• 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 do Baha’is see atheists?

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Read your own line again ".. but the older religions have been corrupted and misinterpreted by man."
Exactly, which leaves only one religion that has not been corrupted and misinterpreted, and lo and behold it happens to be theirs, the Baha'i Faith.

Which is fine, for them. But it affects all of us, because they are told to go "teach" the faith to others... to spread the truth to the world.

And just like those of us that complain and argue with JW's, Mormons and other Christians, we also complain and argue with Baha'is. How do you know it's true? How do you know that God speaks through this man you believe in?

I have problems with the beliefs of those various Christians, and I also find problems with the beliefs and teachings of the Baha'is. But the biggest problem I have with them is their attitude. Do they sound as if they believe and follow their own teachings? Like being loving, humble, respectful and forgiving? Baha'is could be the ones that build bridges between opposing groups... that find ways to bring people together, but they'd rather push their belief that their guy is the promised return of everybody's promised one.

They might not think they are acting like this, but to me they come off as bad as any fundamentalist Christian that thinks they are right and everyone that doesn't believe like they do is blind. That's not going to bring people together but push them away.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Exactly, which leaves only one religion that has not been corrupted and misinterpreted, and lo and behold it happens to be theirs, the Baha'i Faith.
.. that their guy is the promised return of everybody's promised one.
That also is not true. Abdul Baha and Shoghi gave their interpretation of what Bahaollah said. Krishna and Buddha were added later as far as I know.
In Hinduism, the promised return is only among some Vaishnavas, and not among others (Shaivas, Shaktas, Smartas).
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
That also is not true. Abdul Baha and Shoghi gave their interpretation of what Bahaollah said. Krishna and Buddha were added later as far as I know.
In Hinduism, the promised return is only among some Vaishnavas, and not among others (Shaivas, Shaktas, Smartas).
And does this "promised" return even fit the prophecies of Kalki and Maitreya? They have to do some creative interpreting to make it work, but then they have to do the same with Jewish, Christian, and Islamic prophecies. Like with Judaism, are there prophecies for four different "The Messiahs"? And with Christianity, three different "returns" of Christ?

And I've never heard them say anything about Shaivas, Shaktas, Smartas. But what can they say? But to say they are wrong? And that only those Hindus that have accepted Krishna as a true, Baha'i approved manifestation, are correct. But then again, why don't Baha'is ever talk about the other incarnations of Vishnu?

I still think they would have been better off just to deny all previous religions and say that from now on this is the true word of God.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
A question for the Baha'is... What were the pure and true teachings of Christianity before they got "mucked up"? At best, f all we have is second-hand accounts of what Jesus said and did, then how know they are accurate and correct? And, since Baha'is don't take them as being literally true, then even Baha'is don't take them as being true and accurate... but are already needing to make adjustments to the things said in the NT by saying that some things were meant to be symbolic.
The closest we have to the true teachings of Christianity is what is in the New Testament, but that does not mean that it is all true or that it is all literally true. Some things in the OT and NT were meant to be symbolic. Not only Baha'is believe that, many Christians also believe that.

