How are these Great Beings explained?

[Dawnofhope]

What do you call a religion that believes their founder is God and rose from the dead?

Christianity

And what do you call people that believe such things?

Christians

 

[Vinayaka]

Yes, none of the non-bahais here have regularly and often posted on behalf of their particular beliefs. We've mentioned them, but not pushed them.
We need more Jews, Christians, Sikhs and Muslims here really, but it does not look as if they want to have much to do with the thread, which is a pity.

One day I am going to find out something about the Sikh religion, since one of the biggest Sikh Temples in Europe is just 30 miles up the road, and I couldn't write a single sentence about it.

I have 2 Sikh temples really close, about 5 minutes. I've been in one, just to sit for awhile. They are my brothers and sisters, just like Buddhists.

 

[Vinayaka]

They have a Book of Certitude. I wonder what it makes certituded.

It's because they said it was. That's the only reason. Just like infallibility.

 

[Vinayaka]

There's a lot of uncertainty here, but the least improbable scenario is that Baha'u'llah married Gawhar when she was -- and because she was -- an unmarried mother.

He could have taken her in and supported her as a brother would for his sister, no? All the same results without the marriage.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

And how does anyone know when Jesus was born? And why would the number of the beast be the number of years after Jesus was born? You guys have a great number in 1260. Why mess up the little credibility you gained with that to try and force a date out of 666?

Please refer to wiki if you want to learn about how the historians and scholars date the birth of Jesus. It is quite long, and it is a good read to be done individually.

But as regards to the number of the beast (666) the bible give many hints. First, the bible teaches that beast have horns, heads and crowns. It also teaches in Daniel 8 that, a beast represents a kingdom, or several kingdoms, a horn symbolically represents a king or a kingdom of a beast that rules for many years. Thus, the number of the beast, would be the number of a man who is a king of this beast. Now, the scriptures gives many hints, which are compatible with the Ummayads:

1. The beast makes war with 2 witnesses - compatibility is seen when we notice in Quran Muhammad and Ali are called witness, and Ummayads were in war with Muhammad and Ali.
2. The beast has 7 heads, 10 horns - compatibility is seen when we notice Ummayads ruled over Seven dominions and their kings had 10 names.
3. The number of the beast is 666 - compatibility is when we see Muawwiah who was one of the kings of Ummayads, became Caliph in 661 AD (which would be 666 years after Christ). In this year, he killed Ali, one of the witnesses.

The above points, you have already seen. But there is another one, which it has not been discussed or noted before, and that is in Daniel 8:


When we read Daniel 8 from its beginning, we notice how compatible it is with history.

It starts from the time, the Kingdoms of Persia and Media were very strong, and then it describes how the Alexander the Great defeated Persian Kingdom, and later how there appeared 4 kingdoms after Alexander the Great.
Now, here comes the hint: Notice that according to history, the Emperor of Byzantine came to existence through appearance of the Kingdoms of Greeks, namely after the Alexander the Great, and the 4 kingdoms described in Daniel 8.
Now, according to history, which you must be familiar with to understand this, the Empire of Byzantine was replaced by Ummayads. This in chronological order is described in Daniel 8:

9 "Out of one of them came another horn, which started small but grew in power to the south and to the east and toward the Beautiful Land."

Notice how clearly, this prophecy is talking about Caliphate of Ummayads, who began to grow in the same region as Byzantine and then grew in power more and more. It even came to the Beautiful Land, which is the Holy Land of Israel. Now, this horn, which began to grow, appeared in 661AD, when Muawwiah established the Umayyad Caliphate. See how closely and clearly the history is compatible with the description of the Beast? Please try to make yourself more familiar with the history. It will help you see the compatibilities better. Then you will recognize when the meaning of the symbols understood correctly, there is a 100 % compatibility with history, and 0% mismatch.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Never enacted nor enforced? Why did God have him even mention them?

To understand this, you would need to be quite familiar with the Prophecies of Mahdi described in the Recorded Traditions of Islam.
When we read these traditions, we see that apparently it was expected the Mahdi would come with a Sword to conquer the world. Now what was intended by the Sword was the Word of God which separates falsehood from truth. It is a sword that kills anyone who opposes it, albeit killing in a spiritual sense.
However, throughout centuries, many of the Muslims had taken these signs literally, thus, their expectation was that the Mahdi literally will kill many with His sword.
The Bab being the Mahdi, did them a favour, so they do not get disturbed. He apparently made Himself appear in the way people had expected; He wrote many commands to ask His followers that the unbelievers must all be killed in order to appear to them as what they expected. However, He also put certain 'conditions' on His commands, so, such commands could not be practised. Thus outwardly He appeared to them as the expected blood thirsty Mahdi who would kill all infidels while in reality, He made such Laws impossible to use by making them conditional upon certain other things.
But all these objections does not change the fact that, the Bab who was a 24 years old Persian Merchant, all the sudden began to write verses like Arabic Quran, which the scholars and the learned who had spent years studying Islam, were unable to do so. It does not change the fact that, the historical life of the Bab and Bahaullah perfectly matches, and are compatible with thousands of prophecies in the Recorded Traditions.

