• 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!

Can we change our mind about what we believe?

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Now I see, the Quran says the trinity isn't real. Well none of it is real so getting into details is pointless here. Revelations are not real, ever, or is any sign of theism or God so there is no need to get into the trinity here?
Each new religion decides what was "real" and what wasn't... What they want to borrow and use to build their beliefs upon, and what they want to leave off. Fundy Christianity claims to take the Bible literally, yet they dump the Law and the Sabbath. The Baha'i Faith keeps the virgin birth, but dumps Satan and the resurrection.
Daniel is a forgery, there is really solid evidence that the later perts were written way later.
Yet, amazingly, Christians, Baha'is, and I suppose Muslims, can all make the prophecies fit their religion.

“In Daniel 8:13 it is said: … And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.” … That is to say, how long shall this misfortune, this ruin, this abasement and degradation endure? Or, when will the morn of Revelation dawn? … Briefly, the point is that he fixes a period of 2,300 years, for according to the text of the Torah each day is one year. Therefore, from the date of the edict of Artaxerxes to rebuild Jerusalem until the day of the birth of Christ there are 456 years, and from the birth of Christ until the day of the advent of the Bab there are 1,844 years, and if 456 years are added to this number it makes 2,300 years. That is to say, the fulfilment of the vision of Daniel took place in A.D. 1844, and this is the year of the advent of the Bab. Examine the text of the Book of Daniel and observe how clearly he fixes the year of His advent! There could indeed be no clearer prophecy for a Manifestation than this.” – Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, pp. 48-49.​
Now that doesn't sound too bad, but then they do this...

And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.
Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.” – Daniel 12:11-12.​
There are 1,290 lunar years in the Islamic calendar from the date of Muhammad’s declaration of his station as a prophet of God in the year 613, to Baha’u’llah’s declaration of his station as a prophet of God in 1863.​
Reverting to solar years, Daniel gives his final numerical prophecy and is then told that his mission on Earth is finished:​
But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.” – Daniel 12:13.​
Prophetically, the 1,290 and the 1,335 days/years go together, the first logically following the second. The 1,335 solar years begin with the year 628, the year Muhammad signed a treaty with his enemies in Mecca that signified that recognized the Muslim community in Medina not only as a legitimate force, but also one to be respected and accorded contractual or diplomatic status.​
The 1,335 solar years added to 628 equals 1,963 years, or the calendar year 1963, a momentous period in Baha’i history. That was the year when members of the world’s National Spiritual Assemblies cast their ballots to elect the first Universal House of Justice – the global administrative body of the Baha’i Faith. The declaration of Baha’u’llah in 1863 (the 1,290 years) was followed in 1963 (the 1,335 years) by completion of the three-tiered Baha’i administrative order at the local, national and international levels, devised by Baha’u’llah for the internal governance of the Baha’i Faith.​

I've argued with Baha'is about how they can start counting the years from Muhammad's declaration when it's supposed to start from when the daily sacrifice and the abomination happened. But whatever they need to make the numbers work. But if Daniel isn't for real, what were the numbers alluding to?
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
You've studied so much, and learned so little. How is that possible?
Here is the problem as I see it, and it applies to both @joelr and @CG Didymus ........

They think that the more they KNOW about a religion the closer they will get to finding the truth about that religion, but what actually happens is that they completely lose sight of the tree (religion) because it gets lost in the forest of trees (details about a religion that don't really matter) ...
Trees, trees, trees everywhere. :eek:

Of course they cannot see this since they are lost in the forest.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
You've studied so much, and learned so little. How is that possible?
Why TB threw me in with your reply, I don't know. So many religions... So many sects of religion, and I would imagine that most of the people in each one thinks theirs is correct. So, what's wrong with researching and questioning?

Now, for those that know a little about their religion and a little about some of the others, and are happy with there's, that's okay. However, since all of them are slightly different to very different, most, if not all, are very likely wrong. If you think yours is correct and you're happy, then you have no reason to study and research it out. Hopefully, it's not a case of ignorance being why you're in bliss with your beliefs. But also, I do believe you're right, that knowing too much can be a problem.

Ironically, for those here that aren't Baha'is, they challenged you to examination their religion, and study it, and do your own research to see if what it teaches is the truth. Some of us have and have rejected it as false. Others, like me, leave it open, it may be true, it may be false. How will I ever know unless I keep digging, and researching and asking questions? If I'm never satisfied, then that's okay. They expect a total commitment to believing in their prophet and their teachings. If I have any doubts whatsoever, I'm not going to say I believe it all, when I don't. I thank God for people like Joeir.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
Why TB threw me in with your reply, I don't know. So many religions... So many sects of religion, and I would imagine that most of the people in each one thinks theirs is correct. So, what's wrong with researching and questioning?

