Can we change our mind about what we believe?

[loverofhumanity]

Yes, Jesus is made out to be a God/man. He is greater than any of the characters in the Bible. He is God's only son. So, how do Baha'is bring him back down to a level equal with Moses, Muhammad and their prophet Baha'u'llah? They say that those stories are fictional. So again, and again I ask them... Why believe Jesus and the NT at all?

Baha’is believe Jesus was a Manifestation of God like Moses and not greater. The title Son of God is just a title as God it says is a Spirit and so He has never had a physical son. Son Christ could be called His spiritual son. Also in the Bible it says that all who believe in Jesus can becone sons of God which highlights it is a spiritual title not a physical thing.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I've heard some Christians say that Muhammad took things from apocryphal Christian works and used them. Like Mary giving birth to Jesus under a date palm, and Jesus making birds out of clay and made them come to life.

Since Baha'is take the Quran as being more authentic than the Bible or NT, I've asked them if the story about the birth of Christ in the NT was true or the version in the Quran. I don't think any of them have answered. But I don't suppose they would know and maybe not even care, because they are looking at the forest and don't care about the details. But with their claims and beliefs, they have opened a big can of worms.

A very interesting article here.

Jesus' Birth Between Islam and Christianity

How the Quran's account of the Nativity echoes both the Bible and non-canonical Eastern Christian texts

newlinesmag.com

 

[CG Didymus]

Hopefully this helps.


Although the Bhagavad-Gita does not specifically refer to the “Tenth Avatar,” yet the great epic of India—the Mahabharata, of which the Bhagavad Gita is a part—does.

And also.

Blessed souls — whether Moses, Jesus, Zoroaster, Krishna, Buddha, Confucius or Muhammad — were the cause of the illumination of the world of humanity. How can we deny such irrefutable proof? How can we be blind to such light? – Abdu’l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 346.

But the Gita is not written by a manifestation. Then there is the Ramayana. Great truths in that too. But who wrote it? And at some point, we've got to look at the Bible. If it's not historically accurate, then it is a fictional work. Sure, we can talk about these truths that we learn from reading them, but, if the stories are fictional, why do we need to believe the characters in the story were real? Why do we have to take some things taught in those fictional stories that we don't believe in and make them symbolic of something we can believe in?

Let's go back to the resurrection... if the story is fictional, why make it symbolic? In the fictional story Jesus, the son of God, comes back to life. He has conquered death and has this amazing new imperishable body. It has flesh and bone but can appear and disappear. He also conquered that evil fictional character, Satan.

In a sci-fy movie we don't try to explain away things like people beaming up to spaceships. And say, "Oh, that's impossible. So, it must mean something else." It's fiction. It's made up. But... is that how we treat religious myth? No, lots of people believe those stories are being true and that the characters are real. But... not all of them. We don't believe in the characters and the Gods in many of the ancient religions. Yet even those religions had great truths in them.

The Baha'is are in a tough spot... They need these religions to be true in order to support the Baha'i belief in "progressive" revelation. But not true when some of the beliefs and practices don't comply with Baha'i beliefs. If the stories are truly just fiction, then who cares if a character in that story is an incarnation of one of the many Gods? Or that the people are told they die and get reborn into another body?

Thanks for trying to post and create threads that are meant to help us believe and understand your religion. I know you and most of the other Baha'is mean well, I'm not so sure about one of them, but it's your religion and your beliefs. No matter how hard you try, some of us here are going to doubt and question it.

 

[loverofhumanity]

The Bible was not written by Christ. But Baha’u’llah stated that…

The Four Gospels were written after Him [Christ]. John, Luke, Mark and Matthew - these four wrote after Christ what they remembered of His utterances.

Verily this is that Most Great Beauty, foretold in the Books of the Messengers, through Whom truth shall be distinguished from error

So an All Knowing Manifestation can tell us authoritatively what is true and what is false, we believe. And that includes His appointed Successor Abdul-Baha and His successor Shoghi Effendi as all infallible interpreters Baha’is believe.

So through this Revelation we believe we can know which scriptures are sacred and which are true Manifestations as a lot of time has passed so the further we go back the less accurate and reliable information we have. That is why Christ said that the Spirit of Truth will show you all truth.

