Christ Has returned, what should have we looked for?

[CG Didymus]

In case you have not read it, here is the full explanation by Abdul'baha.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 45-61

This is the unsealed meaning of these verses. You can have no better understanding than this explanation as this answer is from God, as it was given by Abdul'baha who was given authority from Baha'u'llah to give interpretation of all scripture.

Regards Tony

From SAQ

In the beginning of the seventh century after Christ, when Jerusalem was conquered, the Holy of Holies was outwardly preserved—that is to say, the house which Solomon built; but outside the Holy of Holies the outer court was taken and given to the Gentiles. “And the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months”—that is to say, the Gentiles shall govern and control Jerusalem forty and two months, signifying twelve hundred and sixty days; and as each day signifies a year, by this reckoning it becomes twelve hundred and sixty years, which is the duration of the cycle of the Qur’án.​

From Wikipedia:

In early April 637, Umar arrived in Palestine and went first to Jabiya,[13] where he was received by Abu Ubaidah, Khalid, and Yazid, who had traveled with an escort to receive him. Amr was left as commander of the besieging Muslim army.[14]

Upon Umar's arrival in Jerusalem, a pact known as The Umariyya Covenant was composed. It surrendered the city and gave guarantees of civil and religious liberty to Christians in exchange for jizya. It was signed by caliph Umar on behalf of the Muslims, and witnessed by Khalid, Amr, Abdur Rahman bin Awf, and Muawiyah. In late April 637, Jerusalem was officially surrendered to the caliph.[15] For the first time, after almost 500 years of oppressive Roman rule, Jews were once again allowed to live and worship inside Jerusalem.[16]
​

The dates don't match. Is it okay to fudge a few years? Or, do you want to start from a different time that Jerusalem was conquered by foreigners? But this time happened in 637. If you add your 1260 years to that, you don't get 1844. And another thing, you start with 622 don't you, and then add 1260 "lunar years" to get to 1844. Do you do use lunar years with all prophecies that deal with years or do you sometimes use solar years?

From the SAQ:

“And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and three-score days, clothed in sackcloth.” ...It is said they “are clothed in sackcloth,” meaning that they, apparently, were to be clothed in old raiment, not in new raiment; in other words, in the beginning they would possess no splendor in the eyes of the people, nor would their Cause appear new; for Muḥammad’s spiritual Law corresponds to that of Christ in the Gospel, and most of His laws relating to material things correspond to those of the Pentateuch. This is the meaning of the old raiment.
​

So, apparently, the meaning of "sackcloth" is given as "old raiment", then he defines "old raiment".

However, here's what Christians say it means:

Sackcloth and ashes were used in Old Testament times as a symbol of debasement, mourning, and/or repentance. Someone wanting to show his repentant heart would often wear sackcloth, sit in ashes, and put ashes on top of his head. Sackcloth was a coarse material usually made of black goat’s hair, making it quite uncomfortable to wear. The ashes signified desolation and ruin...
Very simply, sackcloth and ashes were used as an outward sign of one’s inward condition. Such a symbol made one’s change of heart visible and demonstrated the sincerity of one’s grief and/or repentance. It was not the act of putting on sackcloth and ashes itself that moved God to intervene, but the humility that such an action demonstrated (see 1 Samuel 16:7). God’s forgiveness in response to genuine repentance is celebrated by David’s words: “You removed my sackcloth and clothed me with joy” (Psalm 30:11).
​

So, "apparently, were to be clothed in old raiment, not in new raiment"? Shows absolutely no knowledge of what "sackcloth" meant in the Bible. So what am I supposed to think? I investigate and find problematic issues and am given "creative" interpretations to make it all line up with the Baha'i view. Sorry, but no, that won't cut it. And I'm barely into the Baha'i interpretation of this part of Revelation. Neb, are you following this?

 

[CG Didymus]

Show me the verses in the NT has the name "Jesus" implied or even stated as the one returning. It is assumed by Christians, not implied in the text, but show me some of those verses and I will explain why they do not apply to Jesus returning.

