Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Most Christian and Jewish beliefs.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How can the Jew reject, Jesus, Muhammad, Bab and Baha'u'llah?
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
Tony doesn't know the date. He's just going by 457BC as the starting date so the 2300 years ends in 1844. But was the daily sacrifice stopped in 457BC? No. Was the Temple desegregated in 457BC? No. Anything about the Abomination of desolation happen in 457BC? No. A good argument can be made, though, for Antiochus at or around that 167BC date. The context has one of the Greek leaders being the guy that desecrated the Temple. None of this happens in 457BC when the decree to rebuild Jerusalem happened. But, if we know when the Antiochus desecrated the Temple, and if we know when he was defeated, it must not be long after that when the Temple was rededicated.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
May I ask what your goal is in knowing all these dates?
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
Never changed? Even the Catholic Church changed. JW's, LDS, and 7th Day Adventists all came about during the time that the Baha'i Faith began. The Pentecostals and Charismatic movement got going. Then, one of your favorites, the liberal Christians emerged. Even the Fundamentalists came about as a reaction to those movements and they defined what the "fundamentals" of what they believed to be "true" Christian beliefs. The extreme of those includes a literal 6 day creation and a belief that the flood really happened and Jesus literal rose from the dead. There is no "never" changing. And, if the Baha'is are correct, when things get so bad that the world turns to the Baha'i Faith, then Christianity will have to change its beliefs and interpretations again.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
Baha'is have refused to give a reason as to why the 2300 days/years began in 457BC. I think, like other religions, Baha'is only look at things that support their beliefs and refuse to take a critical look at things that might refute their beliefs. That makes them no better than the people in the other religions that stay glued to the beliefs of their religion without taking a more objective look at what their religious leaders are telling them is the truth. It is Baha'is who say that all the prophecies have been fulfilled. And then they go ahead and interpret things in such a way that satisfies them, but ignores the context. You know, they cherry pick and leave out verses that might point to a different interpretation or meaning of what the verse is saying.
This one has a ram and a goat. Later in Daniel it tells you who the ram and the goat are. If it is one of the goats that desecrates the Temple and puts a stop to the daily sacrifice, then the 2300 days has nothing to do with what happened in 457BC. May I ask why no Baha'is give a %#$&? Never mind, I can. It's because only by going to the edict to rebuild Jerusalem in 457BC can Baha'is make the 2300 day/year prophecy come out to 1844. If it doesn't matter to you, then there is a credibility problem... can I trust Baha'is in what they say is true? No, and that goes for Christians too. Both of you interpret things, many out of context, to suit your own beliefs.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I did not mean that nothing has changed, I meant that certain core beliefs have not changed for most Christians.
For example:
1. Jesus rose from the dead
2. Jesus is the only way
3. Jesus is God
4. Jesus is going to return in the clouds with trumpets and angels
5. People will rise from their graves when Jesus returns
If they turned to the Baha'i Faith then they would have to toss out 1-5 above, among other beliefs.
They would no longer be Christians, they would be Baha'is, followers of Baha'u'llah.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
None of this is going to refute Baha'i beliefs so if that is your goal you are living in what Baha'u'llah called a fools paradise...
The obvious logical reason that trying to use the Bible to disprove Baha'i beliefs will never refute Bahai beliefs is because you will never be able to unravel the Bible and understand what it means and you will never be able to prove any interpretation you come up with is the correct one, and that is why I consider this endeavor an utter waste of time.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
It is not only the Baha'is who believed that Christ would return in 1844. Some Christians also believed that.
