Is Baha'u'llah true or false Prophet?

[danieldemol]

"The century has come when all religions shall be unified......."

That is indeed not full realised, arguably the seed was planted.

It is irrelevant if the seed was planted or not in my view as he didn't say that, he said "all religions shall be unified", which they were not in the 20th century.

As for your statement concerning the most great peace not being associated with the 20th century that looks to me like the apologist's up is really down, black is really white toolbox considering he said;

the Most Great Peace would surely be upraised in the world.

This has come to pass. The powers of earth cannot withstand the privileges and bestowals which God has ordained for this great and glorious century.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

It is irrelevant if the seed was planted or not in my view as he didn't say that, he said "all religions shall be unified", which they were not in the 20th century.

As for your statement concerning the most great peace not being associated with the 20th century that looks to me like the apologist's up is really down, black is really white toolbox considering he said;

the Most Great Peace would surely be upraised in the world.

This has come to pass. The powers of earth cannot withstand the privileges and bestowals which God has ordained for this great and glorious century.

If that is all you wish to focus on in regards to that talk, then I see that is your test.

Read the talk, envisage the early 1900's audience that has not yet considered the unity of the entire human race and behold the wisdom it contains, had humanity embraced the principles it contained.

Additional to that, it was one of hundreds of such talks that Abdul-Baha delivered across Europe, England and America, prior to and then after the 1st world war.

Prior to the first world war Abdul-Baha predicted the start of the war in 2 years time.

Remembering ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s call for unity, a century after World War I | BWNS

‘Abdu’l-Baha’s warnings about war and the urgency of His call for peace are a stark reminder of the dangers that remain.

news.bahai.org

The fall of kingdoms in Europe by 1917:

"We are on the eve of the Battle of Armageddon referred to in the sixteenth chapter of Revelation... The time is two years hence, when only a spark will set aflame the whole of Europe... by 1917 kingdoms will fall and cataclysms will rock the earth."(Quoted in Esslemont, Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 223)

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

It is irrelevant if the seed was planted or not in my view as he didn't say that, he said "all religions shall be unified", which they were not in the 20th century.

As for your statement concerning the most great peace not being associated with the 20th century that looks to me like the apologist's up is really down, black is really white toolbox considering he said;

the Most Great Peace would surely be upraised in the world.

This has come to pass. The powers of earth cannot withstand the privileges and bestowals which God has ordained for this great and glorious century.

Daniel, you have started mixing quotes across replies. The quote you have posted to my reply, are from a different talk.

Gets way too messy.

Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

The cracked tile syndrome.

This is an ingrained habit we all have that when we look at a tiled floor our eyes always focus on the one tile in the corner that's cracked and we all tend to ignore the hundreds of tiles that are whole and sound. Virtually all humans love the truth and most of what humans believe is true and are themes that we can all agree with. What happens when we converse w/ people is that inevitably we hit upon ideas that we'd prefer to express differently and we all tend to focus on the differences.

We must always keep in mind all the vast majority of good tiles.

And that's what you think I'm doing? Religion has more than one "cracked" tile. And, if a lot of tiles are cracked, it could be the foundation under them is faulty. Even Baha'is don't believe and agree with many foundational beliefs and doctrines of the other religions.

I work in construction and many times I've had to repair broken tiles, chipped tiles, cracking grout, and tiles that were higher or lower than the tiles next them by about an 1/8", which is enough to cause it to be a "toe stubber." Worse... is when the sun shines on the tile floor in the morning, shadows are cast whenever the tiles are lower or higher. What do we do with those "faulty" tiles? Ignore them and tell the customer to focus on all the good tiles? No, we replace them. We fix the problem.

Now there's a good analogy about religion. All looks great until the light shines on it and shows the imperfections. Does Christianity have some imperfections? Does Islam or any of the other older religions? Does the Baha'i Faith? If a person wants to ignore the problem areas, the broken tiles, all they'll see is how good their religion is.

Typically, here on these threads, there are those of us that ask for proof and evidence that your religion or some other religion is true. And believers always talk about what they think is evidence, but they don't talk much about the evidence against their religion being true.

We're getting off track here. You said--

I would like to believe in what's true. But everyone that says they know The Truth... tells me something different. So, what am I supposed to do but question them, all of them deeper.

So we can agree that truth exists and it's there for us to accept and believe.

Religious "truth" is too subjective. Go ahead and believe the Baha'i Faith and do your best to live by its laws and teachings, but there are people as good and some maybe even better than the best Baha'i in every other religion. Religions that have beliefs that Baha'is say are not true. So again, I say... in many ways it doesn't matter what religion a person believes in... as long as they believe it is true and apply it to their lives.

