The California Collection/TheCaliforniaCollection.cdr/his075/bahai002.lzh/BAHAI002.TXT

Text File | 1991-06-30 | 58KB | 1,255 lines

CUL:The possibility of being both a Baha'i and a Christian  by Mo Alton

   I. A PRECIS OF BAHA'I THOUGHT :

   - was a derivative of She'ite Islam belief - Iran 1844, but is now
considered a distinct religion (1) - leaders were/are: the Bab,
Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l- Baha, Shoghi Effendi, now an elected governing body

   - claim to be the vehicle for establishing a one world order,
government, economy, police force, language and religion - champion the
universal brotherhood of man (2)

   Baha'is believe:

   1. that all religions derive from the same source, manifestations of
God such as Moses, Zoroaster, Jesus, Muhammed, Krishna, Buddha.
Confucius, the Bab, and Baha'u'llah - the latest manifestation, are all
one and the same, sent to mankind by God for a given dispensation or
historical period - each supercedes the previous one in revelation
without negating his predecessors (3)(5)

   2. in the oneness and unity of mankind - equality of race, sex &
religion are all of one God (3)

   3. that there is an eternal truth, but God is an unknowable essence;
he is knowable only in so far as he is revealed in the current
dispensation, and as is consistent in history (4)(47)

   4. that revelation is ongoing and relative to a given dispensation -
there is no complete, final word of God (5)

   5. that all religions are the same in areas of essential/relevant
doctrine, differences are only in areas of non-essentials. If areas of
doctrine conflict, they are to be considered unimportant (6)

   a. all believe in a creator - God, First Cause, etc.

   b. all have a central figure - one lone man whose love has changed
millions of people and whose words still live on to inspire

   c. all promise that when the hearts of men have grown cold, a Great
One will appear to usher in the day of Universal Brotherhood (7)

   6. that a manifestation's precepts and ordinances are to be obeyed
as from God; his teaching alone is sufficient for salvation; he is the
only way to God for his dispensation, his work cannot fail nor can his
mission not be accomplished (8)

   - the major criteria for distinguishing a true manifestation froma
false one are:

   a. his truth is self-validating - his life is proof (9) b. he
fulfills prophecy and foretells his successor (10) c. each
manifestation is a different person (11) d. there is an appointed time
period for him to turn over the reins to his successor (12) e. he is
simple, gentle, has no personal ambition, is often of low estate,
obscure and impecunious. He is always a man of little human learning
(13) f. he is sinless (14) g. he manifests extraordinary ethical
attributes beyond the common man (15) h. he brings a new name and a new
attribute of God to human consciousness (16) i. he brings harmony among
conflicting peoples (17) j. he changes men's hearts without the
exhibition of external power (18)

   II. AN EXAMINATION OF THE INTELLECTUAL VALIDITY OF BAHA'I THOUGHT:

   1. how CONSISTENT is the Baha'i record of valid manifestations?

   a. 1908 - Abdu'l-Baha said that the manifestations of God were:
Abraham, Moses, Christ, Muhammed, the Bab, and Baha'u'llah (19)

   b. 1912 - Abdu'l-Baha changed the list to: Moses, Jesus, Zoroaster,
Krishna, Buddha, Confucius, and Muhammed, the Bab, and Baha'u'llah (20)

   c. the Bab included Adam as a manifestation (21)

   d. Baha'u'llah said the manifestations were: Noah, Hud (22), Salih
(23), Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammed and the Bab (24)

   e. according to another list the nine revealed religions were: the
Sabean religion, Hinduism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism,
Christianity, Islam, the Babi religion, and the Baha'i rel. (25)

   f. however another Baha'i spokesman lists only: Hinduism,
Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Judaism, Christianity,
and the Baha'i religion (26)

   Clearly there is some confusion on who's who in the Baha'i faith.
This must be a bit of an embarrassment, since the manifestations are by
their own criteria (14)(see 4. below) to be without sin - if one is in
error, then one does not speak the truth, if one does not speak the
truth, then he speaks an untruth, which in plain English is called a
lie - intentional or not. Thou shalt not lie is one of the basic
commandments however you slice it, if veracity and integrity are to
have any value at all, to say nothing of being without sin.

   Let us examine the adherence to the criteria for validation of a
manifestation in other areas:

   2. the "High-Prophet himself, though he ENDORSES all the spiritual
teachings of the last Revelation, does not hesitate to modify or
repeal...(27)

   - please note that Jesus, Confucius, Buddha, Zoroaster and Krishna
fail this test. None of them ever referred to their predecessor or his
works.(28) Thus, no endorsement has ever taken place, no modification,
nor any repeal as a direct referenced act.

   3. "as a man, he is marked by his simplicity and gentleness and lack
of personal ambition...He is ALWAYS a man of little human learning" (29)

   - Moses was well equipped to write the Pentateuch. He was educated
in the royal court of Egypt, which was highly advanced academically (30)

   - Confucius said of himself that "at the age of 15 I had my mind
bent on learning" (31) He was a successful teacher and started a
private school with an enrollment of about 3000 students. (32)

   - clearly, neither of these manifestations meet this criteria fully
either

   4. Abdu'l-Baha states: "For these Holy Souls are PURE FROM EVERY
SIN, and sanctified from faults." (33)

   - Adam: disobeyed the specific command of God and ate from the tree
of knowledge

   - Moses: murdered an Egyptian and disobeyed the command of God in
striking the rock

   - Noah: became drunk with wine and lay about naked to his shame

   - Confucius: confessed moral shortcomings (Analects 7:3); he hoped
he would improve (7:16) (34)

   "In letters I am perhaps equal to other men. But the character of
the superior man, carrying out in his conduct what he professes, is
what I have not yet attained to" (7:32) (35)

   - he also admitted to being unable to "not be overcome with wine"
and to being defective in four duties. (9:15) (36)

   - Muhammed: (Qur'an (48:1-2)): "Lo! We have given thee (O Muhammed)
a signal victory, that Allah may forgive thee of thy sin which is past
and that which is to come, and may perfect His favour unto thee, and
may guide thee on a right path." (37)

   Clearly none of these manifestations have met the sinless criteria
either. It is no good to explain it away as Abdu'l-Baha has tried to do
(38) by saying that these men in confessing their sins were really
sinless but were just trying to set an example for mankind. He that
says he has sin when he has not is just as big a liar as he who says he
sins not but does. In neither case is there truth, and the lie abounds.