From Letters Written on Behalf of the Guardian:
...The Bible is not wholly authentic, and in this respect is not to be compared with the Qur'an, and should be wholly subordinated to the authentic writings of Bahá'u'lláh​
. (28 July 1936 to a National Spiritual Assembly)​
...we cannot be sure how much or how little of the four Gospels are accurate and include the words of Christ and His undiluted teachings, all we can be sure of, as Bahá'ís, is that what has been quoted by Bahá'u'lláh and the Master must be absolutely authentic. As many times passages in the Gospel of St. John are quoted we may assume that it is his Gospel and much of it accurate.​
(23 January 1944 to an individual believer)​
When 'Abdu'l-Bahá states we believe what is in the Bible, He means in substance. Not that we believe every word of it to be taken literally or that every word is the authentic saying of the Prophet.​
(11 February 1944 to an individual believer)​
We cannot be sure of the authenticity of any of the phrases in the Old or the New Testament. What we can be sure of is when such references or words are cited or quoted in either the Quran or the Bahá'í writings.​
(4 July 1947 to an individual believer)​
We have no way of substantiating the stories of the Old Testament other than references to them in our own teachings, so we cannot say exactly what happened at the battle of Jericho.​
(25 November 1950 to an individual believer)​
Except for what has been explained by Bahá'u'lláh and 'Abdu'l-Bahá, we have no way of knowing what various symbolic allusions in the Bible mean.​
(31 January 1955 to an individual believer)​
Which becomes everything that the Baha'is don't believe are true and that don't fit into Baha'i beliefs. Gone is Satan, demons, a literal hell, the resurrection, and some of the healings/miracles. And again, lots of us don't believe those things, but, unlike the Baha'i Faith, we don't go around saying we believe that Christianity is a true, God-given religion.
Christianity is a true God-given religion since God sent Jesus as His Messenger, but that does not mean that everything that got recorded in the NT is accurate or literally true. We can parse out what is true and what is not by reading the Writings of Baha'u'llah, since Baha'u'llah unsealed the Book.
 

Truthseeker

Non-debating member when I can help myself
At best, f all we have is second-hand accounts of what Jesus said and did, then how know they are accurate and correct? And, since Baha'is don't take them as being literally true, then even Baha'is don't take them as being true and accurate... but are already needing to make adjustments to the things said in the NT by saying that some things were meant to be symbolic.
It depends on the Baha'i how they see it. We are not of one mind. Yes, it is said in the Baha'i Writings that some things are symbolic, with some interpretations by Abdu'l-Baha of how they are symbolic. Other than those interpretations we use our own judgment what they they mean or whether they are symbolic.
Which becomes everything that the Baha'is don't believe are true and that don't fit into Baha'i beliefs. Gone is Satan, demons, a literal hell, the resurrection, and some of the healings/miracles. And again, lots of us don't believe those things, but, unlike the Baha'i Faith, we don't go around saying we believe that Christianity is a true, God-given religion.
Christianity as given from Jesus is a true faith. The rest is a matter of how accurate each of us see the history presented in Gospels is, how accurate His words were, how to interpret those words, and also the events.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Not giving correct and consistent messages is pretty stupid and unjust.

I think that is supported by Baha'i beliefs. Unless Baha'is have changed their minds and beliefs that the Scriptures of all the older religions are true and accurate and can to taken literally. You Baha'is say that the messages were written years later by the followers of the person believed to be a prophet, incarnation or whatever. It is not just my opinion that I got out of thin air. You Baha'is helped me come to that conclusion that messages are not correct and consistent.
Even though the messages were written years later by the followers of the person believed to be a prophet, and even though the messages are not all correct or consistent wit each other, that does not mean that God is stupid and unjust. It means that God had a plan from the very beginning, and this was part of His Plan. Given perfect foreknowledge God has always known that everything would get cleared up at the end of the age, in the new age when Baha'u'llah came and unsealed the Book. It no longer matters what happened in the past becaue the past is gone.
Of course, you Baha'is try to make them consistent with your beliefs by saying things like a belief in reincarnation in Hindu Scriptures doesn't mean what Hindus think it means, and that the resurrection of Jesus doesn't mean what some Christians believe it to mean. But why try to "fix" Scriptures that you Baha'is believe were written by people and not the supposed messenger
Who is trying to "fix" the Scriptures of the older religions? Not the Baha'is. We just say what we believe.
Oh, and the supposed prophecies are part of Scriptures that were written by the followers, not the manifestation/messenger himself. How accurate are they? Yet, Baha'is make the claim their prophet fulfilled all prophecies in all the Scriptures of all the major religions? Scriptures that they believe have authenticity issues? Which then gives your religion, the Baha'i Faith, authenticity issues.
The Bible is not wholly authentic but that doesn't mean none of it is. The Books of the Prophets are considered divine revelation by Baha'is.