So we Baha’is are in an extremely easy spot as we have over a hundred years of divine guidance to turn to. We believe we know and don’t have to guess as our knowledge comes from our Interpreters not us. So we have no doubts about the Bhagavad-Gita, the Bible or Krishna because somewhere we have infallible guidance to refer to.

If you feel I am offending you then please put me on your ignore list as I’m not perfect and may offend some people.

 

[muhammad_isa]

If it's not historically accurate, then it is a fictional work..

By that classification, the whole of history is "fictional".
No .. you say that as a convenience .. so you can dismiss all the evidence.

Let's go back to the resurrection... if the story is fictional, why make it symbolic? In the fictional story Jesus, the son of God, comes back to life..

Some of the authors of the NT believed that .. but what if Jesus didn't actually die on the cross?
..it doesn't mean that the whole of the NT is a fabrication .. i.e. what Jesus is reported to have said

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

you say that as a convenience .. so you can dismiss all the evidence.

The critical thinker doesn't approach evidence with a desire to find an excuse to reject it. You're describing the motivated thinking of the faith-based believer trying to make the evidence fit his beliefs.

By that classification, the whole of history is "fictional".

Nothing written can be considered fact just because it is claimed to be a fact. Nothing can be called history until evidence is found that confirms the written claims. Thus, David became a historical figure when archeologists discovered artifacts confirming his historicity, but Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Moses are still just names in books.

what if Jesus didn't actually die on the cross?

What of it? Assuming that a historical Jesus lived, then he died somewhere else, or maybe you think he never died.

it doesn't mean that the whole of the NT is a fabrication

OK, but so what? It needn't all be a fabrication to be ignored. It doesn't matter to most unbelievers that some of the words refer to actual people and events. The fact that it contains so many contradictions and errors is enough for many to see it as the musings of ancients of interest only as a historical snapshot of the state of man's moral and intellectual development three millennia ago and then two millennia ago, and as a cultural reference if one wants to understand what being called a Judas or Jezebel means, or what the wisdom of Solomon and the patience of Job refer to.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Nothing written can be considered fact just because it is claimed to be a fact..

You don't say..
That is why "history books" differ, depending on the author .. there are very few historical texts that
can be proved to be pure fact .. regardless of genre.

What of it? Assuming that a historical Jesus lived, then he died somewhere else, or maybe you think he never died.

Both Christians & Muslims believe that, in effect..
i.e. he rose up to heaven to be with "his father"

OK, but so what?

I was replying to a poster who seems to think if a text is historically inaccurate,
then it is pure fiction. That is not necessarily the case.
As I say, one can see most historical text as inaccurate.

 

[CG Didymus]

You don't say..
That is why "history books" differ, depending on the author .. there are very few historical texts that
can be proved to be pure fact .. regardless of genre.


Both Christians & Muslims believe that, in effect..
i.e. he rose up to heaven to be with "his father"


I was replying to a poster who seems to think if a text is historically inaccurate,
then it is pure fiction. That is not necessarily the case.
As I say, one can see most historical text as inaccurate.

You want to believe the Bible is 100% historically accurate, 90%, or all the way down to 1%, it don't matter to me. But I'd imagine you do believe some of it is inaccurate. Which parts? And then some if completely accurate and true. Which parts?

But then there is the Quran... 100% accurate and true, or would you even go so far as to say it is the inerrant and infallible Word of God? Or... something less than 100% accurate, and that is contains some false, man-made, fictional concepts and stories?

Oh, and didn't I really say it was all "pure" fiction? Like TB says, even if I said it, it is only my "belief", my opinion, I don't claim it. But, to clarify... I think some of the stories, like Adam and Eve, like the Flood, like the virgin birth, like walking on water, like people coming out of their graves in Jerusalem, like the resurrection and ascension of Jesus are very possibly fabricated, embellish stories made up to make Jesus into a God/man. And I would be surprised if you as a believer in Islam would also believe some of those stories was fictional.

 

[CG Didymus]

A very interesting article here.

Jesus' Birth Between Islam and Christianity

How the Quran's account of the Nativity echoes both the Bible and non-canonical Eastern Christian texts

newlinesmag.com

From the article...