   5. the manifestation "changes the hearts of men... by quickening the
process of growth rather than by external display of power" (39)

   - Christ fails this test as well, for his ministry was filled with
the miraculous - and no you can't spiritualize or treat as symbolical
all the healings, restoration to life, loaves and fishes etc. without
throwing out all the context of the revealed scripture and abandoning
all hermeneutic principles, but more on this later. Christ's single
greatest miracle was His own resurrection in which He overcame death
once and for all time. (the wages of sin is death - He as the
embodiment of perfection, paid the eternal penalty for sin for all time
for those who will believe on Him)

   6. a manifestation foretells his successor:

   - the Bab foretold that Subh-i-Azal would be his successor in the
book NUQ tatu 'L-kaf by Mizra Jani written in 1851. However, Baha
decided he should be the next manifestation, in spite of the fact that
the Bab predicted 1500 years had to pass before the next manifestation
could pear. In fact, only 22 years passed by. Baha'u'llah clearly
recognized the liberty he had taken and set down his own prophecy that
no new manifestation would come for a millenium - "Whosoever claims
Command before completion of a thousand years is a false liar...
Whoever explains this verse or interprets it in any other way than that
plainly set down, he will be deprived of the Spirit and Mercy of God."
Abdu'l-Baha in turn ignored Baha'u'llah's provision that Abdu'l's
brother - Mizra Muhammad Ali should succeed him when he appointed his
grandson Shoghi Effendi instead. Shoghi Effendi failed to actualize the
edicts of his predecessors and did not appoint a successor nor write a
will. Since appointments and wills were supposedly inspired by God,
Baha'i history is filled with "inspired" violations of "inspired"
injunctions.(75)

   While loving one's own family is depicted in the Bible as one of the
most basic commands of God, it is interesting to note that virtually
all of Abdul Baha's family and Shoghi Effendi's own parents, brothers
and sisters were eventually excommunicated from the faith by them.(75)

   III. PROBLEMS IN THE BAHA'I REASONING PROCESS:

   The Baha'i Faith is essentially rationalistic. A typical tenet is:
"We must not accept traditional dogmas that are contrary to reason, nor
pretend to believe doctrines which we cannot understand. To do so is
superstitious and not true religion." Because of this inclination to
reject any doctrine that does not seem reasonable to them, Baha'is
interpret allegorically, rather than literally, the biblical doctrines
of the Holy Trinity, the bodily Resurrection of Christ, the existence
of angels and evil spirits, and the doctrines of heaven and hell. Yet,
despite this insistence that EVERYTHING MUST BE UNDERSTOOD in order to
be believed, they hold that God Himself is impersonal and UNKNOWABLE.
He can only be perceived indirectly through the reflection of his
Manifestations. (see I Corinthians 2:5-16, especially verse 14).

   The reasoning process itself:

   1. All interpretation and acquistion of knowledge is screened
through a set of presuppositions - if the observed facts don't fit the
presupposition, they must be dispensed with or made symbolic to fit,
regardless of the amount of distortion it takes. This renders any
analytical thought totally pointless, since the base is always
arbitrary and unprovable - it is reasoning from hypothesis to evidence,
rather than from evidence to hypothesis. To simplistically illustrate:

   eg. Once upon a time there was a man who thought he was dead. His
wife and friends sent him to the friendly, neighborhood psychiatrist
who was determined to cure him by increasing his growth and acquisition
of knowledge so that he could better reason his way out of the error he
was in. He would convince him of the one fact that would prove to him
that he was not dead. He had the man study medical texts, observe
autopsies and so on, and after weeks of effort convinced him that dead
men don't bleed. Finally the man said "all right, all right, dead men
don't bleed", whereupon the psychiatrist stuck him with a needle and
the blood spurted forth. The agast patient could only cry "Good Lord!
Dead men do bleed after all!" (40)

   Clearly this is the antithesis of the scientific method. (see 3.
following)

   2. A typical problem in logical thinking also shows up in the area
of divine revelation; as has been noted previously, the Baha'i does not
believe in completed revelation, but rather in relative revelation that
may change from dispensation to dispensation and which is never
complete. Unfortunately, the following logical problem arises which
makes this criteria totally non-useful.

   Since Baha'u'llah has said that religious truth is not absolute, but
relative...(41) we have the concept of relative revelation which is
self defeating.

   The actual statement made by Baha'u'llah "revelation is relative"
must be either:

   a. relative

   or

   b. absolute

   If the statement is a. - relative - it is not absolutely binding and
it is then equally possible that absolute revelation does exist, and
the Baha'i doctrine has a 50% chance of being wrong.

   If it is b. - absolute - the statement "revelation is relative"
cannot be true and Baha'i doctrine of relative revelation is 100%
untrue and therefore a lie. (42)

   3. An example of using a presupposition as the basis for the
reasoning process is as follows:

   If doctrinal differences arise that cannot be resolved, they are
labelled unimportant and nonessential thus dispensing with any outside
criticism (5). If you are preserved from criticism, you are also
preserved from proof as the following example from Francis Beckwith
will show.

   If you were told that there is another planet a little bit farther
out than Pluto, but which no telescope can detect, what would you think
of the opinion? You can boast that it cannot be disproved, but neither
can it be proved - of what value is such a statement?

   Let us look at the revealed knowledge of God as distilled from the
manifestations; that is "what is the nature of God?", based on a
consensus of revelation.

   a. Moses: God is personal; strict, uncompromising monotheism

   b. Krishna: impersonal, polytheistic but ultimately pantheistic

   c. Zoroaster: dualistic - two supreme beings, a good God and a bad
God (what do you call the standard that distinguishes between them?)

   d. Buddha: God is not relevant, basically agnostic

   e. Confucius: polytheistic

   f. Jesus Christ: God is personal, able to beget a son; strict
uncompromising monotheism

   g. Muhammmed: God is personal, unable to beget a son; strict
uncompromising monotheism

   So there you have it. God is impersonal, yet personal; dualistic,
polytheistic, pantheistic, yet strictly monotheistic; able to beget a
son yet not able to beget a son; extremely relevant yet totally
irrelevant all at the same time.

   Obviously then, God is a non-essential to the Baha'i faith since
none of the manifestations can agree on his nature, yet they are all we
have to go by. In addition we cannot rely on any of them, because their
revelations have been superceeded by Shoghi Effendi's pronouncements
that matters of disagreement are non-essential. (43) Since the whole
point of the manifestations being here is to reveal God to man, what
are we left with?

   For a far more profound treatment of the nature of God, I highly
recommend a work written by that master of English literature, C.S.
Lewis (Cambridge, Oxford, - Tales of Narnia, The Space Trilogy,
Screwtape Letters, The Great Divorce etc. etc. etc.). The book "Mere
Christianity" deals brilliantly with a logical non-presuppositional
deduction of the nature of God - without using religious tenets to do
so.

