Talk:Davidic line/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Question

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

Bahá'í view

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)

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)

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

~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)

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)

~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)

`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)

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)

~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)

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)

~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)

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)

~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)

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)

~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

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)

~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)

~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)

~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)

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)

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)

~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)

I know, I'm editing an archived page. Revert if you must! Re the comment above "the html no longer exist in bahai-library.com" I never deleted the file, maybe the server was down or something. It's here: http://bahai-library.com/gonzales_genealogy_shoghieffendi . However, after reading this talk page I see there are problems with that image -- thank you for bringing this to my attention. I'll look into it and maybe replace it with one of the alternatives mentioned. Regarding the comment that "It's not bahai-library.com that has or lacks 'academic authority'": indeed! It's just my volunteer project, unfunded and unstaffed, and what goes online is entirely my own judgment call, including 3:am judgment calls.  :-) Jonah Winters (talk) 05:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

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.

BUPC again

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)

~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