Now, for those that know a little about their religion and a little about some of the others, and are happy with there's, that's okay. However, since all of them are slightly different to very different, most, if not all, are very likely wrong. If you think yours is correct and you're happy, then you have no reason to study and research it out. Hopefully, it's not a case of ignorance being why you're in bliss with your beliefs. But also, I do believe you're right, that knowing too much can be a problem.

Ironically, for those here that aren't Baha'is, they challenged you to examination their religion, and study it, and do your own research to see if what it teaches is the truth. Some of us have and have rejected it as false. Others, like me, leave it open, it may be true, it may be false. How will I ever know unless I keep digging, and researching and asking questions? If I'm never satisfied, then that's okay. They expect a total commitment to believing in their prophet and their teachings. If I have any doubts whatsoever, I'm not going to say I believe it all, when I don't. I thank God for people like Joeir.
That’s the way it should be. I never accepted it all until I was perfectly satisfied and that took many years. So people should not accept anything unless they agree with it especially Baha’u’llah and the Baha’i Faith. Criticise it, question it and if not happy then reject it. That’s what I did and I’m glad I made the right decision for me and joined but I can’t speak for others.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
That’s the way it should be. I never accepted it all until I was perfectly satisfied and that took many years. So people should not accept anything unless they agree with it especially Baha’u’llah and the Baha’i Faith. Criticise it, question it and if not happy then reject it. That’s what I did and I’m glad I made the right decision for me and joined but I can’t speak for others.
Everyone is different. That is not what I did because I did not have to. I knew within two weeks that it was the truth, having read all the Baha'i books that had been published at that time. That was 53 years ago, and my faith has never faltered. Since then I have read a lot more books and heard all the naysayers' arguments but that only further confirmed my belief.

No, people should not accept the Baha'i Faith as true unless they really believe it is true. If that takes a lifetime and time runs out I don't know what the repercussions will be. Only God knows.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
Everyone is different. That is not what I did because I did not have to. I knew within two weeks that it was the truth, having read all the Baha'i books that had been published at that time. That was 53 years ago, and my faith has never faltered. Since then I have read a lot more books and heard all the naysayers' arguments but that only further confirmed my belief.

No, people should not accept the Baha'i Faith as true unless they really believe it is true. If that takes a lifetime and time runs out I don't know what the repercussions will be. Only God knows.
Everyday, multiple times I reflect with awe and wonder why I have been so lucky to have recognised Baha’u’llah, what have I done to deserve such a precious gift. I never can fathom it and likely never will except to say every second I’m overwhelmingly so, so grateful to God for opening my eyes. At first I was very critical then the deeper I looked within I found it irresistible.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Everyday, multiple times I reflect with awe and wonder why I have been so lucky to have recognised Baha’u’llah, what have I done to deserve such a precious gift.
Wonder no more, just be thankful to God.

“Be thankful to God for having enabled you to recognise His Cause. Whoever has received this blessing must, prior to his acceptance, have performed some deed which, though he himself was unaware of its character, was ordained by God as a means whereby he has been guided to find and embrace the Truth. As to those who have remained deprived of such a blessing, their acts alone have hindered them from recognising the truth of this Revelation. We cherish the hope that you, who have attained to this light, will exert your utmost to banish the darkness of superstition and unbelief from the midst of the people. May your deeds proclaim your faith and enable you to lead the erring into the paths of eternal salvation. The memory of this night will never be forgotten. May it never be effaced by the passage of time, and may its mention linger for ever on the lips of men.”

(Baha'u'llah, quoted by Shoghi Effendi in The Dawn-Breakers, p. 586)

The Dawn-Breakers: Nabíl’s Narrative of the Early Days of the Bahá’í Revelation, p. 586
 

Truthseeker

Non-debating member when I can help myself
Wonder no more, just be thankful to God.

“Be thankful to God for having enabled you to recognise His Cause. Whoever has received this blessing must, prior to his acceptance, have performed some deed which, though he himself was unaware of its character, was ordained by God as a means whereby he has been guided to find and embrace the Truth. As to those who have remained deprived of such a blessing, their acts alone have hindered them from recognising the truth of this Revelation. We cherish the hope that you, who have attained to this light, will exert your utmost to banish the darkness of superstition and unbelief from the midst of the people. May your deeds proclaim your faith and enable you to lead the erring into the paths of eternal salvation. The memory of this night will never be forgotten. May it never be effaced by the passage of time, and may its mention linger for ever on the lips of men.”

