, at the Pentecostal experience, the Apostles were said to have been given the Spirit, the Comforter, the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, to "lead them into all Truth". When we realize that God is One in being, though three in persons, we realize that having the Spirit IS, in a sense, having Jesus present and alive within the Church. However, the Scriptural assertion of Jesus literal, personal, bodily Resurrection carries with it implications that go beyond the strictly materialistic consideration that Baha’is falsely accuse Christians of blindly believing in. I have pointed them out before but feel compelled to do so again at this appropriate point. If, as Scripture "apparently" says, Jesus was raised literally, personally, and eternally as the identity of the Christ, it becomes impossible to suggest that others may claim to represent His promised return, as the Christ. The asserted Scriptural fact of Jesus’ literal, physical, personal, and eternal Resurrection inherently carries critical spiritual implications in and of itself. Certianly this is true in terms of identifying "the Christ". That consideration is at the heart of objectively investigating Baha’u’llah’s personal claims, and revealing in that investigation of the invalidity of those claims. "Jesus Christ" is risen as the singularly eternal identity of the Christ according to Scripture.

Daniel herein makes a rather meaningless blanket statement utterly unsupported by any analysis of my perspective developed in the Fireside Letters essay concerning Baha’u’llah’s station. He comments,

"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."

What these "hermeneutic rules" are that I "ignore" we never hear. Neither does Daniel bother to address any of the thoroughly presented observations in chapter 6 of the Fireside Letters exposing those Baha’i "internal doctrinal contradictions". What is disturbing in this instance is not that Daniel is unable to understand the validity of the Christian perspective I present, or that he chooses not to, but that he makes blanket critical statements that don’t deal with any of the issues, in a paper that is supposed to be giving an "answer" to that Christian position. There really isn’t anything in that last paragraph for me to respond to short of simply disagreeing with Mr. Grolin. The reader who reads chapter 6 of the Fireside Letters, whether or not that person agrees, will observe that Daniel has evaded the issues presented there quite completely.

Daniel sums up saying,

"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."

I submit that the "condition of the people", even today, makes Baha’u’llah’s personal claims for his "revelation" a contradictory mockery of the alleged principle of progressive revelation wherein mankind is only supposed to get truth in doses according to his level of "advancement". The reality of the human condition in Baha’u’llah’s day, much less what anyone can observe from mankind’s history since then and even in today’s world, makes a defense of the double standard represented by the following quotes unsustainable,

Gleaning from the Writings of Baha’u’llah pg 60,

"It is evident that every age in which a Manifestation of God hath lived is divinely ordained, and may, in a sense, be be characterized as God’s appointed Day. This Day, however, is unique, and is to be distinguished from those that have preceded it. The designation "Seal of the Prophets" fully revealeth its high station. The Prophetic Cycle hath, verily, ended. The Eternal Truth is now come."

Some Answered Questions pg 161,

"His (Baha’u’llah’s) appearance causes the world to attain to maturity, and the extension of His cycle is very great. Afterward, other Manifestations will arise under His shadow, Who according to the needs of the time will renew certain commandments relating to material questions and affairs, while remaining under His shadow.

We are in the cycle which began with Adam, and its supreme Manifestation is &Baha'u'llah."

Given the "apparent" spiritual condition of humanity through two world wars, a cold war and the horrific reality of genocide we fight even today in places like Africa and the Balkans, such statements as above quoted, within the proposed dynamic by which "progressive revelation" is supposed to operate, form a blatant an arrogantly irrational contradiction in terms.

Today’s insistent religious diversity also begs to differ that mankind is "advanced" enough (according to the Baha’i concept of progressive revelation) for Baha’u’llah to claim any such ultimate unifying Baha’i revelation as he does. The true and definitive present day state of religious diversity itself stands in contradiction to the Baha’i notion that mankind was, or is today, "ready" to receive Baha’u’llah’s allegedly consummate dispensation of unity to mankind. This is certainly not to say that the Baha’i concept of progressive revelation is true, while mankind, in contradiction to Baha’u’llah’s claims, is observably just not yet ready for it. There is no reason to believe that progressive revelation is true, for reasons I have clearly expounded in the Fireside Letters. We simply do not observe spiritual progressionary evolution on the part of mankind, nor do any of the Baha’i writings give any evidence of it. They cite only intellectual, technological progress and then arbitrarily extrapolate spiritual progress from it. But the point is that, even if progressive revelation were true, Baha’u’llah’s personal claims would still observably contradict that principle with the recognition that mankind wasn’t then, and isn’t now, spiritually "advanced" according to those assumed lines of belief at the level he claims for his mighty and consummate revelation. Given the Baha’i doctrine of progressive revelation, the true spiritual state of things in the world, both during and since Baha’u’llah’s lifetime, simply contradicts the validity of his claims as the apex of revelation to mankind.