When they say things like “when the "Lord" returns” that definitely applies to Baha’u’llah, who was the Glory of the Lord. It is smattered all throughout the OT. Jesus came in the station of the Son, Baha’u’llah came in the station of the Father.

There are some verses that refer to Muhammad but I am no Bible expert.

You've got to be kidding? Try everywhere in the NT implies it is Jesus coming back. It implies that Jesus is alive and well also, so why wouldn't it be him coming back. Now, if you believe he's dead, buried and has rotted away, then no, he's not the one coming back. It's all symbolic, and all places that say Jesus, or the Lord, or the Lamb etc is coming back have to mean something else. They can't be literal. And if they aren't literal, then sure, the Baha'i explanation makes almost perfect sense... almost.

 

[CG Didymus]

That a Christian thinks all these names refer to Jesus only, is a veil they have placed upon themselves, it is the veil that the Jews still have against Jesus the Christ.

CG these passages just show us that it is the Station of Jesus as the Christ that returns, not the body of Jesus. Remember Peter confirms Jesus is the 'Christ' and Jesus says the flesh amounts to nothing; Lets post a couple;

Hebrews 9:28 "so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him"

The 'Annointed One' Returns. Notice that Salvation is a key here;

"Universal Salvation in the Bahá'í Faith - Bahá'u'lláh's stated aim is not the salvation of an elitist group but that of the entire world whereby every soul on the planet will experience the bounty of knowing God's revelation: “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 243) It is also worth mentioning in this context that the Bahá'í Faith eschews the dichotomous saved/damned, chosen/rejected, people of truth /people of the lie mentality that we find in some religions. On the contrary "...all human beings are the sheep of God and He is the kind Shepherd. This Shepherd is kind to all the sheep, because He created them all..." (Selections From the Writings of `Abdu'l-Bahá 298)

That it is Jesus in the Station of the Christ, Son of God that returns, is also shown in these passages;

Matthew 16:27"For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels,......."

Mark 8:38"For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.

Notice Son comes in the Glory of the Father. (Glory of God, Baha'u'llah)

Regards Tony

Hmmm? Strange that the NT, written by Christians and interpreted by Christians, would for some reason think that all these names refer to Jesus? So did the Christians that wrote the NT know that is wasn't Jesus being referred to? Did God dictate to them what to write and they wrote it down not knowing that it was symbolic and was not referring to Jesus? Hmmm? It seems more likely that they wrote all this thinking that Jesus was alive from the dead, rose up in the air, and they were all expecting him to come back. Not Muhammad, not the Bab, and not Baha'u'llah.

So where is the veil? I still say that if the Baha'is are somehow right about all this, the writers of the NT got it wrong, and the NT is not the Word of God, but the words of Christian men that thought they knew what was the truth and what was going to happen.

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: Show me the verses in the NT has the name "Jesus" implied or even stated as the one returning. It is assumed by Christians, not implied in the text, but show me some of those verses and I will explain why they do not apply to Jesus returning.

When they say things like “when the "Lord" returns” that definitely applies to Baha’u’llah, who was the Glory of the Lord. It is smattered all throughout the OT. Jesus came in the station of the Son, Baha’u’llah came in the station of the Father.

You've got to be kidding? Try everywhere in the NT implies it is Jesus coming back. It implies that Jesus is alive and well also, so why wouldn't it be him coming back.

You've got to be kidding? Absolutely NOT. Jesus Himself NEVER said He was coming back to earth... I have been posting to a Christian on several other forums for 3 ½ years and he was unable to come up with anything but one measly verse, which does not mean what he thinks it means:

John 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

“I will come again”... Come again where? If Jesus was preparing a place in heaven, where Jesus went, how could Jesus receive them on earth? I once explained this verse in the context of that chapter for that Christian but it is too late for me to find that explanation tonight... Ask me later if you want it... I am dog tired, so I cannot post any more on this thread tonight. And I still have another forum with posts to answer...

