• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

True and False Prophets - Just and Honest Determination

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Which text are you referring to?
Looking back, these are the verses I was talking about. And they are very important for Baha'is.

The fact that 1260 in the Islamic calendar is the year 1844 is amazing. But, because there's at least six different things that refer to 1260, it's loses a lot of credibility, because, like I mention, every one of them is talking about a different event that started and stopped at different times... Making it really difficult to make 621AD the start of each event, and 1844 the year they ended, because not one of them did... that is without using a lot of manipulation, I mean, "creative" interpreting. Like making 666 the year 661AD?

But, for sure, some verses and prophecies need a little creative interpreting to make them Baha'u'llah or about Baha'u'llah.

The ones that astound me the most is how they take every reference that can be made to mean 1260 years into a prophecy about the year 1844. But each time one of them is mentioned, it is talking about a different event. And some of the events happen after some of the others. Yet... Baha'is make all of them start in 621AD and end in 1844, because that is the start of the Islamic calendar and the year 1260 in their calendar. Here's an example...

Rev 11:3 I will appoint my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days...
Now these "two witnesses" Baha'is say are Muhammad and Ali. And those 1260 days are converted to 1260 years. So, the Baha'is have Muhammad and Ali prophesying for 1260 years, but then they are killed and it says...

Rev 11:9 For three and a half days some from every people, tribe, language and nation will gaze on their bodies and refuse them burial.
But after those 3 1/2 days are converted to be 1260 years, they get up and are alive again. The problem is... how can they prophecy for 1260 years, then be dead for 1260 years and have them both start and stop at the same time? Which is year zero to year 1260 in the Islamic calendar.

But, to complicate things even more... This happens during the second "Woe". Which is supposed to be about the Bab, not Muhammad and Ali. The first "Woe", which Baha'is say was Muhammad, ended in chapter 9.

Rev 9:12 The first woe is past; two other woes are yet to come.
The second "Woe", which Baha'is say is the Bab ends in chapter 11 after all that stuff about Muhammad and Ali.

Rev 11:14 The second woe has passed; the third woe is coming soon.
So now, supposedly, we are in the third "Woe"... the time of Baha'u'llah. But in chapter 12 and 13, we have more references to things that Baha'is convert into the same 1260 years, the year zero, or 621AD to year 1260 in the Islamic calendar, or the year 1844. In chapter 13 we have the beasts and the dragon...

Rev 13:1 The dragon stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. It had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on its horns, and on each head a blasphemous name... The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority...5 The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise its authority for forty-two months.
This beast, according to the Baha'is, is the Umayyad's that took control of Islam in 661AD. And, of course, the 42 months are converted into 1260 years by the Baha'is to make it the same 1260 years of the Islamic calendar. But the Umayyads didn't take power in the year zero and they didn't last for 1260 years. They were out of power in 750AD.

The Umayyad dynasty lasted less than a century in Damascus before it was driven out in 750 by the ʿAbbāsid dynasty.
 

TransmutingSoul

One Planet, One People, Please!
Premium Member
Looking back, these are the verses I was talking about. And they are very important for Baha'is.

The fact that 1260 in the Islamic calendar is the year 1844 is amazing. But, because there's at least six different things that refer to 1260, it's loses a lot of credibility, because, like I mention, every one of them is talking about a different event that started and stopped at different times... Making it really difficult to make 621AD the start of each event, and 1844 the year they ended, because not one of them did... that is without using a lot of manipulation, I mean, "creative" interpreting. Like making 666 the year 661AD?
I see that the 1260 prophecy is just simply a reference to the Dispensation of Islam, it doe not need a start or ending time, as it was fulfillment in the year 1260 that the prophecies all reference.

The declaration of the Bab in AH1260, was the fulfillment.

The dead bodies of Muhammad and Ali in the street to the year 1260, fulfilled by the Declaration of the Bab, as the "New Creation" dawned at that very moment, Islam was abrogated and the promised fulfilled.