Daniel next turns to the Scriptural warnings Jesus gave of future impostors who would come as "the Christ". Daniel comments,

"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...

...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."

But, in the context of the warnings Jesus gives, neither of Daniel’s "candidates" seems likely, and one is impossible. Consider Matthew 24:5; "For many shall come in my name, saying, I am the Christ; and shall lead many astray."

Certainly none of the imperial prophets or Roman emperors would have fit that description, coming as claimants to the return of a Jewish holy man they had executed. Proposing such a "candidate" is simply wrong. And, considering the apocalyptic manner in which Jesus relates the warnings, it is unreasonable to suppose that He only intended to warn of immediate contemporary Christian false teachers in this specific warning against false impostor "Christs" to come . False teachers within the New Testament Church are mentioned in the New Testament, yet never in the same context as Jesus’ warning of those who would specifically come impersonating His own return as "the Christ". It is certainly not that I assert that Jesus named Baha’u’llah specifically as a false teacher in the Scriptures. He named no one specifically. He did describe conditions that define false Christs, including a warning as universal as that anyone claiming to have found the Christ returned was tempting us to follow an impostor. For the return of Jesus, according to Jesus, will not be a return heralded by a Bab, it will be a sudden, unexpected, and universally undeniable appearance.

Matthew 24:23 "At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect--if that were possible. See, I have told you ahead of time. So if anyone tells you, 'There he is, out in the desert,' do not go out; or, 'Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it. For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

Matthew 24:42 Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him."

Jesus then goes on to describe Himself personally as a King and eternal judge of all mankind at a final judgment seat that absolutely leaves no room for other possible legitimate claimants as the Christ. What I assert is that Baha’u’llah fits the profile established by Jesus, and the other New Testament writers, for all such impostors. There are others, to be sure.

Daniel next cites my quotation of Matthew,

"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!'" "

Then Daniel responds,

"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."

But Daniel fails to observe that manner in which Baha’u’llah presumes to embrace and revere "Jesus", while changing the meanings of Jesus’ Words. Baha’i religion is very busy claiming to be far more "Christian" than the Christians! Baha’u’llah’s teaching that embraces a false, degraded concept of Jesus while claiming to be about the work of God is thus exactly what Jesus is speaking of at Matthew 7:22.

Daniel quotes from the Fireside Letters,

"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.' "

Then Daniel comments,

"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."

But Daniel’s explanation is one that fails to reveal any error in my interpretation. In fact it strengthens it. The whole point Paul was conveying was that ANY deviation from the intended meaning of the teaching of the original Gospel of Jesus was to be regarded as utterly wrong and condemnable. It wouldn’t matter if it was a "Jewish missionary" or Baha’u’llah who was perverting Jesus’ and the Apostles’ intentions. (Though Baha’u’llah’s "Gospel" is observably more radically different than anything James ever taught, whose epistle fits comfortably within the intentions of the New Testament Message.) The point was asserted universally, "But even if we or an angel from Heaven should preach a Gospel <<<other than the one we preached to you...>>>", and so it is distinctly not anachronistic at all. Paul asserts that the Gospel has ONE definitive meaning that is true in its originally intended application. Baha’u’llah, by open proclamation, claims to have "unsealed" hitherto hidden meaning which changes the intentions of the original intentions by way of symbolic redefinition away from it’s "apparent" intentions. (Jesus’ Resurrection, Jesus’ miracles, Jesus ascension, the Pentecost etc etc). Baha’u’llah’s Gospel is thus exactly what Paul is referring to. Again, like with Jesus point at Matthew 7:22, the application of Paul’s point, even if it was being given at the time to deal with a specific problem contemporary to the Church at that time, carries the implications of its point beyond one isolated instance to anyone else who would be guilty of the same kind of perversion. Daniel would have us believe that if a teaching was given in an immediate application contemporary to the time it was written, that it automatically has no future implications for others who would commit the same crime. But this is a rationalized excuse that ignores the point Paul was trying to really make that changing the meaning of the Gospel is evil. When we observe the rationale that Baha’i theology uses to pervert the original intentions of Scripture, it becomes apparent that Baha’i religion fits the crime as well as any, and certainly infinitely more than Daniel’s assertion against James???

