But in the Holy Books an especial terminology is employed, and for the Manifestations these miracles and wonderful signs have no importance. They do not even wish to mention them. For if we consider miracles a great proof, they are still only proofs and arguments for those who are present when they are performed, and not for those who are absent.
For example, if we relate to a seeker, a stranger to Moses and Christ, marvelous signs, he will deny them and will say: "Wonderful signs are also continually related of false gods by the testimony of many people, and they are affirmed in the Books. The Brahmans have written a book about wonderful prodigies from Brahma." He will also say: "How can we know that the Jews and the Christians speak the truth, and that the Brahmans tell a lie? For both are generally admitted traditions, which are collected in books, and may be supposed to be true or false." The same may be said of other religions: if one is true, all are true; if one is accepted, all must be accepted. Therefore, miracles are not a proof. For if they are proofs for those who are present, they fail as proofs to those who are absent.
(`Abdu'l-Baha: Some Answered Questions, Pages: 100-101)
I find the following puzzling in light of what 'Abdu'l-Baha said:
What science calls a virgin birth we do not associate with that of Jesus Christ, which we believe to have been a miracle and a sign of His Prophethood.
(Shoghi Effendi: High Endeavors, Page: 70)
Following the logic in the former, the Virgin Birth wouldn't constitute proof of Jesus' Prophethood, which makes me wonder why Shoghi Effendi said it was a sign of Jesus' Prophethood. If miracles have no importance for the Manifestations then why was the story of the Virgin Birth included in the New Testament? Or should we blame Matthew and Luke for that? Apparently Jesus would not even wish to mention His Virgin Birth, and in fact He never does in the Gospels. ‘Abdu’l-Baha said:
“For if we consider miracles a great proof, they are still only proofs and arguments for those who are present when they are performed, and not for those who are absent.”
In that case the Virgin Birth was proof only to Mary and Joseph, or perhaps only Mary. Mary would know she was a virgin when she became pregnant, but Joseph couldn’t know for sure that Mary hadn’t slept with someone else. The Magi don’t count, because they probably didn’t know, and even if they were told the claim they would have to believe in the miracle solely on the word of Joseph and Mary, people they hardly knew and who could easily be lying. There is no evidence that during His lifetime the Jews knew Jesus as the guy who was born of a virgin (the story doesn’t seem to have been known), and certainly later Jews rejected the claim that Jesus was born of a virgin. Now, I want you all to read from “For example, if we relate to a seeker.” To me this makes the assertion that the Virgin Birth was a sign of Jesus’ Prophethood appear problematic. Obviously to say something is a sign of Jesus’ Prophethood is to say that it serves as proof that Jesus was a Manifestation. But how can that be, following ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s logic? Let’s say I tell a person who is “a stranger to Moses and Christ” about the marvelous sign of the Virgin Birth, something I as a Baha'i believe to be a sign of Jesus’ Prophethood. He then denies the Virgin Birth, and says “"Wonderful signs are also continually related of false gods by the testimony of many people, and they are affirmed in the Books. The Brahmans have written a book about wonderful prodigies from Brahma." He also says “"How can we know that the Jews and the Christians speak the truth, and that the Brahmans tell a lie? For both are generally admitted traditions, which are collected in books, and may be supposed to be true or false." He then adds that there are several other Virgin Birth stories in antiquity, many relating to people Baha’is do not believe were Prophets. So when we look at what ‘Abdu’l-Baha said, which applies to the example I have given “Therefore, miracles are not a proof. For if they are proofs for those who are present, they fail as proofs to those who are absent.” surely the person I’m talking to should not regard the Virgin Birth as something that even could be a proof. I have difficulty understanding why something known to Mary and Joseph but no one else (the rest of the people could never know if the Virgin Birth ever really happened) should apparently serve as proof to all the Jews of Jesus time who were ‘absent.’ If it was a sign of Jesus’ Prophethood surely it was for everyone, and not just Jesus’ parents? According to what ‘Abdu’l-Baha said I would think the Virgin Birth would be rock bottom as a sign of Prophethood. After reading what He said I don’t even know what the point of the Virgin Birth was. It just seems from what He said that disbelief in the Virgin Birth is acceptable, which would be odd for a sign of Prophethood.
Of course, after all this, perhaps I’m reading too much into what Shoghi Effendi wrote, and he didn’t mean to suggest the Virgin Birth should constitute good proof, but simply that it indicated Jesus’ station (going by our belief that it happened).
_________________________________________________________________
Download MSN Messenger @ http://messenger.xtramsn.co.nz - talk to family and friends overseas!
__________________________________________________ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Web - http://list.jccc.net/read/?forum=bahai-st News - news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