(Baha'u'llah, quoted by Shoghi Effendi in The Dawn-Breakers, p. 586)

The Dawn-Breakers: Nabíl’s Narrative of the Early Days of the Bahá’í Revelation, p. 586
It's possible that Sara's deed was when she recognized that she was being cheated when she was 9 by getting 2 halves of a cheese sandwich while boys got 3 halves for the same price, and she spoke up about it. One girl said "when Jesus comes back this will be fixed". Another girl said "maybe he's already come", and told the story of the Bab getting his ropes cut by bullets when they tried to execute Him. (this is paraphrasing on my part). The girl didn't say who this person was. Sara kept asking people as she grew up if they've heard this story, and got nowhere. Finally she heard about the Baha'i Faith from Seals and Crofts, and checked out "Baha'u'llah and the New Era" from the lending library. The story was in there. The speaking up about injustice followed by independent investigation without an encounter from a Baha'i in person were definitely acts which led to her being a Baha'i.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Everyday, multiple times I reflect with awe and wonder why I have been so lucky to have recognised Baha’u’llah, what have I done to deserve such a precious gift. I never can fathom it and likely never will except to say every second I’m overwhelmingly so, so grateful to God for opening my eyes. At first I was very critical then the deeper I looked within I found it irresistible.
Just how sure are Baha'is? As you probably know and have posted on one of the threads dealing with having a "belief" in a religion being true but not "claiming" it is true. I really, really find it hard to believe that any Baha'i isn't sure enough to step and claim it to the world, "Baha'u'llah is the promised one from God.

Some of us here have a problem with religious people claiming there is a God. They want to know what proof and evidence there is. And, as I'm sure you know, the Baha'i evidence does not satisfy them. But even people that do believe in God have a similar question, "How do you know the God you claim to real is in fact real? What proof and evidence do you have? Plus, what proof and evidence do you have that your prophet, Baha'u'llah, is really Christ returned?"

Some of us here have been involved with several religions. All of them have changed people's lives. There are always some people in any of the many religions that is in "awe" and they feel so blessed to be one of the chosen few. Yet, as I've said several times, they all believe in something different. Even how they define their God might be and probably is different.

One example that I'm sure you understand is the born-again Christians. They "know" Jesus is their savior. They know they've been saved from their sins and from going to hell. They know that Jesus rose from the dead and conquered death. They know that he is God in the flesh and part of the trinity. And they know they must be diligent to keep from falling prey to Satan and his deceptive ways.

They know it. They claim. But, if the Baha'i beliefs are correct, most of what they believe is not true, or at least not "literally" true. Yet, those beliefs have changed their lives. How is that possible? I think that in many ways, it doesn't matter what religious beliefs a person has, as long as they believe it. Does that make it true? No. But for them, it is true. Can they prove it? Can they give some evidence and reasons why they believe? Yes. Is it good enough for you? I doubt it. You have your own beliefs which include why literal-believing Christians are wrong. Is it good enough for a skeptic? No, they need more tangible proof. But it's not there.

And the greatest proof, knowing in your heart, depends on believing by faith. But that faith can be in a religion, like those born-again Christians, that doesn't really have the truth. Unfortunately, without that tangible, objective truth, the Baha'i Faith is put in there with those Christians. You both "know" it in your heart. You believe it. You live by its teachings. But you're living and believing completely different things. And each believes the other one is wrong.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Just how sure are Baha'is?
I guess that would depend upon which Baha'i you are talking to. Some of us are absolutely sure but I cannot speak for other Baha'is.
And the greatest proof, knowing in your heart, depends on believing by faith. But that faith can be in a religion, like those born-again Christians, that doesn't really have the truth. Unfortunately, without that tangible, objective truth, the Baha'i Faith is put in there with those Christians. You both "know" it in your heart. You believe it. You live by its teachings. But you're living and believing completely different things. And each believes the other one is wrong.
Baha'is know it more than in our hearts, we also know it in our minds.

Just because both Christians and Baha'is know it in our hearts that doesn't mean we are both right in what we know.
As you have said on numerous occasions, we cannot both be right, so that means that either we are both wrong or only one of us is right.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
You've studied so much, and learned so little. How is that possible?
Interesting point from someone who has NEVER given evidence and relies on folk tales and faith to justify their beliefs.

But since you are so confident I've learned so little please demonstrate a PhD, peer-reviewed historian who counters one of these facts.

To re-cap, we have Jesus is a Hellenistic and a little bit Persian savior demigod and it was a popular thing in that time.
The expert in Hellenism, J.Z. Smith did a piece for Britannica that is a good summary of the theology. So please point out his mistakes. Then tell me what else is wrong with the general idea that the NT is a Hellenistic document. I would start with Dr James Tabor.



Changes that religions began taking from Hellenistic religions (this describes Judaism to Christianity exactly) - how many times is salvation mentioned.


-the seasonal drama was homologized to a soteriology (salvation concept) concerning the destiny, fortune, and salvation of the individual after death.


-his led to a change from concern for a religion of national prosperity to one for individual salvation, from focus on a particular ethnic group to concern for every human. The prophet or saviour replaced the priest and king as the chief religious figure.