Daniel continues,

"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]"

Daniel then comments,

"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 murderer is particularly apt here since the Jews would later become responsible for the death of Jesus."

But this is Daniel’s arbitrary opinion, utterly unsupported by the text. There is nowhere in Scripture to be found any concept of Satan as a "mythological" character. Jesus does not speak of him as such as I had observed in the context of John 8:44, where Jesus considers Satan to be a "Father" of the evil in the same manner of usage as God is defined as the Father of the saved.

Daniel goes to even more unreasonable assumptions. In regards to what he feels were the erroneous contemporary beliefs of the disciples regarding Satan as a real spiritual being (and assuming Jesus’ sure knowledge of their error), Daniel says,

"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."

This would have Jesus knowingly endorsing and encouraging false belief in the disciple’s thinking. If, as Daniel concedes, the "contemporaries" of Jesus assumedly held the belief that Satan was a real spiritual being, then Jesus use of it could not have been symbolic to them. He would have known they would take what He said literally by way of their allegedly errant belief. Thus Daniel has Jesus cruelly supporting what Daniel feels was their mistaken belief in the Devil as a true spiritual creature. Jesus teaching was not by way of deceit or subterfuge and He certainly did not promote false belief, or use false means even to make some ancillary point.

Daniel makes a comment here that foreshadows his use of a fundamentalist straw man. We will see how his argument defines the term "inerrence", watching for the straw man. Daniel begins,

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

Daniel then quotes the Fireside Letters,

"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."

Daniel then comments,

"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."

In the first place let us keep firmly in mind that such a "scholarly reading" that gives reasoned and in depth explanations for things like translational inaccuracies, genealogical discrepancies, scribal errors, or discrepancies in the reports of witnesses, is an enterprise that is largely reactionary, not pro active. In other words, such in depth scholarship is not necessary for the average seeker in order to glean the essential doctrinal intentions out of Scripture, but is necessary to give answer to the cynic set to either deny the "apparent" meaning, or alter it. It is distinctly folks like Daniel who depend unreasonably upon pseudo scholarly theories to justify alteration of the apparent meaning of the Scriptures, not the Christian outlook. Certainly the Christian apologetic needs to go out on that limb, as necessary, to reveal the falsehood of such attempts. As I predicted, Daniel wants to box me into a corner as a legalistic fundamentalist given to a wooden literal reading of the Bible. He falsely accuses along those lines, saying that I both defend a scholarly literal inerrancy in Scripture "and at the same time condemn it as a source of mistakes." But such a straw man does not represent my position. My contention is not that Scripture is inerrant in a wooden literal sense. I contend that Scripture is perspicuous in what it teaches. I assert that in the Bible, "the main things are the plain things and the plain things are the main things" and, as such, they are not obscured by hidden or sealed symbolic meanings, they are indeed largely "apparent". It is the outright cynic or the person, like Daniel, who is set to justify alteration of the perspicuous Message of Scripture who uses irrelevant trivial discrepancies in Scripture to invalidly eliminate or vastly alter whole themes of teaching within it.

I had said in the Fireside Letters concerning Bible "errors" brought to bear by Baha’is that,

"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."

Daniel comments,

"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."

Now who is it that is "necessitating" unreasonable scholarly study with which to understand Scripture Mr. Grolin? And if Daniel presumes to know how lacking my study of Greek manuscripts might be, does he presume to accuse the panels of scholars who have given us the many modern translations to study, compare and consider? My Hyperbible CD has 6 modern translations of the Bible. I also have the Roman Catholic Bible with the Apocrypha, as well as numerous commentaries, concordances, Greek and Aramaic dictionaries, Thompson’s marginal notes and chain references and a host of other support materials including endless internet resources. Many of these I have been lead to out of necessity, not to bolster my own faith, but to research the proper answers to correct the heretical assertions brought by others to the Scriptures. Indeed, I feel I have learned more than I needed to to equip my own personal faith.