Mírza Abú'l-Fadl was praised and recommended by 'Abdu'l-Bahá and has been justifiably called the most learned and erudite Bahá'í scholar[16]​
Regarding the Old Testament, Fadl said that it contained two types of teaching: a) revelation from God, such as the 10 commandments of Moses, the Psalms of David and the books of the Prophets, and b) historical information, such as the books Joshua, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles "...which contain no statement, sign or hint of being divine speech and therefore should not be considered as revelation."[17]​
Concerning the Book of Christ, he wrote that "The Holy Gospels alone contain teachings which can be regarded as the true Words of God; and these teachings do not exceed the contents of a few pages."[18]​
Mírza Abú'l-Fadl's contributions are original and lucid, and appear to me to be in harmony with the understanding of the Bible which is argued for in the present paper.​
16. Cole, J.R., in "editor's note", Mírza Abú'l-Fadl, Letters & Essays 1886-1913, Kalimat Press, Los Angeles, 1985, p.xiv.​
17. Mírza Abú'l-Fadl in Miracles and Metaphors, Kalimat Press, Los Angeles, 1981, pp.11,12.​
18. Mírza Abú'l-Fadl in The Bahá'í Proofs, Bahá'í Publishing Trust, Wilmette, Illinios, 1983, p.220.​
Conclusion
The Bahá'í viewpoint proposed by this essay has been established as follows: The Bible is a reliable source of Divine guidance and salvation, and rightly regarded as a sacred and holy book. However, as a collection of the writings of independent and human authors, it is not necessarily historically accurate. Nor can the words of its writers, although inspired, be strictly defined as 'The Word of God' in the way the original words of Moses and Jesus could have been. Instead there is an area of continuing interest for Bahá'í scholars, possibly involving the creation of new categories for defining authoritative religious literature.​
 

Truthseeker

Non-debating member when I can help myself
Of course, you Baha'is try to make them consistent with your beliefs by saying things like a belief in reincarnation in Hindu Scriptures doesn't mean what Hindus think it means, and that the resurrection of Jesus doesn't mean what some Christians believe it to mean. But why try to "fix" Scriptures that you Baha'is believe were written by people and not the supposed messenger?
As to Hindu scriptures, I accept that some Hindu scriptures either were written by someone who may or may not have been inspired by God or perhaps found it reasonable. Then there is the Bhagavad-Gita which I believe had a Prophet behind it but were written centuries later, so I cannot know what Krishna said with any certainty. That being said I find the Bhagavad-Gita to be a magnificent discourse. I did analyze parts of that, and it indeed was saying, in my opinion, that reincarnation as the Hindus understand it was a reality. But that doesn't take away any of the eternal truths in the discourse.

Yes, Abdu'l-Baha did give an interpretation that said that Jesus' resurrection was not a physical one. But what the accounts in the Gospels mean is something of a mystery to me. I do see inconsistencies in the accounts of the Four Gospels that leads me to suspect everything is not what it seems, but I don't think I'll know until after I die the mystery of it all.
Oh, and the supposed prophecies are part of Scriptures that were written by the followers, not the manifestation/messenger himself. How accurate are they? Yet, Baha'is make the claim their prophet fulfilled all prophecies in all the Scriptures of all the major religions? Scriptures that they believe have authenticity issues? Which then gives your religion, the Baha'i Faith, authenticity issues.
Prophecies don't prove anything. How can they? But those are not the good evidence of the Baha'i faith or any faith. These are the evidences that should be looked at :

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.
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 105)

I see no mention of fulfillment of prophecies there. In my opinion, they only reinforce the faith of those who already believe.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Prophecies don't prove anything. How can they? But those are not the good evidence of the Baha'i faith or any faith. These are the evidences that should be looked at :

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.
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 105)

I see no mention of fulfillment of prophecies there. In my opinion, they only reinforce the faith of those who already believe.
I think the prophecies are good evidence for anyone who believes in the Bible, since they were all fulfilled, as delineated in the book entitled Thief in the Night by William Sears.