 

[oldbadger]

You are assuming, I think, that the first two wives were still alive (and not divorced) at the time of the third marriage, to Gawhar. The "received wisdom" is that this was during his time in Baghdad, but (1) they had no children then, and (2) when Baha'u'llah was exiled from Baghdad to Istanbul, his "third wife" did not accompany him, remaining instead with her brother. They were later rounded up by the authorities and sent to exile in Mosul. She went to Akka in 1870, seven years after Baha'u'llah's exile from Baghdad. Their one daughter is said to have been born in Akka.

Now as to whether his first or second wife had died or been divorced by 1870 :

Baha'u'llah's last child with his second wife, Fatimeh, was Badi'u'lláh, born in 1867 when Fatimeh was 39 years old. By that time, Abdu'l-Baha had emerged as Baha'u'llah's favourite and pre-eminent disciple. Fatimeh is said to have been very jealous of Abdu'l-Baha ( son of Assiyeh). I see two possibilities: (1) Baha'u'llah and Fatimeh still had marital relations in 1870, despite her jealousy of Abdu'l-Baha, but she had no more children because of her age, or (2) Baha'u'llah and Fatimeh no longer had marital relations, because of age or because her opposition to his favourite son was intolerable. In the latter case, was there a formal divorce? Would we know if there was? We have no documentary or eyewitness account of the marriage, so it is quite possible there was a divorce, which no-one mentioned.

There is also a letter by Abdu'l-Baha, quoted in the Diary of Habíb Mu’ayyad and translated by Ahang Rabbani. The pdf was online, but has apparently been moved or removed. On page 443 it reads



The problem is, Khadijeh Bagum died on 15 September 1882, after the revelation of the Kitab-e Aqdas. Fatimeh was still alive when Baha'u'llah died. But Abdu'l-Baha says Baha'u'llah's third marriage took place after the death of one of his first two wives.

If indeed the marriage took place in Palestine after the death of Khadijeh Bagum, and if Gawhar was pregnant or had her daughter with her when she arrived in Palestine, (two ifs), then it would appear that she had a child and no husband, for which there are three explanations (1) she was a widow, as David Hofman says (but I do not think he is reliable in such matters), (2) she slipped or (3) she was raped. I think the last of these is most likely, as the group who were sent to Mosul were subject to severe abuse, and they had no protectors there.

There's a lot of uncertainty here, but the least improbable scenario is that Baha'u'llah married Gawhar when she was -- and because she was -- an unmarried mother.

Hello Sen,
I have had a 'look around' and it looks as if Bahauallah had three wives, all alive, when a Babi.

This is the timeline that I came up with.
Please show any alternatives in a simple format, as shown, and please show the fourth marriage year if you can
1835 Bahauallah marries Navvab.

1849 Bahauallah marries Fatimih in Tehran.

1853 Bahauallah marries Gawhar in Baghdad
1863 Bahauallah Declares himself

 

[oldbadger]

The Bab “made the acceptance” of the Bayan “dependent on the good pleasure” of the One Who would follow Him — Baha’u’llah, the founder of the Baha’i Faith.

The Báb's Bayan

That's correct, and that's why most Babis eventualy recognised Baha'u'llah. The Kitab-i-Aqdas is the most important sacred text for Baha'is, not the Bayan.

You linked me to an Analytical Survey.
I'll go and look for the doc itself.

 

[oldbadger]

I have 2 Sikh temples really close, about 5 minutes. I've been in one, just to sit for awhile. They are my brothers and sisters, just like Buddhists.

I really must do more to discover something about Sikhism.
I have never been in a Mosque either. There musdt be a Mosque within a few miles.
I'll go to both.

 

[oldbadger]

He could have taken her in and supported her as a brother would for his sister, no? All the same results without the marriage.

One timeline shows that he married her in Baghdad in 1853.

 

[oldbadger]

Please refer to wiki if you want to learn about how the historians and scholars date the birth of Jesus. It is quite long, and it is a good read to be done individually.