 

[Truthseeker]

It is irrelevant if the seed was planted or not in my view as he didn't say that, he said "all religions shall be unified", which they were not in the 20th century.

As for your statement concerning the most great peace not being associated with the 20th century that looks to me like the apologist's up is really down, black is really white toolbox considering he said;

the Most Great Peace would surely be upraised in the world.

This has come to pass. The powers of earth cannot withstand the privileges and bestowals which God has ordained for this great and glorious century.

Trying to blatantly mislead people, I see, with those last two quotes put out of context with each other.

 

[danieldemol]

If that is all you wish to focus on in regards to that talk, then I see that is your test.

Sure false prophecy is a test - a test of gullibility in my view.

Read the talk, envisage the early 1900's audience that has not yet considered the unity of the entire human race and behold the wisdom it contains, had humanity embraced the principles it contained.

It contains wisdom and a false prophecy as do the sayings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad who you reject as a false prophet.

Additional to that, it was one of hundreds of such talks that Abdul-Baha delivered across Europe, England and America, prior to and then after the 1st world war.

Irrelevant in my view.

Prior to the first world war Abdul-Baha predicted the start of the war in 2 years time.

Remembering ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s call for unity, a century after World War I | BWNS

‘Abdu’l-Baha’s warnings about war and the urgency of His call for peace are a stark reminder of the dangers that remain.

news.bahai.org

View attachment 83119

Read the paper Tony, Abdul-Baha lists the "pretexts" the people of Europe were using to go to war. When people are telling you they want to go to war based on certain pretexts you dont need to be a prophet to predict war will occur.

The fall of kingdoms in Europe by 1917:

"We are on the eve of the Battle of Armageddon referred to in the sixteenth chapter of Revelation... The time is two years hence, when only a spark will set aflame the whole of Europe... by 1917 kingdoms will fall and cataclysms will rock the earth."(Quoted in Esslemont, Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 223)

Regards Tony

Provide the full text he quotes Tony. It will still be irrelevant as God knows 100% of what will happen in the future in my view, therefore 1 failed prophecy is enough to declare someone a false prophet.

Nonetheless it will still be of interest to see the full quote in context as Baha'is can decontextualise their prophecies omitting essential details which did not come true, and it is my view that a partly failed prophecy is a totally failed prophecy since the claim of Baha'u'llah is infallible knowledge of God and the claim of Abdul-Baha is conferred infallibility in knowledge of what Baha'u'llah has revealed.

 

[danieldemol]

Trying to blatantly mislead people, I see, with those last two quotes put out of context with each other.

Ad-hominem will be accepted as a subconscious admission of your defeat.

I dare you and anyone else to read those quotes in context both in their respective texts and in context of Baha'u'llah's teaching of the most great peace.

 

[Truthseeker]

Ad-hominem will be accepted as a subconscious admission of your defeat.

I dare you and anyone else to read those quotes in context both in their respective texts and in context of Baha'u'llah's teaching of the most great peace.

From the prison of ‘Akká He addressed the kings and rulers of the earth in lengthy letters, summoning them to international agreement and explicitly stating that the standard of the Most Great Peace would surely be upraised in the world.

This has come to pass. The powers of earth cannot withstand the privileges and bestowals which God has ordained for this great and glorious century.
‘Abdu’l-Bahá, "The Promulgation of Universal Peace", 48.5

It wasn't as blatant misleading as I thought. However you don't understand this in context. When he said this "The Most Great Peace" obviously to Abdu'l-Baha and everybody hadn't happened when He said that. You have misunderstood "This has come to pass" to refer to the Most Great Peace obviously. There was no Most Great Peace at the time He said that. If He had said "it will come to pass" that would be be a possible meaning.

 

[danieldemol]

You have misunderstood "This has come to pass" to refer to the Most Great Peace obviously

To the contrary it is no misunderstanding in my view. It is simply reading it in context.

To read it out of context as not referring to the previous statement is to render it an irrelevant statement in my opinion.

What has come to pass exactly?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Sure false prophecy is a test - a test of gullibility in my view.

It contains wisdom and a false prophecy as do the sayings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad who you reject as a false prophet.

Irrelevant in my view.

Read the paper Tony, Abdul-Baha lists the "pretexts" the people of Europe were using to go to war. When people are telling you they want to go to war based on certain pretexts you dont need to be a prophet to predict war will occur.

Provide the full text he quotes Tony. It will still be irrelevant as God knows 100% of what will happen in the future in my view, therefore 1 failed prophecy is enough to declare someone a false prophet.

