Talk:Davidic line

Question

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Does this have relevance to Mark 12:35-37? --Spudtater 18:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Bahá'í view

Latest comment: 19 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion

This section has no relevance to this article, is supported by no sources except the propaganda of an obscure Bahá'í sect. This section deserves summary removal, as was a nearly identical article speedily deleted.(Lineage of King David — deleted 10-Nov-05). MARussellPESE 18:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Bahá'u'lláh makes no such claim. He is descended from Abraham, but not David, making him a distant cousin at best. To wit:

1559: Bahá'u'lláh was a Descendant of Abraham Through Both Katurah and Sarah — Jesse, Son of Sarah, was the Father of David and the Ancestor of Bahá'u'lláh

"Regarding your question concerning the Jesse from whom Bahá'u'lláh is descended: The Master says in Some Answered Questions referring to Isaiah, chapter 11, verses 1 to 10, that these verses apply 'Word for word to Bahá'u'lláh'. He then identifies this Jesse as the father of David in the following words: '...for Joseph was of the descendants of Jesse the father of David...', thus identifying the Jesse of Isaiah, chapter 11, with being the father of David. Bahá'u'lláh is thus the descendant of Jesse, the father of David.

"The Guardian hopes that this will clarify the matter for you. It is a tremendous and fascinating theme, Bahá'u'lláh's connection with the Faith of Judaism, and one which possesses great interest to Jew and Christian alike."

(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, July 11, 1942)

"Regarding your question concerning the descent of Bahá'u'lláh from Abraham: The Master has stated that Bahá'u'lláh is a descendant of Abraham through a son of his, other than Isaac and Ishmael, from his wife Katurah..."

(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer March 24, 1943)

(Lights of Guidance, p. 473)

Clearly Bahá'í theology is irrelevant to the house of David. MARussellPESE 20:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I strongly agree with MARussellPESE. I would suggest deleting the section. Cuñado   - Talk 00:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

~Deleting the truth would not magically make it untrue. Baha'u'llah Himself said He "ruleth upon the Throne of David". How can anyone say He "made no such claim" when it's on pg. 89 of His Proclamation? Where in the Writings does it even imply Baha'u'llah is a "distant cousin at best" to David? The "to wit" provided above proves the exact opposite and shows the very statement inane. Look at ref. #1559 above. The Master said they were descended from both Sarah's son and Keturah's son. Sarah's connection led directly through the House of David, from Jesse to David to Solomon. The duplicity of being descended from both wives occured when a descendant of Keturah's (Dara) married the Exilarch (exiled Monarch) Bostonai in the 1300's A.D. Baha'u'llah was a direct lineal descendant of Bostonai's, literally (not symbolically) seated on the Throne of David. Just take a quick glance at Shoghi Effendi's Genealogy in the Baha'i Library and it is plainly obvious that the genealogy that Shoghi Effendi commissioned and approved from Grover Gonzales validates once and for all that Baha'u'llah LITERALLY "ruleth upon the Throne of David". Like it or not, this subject most definitely was relevant to Shoghi Effendi's Baha'i Theology. It may be "irrelevant" to some individual Baha'is theology, but both the Master and Shoghi Effendi where well aware of Their Royal lineage. Anyone with eyes that can see should look a little closer. It's relevance is that Baha'u'llah is literally (not symbolically) the Messiah ben David Seated on the Throne of David that the Jews, Christians, and Muslims are all waiting for. Two thirds of the world's population is awaiting the second Messiah ben David (Christ), and He has come in the person of Baha'u'llah. How is that irrelevent? User:Jeffmichaud

You just said yourself that Baha'u'llah is not a direct descendant of King David. You don't have a case. You posted it here because it's important to you and a handful of others in your obscure sect of the Baha'i Faith. Cuñado   - Talk 08:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I said no such thing. squint your eyes and look closer. He most definitely is a direct descendant of David, Solomon, and the Exilarchs according to the Master and Shoghi Effendi's own genealogy chart which I found at YOUR sole source for information. What's your point besides a needing to take a cheap shot at my "obscure sect"? It's relevance encompasses the belief system of 2/3's of the world awaiting this one literally Seated on the Throne, with your theology obviously falling into that other 1/3. User:Jeffmichaud

Please provide the source Jeffmichaud. If it's the "truth," prove it. You can end this discussion very easily by doing so. (And as a special bonus: you can make us look bad.) Saying that He's "seated on the throne of David" doesn't make him his descendant. (The conclusion doesn't follow.) 'Abdul-Bahá states pretty clearly that Bahá'u'lláh's descended from Jesse but not King David. (Citation reproduced above.) I take 'Abdul-Bahá at his word, being his son, and I supsect he knows a thing or two about his own lineage. As the BUPC recognizes 'Abdul-Bahá, don't you?

Apologies to the Jewish readers who have to plow through this; ah, but y'all aren't strangers to battles over obscure readings of the texts, are you. :) MARussellPESE 15:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

~I'm sorry, but I missed the part where the Master "states pretty clearly that Bahá'u'lláh's descended from Jesse but not King David". Let us note here that it was you who said that He's "not from King David", and not 'Abdu'l-Baha. You're adding words that aren't there. I'm dumbfounded that this discussion is even taking place. They're called the Explicit Texts, because they're Explicit. No Texts you've cited say he's "not from David". You said that. The Master said he's from both Sara and Keturah's line. Dr. Grover Gonzales' genealogy chart shows how. Just look at it and follow the line from Baha'u'llah straight back to King David (please note that it was obviously scanned in two parts and the images overlap at Yazigird III). Along the line of descendancy you'll notice in plain French the words Jesse, David, Solomon, Exilarchs (exiled monarchs of David), Bostanai, and Baha'ullah all along the same line of descent. The Exilarch Bostanai, of whom Baha'u'llah was a direct descendant, was from Sarah. He married Dara, from the son's of Keturah. The genealogy chart verifies all these quotes above (esp. Ref. 1559). Nothing you've quoted proves anything to the contrary. The way I read these quotes He clearly was from the Throne and couldn't have been more Explicit than when He wrote: "the Ancient Beauty ruleth from the Throne of David" (Proclamation pg.89) What could be more Explicit than that? User:Jeffmichaud

First, when did Dr. Gonzales, write authoritative Bahá'í text?

According to this geneology, and assuming it's accurate (A stretch if we're going back thousands of years.), there is a line to David, but it's matrilineal. Rahab, Salatiel's (sp?) daughter and Sasán's mother, is a woman. In Jewish practice the monarchy, never, but never, passed through a matrilienal relationship. (There's plenty of Jews here to correct that assertion.)

Further, the patrimony falls to the eldest son in Jewish custom. There's no evidence in the seventeen names falling after Solomon that each and every one was the eldest male. Further Salatiel, Rahab's father, was clearly the second-born son, so if his father held the patrilineal line to Solomon and David, he could not pass that on. Bahá'u'lláh does not inherit any patrimony from David.

So according to this geneology, and again assuming the chart's authority which I'll grant for the sake of discussion only, Bahá'u'lláh could claim descent from David, albeit only a matrilienal one. Curious that he didn't, isn't it? Could it be that it doesn't matter? Being seated upon the throne of David could well be figurative.

For our Jewish friends slogging through this, the reason I'm picking this up is that figurative or no, we do believe that this religion comes from God and Bahá'u'lláh calls mankind to listen to this message. Naturally y'all would take issue with that — and I'm honor-bound to respect that. I think it inappropriate to appropriate a Judaic studies article to foist off what's likely an offensive view that's not supported beyond a sketch of questionable academic authority reproduced from another site. MARussellPESE 14:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

`Abdu'l-Bahá has written in Paris Talks referring to the Throne of David that "The Throne upon which He sat is the Eternal Throne from which Christ reigns for ever, a heavenly throne, not an earthly one." Based upon this passage, my understanding is that the statement of Bahá'u'lláh's in the Proclamation of Bahá'u'lláh refers not to the descendancy of Bahá'u'lláh from David, but rather the spiritual connection between the Manifestations of God. -- Jeff3000 22:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Let's get to the real point. Whether or not Baha'u'llah is a direct descendant from David (for which I see no solid evidence), that was never important in any Baha'i scripture. It is not explicitly mentioned, but descendancy from Abraham was mentioned. No authority or connection was ever claimed linking descendancy from David to leadership.

The reason you are provoking this discussion is because Abdu'l Baha said that all future Guardians should be direct male descendants of Baha'u'llah, and appointed by the previous. At a point when there were no more eligible male descendants, your compatriots wanted power for themselves, and tried to stretch the writings of Abdu'l Baha. Leland Jensen was not a direct descendant of Baha'u'llah, so he instead decided that the real authority comes from David, something not found in the Baha'i writings. This was the only way he could justify calling himself the Guardian, or "establisher" as he calls it.

Back to the point at hand. The text under discussion should stay off the page, as it is contrary to the beliefs of 99.99% of Baha'is in the world. Cuñado   - Talk 19:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

~For clarification 1)Dr. Jensen never declared to be the Guardian. He accepted Shoghi Effendi, Mason Remey, Pepe Remey and Neal Chase as the legitimate Guardians. I'm not sure where your confusion on this comes from. 2) Dr. Gonzales was commissioned by Shoghi Effendi to do this research and approved it for publication. Gonzales claims he recieved the bulk of his work on Baha'u'llah's family from Mirz Abu-Fazl who recieved it directly from Baha'u'llah. See the link on the genealogy for more on this. 3)Jeff3000, you're quote from Paris Talks is completely out of context and out of order. He's answering a question about Jesus in that quote you provided. Look above and below the sentences. It's clear he's commenting on Luke Chpt. 3. He's in no way referring to Baha'u'llah. At least quote something relevant. So, noone's going to comment on my last post? Okay then, let's just bury our heads on all that and continue.

The quote is very relevent. The quote is explaining the historical meaning and signficance of "Throne of David" and thus explaining what Baha'u'llah is claiming when he says he is ruling on the "Throne of David". -- Jeff3000 14:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

MaRussell, unfortunately you got lost along the descendency line in the genealogy chart, too? If you hadn't gotten confused by that scan as Cunado did, you wouldn't have bothered to write a word of that lecture. LOOK CLOSELY and maybe this veil can be removed for you. The scan in your resource library is in TWO pieces. If you're scrolling from the bottom and start following the line from Baha'u'llah upward toward David you will pass by a name on the left: Yazdigird III. Keep scrolling and the thick black line reaches an obvious OVERLAP in the scan right below the second appearance of Yazdigird III's name. You'll see it appears that line runs into Yazdigird III, but it's an obvious error for that thick black line from Baha'u'llah which runs into Yazdigird III is actually contined 1 inch to the right of Yazdigird III's name. The line you've been following breaks there and jumps to the right; the proof is that the one line of Yazdigird III appears twice on the chart within a 3 inch section of the chart. Next to his name (the 2nd one) is a cut off line which is what Baha'u'llah's line is connected to and continues upward to Riunan, Babatan, the Exilarchs, up to Rehabom, Soloman, and David. For the original document click on the Dr. Gonzales link at the top of the page to verify what I'm explaining. Fwoooh! This error jumped right out at me. I can't believe you missed it.

So anyhoo. Dara, Bostanai's wife was the Sassanian descended from Keturah. Through their marriage Baha'u'llah was descended both from Keturah AND Sarah. It's impossible that Him "ruleth"ing from the Throne could be "figurative" since your own resource library is proving it's literal. Furthermore, Shoghi Effendi wrote:

"To Him Isaiah, the greatest of the Jewish prophets, had alluded as the "Glory of the Lord," the "Everlasting Father," the "Prince of Peace," the "Wonderful," the "Counsellor," the "Rod come forth out of the stem of Jesse" and the "Branch grown out of His roots," Who "shall be established upon the throne of David..." (Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By, p. 94)

Just as Jesus had to be from the House of David to be the "Christ" (for the title is literally reserved for descendants of the [Davidic line] (see link for deepening on Jewish perspective); Baha'u'llah MUST have been seated on the Throne of David to be the 2nd Coming of Christ as He claimed to be. For the Christ, or Messiah, must be from that line to own these titles that Shoghi Effendi is verifying that Baha'u'llah had. If He wasn't seated on the Throne of David, as Shoghi Effendi clearly verifies He was, then he would have been a fraud for claiming to be "ruleth"ing on it, and for claiming to be the "Glory of the Father". We know this for Isaiah clearly states that the "Glory of the Father" would be SEATED on the Throne of David in Isaiah Chpt. 9 verse 7 which is Chapter that Shoghi Effendi is quoting to verify that these Titles are all indeed fulfilled in Baha'u'llah. This shows that this was part of Shoghi Effendi's Theology. Why then is it not part of your's? User:Jeffmichaud

You'd like to get answered point-for-point? Here goes ...

First, once again Jeff, do you have a source for Gonzales' work. Please review Wikipedia:Cite_sources and you'll find that the standard is generally published sources, not internet pages. This edit fast, die young and leave no sources approach of yours add little, if anything, to the discussion.