But just off the top of my head, I think that “I will come again” refers to the Spirit of Jesus coming again in the Person of Baha’u’llah. That would make sense, because then Jesus can stay in heaven and receive those who will be there also.

Nowhere does Jesus say He will come again to earth, NOWHERE. So the upshot of this is that Christians just assumed that certain verses referred to Jesus when they did not. Whenever it said “King” or “Lord” they thought it meant Jesus, but it did not mean Jesus and in many cases it was referring to Baha’u’llah. Moreover, Jesus said that we would see the Son of man coming in the clouds in several verses, but Jesus did not EVER SAY “you will see me coming in the clouds.” Clearly, Son of man refers to Baha’u’llah, as Baha’u’llah explains in the Kitab-i-Iqan. I have all that in Word documents and posted on my own forum...

Now, if you believe he's dead, buried and has rotted away, then no, he's not the one coming back. It's all symbolic, and all places that say Jesus, or the Lord, or the Lamb etc is coming back have to mean something else. They can't be literal. And if they aren't literal, then sure, the Baha'i explanation makes almost perfect sense... almost.

Yes, but it is not only because I believe that Jesus is dead and buried... Even if Jesus rose from the dead, Jesus did not ascend, and Jesus could not “live” in the clouds or in heaven with no oxygen, so the same body of Jesus cannot return. But the main point is that Jesus Himself never said He would return. He said His work was finished here. Not only that, but Jesus never promised to return, He just didn’t.

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

 

[Neb]

This is your misunderstanding. You would likewise be convicting Christ of the same thing when Christ tells of His Station.


Christ said before Abraham 'I Am and the Father and I are One. This is the Station of a Messenger of God, the Word. It is not Arrogance, it is our Lord Speaking.


But when Christ and Baha'u'llah talk of their own selves it is different. Christ says why do you call me good, there is none good but God. Baha'u'llah says just as Jesus also says; “When I contemplate, O my God, the relationship that bindeth me to Thee, I am moved to proclaim to all created things ‘verily I am God!’; and when I consider my own self, lo, I find it coarser than clay!”


Then Baha'u'llah addresses the remarks you have just made against Him;


“Certain ones among you,” He declared, “have said: ‘He it is Who hath laid claim to be God.’ By God! This is a gross calumny. I am but a servant of God Who hath believed in Him and in His signs… My tongue, and My heart, and My inner and My outer being testify that there is no God but Him, that all others have been created by His behest, and been fashioned through the operation of His Will…. I am He that telleth abroad the favors with which God hath, through His bounty, favored Me. If this be My transgression, then I am truly the first of the transgressors….”


Your refutations are not based in the knowledge of what Baha'u'llah has written, they are also what Christ has said.


Regards Tony

[/quote] The Lord Jesus did NOT say anything that was NOT written in the Bible.
You are conflating two different accounts into one and that’s where the misunderstanding starts. I appeal to the Bible only and if it’s not in the Bible then I reject it, as simple as that. Bahaullah could write all he wants about the Lord Jesus but that doesn’t mean it becomes the NEW AUTHORITY over the Bible on where I could appeal my next argument. No, it’s not gonna happen.

I believe the Bible is the last revelation of God to mankind and from here people fabricated different ideas by using the Bible as the backbone to express these new ideas, adding new fake revelations, adding new forms of salvation, and whatnot. One cannot add any more to what Christ did on the cross as a form of salvation, PERIOD.

Until you fully understand, i.e., exegetically, the meaning of John 1:1 “and the Word was God” you would never, never understand the idiomatic expression “I Am” or “ego eimi” or “I and the Father are one.”

Why do you think the Jews “picked up stones to stone him” when He said: “I Am” or “I and the Father are one.”?

Blasphemy!

“We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” –John 10:33

Do you think the Lord Jesus was a blasphemer? No, He was not, for the simple reason “And the Word was God”. He is God.