   IV. VALIDATING A BAHA'I PROPHET/MANIFESTATION BY HIS WORKS:

   1. We have already listed ten of the Baha'i standards for assessing
a manifestation, but let's simply take the one that a prophet must be
without sin, if he is for real. Let us see what the Bible says on the
same topic.

   Deuteronomy 18:21-22 reads:

   You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has NOT
been spoken by the Lord?" If what a prophet proclaims in the name of
the Lord DOES NOT TAKE PLACE OR COME TRUE, that is a message the LORD
HAS NOT SPOKEN!..." In other words this is the mark of the false
prophet.

   2. Now let us examine one of Abdu'l-Baha's most important prophecies
and see if it came true.

   In the 1923 edition of "Baha'u'llah and the New Era", J.E. Esslemont
wrote:

   Both Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha predict in most confident terms the
speedy triumph of spirituality over materiality and the consequent
establishment of the Most Great Peace. (44)

   -referring to Abdu'l-Baha, Esslemont continues:.......

   He declares that this consummation is near to hand and will come
about during the present century. In an address to Theosophists in
February 1913, he said: "This Century is the Century of the Sun of
Trust. This Century is the Century of the establishment of the Kingdom
of God upon the earth."- Star of the West, vol.ix, p. 7. In the last
two verses of the Book of Daniel occur the cryptic words:" - "Blessed
is he that waiteth and cometh to the thousand, three hundred and
thirty-five days. But go thy way till the end can be: for thou shalt
rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days." Many have been the
attempts of learned students to solve the problem of the significance
of these words. In a table-talk at which the writer was present,
Abdu'l-Baha said:- "These 1335 days mean 1335 solar years from Hijrat
(Flight of Muhammad from Mecca to Medina, marking the beginning of the
Muhammaden era.) As the Hijrat occurred in 622 A.D. the date referred
to is therefore, 1957 (ie. 622 + 1335) A.D. Asked: "What shall we see
at the end of the 1335 days?" he replied: "Universal Peace will be
firmly establised, a Universal language promoted. Misunderstandings
will pass away. The Baha'i Cause will be promulgated in all parts and
the oneness of mankind established!" (45)

   Clearly this prophecy has not come to pass. It is therefore a false
prophecy as is the prophet that uttered it.

   As if to confirm the fact, in the 1970 edition (3rd revision of the
book after the author's death) the false prophecy has been deleted and
the subsequent text altered by about 60% of its content. Apparently
Abdu'l-Baha changed his mind after his death?

   This is a case of blatant deception, and violates the Baha'i
principle of the "free investigation of the truth"(48). The Baha'i
organization has altered the written testimony of their own man who was
there in person as a witness to document the event. How embarrassing a
lie can be - the old saw of "if you tell one lie, you will have to tell
another to cover up the first one" is born out again.

   V. THE BAHA'I HERMENEUTIC

   Just as the Baha'i "theologians" show a lack of ability to reason in
a logically valid way, so also do they lack a workable hermeneutic when
it comes to the interpretation of scripture.

   Some of the basic hermeneutical principles that ought to be followed
in any scholarly approach are:

   1. what is the meaning of the text in its context?

   2. how does this meaning compare with the same topic as found
throughout the rest of Scripture - it must be consistent

   3. how is a word used throughout scripture - that is, it's meaning
must be derived from usage, not an isolated occurrence

   4. is the language literal, symbolic, or allegorical? Let the
scripture say what it wants to say - if it makes sense, let it; any
other interpretation will end up with nonsense.

   5. dislocation, and misapplication of scripture must be avoided

   6. the type of literary form and its peculiarities must be
understood - parable, letter, poetry, allegory (Gal 4 is the only one
in scripture), historical documentation etc.

   7. grammatical use device - sequential context of the grammatical
device used

   8. historical context - the passage is written to somebody for a
specific reason and the primary interpretation must be based on that
historical purpose. There is a difference between interpretation and
application.

   Let us look at how the Baha'i use some of the passages of the Bible
to validate their own beliefs, and determine whether their hermeneutic
is valid.

   a. Daniel 8:13-17

   This passage is used to prove that the Bab was predicted as coming
in 1844. (49) The date from the edict of Artaxerxes to rebuild
Jerusalem until the birth of Christ, numbers 456 years and from the
birth of Christ until the Bab numbers 1844 years. The sum of these
equals 2300 years and supposedly fulfills the vision given Daniel.
Abdu'l-Baha also cites Daniel 9:24, adding the start of the rebuild -
457 BC to the number of years that Christ lived - 33 to get a total of
490 years - that is 7 weeks of years or 7 x 70.

   Problems occur in two areas:

   1. He assumes that because the word seven normally refers to a week
in its historical usage and because the 7 x 70 is almost universally
interpreted to mean 490 years (eg. Lev. 25:8, and the exception clearly
stated - Dan. 10:2,3) that the phrase morning and evening can be
interpreted to mean one year also.

   The true meaning of the 2300 days and evenings is found in the fact
that this was the time of the desolation of the temple. Antiochus began
his oppression of the Jews in 171 B.C. and it was 2300 days later, in
Dec. of 165 B.C. that it ended with the cleansing of the temple by
Judas Maccabaeus. (50)

   2. Even if we were to give the Baha'i the legitimacy of their
counting 2300 years from Artaxerxes decree, they would still be wrong
in their calculations. Abdu'l-Baha states that Artaxerxe's decree was
given in 457 B.C., but the latest research shows that it was given in
444 B.C.(51) In addition, the Jewish prophetic year numbers 360 days
and not 365 yielding a date of 1823 for the supposed birth of the
prophesied manifestation. Again, we have a false prophecy and a false
prophet. (for a more detailed treatment, consult (52) There is no
Biblical basis for the founding of the Baha'i religion.

   b. Isaiah 11:1-10

   While Abdu'l-Baha makes the concession that the root of Jesse is
Jesus Christ, he fails to consider the context of the passage, and the
two-fold nature of Christ's mission on earth. The first time He came as
Priest to offer the perfect sacrifice to make it possible for men to be
reconciled to (or to be at peace with) God, the second time He will
come as King to rule over His Kingdom. Thus Abdu'l claims the prophecy
for Baha'u'llah who "had a plan for peace on earth". Clearly the plan
has not been successfully implemented and this claim cannot stand. The
more obvious reason that it cannot stand, is that the Baha'u'llah is
not a descendant of Jesse by any geneological stretch of the
imagination, and this is an obvious requirement of the passage.