-his process was carried further through the identification of the experiences of the soul that was to be saved with the vicissitudes of a divine but fallen soul, which had to be redeemed by cultic activity and divine intervention. This view is illustrated in the concept of the paradoxical figure of the saved saviour, salvator salvandus.


-Other deities, who had previously been associated with national destiny (e.g., Zeus, Yahweh, and Isis), were raised to the status of transcendent, supreme


-The temples and cult institutions of the various Hellenistic religions were repositories of the knowledge and techniques necessary for salvation and were the agents of the public worship of a particular deity. In addition, they served an important sociological role. In the new, cosmopolitan ideology that followed Alexander’s conquests, the old nationalistic and ethnic boundaries had broken down and the problem of religious and social identity had become acute.


-Most of these groups had regular meetings for a communal meal that served the dual role of sacramental participation (referring to the use of material elements believed to convey spiritual benefits among the members and with their deity)


-Hellenistic philosophy (Stoicism, Cynicism, Neo-Aristotelianism, Neo-Pythagoreanism, and Neoplatonism) provided key formulations for Jewish, Christian, and Muslim philosophy, theology, and mysticism through the 18th century


- The basic forms of worship of both the Jewish and Christian communities were heavily influenced in their formative period by Hellenistic practices, and this remains fundamentally unchanged to the present time. Finally, the central religious literature of both traditions—the Jewish Talmud (an authoritative compendium of law, lore, and interpretation), the New Testament, and the later patristic literature of the early Church Fathers—are characteristic Hellenistic documents both in form and content.


-Other traditions even more radically reinterpreted the ancient figures. The cosmic or seasonal drama was interiorized to refer to the divine soul within man that must be liberated.


-Each persisted in its native land with little perceptible change save for its becoming linked to nationalistic or messianic movements (centring on a deliverer figure)


-and apocalyptic traditions (referring to a belief in the dramatic intervention of a god in human and natural events)


- Particularly noticeable was the success of a variety of prophets, magicians, and healers—e.g., John the Baptist, Jesus, Simon Magus, Apollonius of Tyana, Alexander the Paphlagonian, and the cult of the healer Asclepius—whose preaching corresponded to the activities of various Greek and Roman philosophic missionaries


Hellenistic religion - Beliefs, practices, and institutions





Next we have this - "We cannot know what Jesus ever said. Paul was claiming what was said to him was from a ghost Jesus, post-resurrection, so that isn't reliable."

Historians recognize 7 authentic Epistles. From those Epistles please explain how I'm wrong.


Finally this - "The Gospels are anonymous, non-eyewitness and use OT stories, Romulus and other sources to create stories. The wisdom is Rabbi Hillell so parsing out Jesus here is impossible."


Three claims here, anonymous Gospels, they use OT stories reworked, Romulus narrative and wisdom from Hilell.
This is all consensus so I don't know how you are going to find a critical-history PhD who disagrees?


But since I know so little please debunk all 3 claims with good scholarship from the historical field. OR, eat those words.

What I think you probably should say is: You've studied so much, and from honestly following where evidence leads, without confirmation bias and self delusion, you were strong enough to face the fact that your beliefs were not supported by good evidence and were not justified in believing. You had the strength to face that and actually follow a path to truth. I would like to make a snide remark but I won't be able to defend my position without fallacies and bad evidence and arguments.
 
Last edited:

joelr

Well-Known Member
Mankind is capable of all kinds of things .. including being affected by their environment.
In this case it's religious syncretism and it happens in every religion ever. So it's extremely probable.




Deflection .. you ask me about Zeus, and now you want to talk about Hinduism..
There is no connection, that I am aware of..
Oh brother. If you are going to use words like "deflection" maybe use them correctly?

Deflection moves off a subject to avoid a point. In this case, like I said, yes Zeus offered guidance but I don't have examples. But, Krishna also offers guidance and I do have examples.
It doesn't matter which OTHER god I use?????? The point was "yeah but does this other god offer guidance like my god does?"


So it does not matter if I use Zeus or Krishna, the point is YES OTHER FAKE GODS DO THAT THING ALSO!?

And I gave examples. So, go read examples of how Krishna provides guidance and is STILL FAKE. Which is the entire point?











Sorry .. no! It seems that religion is not your subject.
You should stick to your 'historical scholars', and archeology etc. :)
As usual you don't provide proof, you are wrong, and incredibly un-self aware in the over confidence.


In the three great religions of the West—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—revelation is the basic category of religious knowledge.

A fourth great prophetic religion, which should be mentioned for its historic importance, is Zoroastrianism

The Eastern religions, on the whole, differ from Western religions in that they place less emphasis on a special or exclusive revelation received by a “chosen people” and rather speak of the manifestation of the Absolute through the general order of nature. There is, however, no irreconcilable opposition between general and special revelation. Vedanta Hinduism and Buddhism, even if they do not speak of special revelation, believe that their religious books and traditions have unique value for imparting a saving knowledge of the truth.
Except Krishna comes to Prince Arjuna in the most famous Hindu scripture and gives him divine advice.