Mr. Grolin, however, presumes far too much in suggesting that I cannot understand what Scripture teaches because of variance in the Greek manuscripts. In fact, if one really considers the implications of what Daniel accuses me of, then NO ONE could really say they understand the Scriptures, not even the experts whom he himself says are engaged in "ongoing debates"!

Daniel continues to quote me from the Fireside Letters,

"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."

Daniel then comments in a blanket statement that, once again, would attempt to obscure anyone’s being able to understand the Gospels, even the experts. He says,

"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 trivialized."

I submit that the discrepancies between the gospels can be explained in such simple terms, and that a conclusion of the nature I presented can be drawn from them. Daniel has offered no evidence to the contrary and insists instead that even the experts can’t get it. One notices again that it is Daniel, not I, who depends unreasonably upon so complex and involved a need for in depth scholarship to gain even basic meaning out of the Scriptures that they would be rendered useless if what he says were true, even for experts to gain any definitive meaning. ("... the gospels are the subject of much scholarly debate..." being Daniel’s only asserted reason why trivial discrepancies might not indicate independent authenticity of witnesses.)

Daniel next goes into some specific consideration of Bible "errors". He begins,

"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."

Again Daniel accuses the Scriptures of being unspiritually lacking in inspirational unity. He paints a picture of Scripture wherein human inaccuracy, not of inconsequential detail of witnesses, but of the very character of a major biblical character as defined by the writers of Scripture themselves, is concerned. He creates an alternate rationale for Peter’s Pentecostal transformation that is once again at the expense of denying the inspirational efficacy of Scripture. Peter is only different to Daniel from the Gospels to Acts because the writers had different imagined personalities in mind and presumably wrote contradictory versions of who Peter really was. One notices that Luke, however, wrote a Gospel as well as Acts. And Luke’s Gospel also portrays the pre Pentecostal Peter as markedly different from the post Pentecostal one.

Daniel comments concerning the explanation given in the Fireside Letters concerning a common cynical criticism over just how long Jesus was in the tomb. Daniel retorts angrily,

"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."

However I did not "explain away" anything (more than implying an unreasonable rationalizing apart from the facts of the matter). Hebrew idiomatics are a fact, as sure as any scholarly, historic, reality that Daniel has formerly insisted must be taken into consideration. In this instance he doesn’t like such considerations. I submit that my exegesis was not "wishful" but relayed factual points that render the validity of my argument. Daniel has not chosen to address those specific points, so there is little I can offer in response. The Jewish day was not counted according to the same time frame as ours and when that is taken into consideration the problem is reasonably, inevitably, resolved.

Daniel next addresses what I found to be a gross misinterpretational use of

Mark 10:7 with which Baha’i apologists attempt to put words into Jesus’ mouth in order to having Him seem to deny His deity. From the Fireside Letters I said,

"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."

Daniel criticizes,

"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"."

But it is not at all against the immediate context to observe the fact that Jesus simply does not say that He Himself is not good in this passage. It isn’t in the passage Daniel. Not only does the immediate context of Mark 10:17 not necessitate Daniel’s interpretation, the greater biblical context where Jesus does speak to the issue renders that interpretation impossible. If Daniel wants to use context to establish the answer to Jesus unanswered rhetorical question at Mark 10:17, he needs to gain it from a broader Scriptural context like Jn.8:46 where Jesus challenged the Pharisees openly, "Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me?". Or, at Hebrews 7:26, Scripture says of Jesus that He is, "... one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens." And at Hebrews 4:15 Jesus is described as,"...one who has been tempted in every way- just as we are- yet was without sin." The fact of the matter is that the "context" Daniel argues for unanimously proclaims Jesus as "good", to say the least.

