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

[RestlessSoul]

Love is a great deceiver. Love what? One's own self? One's position in the society? Luxuries that one gets in the name of love?
There is no evidence even of existence of any God, what to talk of messengers!

Is that what you think love is? Have you never loved unconditionally?

 

[Sargonski]

2 Peter 3 has some thoughts to consider. It is foretold that many will scoff at such advice, happy to continue with the status quo

Verse 9 is all about long suffering paitence "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

It all about our choices and I see they do have wider ramifications on a global scale, maybe even wider.

Regards Tony

While 2 Peter may contain some good life advice .. Pseudopigrapha (a polite term for pious fraud) should not be misconsrewed as divinely inspired by Jesus or the disciple Peter ...

 

[Sargonski]

That is how we also know the humans that are not Christ.

Regards Tony

Christ was not perfect ?! "there must be some misunderstanding .. must be some kind of mistake" extra marks if you can name the tune or artist Jesus tells one who makes this claim about Jesus . Don't call me perfect . only God is perfect. the term "Good" is used but means the same as perfect in context as we find out in this passage that perfection is not required to get into heaven.

It also helps to realize that jesus is being sarcastic ..very few people get when Jesus is being sarcastic .. "if you want to be perfect sell everything you own and follow me" heh heh .. heh.

sarcasm .. Jesus was human and so capable of such .. using it often in his quest to help the lost sheep of Israel find their path but separating the sheep from the goats at the same time.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Love is a great deceiver. Love what? One's own self? One's position in the society? Luxuries that one gets in the name of love?
There is no evidence even of existence of any God, what to talk of messengers!

There is no greater Love, than to Love God. That Love, to be true and sincere means living all the virtues and morals given of God.

Jesus Offered it is picking up the cross and following Him in service to all humanity, the reason he gave his life.

Regards Tony

 

[Aupmanyav]

Is that what you think love is? Have you never loved unconditionally?

I was talking about love of snake-oil sellers, evangelists.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I was talking about love of snake-oil sellers, evangelists.

Much like your constant selling of your snake oil? An athiest view on a religious forum.

Just a meditation of what is the difference you offer.

Regards Tony

 

[Aupmanyav]

Much like your constant selling of your snake oil? An athiest view on a religious forum.
Just a meditation of what is the difference you offer.

What I say is corroborated by science. You have nothing but the writings of ancient shepherds or camel herders and those of an uneducated 19th Century Iranian.
If I write something like what Bahaollah wrote to Queen Victoria, to Biden or Macron, and they read it; they would consider me an abject fool and off my rocker.
But such writings from cranks are never sent to rulers and their secretarial office replies what it think is appropriate.
You say that Bahaollah allowed Queen Victoria to rule her empire. Are you in your sane mind?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Are you in your sane mind?

I could ask the same of you, it would still be a status quo between Athiest and Beleiver.

I would offer a material mind is less sane, as it is focused on an illusion.

Regards Tony

 

[Watchmen]

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’ll ask him the secret Mormon handshakes and code words.

 

[BrokenBread]

You will know it is not Him because he will come in his own name , not in the Father's name
But this is a moot point because this Jesus ,who is the Christ has declared that he will be received anyway .

John 5:43
I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

 

[Jimmy]

You couldn’t know. It just might be him.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I could ask the same of you, it would still be a status quo between Athiest and Beleiver.
I would offer a material mind is less sane, as it is focused on an illusion.

Your post elsewhere:
"Baha'u'llah has also allowed the continued appointments of monarchs and offered the Queen of England had done well to allow the rule by parliament."
:rofl:
Why blame Bahaollah? He was Smart. What he said worked in his time and place, and even for his progeny till his line lasted.
It still works for some, there are enough gullible in the world, thanks to the propaganda.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

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"?

The flaw in your argument, by using Bahā’u’llāh as an example, is that of trusting an unreliable enemy of the Faith based sources, over the willingness to find the actual truth about the posted issues. (All of which have previously been, and easily been proven false)

The OP is thus Null and Void, as it shows a bias towards untruths.

Regards Tony

 

[stvdv]

Oh, I just noticed that this is a debate forum, which I promised myself not to participate in.