The media by which revelation occurs are variously conceived. Most religions refer to signs, such as auditory phenomena, subjective visions, dreams, and ecstasies. In indigenous religions, revelation is often associated with magical techniques of divination. In the prophetic religions, revelation is primarily understood as the “Word of God,” enabling the prophet to speak with certainty about God’s actions and intentions. In mystical religion (e.g., Islamic Sufism and Vajrayana [Tantric] Buddhism) revelation is viewed as an ineffable experience of the transcendent or the divine.


Mormonism
- revelation from angel


Cargo Cults - revelation from John Navy

American Indian - Certain charismatic individuals, such as shamans, who are believed to be in communion with the sacred or holy, perform functions akin to those of the prophet and the mystic in several other religious traditions.

In most religions there is some individual, mystic, medicine man, shaman, who hears the spirits or a deity or god and gives the people the information. It's the oldest trick in the book.





That has nothing to do with hate .. that is a warning.
Does a parent hate their child, when they chastise them for wrongdoing?

Perfect example. Does a parent ever "chastise" their child they will receive a horrible doom and burn forever because they believed another religion or didn't believe in the parent? No.
That is hate.




You cannot prove any of your so-called facts .. nobody can!
You said the OT is corrupted. If you make a claim you need to provide evidence.
So I am showing ways in which we understand the OT is what was intended to be written. Instead of responding to my answer you cherry-picked one line and failed to respond.


The text have been orally transmitted, when the Dead Sea scrolls were found this also CONFIRMED the OT scriptures were accurate.
You are now making some bizarre conspiracy theory that Genesis looks like a reworking of Mesopotamian myths but really was something different, which was never found, even though all Jewish people say these are the stories, they have been confirmed many times over, talked about by historians of the time? They also match the Mesopotamian stories which makes sense since the exiled Kings went there. The addition of Persian ideas makes sense for the time. Yahweh being a being with a human body and earthly passions fits with the gods of that time. The stories fit with stories of the time.
These are not opinions? It's facts about actual evidence. again, you do this bizarre tap dance that you don't even understand to try to fix issues.


Also, YOU DON'T KNOW THOSE ARE INACCURACIES????? You have no evidence, you have nothing. Those are the myths of the Israelite people. They seem to be fine with them. Yet you join some religion from 7AD and think you can just go tell them their religion is all wrong because an angel came down and told an Arab in 7AD.



And, if someone said this about the Quran you would get all mad and use special pleading that your book cannot be inaccurate. Well we have evidence that your book was a constructed work over centuries. And the Jewish people also had an oral tradition and copied the text just as Muslim religious people did.
So you want to claim they messed it up while claiming your book cannot, even though they are very similar in tradition and you have no evidence to support your claim?
The OT being completely corrupt, never heard a Hebrew Bible scholar even suggest that? So your idea doesn't contain facts or have any substance at all.

But again, I don't care, I see you have a world view, devoid of any facts and are completely fine making up whatever is needed to keep your beliefs real, have no interest in looking at evidence in an honest way, you haven't made a good argument at all ever, truth for you is what you want it to be not what evidence demonstrates. So go believe whatever you want to make up.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Each new religion decides what was "real" and what wasn't... What they want to borrow and use to build their beliefs upon, and what they want to leave off. Fundy Christianity claims to take the Bible literally, yet they dump the Law and the Sabbath. The Baha'i Faith keeps the virgin birth, but dumps Satan and the resurrection.

Yet, amazingly, Christians, Baha'is, and I suppose Muslims, can all make the prophecies fit their religion.

“In Daniel 8:13 it is said: … And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.” … That is to say, how long shall this misfortune, this ruin, this abasement and degradation endure? Or, when will the morn of Revelation dawn? … Briefly, the point is that he fixes a period of 2,300 years, for according to the text of the Torah each day is one year. Therefore, from the date of the edict of Artaxerxes to rebuild Jerusalem until the day of the birth of Christ there are 456 years, and from the birth of Christ until the day of the advent of the Bab there are 1,844 years, and if 456 years are added to this number it makes 2,300 years. That is to say, the fulfilment of the vision of Daniel took place in A.D. 1844, and this is the year of the advent of the Bab. Examine the text of the Book of Daniel and observe how clearly he fixes the year of His advent! There could indeed be no clearer prophecy for a Manifestation than this.” – Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, pp. 48-49.​
Now that doesn't sound too bad, but then they do this...