Nonetheless it will still be of interest to see the full quote in context as Baha'is can decontextualise their prophecies omitting essential details which did not come true, and it is my view that a partly failed prophecy is a totally failed prophecy since the claim of Baha'u'llah is infallible knowledge of God and the claim of Abdul-Baha is conferred infallibility in knowledge of what Baha'u'llah has revealed.

I finished with this, no point in doing this all again Daniel.

All the best, Regards Tony

 

[Pete in Panama]

So Abdul-Baha was saying Baha'u'llah's vision of the "Most Great Peace" is come to pass in the twentieth century- ...

Ok, that makes sense and now that we've got this established. So I would be very grateful if you'd please humor me and show me the quote where you read Abdul'Baha saying that the Most Great Peace would be established in the 20th century.

...That is why when Abdul-Baha says all the religions will unite in the twentieth century and the "most great peace" will come in the twentieth century we can know from the context that he means all people adopting one faith and not just a brief moment of 50 countries having a handshake before they resume war in my view.

That's a possible interpretation of those individual phrases however my experience is that your take is not consistent w/ so many other statements/quotes of Abdul Baha. My preference is to just go w/ what the text says and not force any of my "conclusions" into the text. Of course, that's me and you have your way; we're both good.

 

[Colt]

People may judge for themselves. whether or not Baha'u'llah is a true or false Prophet.

On 9 May 1892, Bahá'u'lláh contracted a slight fever which grew steadily over the following days, abated, and then finally resulted in his death on 29 May 1892 (Dhu'l Qa'dah 2, 1309 AH). He was buried in the shrine located next to the Mansion of Bahjí.)
Bahá'u'lláh - Wikipedia
Wikipedia › wiki › Bahá'u'lláh

Baha'u'llah died at Acre in Israel, and was buried in the shrine located next to the Mansion of Bahji, which is located in Acre in Israel, which is about 200 miles away from Jerusalem.
Shrine of Bahá'u'lláh - Wikipedia
Wikipedia › wiki › Shrine_of_Bahá'u'lláh
The Shrine of Bahá'u'lláh, located in Bahjí near Acre, Israel, is the most holy ... It contains the remains of Bahá'u'lláh and is near the spot where he died in the Mansion of Bahjí.

This being about 200 miles away from Jerusalem.


Notice what Christ Jesus had to say about Jerusalem in the book of Luke 13:33--" Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem"
This meaning that no prophet shall die outside of Jerusalem.

Now as for Baha'u'llah dieing 200 miles away from Jerusalem, Christ Jesus thereby proving Baha'u'llah is a false prophet.

The Prophets of God, either died a natural death or was stone to death by people in Jerusalem.

But here we find Baha'u'llah, died On 9 May 1892, Bahá'u'lláh contracted a slight fever which grew steadily over the following days, abated, and then finally resulted in his death on 29 May 1892.

So it is that Baha'u'llah didn't die a natural death, as in dieing of old age, But by contracted a slight fever which grew steadily over the following days, which caused his death on May 29,1892.

But yet Christ Jesus has said in Luke 13:34--"Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.

34-- "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not"

So we find the Prophets of Gods died at Jerusalem, at the hands of the people in Jerusalem or by a natural death of old age.

Where as Baha'u'llah died by a fever that took his life 200 miles outside of Jerusalem.

So Baha'u'llah didn't die by a natural death of old age or by the hands of people in Jerusalem, But by a fever. As there were no prophets of Gods that ever died by any diseases.

But by a natural death of old age or at the hands of people in Jerusalem.

Which again proves Baha'u'llah as a false prophet.

For Christ Jesus did say in Luke 13:33--"Nevertheless I must walk to day, and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem"

That being outside of Jerusalem, which puts Baha'u'llah dieing 200 miles away from Jerusalem as a false prophet.

Spiritual truths are not linked to where a person dies. Bahaullah spoke truth as he understood it and in so doing lead people closer to God.

 

[Pete in Panama]

I work in construction and many times I've had to repair broken tiles, chipped tiles, cracking grout, and tiles that were higher or lower than the tiles next them by about an 1/8", which is enough to cause it to be a "toe stubber." Worse... is when the sun shines on the tile floor in the morning, shadows are cast whenever the tiles are lower or higher. What do we do with those "faulty" tiles? Ignore them and tell the customer to focus on all the good tiles? No, we replace them. We fix the problem.

Now there's a good analogy about religion. All looks great until the light shines on it and shows the imperfections. Does Christianity have some imperfections? Does Islam or any of the other older religions? Does the Baha'i Faith? If a person wants to ignore the problem areas, the broken tiles, all they'll see is how good their religion is.