Accounts are so contentious, conflicting and downright dishonest that any consensus of a birth date for Jesus is not possible amongst the scholars.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Accounts are so contentious, conflicting and downright dishonest that any consensus of a birth date for Jesus is not possible amongst the scholars.

There is not a significant difference of opinion about the estimated year of birth of Christ. Most agree He was born 4-6 BC. Date of birth of Jesus - Wikipedia
The Bahai view that 666 years after Birth of Christ is 661AD falls within the range that majority scholars had been able to estimate.

 

[Vinayaka]

Accounts are so contentious, conflicting and downright dishonest that any consensus of a birth date for Jesus is not possible amongst the scholars.

Not even to mention the contention as to whether or not he even existed.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

He could have taken her in and supported her as a brother would for his sister, no? All the same results without the marriage.

In those days, and among those people this was not appropriate. Some People would have thought there is an illegitimate relationship between a man and women who are with each other but not married. To their eyes, it was quite normal to be married to more than one wife.

 

[Vinayaka]

In those days, and among those people this was not appropriate. Some People would have thought there is an illegitimate relationship between a man and women who are with each other but not married. To their eyes, it was quite normal to be married to more than one wife.

So if a family lived together, all males were suspected of incest? He could have also just supported her from afar. let her live with her family. There are always other solutions besides marrying. But of course carnal desire is strong.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

So if a family lived together, all males were suspected of incest? He could have also just supported her from afar. let her live with her family. There are always other solutions besides marrying. But of course carnal desire is strong.

Considering that Bahaullah was exiled, and other situations, this was the best possible act.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I need to read all that with care later today.
Have you mentioned Bahauallah's fourth wife there? I'm guessing that Bahauallah had been widowered once or possibly twice before this fourth wedding.

But it doesn't look good, Sen.......... this whole area of questioning.... God's Ordained Prophet, who knows the future, can prophesy great rises and falls, knows all without education...... the all knowing and infallible, did not know that only one wife is acceptable for Bahais.

That alone could be enough to help observers form a poor opinion of Bahai. I think that you know that.

The Comparison between the Manifestation of God and humanity, is like, comparing Shepherd and the flock. He is not required to follow the same rules as the flock needs to.
The Laws that divine Manifestations revealed are for humanity to be followed, whereas He shall not be asked for His doings.

 

[Vinayaka]

Considering that Bahaullah was exiled, and other situations, this was the best possible act.

Yes of course. There could be no other way. Since he is infallible, even if he would have done something else, it would be the 'best possible act'. There isn't ever even the smallest hint of doubt in the fundamentalist 'I'm right, you're wrong' mindset. Too bad, because that attitude destroys any hope of conciliatory practices.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Yes of course. There could be no other way. Since he is infallible, even if he would have done something else, it would be the 'best possible act'. There isn't ever even the smallest hint of doubt in the fundamentalist 'I'm right, you're wrong' mindset. Too bad, because that attitude destroys any hope of conciliatory practices.

I am willing to accept if you can disprove Bahaullah's infallibility. So, what exactly makes you believe Babaullah was not infallible? I mean, I understand you do not believe in Manifestations or Avatars or Prophets. But disbelieving in them is not disproving if They are really the Manifestations of God, in the same way that, if people do not believe in God Shiva, or reincarnation, is not an evidence that disproves if Shiva or incarnation is true or not. So, once again, what makes you think Bahaullah is not infallible, or maybe better to ask what evidence you have that refutes His claim? Do you believe God shiva makes errors?

 

[Vinayaka]

I am willing to accept if you can disprove Bahaullah's infallibility. So, what exactly makes you believe Babaullah was not infallible? I mean, I understand you do not believe in Manifestations or Avatars or Prophets. But disbelieving in them is not disproving if They are really the Manifestations of God, in the same way that, if people do not believe in God Shiva, or reincarnation, is not an evidence that disproves if Shiva or incarnation is true or not. So, once again, what makes you think Bahaullah is not infallible, or maybe better to ask what evidence you have that refutes His claim? Do you believe God shiva makes errors?

I don't believe in the concept of infallibility, so there is nothing to prove about any individual. just belief. But it seems to be a vital belief to the Baha'i, which is far more of a focus than trying to better humanity by social work, or even better yourself by personal sadhana. It's a distraction from the real work, all this effort to prove the infalliblity of somebody. But as far as I can tell that's how Baha'is practice their religion, just out there trying to convince everyone your prophet is infallible, your way is the right way, trying to convince everyone your faith is still growing, and so many more largely fruitless endeavors. Little wonder the ex-Bahai's often describe it as 'empty'.