Great Disappointment - Wikipedia
The Great Disappointment in the Millerite movement was the reaction that followed Baptist preacher William Miller's proclamations that Jesus Christ would return to the Earth by 1844, what he called the Advent. His study of the Daniel 8 prophecy during the Second Great Awakening led him to the conclusion that Daniel's "cleansing of the sanctuary" was cleansing of the world from sin when Christ would come, and he and many others prepared, but October 22, 1844, came and they were disappointed.[1][2][3][4]
These events paved the way for the Adventists who formed the Seventh-day Adventist Church. They contended that what had happened on October 22 was not Jesus' return, as Miller had thought, but the start of Jesus' final work of atonement, the cleansing in the heavenly sanctuary, leading up to the Second Coming.[1][2][3][4]
Miller claimed the Second Coming of Christ was imminent
Between 1831 and 1844, on the basis of his study of the Bible, and particularly the prophecy of Daniel 8:14—"Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed"—William Miller, a rural New York farmer and Baptist lay preacher, predicted and preached the return of Jesus Christ to the earth. Miller's teachings form the theological foundation of Seventh-day Adventism. Four topics were especially important: 1. Miller's use of the Bible; 2. his eschatology; 3. his perspective on the first and second angel's messages of Revelation 14; and 4. the seventh-month movement that ended with the "Great Disappointment".[5]
Miller's use of the Bible
Miller's approach was thorough and methodical, intensive and extensive. Central to his general principles Biblical interpretation was that "all scripture is necessary" and that no part should be bypassed. To understand a doctrine, Miller said one needed to "bring all scriptures together on the subject you wish to know; then let every word have its proper influence, and if you can form your theory without a contradiction you cannot be in error." He held that the Bible should be its own expositor. By comparing scripture with scripture a person could unlock the meaning of the Bible. In that way the Bible became a person's authority, whereas if a creed of other individuals or their writings served as the basis of authority, then that external authority became central rather than the teaching of the Bible itself."[6] Miller's guidelines concerning the interpretation Bible prophecy was built upon the same concepts set forth in his general rules. The Bible, so far as Miller and his followers were concerned, was the supreme authority in all matters of faith and doctrine.[7]
Second Advent
The Millerite movement was primarily concerned with the return of Jesus, literally, visually, in the clouds of heaven. The French Revolution was one of several factors that caused many Bible students around the world who shared Miller's concerns to delve into the time prophecies of Daniel using the historicist methodology of interpretation. They concluded, to their satisfaction, that the end of the 1,260-“day” prophecy of Daniel 7:25 in 1798 started the era of “time of the end.” They next considered the 2,300 "days" of Daniel 8:14.[8]
There were three things that Miller determined about this text:[9]
- That the 2,300 symbolic days represented 2,300 real years as evidence in Ezekiel 4:6 and Numbers 14:34.
- That the sanctuary represents the earth or church. And,
- by referring to 2 Peter 3:7, that the 2,300 years ended with the burning of the earth at the Second Advent.
- 536 BC: Decree by Cyrus to rebuild temple.[10]
- 519 BC: Decree by Darius I to finish temple.[11]
- 457 BC: Decree by Artaxerxes I of Persia.[12]
- 444 BC: Decree by Artaxerxes to Nehemiah to finish wall at Jerusalem.[13]
Miller concluded that 457 BC was the beginning of the 2,300 day/year prophecy which meant that it would end about 1843-1844 (-457 BC + 2300 years = 1843 AD). And so, too, the Second Advent would happen about that time.[9]
Although the word "cleansed" (KJV) is a mistranslation of the Hebrew word nitsdaq (to justify or vindicate), he assumed that the "cleansing of the sanctuary" represented purification of the earth by fire at Christ's Second Coming. Using an interpretive principle known as the day-year principle, Miller, along with others, interpreted a prophetic "day" to read not as a 24-hour period, but rather a calendar year. Miller became convinced that the 2,300-day period started in 457 B.C. with the decree to rebuild Jerusalem by Artaxerxes I of Persia. His interpretation led Miller to believe — and predict, despite urging of his supporters — that Christ would return in "about 1843." Miller narrowed the time period to sometime in the Jewish year 5604, stating: "My principles in brief, are, that Jesus Christ will come again to this earth, cleanse, purify, and take possession of the same, with all the saints, sometime between March 21, 1843 and March 21, 1844."[15][clarification needed] March 21, 1844, passed without incident, but the majority of Millerites maintained their faith.[citation needed]
Do you really think that William Miller interpreted the Bible out of context to suit his beliefs?