The Quran provides a significantly different account of the Nativity. Jesus is born not in Bethlehem but in an unspecified “distant place.” While giving birth to him, Mary is all alone, and there is no Joseph or anyone else to help her. Remarkably, she is said to give birth under a palm tree, next to a miraculous spring:​

​

[Mary] withdrew to a distant place and, when the pains of childbirth drove her to [cling to] the trunk of a palm tree, she exclaimed, “I wish I had been dead and forgotten long before all this!”...​

​

the Quran’s account actually has similarities with two ancient Christian texts that did not end up in the New Testament, remaining apocryphal, or doubtful.​

​

The first of these is the Protoevangelium of James, a second-century Christian text that was popular among the Eastern Christians. The text is called a protoevangelium (“pre-Gospel”) because it focuses mostly on the miraculous birth and upbringing of Mary...​

​

In the protoevangelium, we read that Jesus was born not in Bethlehem but in a “cave,” somewhere in the “desert,” some “three miles” outside of Bethlehem. This coheres with the Quranic account that Mary “withdrew to a distant place.” Again in the protoevangelium, as in the Quran, Mary gives birth all alone, with no one to help her...​

​

in a second apocryphal Christian text: the Infancy Gospel of Matthew, also known as the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, which appears to draw heavily from the protoevangelium. Here, as in the Quran, we find Mary eating from a palm tree and drinking from a miraculous spring of water. There is, however, one baffling difference. In the Infancy Gospel, the incident takes place not during the birth of Jesus but later, during the holy family’s famous flight into Egypt.​

​

So, which one does the Baha'i Faith say? The gospel stories in the NT, or the story in the Quran? Baha'u'llah has already sided with the Quran with the Ishmael vs. Issac question, so why not now? Since Baha'is are told the Quran is more authentic than the Bible and the NT.

Next question... Where did Muhammad get this birth story from? Did he borrow it from the apocryphal stories, or did Gabriel tell him? If from Gabriel, then it is the true story, and the gospel stories are wrong. But if he borrowed them from non-canonical books, is he the one making up stories?

Islamic stories about Jesus that have no precedent in orthodox Christian sources nevertheless often can be found in apocryphal (sometimes heretical) works from the second through seventh centuries. Since Muhammad’s apparent borrowing from unreliable sources calls his revelations into question, this category is useful for apologists challenging Islam.​

​

Anyway, the point is that it isn't that hard to make up religious stories and myths about Gods, God/men, and prophets. The stories, although possibly fictional, can have very powerful and meaningful spiritual lessons and truths in them. But, even the Baha'is, take some of these stories as being fictional and that the true meaning of the story is a symbolic one.

Yet, some of the stories, are taken as if true, historical and accurate. And sometimes, it is only the characters in the story that are thought of as being real, not the story about them... Like Adam, Noah, Abraham and even Jesus. By the time the Baha'is are done "interpreting" and giving us the "true" meaning of a Bible or NT story or character, lots of things are left out.

Adam in the Baha'i Faith is a manifestation. In the Bible, he disobeyed God and got cursed. When Baha'u'llah talks about Noah, he doesn't even mention the Flood. And of course, when he talks about Abraham, Baha'u'llah says that the son taken to be sacrificed was Ishmael, not Issac. Then there is Jesus... take away the resurrection and ascension, take away the raising of Lazarus and who knows what else, and how much is actually true in the gospel stories?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You don't say.. That is why "history books" differ, depending on the author .. there are very few historical texts that can be proved to be pure fact .. regardless of genre.

That was your response to, "Nothing written can be considered fact just because it is claimed to be a fact." I'm surprised to read that from you. You believe holy books by faith, don't you? Do you believe that Moses was a real person who led the Hebrews north from their captivity in Egypt over forty years? You shouldn't according to your words above.

Maybe you're going to claim that scripture is not history or intended to be understood as history. If so, the evidence contradicts you. The Jews celebrate the Exodus with Passover every year. It's a remembrance. Where I live, Christmas is celebrated by reenacting the manger scene. I assure you that they believe that that story is historical, but we know it couldn't have happened as written. It includes people walking as fast as a star is apparently moving overhead and following it to a manger. Do you believe that happened? Do you know how fast they would need to be travelling to do that, and the idea of a star being over one manger but not every other building for hundreds of square miles is ludicrous.