Sorry no time for great detail, off to work at 5:30am

Regards Tony
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
It might be a good reason for you to stick with Baha'u'llah instead of turning to Ahmad but it does not explain why Ahmad is a false prophet,,,,,,,,,,,, how you know for example that Ahmad lied and stole from Baha'u'llah.
I can say to you that I believe that Baha'u'llah is a false prophet and lied about who he is and about the meaning of the Christ prophecies. That by itself is not evidence that he is a false prophet.
Whether Christians believe a person to be a false prophet doesn't stop people from believing in that prophet, and the religion started by him to become successful... Like with Islam.

And believing Mirza Ghulam Ahmad a false prophet hasn't stopped the Ahmadiyya from becoming larger than the Baha'is.

If a religion or sect of a religion works for people, it's going to be believed as true. And, conversely, which I think is more important, if it's believed as true, it's going to work for people.

Which is important, because Baha'is believe the Born Again Christian beliefs aren't true. Yet, they work for Christians.

But the Baha'i claim is... That they have the new teachings and rules from God that need to be believed in and followed in order to bring peace and unity.

So, that takes us back to the start... How do we know if their prophet is really telling the truth? Is he the promised Messiah?

We have to look at the Bible and NT prophecies... What was he supposed to do? And... who is he? Jesus or somebody else? And where and when is he supposed to come?

For Baha'is, that's super complicated, because they have to make the prophecies of Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, and Islam all fit... along with Bible and NT prophecies. And they've got enough problems trying to make the Bible and NT fit.
 

Pete in Panama

Well-Known Member
Of course not.

Matthew 7:13-14 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

Polls have been taken and statistics do exist, so we know what most Christians believe.

The Bible is not Christianity and Christianity is not the Bible.
What Christianity is varies depending upon how the Bible is interpreted, which is why there are so many sects of Christianity.
However, certain core beliefs are shared by most Christians, the tenets I listed before.

We have exhausted this side-topic, you understand that most Christians believe those points and that it is the beliefs that Christians have that define Christianity, and my thinking is that it is the teachings of the Christ and the holy book he brought that defines the Revelation. These two different points of view are by choice and we've both made our choices.

Thanks for your thoughts.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Interpreting the Bible involves comparing different verses. Jesus said that He was going to come back and take His disciples to be with Him.
Other places tell us what will happen when Jesus comes back, and part of what happens is that the dead are raised into their spiritual bodies (and "spiritual" does not mean "composed only of spirit") and go to be with Jesus.
This is Biblical interpretation. Someone who does not believe the Bible can say that all that is not true and that they believe something different but Biblically they cannot say that for example John 14:2-3 does not mean that Jesus will come back to earth when the Bible shows that when Jesus comes back it will be to raise the dead and take His disciples to be with Him.
All you have is to say that you believe Baha'u'llah and not the Bible.
Correct, and that is what I am saying.
We get the part of coming back to the world both in other parts of the NT and also in the verse itself since "I will come again" implies that since Jesus was going from the world that means that He is coming again "to the world".
Sounds like the Bible contradicts itself. That is no great surprise since it was written by men who claimed to speak for Jesus. Had Jesus written it there would be no contradictions, like the Writings of Baha'u'llah that contain no contradictions.
Yes the Bible actually does say that, in fact Jesus in the Bible does say that He is coming back to get His disciples.
Yes it does say that, but so what? The Bible is not my holy book so I don't have to believe it.
And no, I still do not have those verses you gave to contend with because I have already done that and have not answered what I said about them and how I have debunked your so called "interpretation".
No, you have not debunked those verses.
So what? If you want to be a Baha'i you must believe that the Biblical prophecies do not mean the plain meaning and you also have to deny that other prophecies are even true at all.
If you want to be a Christian you must believe that the OT prophecies do not mean the plain meaning and you also have to deny that other prophecies are even true at all.
Well we know and have just been talking about Jesus saying "I am coming again".
Jesus did not say that. Biblical authors wrote that.
I suppose so, but Jesus said: John 16:16 In a little while you will see Me no more, and then after a little while you will see Me.”
This means that Jesus "no more" cannot be taken literally in the verses you cite.
John 16:16 A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.