   To see a fuller picture of Christ's function with regard to peace,
consider:

   Isaiah 11:10; Matt. 1:16, 10:34-36; John 14:2; Matt. 24; Rev. 21,
20:11-15; Matt. 25:31-47

   c. John 16:12-13

   Cheney claims that Baha'is believe that Baha'u'llah is the Spirit of
Truth foretold by Jesus...(53)

   In this case the context of the passage is totally ignored.

   She ignores the fact that Christ calls the Spirit of Truth the Holy
Spirit, and the Counselor - John 14:25-26, 15:26

   - that He gave specific instructions regarding the arrival of the
Spirit of Truth - Acts 1:4-5

   - that the Holy Spirit actually came in accord with those
instructions and was historically documented - Acts 2:1-2

   The scripture categorically denies any claim that Baha'u'llah could
make. He is historically excluded.

   d. Isaiah 35:1-2

   Since the title Baha'u'llah means the glory of God, Cheney writes of
how his sojourn in the desert fulfills this promise.(54) Again faulty
logic is summoned to support this viewpoint.

   We are to understand that Baha'u'llah is the fulfillment of Isaiah's
prophecy because he is "the glory of God". The proof that he is the
"glory of God" is to be found in the fact that he is the fulfillment of
Isaiah's prophecy. The argument is patently false because it begs the
question.

   e. Isaiah 9:1,6-7

   Cheney claims that Christ did not fulfill this prophecy on two
counts:

   1. He had nothing to say on government 2. He did not claim to be the
Prince of Peace nor the Everlasting Father

   She writes that Baha'u'llah did fulfill these claims and was
therefore the light spoken of. (56) Again, however, we find a great
lack in her general Biblical knowledge.

   Isaiah 11:6-9, 65:21-25, and Rev 20:1-3, 21ff, 22ff refer to the end
time with the second coming of Christ

   While she quotes St. John as a definitive source on the end time,
she totally ignores Rev. 22:20.

   Christ will establish perfect government with Himself as the perfect
King from the millenium on.

   As Prince of Peace, he has provided the way for men to be at peace
with God - -Romans 5:9-10, and will establish an everlasting peace at
His second coming Rev 21, 22.

   With regard to the name Everlasting Father, the Hebrew literally
means Father of Eternity. It would not seem to do violence to
understand this as Author of Eternity as is born out in John 1:3.

   Again Baha'u'llah would be disqualified on the basis of geneology.
Note Isaiah 9:7, 2 Sam 7:5-16, Matt 1:1, 6, 17, Luke 3:23-31, Rev.
22:16. I doubt that he would have claimed to be the Creator!

   VI. THE BAHA'I VIEW OF CHRIST

   1. God CANNOT incarnate Himself (57)

   This presents us with a problem in language and meaning. Clearly the
ultimate definition of God must be that which credits Him with the
ultimate qualities of all that is good. Traditionally the word God
means omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and so on. God ceases to be
God the minute He is limited in any way, for if one can conceive of a
better God than the one one has, the standard used for measuring or
comparison gives indication that the ultimate ideal exists, but is NOT
that which is being examined.

   Yet the Baha'i declare God to be all-powerful.(58) Again we have a
contradiction - God is all-powerful but cannot.....

   That the incarnation is taught throughout scripture is seen by
examination of the following partial list:

   John 8:56-59, Exodus 3:14, John 10:33, Mark 2:5-7, Job 14:4, Psalms
130:4, Isaiah 43:25, John 20:28-29, John 1:1,14, Col 2:9

   2. Jesus will NOT return in BODILY form (59)

   Again we have a totally unfounded, unproved presupposition setup as
a guide for the interpretation of scripture - ie. nothing is to be
taken literally in terms of the signs of the second coming. As is usual
the Baha'i "reasons" from a presupposition instead of using the
scientific method. While boasting of the essential unity of science and
religion (60), he fails to use the scientific method in any of his
theology.

   See Matt 24:42-44, I Thess. 5:2,4,

   Abdu'l-Baha has written that Christ's return will be as an infant
(61). Again, all of the scriptural record therefore is wrong and Abdu'l
is right. See: Acts 1:9-11, Rev.1:7, Matt 20:33, 24:30;

   He has to make the denial of these passages as literal so that he
may claim to be the manifestation of God. A study of the Greek words
used for eye will show that a spiritualized rendering is impossible.
The second coming will be a cataclysmic event SEEN LITERALLY by the
whole human race.

   In reality Abdu'l-Baha fails to claim the one scriptural passage
that does apply to him - Matt 24:5, 23

   3. Christ's RESURRECTION was merely SYMBOLIC not literal

   For that matter, everything miraculous in the Bible is to be treated
as symbolic. What a limited God the Baha'i God is. He is all-powerful,
but not only can He not incarnate Himself, He cannot perform
miracles.(62) Matt. 13:14 is clearly using symbolic language if the
context is examined (see also Mark 8:17-21), but Abdu'l-Baha now treats
it literally and reduces the rest of miraculous documentation to
symbolism. Truly Matt 13:13-14 applies to the Baha'i prophet.

   The New Testament clearly teaches the bodily resurrection of not
only Christ, but all believers. See: John 2:19-21, - soma is the Greek
word for body in this case and cannot be spiritualized. John 20:27-29
shows Christ again talking about a literal body of flesh and blood, as
well as Luke 24:39.

   Christianity stands or falls on this issue, as Paul has said in I
Cor. 15:14.

   4. Jesus Christ, is NOT the only SAVIOR for ALL ETERNITY

   The Baha'i claim that Christ was the savior only for His
dispensation which ended with the coming of Muhammed. Again this is at
direct odds with the text of the Bible.

   John 14:6 says: Jesus answered, "I am the way, the truth and the
life. No one comes to the Father but through Me.

   Acts 4:12 quotes Peter: Salvation is found in no one else, for there
is no other name under heaven by which we must be saved.

   Matt. 28:19-20: Jesus teaches that His teachings are to be taught
until the END OF THE WORLD. Some Baha'i try to define the end of the
age as meaning only Christ's dispensation. To do this however, you must
deny the Greek and conflict with the usage of the same word "aionos" in
Matt. 28:20. If one reads Matt. 24, it is inescapable that the passage
refers to Christ Himself returning and not Baha'u'llah - who has
already failed to meet the criteria for the second coming on many
counts as previously shown.

   Before comparing the end result of believing the Baha'i religion in
contrast to the Christian faith (what you believe is what you get) it
is necessary to point out the veracity of Scripture, since the Baha'i
deny the Bible any authority as the inspired Word of God.