And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.
Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.” – Daniel 12:11-12.​
There are 1,290 lunar years in the Islamic calendar from the date of Muhammad’s declaration of his station as a prophet of God in the year 613, to Baha’u’llah’s declaration of his station as a prophet of God in 1863.​
Reverting to solar years, Daniel gives his final numerical prophecy and is then told that his mission on Earth is finished:​
But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.” – Daniel 12:13.​
Prophetically, the 1,290 and the 1,335 days/years go together, the first logically following the second. The 1,335 solar years begin with the year 628, the year Muhammad signed a treaty with his enemies in Mecca that signified that recognized the Muslim community in Medina not only as a legitimate force, but also one to be respected and accorded contractual or diplomatic status.​
The 1,335 solar years added to 628 equals 1,963 years, or the calendar year 1963, a momentous period in Baha’i history. That was the year when members of the world’s National Spiritual Assemblies cast their ballots to elect the first Universal House of Justice – the global administrative body of the Baha’i Faith. The declaration of Baha’u’llah in 1863 (the 1,290 years) was followed in 1963 (the 1,335 years) by completion of the three-tiered Baha’i administrative order at the local, national and international levels, devised by Baha’u’llah for the internal governance of the Baha’i Faith.​

I've argued with Baha'is about how they can start counting the years from Muhammad's declaration when it's supposed to start from when the daily sacrifice and the abomination happened. But whatever they need to make the numbers work. But if Daniel isn't for real, what were the numbers alluding to?
What a mess. So first, who cares if the Torah says a day is a year. But it does not say "days", it says ", “It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings;".
The vision is interpreted in Daniel and it's about the end times and completely different stuff? How does this have anything to do with a man who wrote "messages" from god, had no power and has nothing to do with kings of those nations?

The Interpretation of the Vision​

15 While I, Daniel, was watching the vision and trying to understand it, there before me stood one who looked like a man. 16 And I heard a man’s voice from the Ulai calling, “Gabriel, tell this man the meaning of the vision.”



19 He said: “I am going to tell you what will happen later in the time of wrath, because the vision concerns the appointed time of the end.[c] 20 The two-horned ram that you saw represents the kings of Media and Persia. 21 The shaggy goat is the king of Greece, and the large horn between its eyes is the first king. 22 The four horns that replaced the one that was broken off represent four kingdoms that will emerge from his nation but will not have the same power.

23 “In the latter part of their reign, when rebels have become completely wicked, a fierce-looking king, a master of intrigue, will arise. 24 He will become very strong, but not by his own power. He will cause astounding devastation and will succeed in whatever he does. He will destroy those who are mighty, the holy people. 25 He will cause deceit to prosper, and he will consider himself superior. When they feel secure, he will destroy many and take his stand against the Prince of princes. Yet he will be destroyed, but not by human power.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Here is the problem as I see it, and it applies to both @joelr and @CG Didymus ........

They think that the more they KNOW about a religion the closer they will get to finding the truth about that religion, but what actually happens is that they completely lose sight of the tree (religion) because it gets lost in the forest of trees (details about a religion that don't really matter) ...
Trees, trees, trees everywhere. :eek:
Meanwhile, in your definition, you actually employ confirmation bias. Even here you cannot escape self delusion.

"(details about a religion that don't really matter) "

Only with religion/supernatural beliefs do people resort to 100% confirmation bias. In any other situation understanding more about it will increase your knowledge. Yet you are so engulfed in bias you cannot see this works with EVERYTHING.
You are so sure your beliefs are true that you are willing to throw out evidence.
Imagine you were trying to show a modern Zeus worshipper that Zeus was a made up deity in Greek religions and we now know it's fiction and they were like "details don't matter! I know it's true, I read his word and it speaks to me!".

They don't care. They should but they are emotionally attached. What you are saying is exactly the same.
Details that the Bible is using older theology, several times, the gospels are anonymous, non-eyewitness, all used Mark, all is important to understanding how it came to be.
Not for those who refuse to look at evidence. You are doing the same here. Evidence doesn't matter because you bought a claim and are now attached and cannot walk it back, no matter what.

Not a problem, believe whatever you want without good evidence.
But then you turn around and try to say it's me that can't see? Yet you failed to produce one single piece of evidence or rational reason why the religion is true. Not one.

"they completely lose sight of the tree (religion) "


Yes, and the religion is a claim by a person who has no supernatural ability, no supernatural knowledge, got all science prophecies completely wrong, made silly obvious historical predictions......

The purpose of the predictions was to demonstrate his power. Yet he did exactly as good as a faker would do. His scripture contains nothing progressive at all? It's a mix of Bible, Quran and 1800s spirituality. That liberal spirituality was around, look it up.

So you have nothing to show here, yet it's our problem?

Of course they cannot see this since they are lost in the forest.
And you had dozens of posts to try to explain one single good reason and you never did. You gave bad evidence. Actually tried to pass off the fact that he made a claim to be a "messenger" as the evidence????

Yet Jesus in AU is also making the claim he's Jesus. So that should be just as good evidence? Yet you reject that. You reject Mormonism, same claim. Inconsistent logic, or non-logic.

