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

[Aupmanyav]

I believe so. We execute murderers and do our best to protect out freedoms.

As our Father in Heaven is also. We are also forgiving.

Now I am confused. 'Accept the dictator and his representative and you are saved.'

 

[Balthazzar]

I don't

I believe that Baha'is and other groups who claim to follow the return of Christ have their questions incomplete.

One not only needs a criteria of what a true claimant would look like, when multiple people make the case to fit those criteria, it is also helpful to have a set of criteria for what a false claimant would look like, so this thread is for how we can know that a claimant is *not* Christ.

In that regard I think it is helpful for as not only to know what a Christ is, but also what a Christ is not.

According to Baha'u'llah (one of the numerous "return of Christ" claimants), one of the features of Christ is that he is infallible. Though I dont know if this claim is justified in the Biblical texts, nonetheless it would be unwise to treat a demonstrably fallible person as if infallible.

So one of the things that might be a criterion of *not* being the Christ is making errors in one's own holy writings, having them pointed out by another fallible human, then having to re-edit the text multiple times.

But then Baha'u'llah appears to *not* be a return of Christ in my view because that is what he appears to have done;

'Bahā’u’llāh is probably the only Prophet ever who has revised and changed the errors in his own writings, and the only erring infallible. Unfortunately, some people fail to see why these errors must not be committed by a divine figure who carries God’s messages. Some people fail to realize that God’s words don’t need to be edited, proofread, and changed, especially if they have been penned by the “Unerring Pen.” To make matters worse, the UHJ explicitly mentions that many of the changes were suggested to Bahā’u’llāh by an ordinary person: 481 Bahā’u’llāh, Majmū`iy-i alwāḥ-i mubārak-ih, p. 71. 482 Bahā’u’llāh, Majmū`iy-i alwāḥ-i mubārak-ih, p. 78. 483 This can be deduced from his statement “then they would be like your words,” which was uttered by Bahā’u’llāh to state that there must be a difference between the words of God and the words of the people and this difference exists in the grammatical conventions. 217 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.484 These words show how helpless Bahā’u’llāh was in correcting his errors. Every time he fixed the errors some more were found and he was again forced to make changes in the book and give out a new revised version. He even needed a fallible person to point out these errors and give him suggestions. Thus, the book was not revised once but numerous times. If these changes were made to “to forestall the cavils of the opponents of the Cause” then why not change it accordingly once and shut the mouth of the opponents once and for all. Are the words of God some sort of joke that must be changed every time someone objects to them? The words of God are perfect they need not be changed for style and grammar. These acts by Bahā’u’llāh are in direct contradiction with the claimed infallibility and divine knowledge attributed to him. What is the difference between this Baha’i prophet and all other ordinary men who make mistakes and correct them later on? What kind of an Omniscient God do Baha’is believe in that cannot foresee the troubling consequences of his revelations and changes them multiple times and gives out newer versions and editions?!'

Source:
Twelve Principles:
A Comprehensive Investigation on
the Baha’i Teachings
Masoud Basiti, Zahra Moradi, Hossein Akhoondali
Translated by: Hossein Akhoondali, Ali Mansouri
page 216-217

Which can be downloaded here: https://dn790009.ca.archive.org/0/items/TwelvePrinciples/Twelve Principles - A Comprehensive Investigation on the Bahai Teachings.pdf

TL : DR? What criterion demonstrate a person is *not* the "return of Christ"?

I don't care if it is or isn't. Safety precautions would dictate a disbelief of anyone claiming to be. He wasn't the most well liked guy in the first place. He was a wanted man, even before his birth. Couple this with the world domination and power establishment effort to be and you have a very delicate and dangerous situation for anyone seriously claiming to be. People generally don't like to be dominated or to lose power to figures they don't much care for. So, a great rule of thumb would be to never believe anyone who claims to be Christ. It's a dangerous world we live in and I'm fairly sure as a thief in the night holds most truthful and safest for any present or future "comeback" to establish a new government under his rule.

 

[Balthazzar]

If Christ is in everyone then there is no need for one Christ to treat another Christ as an infallible person to be deferred to, making the whole concept of an individual "return of Christ" bogus in my view.

And I believe that one form of charity is when one can see a person headed for a ditch to warn them of the danger that lies ahead. Unfortunately in my view the danger that potentially lies ahead for treating Baha'u'llah as infallible is people being literally burned, unwarranted censorship to protect hagiographic notions of Messengers etc.

Messengers are everywhere. Christ is literally in everyone. I mean, we all understand the difference between truth and error. The problem is we're not infallible in our discernments. I think that's the gist anyway. The spirit of truth, rightness, correctness, honest, sincere, and valid ... these things most can get on board with. What I've found so paradoxical is how sometimes atheist are more attuned to "christ" than some of the overly superstitious crowd.

Hehe