Second, we are supposed to accept this line of reasoning based on assuming there's a "jump" in a line on a scan of a hand-written document that you alone see? Upon review it looks like there's a good deal of information that's missing. If the vertical line to the right and below Yazdigird III is supposed to point to him, then where is the heavy canted line that acually points to Yazdigird III supposed to go? You can't make one piece fit conveniently and not tie up the other loose ends.

Third, if we accept the chart, then you're hanging everything on an illegible segment between Senatar (sp?) and Babatón. The segment between Senatar and Bostanai skips thirty-one generations at least. Hardly rises to the level of proof even if one accepts that chart as authoritative.

Fourth, this chart, also purported to be by Gonzales, doesn't mention David at all. Why? It's clearly missing data, but so is your contender. Can you cite a published source that contains the entire document?

Fifth, this published source states that Bahá'u'lláh himself identifies Yazdigird III as his ancestor; something you skip with that little "jump" in the line.

It is to Yazdigird III, the last Sasanian monarch to occupy the throne of Iran, that the genealogy of Bahá'u'lláh can be traced. Ustad Javanmard, the principal of the Zoroastrian school of Yazd, presented seven queries to Bahá'u'lláh, the seventh of which concerned His ancestry. The Tablet known as Shir-Mard (Lion of a Man) - thus called because the recipient was so addressed by Bahá'u'lláh - was sent to him in reply. ... Answering his questions one by one, to the seventh query Bahá'u'lláh responded by referring him to the genealogy which Mirza Abu'l-Fadl-i-Gulpaygani had gathered and compiled. ...

Mirza Abu'l-Fadl, designated by the Guardian of the Bahá'í Faith as one of the nineteen 'Apostles of Bahá'u'lláh', was a man of rare erudition and a degree of scholarship so far unequalled amongst the followers of Bahá'u'lláh, whether in the East or in the West. In his reply to Aqa Khusraw Biman, he describes how his interest was aroused in the genealogy of Bahá'u'lláh, and how his researches led him to Yazdigird III, the last of the Sasanian monarchs of Iran.

(H.M. Balyuzi, Baha'u'llah - The King of Glory, p. 9)

(That's what citing your sources looks like, Jeff.)

Given that, the line of descent Cuñado and I both identified is the correct line of descent. And you still haven't answered how a Jewish monarchy passed down a matrilineal line when a patrilineal one was available.

Sixth, I accepted the so-called geneology for the sake of argument only. I do not think that a document that is: unpublished, not peer-reviewed, hand-written, authored by an unknown person of unknown background, lacking any outside corroboration, and clearly having graphical flaw you stipulate to, Jeff, rises to the level of "authoritative" by any measure on any scale.

Seventh, an alternative reading, from a recognized authoritative Bahá'í figure, has been presented that clearly states a formulation that answers the prophetic question. Its simplicity contrasts with the convoluted one presented here bases upon a single suspect source. Dismissing as irrelevant a passage from Bahá'u'lláh's Son that addresses directly the "throne of David" because it's theologically incovenient demonstrates the dearth of honesty in the reasoning that's gone into this argument.

Lastly, but most important to me and the only one that matters here — this is a Judaic studies page. It's embarrassing to see someone trying appropriate it for their own purposes and adding material irrelevant to that discussion. They've had enough people hijack their history. Maybe I can strike a blow on their behalf and argue this for them. They shouldn't have to bother.

MARussellPESE 19:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

~My sincerest apologies to all for my lack of skills and training at resourcing and editing. As most of my energies in studying the Faith for the last ten years have involved little editing, I'm doing my best to catch up to spead with the policies and expectations of this new and exciting world of Wikipedia.

As a point of reference I found Dr. Gonzales' genealogy chart in the external links of a sans-Guardian page on Shoghi Effendi. It links to the Baha'i Academic Resource Library. It's not my source. If the information is questionable you might want to take up it's content with the scholars at Baha'i Academic Resources. They were the ones who sloppily uploaded that scan, which noone seems to be able to read properly. Is Wikipedia considered a vaid "source"? If so one can cross check with Exilarch and see that Bostanai most definitely wasn't descended from Yazdigird III, his wife Dara was. This is also obvious on the other Dr. Gonzales chart you provided. There are many other ways to verify this to be true, but those cross checks are a good start.

I will make one last attempt at explaining how to read the Dr. Gonzales [genealogy, for someone at Baha'i Acedemics Resource felt it was valid enough to include it, as did the creator of the Shoghi Effendi page. There are 3-4 inches of the chart that are reproduced twice. It appears once on each half of the scan, making Yazdigird III's and his ancestors appear twice. That line from Baha'u'llah going upward passes by it once, then runs right into it at the obvious split 3 inches higher. None of the names line up there. It's an error. At this "line" of demarkation the bold line for Baha'u'llah's Paternal line breaks and skips over. At this break everything above it is appearing a second time for another 3 inches. Never-the-less this bold line goes straight up to David. Ouch, my head hurts.

Again, this is not my chart, it comes from the mainstream Baha'is. The other one you've pointed to is a trimmed down version that shows the same thing i've been saying. It stops at Bostanai because among scholars there is no point of contention according to the Encyclopedia Judacai from David to Bostanai(see also Exilarch. It's a given among scholars that the Exilarchs existed in Manzadarin in exile until the 1300's. When Bostanai converted to Islam it created a great controversy over the contination of the line's relevancy in Judaism, hence in the Encyclopedia Judaica you have every Monarch and Exilarch from Judah to Bostanai, then the line ends. But we know that God promised David in Psalms 89 the line would never end.

Look again at this chart you've referred to. It clearly shows what I've been saying. Bosatanai's wife Dara was descended from YazdigirdIII, and Bostanai from the line of Exilarchs. So Mirza Abu-Fazl is correct in saying that he was from the Abraham through the Sassanians (Keturah's line) and Yazdigird III. This was through Dara ONLY. What's more accurate is what the Master said, being that he was descended from both Sara and Keturah, because Queen Dara was from Keturah and King Bostanai from Sarah. Look for yourself. This charts even better than the one in bahai-library for it's clearer that Yadigird III is Dara's ancestor. I hope this makes sense and that maybe anyone even still cares at this point.

If you'd like to see the genealogy we've been involved with creating which lists every single descendant bar none, see. I'd be happy to provide anyone with the resources from this project who care to see them for we actually had something to do with it and have all the records archived for it. It's too much to cite here for it involved 15 years of research. It sure was exciting to learn of Dr. Gonzales' work and how they mirrored what we discovered, although his thoroughness was lacking, I'll give you that.

As far as the reference quoting Paris Talks, I can only repeat that it is one of several quotes where the Master is validating Jesus' claim to be the Messiah, and has nothing to do with his Father. We have clearly different interpretations of this seemingly (to me) Explicit Text. If one reads the several explanations He gave to this subject of Jesus' claim to Messiahship, the spirit of it becomes clear in the syncratic differences of his explanations. All the while he is talking about Jesus' claim to be a Messiah, and that these Old Testament theologies were fullfilled in Jesus spiritually, not physically. A point of historic reference is that while Jesus was hanging on the cross the Exilarch Liuan I was in Babylon ruling on the literal throne of David , whom Baha'u'llah is descended from. So there was a literal Throne existing on Earth while Jesus was alive. Is the Master in Error in stating there wasn't a "material throne of David"? No. He's explaining the spriritual nature of Jesus, in that he didn't literally sit on the Throne while on Earth, but existed in Heaven as a King, even while on Earth. Your interpretation of the Master's explanation has him as a fool who didn't know that there was a "material throne" that had existed. Did David not really exist, or Solomon. Were those things that happened in heaven too? What kind of fool are you trying to take him as. Of course there was a throne. It's just that Jesus's "was not of this earth", as the Jews were expecting. Those references the Jews were expecting to be fullfilled in Jesus were actually fullfilled in the 2nd coming of Christ, Baha'u'llah. The Master and Shoghi Effendi state as much, and here where Shoghi Effendi is readdressing the statements about Isaiah from 'Abdu'l-Baha, he says:

"To Him Isaiah, the greatest of the Jewish prophets, had alluded as the "Glory of the Lord," the "Everlasting Father," the "Prince of Peace," the "Wonderful," the "Counsellor," the "Rod come forth out of the stem of Jesse" and the "Branch grown out of His roots," Who "shall be established upon the throne of David..." (Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By, p. 94)

So, these expectations that the Jews had condeming Jesus for not fullfilling are fullfilled in the coming of the Second Messiah, Baha'u'llah. Do you actually believe that no "material throne" existed?

Finally I'll close with this to meditate on regarding whether this subject was ever "a concern to mainstream Baha'is". (note the expertise in citing the source ;)

"By the violent beating of my heart I knew that we were soon to see the Blessed face of the Prince of the House of David, the King of the whole world." (Lua Getsinger, cf. “Persia” by Asaac Adams, pp.478-484).

Surely the Master must have known he was the "Prince of the House of David" if Lua Gestinger did, wouldn't you think? User:Jeffmichaud

As Jeffmichaud has not answered the points raised on the academic authority of the genealogy, the published references that contradict asserting a patrilineal line to David that by-passes Yazdigird III for Bahá'u'lláh, nor clear Bahá'í doctrinal sources that state that the "Throne of David" is metaphorical in the Bahá'í view — I submit that the matter is closed and reference to this so-called line of descent be deleted in its entirety from this article. MARussellPESE 23:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Just as a matter of follow up, Jeff made an incorrect statement. Baha'is believe that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of being seated on the throne of David (the first time, when born without a physical father).

As mentioned in the Gospel of Luke:

1:30 And the angel said unto [Mary]... And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb... and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David...

And as mentioned by 'Abdu'l Baha:

In the Bible there are prophecies of the coming of Christ...

When Christ came they [said]... 'The Messiah will arise out of an unknown city. He shall sit upon the throne of David...'

He came from Nazareth, no unknown place. He did not sit upon the Throne of David... Thus the Jews thought and spoke

Hearken, and I will show you the meaning thereof. Although He came from Nazareth, which was a known place, He also came from Heaven... The Throne upon which He sat is the Eternal Throne from which Christ reigns for ever, a heavenly throne, not an earthly one, for the things of earth pass away but heavenly things pass not away...

Thus, all the spiritual prophecies concerning the coming of Christ were fulfilled

(Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks, p. 56)

Abdu'l Baha is clear that literal physical descendancy from David was not important. Being seated on the "throne of David" is a metaphor of prophethood, because David is recognized in Baha'i scripture and others as a prophet. Baha'u'llah is also called the "Rod come forth out of the stem of Jesse", but no distorted teachings have come from this connection to Jesse.

In addition, the Bab and Muhammad (recognized by Baha'is as prophets), has no blood connection to King David. But what's really important is that there is no mention in any Baha'i scripture anywhere that a physical descent from King David is important. This is only important to a handful of dissidents who tried to claim divine authority and needed to somehow reconcile Abdu'l Baha's requirement that Guardians come from the blood line of Baha'u'llah. Cuñado   - Talk 02:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

~Cunado, could you please provide the reference for "born without a physical father", please. You actually think the Writings support the "imaculate conception"? Do you even know what the word "Messiah" means? Maybe you should actually read the article for which this discussion exists. Everything you both keep quoting are explanations the Master is giving on his "spiritual" nature. Physically he HAD to be a descendant of David's, through his physical father Joseph, or He couldn't claim to be a "Messiah ben David". Are you saying that all prophets are "messiah's". Could you reference that please? Anyone against Baha'u'llah's and Jesus' lineage from David, which is what made them Christs' (Messiah's) are therefore anti Their lineages making them anti-Christs. Paul said in Roman 1:3,4 that:

"concerning our Lord Jesus Christ, who was made of the SEED of David according to the FLESH, and declared Son of God according to the spirit of holiness..."

If you are anti this lineage of Theirs, then you are Anti-Christs, for Messiahship is unequivically a material entitlement as Paul points out. Hence the seemingly contradictive statements of the Master in saying Jesus "did not sit upon the Throne of David" in one statement, and that the throne didn't exist in another. Did he not sit on it or did it not exist at all? All references made to this thus far have been explaining a the spiritual nature of Jesus, not the material, which is repeated over and again in the quotes above. The idea that the Writings support the "immaculate conception" lie, and that all Prophets are Messiah's is the most ludicrous statements I've read thusfar, and would beg to see definitive references.

I would also beg to differ with MARussell statement, for I most certainly have addressed each and every one of those points in my last post and raised questions of my own throughout this discussion that have never been addressed as well. Either you haven't actually read any of it, or it's your predisposition to your interpolation of the Explicit Texts that's keeping you veiled from Reality. Or, maybe you can see the truth in what I'm saying and simply hate Reality and would prefer your own version of it. If you can't see that I have in fact answered every point you've raised then I can come to no other conclusion than that you hate the Truth even when you're staring at it.

Gonzales' genealogy is from your resouce library. We can put his research aside for the moment for my motive for using it was I assumed it was a point of reference we could agree on using since it came straigh out of the Baha'i Academics Resource Library, and is an external link on Shoghi Effendi, created by sans-Guardian Baha'is.

