If a person claiming to be Christ comes today, how do you know it is really *not* him?

[RamaRaksha]

The evidence are those that actually have the authority to speak for God. They are the example and proof.

That is all I can offer.

Regards Tony

The evidence are those who CLAIM to have the authority to speak for God - there, I fixed your sentence
It is a Might Makes Right world
SOMEONE must be wrong - were Protestants not saying Catholics were wrong when they broke away? How about Mormons? and the various smaller sects?
How about Muslims? And they are divided as well - Sunnis and Shias have hated each other and have mass murdered each other
Minority sects like Hazaras and Ahmadiyas are condemned as heretics and not Muslims
Even Buddhist split up
Amazingly it is Hindus with their various Gods that are actually united - I can walk into ANY Hindu temple as a Hindu or Non-Hindu - there are no "our" place of worship vs "yours" within the same religion

 

[InvestigateTruth]

@InvestigateTruth
Here is the relevant section;
'"The Research Department speaks of other kinds of textual changes as well: stylistic and grammatical. In his Questions and Answers, supplemental to the Kitáb-i Aqdas, Bahá’u’lláh himself discloses the editing process and reasons for it: “Many Tablets were revealed and dispatched in their original form without being checked and reviewed. Consequently, as bidden, they were again read out in the Holy Presence, and brought into conformity with the grammatical conventions of the people in order to forestall the cavils of the opponents of the Cause.”87'
Source: https://bahai-library.com/pdf/b/buck_symbol_secret.pdf p28


This raises the following questions in my view;
1. For what purpose did he allegedly "reveal" the documents with the grammatical non-conformities, did he not know before he authored it that it would cause the opponents of the Baha'i cause to object?
2. Why did it take him several attempts over the period of a year to remove the grammatical nonconformities, surely if he knew what they were he could have fixed them all in one go?
3. Why did the grammatical non-conformities have to be suggested by an ordinary human? Didn't Baha'u'llah know what they were without human help?

Just to remind you from the next page 29 the Baha'i world centre acknowledges;
'It is important to note that the stylistic and grammatical changes mentioned above took place over time—often it was Zayn himself that suggested them—and therefore the various manuscripts differ somewhat, one from the other'

This was a question, mentioned in the Most Holy Book.

The Kitáb-i-Aqdas: Questions and Answers

bahai-library.com

The question was:


57. Question: Concerning disparities between certain revealed verses.

This question, is not regarding the Book of Iqan. It is a general question, about other Tablets.

He has given two main reasons for this:



"Many Tablets were revealed and dispatched in their original form without being checked and reviewed. Consequently, as bidden, they were again read out in the Holy Presence, and brought into conformity with the grammatical conventions of the people in order to forestall the cavils of opponents of the Cause."

My comment: I understand this means that, the usual process of writing tablets, have been, Baha'u'llah reciting and the Secretary, writes. Then, Baha'u'llah reviewed, checked and corrected any errors made by the secretary in writings. But there were some Tablets that, due to time limitations, Baha'u'llah wanted to send them without spending too much time to check them, as these Tablets were to individuals. Those little mistakes, did not make a difference for the recipients. So, the priority was to send it to them as soon as possible. Later, when there was opportunity, Baha'u'llah reviewed and corrected them.

There was a second reason:


" Another reason for this practice is that the new style inaugurated by the Herald, may the souls of all else but Him be offered up for His sake, was seen to be marked by substantial latitude in adherence to the rules of grammar; sacred verses therefore were then revealed in a style which is for the most part in conformity with current usage for ease of understanding and concision of expression."

My comment. Some of the verses in the works of Baha'u'llah, are the same verses, previously revealed by the Herald (the Bab). The Bab had written them, in Iran, in a different style. Baha'u'llah lived mostly in Holy Land (Palestine). I understand that, it means, Baha'u'llah, at some time later, changed the style to a different Arabic style of grammer, than the originally revealed style, by the Bab.

 

[danieldemol]

This was a question, mentioned in the Most Holy Book.