Not everyone is going to believe based upon His own Self or His Revelation or His Words but the prophecies are incontrovertible proof.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
The closest we have to the true teachings of Christianity is what is in the New Testament, but that does not mean that it is all true or that it is all literally true. Some things in the OT and NT were meant to be symbolic. Not only Baha'is believe that, many Christians also believe that.

From Letters Written on Behalf of the Guardian:
...The Bible is not wholly authentic, and in this respect is not to be compared with the Qur'an, and should be wholly subordinated to the authentic writings of Bahá'u'lláh​
. (28 July 1936 to a National Spiritual Assembly)​
...we cannot be sure how much or how little of the four Gospels are accurate and include the words of Christ and His undiluted teachings, all we can be sure of, as Bahá'ís, is that what has been quoted by Bahá'u'lláh and the Master must be absolutely authentic. As many times passages in the Gospel of St. John are quoted we may assume that it is his Gospel and much of it accurate.​
(23 January 1944 to an individual believer)​
When 'Abdu'l-Bahá states we believe what is in the Bible, He means in substance. Not that we believe every word of it to be taken literally or that every word is the authentic saying of the Prophet.​
(11 February 1944 to an individual believer)​
We cannot be sure of the authenticity of any of the phrases in the Old or the New Testament. What we can be sure of is when such references or words are cited or quoted in either the Quran or the Bahá'í writings.​
(4 July 1947 to an individual believer)​
We have no way of substantiating the stories of the Old Testament other than references to them in our own teachings, so we cannot say exactly what happened at the battle of Jericho.​
(25 November 1950 to an individual believer)​
Except for what has been explained by Bahá'u'lláh and 'Abdu'l-Bahá, we have no way of knowing what various symbolic allusions in the Bible mean.​
(31 January 1955 to an individual believer)​

Christianity is a true God-given religion since God sent Jesus as His Messenger, but that does not mean that everything that got recorded in the NT is accurate or literally true. We can parse out what is true and what is not by reading the Writings of Baha'u'llah, since Baha'u'llah unsealed the Book.
Just like you say that all religions other than Bahai are corrupted, I say what Bahaollah, Abdul Baha and Shoghi wrote is nothing other than trash (including Bahaollah's magenetic teleportation theory).
As to Hindu scriptures, I accept that some Hindu scriptures either were written by someone who may or may not have been inspired by God or perhaps found it reasonable. Then there is the Bhagavad-Gita which I believe had a Prophet behind it but were written centuries later, so I cannot know what Krishna said with any certainty. That being said I find the Bhagavad-Gita to be a magnificent discourse. I did analyze parts of that, and it indeed was saying, in my opinion, that reincarnation as the Hindus understand it was a reality. But that doesn't take away any of the eternal truths in the discourse.

Yes, Abdu'l-Baha did give an interpretation that said that Jesus' resurrection was not a physical one. But what the accounts in the Gospels mean is something of a mystery to me. I do see inconsistencies in the accounts of the Four Gospels that leads me to suspect everything is not what it seems, but I don't think I'll know until after I die the mystery of it all.

Prophecies don't prove anything. How can they? But those are not the good evidence of the Baha'i faith or any faith. These are the evidences that should be looked at :

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.
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 105)

I see no mention of fulfillment of prophecies there. In my opinion, they only reinforce the faith of those who already believe.
You have said what you believe. Please allow me to say what I believe. I believe Bahaollah was a scammer who fooled some ignorant Iranian Shia Muslims that he was a messenger of Allah, while you yourself know that nothing can prove existence of Allah and that he sends these messengers.
Who is trying to "fix" the Scriptures of the older religions? Not the Baha'is. We just say what we believe.
Yeah, it is no use trying to fix what cannot be fixed, I am just saying what I believe.
I think the prophecies are good evidence for anyone who believes in the Bible, since they were all fulfilled, as delineated in the book entitled Thief in the Night by William Sears.
Not everyone is going to believe based upon His own Self or His Revelation or His Words but the prophecies are incontrovertible proof.
I believe there is nothing more foolish than believing in prophecies.
 