I'm not sure where you're malfunctioning on all this. I acknowledge Mirza Abu-Fazl's research into the Sassanian conection. We can agree that Baha'u'llah's descended from Yazdigird III, right? Then it is a fact that He's an Exilarch for His connection to Yazdigird III is through the Sassanian Princess Dara. She married the Exilarch Bostanai(see Exilarch for entire genealogy of David), who was Baha'u'llah's great, great, etc. grandfather making Baha'u'llah an Exilarch on the Throne of David. Thus, through this marriage the child sired and male descendants following were [Exilarchs] patrilineally, and Sassanian's matrilineally. Thanks for your contributions which have helped prove what I was saying in the first place.

"By the violent beating of my heart I knew that we were soon to see the Blessed face of the Prince of the House of David, the King of the whole world [refering to 'Abdu'l-Baha]." (Lua Getsinger, cf. “Persia” by Asaac Adams, pp.478-484).User:Jeffmichaud

It's not bahai-library.com that has or lacks "academic authority." Nothing on that site guarantees that is is authoritative, but it is a repository of data (def. A place where things may be put for safekeeping). You have to go back to the origin of the data or the author of the document to check it's authority. For example this article on Badi [1] is an unknown author (at least for me), but he has references. Some like this [2] and [3] are copies of academic authors that are reproduced on the site; you have to go back to the credentials of those authors, which in those two cases are the authors of peer-reviewed work. Another type of document on the site are translations like [4] [5]. And then there are also documents like [6] and [7] which are primary source data that are copies of the writings and/or letters of Bahá'u'lláh, `Abdu'l-Bahá, the Universal House of Justice, and National Spiritual Assemblies, etc. What I'm trying to say is that there is a lot of secondary data on bahai-library.com, and its the source of the data that makes it a valid source or not. The fact that it is on bahai-library.com does not make it good work or official. -- Jeff3000 15:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Shoghi Effendi is clear in many places about the belief in the immaculate conception of Jesus. Here's one: Cuñado   - Talk

"The churches teach doctrines - various ones in various creeds - which we as Bahá'ís do not accept; such as the bodily Resurrection, confession, or, in some creeds, the denial of the Immaculate Conception."

(Shoghi Effendi, The Light of Divine Guidance v I, p. 123)

A good reference showing Baha'u'llah's connection to King David would be a statement that says "Baha'u'llah was descended from King David". A geneology chart is good too, if it weren't written by hand and incredibly hard to read.

Your arguments all along have been proving that Baha'u'llah was descended from David, and my argument has been that it doesn't matter whether he was or wasn't. The fact that there is no specific mention of it in scripture is indicative that there is no importance placed on it. And the fact remains that Guardians should be descended from Baha'u'llah, not David, which is the real argument being disputed here. Cuñado   - Talk 19:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

~Isn't "the Ancient Root ruleth upon the throne of David" pretty close to "Baha'u'llah was descended from David"? Where's the difference. There's "no specific mention of it in scripture"? I can't see how much more specific He could have been. Where's the refernce to all Prophets being Messiah's?

Was that quote to say we beleive in Immaculate conception? You're adding words that aren't there. The whole passage you're citing is about NOT aligning with church dogmas. He go's on to say in the next sentence:

"In other words, there is no Christian church today whose dogmas we Bahá'ís can truthfully say we accept in their entirety. (Compilations, Principles of Bahai Administration, p. 30)

Is it too much to ask that we stick to the subject at hand? Paul said he was "descended from the seed of David according to the FLESH, and declared Son of God according to the Spirit". And so wasn't Baha'u'llah. Otherwise they weren't Messiah's. Their "FLESH" from the House of David is what made them Messiah's for it is a material title (see Article), and Paul goes on to say that Son of God is a spiritual title. If you are anti Their lineage, then you are Anti-Christ's. Speak to that please or to at least one of the dozen or so fact I've put forward as evidense that Baha'u'llah's claim to the Throne is relevent to the Baha'i Perspective.

Again,I acknowledge Mirza Abu-Fazl's research into the Sassanian conection. We can agree that Baha'u'llah's descended from Yazdigird III, right? Then it is a fact that He's an Exilarch for His connection to Yazdigird III is through the Sassanian Princess Dara. She married the Exilarch Bostanai(see Exilarch for entire genealogy of David), who was Baha'u'llah's great, great, etc. grandfather making Baha'u'llah an Exilarch on the Throne of David. Thus, through this marriage the child sired and male descendants following were [Exilarchs] patrilineally, and Sassanian's matrilineally. Thanks for your contributions which have helped prove what I was saying in the first place.

"By the violent beating of my heart I knew that we were soon to see the Blessed face of the Prince of the House of David, the King of the whole world [refering to 'Abdu'l-Baha]." (Lua Getsinger, cf. “Persia” by Asaac Adams, pp.478-484).User:Jeffmichaud

Disputed passage/s moved here from article

Original version which sparked discussion:

Baha'u'llah stated in His proclamation on page 89 that, I "The Ancient Root ruleth upon the Throne of David". He is believed by Baha'is to be the Second Coming of Christ. Christ is Greek for the Hebrew title Messiah, short for Messiah Ben David. Baha'is believe that the Bible paints a picture for two different Messiah's from the House of David coming in two separate pesonages, not one Messiah appearing twice. Jesus was the first, being descended from the House through His father Joseph. Baha'u'llah is believed to be the Reigning Messiah, come seated on the Throne of David in fullfillment of the Scriptures. He is a direct lineal descendant of David through the Exilarch Bostonai. This family of Exiled Monarchs remained in exile in the area of Manzandarin through the early part of the 20th Century where the throne was passed from father to son in an unbroken chain back to David. This lineage is continued through to today in the great-great grandson of Baha'u'llah as the Guardian of the Baha'i Faith. Complete Lineage of Baha'u'llah back to David

Edited version:

Bahá'u'lláh stated in The Proclomation of Bahá'u'lláh "The Most Great Law is come, and the Ancient Beauty (Bahá'u'lláh) ruleth upon the Throne of David". Followers of the Bahá'í Faith believe that the second coming of Jesus, as well as the prophecies of the 5th Buddha and many other religious prophecies of a second coming, were fulfilled in Bahá'u'lláh. They commonly compare Bahá'u'lláh's fulfillment of Christian prophecies to Jesus' fulfillment of Jewish prophecies, where in both cases people were expecting the literal fulfillment of apocalyptic statements. Bahá'ís believe that that the statement that the Messiah would sit upon the throne of David is symbolic as his holiness Jesus, neither had a throne, and was poor, and thus the Throne of David is symbolic of his eternal spiritual sovereignty and that the Throne and his Kingdom represent his teachings that touched countless numbers of human hearts. In the same way, Bahá'ís believe that Bahá'u'lláh's teachings will spread and thus he will fulfill the prophecy of the Throne of David.

Furthermore Bahá'ís believe in the two-fold station of the Manifestations of God (they consider Moses, Jesus and Bahá'u'lláh to be all Manifestations of God). Bahá'ís believe that the first station is of essential unity because they have the same attributes and in this respect, all the Manisfestations of God are one; the second station is of distinction, and in this respect they are all individuals. Thus, in this way, the Throne of David is again seen as symbolic as Bahá'ís believe that Bahá'u'lláh has the same station as Moses and Jesus.

There is, also, some statments that show that Bahá'u'lláh is a direct lineal descendant of David through the Exilarch Bostonai. This family of Exiled Monarchs remained in exile in the area of Manzandarin through the early part of the 20th Century where the throne was passed from father to son in an unbroken chain back to David.

BUPC view

Latest comment: 19 years ago7 comments1 person in discussion

The idea that Baha'u'llah is a patrilineal descendant of David is based upon mis-reading one incredible source as has been discussed at length here. All the other points have no published sources at all. This section should be deleted per:

• Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Wikipedia:Verifiability#Dubious_sources
• Wikipedia:No_original_research
• Wikipedia:Cite_sources
• Wikipedia:reliable source

This section is roughly identical to a speedily-deleted article called Lineage of King David (deleted 10-Nov-05), as noted earlier, which was deleted for the same reasons. MARussellPESE 14:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

~I'm truly sorry that you oppose what we (BUPC) believe so violently, but it is in fact what we believe. An entire disertation can be written to show the Scriptural basis for these beliefs, but it doesn't seem appropriate. How can what we believe be censored simply for conflicting with another's beliefs? The "speedily deleted" article being referred to didn't resemble in any way the breif summary created for this article. Look again, for I've created both and know for a fact that statement is in error. In this summary I've provided the ref. from Baha'u'llah's Proclamation quote, and the Bible passages that justify the few other beliefs I included. I'm searching for what might have been mentioned that I haven't stated a reference for and cannot find one.

Furthermore, I think our discussion may have gotten a bit lenghthy and it's possible the proof for His PATRILINEAL descent may have been missed by some eyes. Forgive me for repeating this for the third time, but putting the genealogy charts in question aside, it's quite easy to verify this with Wikipedia alone. The glib inuendo that the BUPC belief of His PATRILINEAL descent from David has been disproven here is unfounded. I was involved in researching every name of His ancestors for 5 of the 15 years of research that went into the genealogy chart we published. If anyone here can somehow disprove our work, then have at it. I don't need to reference our work here, nor do I need the Gonzales chart, but can prove his PATRILINEAL descent with Wikipedia.

Again, I acknowledge Mirza Abu-Fazl's research into the MATRILINEAL Sassanian Dynasty connection from Baha'u'llah to Abraham through Keturah's Sassanian descendent Yazdigird III. We all agree that Baha'u'llah's a descendent of Yazdigird III, right? Then it is a fact that He's an Exilarch for His connection to Yazdigird III is through the Sassanian Princess Dara. It's a historical fact that she married the Exilarch Bostanai (see article for proof of marriage), who was Baha'u'llah's great, great, etc. grandfather making Baha'u'llah an Exilarch on the Throne of David. Thus, through the marriage of Bostanai and Dara their child Shahriyar-Surhab and his first-born male descendants following were Exilarchs PATRILINEALLY, and Sassanian's matrilineally all the way down to Baha'u'llah. Any questions?

"By the violent beating of my heart I knew that we were soon to see the Blessed face of the Prince of the House of David, the King of the whole world [refering to 'Abdu'l-Baha]." (Lua Getsinger, cf. “Persia” by Asaac Adams, pp.478-484).User:Jeffmichaud

Once again, Jeffmichaud asserts that he could produce verifiable sources and does not. He asserts that his own research went into this, yet produces no documentation. It's clear wikipedia policy to do so.

I said I've done research into this and that I have intimate knowledge on the subject, but that it's not needed to prove my point as all the info is on Wikipedia. User:Jeffmichaud

He argues that this should be included because the BUPC believes it to be true yet offers no verifiable sources to that effect either.

And yet again, Jeffmichaud does not answer the argument presented that the entire section fails to meet wikipedia policies or guidelines, and merely re-states his argument. Incidentally he has not addressed several fatal flaws in that argument I pointed out previously on 18-Nov-05. He seems to feel that the last person talking wins. Making credible arguments that are supported by verifiable sources do.

The section does not meet wikipedia guidelines for inclusion and should be deleted. MARussellPESE 14:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

~What you percieve, MARussell, as "fatal flaws" which you supposedly revealed in your 11/18/05 post revealed nothing except your inability to read a genealogy chart from your own Academics Resource Library. I found it in Shoghi Effendi's biography so I thought it was a neutral source. Six of your seven points were about it's questionable "verifiablity", and about how you were lost and confused in translating it. You've presented nothing to this discussion but babble and rehtoric to refute ANY of my well-drawn conclusions, and then brazenly declare the issue closed. ROFLOL! I have shown how the quotes shared from the Writings were in reference to Jesus and have been taken out of context and not relevent to Baha'u'llah's lineage. And, with a genealogy, from an oft cited source of your own, shows my conclusions to be correct. But, let's please put the genealogy charts aside for now. They are obviously over your head.

I'll try to keep this simple so you don't get lost again. You provided:

"In his reply to Aqa Khusraw Biman, he describes how his interest was aroused in the genealogy of Bahá'u'lláh, and how his researches led him to Yazdigird III, the last of the Sasanian monarchs of Iran." (H.M. Balyuzi, Baha'u'llah - The King of Glory, p. 9)

That's your source right, from 11/18/05 which supposedly shot me down? I've agreed with this entirely all along, and was actually the first to point out that Mirza Abu Fazl was the originator of the research. According to the Wiki-article Bostanai, that guy YazdigirdIII married off his daughter Dara to the Exilarch on the Throne of David named Bostanai. That marriage and their descendants are how Baha'u'llah's connected to Yazdigird III in the first place, and that's why he's both an Exilarch patrilineally and a Sassanian matrilineally. None of this conflicts with any Explicit Texts on the subject, but rather are supported by it. You quoted 'Abdu'l-Baha mentioning his family descended from both Abraham's wives Sarah and Keturah. I just showed you with your own reference how that is: Bostanai's from Sarah (patrilineal)/Dara's from Keturah (matrilineal).

I'm going to add sources to the BUPC View section for I want all my work to comply with the Guidelines. Thanks for pointing that out. So, if anyone could find something substantive to disprove what I just wrote, which has subverted every argument presented against His descent from David thus far, you could possibly be the one to shoot me down and shut me up. Have at it. Speak to this and try to refrain from redirecting the focus. Let's settle this lineage thing for it is the crux, then we can tackle all other issues, okay?