   Since there is nothing that can be proved absolutely, we all have to
operate on the evidence of probabilty and in fact we do this every day,
all day long. We sit in our cars secure in the knowledge that when we
sit down, the car seat will be there. We cannot prove that in every
instance in history or in the future, that the car seat will be there
and will hold us up, but most of us have daily experience over many
years to build up a factor of reliability on which we base our future
actions. Now clearly ABC news was not present in the first century A.D.
to video-tape the words and actions of Christ, so we have to go with
the written record of those who were there. The question then becomes
what is the factor of reliability that we can use in trusting that
record?

   First, we must recognize that there are two kinds of propositions
that are considered meaningful when discussing "truth claims" - those
that are analytic, and those that are synthetic.

   An analytic statement is one which deals with matters that have
nothing to do with the real world. A mathematical equation is an
example and is typical of a class of statements known as tautologies
which are known to be true by definition and therefore can be trusted
100%. (2+2=4).

   A synthetic statement is one which is based on experience and
observation. It is here that we judge all matters of truth that come
before us, and while none of them can ever achieve a 100% certainty of
truth rating, there is a sliding scale of credibility that is produced
on the basis of the amount and the consensus of the measureable
evidence acquired. It is here that the claims of the Christian faith
await scrutiny, just like any other historical fact. They are open to
examination and verification in a real world.

   So what is the probability of the Bible being trustworthy and true?

   Well, first of all, let us look at how near the writers of the New
Testament were to Christ Himself - that is when did they produce their
written records?

   Matthew - AD 80-100 To quote William F. Albright, Professor of Mark
- AD 50-70 Semetic Languages at Johns Hopkins Univ. Luke - AD 70-85
said: "In my opinion, every book in the N.T. John - AD 90-110 was
written by a baptized Jew between the Acts - AD 70 -85 40's and 80's of
the first century AD."(63) Pauline Epistles - AD 48-64

   It should be obvious that almost all of the original manuscripts
were written within the lifetime of those who were daily associates of
Jesus, or were their scribes or disciples. A study of the Jewish
regulations for the written transmission of any text indicates such a
fanatical zeal for accuracy - a specified number of letters per line,
when the pen could be dipped in fresh ink and when not, etc. that it is
hard to imagine any significant error creeping into the work of the
scribes. In addition there were enough hostile witnesses around, eager
to pounce on any inaccuracy to further their own interests, that this
in itself would have been a spur for accurate recollection.

   It should be noted that there are to date 4,969 Greek New Testament
manuscripts and about 15,000 copies made in the first few centuries.
How does the New Testament fare in comparison to secular texts?

   Author-date written-earliest copy-time span-number of copies (65)

   Caesar       100-44 BC   900 AD 1000 yrs   10
   Plato        427-347 BC  900 AD 1200 yrs    7
   Tacitus      100 AD     1100 AD 1000 yrs   10
   Pliny the Y. 61-113 AD   850 AD  750 yrs    7
   Thucydides   460-400 BC  900 AD 1300 yrs    8
   Heroditus    480-425 BC  900 AD 1300 yrs    8
   Sophocles    496-406 BC 1000 AD 1400 yrs  193
   Aristotle    384-322 BC 1100 AD 1400 yrs   49+
   Demosthenes  383-322 BC 1100 AD 1300 yrs  200
   Homer            900 BC  400 BC  500 yrs  643
   New Testament 48-110 AD  125 AD
             (John) 200 AD (Bodmer) 15-90 yrs 20,000+

   And Jesus said: Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall
not pass away. Matt 24:35

   To express skepticism concerning the resultant text of the New
Testament books...is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into
obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested
bibliographically as is the New Testament. (66)

   Baha'u'llah has authenticated himself on the basis of vested
interest statements which have no proveability. In turn let us ask the
reader to look up the following texts by the authors of the Scripture.
See:

   Luke 1:1-3, 2 Peter 1:16, I John 1:3, John 19:35, Acts 2:22

   Note that Luke and John claim primary source status for their work.
In addition the primary source value of Matthew and Mark is verified
from nonbiblical sources. (67)

   With the exception of a handful of verses, the Bible could be
reassembled in its entirety from nonbiblical sources. Some of these
are: The Epistle of Psuedo-Barnabas, Corinthians by Clement of Rome,
The Seven Epistles of Ignatius, Papias, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Cornelieus
Tacitus, Lucian of Samosta, Flavius Josephus, Thallus, Phlegon, Mara
Bar-Serapian, Justin Martyr, Pliny the Younger, the Talmud to name only
a few all testify in some way or other to the veracity of the
Scripture. The non-Christian sources testify in accord with the
internal record of the Scripture that:

   1. Jesus was worshipped as God 2. Jesus performed bonafide miracles,
although these were attributed to the power of Satan 3. The disciples
of Christ believed He rose from the dead bodily 4. Jesus was crucifed
under Pontius Pilate at Passover 5. the sun was darkened on the day of
Christ's crucifixion 6. the early Christians repudiated polytheism 7.
Roman rulers persecuted the Christians 8. the Jews accused Christ of
sorcery and of being a bastard 9. Jesus' ministry took place under the
reign of Tiberius Caesar 10. Christ attracted both Jew and Gentile

   Archaeological evidence has always confirmed the veracity of
scripture. Nelson Glueck, reknowned Jewish archaeologist has said: "It
may be stated categorically that no archeological discovery has ever
controverted a biblical reference."(68)

   Now many people even if grudgingly willing to give the Bible some
small measure of credibility on the evidence of material such as that
listed above, will still reject the Bible because it documents the
supernatural activity of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. This is an
exceedingly strange position to hold if one is going to have a God at
all, since there seems to me to be little point in having a God that
cannot do the miraculous. If we restrict Him to our limitations as
finite creatures, He may as well be one of us, or us Him - a state of
affairs that leaves us with no hope at all.