I just figured out what that means! Jesus was telling the disciples that in a little while they won't see Him because He is leaving this world and ascending to the Father in heaven. Then in a little while, the disciples will see Jesus again because Jesus had prepared a place for them in heaven.

John 14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
Yes, what I think Jesus will do when He returns is a belief, but what Baha'is say has happened is not more than a belief.
What Baha'is say has happened is not a belief, it is a fact that is chronicled in Baha'i history.
Much unlike Jesus, we know exactly what Baha'u'llah did. All we have are stories about what Jesus allegedly did, it is not verifiable history.
Certainly the graves have not been opened and the dead have not come out of them, that is what Jesus said that He would do.
Actually that is classed as "resurrection" unless you are a Baha'i and define "resurrection" to mean "dying". You only believe that the dead have been raised, that they go to heaven in a spiritual body at their bodily death.
No, that is how you interpret what Jesus allegedly said, believing that it means physical bodies will come out of physical graves.
I just cannot understand why you cannot see how absurd such a belief is, people coming out of graves in graveyards all over the world and coming back to life.

The Great Resurrection

The Day of Judgment is also the Day of Resurrection, of the raising of the dead. St. Paul in his First Epistle to the Corinthians says:—221
Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.—I Cor. xv, 51–53.

As to the meaning of these passages about the raising of the dead, Bahá’u’lláh writes in the Book of Íqán:—
… By the terms “life” and “death,” spoken of in the scriptures, is intended the life of faith and the death of unbelief. The generality of the people, owing to their failure to grasp the meaning of these words, rejected and despised the person of the Manifestation, deprived themselves of the light of His divine guidance, and refused to follow the example of that immortal Beauty. …

… Even as Jesus said: “Ye must be born again” [John iii, 7]. Again He saith: “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” [John iii, 5–6]. The purpose of these words is that whosoever in every dispensation is born of the Spirit and is quickened by the breath of the Manifestation of Holiness, he verily is of those that have attained unto “life” and “resurrection” and have entered into the “paradise” of the love of God. And whosoever is not of them, is condemned to “death” and “deprivation,” to the “fire” of unbelief, and to the “wrath” of God. …

In every age and century, the purpose of the Prophets of God and their chosen ones hath been no other but to affirm the spiritual significance of the terms “life,” “resurrection,” and “judgment.” … Wert thou to attain to but a dewdrop of the crystal waters of divine knowledge, thou wouldst readily realize that true life is not the life of the flesh but the life of the spirit. For the life of the flesh is common to both men and animals, whereas the life of the spirit is possessed only by the pure in heart who have quaffed from the ocean of faith and partaken of the fruit of certitude. This life knoweth no death, and this existence is crowned by immortality. Even as it hath been said: “He who is a true believer liveth both in this world and in the world to come.” If by “life” be meant this earthly life, it is evident that death must needs overtake it.—Kitáb-i-Íqán, pp. 114, 118, 120–21.

According to the Bahá’í teaching the Resurrection has nothing to do with the gross physical body. That body, once dead, is done with. It becomes decomposed and its atoms will never be recomposed into the same body.

Resurrection is the birth of the individual to spiritual life, through the gift of the Holy Spirit bestowed through the Manifestation of God. The grave from which he arises is the grave of ignorance and negligence of God. The sleep from which he awakens is the dormant spiritual condition in which many await the dawn of the Day of God. This dawn illumines all who have lived on the face of the earth, whether they are in the body or out of the body, but those who are spiritually blind cannot perceive it. The Day of Resurrection is not a day of twenty-four hours, but an era which has now begun and will last as long as the present world cycle continues. It will continue when all traces of the present civilization will have been wiped off the surface of the globe.”


(Continued on next post)
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
You only believe that Baha'u'llah will bring world peace.
You only believe that Baha'u'llah is ruling in heaven in a spiritual body.
It's all beliefs.
Have you got one thing that you can point to as being more than a belief?
Of course I only believe that. Religion can only be believed, it cannot be proven as a fact like science.
Have you got one thing that you can point to as being more than a belief?
To the New Testament claims the throne of David as the throne of Jesus and Baha'u'llah says "No the throne of David is mine".
All he does is disagree with the Bible.
No, Bahai belief does not disagree with the Bible. We believe that Jesus rules on the throne of his father David in heaven.