P.S.~Anyone want to comment on the Lua Getsinger quote, and how pre-Sans-Guardian Baha'is saw the Holy Family? Anyone??

"By the violent beating of my heart I knew that we were soon to see the Blessed face of the Prince of the House of David, the King of the whole world [refering to 'Abdu'l-Baha]." (Lua Getsinger, cf. “Persia” by Asaac Adams, pp.478-484) User:Jeffmichaud

It pretty easy to declare the discussion closed since the the document's authenticity has not been established. This is the foundation of the entire thesis.

1. The document cited is not published — so its authenticity has not been vouched for.
2. The document cited is by an unknown author, of unknown training, using unverifiable data — so its authenticy can not be determined.
3. The document cited, if granted as genuine and as accurate as possible, lacks any documentation that the lines from Riunian to Bostanai and from Bostanai to Aqa Fakr – both of which skip generations – are exclusively male — so it can't be asserted as established fact that the line from David to Bahá'u'lláh is either.

The remainder of the discussion can be found here.

MARussellPESE 05:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

~Who put you in charge of dictating how this or any discussion will unfold. I'll answer in any way I see fit. First, Gestinger isn't proof, she's instituitive evidence. It's the best example of how you miss every point entirely. Cunado said this was never something Baha'is ever cared about. Gestinger did. Where did she come up with such a thing? Pre-Sans-Guardian Baha'is knew and cared about this. Why don't you?

They're not my rules. Plato, Socrates and a host of other philosophers, following the the well-worn footsteps of Jewish Patriarchs, developed the forms of rhetoric and logic we in the West use when arguing a point. It usually follows the form of developing a deductive, or inductive, argument based upon shared fundamental concepts. In the absence of shared concepts, then observable facts suffice. Euclidian geometry is the example we are, usually, all familiar with and begins with the sole premise, "the shortest distance between two points is a line." And with that simple statement Euclid ruined, or excited, the lives of tenth-graders forever. MARussellPESE 19:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

How could you possibly get so sidetracked? What part of "put the genealogy aside" don't you get? More rehtoric distracting readers from the actual points which have been made in the last month. It's not the "basis for the entire thesis". It's one example that proves your conclusions wrong. I know, you don't accept it, in spite of it being approved and accepted by Shoghi Effendi, and included in the External Links of his Wiki-bio. But, you can't comprehend it and won't accept it which is why I said "put it aside then and let's move on" a month ago and five time since then. But here we are still going on about it. YOU WIN>the genealogy is not valid for research purposes and should only be used as a pretty decoration for your office or temple walls and has no value whatsoever. LET'S MOVE ON!

My arguments against were soft-balls. All that was needed was something like: "Gonzales, prof. of some social science, at some university, researched this geneaology using information available at various libraries and collections, and published the findings in this or that book, chapter, journal, or even a newspaper."

If the geneaology is not valid, then exactly what other evidence are you producing to defend the position that this is fact? You neatly dispense with the geneaology, and then turn around and assert the same conclusions. A little shared evidence is necessary here as the conclusion is as shared concepts of the scripture are lacking. MARussellPESE 19:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

This is so simple, unfortunately you have eyes that cannot see. I've repeated the simplest version of this four times now. Baha'u'llah's from Jesse through David and Bostanai. Anyone with eyes that CAN see can look at the Wiki-Bostanai article and see Yazdigird III married his daughter Dara to Bostanai. One needs look no further, for it's clear and simple. You yourself showed Mirza Abu-Fazl attesting to Baha'u'llah Himself claiming to be from Yazdigird III. That's how. Through that marriage. And that's how "the Ancient Beauty RULETH upon the Throne of David". PATRILINEALLY! They're not called Explicit Texts for nothing. Furthermore, the Encylopedia Judaica lists every descendant from David to Bostanai in an unbroken chain under the section "Exilarchs". It's a point of material fact that Bostanai was the Exilarch on the Throne of David. It's also a Fact that Baha'u'llah was descended from Bostanai and Dara, as He attested to Himself claiming to be from Yazdigird III, making him an Exilarch Patrilineally, and a Sassanian matrilineally. If He wasn't descended from David He wasn't a Messiah, for that's what the word means, materially (not metaphorically) from David; read the article for this page. If you're anti his lineage, and anti the Messiah being a material title, YOU'RE AN ANTI-CHRIST. Good luck with that. "My children are destroyed for lack of knowledge" -Hosea 4:6 (that's my tagline, smartypants) User:Jeffmichaud 23:35 13-Dec.-05

Mirza Abu-Fadl only established a descent from Yazdigird III, not a patrilineal one. Where is the evidence that the line for Bostanai to Aga Fakhr is entirely male? It's a wikipedian maxim that extraordinary

"YOU'RE AN ANTI-CHRIST." Ooo. Not very friendly. MARussellPESE 19:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

~Glory be. I just got my first sense that there's a human behind that scholarly facade. You actually made a joke. Upon meditating on all this House of David stuff it's come to mind that it's not so critical that much more be stated on this subject of the BUPC views, since they are what we believe, and that's that.

I've gotten side-tracked more than once, because I really do believe the Gonzales genealogy, for instance, is clearly a no-brainer. I thought it was a neutral reference since it's acceptable enough for Shoghi's bio, but clearly was wrong. I wrote to him years ago after he scolded me for trying to fix the scan so that Yazdigird III's lineage didn't appear twice like it currently does, and connect the canted line the way it's supposed to. Copyright infringement, and all. I was just trying to fix it, not alter it's content. The scan they have online is pieced together from two huge diagrams, and Yazdigird III and his predecessors appear twice, so it's hard to follow the heavily canted line from Baha'u'llah unless you notice the error. Anyways, FWIW, he said the bulk of his data came from Mirza Abu-Fazl himself. Every name's not listed because in the Jewish histories there isn't contention about the descendents up to Bostanai. They hate Bostanai himself because he converted to Islam when he met the Caliph Al-Mamoun. But he didn't list every Exilarch, although Riunan, for instance, is listed because he was the King at the time of Jesus. You'll see that his name is on the chart next to Jesus. I can't speak with authority on his research but I can say it matches right up with the results of our research on this genealogy which does list every King and Exilarch.

I "asserted the same conclusions" because the Encyclopedia Judaica lists all the Exilarchs up to Bostanai under "Exilarchs". It's not available publically online, so I can't link to it. So from there I was relying heavily on Baha'u'llah's own testimony that he's from Yazdigird III. I'll try and uproot the research for posterity's sake. But, it's through Yaz's daughter Dara and Bostanai that He's connected to the Sassanians and by proxy the Exilarchs since Bostanai was the Exilarch, and his son, and so on to Baha'u'llah. I'll dig deeper for this since it's not a point of common acknowledgement.

Will return with facts and numbers shortly. I say "for posterity" because like it or not, the BUPC do believe these things, and debating it ad-infintum won't negate it. Therefore, they should be allowed to be reflected in this article we're discussing here. Some of these beliefs are based on OUR interpretations of the Writings which obviously contradict YOUR interpretations. So here we are entertaining ourselves at the crossroads:) User:Jeffmichaud 14:33 14-Dec-05

P.S.> Curious. I just looked, and the link to the Gonzales genealogy is gone from Shoghi's bio page, but moreover the html no longer exist in bahai-library.com or at farrid.20m.com. Must be something in it someone doesn't want seen. BTW, this is just hearsay, but Gonzales told me personally in writing that Shoghi Effendi approved his research personally and was quite proud of it. He'd have liked it on his bio. Oh well. Also, if you link to this, found in history of SE's bio, you can see now that the content doesn't load that the page WAS scanned in two parts like I was saying, and at bottom of p.1 and top of p.2 Yazdigird III predecessor's appeared twice messing up the flow. Wierd that it's gone, huh? User:Jeffmichaud 01:21 15-Dec-05

Never, ever, had a problem with you stating BUPC beliefs — as beliefs. I had problems with you stating that this was a fact. (You'll notice I've not edited your section a single time once you adjusted it to read as such.)

Stating a belief is not making an argument. Asserting a fact is. Once you make an argument it is perfectly fair to ask you to back it up. And that's all I've been doing.

I presume that you'll not have a problem with my editing a short Bahá'í discussion asserting the following facts:

• Bahá'u'lláh made no direct claim to be an Exilarch. Bahá'í historians have traced his ancestry to the last Sassanian king Yazdigird III who , However, there isn't evidence that there is a line to David that is entirely patrilineal.

[I'm not saying categorically that it's not true, only that there's no evidence. The only reference to Bostanai is the genealogy, which doesn't meet sourcing guidelines.]

• Bahá'í scripture addresses the "Throne of David" as metaphorical and in reference to Christ's fulfilment of these Messianic prophecies.

[Even the oft-qouted passage from The Proclaimation of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 87, (Coincidentally the one and only place he refers to the "Throne of David".) is in this reference when taken as a whole, beginning as it does with "At one time We address the people of the Torah and summon them unto Him Who is the Revealer of verses (Christ) ... At another, We address the people of the Evangel ... At still another, We address the people of the Qur'án ...". He then goes on to repeat the subject of each call again over the course of the letter. The theme that he is the return of these messengers and prophets is foundational.]

MARussellPESE 14:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Modern day claimants to the throne

This is a subject of my upcoming book.

You fail to deal with modern day Jewish families who descend from the line of the exilarchs. One of them in particular (his excellency Yosef Dayan of Israel)is active in the movement to restore Israel's royal house. I shall post more on the subject.

User:hebrewpride

BUPC again

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I deleted and re-wrote it because it was poorly written and far from reality. My improving the article does not represent vandalism. Cuñado   - Talk 08:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

~You're kidding, right? Weren't you just writing in another discussion just last week that you were in no way a censorist, and how dare I even suggest it? You clearly are a censoring, biased, and moraless BAD FAITH editor by stooping this kind of editing. You VANDALIZED an entire section, and have the nerve to wave your good faith flag? I didn't even try to remove what you replaced the BUPC section with, called "Baha'i Views", but reverted the BUPC veiw and placed it below your "improved aritcle". I wasn't the one who removed "Baha'i View" this afternoon, it was MARussell. Look in the history. I put BUPC View below Baha'i View, and MARussell then removed Baha'i View alltogether. Obviously it's not the "Baha'i View" if all your Baha'i friends don't agree on it. I don't care how you choose to represent the Baha'i World Faith, but where do you come off in trying to censor the BUPC or what they believe? Where you elected the spokesman-in-charge-of-BUPC-reality? Look at the BUPC main-site yourself and you'll see that nothing I wrote can't be found on the Welcome Page of the Official Site of the BUPC. There's no way this section's being censored, as everything stated are Fundamental Core Beliefs of the BUPC as the Welcome Page to bupc.org can testify.

Noone on this huge globe cares an iota how you feel about BUPC beliefs. If you're POV article called "Baha'i View" stands for any length of time after scrutiny by REAL editors, I'll be shocked. I'll leave it as it is, as I have from the start, and let it be peer-reveiwed. But, whatever your version of "reality" happens to be as a Baha'i will NEVER stand in the way of the BUPC's right to have their's be expressed. Good luck trying.

Here's a thought. Why don't you devote even half of the energy that you do to following around my contributions to revert, vandalize, and censor my work, and devote it to expanding some of the stubs on your pages like the Covenant, or the Will and Testatment, or any of the other dozen or so stubs you all are neglecting. All of which seem to be vital links to many arguments against Division groups, yet are lacking in content to support much of the discrediting. Focusing on building up instead of tearing down. WOW, what a concept, huh? User:Jeffmichaud 01:51 15-Dec-05

The Complete BUPC View and Explanation

Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The following is an overview of the views of the Baha'is Under the Provisions of the Covenant concerning Baha'u'llah, the founder of the Baha'i Faith, in relation to the Messiah ben David. This is in no way an attempt to dissuade believers of any faith to the views of the BUPC, nor an attempt to subvert the position of other Baha'is with opposing views. The following is an outline of the BUPC's position on the 1st and 2nd coming of Christ (Messiahs), the lineage of King David, and the contiuation of that line through the Guardians of the Baha'i Faith to the present day.

Messiah ben David (annointed sons of David)

• From Jewish eschatology: Mashiach/Messiah: The Hebrew word Mashiach (or Moshiach) means anointed one, and refers to a mortal human being. Within Judaism, the Mashiach is a human being who will be a descendant of King David continuing the Davidic line, and who will usher in a messianic era of peace and prosperity for Israel and all the nations of the world.
• Two Messiah's prophesied in the Old Testament:

Then answered I, and said unto him, What are these two olive trees upon the right side of the candlestick and upon the left side thereof? And I answered again, and said unto him, What be these two olive branches [symbol of David] which through the two golden pipes empty the golden oil out of themselves?...Then said he, These are the two anointed ones [Messiahs], that stand by the LORD of the whole earth." (King James Bible, Zechariah 4:11-14); note: vision here of lampstand with 7 candles and olive branches on each side [symbolic of House of David, e.g. 2 Messiahs] is believed by the BUPC to conform with the Baha'is belief that the 9 major world religions are all from the same One-True-Invisible God, and are seen here by Zechariah.