I can't speak for @CG Didymus , but I sure do.
I think Miller lacked the courage to acknowledge that Daniel made a failed prophecy, so Miller reinterpreted it (post hoc), then when the way Miller interpreted it turned out to be false his followers reinterpreted Millers prophecy (post hoc).
That's how prophecy is made to work.
I also note your double standard here. If Miller can't have interpreted the Bible to suit his beliefs then he was correct about it being the literal return of Jesus.
You can't have your cake and eat it here, either Miller did interpret according to his beliefs or he did not.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
The reason Miller thought it was a failed prophecy is because Jesus did not come down from the physical clouds in the sky as he was expecting. What failed was his interpretation of the verses that say that the Son of Man will come in the clouds. Moreover, if Miller had read the whole Bible and understood it, he would have known that the Son of Man coming in the clouds did not refer to Jesus, and he would also have known that same man Jesus never promised to return and actually said His work was finished here and he was no more in the world.
(John 14:19, John 17:4, John 17:11, John 19:30, John 18:36)
So if Miller had read and understood the real meaning of the Bible, Miller would not have been expecting the same man Jesus to come down from the sky in the physical clouds.
Miller had the timeline correct, so he was correct about the return of Christ, but he was incorrect about the return if the same man Jesus in the physical clouds.
I do not think he interpreted the Bible according to his beliefs, but he either overlooked or misinterpreted certain verses, so his beliefs about HOW Christ would return were incorrect.
In that case Miller could have overlooked parts of or misinterpreted Daniel in coming up with Miller's date of 1844
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
That's true.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
Then that's a problem in itself. The Bible is useless. What good were any of the prophecies? Why claim that Baha'u'llah fulfilled them all? But... if you do claim he fulfilled them all and can't show reasonable interpretations of those prophecies, then to say he did fulfill them makes Baha'is look like they are merely manipulating a few cherry picked verses to make their claims. All I'm asking for is that the Baha'is explain how this prophecy is fulfilled by using the whole chapter, the context, not just one verse. This is from Daniel 8 (I might have put Daniel 7 before, but it is chapter 8 that has the 2300 days).
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. 10 It grew until it reached the host of the heavens, and it threw some of the starry host down to the earth and trampled on them. 11 It set itself up to be as great as the commander of the army of the Lord; it took away the daily sacrifice from the Lord, and his sanctuary was thrown down. 12 Because of rebellion, the Lord’s people and the daily sacrifice were given over to it. It prospered in everything it did, and truth was thrown to the ground.
13 Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to him, “How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled—the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, the surrender of the sanctuary and the trampling underfoot of the Lord’s people?”
14 He said to me, “It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be reconsecrated.”
21 The shaggy goat is the king of Greece, and the large horn between its eyes is the first king. 22 The four horns that replaced the one that was broken off represent four kingdoms that will emerge from his nation but will not have the same power.
And I do realize it is a waste of time showing the context to Baha'is, because they ignore it. Which is part of the problem. If they looked at it and could explain why they agree with William Miller... And why they take the one verse with the 2300 days and make it start in 457BC? You are the one that found that Antiochus did stop the daily sacrifice. And we know when that happened. And I'll bet we can find out when the Temple was rededicated. But do Baha'is really want to know? I don't think so. They like Miller's interpretation just fine. So much for being honest about making an unbiased search for truth.13 Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to him, “How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled—the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, the surrender of the sanctuary and the trampling underfoot of the Lord’s people?”