You demonstrated only bias, special pleading and nothing else. It's like you think we should read the scripture and be like "wow, he's so deep it can only be from God!"
Well I've read it, it isn't. It's not deep and it's very unimpressive and I am quite sure he isn't getting that from any god.

Then you make silly comments, that we cannot "see". See what? I can see, I have articulated several lines of issues that you ignore.
A man is running a con. That is pretty obvious. What else is there to see? You never commented on every science prophecy being ridiculously wrong, why would I look past that? Explain what exactly you think I should see, including why a god would allow all prophecy answers to be so lame and look exactly like a con man would look - use current wrong science and not worry about 100 years later when we can see he was wrong. Well, I can see now because it's 100 years later? So what then?
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
:laughing:

I've found that such a thing is actually an all too common phenomenon.

Especially in the 21st Century.

I used to loathe the concept of "educated idiocy" - not so much anymore. The world has changed fast.
Cool, now please explain how this applies to religion.
Explain how understanding evidence is bad when it comes to religion. Explain what belief systems do better with ignorance or faith.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Google is your friend, apparently, and a world if information is only a handset away. Particularly if you wish to confirm your existing prejudices.
Wow, we have a little self delusion club going.

You just outed yourself anyways, thank you. You are talking out of your #$#. Ego, I mean.

My information is always from scholars who are in the respected field. If it's OT then it's a PhD in Hebrew Bible. NT historian, Biblical archaeologist and so on....
I've never not sourced a top scholar and usually have multiple saying the same thing so I know it's reliable.

So downplaying my information as if it's just random google or Christian apologists with zero degrees or expertise in Biblical historicity making claims about stuff they want to be true, is dishonest and wrong.
So I'll consider the words eaten.

Maybe you should learn something first besides claims and stories before you come at me.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Google is your friend, apparently, and a world if information is only a handset away. Particularly if you wish to confirm your existing prejudices.
" existing prejudices."

Oh you ate them. My prejudice is evidence and what it demonstrates, regardless of how much it sucks to have to drop beliefs. I have this existing prejudice for things that are the most likely truth, and form by beliefs accordingly.

It's not just me, it's the entire field:

Dr Bart Ehrman, NT historian -
“historical- critical” method.
The approach taken to the Bible in almost all Protestant (and
now Catholic) mainline seminaries is what is called the “historical-
critical” method. It is completely different from the “devotional”
approach to the Bible one learns in church. The devotional approach
to the Bible is concerned about what the Bible has to say—especially
what it has to say to me personally or to my society. What does the
Bible tell me about God? Christ? The church? My relation to the
world? What does it tell me about what to believe? About how to act?
About social responsibilities? How can the Bible help make me closer
to God? How does it help me to live?


The historical-critical approach has a different set of concerns and
therefore poses a different set of questions. At the heart of this ap¬
proach is the historical question (hence its name) of what the biblical
writings meant in their original historical context. Who were the
actual authors of the Bible? Is it possible (yes!) that some of the au¬
thors of some of the biblical books were not in fact who they claimed,
or were claimed, to be—say, that 1 Timothy was not actually writ¬
ten by Paul, or that Genesis was not written by Moses? When did
these authors live? What were the circumstances under which they
wrote? What issues were they trying to address in their own day?
How were they affected by the cultural and historical assumptions
of their time? What sources did these authors use? When were these
sources produced? Is it possible that the perspectives of these sources
differed from one another? Is it possible that the authors who used
these sources had different perspectives, both from their sources and
from one another? Is it possible that the books of the Bible, based on
a variety of sources, have internal contradictions? That there are ir¬
reconcilable differences among them? And is it possible that what the
books originally meant in their original context is not what they are
taken to mean today? That our interpretations of Scripture involve
taking its words out of context and thereby distorting its message?


And what if we don’t even have the original words? What if,
during the centuries in which the Bible—both the Old Testament,
in Hebrew, and the New Testament, in Greek—was copied by hand,
the words were changed by well-meaning but careless scribes, or by
fully alert scribes who wanted to alter the texts in order to make
them say what they wanted them to say?

These are among the many, many questions raised by the historical-
critical method. No wonder entering seminarians have to prepare for
“baby Bible” exams even before they could begin a serious study of
the Bible. This kind of study presupposes that you know what you’re
talking about before you start talking about it.