When you are confronted with this kind of argument you would use bahaullah’s writings/commentaries as your rebuttal, but the fact is, bahaullah’s writings/commentaries have got nothing to do with that event, or that time frame, between the Lord Jesus and the Jews.

The discourse that went on between the Lord Jesus Christ and the Jews at that time frame was full of idiomatic expressions that only they could understand the meaning of what they were saying at that time.

Now, when the Lord Jesus Christ said, “I and the Father are one” we could only follow, as readers today, what it meant, i.e., exegetically, to the Jews at AT THAT TIME FRAME ONLY the meaning of “I and the Father are one” as “BLASPHEMY –v33” to them, and why it’s punishable by stoning to death, is because claiming God as His Father or one with God in their understanding AT THAT TIME FRAME ONLY was like “making Himself equal with God” and this is against the Law of Moses.

So, inserting Bahaullah’s writing/commentaries with different idiomatic expression compared to the events in the New Testament’s idiomatic expression and conflating these two accounts, from two different time frames, is incomprehensible.

 

[Neb]

I see William Sears would be an Apostle. in this day he was called a 'Hand of the Cause'. He had great insight into the teachings of Baha'u'llah.

Regards Tony

Acts 19:13 Some Jews who went around driving out evil spirits tried to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who were demon-possessed. They would say, “In the name of Jesus, whom Paul preaches, I command you to come out.”
Acts 19:14 Seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, were doing this.
Acts 19:15 One day the evil spirit answered them, “Jesus I know, and I know about Paul, but who are you?”

Who is William Sears again? A would-be apostle?

 

[Neb]

The 'Glory of God' the Father is Baha'u'llah. It is the tongue of the Baha'is that does confess this is so.

I insist, as you have been insisting, and would say it again for so many times that the word “baha-ullah/allah/allat” or the "glory of ullah/allah/allat", is a NO NAME god/s or it does not relate in any way to the true God of the Bible, i.e., Jehovah.

I have a friend and her name is Grace and her mother’s name is Mercy, and that is the truth. Grace and Mercy are in the Bible but it does NOT mean the Bible is talking about these two women.

“Bahaullah” in Arabic and in English “glory of god/ullah/allah/allat”. The “Glory of God/Jehovah” is in the Bible and it does NOT in any way means or relate to “Bahaullah” or “glory of god/ullah/allah/allat”.

 

[Neb]

Salvation of the world now lays in the Message of Baha'u'llah.

Wrong! "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” -Acts 4:12

Peter was NOT talking about bahaullah here but the Lord Jesus.

 

[Neb]

"O my God, the God of bounty and mercy! Thou art that King by Whose commanding word the whole creation hath been called into being; and Thou art that All-Bountiful One the doings of Whose servants have never hindered Him from showing forth His grace, nor have they frustrated the revelations of His bounty. Suffer this servant, I beseech Thee, to attain unto that which is the cause of his salvation in every world of Thy worlds. Thou art, verily, the Almighty, the Most Powerful, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise. – Baha’u’llah, Baha’i Prayers, p. 146.


Salvation: For One and All


Regards Tony

“Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.” John 4:23
“God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.” –John 4:24

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Do you think the Lord Jesus was a blasphemer? No, He was not, for the simple reason “And the Word was God”. He is God.

Mark 10:18"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone."

Luke 18:19"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone."

Matthew 19:17"And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."

The Son is Christ, the Father is Baha'u'llah, they are One they are the Word from God.

John 14:28"You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."

Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

You've got to be kidding? Absolutely NOT. Jesus Himself NEVER said He was coming back to earth... I have been posting to a Christian on several other forums for 3 ½ years and he was unable to come up with anything but one measly verse, which does not mean what he thinks it means:

John 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

“I will come again”... Come again where? If Jesus was preparing a place in heaven, where Jesus went, how could Jesus receive them on earth? I once explained this verse in the context of that chapter for that Christian but it is too late for me to find that explanation tonight... Ask me later if you want it... I am dog tired, so I cannot post any more on this thread tonight. And I still have another forum with posts to answer...