The Kitáb-i-Aqdas: Questions and Answers

bahai-library.com

The question was:


57. Question: Concerning disparities between certain revealed verses.

This question, is not regarding the Book of Iqan. It is a general question, about other Tablets.

It does not say excluding the Kitab-i-Iqan in my view.

He has given two main reasons for this:



"Many Tablets were revealed and dispatched in their original form without being checked and reviewed. Consequently, as bidden, they were again read out in the Holy Presence, and brought into conformity with the grammatical conventions of the people in order to forestall the cavils of opponents of the Cause."

My comment: I understand this means that, the usual process of writing tablets, have been, Baha'u'llah reciting and the Secretary, writes. Then, Baha'u'llah reviewed, checked and corrected any errors made by the secretary in writings.

Your understanding appears to be incorrect, as it was not Baha'u'llah doing the checking, rather it was Zayn doing the checking of Baha'u'llah's works, you appear to have it exactly backwards;

"'It is important to note that the stylistic and grammatical changes mentioned above took place over time—often it was Zayn himself that suggested them—and therefore the various manuscripts differ somewhat, one from the other'

But there were some Tablets that, due to time limitations, Baha'u'llah wanted to send them without spending too much time to check them, as these Tablets were to individuals. Those little mistakes, did not make a difference for the recipients. So, the priority was to send it to them as soon as possible. Later, when there was opportunity, Baha'u'llah reviewed and corrected them.

There was a second reason:


" Another reason for this practice is that the new style inaugurated by the Herald, may the souls of all else but Him be offered up for His sake, was seen to be marked by substantial latitude in adherence to the rules of grammar; sacred verses therefore were then revealed in a style which is for the most part in conformity with current usage for ease of understanding and concision of expression."

My comment. Some of the verses in the works of Baha'u'llah, are the same verses, previously revealed by the Herald (the Bab). The Bab had written them, in Iran, in a different style. Baha'u'llah lived mostly in Holy Land (Palestine). I understand that, it means, Baha'u'llah, at some time later, changed the style to a different Arabic style of grammer, than the originally revealed style, by the Bab.

Yeah he corrected the grammatical errors made by the Bab too it would seem in my view.

So much for the Bab having the knowledge to forsee the needed changes in my view.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

It does not say excluding the Kitab-i-Iqan in my view.

How do you know?

Your understanding appears to be incorrect, as it was not Baha'u'llah doing the checking, rather it was Zayn doing the checking of Baha'u'llah's works, you appear to have it exactly backwards;

"'It is important to note that the stylistic and grammatical changes mentioned above took place over time—often it was Zayn himself that suggested them—and therefore the various manuscripts differ somewhat, one from the other'

Some of them, yes, the paper says Zayn himself suggested to Baha'u'llah. Baha'u'llah then did it, for the sake of Zayn. Baha'u'llah was kind, and wanted the believers to be happy.

Yeah he corrected the grammatical errors made by the Bab too it would seem in my view.

So much for the Bab having the knowledge to forsee the needed changes in my view.

It doesn't says "grammatical errors".
The style of the Bab writing, apparently was a differet Arabic style, as He lived in Iran. Later Baha'u'llah lived in Palestine they had a somewhat different Arabic.
As you already know, Arabic is spoken differently in different regions.

Sorry that you attempts to shown Baha'u'llah is fallible is not working, so far.

 

[danieldemol]

How do you know?

Because it would say "excluding the Kitab-i-Iqan" if it said, "excluding the Kitab-i-Iqan". I can see it doesn't in my view.

Some of them, yes, the paper says Zayn himself suggested to Baha'u'llah. Baha'u'llah then did it, for the sake of Zayn. Baha'u'llah was kind, and wanted the believers to be happy.

The paper used the word "often" and the reason it made the believers to be happy is because they didn't want opponents of the cause pointing out the lack of knowledge of grammar of a supposedly All-knowing Manifestation of God in my view.

The fact that Baha'u'llah could not forsee what would make the believers happy and get it right in the original instance then took several failed attempts over a year to correct it shows that he was not All-knowing in my view.

It doesn't says "grammatical errors".

Euphemising doesn't change the nature of what it is though.