First Messiah

Baha'is Under the Provisions of the Covenant accept that Jesus was the first Christ and that Baha'u'llah was the second. They point to the genealogy of Jesus in the first chapters of Mattew and Luke showing his descendancy from David through his father Joseph. Although he was not seated on the Throne itself, he is believed by them to qualify as a Messiah ben David by definition, in that he's a descendant of the House of David. Daniel foresaw "the Messiah" coming, and gives the exact number of years for the date of his arrival:

"Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks..."(King James Bible, Daniel 9:25); note this equals 490 years from the edict given in 456 B.C. which adds up to 33 A.D. as there is no zero year.

Isaiah sees this Messiah from the House of David:

"And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."(King James Bible, Isaiah 7:13,14); note Immanuel/Jesus is same name in different languages; Isaiah here sees him from the "house of David.

Paul explains that:

:Conerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And, declared to be Son of God with power, according to the spririt of holiness..." (KJB Romans 1:3,4)

Physically he's from the seed of David, according to Paul, thus qualifying Jesus as a Messiah ben David; a "mortal human being" descended from David, fulfilling prophecies from Isaiah and Daniel. And, a clear portrait of him is depicted by Isaiah in chapter 53:

"Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand...Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." (King James Bible, Isaiah 55: 10,12)

Second Messiah A portrait of an entirely different Messiah is also envisioned by the prophet Isaiah earlier in chapter 9:

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this." (King James Bible, Isaiah 9:6,7)

Shoghi Effendi, the first Guardian of the Baha'i Faith, states that this vision of Isaiah applies to Baha'u'llah:

To Him [Baha'u'llah] Isaiah, the greatest of the Jewish prophets, had alluded as the "Glory of the Lord," the "Everlasting Father," the "Prince of Peace," the "Wonderful," the "Counsellor," the "Rod come forth out of the stem of Jesse" and the "Branch grown out of His roots," Who "shall be established upon the throne of David,"(Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By, p. 94)

As the Guardian is the only one granted authority to interpret the Explicit Writings, statements such as this one from Jeff3000 are against the Covenant as the Writings are not open to interpretation; hence Explicit:

"`Abdu'l-Bahá has written in Paris Talks referring to the Throne of David that "The Throne upon which He sat is the Eternal Throne from which Christ reigns for ever, a heavenly throne, not an earthly one." Based upon this passage, my understanding is that the statement of Bahá'u'lláh's in the Proclamation of Bahá'u'lláh refers not to the descendancy of Bahá'u'lláh from David, but rather the spiritual connection between the Manifestations of God" Jeff3000 22:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

This interpolation of the Explicit Texts is out of context. 'Abdu'l-Baha, the son of Baha'u'llah, is explaining the nature of Jesus the Christ's Messiahship, and never makes any reference to his father, Baha'u'llah. Furthermore, the interpolation implies that the Master is unaware that there was in fact a king seated on the throne, the Exilarch Liunan son of Babatun, at the very moment Jesus was crucified. Of course the Master was aware of this Scriptural fact that the throne of David existed and was in fact "an earthly one", but that Jesus wasn't sitting on it. He simply did not fulfill the criteria for the Messiah seated on the throne of David. Another example of The Master's sentiments on this subject are:

":"The Jews were blind to reality. The real Christ came from the city of light in the eternal realms Christ is a king. His shepherd's staff, that is, his tongue, was a sword dividing the true from the false. The throne of David is not a material throne but an eternal kingdom. Christ re-established this kingdom; it has been forgotten. Christ conquered the east and the west. This means a spiritual victory, not a material one." (Abdu'l-Baha, Divine Philosophy, p. 36)

Again, he mentions "the throne of David is not a material throne". Was he not aware that there was a material throne with Liunan sitting on it in Babylon at the time of Jesus? Or, is User:Jeff3000 misiterpolating the Explicit Texts, and drawing conclusions about the reality of the matereal throne from an explanation of the spiritual condition of Jesus? Furthermore, Shoghi Effendi tells us Explicitly in God Passes By that "To Him [Baha'u'llah] Isaiah, the greatest of the Jewish prophets, had alluded as..."Who "shall be established upon the throne of David,".

The BUPC believe it is in error and against the Covenant to extrapolate conclusions based on interpolations of the Explicit Texts. Only the Guardian is given that right, and Shoghi Effendi Explictily says Baha'u'llah is seated on the Throne of David. The Master's explanation of Jesus' spiritual condition has been eroneously used to try and invalidate the legitimacy of Baha'u'llah's material Royal Lineage.

Baha'u'llah's Royal Lineage

To Him [Baha'u'llah] Isaiah, the greatest of the Jewish prophets, had alluded as the "Glory of the Lord," the "Everlasting Father," the "Prince of Peace," the "Wonderful," the "Counsellor," the "Rod come forth out of the stem of Jesse" and the "Branch grown out of His roots," Who "shall be established upon the throne of David,"(Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By, p. 94)

Baha'u'llah himself, in his Proclamation of Baha'u'llah, p. 89 state:

I "THE Most Great Law is come, and the Ancient Beauty ruleth upon the throne of David. Thus hath My Pen spoken that which the histories of bygone ages have related."

Therefore, the BUPC believe he is clearly stating that being seated on the throne of David is a matter of historical record. His lineage is traced back in an unbroken father to son relationship to David through the Exilarch Bostanai. Bostanai is acknowledged by all Jewish scholars, according to the Encyclopedia Judaica's "Exilarch" section [exiled monarchs of the house of David], as the last King the Jews accept. It is believed that their departure from the family at this point came when Bostanai accepted Islam after meeting the Caliph Al-Mamoun. Nonetheless, this Royal heritage was not subject to the acceptance of the Jews. God promised David that his throne would never lack and hier:

"I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant, Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations...My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me. It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven." (King James Bible, Psalms 89:3,4...34,35)

For thus saith the LORD; David shall never lack a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel;:(King James Bible, Jeremiah 33:17)

Therefore, whether the Jews continued to turn to the House of David was not a condition set upon it. It "shall be established for ever". Every descendant of Bostanai thru to Baha'u'llah can be found in Malik Khusravi's "Iqlim-i-Nur" (Expanded and Revised edn. after 118 BE, INBA 2041E). Khusravi was a citizen of Tehran, and had access the family's records preserved in the official public records of the city of Tehran. This authoratative text contains the names and offices held of every Exilarch from Bostanai to Baha'u'llah in an unbroked father to son chain, and verifies the statements made by Shoghi Effendi in Baha'i World Volume 5 where he traces Baha'u'llah's lineage backwards six generations to the Exilarch Aqa Fakhr. Khusravi's lineage is more thorough and shows every generation back to Bostanai. It preserves and makes known for all-time the Royal lineage of Baha'u'llah, the Reigning Messiah ben David. Therefore, Baha'u'llah says, "Thus hath My Pen spoken that which the histories of bygone ages have related." This shows that it's a matter of historical record and needn't be explained or elaborated upon: it's a matter of record; look it up.

The BUPC deem the throne of David to be a material one based on both the Bible and the Baha'i Writings. They believe that anyone who is anti Baha'u'llah literally on the material throne of David, are anti his lineage, and are by definition, anti-Christ. This is because the definition of Christ/Messiah is an annointed male descendant of King David.

Continuation of the Lineage

David shall never lack an heir. Therefore it is beleived by the BUPC that this lineage which was inherited by Baha'u'llah continued in his appointed successor and son, 'Abdu'l-Baha. The BUPC believe that since 'Abdu'l-Baha had no biological sons, he adopted one: Charles Mason Remey.

"I have adopted you as my son. You have to appreciate this favor very much indeed. One should see that you are living according to the requirements of this sonship. You should be aware of your responsibilities. My prayers will help you. I always pray for you." ('Abdu'l-Baha to Remey, 1921: Final Visit in Tiberias, Folio 2, "A Pilgrimage to the Holy Land: Reminisces of the Master, 1921", pp.127-129. John Hopkins University, Special collections)

They also accept that Remey was the Second Guardian of the Baha'i Faith, and since it's a condition on the Guardian to appoint one of his son's as his successor, that this lineage of the Throne of David will continue forevermore in the Guardianship of the Baha'i Faith. The BUPC believe that Remey's adopted son Joseph Pepe became his appointed successor after his passing, and that Pepe in turn adopted and appointed Neal Chase.

"My children are destroyed from lack of knowledge." Hosea 4:6 User:Jeffmichaud

Tricky how you tell us to "look it up" and then cite a book that's not available. I'd love to — but Iqlim-i-Nur is in Farsi. It took me the better part of an hour just to find a passing reference to its publication — in Iran. Are you seriously citing a book in Farsi as informative of this discussion? How can you say that the author "had access [to] the family's records" and reaches specific conclusions that categorically support your thesis when it's in a language you don't speak nor an alphabet you understand?

This is the best historical record available — and with that the question is closed? Amazing.

Your asserting that all the records going back to the death of Yazdigird III, who was murdered in 651 AD, are available in some archive in Tehran? That's over 1300 years of birth records. Eighteen separate dynasties rose and fell in the interegnum. The family supposedly kept these current for all that time? And they just happend to fall into the laps of the city of Tehran — where they kept them? It strains credulity.

Wish I felt free to cite sources that nobody can check, in languages I can't even read. Must be liberating. "I speak without fear of contradiction ..."

Points of fact:

• Shoghi Effendi does not refer to Aqa Fakhr as an Exilarch.
• There is still no documented evidence of a line of descent through Bostanai, much less a patrilineal one.
• I'm not exaggerating the number of Persian dynasties after the fall of the Sassanids (From: List of kings of Persia).

Umayyad Caliphs, 661-750; Abbasid Caliphs, 750-867; Taherids, 821-872; Alavids, 864-928; Ziyarids, 928-1043; Buyyids, 932-1056; Saffarids in Seistan and beyond, 861-1002; Samanids, 892-998; Ghaznavids, 997-1186; Seljuk Turks, 1029-1194; Khwarazmids, 1096-1230; Ilkhans, 1256-1380; Muzaffarid Dynasty, 1314-1393; Timurid dynasty, 1380-1507; Safavid dynasty, 1502-1736; Afsharid dynasty, 1736-1749; Zand dynasty, 1750-1794; and Qajar dynasty, 1796-1925. (Overlaps in the timeline are due to the fact that the Persian empire broke up after the Sassanids until the Safavids united the old empire again.)

How is it that the "Davidic line" is supposed to pass literally father-to-son across 2800 years and then magically jumps through three ersatz adoptions making Neal Chase an Exilarch? MARussellPESE 20:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

~Is that all you gleened from that? I put a lot of thought and energy into laying out a thorough and sourced overview. It'd be nice to be afforded the courtesy of a Haifan Baha'is view on all those points, intstead of focusing narrowly on one, and diverging the discussion from the macro-view proposed, if one is going to comment at all. Let's summarize the BUPC's belief's on the subject of Messiah ben David. Again, not to subvert or convert the position of other Baha'is with opposing views, but to establish an understanding why the BUPC stands apart from the majority of believers on the subject:

• Two Messiah's were expected (Zech 4:14). One would suffer and die (Ishaiah 53) believed fulfilled in Jesus, and one, the "Glory of the Lord", who would "establish the house of the Lord", and be "established on the throne of David" (Isaiah 9) believed fulfilled in Baha'u'llah.
• Shoghi Effendi states that the verses from Isaiah "the Glory of the Lord" [Baha'u'llah's name in english] and "shall be established upon the throne of David" are specifically about Baha'u'llah (GPB p.94). Established: adj 1:settled securely and unconditionally.
• 'Abdu'l-Baha states "the throne of David is not a material throne". Was he not aware that there was a material throne with Liunan sitting on it in Babylon at the time of Jesus? Or, are the majority of Baha'is misiterpolating the Explicit Texts, and drawing conclusions about the reality of the matereal throne from an explanation of the spiritual condition of Jesus? note: admittedly a crossroads of interpretation. we're right and you're wrong. kidding:) but that's the BUPC understanding on the matter.
• Regarding the throne, "David shall never lack a man to sit upon the throne" (Jer. 33:17), so we know it is to endure through and beyond today. Jewish eschatology, Isaiah, and this Davidic line page assert and agree that the promised Messiah would be seated on that throne. The Messiah depicted by Isaiah 9, which Shoghi Effendi affirms is about Baha'u'llah, is called the "Glory of the Lord", and is "established on the throne of David". Furthermore, the Glory of the Lord is refered to throughout the O.T. seated on the throne in virtually every reference. The BUPC believe this one could only be Baha'u'llah (for this is his name in English), as Jesus was never depicted on the throne, and the other Prophets have never been refered to anywhere in any way as Messiahs.
• Messiah ben David only refers to male descendants of the house of David by definition. It is academically irresponsible to assert that somehow Messiah is an appropriate title for other Prophets. Or, more specifically, that Baha'u'llah could claim to be the Messiah called "Glory of the Lord" and not be seated on the throne; for several dozen references are made throughout the Bible stating he would be.
• According to the historical records ("Thus hath My Pen spoken that which the histories of bygone ages have related"), and confirmed and revealed in the Iqlim-i-Nur, Baha'u'llah is in fact seated on the Throne as a descendant of Bostanai.