But just off the top of my head, I think that “I will come again” refers to the Spirit of Jesus coming again in the Person of Baha’u’llah. That would make sense, because then Jesus can stay in heaven and receive those who will be there also.

Nowhere does Jesus say He will come again to earth, NOWHERE. So the upshot of this is that Christians just assumed that certain verses referred to Jesus when they did not. Whenever it said “King” or “Lord” they thought it meant Jesus, but it did not mean Jesus and in many cases it was referring to Baha’u’llah. Moreover, Jesus said that we would see the Son of man coming in the clouds in several verses, but Jesus did not EVER SAY “you will see me coming in the clouds.” Clearly, Son of man refers to Baha’u’llah, as Baha’u’llah explains in the Kitab-i-Iqan. I have all that in Word documents and posted on my own forum...

Yes, but it is not only because I believe that Jesus is dead and buried... Even if Jesus rose from the dead, Jesus did not ascend, and Jesus could not “live” in the clouds or in heaven with no oxygen, so the same body of Jesus cannot return. But the main point is that Jesus Himself never said He would return. He said His work was finished here. Not only that, but Jesus never promised to return, He just didn’t.

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

So far all I've got is this from Paul from 2nd Thessalonians chapter 2:

2 Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, 2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come. 3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.
​

So Paul specifically says the "Lord Jesus Christ". Can that be interpreted any other way than that he expected, and told others, that Jesus was the one coming back? But, even more important, it gives a prophecy about this "man of lawlessness" So who do Baha'is say this is? And what was the rebellion?​

 

[Trailblazer]

So far all I've got is this from Paul from 2nd Thessalonians chapter 2:

2 Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, 2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come. 3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.
​

So Paul specifically says the "Lord Jesus Christ". Can that be interpreted any other way than that he expected, and told others, that Jesus was the one coming back? But, even more important, it gives a prophecy about this "man of lawlessness" So who do Baha'is say this is? And what was the rebellion?​

Note that Paul says "Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" but it does not say that Jesus is coming. I really do not know what these verses mean and I would need the context of the entire chapter to even try to understand what they mean. I do not know about the rebellion or who the man of lawlessness is. Maybe Tony would know.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

So far all I've got is this from Paul from 2nd Thessalonians chapter 2:1"Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, 2 not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has already come. 3 Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4 He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.

So Paul specifically says the "Lord Jesus Christ". Can that be interpreted any other way than that he expected, and told others, that Jesus was the one coming back? But, even more important, it gives a prophecy about this "man of lawlessness" So who do Baha'is say this is? And what was the rebellion?

Note that Paul says "Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" but it does not say that Jesus is coming. I really do not know what these verses mean and I would need the context of the entire chapter to even try to understand what they mean. I do not know about the rebellion or who the man of lawlessness is. Maybe Tony would know.

This has no official translation in the Baha'i writings, so I will give it a go with what I understand.

I see that from 2:1 to to 2:2 may be talking about the belief that Christ came at Pentecost, which to me Paul is saying is not the correct teaching. It goes on to say in 2:3 that the day that most will see the return of Christ is after the man of Lawlessness is revealed, a man that because of that lawlessness is doomed to destruction. Verse 2:4 tells you what that Lawlessness was.

I would then see this as Siyyid Muhammad', Muhammad-i-Isfahani, or Mirza Yahya who was a pawn of Siyyad Muhammad, who can be seen as the chief anti Christ of the Baha'i Dispensation.

This Bible passage fits exactly as to how Baha'u'llah came to give His Message. Baha'u'llah made His declaration in the Garden of Ridvan at the end of the time in Baghdad. This Declaration at this time was significant as it made it very clear that those who were apposing Baha'u'llah, that they had no claim to any exalted station, to which they were doing.