Daniel, we notice, has Jesus contradicting Himself, as well as Paul, only if we allow Daniel the presumption of erroneously answering Jesus’ rhetorical question at Mark 10:17 in contradiction to what Scripture actually does say about Jesus’ "goodness" (Godness) across the New Testament spectrum. Only by putting a false answer into Jesus mouth at Mark 10:17, one that Jesus Himself did not say, can Daniel have Jesus elsewhere seem to be contradicting Himself when He does actually speak to the issue. Daniel thus creates an unreasonable Scriptural contextual clash in terms of Jesus’ position. One must indeed draw a definitive conclusion from the things that Jesus actually does say in Mark 10:17, as compared to what He says at John 8:46, or what Paul says in Hebrews. In Mark 10:17, contrary to Daniel’s insistence upon reading conflicting Baha’i assumptions into the text, Jesus only definitively proclaims that "God alone is good". At John 8:46, Hebrews 4:15, and Hebrews 7:26, however, Jesus is Himself definitively proclaimed, to say the least, as being "good" in exactly the sense that Jesus used the term in Mark 10:17. Logically we must then conclude that He was, by definition, God the Son. Such observations simply reveal Daniel’s insistence upon a blatant eisegesis at Mark 10:17 wherein he reads into the text what is simply not there and then asserts an interpretation that is absolutely against the passage’s possible meaning when set properly into the full context of Jesus proclamations in the Gospels (ie. John 8:46), or those of Paul in Hebrews.

Daniel comments,

"Jesus, certainly claimed to fulfill prophecy, but not those of the Suffering Servant."

Then Daniel lists passages of Scripture irrelevant to his claim,

"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:"

This passage has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus claimed to be the "Suffering Servant". Daniel goes on,

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

This passage also has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus claimed to be the "Suffering Servant". It is irrelevant to that question.

Of course Daniel, as we know, is making this assumption against the "apparent" meaning of the texts, and, in this case, using irrelevant passages of Scripture for support that certainly don’t indicate Jesus’ denial of fulfilling the role as Suffering Servant. Let’s look at some passages that are relevant as to whether Jesus claimed to be the Suffering Servant. And let us see if the Scriptures intend to portray Him as such and whether they demonstrate his fulfillment of prophecy in that role.

Mt.16:21

"From that time Jesus Christ began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day."

Mk.9:12

And He said to them, "Elijah does first come and restore all things. And yet how is it written of the Son of Man that He should suffer many things and be treated with contempt?

Lu.24:26

"Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?"

Lu.24:46

"and He said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and rise again from the dead the third day;"

We find that Daniel is simply wrong when He says, "Jesus, certainly claimed to fulfill prophecy, but not those of the Suffering Servant." Jesus did claim to fulfill the role as Suffering Servant , even specifically supporting that claim from Old Testament prophecies, ("Thus it is written", "how is it written of the Son of Man").

And how do the New Testament authors view this issue?

Ac.3:18 tells us quite clearly that,

"... the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His Christ should suffer, He (Jesus) has thus fulfilled."

Here Jesus is specifically asserted as the One to suffer according to the prophecies and who fulfilled those prophecies.

Acts 17:2 "And according to Paul's custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, "This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ."

Here we have Paul identifying the Christ as Jesus and simultaneously identifying Him also as the Suffering Servant, specifically as supported " from the Scriptures".

I will not at this juncture go on to cite the texts of the classic prophecies Jesus is specifically claimed to have fulfilled such as Psalms 22:1 or 16 or 18 or Psalm 69:21 and Isaiah 53:5 concerning the Gospel details of that suffering in His Passion. It is enough to observe that Daniel is completely wrong if he argues that Jesus was not definitively claiming the role of Suffering Servant in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. All of the other New Testament writers concur and it forms a fundamental part of their assertions certifying Jesus as Messiah Savior.

Daniel goes on to say,

"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."

But Jesus not only said that He would personally return, He also warned that many would come claiming to be His return and that they would ALL be impostors (Matthew 24:23). Daniel has distinctly offered no reason to suppose that Jesus interpreted Scripture symbolically with respect to the issues under consideration. Jesus’ claims of and fulfillments of prophecy were literal. The story of His Resurrection is given in the same historic emphasis and style as His life and death are in Scripture. Daniel’s sudden change in intention to symbolism would grossly intrude arbitrarily at the point of Jesus’ death. Daniel’s rationalized interpretation of Jesus’ post Resurrection appearances as relayed in Scripture has been demonstrated to be a ruse that isn’t compatible with the beliefs the Apostle’s would have held about Resurrection, or the apparent intention of what they wrote, exhaustively spelled out in literal, historic terms as the testimony of honest witnesses. Daniel’s last paragraph simply adds up to an assumption based upon what he wants to be true, but against the evidence at every turn.