Luke 1:32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:

THE TRUE MEANING OF THE PROPHECIES CONCERNING THE COMING OF CHRIST

“In the Bible there are prophecies of the coming of Christ. The Jews still await the coming of the Messiah, and pray to God day and night to hasten His advent…….

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. He re-interpreted and completed the Law of Moses and fulfilled the Law of the Prophets. His word conquered the East and the West. His Kingdom is everlasting.

Rev 3:21 To the one who overcomes, I will grant the right to sit with Me on My throne, just as I overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.
Those who overcome will share Jesus throne (throne of David) just as Jesus shares the throne of God with His Father.
All Baha'u'llah can do is deny the Bible and claim that things that belong to Jesus actually belong to Baha'u'llah.
The Book of Revelation is believed to be about Jesus, but it is not about Jesus. It is about Baha'u'llah.
All Christians can do is claim that things that belong to Baha'u'llah belong to Jesus.
Since Jesus was saying that HE is going away and coming again, that implies that it is not another person.
It's pretty plain in meaning.
John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

And come again unto you means His spirit would come again, not that His body would come again.
Abdul Baha I suppose did not understand or know the Bible well.
In the Bible, the prince of this world is a reference to the devil:
  • John 14:30
    "I will no longer talk much with you, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no claim on me"

  • John 12:31
    "Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out"
So, depending on context, the Greek word “archōn” can refer to Christ (john 14:30; Rev. 1:15), or to Satan (12:31; John 16:11), or to an earthly ruler.

The other “parallel” to John 14:30 is said to be John 16:11, is actually in the past tense: “Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged (κέκριται, kekritai).” – John 16:11.

Here, the literal meaning of the verb “kekritai” is “has been judged.” As explained by Strong’s Concordance, what Jesus means is this:

… of the devil it is said ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτουκέκριται, because the victorious cause of Christ has rendered the supreme wickedness of Satan evident to all, and put an end to his power to dominate and destroy, John 16:11.

So we can see that Abdu’l-Baha’s interpretation of John 14:30 is coherent, consistent with the context of Jesus’s Farewell Discourse, and textually supported as well. True, this exegesis is radically different from the received Christian interpretation.

In the Bible, princes may be good or evil—it depends. Isaiah 9:6 foretells the “Prince of Peace.” In this connection, Abdu’l-Baha predicts:
Rest thou assured that in this era of the spirit, the Kingdom of Peace will raise up its tabernacle on the summits of the world, and the commandments of the Prince of Peace [Baha’u’llah] will so dominate the arteries and nerves of every people as to draw into His sheltering shade all the nations on earth. From springs of love and truth and unity will the true Shepherd give His sheep to drink.
O handmaid of God, peace must first be established among individuals, until it leadeth in the end to peace among nations. Wherefore, O ye Baha’is, strive ye with all your might to create, through the power of the Word of God, genuine love, spiritual communion and durable bonds among individuals. This is your task. – Abdu’l-Baha, Selections From the Writings of Abdu’l-Baha, p. 246.
According to Abdu’l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi, Baha’u’llah is both the “Prince of this World” and the “Prince of Peace.”

The fact that this does not agree with the traditional Christian understanding is to be expected. The Baha’i interpretation offers an alternative perspective on Jesus’s prophecy in John 14:30, which those who are investigating the Baha’i Faith may want to take into consideration.

 
Last edited:

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Good luck with that one.
Yeah... "This should be an investigation where we all look and then everyone's right together and in agreement"?

Should Baha'is do that with the Ahmadiyya? I'm sure they could find things they agree on. Like "You're for peace... So are we. You believe in Muhammad... So do we." But then what happens when they get to, "You believe our prophet is a false prophet, and we believe yours if the phony one."

Or... Could they even do it with Christians? At some point it's going to get to... "We believe Jesus is God, and you don't."

The Baha'i "oneness" of religion, to me, seems to mean that we all come to agree that the Baha'is are right. "All religions are one... once we leave off all the things that contradict the teachings of Baha'u'llah."