   Logically a non-miraculous position is untenable. To hold the
position that miracles cannot happen, one must start with that
assumption. But one can only know that miracles cannot happen if there
is no evidence to the contrary. This leads to a logical fallacy laid
down by C.S. Lewis in his response to Hume the skeptic:

   Now of course, we must agree with Hume that if there is absolutely
"uniform experience" against miracles, if in other words they have
never happened, why then they never have. Unfortunately, we know the
experience against them to be uniform only if we know that all the
reports of them are false. And we can know all the reports of them are
false only if we know already that miracles have never occurred. In
fact we are arguing in a circle. (69)

   If of course, one believes that the disciples of Jesus all got
together and concocted the whole thing, one is left with a great
psychological absurdity; eleven out of twelve men (John died a natural
death) allowed themselves to be martyred for what they knew from the
outset was a colossal lie. Having left everything considered precious
in the world's eyes - family, social stability, loved ones, and
religious security - in order to preach that a Jewish carpenter (who
they knew was dead) had been resurrected and was now sitting at the
right hand of God, these men willingly let others put them to death.
Having had ample time to recant, they did not. Though it may be argued
that many have died for a lie, it is always a lie that they believed to
be the truth. However, this was not the case with the disciples of
Christ. These men had personal access to His life and knew whether or
not their message was true. In the light of the fact that the testimony
of the disciples would easily stand up in a court of law (71) it takes
an enormous amount of faith to believe the psychological absurdity that
they concocted the whole thing, and then went out and died for it. (70)

   And what of Jesus Christ? We have shown that Jesus claimed to be God
and that His disciples were not likely to have lied about His claims.
We are then left with one of three choices:

   1. Jesus was a deceiver - He who exalted honesty, love, and
righteousness and who despised hypocrisy, was a liar and a fraud and
let Himself be put to death for His "truth" when He could have easily
recanted and had ample time to do so (Matt 26-27). He obviously chose
not to do so.

   Therefore, He was either mentally deranged and truly believed
Himself to be who He said He was - God Incarnate, or He WAS who He said
He was - God Incarnate.

   2. Jesus was mentally ill - if He truly believed Himself to be God
and was not, He was deranged. I quote psychiatrist J.T. Fisher's
appraisal of Christ's teachings:

   If you were to take the sum total of all authorative articles ever
written by the most qualified of psychologists and psychiatrists on the
subject of mental hygiene - if you were to take the whole of the meat
and none of the parsley, and if you were to to have these unadulterated
bits of pure scientific knowledge concisely expressed by the most
capable of living poets, you would have an awkward and incomplete
summation of the Sermon on the Mount. For nearly two thousand years the
Christian world has been holding in its hands the complete answer to
its restless and fruitless yearnings. Here...rests the blueprint for
successful human life with optimum mental health and contentment. (72)

   If one still insists that Jesus was insane, we have the colossal
absurdity that a completely deranged lunatic gave the human race "the
blueprint for optimal mental health!" Who can accept this conclusion
without sacrificing his own sense of reasonableness? Therefore only the
third choice is left.

   3. JESUS IS WHO HE SAID HE WAS - GOD INCARNATE

   VII. THEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS WITH BAHA'I BELIEF FOR THE CHRISTIAN:

   Baha'is deny that through Adam man fell from his originally perfect
spiritual and moral state. They affirm that no one is "essentially" bad
or evil, but merely imperfect. Sins are characteristics of the lower,
baser plane of nature, and education brings deliverance from them. Note
what happened last time this same philosophy was expounded - see
Genesis 2:17 and 3:4,5. This is the basic philosophy of all
non-Christian religions and can be simply summed up as spiritual
evolution through the acquisition of esoteric knowledge mediated to the
masses.

   Concerning salvation, Baha'u'llah said, "Whoso keepeth the
commandments of God shall attain everlasting felicity." Abdul Baha
stated that there is no sin-atoning value in Christ's sacrificial death
on the cross. So inadequate was his concept of redemption that
Baha'u'llah was able to say of himself: "Fix your gaze upon Him who is
the Temple of God amongst men. He, in truth, hath offered up his life
as a ransom for the redemption of the world." The only documented
perfect life was Christ's, therefore the only perfect sacrifice/ransom
was found in Christ's death. Baha'u'llah falls far short of perfection
as ought to be seen clearly by now. The law of God is satisfied only if
perfection pays for imperfection. The death of an imperfect man can pay
only for his own sin, not that of the rest of the human race.

   The Central conflict between Baha'u'llah's concept of salvation and
the Biblical revelation on the subject is best shown in Baha'i World
Faith where Baha'u'llah stated: "Every age has its own problem, and
every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in
its present day afflictions can never be the same as that which a
subsequent age may require." In contrast to this, the Bible teaches
that the one universal problem of man throughout the ages is sin, his
state of moral guilt and consequent alienation from God. Thus the one
remedy - the only possible remedy for mankind's dilemma - is the death
of Jesus Christ for our sins, a sacrifice sufficient for all time that
saves all who turn to Him as God tells us in Hebrews 10:10 to 18.

   Because they fail to recognize that man fell from his original
position with God, Baha'is also fail to understand what the prophet
Jeremiah witnessed concerning the nature of man: "The heart is more
deceitful than all else and is incurably sick; who can understand it?"
As a result they believe that man is capable of keeping the
commandments of God, whereas the Bible emphatically declares that he
cannot - Romans 3:20 to 28 and 8:7. Not realizing that man's problems
stem from his heart instead of his intellect, they think that education
is the ultimate answer. Having made a faulty diagnosis of man's
sickness, they have prescribed a faulty, ineffective cure. It is
fascinating to see the Baha'i cure fully laid out in scripture, very
much in keeping with Baha'i thought, although not short of company in
terms of other groups that would be included in the prophetic
description.

   Space prevents discussion of this material here, as whole books have
been written on the subject, but the plan is quite clear.

   The reader is referred to a very good book from the late
1800's/early 1900's called "Dispensational Truth" by Clarence Larkin,
and still published by his estate. While it does not deal with realized
prophetic events since about 1906, it contains a wealth of information
in about 35 charts. It is not infallible, but is a good resource and
can be critiqued quite easily on a consensus basis with other current
works by authors such as Charles Swindoll, Dr. David Hocking, William
Goetz etc. These books deal with the prophetic plan for a one world
government, leader, economy, religion etc., how it will be implemented,
what its success will be and so on. To be involved with any group that
is involved in such proposals without the additional insight provided
in the prophetic works is to be severely hampered at best. A companion
book that also might be looked at, is by Alexander Hislop, written in
1865 entitled "The Two Babylons". It is still in print today, but its
usefulness is much broader than that intended by the writer in his
subtitle and apparent thrust (a word of warning - chart it as you go
along or you will be hopelessly lost by the end)

   It is somewhat ironic that the most fitting description of
Baha'u'llah's attempt to establish himself as savior and mediator
between man and God can be found in words framed by none other than
Baha'u'llah himself. Certainly, he had ANYONE BUT himself in mind when
he penned these words, yet with sobering propriety Baha'u'llah's
indictment can best be applied to himself:

   "We can perceive how the whole human race is encompassed with great,
with incalculable afflictions. We see it languishing on its bed of
sickness, sore, tired and disillusioned. They that are intoxicated by
self conceit have interposed themselves between it and the divine and
infallible physician. Witness how they have entangled all men,
themselves included, in the mesh of their devices. They can neither
discover the cause of the disease, nor have they and knowledge of the
remedy."