14 He said to me, “It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be reconsecrated.”
21 The shaggy goat is the king of Greece, and the large horn between its eyes is the first king. 22 The four horns that replaced the one that was broken off represent four kingdoms that will emerge from his nation but will not have the same power.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
Right there Miller is saying something that doesn't fit with the Baha'i Faith. Baha'is have about six verses that are all converted to 1260 lunar years and all made to start in 621AD with the Hegira and all end in 1844.
So he takes the 2300 day prophecy out of context.
Maybe, just like the many others that predicted the return of Christ.
Me too.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
We claim that Baha'u'llah fulfilled them because we know who Baha'u'llah was. We never even needed to look at the Bible to know that, we simply did what Baha'u'llah enjoined us to do in our search for truth.
Below is what Baha’u’llah wrote about evidence that establishes the truth of His claims. More specifically, Baha’u’llah enjoined us to look at His own Self (His character), His Revelation (His works, which can be seen in Baha'i history), and His words (His Writings). Baha'u'llah never told us to refer to the Bible prophecies as proof of His claims.
“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106
So logically speaking, if Baha'u'llah was who He claimed to be, then He had to have fulfilled the prophecies for the return of Christ and the Messiah. How do you think that those who are not Christian, those who never ever believed in Jesus or the Bible, came to believe in Baha'u'llah? -- Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, and the followers of other ancient faiths, as well as of agnostics and even atheists did not need the Bible prophecies to know who Baha'u'llah was. They recognized Baha'u'llah on His own merit.
Baha'is are not USING the Bible to make our claims, you are the one trying to make us do that. For example, you say:
"All I'm asking for is that the Baha'is explain how this prophecy is fulfilled by using the whole chapter, the context, not just one verse. This is from Daniel 8 (I might have put Daniel 7 before, but it is chapter 8 that has the 2300 days)."
The Baha'is do not care about all of that because we know who Baha'u'llah was. I knew who Baha'u'llah was for 43 years before I ever read one page of the Bible.
An unbiased search for truth has nothing to so with looking at Bible prophecies and trying to use them to prove who Baha'u'llah was.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
And that's kind of like the problem Baha'is have telling Jews and Christians about how Baha'is believe that Baha'u'llah is The Messiah and The Return of Christ. Can't prove it, especially with prophecies. For the Jews, Jesus didn't fulfill them. And for Jews and Christians, Baha'u'llah didn't fulfill them.
But then there are those that did convert... What did they gain? A Jew that became a Christian? A bunch of beliefs that Baha'is say are false. A religion that broke away from the Roman Church and started their own Protestant Churches. Which one of them should a Jew join? Now we have the Baha'is. What is it that a Jew or Christian should believe about the Baha'i Faith? Unfortunately, one of the things is to believe that their old religions were wrong in many ways.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
No, Baha'u'llah cannot be proven or disproven with prophecies because people can interpret those prophecies any way they want to and they can be right or wrong.
If they became a Baha'i, what they should believe is what was revealed by Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi. The reason they would join is because they believe that Baha'u'llah was the Manifestation of God for this age.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
Yes, if he is who he said he is, then he would have had to fulfill the prophecies. So why bother to check and see? Just accept it? Yet, Baha's do use prophecies. And when questioned about some irregularities what then?
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
I can't get a good reason why they start at 457BC. But, it doesn't seem to matter. If it gets us to 1844, it must be right. I'm okay with Baha'u'llah being the return of Christ... if indeed he is. I'm no religious scholar and I'm finding problems with lots of their beliefs. I think if there are such things as "prophecies", then they should be fulfilled in a more obvious way. I don't blame Jews for not becoming Christians and I don't blame anyone for not becoming Baha'is.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
And how would they determine that? For some, it is to look at what was prophesied. That's why in a lot of ways I think the Baha'is would have been better off just to say that the Bible is mostly the work of men. Men that wrote stories and made up myths and legends. Then made up rules that would fit their people and society to help keep order. Like really, God wants them to chop up an animal and burn it up as a sacrifice? Sounds manmade to me.