And if their claims are true, that he is the new prophet from God, and is the return of Christ, then what he says is the truth.

But that's the question. Is that something that we can all agree on?
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Good luck with that one.
Yeah... "This should be an investigation where we all look and then everyone's right together and in agreement"?

Should Baha'is do that with the Ahmadiyya? I'm sure they could find things they agree on. Like "You're for peace... So are we. You believe in Muhammad... So do we." But then what happens when they get to, "You believe our prophet is a false prophet, and we believe yours if the phony one."

Or... Could they even do it with Christians? At some point it's going to get to... "We believe Jesus is God, and you don't."

The Baha'i "oneness" of religion, to me, seems to mean that we all come to agree that the Baha'is are right. "All religions are one... once we leave off all the things that contradict the teachings of Baha'u'llah."

And if their claims are true, that he is the new prophet from God, and is the return of Christ, then what he says is the truth.

But that's the question. Is that something that we can all agree on?
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
This no doubt is the reason that Baha'is usually don't do that.
I don't know if it's something you'll want to do, but Bill Sears book, "Thief in the Night", is the main book that goes through most of the prophecies that Baha'is use to show that Baha'u'llah is the return of Christ.

I was learning about the Baha'i Faith when I read it, and I believed every word... until I started studying the Bible with Christians and found that most all of them had problems, mostly being taken out of context.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
If the Bab and Baha'u'llah are not as they claimed CG, then 100%, no Messengers are as they claimed and there is absolutely no proof of God.
I don't agree. God is very different in the different Scriptures of the different religions. And some of those religions are not considered true, even by Baha'is... the religions of the Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks etc.
As God is only found through the Messengers, those that claim they know God, without knowing all the Messengers, are false. Notice how a True Messenger acknowledges the Messengers that came before.
Moses didn't acknowledge any Gods or messengers of the Egyptians or anybody else. Jesus never mentioned Krishna or the Buddha. In fact, neither did Baha'u'llah.
There was an Arabic Bible that actually had the name Baha'u'llah printed in it (Glory of God)
But it's a title he took. Why take a name calling yourself the "Glory of God"? Unless... people in that culture took names like that.
I see that the 1260 prophecy is just simply a reference to the Dispensation of Islam, it doe not need a start or ending time, as it was fulfillment in the year 1260 that the prophecies all reference.
I disagree. Revelation talks about different people and events. A certain event takes place and lasts for 42 months. Another takes place and lasts of 1260 days. And the other problem is that all of or at least most of them happen during the second "Woe". That's supposed to be about the Bab, not things that happen during the "dispensation" of Islam.

If I can't honestly say that I agree with the Baha'i interpretation, then what am I supposed to do? I have to tell you why. Like I've mentioned before... If close enough is okay, then fine... interpret things anyway you want. But, for me, that makes the prophecies meaningless.
 

TransmutingSoul

One Planet, One People, Please!
Premium Member
Sorry I should have said that Biblically it is Jesus whom is promised to come back. Also Baha'u'llah claims that certain OT prophecies are about him when Biblically the New Testament applies those prophecies to Jesus.
To want to even use the Bible to try to show that Baha'u'llah is whom he claims can only fail. This no doubt is the reason that Baha'is usually don't do that.
Your observation is incorrect. The reason it is not pursued is one can guage the reaction of the listener and it is quite easy to determine if a person is open or closed to alternative explanations of passages they already have a firm understanding of.

Jesus warns us to be as children for a good reason, preconceived ideas and gained understanding can be our greatest veil.

Thus why go into depth, if all that you will offer, is already rejected by the receivers mind?

I put a lot of effort in preparing such material in the past, it sits in closed draws. I realised after putting it all together, that of it was so easy to see, why are they not seeing it?

God opens the hearts, and no amount of debate on prophecy can or will open a heart, unless God has already given the gift of change. My mother never wanted what I could offer.

Many here have no interest in what was offered by Baha'u'llah.