Adib Taherzadeh in "The Covenant of Baha'u'llah" states on p.65 that the "one-eyed man" alluded to in the Kitab-i-Iqan was Siyyid Muhammad-i-Isfahani, the anti-christ of the Baha'i Revelation. He had become a Bab'i shortly after the declaration of the Bab and eventhough he didn't openly rebell against Baha'u'llah and wasn't expelled from the Faith until Adrianople, had began plotting against Baha'u'llah while Baha'u'llah was in Baghdad. This would have been during the time that the Kitab-i-Iqan was being written. He had become envious of Baha'u'llah's early influence over the Bab'i Community and used Mirza Yahya as a pawn in his opposition to Baha'u'llah.

"Shortly after Mirza Yahya had settled in Baghdad, he decided to engage in a profession so as to hide his identity. At first he
changed his headgear, adopting a large turban and assuming the name of Haji Aliy-i-Las-Furush. He then took a shop in a
dilapidated part of the city in a bazaar and started working. In the meantime, a man of great evil described by Baha'u'llah as ‘the embodiment of wickedness and impiety', 'the prime mover of mischief’ and 'one accursed of God', entered the scene to influence Mirza Yahya. He was the notorious Siyyid Muhammad-i-Isfahani, known as the 'Antichrist of the Baha'i Revelation'. In the early days of the Faith this man was a student at a theological school in Isfahan, but was expelled for reprehensible conduct. He embraced the Faith during the early part of the Ministry of the Bab and later went to Karbila where he joined the ranks of the believers. In the Kitab-i-Iqan Baha'u'llah alludes to him as that 'one-eyed man, who .... is arising with the utmost malevolence against us'."

Regards Tony

 

[Neb]

Mark 10:18"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone."

Luke 18:19"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone."

Matthew 19:17"And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."

The Son is Christ, the Father is Baha'u'llah, they are One they are the Word from God.

John 14:28"You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."

Regards Tony

Bahaullah was never in the Bible and saying he is the Father is wrong.

Self-Entitlement Syndrome: Persons with narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) are characterized by their persistent grandiosity, excessive need for admiration, and a personal disdain for, and lack of empathy for other people. ... Needing continual admiration from others. Sense of entitlement to special treatment and to obedience from others.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Bahaullah was never in the Bible and saying he is the Father is wrong.

Self-Entitlement Syndrome: Persons with narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) are characterized by their persistent grandiosity, excessive need for admiration, and a personal disdain for, and lack of empathy for other people. ... Needing continual admiration from others. Sense of entitlement to special treatment and to obedience from others.

You have convicted yourself with that post Neb. It appears you keep returning to push a dead point, to which we have supplied the answers to.

It is obvious you also took no time to check out the character of Baha'u'llah and continue to post about what you have no knowledge of.

I wish you always well.

Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

Acts 19:13 Some Jews who went around driving out evil spirits tried to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who were demon-possessed. They would say, “In the name of Jesus, whom Paul preaches, I command you to come out.”
Acts 19:14 Seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, were doing this.
Acts 19:15 One day the evil spirit answered them, “Jesus I know, and I know about Paul, but who are you?”

Who is William Sears again? A would-be apostle?

In case it didn't come up before, but I don't think Baha'is believe in demons or Satan.

 

[CG Didymus]

This has no official translation in the Baha'i writings, so I will give it a go with what I understand.

I see that from 2:1 to to 2:2 may be talking about the belief that Christ came at Pentecost, which to me Paul is saying is not the correct teaching. It goes on to say in 2:3 that the day that most will see the return of Christ is after the man of Lawlessness is revealed, a man that because of that lawlessness is doomed to destruction. Verse 2:4 tells you what that Lawlessness was.

I would then see this as Siyyid Muhammad', Muhammad-i-Isfahani, or Mirza Yahya who was a pawn of Siyyad Muhammad, who can be seen as the chief anti Christ of the Baha'i Dispensation.