The style of the Bab writing, apparently was a differet Arabic style, as He lived in Iran. Later Baha'u'llah lived in Palestine they had a somewhat different Arabic.
As you already know, Arabic is spoken differently in different regions.

We are not discussing spoken dialects according to my understanding, we are discussing written quranic Arabic grammar which is long settled according to my understanding.

Sorry that you attempts to shown Baha'u'llah is fallible is not working, so far.

Sorry that your lame deflections are not fooling anyone except gullible Baha'i in my view.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

The fact that Baha'u'llah could not forsee what would make the believers happy and get it right in the original instance then took several failed attempts over a year to correct it shows that he was not All-knowing in my view.

This is but a test of souls. Muhammad also did not want war, it is the beleivers that chose that path.

Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

This is but a test of souls. Muhammad also did not want war, it is the beleivers that chose that path.

Regards Tony

I don't know. He's one of your "manifestations." But I thought he took part in several battles.

The military career of Muhammad (c. 570 – 8 June 632), the Islamic prophet, encompasses several expeditions and battles throughout the Hejaz region in the western Arabian Peninsula which took place in the final ten years of his life, from 622 to 632. His primary campaign was against his own tribe in Mecca, the Quraysh. Muhammad proclaimed prophethood around 610 and later migrated to Medina after being persecuted by the Quraysh in 622. After several battles against the Quraysh, Muhammad conquered Mecca in 629, ending his campaign against the tribe.​

​

 

[danieldemol]

This is but a test of souls. Muhammad also did not want war, it is the beleivers that chose that path.

Regards Tony

Ah a lie to test souls in my view, well so long as you are comfortable with the implications of a lying God throwing people out of the faith for having the intellectual honesty to be able to see there is no discernible difference between a God which plants false evidence to make itself look like a human imposter and an actual human imposter.

As far as war goes that is irrelevant to this discussion as I see it.

 

[Muffled]

I believe it will not be Him if he doesn't come in the sky with a fiery sword on a white horse.

 

[Muffled]

There are "signs", given regarding second coming of Christ in the Bible and in the Quran, and Hadithes. If someone claims to be a Christ today, if his coming does not match with the signs given in Previous Holy Books, then you know it is not really Him.

I believe Hadiths are not dependable as containing truth.

 

[CG Didymus]

There are "signs", given regarding second coming of Christ in the Bible and in the Quran, and Hadithes.

I believe Hadiths are not dependable as containing truth.

Do Baha'is believe the Hadiths are authoritative?

 

[CG Didymus]

I don't know. He's one of your "manifestations." But I thought he took part in several battles.

The military career of Muhammad (c. 570 – 8 June 632), the Islamic prophet, encompasses several expeditions and battles throughout the Hejaz region in the western Arabian Peninsula which took place in the final ten years of his life, from 622 to 632. His primary campaign was against his own tribe in Mecca, the Quraysh. Muhammad proclaimed prophethood around 610 and later migrated to Medina after being persecuted by the Quraysh in 622. After several battles against the Quraysh, Muhammad conquered Mecca in 629, ending his campaign against the tribe.

No comment from Baha'is on this?

I don't have a problem with people believing their God is guiding them and helping them in battles. And to even have their prophet participate in the battles. I just question if that God is real.

 

[danieldemol]

No comment from Baha'is on this?

I don't have a problem with people believing their God is guiding them and helping them in battles. And to even have their prophet participate in the battles. I just question if that God is real.

If I recall it is traditionally said by Muslims (and presumably Baha'is) that Muhammad was requested by the believers to approve of Jihad of a military nature, but I do wonder, I mean I believe Surah 9 from about verse 38 onwards criticises Muslims who did not engage in the military expedition to Tabuk, if Jihad was the idea of the believers and not of Allah why does Allah allegedly care when they do not fight?

 

[CG Didymus]

If I recall it is traditionally said by Muslims (and presumably Baha'is) that Muhammad was requested by the believers to approve of Jihad of a military nature, but I do wonder, I mean I believe Surah 9 from about verse 38 onwards criticises Muslims who did not engage in the military expedition to Tabuk, if Jihad was the idea of the believers and not of Allah why does Allah allegedly care when they do not fight?