Both Christians & Muslims believe that, in effect.. i.e. he rose up to heaven to be with "his father"

As we just discussed, they have no reason to believe that. All they have are their books claiming that something like that happened, which is evidence of nothing except that people chose to write that story down. It's not even evidence that the writers believed it themselves. They're just words, just claims.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Oh, and didn't I really say it was all "pure" fiction? Like TB says, even if I said it, it is only my "belief", my opinion, I don't claim it. But, to clarify... I think some of the stories, like Adam and Eve, like the Flood, like the virgin birth, like walking on water, like people coming out of their graves in Jerusalem, like the resurrection and ascension of Jesus are very possibly fabricated, embellish stories made up to make Jesus into a God/man. And I would be surprised if you as a believer in Islam would also believe some of those stories was fictional.

No, I don't think they are fictional ..

I believe that Adam & Eve were actual people.
I believe that the flood happened.
I believe in the virgin birth.
I believe in the walking on water.
I believe that dead people came alive.
I believe in the apparent resurrection and ascension of Jesus.
I say apparent, because if he didn't actually die (but it was assumed he did), then it explains why people
thought he was resurrected.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You believe holy books by faith, don't you?

What other way is there, when it comes to history?
I don't think anybody has a video recording of 1000 years ago.

All we can do, is research historical periods, and read as much as possible..
..from reasonable sources .. and that is where most arguments are found.

Do you believe that Moses was a real person who led the Hebrews north from their captivity in Egypt over forty years? You shouldn't according to your words above..

I don't agree.
You cannot be certain that Moses ( name is not important .. language difficulties exist ) did not
lead a tribe out of some place in that area.

Maybe you're going to claim that scripture is not history or intended to be understood as history.

No .. I don't say that.

It includes people walking as fast as a star is apparently moving overhead and following it to a manger. Do you believe that happened?

Now you are being pedantic. I never said that it should be taken literally word-for-word.
Translations, author's style, idioms and what not..

They're just words, just claims.

They are more than just words. Most historical texts are.

 

[CG Didymus]

No, I don't think they are fictional ..

I believe that Adam & Eve were actual people.
I believe that the flood happened.
I believe in the virgin birth.
I believe in the walking on water.
I believe that dead people came alive.
I believe in the apparent resurrection and ascension of Jesus.
I say apparent, because if he didn't actually die (but it was assumed he did), then it explains why people
thought he was resurrected.

Okay, I happen to think those stories aren't true. They could be true, but I doubt it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What other way is there, when it comes to history?

Nothing should be believed by faith. Believe nothing more than the available evidence supports. If it is not conclusive, neither should we be.

All we can do, is research historical periods, and read as much as possible....from reasonable sources .. and that is where most arguments are found.

But we shouldn't believe that which has not been empirically confirmed.

You cannot be certain that Moses ( name is not important .. language difficulties exist ) did not lead a tribe out of some place in that area.

I asked you if you believed that it happened, not if one could be certain that it didn't. Based on other posting from you in this thread, I'm guessing that your answer is yes. If so, you believe by faith. Yet you said that

I never said that it should be taken literally word-for-word.

Good. You have no reliable means to decide which passages you will accept literally, and which ones need a euphemism like "spiritual truth" or "metaphor" except perhaps post hoc following contradictory discoveries.

They are more than just words. Most historical texts are.

No, books are not more than just words, unless you want to include illustrations, digits, or materials like paper and ink.

 

[muhammad_isa]

No, books are not more than just words, unless you want to include illustrations, digits, or materials like paper and ink.

You seem to be purposely ignoring the context .. which is historical texts.
Do you believe ANY historical text?
How can you empirically prove them to be accurate?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You seem to be purposely ignoring the context .. which is historical texts.
Do you believe ANY historical text?
How can you empirically prove them to be accurate?

Historical texts are no different from any other text. My comment above applies to them as well. How about addressing what was written to you, which was, "books are not more than just words, unless you want to include illustrations, digits, or materials like paper and ink." Do you agree? If not, what part of that do you consider incorrect and why?

If you'd prefer to evade it again, then the matter has come to a resolution. Debate ends with the last plausible, unrebutted claim, and right now, that's mine.

Also, I already answered your question in a discussion that mentioned Socrates and compared him to Jesus, which you also disregarded.