Regards Tony
 

TransmutingSoul

One Planet, One People, Please!
Premium Member
I don't agree. God is very different in the different Scriptures of the different religions. And some of those religions are not considered true, even by Baha'is... the religions of the Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks etc.
It is all good not to agree.

It is the elephant CG. To see God in truth, is to see the whole elephant, otherwise we see God restricted to our own perceptions of a part of God.

Regards Tony
 

TransmutingSoul

One Planet, One People, Please!
Premium Member
But it's a title he took. Why take a name calling yourself the "Glory of God"? Unless... people in that culture took names like that.
Jesus took the title Christ, the Son of God.

Why take the title, unless it is given? Baha'u'llah asked of you that very question.

Who in theie right mind would do such a thing? Thus it comes back to the person of Baha'u'llah, is he trustworthy and truthful, was he in his right mind. Same for the Bab.

(PS, the trial of the Bab was asking this very question)

Regards Tony
 
Last edited:

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I was learning about the Baha'i Faith when I read it, and I believed every word... until I started studying the Bible with Christians and found that most all of them had problems, mostly being taken out of context.
Of course Christians are going to say that and you know why.
Christians don't want to believe that Baha'u'llah is the return of Christ, even it it is true.
ALL Christians want is Jesus, period. They don't want to know the truth about Baha'u'llah.

Christians believe they know Jesus will return, so they are going to disregard any verses that show that Baha'u'llah was the return of Christ.


Are they really taken out of context? Can you cite some examples?
 
Last edited:

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
As God is only found through the Messengers, those that claim they know God, without knowing all the Messengers, are false. Notice how a True Messenger acknowledges the Messengers that came before. (The scope of the Message is suited to the age)
Okay through two messengers that are approved by the Baha'is, Krishna and Buddha, what do we know about God from what they taught?
Moses didn't acknowledge any Gods or messengers of the Egyptians or anybody else. Jesus never mentioned Krishna or the Buddha. In fact, neither did Baha'u'llah.
The Bible is filled with stories of the Israelites fighting the neighboring people, because they worship false Gods. Some messengers and some religions aren't true.
You closed the subject with statements of negativity CG.
And to disagree with that is being too negative?
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Why take the title, unless it is given? Baha'u'llah asked of you that very question.
Lots of Hebrew names end with "El". In Arabic end with a form of "Allah." Lots of people are named Gabriel or Emmanuel. People even name their kids Jesus. Does that make a Bible verse about them?

To think they didn't know that the work "Baha'u'llah" was mentioned in the Bible, I think, is unlikely. And just because someone gave him that title or he took it for himself doesn't mean that the Bible is talking about him.

There's a person that took the name "Maitreya"... does that mean he's the return of the Buddha? Although, that's what he probably claims. But Baha'is wouldn't believe it, because they believe their prophet is the Maitreya.

So, "Glory of God", "The Lamb", "The Return of Christ", "The Messiah", don't mean anything unless the person can prove that they are who they claim to be.

It might be clear to you, but it's not clear to me. Oh, I said "not"... sorry for being so negative.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
To think they didn't know that the work "Baha'u'llah" was mentioned in the Bible, I think, is unlikely. And just because someone gave him that title or he took it for himself doesn't mean that the Bible is talking about him.
That is correct. Just because someone gave him that title or he took it for himself doesn't mean that the Bible is talking about him.
So, "Glory of God", "The Lamb", "The Return of Christ", "The Messiah", don't mean anything unless the person can prove that they are who they claim to be.
That is correct. "Glory of God", "The Lamb", "The Return of Christ", "The Messiah" don't mean anything unless the person can prove that they are who they claim to be.

If Baha'u'llah has to prove that He was the Glory of God and other titles that were given to Him the same standard should apply to Jesus.

Jesus was called the Lamb and the Messiah and the Son of God but those titles don't mean anything unless Jesus proved that he was the Lamb and the Messiah and the Son of God.

If you want to argue that Jesus was the Lamb and the Messiah and the Son of God because the Bible says so, Baha'is can argue that Baha'u'llah was the Glory of God and the Lord of Hosts and the Comforter and the Spirit of truth because the Baha'i Writings say so.
 
Top