1. Bostanai is established as an Exilarch by Encylcopedia Judaica, The Jewish Encylcopedia, and others like the WikipageExilarchs.
2. Malik Khusravi's "Iqlim-i-Nur" (Expanded and Revised edn. after 118 BE, INBA 2041E) is not the only known source for the evidence of the Holy family's direct patrilineal descent from Bostanai, it's simply the most authoritative. It is even recognized as a valid resource in the Baha'i Academics Resource Library (you should have started your search there and saved yourself an hour). BTW, for future reference, how many references does one deem neccessary? (I'm not making the two hour road trip to the Baha'i Center again to dig up more for this discussion, I'm just saying/ you asked for one, and I provided the most authoratative one possible)
3. Misunderstanding 1): I wasn't the one "telling [you] to 'look it up', I was inferring Baha'u'llah was by stating that He declared it's a matter of historical record in His Proclamation. It can be argued that this is the reason he never went into more detail about it since it's simply a matter of record and if you want to know more about it "look it up". See?
4. Misunderstanding 2): I was the one stating Aqa Fakhr was an Exilarch by virtue of his own connection to Bostanai. I know SE didn't mention that title. My bad, should be more specific.
5. Questioning it's original language is in this writer's opinion a trite argument. All the original Writings are in Farsi. So what? I never claimed to have interpreted it myself. BTW, I do in fact understand the alphabet, and believe all Baha'is should. I can read names if I apply myself, although the texts are all Greek to me ;)
6. My statements could have been more elaborate on how Khusravi obtained these records, but it wasn't meet nor seemly. It's all explained in detail in the book. Didn't mean to set anyone off in my brevity.
7. THE REAL CRUX OF THE ISSUE (note the following is my own explanation and will not be sourced). Why is it a stretch and so violently opposed that a distinguished Royal Family would keep birth and death records for all it's generations. The Bible records the lineages of families in Genesis for 900 years, and those families didn't even have titles. The Bible records the lineage of David to Jesus. More specifically, the Jews kept track of the family line for over a thousand years. They widely publish every father to son relationship from Jesse to Bostanai. Why is it any stretch of the imagination that the family wouldn't continue to maintain the same records they had been all along? Although the average family may not bother, this is a royal family, and one written into the Covenant of God. Khusravi simply copied down existing records. What's the problem?
8. Lastly, why would anyone consider adoptions artificial? I didn't understand the inference. Abdu'l-Baha had no male children to appoint to succeed him on the throne. He adoped one. Same with Mason, and same with Pepe. What's the question?

"My children are destroyed from lack of knowledge" Hosea 4:6 User:Jeffmichaud 02:46 21 December 2005

I don't know a way to emphasize this more — the Iqlim-i-Nur is categorically not authoritative, revealed text.

Finally an organized argument.

Responding in detail:

1. Non-sequitor as a relationship to Bostanai isn't established.

2. "[H]ow many references does one deem neccessary?" At least one reliable and verifiable one. Untranslated works of unknown origin are neither.

3. Most would read "Look it up." as imperative — and argumentative. You're inferring that Bahá'u'lláh is stating this as established fact? Don't you have anything where he says it is? (See 2 above.)

4. Correct. In fact, the term "Exilarch" is used only once in the entire body Bahá'í texts. This single reference is on p. 35 of 'Abdul-Bahá's The Secret of Divine Civilization where he tells the believers that they should be familiar with all the world's religions and uses the example of the Eighth Imam Rida who discussed Islam with the then Exilarch[8].

5. I'm not questioning its original language. I'm questioning the fact that it's not available for inspection in English to confirm or deny your argument. (See 2 above.) A tremendous amount of the original Farsi and Arabic sacred writings are translated. It's not too much to ask that a document that purports to support this foundational BUPC belief be as well.

6. How do you know how Khusravi obtained these records, much less their condition or composition, if the document isn't in English? (See 2 above.)

7. The "problem" here is that we don't even have Khusravi's book much less an account of the records to determine if they are genuine. The historical accuracy of the Gospels is by no means taken for granted even by believing scholars. You are missing the entire argument.

• The family would have had to keep 1300 years of birth records, and,
• At 25 years per generation, making for 52 generation, each and every generation had at least one boy, and,
• Those records would have had to land, in their entirety, in the public records of Teheran, and,
• The Teheran authorities would have had to keep them — despite the fact that the Bábís and Bahá'ís have been a suppressed minority for its entire history.

This is like asking us to believe that one could find complete genealogical records for the last Jewish priests in a vault in Rome.

8. The question of whether the patrimony, especially the Exilarchy, passes through adoptions is for Jewish scholars to answer. My question is to ask you to produce evidence of these ersatz adoptions. The logic supporting 'Abdul-Bahá's so-called secret adoption of Mason Remey is fishy. If 'Abdul-Bahá "needed" a male heir, and adopted Mason Remey to fill that gap, why did he then appoint a grandson through a daughter to be his successor. If this so-called adoption were real, why didn't he appoint Mason Remey Guardian as the "son". He would have, at least, recorded the "adoption".

Lastly, I can't keep it straight, was Mason Remey "adopted" by 'Abdul-Bahá, Shoghi Effendi, or both? If both, wouldn't that make him his own adoptive great-uncle?

MARussellPESE 16:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

~I think we're at a terminal crossroad. But, just for the record I'll share my thoughts:

1. You claim: "the Iqlim-i-Nur is categorically not authoritative, revealed text". I never claimed it was "revealed text". BUT, 2nd ed. was published under Shoghi Effendi. You claim it's not authoratative, so I guess you've categorically closed your mind and this discussion to reality. note: I'm not here to validate the book. If you don't know about or are being deprived accessed to it, that's an issue you should take up with the appropriate Assembly. I'm sure if you present yourself as a sincere seeker they'll be happy to produce the names and offices of each male descendent from Bostania, validating Baha'u'llah's an Exilarch as well.
2. "Untranslated works of unknown origin are neither": niether sentiments are true. This discussion has reached a stand still. This book is out there and referred to regularly by academics like Dr. Juan Cole and others. His relationship to Bostanai has been sourced to this authoratative history book. Sorry if you've been kept in the dark as to what it contains by your clergy-class. You should ask someone higher up for the list of names and see what they tell you. They know, as does anyone who looks at it what it reveals. Look for yourself. We've had both editions of it for almost twenty years. Everybody with any interest in his genealogy comes accross the Iqulim-i-Nur at some point. You keep implying that because I can't read Farsi that it disqualifies me referencing it. We have several dozen believers in the BUPC who can read Arabic and Persian. Don't you all?

I'm finding it hard to determine if the rest of the above questions are sincere or sardonic. This discussion is starting to look like an arguement for arguing sake. I've been attempting to be as concise, to the point, and forthcoming as I can. I'll admit that I'm not the most skilled at doing this sort of debating, but I'm losing interest by the second for presenting facts that will either go ignored and unacknowledged, or be attacked with rhetoric on how they're presented.

I've presented the BUPC's views on Jesus and Baha'u'llah's Messiahship, the Writings that support these views, why they're believed to be Messiah's, and much much more. All has been cast aside and we've devolved to rhetorical questions about a book that can be found and accessed through the Baha'i Academics Resource Library. I didn't write the Iqlim-i-Nur, so I can't speak to every detail about it's origins. I have mistakenly added my own statements regarding the records in Tehran, and should have forseen the consequenses of adding too brief a summary to an extensively researched book. It can stand alone on it's own merits, and doesn't need my input to validate it. I have nothing further to add, for it most definitely has every single solitary name of every Exilarch from Bostanai to Baha'u'llah, with an extensive bibliography. Any sincere seeker can see it in plain Farsi for himself, as I have. This family kept records for 1500 years from David to Bostanai which are widely published. Why would they not continue to do so for another 1500, or into infinity? "David shall never lack an hier." It's an enormous presumption that they'd neglect their duties for even one generation. Kuhsravi's Iqulim-i-Nur is simply the most concise source. I have nothing further to say about the matter.

I'm not trying to "win" an arguement here. Nor am I being "imperative", or "arguementative" which I'm now being accused of. FTR, 1)I attempted to explain the misunderstanding, so badgering me about your misunderstanding seems to me to be 'argumentative! My only purpose here it to defend the BUPC's right to express our beliefs, which I believe I've shown to be based on accurate, well-based conculsions. Anyone who disagrees with those stated beliefs has that right, and can choose to reject them.

As it appears that the sans-Guardian Baha'is are void of the knowledge I've put forth regarding Messiah ben David, the lineage of David, and it's continuation through the Guardianship, instead of attacking this messanger I would suggest interested parties undertake thier own Independant Investigation of the Truth. It's not my intention to convert anyone, but rather to defend what I believe to be the truth and the BUPC's right to express it here. Any sincere seeker can find all this information with extensive explanations on BUPC.org, or can question the Guardian himself through the Official Website of the Universal House of Justice. Regarding the adoptions of the Guardians Mason Remey, Pepe Remey, and Neal Chase, the BUPC stance is clearly stated on each of thier respective pages. I don't feel it neccessary to repeat those extensively sourced views in this discussion. Curious parties can access the information on those pages.

I don't wish to participate any longer in anything resonating as argumentative. I've stepped back from being defensive about our beliefs being attacked, and tried to simply put forward a comprehensive and concise overview of the information given in 3 separate Fireside classes. It can be presumed as a given that obviously sans-Guardian Baha'is and BUPC don't agree on these matters. This section of the discussion page was created with the intent of explaining in specific detail the summary created on the article page. Thus far nothing besides the authenticity of the Iqlim-i-Nur has been questioned. I'll acknowledge that the questions about the book were valid as a source for our findings about Baha'u'llah's lineage are the keystone, and I addressed them in my previous post and have nothing further to add.

The BUPC's intentions are as sincere as I believe other Baha'i groups must assuredly be in thier resolve to defend thier respective views regarding the Covenant. My hat's off to anyone willing to lift the mantle of defending the Covenant regardless of whether I agree with the views expressed. I have presented to the best of my ability the BUPC view on these matters, and wish to avoid repetition. I believe my work is done here, and have put to rest the questions about the statements expressed by the BUPC on this Davidic line article. If I'm wrong (which has never ever ever happened) and something I've presented above is inaccurate, inconsistent, or glaringly false, I would happily look into the matter and thank the one who takes the time to point it out <:0) User:Jeffmichaud 23:23 21 December 2005

Where to begin?

You used the terms "revealed" and "authoritative" in reference to Iqlim-i-Nur. As these terms have specific meanings to Bahá'ís it needed to be clarified that this text is not, and to let that stand would to be to give assent.

I haven't discussed your literal reading of the texts because I read Bahá'u'lláh's and 'Abdul-Bahá's references to the "Throne of David" as purely figurative — as do most Bahá'ís, including those whose native language is Farsi. 'Abdul-Bahá couldn't be more specific frankly. When Jeff3000 raised this with you, you dismissed it out of hand. There's nothing to argue logically when it comes to beliefs. Most of what you present are snatches of Old Testament prophecies and two passages from Bahá'í texts. Christians alone have too much blood spilt over the "correct" readings of OT prophecies for that to be a useful discussion.

But to assert that Bahá'u'lláh is an Exilarch is to assert a fact — and that can be argued logically.

The reason I've questioned the veracity of this assertion is two-fold:

• If it can not be determined that he is one then the assertion must be clarified clearly as "belief" for it to be honest — which you do in the Article, but not so much here, and not in the BUPC literature
• If it can be determined that he is not one then entire thesis collapses

I raised questions about the availability, authenticity and verifiability of Iqlim-i-Nur because it is the only published document you presented in support. You acknowledge, I believe, that this text is the "keystone" of this belief. How can questioning it's authenticity have the discussion "devolved to rhetorical questions" — it's the centerpiece of your thesis.

You assert that Iqlim-i-Nur is "widely available" and on the Bahá'í Academics Resource Library. This just isn't true. I did "look it up" when you cited it the first time. I can find only a few bibliographic references to it. (Perhaps you meant references are "widely available?) One article cites it as a reference for Mirza Yahya's wives. That's why I could assert so strongly that this document is not available. (And that citation raises questions as to what the book is really about.)

How can one assert that it is not true that untranslated works of unknown origin are not reliable and verifiable? How can one rely on, or verify, something one can not read?

You say that you "can't read Farsi" but that you've seen it in "plain Farsi ... as I have." So we are to take your word for it? I'd rather see the book — ahh, but where to find it. If I had it, I could take it to someone and have them read it to me.

If you're going to tell me to "go learn Farsi" then, why do the tens-of-thousands of native speaking Bahá'ís not make anything of this? (I've spoken to several to confirm this.) A bit more than "several dozen".

Suggesting repeatedly that the Bahá'í administration is somehow keeping this from me, or anybody for that matter, is a cheap shot and does not stand up to examination under your own assertions that Iqlim-i-Nur is "widely available" and on Bahá'í academic research sites, and that the documentation is widely available to anyone who can read Farsi, like you have.