Last edited:

Truthseeker

Non-debating member when I can help myself
I think the prophecies are good evidence for anyone who believes in the Bible, since they were all fulfilled, as delineated in the book entitled Thief in the Night by William Sears.

Not everyone is going to believe based upon His own Self or His Revelation or His Words but the prophecies are incontrovertible proof.
For my money, they are weak proof. Prophecies can be interpreted many ways. If you combine a lot of Prophecy interpretations together into one whole, you might have something. However, it is a lot to ask for someone to read Thief in the Night from cover to cover for those many interpretations, which are not in many cases based on proofs by a Central figure. I've heard a number of Baha'is say they don't find Thief in the Night convincing, that it is flawed. I haven't read that book in many years however, because I don't need to, so what they are talking about I don't know. When I first read it I uncritically accepted the interpretations. I didn't do research on them. One problem may be that they are all based on the King James Version I believe, and other versions need to be consulted. I know one instance:

7:12 In that day also he shall come even to thee from Assyria, and from the fortified cities, and from the fortress even to the river, and from sea to sea, and from mountain to mountain.
(King James Bible, Micah)

Micah 7:12 In that day shall they come unto thee from Assyria and the cities of [a]Egypt, and from [b]Egypt even to the River, and from sea to sea, and from mountain to mountain.
American Standard Version

Micah 7:12 In that day people will come to you
from Assyria and the cities of Egypt,
even from Egypt to the Euphrates
and from sea to sea
and from mountain to mountain.
New International version

Micah 7:12 In that day they will come to you,
from Assyria to[a] Egypt,
and from Egypt to the River,
from sea to sea and from mountain to mountain.
Revised Standard version

You get the idea.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
For my money, they are weak proof. Prophecies can be interpreted many ways. If you combine a lot of Prophecy interpretations together into one whole, you might have something.
Yes, the prophecies must be taken as a whole. They are like a jigsaw puzzle with pieces that fit together to form a picture.
However, it is a lot to ask for someone to read Thief in the Night from cover to cover for those many interpretations, which are not in many cases based on proofs by a Central figure.
It really doesn't take very long to read the book. I just started reading it again a few days ago on my walks and I am almost done.
If anyone wants to know if Baha'u'llah was the return of Christ/messiah, that is the book to read.

I see no need to have a Central figure interpret Bible prophecies. They did not have time to do that. Sears took seven years of his life researching Bible prophecies and how they were fulfilled by Baha'u'llah. I believe his research is accurate.
I've heard a number of Baha'is say they don't find Thief in the Night convincing, that it is flawed.
And I have heard the exact opposite from many Baha'is, especially on Reddit. As I recall, prophecies were covered on a recent thread.
 

Truthseeker

Non-debating member when I can help myself
I believe his research is accurate.
But he missed the mark on the Micah prophecy. He didn't check the other translations. I don't know how many or how few mistakes he made. I just know of the one. I think a Christian pointed that out. That's the risk you take when it is not based on a central figure. William Sears I'm sure worked hard on that, but he is not what I would call a scholar, either, which I've seen him say. As a popular Hand of the Cause with a winning character, this book has sold well. I'm proud to have been born on the same day of the year he did. I found that out on the first page of God Loves Laughter.
 
Last edited:

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
But he missed the mark on the Micah prophecy. He didn't check the other translations. I don't know how many or how few mistakes he made. I just know of the one. I think a Christian pointed that out.
I do not think he missed the mark. Nobody can accommodate all the different Bible translations.
Since you haven't read Thief in the Night for a while, here is the chapter on the Micah prophecies.

4. The amazing Micah

In one small Book of the Old Testament, I found a series of successive clues. They traced the history of the Messiah from 1 Zechariah 4:6 beginning to end. All by themselves, they could have been sufficient to prove the mission of the Messiah of the last days. This is why I was tempted to call the prophet who gave them, ‘The Amazing Micah’.