This Bible passage fits exactly as to how Baha'u'llah came to give His Message. Baha'u'llah made His declaration in the Garden of Ridvan at the end of the time in Baghdad. This Declaration at this time was significant as it made it very clear that those who were apposing Baha'u'llah, that they had no claim to any exalted station, to which they were doing.

Adib Taherzadeh in "The Covenant of Baha'u'llah" states on p.65 that the "one-eyed man" alluded to in the Kitab-i-Iqan was Siyyid Muhammad-i-Isfahani, the anti-christ of the Baha'i Revelation. He had become a Bab'i shortly after the declaration of the Bab and eventhough he didn't openly rebell against Baha'u'llah and wasn't expelled from the Faith until Adrianople, had began plotting against Baha'u'llah while Baha'u'llah was in Baghdad. This would have been during the time that the Kitab-i-Iqan was being written. He had become envious of Baha'u'llah's early influence over the Bab'i Community and used Mirza Yahya as a pawn in his opposition to Baha'u'llah.

"Shortly after Mirza Yahya had settled in Baghdad, he decided to engage in a profession so as to hide his identity. At first he
changed his headgear, adopting a large turban and assuming the name of Haji Aliy-i-Las-Furush. He then took a shop in a
dilapidated part of the city in a bazaar and started working. In the meantime, a man of great evil described by Baha'u'llah as ‘the embodiment of wickedness and impiety', 'the prime mover of mischief’ and 'one accursed of God', entered the scene to influence Mirza Yahya. He was the notorious Siyyid Muhammad-i-Isfahani, known as the 'Antichrist of the Baha'i Revelation'. In the early days of the Faith this man was a student at a theological school in Isfahan, but was expelled for reprehensible conduct. He embraced the Faith during the early part of the Ministry of the Bab and later went to Karbila where he joined the ranks of the believers. In the Kitab-i-Iqan Baha'u'llah alludes to him as that 'one-eyed man, who .... is arising with the utmost malevolence against us'."

Regards Tony

This is what I asked... "So Paul specifically says the "Lord Jesus Christ". Can that be interpreted any other way than that he expected, and told others, that Jesus was the one coming back?" Part of this debate is who should we be looking for to return "The Christ" as in an Anointed One from God or Jesus? In these verses Paul says that it is the Lord Jesus Christ that is coming back. So how can that be interpreted to mean anyone other than Jesus? I don't think it can, so I don't blame Christians for being adamant about expecting Jesus and not some other "Christ".

 

[CG Didymus]

In case you have not read it, here is the full explanation by Abdul'baha.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 45-61

This is the unsealed meaning of these verses. You can have no better understanding than this explanation as this answer is from God, as it was given by Abdul'baha who was given authority from Baha'u'llah to give interpretation of all scripture.

Regards Tony

Here's those verses again.
Revelation 13:3-18
3 One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was filled with wonder and followed the beast.
4 People worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, “Who is like the beast? Who can wage war against it?”
5 The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise its authority for forty-two months.
6 It opened its mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven.
7 It was given power to wage war against God’s holy people and to conquer them. And it was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation.
8 All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.
9 Whoever has ears, let them hear.
10 “If anyone is to go into captivity, into captivity they will go. If anyone is to be killed with the sword, with the sword they will be killed.”This calls for patient endurance and faithfulness on the part of God’s people.
11 Then I saw a second beast, coming out of the earth. It had two horns like a lamb, but it spoke like a dragon.
12 It exercised all the authority of the first beast on its behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed.
13 And it performed great signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to the earth in full view of the people.
14 Because of the signs it was given power to perform on behalf of the first beast, it deceived the inhabitants of the earth. It ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived.
15 The second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed.
16 It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads,
17 so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name.
18 This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man. That number is 666.