That's not the only thing I've questioned. I've also asked for docuemtation on the validity of the various "adoptions" that along the line of descent, Davidic or not, to Remey or his various successors. All you've presented are your own wikipedia articles. Adoption is a legal proceeding. Where are these recorded? (Your reference "A Pilgrimage to the Holy Land: Reminisces of the Master, 1921" isn't available in their online catalog — making me suspicious. I've got a call in to check with a librarian to see if it is there. See, I do read your stuff and check your sources.)

What's interesting here is that Jensen's "Law of Adoption" makes consistent references to someone as "my son" a legal document in the eyes of the BUPC. This makes discussion of these "adoptions" circular and moves it from fact to belief. That brings this subject back to the basic form of the Exilarch argument:

• If it can not be determined that these adoptions are legally recognized then the "adoptions" must be clarified clearly as "beliefs" for that to be honest — which you don't in any of the articles you wrote
• If it can be determined that these are not legally recognized then entire thesis collapses

I haven't been arguing for argument's sake. I've been arguing because you haven't answered the questions but insist that you have "put to rest the questions about the statements expressed by the BUPC on this Davidic line article.

No, you've never been argumentative. You've just flung that excerpt from Hosea around for kicks.

MARussellPESE 22:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

~This really is going to go on into infinity, isn't it? No, we'll die, and in the next world we'll be like, remember earth? Then we'll laugh and laugh. But for now:

1. I explained my "out-of-hand" dismissal of Jeff3000's interpolation, so it wasn't out-of-hand at all, but rather based on what I believe a logical conclusion. Again: Abdu'l-Baha states "the throne of David is not a material throne". Your interpolation of this has the Master as a fool who didn't know there was actually a material earthly throne existing for the last 2800 years. Was he not aware that there was a material throne with Liunan sitting on it in Babylon at the time of Jesus, which existed for dozens of generations before and after Jesus? Or, are the majority of Baha'is misiterpolating the Explicit Texts, and drawing conclusions about the reality of the material throne from an explanation of the spiritual condition of Jesus?
2. If Baha'is assume the throne reference is purely figurative, then Baha'u'llah couldn't be the Messiah ben David He claimed to be. The title itself refers only to a physical male descendent of David's. He'd be a fraud if he wasn't seated on the throne. Was his title "Glory of the Lord" figurative? No!, it was literally his name. The "Glory of the Lord" would be "established on the throne of David". Shoghi Effendi affirms this is the case (GPB p. 94).
3. I never ever wrote that the Iqulim-i-Nur is "widely available" in BARL. In your speed reading you're missing everything. I did say it "can be found and accessed through" BARL. And it can. Anyone can write to them and ask them, hence "accessed", for the list of names. If they won't give it to you, for whatever reasons I can't imagine, that's not the issue here. The information is out there and available.
4. I have seen it "in plain Farsi". And with the help of another was able to write down in English (translate) each and every name. RHETORIC!
5. Don't take my word for it. See for yourself if you're sincerely seeking the truth. BARL has this book. They should be happy to accomodate you, unless of course you're just argueing to argue.
6. I never ever said or implied "that Iqlim-i-Nur is "widely available" and on Bahá'í academic research sites". You're adding words and assumptions that aren't there. I know it's a hard book to find. This is the rhetoric I was talking about. Where is it in Tehran, what conditions are the records in, ALL RHETORIC!
7. The adoptions are adoptions. Period. Again, I think when you speed read the sections I already created you missed some details. Oh well. User:Jeffmichaud 02:32 27 December 2005

Improbability of BUPC view

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

To date, I've been asking for Jeffmichaud to produce verifiable evidence of this thesis and, for the sake of brevity, have not presented a view in-detail counter to this. As we have not seen this presented so that others can review it for authenticity, I would like to present the following that has informed my reasoning here.

Probabilistic considerations

For Bahá'u'lláh to be the Exilarch, He would have to be the heir to David. (Please note that I'm not at all certain that He's descended from Bostanai.) This would mean that He is the heir, of the heir, of the heir, going back 2800 years. This can be analyzed statistically, making some reasonable assumptions, to determine the probability that this is possible in the absence of verifiable evidence.

• If each generation had eight children, on average, the probability that a given generation would have no boys is 99.61% = 1 - (1/2)⁸.
• The probability that a particular child is the child of the heir in a generation is 12.50% = 1/8.
• The probability that a particular child is the child of the heir in a generation given the probability of an all-girl generation is 12.45% = 12.50% x 99.61%.

Looking at Bahá'u'lláh to David

Across the 2800± years between Bahá'u'lláh and David, assuming 35 years per generation (It takes a fair amount of time to have eight children.), there are 80 generations to consider.

The probability that a given person, Bahá'u'lláh, is the heir to a specific person, David, is 4.138*10^-73 ( = 12.45%⁸⁰) or 1 in 2.416*10⁷². Long odds to say the least.

Looking at Bahá'u'lláh to Bostanai

Assuming that Bahá'u'lláh is descended from Bostanai, then across the 1300± years between Bahá'u'lláh and Bostanai, again assuming 35 years per generation, there are a mere 37 generations to consider.

The probability that a given person, Bahá'u'lláh, is the heir to a specific person, Bostanai, is 3.333*10^-34 ( = 12.45%³⁷) or 1 in 3.001*10⁺³³. (That's: 1 in 3,001,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000)

Observations

The likelihood that Bahá'u'lláh is an Exilarch is vanishingly small by independent analysis. That Bahá'u'lláh makes no claim to be the Exilarch, and all the references to the "Throne of David" Bahá'í are arguably figurative, (Clearly Bahá'ís and the BUPC so argue.), the most probable conclusion is that Bahá'u'lláh is not Exilarch (On the order of 1 in 10⁸⁰) and His references to the "Throne of David" are figurative.

Additional difficulties

If one accepts the descent of Bahá'u'lláh to Bostanai as depicted on the Gonzales genealogy which indicates that this line is through Dara, a daughter of Yazdigird III (As shown on the BUPC genealogy as well.), then there is a very real problem that any descendants of this union would be considered Exilarchs. This is from wikipedia's article on Bostanai which is a mirror of the Jewish Encyclopedia: "Nevertheless, the descendants of the princess [Dara] were not recognized as legitimate 300 years afterward." The article goes on to say: "for the post-Bostanaite house of exilarchs was not descended from the princess [Dara]."

Now, I'm not in a position to argue the intricacies of the historical conflicts over the Exilarchy, but it is interesting to observe that the subject is/was a controversial one and resolving that would seem to require documentation at least as thorough as a genealogy going back 1300 years.

MARussellPESE 02:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Revised, corrected and expanded. MARussellPESE 01:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

~Nice try, but there are seemingly fatal flaws in this "independent analysis". The only thing this diatribe proves is that you have an admittedly impressive calculator.

1)Failure to account for the fact that every Exilarch is accounted for by Jewish historians for 1500 of the 2800 years which reduces the need to assume anything regarding those 57 generations (no assumption here, there are 57 documented Kings from David to Bostanai). Their lineage is a historical fact.

2)Abdu'l-Baha, as you've pointed out, mentions the Exilarch, whose name btw was Abu'l-Muluk, who was in contact with the 8th Imam Rida. This was another 8 generations beyond Bostanai. Proof that the family was continuing beyond their excommunication by the Jews; beyond their financial support from Israel.

3)There is an enormous assumption that the family would ever neglect continuing their legacy. They maintained it for almost 2,000 years up to the Exilarch Abu'l-Muluk. When and why would they ever cease to maintain this father to son Exilarchy that had been preserved for over 65 generations? Answer: They never did. "I have sworn unto David my servant, Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations..." (Psalms 89:3).

Furthermore, the world was waiting for one of these kings, Messiah ben David's, to rise up "upon the throne of David", and establish the "House of the Lord" and usher in the Kingdom on Earth as it is in Heaven, who would be called the "Glory of the Lord". Shoghi Effendi clearly states that Baha'u'llah was this one on p. 94 of GPB. "Assumption" is right. It takes a huge "assumption" to leap to your conculsions. User:Jeffmichaud 01:36 27 December 2005

Actually it's what critical, quantitative, thinking looks like. (And it's only a TI-36X Solar. Good enough for high-school trig.)

For the casual reader, the [www.bahai-library.com/ Bahá'í Library Online], what Jeff refers to as the "Bahá'í Academic Resource Library" is a robust on-line repository of an array of documents of interest to Bahá'ís. It isn't a brick-and-mortar library where one could call up a librarian and ask them to put a text on hold, or hide it in a "Restricted Section". If one can't find a document by doing a search, they don't have it lying around someplace else. The Iqlim-i-Nur can not be found and accessed through through this site.

What one can find there is this bibliographical reference: "30. Malik Khusravi , Muhammad 'Ali . Iqli m-i Nur [The region of Nur]. Tehran: 118 badi '/1962. An account of Babi and Baha'i history relating to the region of Nur in Mazandaran, the ancestral home of Baha' Allah. [sic]" (Available here.) What's interesting here is that this description says that it's about Babí and Bahá'í history in a particular region in Iran. It does not say that it includes genealogical data on Bahá'u'lláh going back to the seventh century Babylonia or beyond.

I'd thought that this was based on considered evaluation of available data — which was why I was so insistent upon seeing exactly what that was. I've resisted coming to a conclusion that appears to becoming rather clear. This thesis appears to be based upon a priori reasoning. Several things point in this direction.

The first is that only two documents were cited, and then quite separately from each other. The first document lacks any background on the author or research. The second is conveniently inaccessibile. Now, we're assured that these docuements are genuine and that they have been the subject of research, but we can't verify either the research, or the documents themselves.

Rather than produce even a scan of Iqlim-i-Nur, it's asserted very stronly that the Iqlim-i-Nur is available (Even in their possession.) all we have to do is ask (But don't ask them?). And then there's the innuendo that it's being kept from us. The inconsistency here is troubling.

If this has been researched, why produce one document, and only when it's authenticity is questioned, present another. Either the research is complete, or perhaps Jeff's grasping at documents that he thinks might make the case. (Here the bibliographic entry that Iqlim-i-Nur is about Babí and Bahá'í history in Núr is especially troubling.)

It's presumed that "65 generations" of the family kept accurate, complete records when the succession of just one generation, Bostanai's, was controversial 300 years later. No mention is made explaining how, or when, these Exilarchs became Shi'a. Nor are the implications considered.

Then there are the cut-and-paste sections where repeating the same argument is presented as definitive.

Then there is the vehement assertion that 'Abdul-Bahá must have known that he was sitting on the "Throne of David" despite the fact that over the course of the 29 years of his ministry, he never mentioned this. In fact, he consistently used these Messianic prophecies to warn against reading prophecies literally. There are eleven specific references to the "Throne of David" in his talks and writings. This is typical:

They also expected that the Messiah would sit upon the throne of David whereas His Holiness the Christ had neither throne nor semblance of sovereignty; nay, rather, he was a poor man, apparently abject and vanquished; therefore how could he be the veritable Christ?

(Abdu'l-Bahá, Foundations of World Unity, p. 74)

As is this:

The throne of David is not a material throne but an eternal kingdom. Christ re-established this kingdom; it has been forgotten. Christ conquered the east and the west. This means a spiritual victory, not a material one.

(Abdu'l-Bahá, Divine Philosophy, p. 35)

Ah, but pointing this out generates a response dismissing them all ("Or, are the majority of Baha'is misiterpolating [sic] the Explicit Texts ... ?") and inserting something non sequitur ("Surely the Master must have known he was the 'Prince of the House of David' ...") and providing no citation where he'd actually said that.

And that's where this seems evident to me that this argument is circular. That Bahá'u'lláh is literally the long-lost Exilarch, seated literally on the "Throne of David", and that "the Master must have known he was the "Prince of the House of David", are all assumed a priori. Only then are documents produced that point towards the conclusion (If we could actually put our hand on them.), but do not so demonstrate. Excerpts that plainly disagree, and the absence of direct statements by anyone to a claim to the Exilarchy, are conveniently ignored, or attacked as misinterpretation when presented.

The presentation of this thesis seems to clearly beg the question, and as such would be fallacious. There is no arguing a fallacy other than to identify it as such and walk away.

MARussellPESE 03:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Further Documentation of Proofs for Baha'u'llah's Exilarchy

Baha’u’llah has stated that He rules from the throne of David as “the histories of by-gone ages have related”(Proc. P. 89). The only ones that ruled upon the throne of David “as the histories of bygone ages have related” are the Kings of Israel, and after them the exilarchs. It is futile to deny this! Baha’u’llah Himself tells us that it is documented in history, which Mirza Abu Fadl researched in the Baduspanid and Bawandid male-lines (Sipahbudan) that Baha’u’llah Himself confirmed in a Tablet concerning the patrelineal and documented historical truth of His Own Genealogy: “O Abu’l-Fadl! Verily thou hast spoken the truth and hast brought to light that which was enshrined in his words…” And again, Baha’u’llah wrote concerning His own Genealogy: “You had enquired about the pure natured ancestors; Abu’l-Fadl-i-Gulpaygani, upon whom be My Glory, has written of heavenly works on this theme that would impart information and increase perception.” (Baha’u’llah, cf. Eminent Baha’is, by Balyuzi, p. 315).

