Whether the Apostle Paul was a "False Teacher"

Memorandum

To: Universal House of Justice

Date: 22 February 1998

From: Research Department

Whether the Apostle Paul was a "False Teacher"

The Research Department has studied the query contained in the email of 8 December 1997 to the Baha’i World Centre from Mr...  Mr. ... states that "some years ago" he read a letter in The American Bahá’í, which quoted from a statement of the Research Department concerning the Apostle Paul. He recalls that this statement "covered references in the Baha’i Writings to Paul and noted that there was no support for the view that Paul was a ‘false teacher". Mr. ... is requesting a copy of this statement by the Research Department.

It seems likely to us that the letter which Mr. ... recalls reading is the one published in the "Letters" section of The American Bahá’í, 4 November 1992, volume 23, number 16, page 11. We have attached a photocopy of this page for his convenience and note that in the letter to the editor in question, the writer introduces the term "false teacher" in his introductory remarks; it does not appear in any of the material he quotes. It is also important to clarify that the writer is quoting (with some inaccuracy) a reference to the Research Department in a letter dated 25 November 1980 written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice.

Regarding Mr. ...‘s request, therefore, it seems appropriate to provide him with an extract from the House of Justice’s letter cited above which contains the reference to the Research Department and the full text of the discussion of Peter and Paul. For clarity, we have preceded this extract by the incoming query to which this discussion is a response. Thus:

Obligatory Prayer, Greatest Name, Exemptions

Memorandum

Date: 2 January 1998

To: The Universal House of Justice

From: Research Department

Obligatory Prayer, Greatest Name, Exemptions

The Research Department has studied the questions raised by Mr. ___, forwarded on his behalf by the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States in its email message of 29 October 1997 to the Universal House of Justice. We provide the following comments.

1. Obligatory Prayer

Short Obligatory Prayer

Mr. ___ seeks guidance concerning the action that should be taken when an individual who is in the habit of reciting the Short Obligatory Prayer either forgets or is unable to recite it during the prescribed period, from noon until sunset. Specifically, he wishes to know:

“Is the individual "expected" to say the Long Obligatory Prayer even if not "in the state of humble adoration one is to be in to recite the long prayer"?

Has the opportunity to fulfil this spiritual responsibility been missed for that day?

Should the individual use the "substitution to be recited when one has been engaged in travel or insecure circumstances"”?

The Universal House of Justice in a letter dated 26 April 1987, written on its behalf, provides the following general guidance concerning what is to be done when an individual forgets to say the Obligatory Prayer:

“The action of a believer who forgets to recite his obligatory prayer is a matter of personal conscience.”

Preferred English Translation of the Bible to quote from

Memorandum

3 November 1996 

To: The Universal House of Justice

From: Research Department

In an email message of 23 September 1996 to the Universal House of Justice, Mr. ... requests clarification on "the principles that govern quoting from the Bible in English-language Bahá'í publications". He explains that he has heard an unsubstantiated view that only the King James version of the Bible may be used and observes that "this individual seems to give the King James version an authority greater than that of the original text in matters of interpretation". His queries were referred to the Research Department for study and the following is our response.

We have been unable to find guidance in the Writings which refers directly to quoting from the Bible in English-language Bahá'í publications. It may be helpful to ... to note, however, that, in an incoming letter dated 2 September 1949 to the Guardian, an English-speaking believer asked the following question:

Quite recently, the writer, in guiding at the Temple has been asked just what version of the Bible Bahá'ís use. May we have your directive on this, please?

The Guardian's response appears in a letter written on his behalf, where we read:

“Shoghi Effendi himself uses the King James version of the Bible, both because it is an authoritative one and in beautiful English.” (28 October 1949 to an individual believer; published in "Bahá'í News", no. 228, February 1950, p. 4).

Compilation of Extracts Regarding Arius

Memorandum

 To: The Universal House of Justice

July 9, 1996

From: Research Department

A brief compilation of extracts from the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Baha concerning Arius

Station of Arius

In his email of 15 May 1996 to the Universal House of Justice, Mr. X refers to statements from the Tablets by ‘Abdu’l-Baha in Star of the West, vol. 10, no. 5, concerning Arius and the violation of the Covenant of Christ. He explains that when these statements were posted on a BBS inter-religious discussion, it resulted in a degree of controversy:

The conservative Christians in the discussion area with whom we... and other religionists communicate have taken a surprising interest in this mention of Arius. As they put it Arius’ view “should” be like what Baha’is claim, as they see it, about the station of the Manifestation.

Mr. X believes that this interest in the Baha’i view of Arius might well provide an opportunity for him to set out, more explicitly, the Baha’i perspective on the stations of Christ and of the Manifestations of God. He, therefore, seeks other references concerning Arius and the Covenant of Christ. And, he raises the following specific questions:

...is it what Arius claimed about the station and nature of Christ that is the basis of his standing in Abdu’l-Baha’s estimation as an enemy of Christ’s Covenant or was it some other factor of Arius’ claims or behavior? Would it be proper to speak of Arius as a Covenant-Breaker? Are his works and point of view under similar censure as Covenant-Breakers of the Baha’i Faith?

Date of Revelation of Tablet of Ishraqát

Memorandum

To: The Universal House of Justice

Date: 2 April 1996

From: Research Department

In an email message of 9 February 1996, Mr. --- asks about the date on which the Tablet of Ishraqat, specifically the Eighth Ishraq, was revealed. He observes that none of the sources available to him in English provide a date, and that unless the date was recorded by the amanuenses, it is his assumption that "a dating would have to be based on correlating internal indications with historical events". To this end, Mr. --- cites a number of passages from the Tablet of Ishraqat containing allusions to historical events and he requests the assistance of the Research Department in investigating this matter.[1] We offer the following information based on our study of the resources available at the Bahá'í World Centre:

- In a Tablet of some 40 pages addressed to Varqa, which appears to have been revealed over a period of more than a month and which bears on its final page the date 19 Muharram 1303 A.H. (29 October 1885), Bahá'u'lláh informs Varqa that on 9 Dhi Qa'dih 1302 (21 August 1885), a very long Tablet has been revealed for Jalil-i-Khu'i on the Most Great Infallibility. This date actually forms part of the text of the Tablet to Varqa. Since the Most Great Infallibility is a theme discussed at great length in the Tablet of Ishraqat, it seems likely that it is to this Tablet that Bahá'u'lláh is referring.

The Tablet to Varqa has not, to date, been published, nor translated into English.

- 1885 as the date of the revelation of the Tablet of Ishraqat would appear to receive some additional support from the fact that Bahá'u'lláh, in a Tablet revealed on 24 Safar 1304 A.H. (22 November 1886), employs a sentence that is also found in the Ishraqat. [2] The sentence is as follows: