If Christ comes today, how do you know it is really Him?

[Truthseeker]

Oh yeah, because of a hagiographic story about Baha'u'llah's life, mission and teachings which in my view does not withstand critical review when we look at all the reliable evidence as opposed to simply Bahai hagiography.

You have to look at all the evidence, by which I mean all of it. I guess you have made a decision about what evidence is reliable, and discarded the rest. Any evidence written by Baha'is is by definition unreliable for you apparently. Do you not know that there is no such thing as looking at evidence objectively? As human beings we are all biased, at least a little, or maybe more.

There also is inner spiritual evidence.

 

[danieldemol]

You have to look at all the evidence, by which I mean all of it. I guess you have made a decision about what evidence is reliable, and discarded the rest.

Great name the reliable evidence I have discarded.

Any evidence written by Baha'is is by definition unreliable for you apparently.

No it isn't, some of the evidence written by Baha'is demonstrates that Baha'u'llah is not who he claims to be in my view.

Do you not know that there is no such thing as looking at evidence objectively?

I sure do, I even believe i can demonstrate you haven't done it. In fact I believe I have done it in the following thread;

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

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...

www.religiousforums.com

As human beings we are all biased, at least a little, or maybe more.

Thanks for acknowledging your bias, as a half indoctrinated Baha'i my bias was heavily in favour of the Bahai faith until the evidence changed my mind in my view.

There also is inner spiritual evidence.

Show the "inner spiritual evidence" that cancels out the objective reliable evidence that Baha'u'llah is *not* the return of Christ please.

 

[Truthseeker]

Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. – John 12:31.

This is not interpreted by anyone authoritative, but I will try according to my understanding:

In this case the prince of the world is Christ Himself. As Christ in spirit delivers the same eternal message as Baha'u'llah, they are interchangeable with each other. He was cast out of this world when He was crucified. Why would Satan have been cast out out?

Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. – John 16:11.

The whole passage in context is:

And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.
John, "The Gospel of John - ευαγγέλιο του ιωάννη", 16:8 -11

Baha'u'llah was judged one way or the other when He came.

 

[Truthseeker]

I sure do, I even believe i can demonstrate you haven't done it. In fact I believe I have done it in the following thread;

I looked, and it just looks like an assertion of something, and I'm supposed to take their word for it. This doesn't accord with other evidence I have seen.

 

[Truthseeker]

Show the "inner spiritual evidence" that cancels out the objective reliable evidence that Baha'u'llah is *not* the return of Christ please.

Either you have it within or you don't. It can't be demonstrated to someone else, and you know it, I believe.

 

[danieldemol]

I looked, and it just looks like an assertion of something, and I'm supposed to take their word for it. This doesn't accord with other evidence I have seen.

They provided references, what "other evidence" have you seen?

 

[Truthseeker]

They provided references, what "other evidence" have you seen?

I'm not interested in trying to prove something to you.

 

[danieldemol]

Either you have it within or you don't. It can't be demonstrated to someone else, and you know it, I believe.

If it can't be demonstrated to someone else according to my understanding it is not objective reliable evidence, it is subjective personal evidence at best, and even then it is not reliable in my view since other people have "inner spiritual evidence" for Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Joseph Smith, Odin and Thor etc etc.

 

[danieldemol]

I'm not interested in trying to prove something to you.

Perfect, because you have so far provided nothing convincing to anyone except a gullible person in my view.

 

[Truthseeker]

If it can't be demonstrated to someone else according to my understanding it is not objective reliable evidence, it is subjective personal evidence at best, and even then it is not reliable in my view since other people have "inner spiritual evidence" for Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Joseph Smith, Odin and Thor etc etc.

I know you are trying to goad me to lash out, and I won't do it.

 

[danieldemol]

I know you are trying to goad me to lash out, and I won't do it.

Ad-hominem in place of refutation will be recieved as a subconscious admission of your defeat in my view.

 

[Truthseeker]

Ad-hominem in place of rebuttal will be recieved as a subconscious admission of your defeat in my view.

Okay, you win. Satisfied? I don't care to win you over.

 

[danieldemol]

Okay, you win. Satisfied? I don't care to win you over.

It wasn't me that won, it was the evidence I presented in my view

 

[cataway]

If Christ comes today, how do you know it is really Him, and not a fake one?

dont be worried. he never said he would walk the earth again . Anyone saying they are Jesus would be lying to you .

 

[CG Didymus]

dont be worried. he never said he would walk the earth again . Anyone saying they are Jesus would be lying to you .

How about someone like Baha'u'llah who claims to have come as the "spirit" of Christ?

 

[CG Didymus]

Show the "inner spiritual evidence" that cancels out the objective reliable evidence that Baha'u'llah is *not* the return of Christ please.

If it can't be demonstrated to someone else according to my understanding it is not objective reliable evidence, it is subjective personal evidence at best, and even then it is not reliable in my view since other people have "inner spiritual evidence" for Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, Joseph Smith, Odin and Thor etc etc.

I don't know any "true" believer in any religion that doesn't feel it inside. And a lot of believers in a religion take their Scriptures as "objective" evidence. How can a person argue with them against that?

 

[Vinayaka]

"But if you just study hard enough and take a real good look at the 'evidence' you'll agree with me."

Who is to say just who has done the studying? Some people study so much that they have PhDs in such studies, yet believers will still say they haven't studied hard enough.

 

[CG Didymus]

This is not interpreted by anyone authoritative, but I will try according to my understanding:

In this case the prince of the world is Christ Himself. As Christ in spirit delivers the same eternal message as Baha'u'llah, they are interchangeable with each other. He was cast out of this world when He was crucified. Why would Satan have been cast out out?

The whole passage in context is:

And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.
John, "The Gospel of John - ευαγγέλιο του ιωάννη", 16:8 -11

Baha'u'llah was judged one way or the other when He came.

Yeah, the NIV has "condemned" in John 16:11...

Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8 When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 about sin, because people do not believe in me; 10 about righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; 11 and about judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.​

For John 12:30 it has this...

28 Father, glorify your name!”​

Then a voice came from heaven, “I have glorified it, and will glorify it again.” 29 The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him.​

​

30 Jesus said, “This voice was for your benefit, not mine. 31 Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out.​

​

But these verses have other issues... in 16:9 it has the "Advocate." Is it the Holy Spirit or Baha'u'llah? Then in John 12:28, it has God speaking from heaven.

I believe the Born-Again Christian interpretation is accurate. But I don't believe those things, like God speaking from heaven, are necessarily true. And that includes their interpretation of the "prince of this world" be Satan. But then with that, I'd much rather not believe that God created an evil lesser god.

So, although I believe the Christian interpretation, and don't believe the Baha'i interpretation, similar to some Baha'is, I believe those stories are fictional or at least greatly embellished.

 

[Trailblazer]

But Baha'is still have the problem of explaining that three "Christs" returned after Jesus... Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah.

No, only Baha'u'llah was the return of Christ.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, Baha'is can only be sure of verses quoted in the Baha'i writings. I wonder if TB's verses from John are in there?

Yes, some of them are, the ones about the Comforter and the Spirit of truth.