In almost the first words of his first chapter, Micah says: “For, behold, the Lord cometh forth out of his place, and will come down, and tread upon the high places of the earth.” (Micah 1:3).

I found that Bahá’u’lláh fulfilled this verse, both symbolically and actually, concerning these ‘high’ places.

Symbolically: He walked in the land made holy by the feet of Abraham. He was exiled to Israel, a land considered holy by the Jews, Christians and Muslims. He walked where the feet of Christ and the prophets of old had walked.

Actually: He spent many months in prayer and meditation in the mountains of Kurdistán in ‘Iráq, prior to his public declaration of his mission. In the last years of his life, he walked on the side of Mount Carmel, called the ‘mountain of God’, the ‘nest of the prophets’, [and] the ‘snow white place’. There, on that sacred mountain, above the Cave of Elijah, Bahá’u’lláh wrote the words: “Call out to Zion, O Carmel, and announce the joyful tidings: He that was hidden from mortal eyes is come!” (Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Section XI, p. 16).

In his next chapter, Micah prophesies as follows: “I will surely assemble, O Jacob, all of thee; I will surely gather the remnant of Israel; I will put them together … as the flock in the midst of their fold …” (Micah 2:12). I had already learned that this prophecy began its fulfilment in 1844, the exact year of the beginning of Bahá’u’lláh’s Faith. In 1844 the Edict of Toleration was signed, permitting the descendants of Jacob to return to Israel with freedom and security after twelve centuries of separation. Following the appearance of Bahá’u’lláh himself in the land of Israel, the Jews began to return in greater numbers to the Holy Land, until, in the year 1948, the state of Israel itself was formed. Bahá’u’lláh himself prophesied that this great event would take place in the not too distant future. Carl Alpert, a prolific writer on Zionism, spoke of this prophecy of Bahá’u’lláh. In his article in The Reconstructionist, I found the following: “While still in his Turkish jail in Acre, more than 75 years ago, Bahá’u’lláh wrote: ‘The outcasts of Israel shall gather and create a state that will become the envy and admiration of both their friends and their enemies, and outwardly and spiritually they will attain to such glory that their 2,000 years of abasement will be forgotten.’”(The Reconstructionist, Vol. XXI, 20 April 1955).

To return to Micah, there can be no doubt that he is speaking of the second coming of Christ, and not the first. For he continues his prophecy, saying that it will take place in the last days: “But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house

of the Lord shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it.” (Micah 4:1). I visited the shrine where the herald of Bahá’u’lláh’s Faith is entombed on the side of Mount Carmel in Israel. I also visited the world administrative centre of his Faith that is established on the side of this same mountain. I was an eye-witness to the crowds that ‘flow unto it’ every day. While investigating the history of this area, in order to complete this book, I witnessed a throng of nearly two thousand people flow in and out of these sacred places in less than

three hours. I learned that it goes on day after day. People come from all parts of the world; in fact, from ‘the ends of earth’.

In this same chapter, Micah promises that in these last days from this ‘house of the Lord’ both the ‘law shall go forth’ as well as the ‘word of the Lord’. When the truth of the Messiah is known, men shall ‘beat their swords into ploughshares’. While in Israel, I learned that the ‘law’ of Bahá’u’lláh now ‘goes forth’ to over 250 countries of the earth where his followers reside; and that in over 8,000 centres of the world these followers consider Bahá’u’lláh’s teachings to be the ‘word of the Lord’. [1991—190 countries, 45 territories and about 130,000 localities.] I walked on the site of the future Universal House of Justice of Bahá’u’lláh’s Faith, from which the ‘law’ will go ‘forth’ to the National and Local Houses of Justice in all parts of the planet. (The Universal House was elected in 1963.)

In these chapters, Micah foretells both the first and second coming of Christ, prophesying that He will come first from Bethlehem and second from Assyria. That following the first coming, great suffering and tribulation will fall upon the children of Israel: “Therefore shall Zion for your sake be ploughed as a field, and Jerusalem

shall become heaps …” (Micah 3:12).