Daniel isolates what he feels are proof texts against Jesus’ literal Resurrection saying,

"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)"

But this seems to support my interpretation not Daniel’s. The carnal "flesh and blood" (sarx) that Daniel observes cannot inherit the Kingdom does not assume that the "soma" of the spiritual "body" is necessarily incorporeal, it only necessarily means that that spiritual soma is not the same kind of body as a carnal pre resurrection body. No one argues that Daniel. However, Jesus otherwise personally demonstrates over and over again in His post Resurrection appearances that the spiritual, glorified "soma", "is not a ghost for a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see I have." (Luke 24) I don’t think the exact dynamic of how that glorified state of being operates is necessary (or perhaps possible). The point is that Scripture demonstrates that the kind of simplistic, incorporeal, spirit like interpretation of Baha’i theology is simply wrong. Evidently Resurrection will indeed have a tangible aspect; real, personal, and even material; an existence akin to that which the Resurrected Jesus went out of His way to model for the writers of Scripture (and thus for us).

Daniel quotes Phillipians,

Phillipians 3:21 "who shall fashion a new 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]

Then Daniel reads into the text,

"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."

Daniel mixes and matches different New Testament usages of the concept of body, assuming meaning for the church corporate where it is intended for the individual believer.That Scripture speaks of the Church as the corporate body of Christ does not preclude at all Scriptural consideration of the individual person’s future hope in Resurrection. There is not the least indication from the immediate text that the writer is speaking of anything besides the individual body of the believer. Of course there is a sense in which Christ is alive within us and the Church corporate is Jesus’ body. Those instances are clearly spelled out in passages where we are said to be "living stones" in the Temple of God’s Church. However, when we look at passages such as that where Paul laments, "who will save me from this body of death", or Paul’s consideration in 1Corinthians 15 of what the individual believer’s post resurrection body might be like, it becomes obvious that the consideration being discussed is not always exclusively in the "communal" body sense, but also in consideration of the true individual body of the discrete individual believer. Daniel simply fails to observe this definitive distinction in his interpretation. How will a carnal body we have now, compare to the glorified one we will gain in Resurrection transformation? That is the issue that is being raised by the New Testament writers at Corinthians 15. And it is what is being stressed at Phillipians 3:21.

Daniel goes on, saying,

"The realized eschatology of Hebrews11:35 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 recognize that it presumes that the resurrection was happening in the present."

I have to disagree with Daniel here again on his assumption that Hebrews’ mention that, "Women received back their dead, raised to life again.", somehow indicates Paul’s erroneous belief that the general Resurrection "was happening in the present." In fact, the context of what is being said there simply makes Daniel’s assumption an obvious attempt to create a Bible problem where none exists. Paul, in this passage, has been reciting a litany of the faith, sufferings and blessings of Old Testament biblical characters. He speaks distinctly and consistently in the past tense in this regard, mentioning Abraham, Isaac, Esau, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Rahab, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophets. The context never leaves this reflective theme during the entire passage. Only later at verse 11:40 (and after mention of women receiving their dead back to life) does Paul compare those Old Testament persons and events with his present audience saying, "God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect." Paul gives no hint of intention that those Old Testament women who had received back their dead somehow indicated that the general resurrection was supposed to be happening at that present time. We observe that had he been doing so, he would have been entirely wrong on a basic eschatological assertion, and thus, once again, leaving the entire passage of Scripture totally without any inspiration. Thus Daniel’s assumption that the Passage at Hebrews 11:35 is "problematic" in terms of a consistent New Testament understanding of Resurrection is created problematic only by Daniel’s misinterpreting the passage. We find sufficient evidence of Paul’s strictly reflective Old Testament intention concerning, "women who "received back their dead, raised to life again" in Old Testament passages such as 1Kings 17:22 or 2Kings 4:35 that does fit into the strictly Old Testament reflective context Paul has established for this entire chapter in Hebrews. It simply has nothing to do with Paul having an implied belief that the general Resurrection "was happening in the present.".