   Jesus claimed to be GOD and lived his life in a manner that
reflected truth. Jesus said that He was truth. Jesus rose "into the
clouds" where we are told by the Bible that He "will return just as we
witnessed Him leaving" and not reincarnated into another person. It is
appointed unto man to die but once - then the judgment. Jesus is God as
proven by his life. Jesus is Saviour as proven by his death and
resurrection. The bodies of Baha'u'llah, the Bab, Abdul Baha and other
false prophets rot in their graves, but the body of Christ is not on
Earth, but alive and with God - now! He will return with the new name
of King of Kings, Judge and Lord - Every knee shall bow, every tongue
confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. When He comes in his body, He will
take up to Him those who He lives through at this present time. No one
has ever found deceit in the lives of Jesus or his Apostles. Jesus
stands in history as a perfect human - the only man in history so
recorded. He came the first time exactly when God said through his
prophets that he would - He didn't have to change God's word! He will
return as He said He would, when He said He would.

   "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof
are the ways of death." Proverbs 14:12

   "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life, but he that
believeth not on the Son shall not see life; the wrath of God abideth
on him." John 3:36

   "That whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal
life. For God so loved the world, that He gave his only begotten Son
that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish, but have everlasting
life." John 3:15-16

   The choice is yours.

   SO WHAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE?

   Let us compare what one is left with depending on whether one
chooses to be a Baha'i or a true Christian - as I said before, what you
believe is what you get.

   Baha'i Christian

   leader: a Persian student God, who laid aside his glory and
took on the form of man so as to intervene in history

   ministry: an author in lonely the miraculous as common place,
exile demonstrating temporal and eternal concern to the point of
sacrificial death, for the plight of mankind

   supernatural power: none total power to cast out demons,
to heal the sick, to raise the dead, to control nature, super- natural
evidence of the inter- vention of God in the history of mankind - the
Kingdom of God demonstrated to man

   saviour: only the words of God incarnate who loved us so a
dying old man that He suffered and died and rose again giving us
eternal hope

   God now: only Abdu'l-Baha the Holy Spirit of God given as a
memory, God to indwell each true believer, is unknowable to guide him
into all truth and to help & empower him to live the Christian life - a
personal knowable God (see Rev. 3:20)

   salvation: human effort Christ's death as payment for and
education sin. He now functions as High all there is Priest at the
throne of God (interestingly enough this is making intercession for
each the same lie satan told Eve - believer. The Holy Spirit works eat
of the tree of knowledge through the believer to do and you shall be as
God. God's will in proportion to the Genesis 2:17, 3:4,5 - all other
submission of the believer of religions can be reduced to his life to
God. this basic tenet except that of genuine Christianity.)

   future hope: an earthly era eternal life in the City of God
of imperfect an eternal Kingdom ruled by the peace somehow
eternal God and King, peace and produced and joy forever, guaranteed by
the ruled over by Prince of Peace in a Kingdom of imperfect men perfect
beings and utopian delight. Apparently there will be some who function
as cosmic administrators, rulers etc.

   To paraphrase Christ: The Baha'i honor me with their lips, but their
heart is far from me, teaching for doctrine the commandments of men.
(Matt 15:8,9)

   If ye were blind ye should have no sin: but now ye say, "We see;
therefore, your sin remaineth......Ye are from beneath, I am from
above: ye are of this world, I am not of this world. I said therefore
unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I
am He, ye will die in your sins." (see John 9:41; 8:23-28, 12:44-50,
also John 8:44,45)

   "And there is salvation in no one else: for there is no other name
under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved."
(Acts 4:12)

   "For there is one God and one mediator between God and man, the man
Christ Jesus" (I Tim. 2:5)

   How can imperfect man become reconciled to a Holy and Perfect God?
The basic plan of salvation and reconciliation is:

   Because we have all sinned (Rom 3:23) and are therefore lost (Luke
19:10, Rom 6:23), God sent His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ to die on the
cross in our place (Rom 5:8, I Cor 15:1-4). Whosoever believes in Him
will not perish, but live with Him forever (John 3:16) in the City of
God in the new heavens and new earth, after an abundant life on this
earth (John 10:10).

   Christianity does not require an irrational leap into the darkness
of the unverifiable, but rather, a rational and reasoned leap into the
light. As Francis Schaeffer has said: "It should be added ... that the
Christian, after he is a Christian, has years of experimental evidence
to be added to all the above reasons (to believe)."(73) And finally for
those who still cling to the popular fallacy that all religions lead to
God, and that there are no criteria to judge the truth or falsity of
any religion, please accept the following poetic exerpt as a gentle
rebuke:

   "All roads lead to God," I've heard so many people say But when they
get to Jonestown, They beg to look the other way. (74)

   Again, the choice is yours.

   BIBLIOGRAPHY:

   1 Vernon Elvin Johnson, " An Historical Analysis of Critical
Transformations in the Evolution of the Baha'i World Faith," Diss.
Baylor University 1974, p.6

   2 The Promise of World Peace, Baha'i Peace Council of Canada;
(Thornhill, Ont.)

   3 Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace (Wilmette, Ill.:
Baha'i Publishing Trust, 1982), p. 346; and George Townsend, Promise of
All Ages (Wilmette, Ill.: Baha'i Publishing Trust, 1948), pp. 1 - 127.

   4 Townsend, Promise, p. 52.

   5 Shoghi Effendi, Call To The Nations (Chatham, Great Britain: W & J
Mackay Ltd. 1977) p. xi

   6 Townsend, Promise, pp. 51 - 52

   7 Gloria Faizi, The Baha'i Faith: An Introduction (n.p.1971), p. 34

   8 Townsend, Promise, pp. 52 - 53

   9 Abdu'l-Baha and Baha'u'llah, Baha'i World Faith (Wilmette, Ill.:
Baha'i Publishing Trust, 1956), p. 21

   10 Townsend, Promise, p. 47

   11 Ibid.

   12 Ibid. p. 49.

   13 Ibid.

   14 Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, trans. L.C. Barney
(Wilmette, Ill.: Baha'i World Publishing Trust, 1930), p. 195

   15 Faizi, op. cit. p. 28.

   16 Townsend, Promise, p. 50.

   17 Ibid. p. 51.

   18 Ibid.

   19 Abdu'l-Baha, Questions, p. 189.

   20 Abdu'l-Baha, Universal Peace, p. 346.

   21 Seyyed Ali Mohammed dit le Bab, III, 3, as cited in Johnson, p.
154.

   22 Qur'an VII, 65; XI, 50; XXVI, 124; XCVI, 21.

   23 Ibid, VII, 75; XI, 61; XXVI, 142; XXVII, 45.

   24 Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan: The Book of Certitude, 2nd. ed.
trans. Shoghi Effendi (Wilmette, Ill.: Baha'i Publishing Trust, 1950),
pp.7 - 65.