#MeToo, and occasionally I reply in debate forum, but I don't debate there

I'll leave this thread with just one rhetorical question, for anyone to answer, and that is

Indeed, the below rhetorical question I had in mind when posting my previous replies, thanks for putting it in words

do you think/believe that Jesus Christs disciples(and other that followed him) were on the same level as him?

I don't know about Jesus Christ's deciples and others that followed Him (see Note)

BUT

More importantly "I know that I'm not on the same level of Jesus Christ", as described by the Wise claiming "Jesus finally realized that He and God are One (that is, in essence; as there is only Consciousness, all else is superimposed illusion ... Maya")

Note: I don't follow Jesus, as I follow my Master, who is Sai Baba (who I trust 100% and who seems to be the closest one to Jesus His level).
...I could follow Jesus though, but I choose Sai Baba, because I spoke with Him, and I heard His sermons personally while being present (also it is video taped, so His verses are almost 100% reliable).
...With Jesus His words I always have to double think "what if these fisherman etc. mis-heard or mis-interpreted His Words?"

 

[stvdv]

I interpret Shoghi Effendi's words implying:
"Truth is God" (the Wise have taught this for ages)

Hence, he who doesn't believe in Truth (God)
is neither trustworthy nor truthful
Which is a valid claim

I believe there are plenty of people who believe in truth but not in god

Exactly my point. Believe and live in Truth trumps believe in Jesus and not live in Truth

So, the way I interpreted this Bahai verse, makes more sense than how @danieldemol interpreted it, right?

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. trusting an unreliable enemy of the Faith based sources, over the willingness to find the actual truth about the posted issues.

Faith is my enemy and evidence is my friend. You have unwillingness to find the actual truth and put your trust in books written by ancient people (Muhammad too is 1394 years old) and the uneducated Iranian of the 19th Century. Faith does not have evidence as its base. It is a spider's web. Once you are in, you cannot get out easily.

 

[stvdv]

Faith is my enemy and evidence is my friend.

Faith is my friend
Evidence is my friend

Discarding Faith beforehand implies:
1) Not Scientific minded
2) Lack of Self Confidence
3) Lack of Common Sense

Discarding Faith beforehand can also imply:
4) Bad experiences with Religions
5) Or just plain fear

This is not needed when you have both:
1) Self confidence
2) Common Sense

I embrace and use both Science + Spirituality

 

[danieldemol]

The flaw in your argument, by using Bahā’u’llāh as an example, is that of trusting an unreliable enemy of the Faith based sources, over the willingness to find the actual truth about the posted issues. (All of which have previously been, and easily been proven false)

The OP is thus Null and Void, as it shows a bias towards untruths.

Regards Tony

To the contrary in my view if you'd been following along you would know it is confirmed by Baha'i scholars such as Chistopher Buck who published the (Haifan) UHoJ letter confirming it's truth in his book symbol and Secret, and therefore it is your own bias in rushing to a hasty conclusion without all the facts that lays exposed for all to see Tony

 

[danieldemol]

Exactly my point. Believe and live in Truth trumps believe in Jesus and not live in Truth

So, the way I interpreted this Bahai verse, makes more sense than how @danieldemol interpreted it, right?

Since English appears to be your second language perhaps some leeway can be given for what appears to be your inability to grasp that words mean what they really mean and as such, had Baha'u'llah meant "he who disbelieves in truth is neither trustworthy nor truthful" he could have said as much instead of slipping in the word "God" where it apparently does not belong in my view.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Faith is my friend
Evidence is my friend

Discarding Faith beforehand implies:
1) Not Scientific minded
2) Lack of Self Confidence
3) Lack of Common Sense

Discarding Faith beforehand can also imply:
4) Bad experiences with Religions
5) Or just plain fear

This is not needed when you have both:
1) Self confidence
2) Common Sense

I embrace and use both Science + Spirituality

1. It is only after long analysis. 2. Me, and lack of confidence! If it was that I would not be making these statements. 3. Does commonsense demand acceptance of what was written 2,000 years ago or what any uneducated Tom, Dick or Harry may say?
1. My experience with 'Advaita' Buddhism and other unpretentious pagan religions is very nice. The problem is only with so-called One God and his messengers.
Spirituality is not dependent on religions.