In AD 70, Jerusalem was destroyed by the Roman Titus. In AD 132 the Roman Emperor Hadrian crushed the soldiers of Bar Kochba and ploughed under the site of the city. Then, says Micah, of the Messiah from Bethlehem: “Therefore will he give them up, until the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth; then the remnant of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel.” (Micah 5:3).

Micah has just pointed out that ‘she which travaileth’ is the daughter of Zion. Where did she bring forth? Micah foretold this, too, saying: “… thou shalt go even to Babylon: there shalt thou be delivered …” (Micah 4:10).

In that day, Micah says of the Messiah: “… shall he be great unto the ends of the earth.” (Micah 5:4). And Micah foretells that when the Messiah comes the second time, this time from Assyria, it shall bring about the day of the one fold and one shepherd when: “… nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.” (Micah 4:3).

Millennial Bible scholars were well aware of this special promise for Assyria and Elam and Persia, but they could not understand it. Reverend H. Bonar, speaking as one of fourteen Christian clergymen at a special conference on the Second Coming of Christ called Our God Shall Come, declared: “There is another nation reserved for blessing and restoration. Elam. I take these as the overlooked specimens of a certain class of God’s doings in the latter days, when the whole earth is given to Christ for His inheritance.” Bonar accepts these prophecies concerning Assyria, Elam and Persia, although, as he says, “I cannot venture on giving any reason why Elam, or Assyria, should be so especially blessed in the latter days …” (Our God Shall Come, Addresses on the Second Coming of the Lord, Horatius Bonar, 1878).

Both Christ and Micah gave the same identical signs for this day of His return. Christ said He would come from the East (Assyria) in a day when: “The good man is perished out of the earth: and there is none upright among men; … they hunt every man his brother with a net. That they may do evil with both hands earnestly, the prince asketh, and the judge asketh for a reward; and the great man, he uttereth his mischievous desire … the best of them is a brier: the most upright is sharper than a thorn hedge …” (Micah 7:2–4).

Christ said that this was the day to ‘Watch!’ for the Lord would come as a ‘thief’ and ‘break up’ the house of the faithless. Micah said that this hour was: “the day of thy watchmen and thy visitation cometh …” (Micah 7:4).

Micah then let loose an astonishing downpour of prophecy. He foretold the exact steps by which the Lord would come to Israel, and the things that would befall Him. No detective had a clearer set of clues. Micah promised that:

1. He would come from Assyria.
2. He would come from the fortified cities.
3. He would come from a fortress to a river.
4. He would come from sea to sea.
5. He would come from mountain to mountain.
6. The land to which he came would be desolate.
7. He would feed his flock in the midst of Mount Carmel.
8. He would work his wonders for a period equal to the days which the Jews spent coming out of Egypt.

Frankly, I felt that a fulfilment of these prophecies would be sufficient by itself to establish the authenticity of the Messiah, for in addition to these eight prophesies, Bahá’u’lláh had also fulfilled Micah’s prophesies that the Messiah must:

1. Come as a Messenger of God and tread upon the high places of the earth.
2. Appear in the day when the children of Israel would be gathered into their own land.
3. Establish his house in the mountain.
4. Draw the people to it in a flow of love.
5. Send forth His love from that mountain.
6. Go to Babylon.
7. Withdraw from the city.
8. Dwell in the wilderness and the field.
9. Give birth in Babylon that would redeem the children of Israel.

No wonder I called him the ‘Amazing Micah’. I now felt that if Bahá’u’lláh also fulfilled these eight additional prophecies, I might indeed be coming to the end of my search. I had to admit that I had already assembled a powerful array of evidence pointing to a solution of The case of the missing millennium.