 

[Trailblazer]

First, it's a debate forum.
Second, he doesn't have to demonstrate it's true, he can leave it at the most likely status of claims made up by people.
If he claims it's true and cannot demonstrate it then he has failed to provide supporting evidence and hasn't met the burden of proof. Debate lost.

Who says that he is trying to prove anything?
Who says he is in a debate with you? He cannot lose a debate he is not in.

I have much more than personal opinion.
I have the facts that no supernatural anything has been demonstrated. I have the historical facts that show the theology was borrowed and did not likely come from revelation. The information isn't at all new. There is no historical verification, and on and on.

No supernatural anything has been demonstrated, but that does not mean that nothing supernatural exists.

You have no historical facts that show the theology was borrowed and did not likely come from revelation.
You cannot prove that so give it up for lost. All you have is a dogmatic personal opinion.

FAR from personal opinion. All you seem to have is the same attempt, over and over to poison the well with this "personal opinion" yet all I do is demonstrate evidence to support my claim.

I have beliefs and I do not pretend that they are facts.
You have no evidence that supports your claims. All you have is a personal opinion about some historical facts and what they mean.
Since you cannot prove they mean what you believe they mean, they are not facts.

Except that god is a moral monster in his actions.
Sets up religions that look like full mythology then sends people to eternal torture. Also if he knows the future always than he created these people to go to hell because he could have created them differently.
That god is a monster.

You do not KNOW any actions of any God. If you believe the OT is God actions that is laughable. The OT is a book written by men who made up stories about what God did.

The Bible is full of mythology but there are also many spiritual truths embedded in the Bible. The key is knowing which is which.

God does not send anyone to eternal torture. That is part of the myth.
God did not create anyone to go to hell, and there is no such place anyway.
God created everyone to love Him as God loves everyone. That is heaven, a state of the soul who is near to God.

“We, verily, have come for your sakes, and have borne the misfortunes of the world for your salvation. Flee ye the One Who hath sacrificed His life that ye may be quickened.” Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 10​

​

“Though the purpose of Him Who is the Eternal Truth hath been to confer everlasting life upon all men, and ensure their security and peace, yet witness how they have arisen to shed the blood of His loved ones, and have pronounced on Him the sentence of death.”​

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 116​

​

“I confess that Thou hast no desire except the regeneration of the whole world, and the establishment of the unity of its peoples, and the salvation of all them that dwell therein.” Gleanings, p. 243​

Before you decide if any god is subject to morality maybe you could demonstrate it's real first?

Nobody can ever demonstrate that God exists. Only humans are subject to morality.

The OT god is evil. Many times over.
A god who would create Bahai but not offer enough proof (not just for me but billions of Muslims are not convinced), is a monster. Crteating conflict, wars, separation. Either he's a total monster or it's all made up by people.
Hmmm, wonder which one it is?

"In my opinion" there is no such thing as the OT God. You have no proof that any such a God exists so it is only a matter of opinion.
"In my opinion" there is enough evidence for the Baha'i Faith being true to sink a large ocean-liner.

The fact that so few people believe it is true has nothing to do with whether it is true or not.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so." Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

The converse of this is that if many or most people do not believe it, it cannot be so, and that is fallacious.

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.

Because a guy made a claim with zero evidence. You mean "you" know better because I don't buy into obvious hoaxes.

This has nothing to do with any guy making a claim.
There is no reason to believe that anyone is going to an eternal fire. That is only a 2nd century understanding of the Bible.
We know better now, regardless of what Baha'u'llah wrote.

But this god still is a monster because he didn't settle the issue, he has unlimited power yet chooses to provide the worst evidence ever.

Unlimited power does not mean God is responsible to USE that power....
God is in no way responsible to settle the issue for anyone. We have to settle the issue for ourselves.

Imo, God has provided the best evidence ever, a Revelation from God written in the pen of the Messenger.

Not just by my standards, there are still billions of Muslims who are not even close to considering Bahai real. This creates more separation, religious wars. Worst deity ever.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so." Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

The converse of this is that if many or most people do not believe it, it cannot be so, and that is fallacious.

God is in no way responsible to settle the issue for Muslims. They have to settle the issue for themselves.

Luckily, this is all just the work of men and making claims and fiction.

Or so you believe.