I took a look at some of those verses, and it seems very similar to Bible verses that has Israel fighting with its enemies. I still have to wonder if this is "God's" writings or a person saying that it is "God's" writings?

For the believers, of course it is God. But it leaves a jumbled mess for a religion like the Baha'i Faith to try and reconcile all the differences between the different religions. God now wants peace between all people? He is the one that ordered his people to go kill people in other religions.

I don't see "infallibility" in any of these Scriptures. But I can see why followers are told to believe them as being the infallible truth from God... Why follow them if they aren't the truth from God. But really... Are they? And that includes the Bab's and Baha'u'llah's writings.

And that's what's important about this book that goes into the problems with the writings of the Bab and Baha'u'llah. Sure, they have good things in them, but don't make everything those guys said as the infallible Word of God.

But, I know, a true believer in the Baha'i Faith can't do that. They have to accept everything as being from God. They can't compromise. And that's why these debates with Baha'is here on the forum end up going nowhere. Science, reason, logic? Only when it doesn't contradict a Baha'i belief.

 

[Muffled]

Do Baha'is believe the Hadiths are authoritative?

I have never seen what they believe about Hadiths, so you will have to ask them. Just remember Bahai writings are just philosophy.

 

[Trailblazer]

Just remember Bahai writings are just philosophy.

Just remember, the Bible is a book written by various men, not a book written by Jesus or any other Prophet. That is a known fact.
There is no proof or reason to believe that the men who wrote the Bible were divinely inspired.

By contrast, the Baha'i Writings were written by Baha'u'llah in His own pen. Whether or not you believe He was a Messenger of God or not is your choice.

 

[CG Didymus]

I have never seen what they believe about Hadiths, so you will have to ask them. Just remember Bahai writings are just philosophy.

Funny, not one Baha'i has commented yet on whether the Hadiths are authoritative, and whether Muhammad participated in battles.

 

[CG Didymus]

Just remember Bahai writings are just philosophy.

But that's not what Baha'is are claiming... They say their prophet is the "Promised One" of all the major religions. His words are supposedly the "Word" of God.

 

[Trailblazer]

Funny, not one Baha'i has commented yet on whether the Hadiths are authoritative, and whether Muhammad participated in battles.

From what I recall, I do not think that Baha'is consider the Hadiths authoritative.
I do not know the history of Islam so I do not know is Muhammad participated in battles.
@Truthseeker or @InvestigateTruth or @TransmutingSoul might be able to answer your questions.

 

[CG Didymus]

Funny, not one Baha'i has commented yet on whether the Hadiths are authoritative, and whether Muhammad participated in battles.

Here's what I found on Wikipedia...

The Baháʼí Faith teaches that Muhammad was a man of peace. On the occasions when he did fight, he only did so in order to defend himself and his followers from the hostile pagan Arab tribes who inhabited the Arabian Peninsula in his time.[11] ʻAbdu'l-Bahá claimed that "Muhammad never fought against the Christians".[12]​

​

ʻAbdu'l-Bahá taught that some stories about the teachings, deeds and sayings of Muhammad as described in certain hadith which he perceived to be negative, were fabricated due to "fanaticism", "ignorance" or "enmity". He told that most of those who narrated such stories were either members of the "clergy", "antagonistic" or "ignorant Muslims who repeated unfounded traditions about Muhammad which they ignorantly believed to be to His praise." Thus, he says, "some benighted Muslims made His polygamy the pivot of their praises".​

​

While disregarding some hadith about Muhammad as fabrications and exaggerations with no foundation, ʻAbdu'l-Bahá accepted the authenticity of others. For example, traditions about Muhammad's friendly treatment of the Christians of Najran of whom Muhammad is said to have proclaimed: "If any one infringes their rights, I myself will be his enemy, and in the presence of God I will bring a charge against him." According to Baháʼí belief, in this time Muslims and Christians lived in harmony with each other, however, "after a certain time", due to 'the transgression of both the Muhammadans and the Christians, hatred and enmity arose between them.'[12]​