Thief in the Night, pp. 118-124
That's the risk you take when it is not based on a central figure.
I am sorry but I have to disagree with you on that. Only Baha'u'llah is infallible. Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi are not the only others who can accurately interpret prophecies. I think you are being a fundamentalist Baha'i. Then again, the Baha'i Faith is a pretty fundamentalist religion. ;)
William Sears I'm sure worked hard on that, but he is not what I would call a scholar, either, which I've seen him say. As a popular Hand of the Cause with a winning character, this book has sold well. I'm proud to have been born on the same day of the year he did. I found that out on the first page of God Loves Laughter.
I would say that Sears contributed more to the Faith than anyone else, aside from the 'central figures.' Sorry Duane, I am just not a fundamentalist type person and it goes against my personality to try to fit into the Baha'i mold.
 

Ponder This

Well-Known Member
I am a Baha’i, and I have posted to a lot of atheists over the last 10 years on various forums so I am well aware of their position about God’s existence.

As I see it, regarding God’s existence there are three mutually exclusive logical possibilities, given the evidence we have.

1. God exists and sends Messengers to communicate to humans (theist), or​
2. God exists and doesn’t communicate to humans (deist), or​
3. God does not exist (atheist)​

Atheists hold the third logical position, that God doesn’t exist. I consider that to be a logical position since there is no proof that God exists.

I know what I think about atheists, but I never knew what other Baha’is think, so I was happy to see this thread posted on a Baha'i Forum.
For any Baha’is or atheists who are curious what Baha’is think about atheists you can read on this thread:
https://www.reddit.com/r/bahai/comments/13vz3t2

Hmm, if I know the ocean exists, but I can't explore it, then I know the ocean exists even though the ocean is unknowable.
If I see the tip of the iceberg, then I know the iceberg exists even if I don't know how big it is.
It seems to me that saying God is "unknowable" is an insufficient argument.
If the edge of the universe cannot be seen, then how do we know if the edge of the universe exists or not?
In this case, the reasoning is about the knowing whether or not something exists, which would be enough to argue for agnosticism, but not enough to argue for atheism.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Compared to someone (supposedly) as wise as God, the messenger is foolish
You would have to know more than God to know that the messenger is foolish, but that is logically impossible since you cannot be more than all-knowing.
And that's why I and so many other people like me don't believe your claims; because he is constantly doing things that don't make sense.
They don't make sense to you and the others like you, but that does not mean they don't actually make sense...
All human minds work differently so what you think makes sense, God speaking from the clouds, seems foolish to me.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
You would have to know more than God to know that the messenger is foolish, but that is logically impossible since you cannot be more than all-knowing.
God speaking from the clouds, seems foolish to me.
I know all about God. It is a figment of peoples' imagination which the charlatans use for their pride or benefit.
Why so? Can he or can he not? Your view seems quiet foolish to me. Is not your God omni-potent?
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
I know all about God. It is a figment of peoples' imagination which the charlatans use for their pride or benefit.
Why so? Can he or can he not? Your view seems quiet foolish to me. Is not your God omni-potent?
I don't know if God could speak from the clouds. Only God knows if He can, but it is a moot point since God has chosen not to do that.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
I said in an audible voice from the clouds in today’s time.
Strange stuff, a Baha'i denying that this God of theirs can speak from the clouds or sky or even speak at all. Yet the NT in the gospel of Luke said that God did speak from a cloud.​
Luke 9:28 About eight days after Jesus said this, he took Peter, John and James with him and went up onto a mountain to pray. 29 As he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became as bright as a flash of lightning. 30 Two men, Moses and Elijah, appeared in glorious splendor, talking with Jesus. 31 They spoke about his departure,[a] which he was about to bring to fulfillment at Jerusalem. 32 Peter and his companions were very sleepy, but when they became fully awake, they saw his glory and the two men standing with him. 33 As the men were leaving Jesus, Peter said to him, “Master, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.” (He did not know what he was saying.)​
34 While he was speaking, a cloud appeared and covered them, and they were afraid as they entered the cloud. 35 A voice came from the cloud, saying, “This is my Son, whom I have chosen; listen to him.”​
 
Top