Baha'is say this beast with the fatal wound is 'Abd al-Rahman and was part of the Umayyads. The Abbasids overthrew the Umayyads in 749 AD. But the one guy escaped to Andalusia and set up another Umayyad dynasty for another 300 years. Then Adrian says:

Revelation 13:11
And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon... The second beast was the 'Abbasid dynasty.​

But, in verse 7 the beast with the fatal wound, 'Abd al-Rahman, was given authority over all people and nations? And, in verse 5 exercised his authority for 42 months? When did this guy ever have that kind of power? And why date his "42 months" all the way back to 622 AD just so Baha'is can make the months into days and then years and come up to 1844? Isn't that manipulating the prophecy just a bit?

Now the Abbasids are supposed to be the second beast. But this doesn't make sense either. The second beast made the inhabitants of the earth worship the first beast? Which is the Umayyad, 'Abd al-Rahman? And the second beast killed all those that didn't worship the first beast? But the Umayyads were the enemies of the Abbasids.

But now, even more confusing, it's this second beast that gets the number 666. So if it's the Abbasids that conquered the Umayyads in 749 AD, then how and why do Baha'is interpret the 666 prophecy as a date? The supposed start of the Umayyads, which I think was 661 AD, but the Baha'is added five years, because Jesus wasn't born on year "0" but a few years before that, and 5 is the best number for Baha'is to guess at because 5 plus 661 equals 666. But that is not the start of the Abbasid dynasty. That's the start of the Umayyads. So another manipulation.

So what are we looking for? And what are the signs and the prophecies? I don't know. Because the Baha'is, the ones that claim they have the truth from God, make up what ever they want and say that all of the prophecies have been fulfilled. Sorry, I still don't see how this adds up.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

This is what I asked... "So Paul specifically says the "Lord Jesus Christ". Can that be interpreted any other way than that he expected, and told others, that Jesus was the one coming back?" Part of this debate is who should we be looking for to return "The Christ" as in an Anointed One from God or Jesus? In these verses Paul says that it is the Lord Jesus Christ that is coming back. So how can that be interpreted to mean anyone other than Jesus? I don't think it can, so I don't blame Christians for being adamant about expecting Jesus and not some other "Christ".

CG this is done to death.

If you wish so agree with current thought and see that it is the Body of Jesus and not the Spirit of Christ talked about, then that is your choice.

How can it be otherwise you ask? Well Jesus the Christ said it would be otherwise, how else is it going to be a new heaven and a new earth, a new Jerusalem and a New Name, with stars falling and the moon not giving light, all the while a Jesus no one would recognize will be surfing a cloud of rising vapor the opposite direction back down to earth.

If that is literally going to happen, thank God I will be dead, I do not need magical shows.

By the way, the Jews still await. That is the best explanation, as they also await these miraculous signs to vindicate their stance.

This is the applicable part of the Kitab-i-iqan

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Íqán, Pages 81-93

"...Great God! Notwithstanding their acceptance of the truth of this tradition, these divines who are still doubtful of, and dispute about, the theological obscurities of their faith, yet claim to be the exponents of the subtleties of the law of God, and the expounders of the essential mysteries of His holy Word. They confidently assert that such traditions as indicate the advent of the expected Qá’im have not yet been fulfilled, whilst they themselves have failed to inhale the fragrance of the meaning of these traditions, and are still oblivious of the fact that all the signs foretold have come to pass, that the way of God’s holy Cause hath been revealed, and the concourse of the faithful, swift as lightning, are, even now, passing upon that way, whilst these foolish divines wait expecting to witness the signs foretold. Say, O ye foolish ones! Wait ye even as those before you are waiting!"

Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

You have convicted yourself with that post Neb. It appears you keep returning to push a dead point, to which we have supplied the answers to.

It is obvious you also took no time to check out the character of Baha'u'llah and continue to post about what you have no knowledge of.

I wish you always well.

Regards Tony

I know it's hard to do, I certainly can't do it, but Baha'is are supposed to bring people together in love and unity... something about if religion causes disharmony then we are better off without it. Neb is only standing up for his beliefs, how should a Baha'i confront someone from another religion?