In history it is Known that exilarch Bostanai married Dara the Persian princess and daughter of Yazdigird III, even giving the names of their three sons: “Shahriyar, Gurdanshah and Mardanshah” (Moshe Gikl, “The Exilarchate” cf. “The Jews if Medieval Islam”, p. 51). Gikl goes on to explain, that it states in the Jewish literature that the sons of the Jewish wife tried to enslave the sons of Dara, his Persian wife, and that “the descendants [of Bostanai] of the Persian [wife Dara daughter of Yazdigird III] ‘had royal backing since they were related to royalty their mother’s brother being a Marzuban” (Moshe Gil, p. 54). The Cambridge History of Iran: Volume 4, the Period from the Arab Invasion to the Saljuqs, p. 115, cites “Marzuban” as being the “Marzuban of Tabaristan” (the ancient name of Mazandaran the home of Baha’u’llah: “the ‘Marzban of Tabaristan’ (One of the Bavandids or Baduspanids)” (CHI. Vol. 4, p. 115) thus relating as did Fadl which Baha’u’llah confirmed the transmission of the throne of David and the Exilarchate through the royal throne lines fully documented in secular history of the Bawandid and Baduspanid male lines. Thus this comes down from Bostanai through the male throne line to the last rulers of the Kings of Nur to Mirza Buzurg the Father of Baha’u’llah.

Again this is what the “histories of bygone ages have related” as Baha’u’llah says. He confirms the research of Fadl in the male line of the Isphabuds (Sipahbudan) of these two dynasties (Bawsnd and Baduspanid) both of which, history tells us, have the exilarch Bostanai through the daughter of Yazdigird III as their common male ancestor.

The Baha’is under the provisions of the Covenant adhere to this, as this was the original Baha’i belief pre-1957 hijacking by the “Hands”, and consider those who don’t except this, yet call themselves “Baha’i”, as outside the Covenant; being anti- (that is in intellectual opposition) the genealogy of Baha’u’llah in the male line back to King David, that is anti the genealogy of Baha’u’llah being the Christ, or anti-Christ. This is the BUPC belief, and we can accept those who reject this as members of a religion different from our own, friends and fellow creatures of God who have been fooled by the “Hands” and as a result who are not under the provisions of the Covenant.

The historical fact is published in English on the BUPC sites and is confirmed by non Baha’i sources of history, as well as from Baha’is sources such as Fadl cited in Balyuzi for example which I gave here. Deny it all you want. This same information is contained in the Iqlim-i Nur the first edition as well as the second expanded edition. Those who possess both editions of the book such as Ahang Rabbani of Texas won’t release their copies in order to keep people like you in the dark apparently! He has even stated that Baha’u’llah’s father Mirza Buzurg put this same historical information upon a rug that is contained within he Iqlim-i Nur.

“I've been told by a reliable eyewitness that a fine Persian rug was discovered some years ago (the type that is hang on the wall, not the type that goes on the floor), apparently commissioned by Mirza Buzurg-i Nuri (Baha'u'llah's father), which has a complete and detailed genealogy tracing the family back to Yazd-Kird III, the last Sasaniad king, without a break… the same information is captured by Malik-Khusravi in his revised "Iqlim-i Nur".

Again He is through Yazdigird III through his daughter the Zoroastrian princess, as ‘Abdu’l-Baha has explained: “Baha’u’llah was NOT a descendant of the prophet Zoroaster.” (Star of the West, Vol. 1 #12, p. 3)

Dr. Gonzales on his chart, also gives Baha’u’llah from Exilarch Bostanai in the male line, and has stated that this information comes directly from Baha’u’llah Himself. Why don’t you write him about it? Though some would deny or ignore, it is a FACT of reality.

In briefly surfing the web for more information I find that David Hughes in his article on the “Davidic Dynasty” (see below attached) has also published Baha’u’llah’s Genealogy back to exilarch Bostanai in the unbroken male line as well giving all the ancestors each and everyone by the Baduspanid reckoning that Fadl wrote about and Baha’u’llah Himself confirmed in His Tablets. See this url:

Why you are unaware or unwilling to see this or accept it is your own problem. But it is a historical fact from Baha’u’llah himself that his pure-natured ancestors that Fadl researched are the male-line dynasty of David from Exilarch Bostanai that settled in Tabaristan and eventually ruled over Nur which Baha’u’llah is from.

Your interpretations that are anti this point are just that: “your interpretations”. The fact that Bostanai married Dara, and that the Marzuban of the Bawandid and Baduspanids Ispahbuds continued this in the male line to Baha’u’llah is just as Baha’u’llah said, “that which the histories of bygone sages have related.” Because we are talking about a male throne line, all the male ancestors seated upon that throne of that throne line are documented, and well known, even to the extent of being mentioned in many history books, and have archeology of coins to back up their reality.

“Baha’u’llah was NOT a descendant of the prophet Zoroaster.” (‘Abdu’l-Baha, Star of the West, Vol. 1 #12, p. 3)

Baha’u’llah is a male sperm descent of King David seated upon the throne of David through the exilarch Bostanai. It was Jesus who said his Kingdom was not of this world (i.e. spiritual not material reality in Jesus’ case) but Baha’u’llah’s Kingdom – “The World Order of Baha’u’llah” - is of this world as it says in the Lord’s Prayer: “Father [Baha’u’llah is the ‘glory of the father’] who art in heaven. Thy Kingdom come it will be done on EARTH as it is in heaven” That heaven being the heaven of prophecy 2000 years ago but which Baha’u’llah seated upon throne of King David has now brought to the earth with the Aghsan guardianship in the male line (Shoghi Effendi was of the female-line with no issue) as the continuation of that throne and lineage of David in the person of Neal Chase ben Joseph Aghsan, great great grandson of Baha’u’llah and current Guardian of the Baha’i Faith.

“Divorced from the institution of the Guardianship [the continuation of the Davidic throne in the male line] the World Order of Baha'u'llah would be mutilated and permanently deprived of that hereditary principle which, as Abdu'l-Baha has written, has been invariably upheld by the Law of God. Without such an institution [of the living Davidic King, the president of our true (UHJ)] the integrity of the Faith would be imperiled, and the stability of the entire fabric would be gravely endangered. Its prestige would suffer, the means required to enable it to take a long, and uninterrupted view over a series of generations would be completely lacking, and the necessary guidance to define the sphere of the legislative action of its elected representatives would be totally withdrawn. (Shoghi Effendi, World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 148)

That is BUPC belief, and is it backed up with real documentable facts. Anyone can do this research. Apparently David Hughes did it on his own as did Malik Khusravi, a relative of Baha’u’llah’s as well. It is simply a publicly known and easy to document truth of what happened to the family of Bostanai through Dara after they moved to Tabaristan-Mazindaran. See E.G. Browns History of Tabaristan in English for more.

Just because this fact of the genealogy of Baha’u’llah contradicts your first indoctrination into the Faith doesn’t negate the fact that He is the King of Kings prophesied in the Bible come establishing the Kingdom of God on Earth (Davidic). If Baha'is assume the throne is purely figurative, then Baha'u'llah couldn't be the Messiah He claimed to be. The title itself refers only to a physical male descendent of David's. Was his title "Glory of the Lord" figurative? No, it was literally his name. The "Glory of the Lord" would be "established on the throne of David". Shoghi Effendi affirms this is the case (GPB p. 94), as do "the histories of by-gone ages".

From David Hughes, “Davidic Dynasty”:

PART 16: rulers of Mazandaran, ancestry of Baha'u'llah [claimant 1868]

(63) Bostanai [1], Exilarch (above), of his 2nd wife, begot (64) Shahrijar (Shahari), ancestor of the Shaharite Line, the father of (65) Yomtov Ruzbihan [a.k.a. Ahunai], the father of (66) Babawai Moses, Exilarch [13], the father of (67) Isaac Iskoi II, Exilarch [16], deposed 817 upon his conversion to Islam, & took the name "Husayn", ancestor of the Iskoiate Line the son of (67) Isaac Iskoi II [Husayn] [16] (above) was: (68) Qarim (Karen) (d856) = [name], the Badusepanide heiress, daughter of Surkhab (d856), son of Nemawar, son of Baduspan II, Prince of Mazandaran the son of (68) Qarim (above), by the Badusepanide heiress was: (69) Farrikhan (Faridun), Prince of Mazandaran 856-? the sons of (69) Farrikhan (above) were: (70A) Baduspan III, Prince ?-872, the father of (71) Shahriyar II, Prince 872-888 (70B) Shirzad the sons of (70B) Shirzad (above) were: (71A) Tida, father of (72) Hazar-Sindan, Prince 888-899 (71B) Diwbend the son of (71B) Diwbend (above) was: (72) Djemshad, the father of (73) Shahriyar III, Prince 899-939 the sons of (73) Shahriyar III (above) were: (74A) Mohammed I, Prince 939-952, the father of (75) Ustundar Abul-Fadl, Prince 952-965 (74B) Feramurz the son of (74B) Feramurz (above) was: (75) Zarin-Kemer I, Prince 965-996, the father of (76) Baharb, Prince 996-1023 the sons of (76) Baharb (above) were: (77A) Ardashir I, Prince 1023-1047 (77B) Nazir-ed-Dawla the son of (77B) Nazir-ed-Dawla (above) was: (78) Namwar I, Prince 1047-8, the father of (79) Hazarasp I, Prince 1078-1116; = sister of Kiya Buzurg Bin Al-Hadi, Prince of Daylam the sons of (79) Hazarasp I (above) were: (80A) Shahrivash, Prince 1116-1129, the father of (81) Hazarasp II, Prince 1165-1210 (80B) Kai-Ka'us I, Prince 1129-1165 the descendants of (80B) Kai-Ka'us I (above) were: (81) Djestan, the father of (82) Zarin-Kemer II, Prince 1210-1214, the father of (83) Bistun, Prince 1214-1223, the father of (84) Namwar II, Prince 1223-? the sons of (84) Namwar II (above) were: (85A) Ardashir II, Prince ?-1236 (85B) Rakin Gaubara, Prince 1236-1272 (85C) Iskender, the father of (86) [name] (daughter), wife of ... the sons of (85B) Rakin Gaubara (above) were: (86A) Namwar III, Prince 1272-1302, the father of (87) Iskender, the father of (88) [name] (daughter), wife of ... (86B) Kai-Khusrau, Prince 1302-1312 (86C) Arghush the sons of (86B) Kai-Khusrau (above) were: (87A) Mohammed II, Prince 1312-1318 (87B) Shahriyar IV, Prince 1318-1325 (87C) Ziyar, Prince 1325-1334 the sons of (87C) Ziyar (above) were: (88A) Iskandar I, Prince 1334-1360, the father of (89) [name] (daughter) (88B) Ghazi, Prince 1360-1379, the father of (89) Qubad, Prince 1379-1399 (88C) Tus, Prince 1399-1404 (88D) Gustahem the son of (88D) Gustahem (above) was: (89) Bistun (d1358), the father of (90) Kayumarth, Prince 1404-1453 the sons of (90) Kayumarth (above) were: (91A) Kai-Ka'us II, co-ruler 1453-1476 (91B) Islandar II, co-ruler 1453-1475 the son of (91A) Kai-Ka'us II (above) was: (92) Jahangir, Prince 1476-1508 the sons of (92) Jahangir (above) were: (93A) Behem I, Prince of Nur (93B) Bistun the son of (93B) Bistun (above) was: (94) Behmen II the sons of (94) Behmen II were: (95A) Behem III (95B) Kayomart, father of (96) Mohammed, father of (97) Jahangir of Takur (below) (95C) Oweis,the son of (91B) Islandar II (above) was: (92) Tadj-ed-Daula, Sultan of Kujur (d1492), the father of (93) Ashraf, Sultan of Kujur (d1509), the father of (94) Kais, Sultan of Kujur (d1543) the sons of (94) Kais (above) were: (95A) Kayomart, Sultan of Kujur (95B) Jahangir I, Sultan of Kujur (d1567) the son of (95B) Jahangir I (above) was: (96) Mohammed, Sultan of Kujur (d1590), the father of (97) Jahangir II, Sultan of Kujur (ex 1598) the son of (97) Jahangir of Takur (above) was: (98) Faridun, the father of (99) Aga Fakhr Beg, the father of (100) Hajji Mohammed Rida, the father of (101) Karbilai Abbas Khan, the father of (102) Mirza Rida-Quli Beg, the father of (103) Mirza Abbas Buzurg, the father of (104) Husayn Ali, a.k.a. Baha'u'llah, proclaimed self king 1868 (d1892), the father of (105) Abdu'l-Baha (d1921), the father of (106) Diya'iyyah (daughter) (d1951), wife of Mirza Hadi Afnan (d1955) [descendant of "The Prophet" Mohammed], &, mother of (107) Shoghi Effendi (d1957), who, by wife, Mary Maxwell (d2000), had no issue (To which I, Jeff, continue): (108) Mason Remey Aghsan (d 1974), son of ‘Abdu’l-Baha, (109) Joseph Pepe Remey Aghsan (d 1994), son of Mason, grandson of ‘Abdu’l-Baha, and his son (110) Neal Chase ben Joeph Aghsan (1994-current) great-grandson of ‘Abdu’l-Baha, current president of the true UHJ. User:Jeffmichaud 21:04 28 December 2005