However, Daniel has chosen once again simply not to address the point I had made in the Fireside Letters concerning this passage and how Baha’i apologists use it to incorrectly create a Bible "error". He has so completely evaded the critical distinction I made there concerning understanding how Jesus’ can be "first born from the dead", while other biblical characters were raised from the dead before Jesus’ Resurrection, that I feel the need to cite some of that explanation here for the reader’s benefit. From the Fireside Letters we consider a Baha’i Bible "error" and its answer,

"Baha'i Bible "error":

We read in Hebrews 11:35 that the "Women received their dead raised back to life again." ... These were women who lived before the time of Christ and therefore in contradiction with a "literal/physical" understanding of Christ being the "firstborn from the dead."

Christian response

Daniel makes an opening remark in his conclusion that is presumptuous, wrong, and an invalid remark to boot, considering that his thesis is to give "answer" to the Fireside Letters. He states,

"Mr. Grider goes for another three chapters, but raises no issue worth addressing at this juncture."

The suspiciously glib brushing off of all three of only the final chapters of the treatise indicates the probability that Mr. Grolin simply ran out of gas, not that there are no substantiative issues to be dealt with there. Since he chose not to address any of that material I will not belabor the point too much, only enough to prove the point that, for those genuinely interested in consideration of all of the issues, there are important things to be considered in the last three chapters of the Fireside Letters.

It is interesting that Daniel regards the 8th chapter that takes up the Baha’i concepts of Moses and Adam as sinless manifestations as being inconsequential. For he spent a good deal of effort trying to rationalize Moses as a sinless manifestation. That chapter not only deals in detail with the impossibility of that assertion, but also goes on to consider the even more impossible suggestion that Adam too can be seen as a sinless manifestation. Daniel has failed at all to mention the case of Adam, which is one of more pronounced extremes than the case of Moses in terms of impossible Biblical disagreement. Yet Daniel feels the chapter contains nothing substantiative enough to mention. The case of Adam as a sinless manifestation is more critical to consider by far than that of Moses.

The relationship of Science to Religion is an absolutely critical consideration within Baha’i theology as anyone who has read the Baha’i writings must agree. Yet this 9th chapter exposes an irreconcilable double standard in the way in which Baha’i theology variously employs contradictory definitions for "Science". This is assumed by Daniel to have nothing worthy of consideration? I submit that it is exactly the kind of double standard observable in the contradictory ways Baha’i theology defines Science that underscores my assertion that the overall belief system is irrationally uninspired. Science is used as a materialistic weapon to deny the literal supernatural beliefs of other religions, while elsewhere prophecy, literal virgin births, and miraculous survival before firing squads defines a contrarily spiritualized Science that accepts the miraculous with abandon and that apologists like William Hatcher even go so far as to say employs "revelation" as its "objective data". Inconsequential?

I found the last Chapter was one of the most interesting in the Fireside Letters. It was largely providential that I happened to be reading Marilyn Ferguson’s New Age manifesto The Aquarian Conspiracy at the same time much of the material for the Fireside Letters was coming together. The implications in what she was saying were profound in relation to Baha’i theological assertions. Her outlook is blatantly pagan, involving what she feels is our need, not to progress to a higher state than the mankind of the past by appealing to the dispensation of some mighty prophet bringing an advanced Revelation, but that we need to hearken back to the ancient occult arts as a means of making an evolutionary transformation of the species. In fact, that New Age Wicca based perspective would probably be objectionable to most Baha’is. It is not monotheistic at all and embraces a host of other beliefs considered evil abominations in Scripture. Yet the parallels of commonality in her New Age outlook on specific concepts was frighteningly in tune with the spirit of Baha’i religion. I found the implications of those commonalities disturbing and I felt that many Baha'is, as well as those who might be considering Baha’i religion as their religion, would do well to consider. Daniel feels that there is nothing worthy of mention in the fact that there could be ungodly parallels between pagan New Age philosophy and Baha’i theology.

Daniel closes his critique saying,

" 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 <having> 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."

I must say to Daniel, and all concerned, that my initial concept behind the Fireside Letters was to leave it a pretty much unedited transcript of dialogue from various newsgroups and private email correspondence. Upon inquiry with those who had been involved in the various discussions however, I soon discovered that many were unwilling to allow what they had so confidently asserted in discussion to be published on a website. This included my assumption that no real names would be used. Under the threat of liability I had to reduce what I had learned in those many lively discussions down to the theological points that had come out of the debates in general. The Fireside Letters was the result. Thus, Daniel is wrong (though understandably so) for falsely assuming that the Fireside Letters "has failed to start a dialogue by taking the polemicist/apologist role". In actuality it is nothing more than the fruits of many years of, specifically, intense dialogue, even though it does not appear that way in its present form.