No true, if it's in scriptures then you will come along with zero evidence except a claim and say the scriptures are all wrong unless they match the hoax your guy is running.

You have no evidence to support your religion, no evidence the other religions are wrong.

I do not believe that all the other scriptures are wrong and I do not believe that all the other religions are wrong.

Also by saying that all hose scriptures are corrupt when they don't fit your theology you say scriptures are not reliable.
Now, you have to say "oh, not my scriptures, those are perfect, all the others:"..........

Even though those also came from real messengers, somehow god allowed them to go corrupt. So now, your scriptures from the 1870s are far too old and could easily be corrupt.

God allowed men to corrupt those religions. Why should God stop men from doing that?

The Writings of Baha'u'llah cannot be altered because they are protected in a vault in Haifa, Israel.
The religion could get off track, but there will be another Messenger of God in the future to set things straight.

Yes in my opinion, as well as his actions. Notice, you cannot make a counter argument. All you can do is say this one thing over and over.

I have made my counter argument, over and over again.

 

[Trailblazer]

HA HA HA again with "my opinion", yet that is your only criticism against me. HA,

I said:
I see you caught up in a "morass of details". That is your choice just as it is my choice not to get bogged down into details.
In my opinion you can't see the forest for the trees.

How is that a criticism?

Clearly you are saying this because the details reveal incorrect information.

It has nothing to do with that.

So, please, explain how looking at details of a religion isn't important? Someone wrote a book detailing 27 prophecies. If those are only a "morass of details", why was the book written.

AND< WHY DID YOU OFFER IT AS EVIDENCE??????????

WHY IS THIS THE EVIDENCE YOU LINKED TO AND WHEN I GAVE A REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE YOU MOVED THE GOALPOST, and now claim it's a "morass of details".

Long, long ago, I linked to the book The Challenge of Baha'u'llah.

Baha'u'llah predicted many events that later came to pass. That proves to me that He could see into the future, so He had prophetic powers. Some of these predictions and how they came to pass are listed and delineated in this book: The Challenge of Baha'u'llah
#392

That book is only one man's interpretation of the prophecies, just like your interpretation is only one man's interpretation.
Baha'u'llah NEVER offered any prophecies as proof of His claims, NEVER.

Wow, that's looks like a huge inconsistency and a fallacy as well.
Your links. Your "evidence", didn't work out how you wanted and suddenly it's me who is at fault.

This is textbook manipulation. Notice the dictionary link as a distraction as if it's a good point? Very manipulative.

It's your evidence dude. You linked to it. How dare you act so dishonest.

Nobody is saying that anything is your fault. You are the only one placing blame.
If you have psychological problems that is not my problem.

The link to book is something I posted many years ago. If you want to make a fuss over it go ahead.
I explained what happened above. That is not dishonest. It is honest.

Perfect, this could not be more clear. You link to a book of prophecies as evidence, I study them to actually see, which was your intent.
When it turns out they are all wrong or lame, suddenly you shift the blame on me as not seeing the forest. Wow. Gaslighting at it's finest.

I am not blaming you for anything, blame is your gig. Your psychological problems are not my problem.

You have nothing. Are you going to drag this into the mud any further?

Again, perfectly demonstrating your dishonesty. You post a book of prophecies and when I show they are awful you name call and move the goal post.
Give up dude.

FYI, I am not a dude, and you are the one who needs to give this up.

That book is only one man's interpretation of the prophecies, just like your interpretation is only one man's interpretation.
Baha'u'llah NEVER offered any prophecies as proof of His claims, NEVER.

And yet, one of the books you posted to says the reasons we know a messenger is
new science
new philosophy
prophecies
new message

maybe one other thing.

And when I point out there actually is no new philosophy, here is the response. Goal post, moved.

That is just one book and one man's opinion. Who cares?
I don't care because I look at the evidence that Baha'u'llah offered, not how one man came to believe in the Baha'i Faith.

If you continue to harp on one book then everyone will know that you have nothing else in your bag of tricks.

And another goalpost move.
You said -
"A bunch of works clearly copied from the Quran and Bible. That sounds like an allegation.
Where is your proof? NOWHERE."

So I offer some proof and you suddenly agree. FAIL.