   25 One Universal Faith (Wilmette, Ill.: Baha'i Publishing Trust,
n.d.),p.5.

   26 Hugh E. Chance, "Baha'i Faith" Collier's Encyclopedia, 1965, III,
462.

   27 Townsend, Promise, pp.51-52.

   28 Francis Beckwith, Baha'i, Bethany House Publishers, 1985,
Minneapolis, MI 55438, p.18

   29 Townsend, Promise, p.49.

   30 Josh McDowell and Don Stewart, Answers to Tough Questions (San
Bernardino, CA Here's Life Publishers, 1980) p.19. see also Evidence
that Demands a Verdict.

   31 Analects 2:4.1, as quoted in Hume, The World's Living Religions
(NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1924), p.110.

   32 Analects 7:17, 24, 31; 8:3.1-3; 16:13.1-3; 17:9.1-7 as noted in
Ibid. p.111.

   33 Abdu'l-Baha, Questions, p. 195.

   34 Hume, op. cit., p.113.

   35 quoted in Ibid.

   36 quoted in Ibid.

   37 The Meaning of the Glorius Koran, trans. Mohammed Marmaduke
Picktall (NY: Mentor Books, n.d.), p. 365.

   38 Abdu'l-Baha, Questions, p. 195.

   39 Townsend, Promise, p.50.

   40 The Altizer-Montgomery Dialogue (Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press,
1967), p.21.

   41 Effendi, Call p.xi.

   42 Beckwith, op. cit., p.21.

   43 Ibid, p.18.

   44 J.E. Esslemont, Baha'u'llah and the New Era (NY: Baha'i
Publishing Committee, 1923), p. 278.

   45 Ibid., pp. 288-289.

   46 J.E. Esslemont, Baha'u'llah and the New Era, 3rd ed, (Wilmette,
Ill.: Baha'i Publishing Trust, 1970), pp. 249-250.

   47 Beckwith, op. cit., p. 9.

   48 Ibid., p. 38.

   49 Abdu'l-Baha, Questions, p.30.

   50 Charles Lee Feinberg, Daniel: The Man and His Visions (Chappaqua,
NY: Christian Herald Books, 1981), p.107.

   51 McDowell, op. cit. pp.172-73.

   52 Ibid., p.173.

   53 E.H. Cheney, Prophecy Fulfilled (Wilmette, Ill.: Baha'i
Publishing Trust, 1972), p. 16.

   54 Ibid., p.13.

   55 Ibid., p.14.

   56 Ibid., p.15.

   57 Baha'u'llah, Gleanings From the Writings of Baha'u'llah, trans.
Shoghi Effendi, (Wilmette, Ill: Baha'i Publishing Trust, 1939), p.49.

   58 Ibid., p.48.

   59 Abdu'l-Baha, Questions, pp. 127-128.

   60 Townsend, God, Intro., p.ix.

   61 Abdu'l-Baha, Questions, p.127.

   62 Ibid., p.117.

   63 McDowell, op.cit., p.63.

   64 The Greek New Testament, ed. Aland, Black, Martini, Metzger and
Wikgren, 3rd ed. (West Germany: United Bible Societies, 1983), pp.
31-33.

   65 F.W. Hall, "Manuscript Authorities For the Text of the Chief
Classical Writers" in Companion To Classical Text (Oxford:Clarendon
Press, 1913),pp. 199ff.

   66 J.W. Montgomery, "Where Is History Going?" (Minneapolis: Bethany
House Publishers, 1969), p.46.

   67 F.F. Bruce,The New Testament Documents, pp.45-46.

   68 Nelson Glueck, "Rivers In The Desert; History of Nageu
(Philadelphia:Jewish Publications Society of America, 1969), p.31.

   69 C.S. Lewis, "Miracles", (NY: Macmillan, 1947), p.105.

   70 Simon Greenleaf, famous Royal Professor of Law at Harvard
University, whose efforts, along with that of Justice Joseph Story,
"ascribed the rise of the Harvard Law School to its eminent position
among the legal schools of the United States (H.W.H. Knott, in
Dictionary of American Biography, Vol.8 (NY 1937), p. 584), wrote the
famous A Treatise on the Law of Evidence (1842), which was "regarded as
the foremost American authority." Applying evidence was "regarded as
the foremost American authority." Applying the law of evidence to the
Gospel accounts, Greenleaf wrote "An Examination of the Testimony of
the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the
courts of Justice (1846). Professor J.N.D. Anderson, former Director of
the Institute of advanced Legal Studies in the University of London and
a world-renowned expert in Muslim law, has written Christianity: The
Witness of History(London: Tyndale Press 1969), and The Evidence for
the Resurrection (London: Inter-Varsity Press, 1966). See also Thomas
Sherlock, Master of the Temple, Tryal of the Witnesses (1729), as
reprinted in Jurisprudence: A Book of Readings, 2nd ed., (Strasbourgh,
France: International Scholarly Publishers; Orange, Calif.: The Simon
Greenleaf School of Law, 1980).

   71 Beckwith, op. cit. p.51.

   72 J.T. Fisher and L.S. Hawley, A Few Buttons Missing (Philadelphia:
J.B. Lippincott, 1951), p.273.

   73 Francis A. Schaeffer, The God Who Is There (Downers Grove, Ill.:
Inter-Varsity Press, 1968), p.111.

   74 excerpt from Beckwith, "Illusion of Technique", 1982 upp

   75 Computers for Christ; San Jose, CA

   ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

   The majority of this paper is based on the research of Dr. Francis
Beckwith and full credit must go to him. I have simply tried to distill
the essential ingrediants from his work and roll in material from other
sources such as Dr. Walter Martin. There is some original material
here, believe it or not, but my purpose has not been to put myself
forward as a writer of apologetics, but rather to produce a much needed
tool, that hopefully will help in reaching out to Baha'i friends and
neighbors. I would recommend the inclusion of the helps references from
the front of the Christian Worker's New Testament, if this paper is to
be given to one who is not a believer.

   If any footnotes have been missed, it was not intentionally done and
the above credit is given in lieu of such omissions. I also apologize
for the footnotes not being in order in the text, but it is easier to
ask your pardon then to sort the whole thing out again at this point.

   Mo Alton.