I do think that one should distinctly not assume that any problems one finds after long study and involved discussion must necessarily be written off categorically to "ones own unfamiliarity with its source writings", as the reason for the perceived problem. That is irrational and amounts to sticking one’s head in the sand like an ostrich. It is, I realize, a formally stated Baha’i doctrine within the writings. It is also however a contradiction in terms with any concept of a truly free and independent investigation for Truth. There is no real point in presuming to conduct such an investigation if you have established in advance that no genuine problems discovered can be allowed the weight of their implications, no matter how compelling they may be. If the problematic evidence your investigation might turn up must categorically be dismissed as "misunderstanding" as an a priori condition, you will, by definition, end up with skewed results, artificially biased in advance, that invalidate any meaningful "investigation" at all. Daniel parrots the Baha’i line without recognizing that from a scientific or logical viewpoint he is assuming this impossible precondition be placed upon investigation, placing it arbitrarily upon the concept of the "independent investigation for Truth" that we must all truly and fully conduct without such an invalidating, biased pre-filter. Daniel’s (the Baha’i) precondition for investigation that assumes that any problems discovered MUST ultimately be written off to "misunderstanding", amounts to an open concession of one of the worst theological errors that can be made. That is in the establishment of arbitrary presuppositions to which any and all evidence, no matter what direction the evidence itself might lead us, must be skewed to the presupposition. Though we all have presuppositions that we work from (ie. that Scripture is God’s inspired Word), we can never so rigidly hold to our presuppositions that any and all negative evidence must automatically be assumed as only "misunderstanding". Things have to be openly and fully investigated without the kind of prefiltering bias Mr. Grolin (and Baha’i teaching) arbitrarily constrain the seeker with. The Bible errors section of the Fireside Letters, for example, reveals the fruits of truly meeting cynical problems brought to Scripture by fully considering the problems, not shoving them into a closet filled with problems written off arbitrarily as "misunderstandings". There are inconsistencies in Scripture for very "understandable" reasons. The kinds of problems I have discovered within the Baha’i writings however are indeed ones that must ultimately be written off as "misunderstanding" when push comes to shove distinctly because they have no rational answer to rectify their genuinely internally contradictory nature. That is the only way one is going to be able to embrace the problematic relationship of clashing Baha’i doctrines if one really investigates the issues; to simply ignore the implications of the clashes themselves as "misunderstanding" on the part of the investigator. Time and again in in depth discussion that inevitably backs the Baha’i apologist into a logically inarguable corner on these clashes, the "out" ultimately appealed to is a "cop out", "You just don’t understand the writings", or "Don’t you know? Baha’u’llah says that when we are faced with this kind of seemingly insoluble problem, we are to forget the whole thing and write it off to our "misunderstanding". Sorry Daniel, that isn’t good enough for an honest investigation. One must distinctly not, "in such cases presume that ones own unfamiliarity with its source writings is at fault.". One must critically, and in truly independent and unbiased honesty, go where the evidence leads.

Daniel has certainly not demonstrated my, "inability as an exegete". On the other hand I have found that he rather favors using linguistic arguments with which he attempts to define terms in isolation. Thus he repeatedly formulates incorrect definitions in his disregard for either proximate or broad based biblical contexts that must render the correct translational meaning for specific terms. Daniel’s rule of interpretation for discovering the translational meaning of terms (hermeneutic) is thus fundamentally flawed.

Lastly though, Daniel has no way of knowing just how much I have, in fact, sincerely inquired into the issues as a seeker after Truth. The merits of my conclusions discovering definitive inconsistencies in Baha’i theology needs to be decided from the evidence I present, not Daniel’s ad hominem accusations against my sincerity or open mindedness. If the observations I have made are wrong then let the discussion of those issues bring that out. Daniel’s assumption that my conclusions cannot have been made from the perspective of genuine study and prayerful honest consideration is presumptuous and adds nothing to the dialogue. Certainly his "answer" to the Fireside Letters has not demonstrated the invalidity of the Christian perspective, nor successfully defended the Baha’i redefining of Scripture’s "apparent" meaning.