A very large percentage of seminarians are completely blind-sided
by the historical-critical method. They come in with the expecta¬
tion of learning the pious truths of the Bible so that they can pass
them along in their sermons, as their own pastors have done for
them. Nothing prepares them for historical criticism. To their sur¬
prise they learn, instead of material for sermons, all the results of
what historical critics have established on the basis of centuries of
research. The Bible is filled with discrepancies, many of them ir¬
reconcilable contradictions. Moses did not write the Pentateuch (the
first five books of the Old Testament) and Matthew, Mark, Luke,
and lohn did not write the Gospels. There are other books that did
not make it into the Bible that at one time or another were consid¬
ered canonical—other Gospels, for example, allegedly written by
Jesus’ followers Peter, Thomas, and Mary. The Exodus probably did
not happen as described in the Old Testament. The conquest of the
Promised Land is probably based on legend. The Gospels are at odds
on numerous points and contain nonhistorical material. It is hard
to know whether Moses ever existed and what, exactly, the histori¬
cal Jesus taught. The historical narratives of the Old Testament are
filled with legendary fabrications and the book of Acts in the New
Testament contains historically unreliable information about the
life and teachings of Paul. Many of the books of the New Testament
are pseudonymous—written not by the apostles but by later writers
claiming to be apostles. The list goes on.


Some students accept these new views from day one. Others—
especially among the more conservative students—resist for a long
time, secure in their knowledge that God would not allow any false¬
hoods into his sacred book. But before long, as students see more
and more of the evidence, many of them find that their faith in the
inerrancy and absolute historical truthfulness of the Bible begins to
waver. There simply is too much evidence, and to reconcile all of the
hundreds of differences among the biblical sources requires so much
speculation and fancy interpretive footwork that eventually it gets to
be too much for them."



Wow, It's almost like I'm not just making things up. Hmm, did Dr Ehrman just do Google searches for "historical-critical" and pick out what info fits his narrative? Or did he study from the best (Greek NT with Dr Metzger) and then have a full career himself and read thousands of peer-reviewed books researching his monographs like Forgery and Counterforgery (a now standard and classic in the field on the subject of forgery in the Bible)?
Yes he did.
 
Last edited:

muhammad_isa

Veteran Member
In the three great religions of the West—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—revelation is the basic category of religious knowledge.
Yes we all know that Abrahamic religion revolves around the One G-d.
..but 'great religions of the west' ??
Their origin is the middle-east.. :)

A fourth great prophetic religion, which should be mentioned for its historic importance, is Zoroastrianism
..deflection once again .. it is not a populous religion.

Jainism is a transtheistic religion, holding that the universe was not created, and will exist forever. It is independent, having no creator, governor, judge, or destroyer. In this, it is unlike the Abrahamic religions and the theistic strands of Hinduism, but similar to Buddhism.
- Wikipedia -

Jainism is about as populous as Zoroastrianism..
..but Budhism is the fourth populous religion at 6% of global pop. after hinduism at 15%

Perfect example. Does a parent ever "chastise" their child they will receive a horrible doom and burn forever because they believed another religion or didn't believe in the parent? No.
That's right .. they just threaten them with a spanking or what have you.
..and courts threaten people with loss of liberty etc.

That is hate.
No it isn't. It's reality, but you do not perceive.
A junkie might understand better than you! :eek:

You said the OT is corrupted. If you make a claim you need to provide evidence.
...
And, if someone said this about the Quran you would get all mad and use special pleading that your book cannot be inaccurate..
You are merely projecting your insecurities on me. :)
You can believe whatever you choose.

Well we have evidence that your book was a constructed work over centuries..
Again, you can believe what you like .. you don't like what it says, so "it must be wrong".
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Then you make silly comments, that we cannot "see". See what?
You cannot see the tree because you are lost in the forest.

You think that the more you KNOW about a religion the closer you will get to finding the truth about that religion, but what actually happens is that you completely lose sight of the tree (religion) because it gets lost in the forest of trees (details about a religion that don't really matter) ...

Maybe you think all that knowledge is going to get you closer to the Truth about God or the Baha'i Faith, but what happens is the exact opposite.
Knowledge can be a veil preventing recognition of Baha’u’llah because people who think they know everything are often haughty and vainglorious. Some of the most pure souls were uneducated.

“Know verily that Knowledge is of two kinds: Divine and Satanic. The one welleth out from the fountain of divine inspiration; the other is but a reflection of vain and obscure thoughts. The source of the former is God Himself; the motive-force of the latter the whisperings of selfish desire. The one is guided by the principle: “Fear ye God; God will teach you;” 29 the other is but a confirmation of the truth: “Knowledge is the most grievous veil between man and his Creator.” The former bringeth forth the fruit of patience, of longing desire, of true understanding, and love; whilst the latter can yield naught but arrogance, vainglory and conceit.” The Kitáb-i-Íqán, p. 69

“We have forbidden men to walk after the imaginations of their hearts, that they may be enabled to recognize Him Who is the sovereign Source and Object of all knowledge, and may acknowledge whatsoever He may be pleased to reveal. Witness how they have entangled themselves with their idle fancies and vain imaginations. By My life! They are themselves the victims of what their own hearts have devised, and yet they perceive it not. Vain and profitless is the talk of their lips, and yet they understand not.” Gleanings, pp. 204-205
 
Last edited:
Top