You have NO PROOF that Baha'u'llah copied anything from the Bible or the Quran. That is laughable!
Were you there when Baha'u'llah wrote His Writings? Did you see Him carrying around a Bible or the Qur'an?

Your posts are getting funnier by the day, and more insulting.
The only reason I am answering parts of them is because I am stuck in the house since my car is covered with ice!

But I will give you a suggestion, something I was told many years ago when I used to post long posts on another forum.
People do not read posts that are really long and detailed, so if you want people to read your posts - me or anyone else - I suggest you cut out all the details.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Historical texts are no different from any other text. My comment above applies to them as well. How about addressing what was written to you, which was, "books are not more than just words, unless you want to include illustrations, digits, or materials like paper and ink." Do you agree? If not, what part of that do you consider incorrect and why?

If you'd prefer to evade it again, then the matter has come to a resolution. Debate ends with the last plausible, unrebutted claim, and right now, that's mine.

How childish..
Try replying to my posts, instead of making spurious comments..

You say your comment applies to historical texts, but you don't suggest HOW you employ
"empirical evidence" to decide on their accuracy.
I'm sure that you don't reject the whole of mankind's history!

 

[Trailblazer]

Then provide evidence Bahai did some supernatural thing.

They can be said.

I already did that.

Famous Miracles in the Baha’i Faith

Against Judaism I have used, many findings from archaeology, mainly William Dever, Hebrew Bible scholars such as Dr Baden, Dr Stavrakopolo, Dr Collins, and several others.
These are not personal opinion, no matter how many times you make the claim.

I do not care about Judaism. I am a Baha'i.

I don't see anything new? Demonstrate something new.

• The oneness of God.
• The oneness of humanity.
• The oneness of religion.
• Religion as a school.
• Equality of women and men.
• Harmony of religion and science.
• Universal compulsory education.
• Universal auxiliary language.

Read more: Bahá'í teachings - Wikipedia​

A person copying the Quran and giving laws a modern spin is hardly impressive and worthy of accepting as words from a god?

Baha'u'llah did not copy the Qur'an. When He cited the Qur'an footnotes were provided.

No you do all of them, I'll give examples

Why do you repeat the same non-evidence over and over? (the evidence is the messenger LOL)

The evidence is the messenger. That means the messenger is not non-evidence.

Why do you continue to deny prophecies are wrong? (every post, you actually deny that the "missing link" prophecy is wrong, hilarious)

Because they are not wrong. Only your interpretation of them is wrong.

Why do you keep repeating the same points, despite that they have been debunked? (I've demonstrated the entire religion is not backed up by any evidence whatsoever. The prophecies are wrong, the material looks borrowed)

Nothing has been debunked except in your personal opinion.

Why do you keep posting the same useless books over and over? (you like to those 3 books over and over - "some answered questions" is one

What you consider useless does not make anything useless.

why do you quote from a man who claims to be a prophet without evidence or saying anything new? you quote in almost every post. Denying that just demonstrates you are not honest at all.)

There is plenty of evidence, you just don't like the evidence.

why do you keep pretending god is already demonstrated and your religion is the ultimate truth without evidence? (you give no evidence and last post say only your scriptures are accurate

That is a big fat straw man. I never said that "god is already demonstrated and my religion is the ultimate truth."

I have shown the evidence is zero.

You have shown no such thing.
All you have is a personal opinion about the evidence.

The Quran says no prophet will come until the end times.

We are IN the end times.

Except it isn't because you linked to a book that describes a messenger must provide new philosophies.

No book MUST do anything. Religion is not philosophy. If you want new philosophies read books written by philosophers.

How quickly you forget when it's convienant.

"Briefly, the universal Manifestations of God are aware of the truths underlying the mysteries of all created things, and thus They found a religion that is based upon, and consonant with, the prevailing condition of humanity."

That is not philosophy. It is religion.

No gods have been demonstrated so it's likely made by people and there is evidence in the text and in finds that they used the OT to some degree.

The fact that God has not been demonstrated does not mean God does not exist.
If atheists say that the proposition "God exists" is false because it has not yet been proven true that is an argument from ignorance.

Argument from ignorance asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

• true
• false
• unknown between true or false
• being unknowable (among the first three).[1]

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

Now prove the messenger in Bahai is real.

That can never be proven, only believed.