Typically, here on these threads, there are those of us that ask for proof and evidence that your religion or some other religion is true. And believers always talk about what they think is evidence, but they don't talk much about the evidence against their religion being true.

Of course, and you fix only the broken tiles and you get paid for the good tiles. Most the the world is good. It must be celebrated.

...Religious "truth" is too subjective....

This is a familiar argument but what I usually mean by subjective/objective is that when people in general throughout the world all independently come to the same reality then (imho) it's safe to say that the view is "objective". Virtually all legal jurisdictions outlaw murder and theft. If that's not "objective" then it'll do until real "objective" comes along.

My preference is that we stick to what we can agree on, build from there, and see the hidden truths that our different viewpoints can reveal.

... it doesn't matter what religion a person believes in... as long as they believe it is true and apply it to their lives.

Religions begin w/ the text of the teachings of the founder and then the followers add things. We can accept just about all the founders teachings and most (not all) of what the followers say. The idea that we "consort with the peoples of all religions" is good and works well.

 

[Truthseeker]

To the contrary it is no misunderstanding in my view. It is simply reading it in context.

To read it out of context as not referring to the previous statement is to render it an irrelevant statement in my opinion.

What has come to pass exactly?

I notice you are not responding directly to what I said. It could be interpreted like you said, but there's no smoking gun, and there is nothing else that anyone said that would suggest your interpretation is correct. Where did Abdu'l-Baha say unambiguously that the Most Great Peace would happen in the 20th century? Here's the passage again:

From the prison of ‘Akká He addressed the kings and rulers of the earth in lengthy letters, summoning them to international agreement and explicitly stating that the standard of the Most Great Peace would surely be upraised in the world.

This has come to pass. The powers of earth cannot withstand the privileges and bestowals which God has ordained for this great and glorious century. It is a need and exigency of the time. Man can withstand anything except that which is divinely intended and indicated for the age and its requirements. Now— praise be to God!— in all countries of the world, lovers of peace are to be found, and these principles are being spread among mankind, especially in this country. Praise be to God! This thought is prevailing, and souls are continually arising as defenders of the oneness of humanity, endeavoring to assist and establish international peace.
‘Abdu’l-Bahá, "The Promulgation of Universal Peace", 48.5


My interpretation is that with further context He meant "This has come to pass" means it has become inevitable this will happen. There was a similar situation where a corner stone was laid for the Baha'i Temple in Wilmette and Abdu'l-Baha said "The Temple has already been built" or similar words. It could have a different meaning than I have come up with.

 

[danieldemol]

Ok, that makes sense and now that we've got this established. So I would be very grateful if you'd please humor me and show me the quote where you read Abdul'Baha saying that the Most Great Peace would be established in the 20th century.

It is simply a matter of reading in context. Abdu'l-Baha has stated, "The powers of earth cannot withstand the privileges and bestowals which God has ordained for this great and glorious century. It is a need and exigency of the time."
In context the "privileges and bestowals" and the "need and exigency of the time" are referring to the before mentioned "Most Great Peace". To read it in any disconnected manner is to accuse Abdul-Baha of stringing together irrelevancies in my view.

That's a possible interpretation of those individual phrases however my experience is that your take is not consistent w/ so many other statements/quotes of Abdul Baha.

Are you being vague for a reason here?

My preference is to just go w/ what the text says and not force any of my "conclusions" into the text.

Same here, which is why I dont ignore context to make apologetic "conclusions" fit

Of course, that's me and you have your way; we're both good.

Agreed.

 

[danieldemol]

My interpretation is that with further context He meant "This has come to pass" means it has become inevitable this will happen. There was a similar situation where a corner stone was laid for the Baha'i Temple in Wilmette and Abdu'l-Baha said "The Temple has already been built" or similar words. It could have a different meaning than I have come up with.

He probably did mean that it became inevitable that it will come to pass...in the twentieth century in my view.

Otherwise to add the words, "The powers of earth cannot withstand the privileges and bestowals which God has ordained for this great and glorious century." become irrelevant as if he were merely talking about it being made possible that it will happen it has always been possible that it will happen at an unspecified point in the future, the twentieth century had nothing to do with it in my view.

I'm basically finding it funny that if the most great peace had come in the twentieth century Baha'i everywhere would be claiming this as fulfilled prophecy but solely because it failed Baha'is are saying it merely meant that it was possible at an unspecified future date and that too after the fact.

 

[Pete in Panama]

It is simply a matter of reading in context. Abdu'l-Baha has stated, "The powers of earth cannot withstand the privileges and bestowals which God has ordained for this great and glorious century. It is a need and exigency of the time."
In context the "privileges and bestowals" and the "need and exigency of the time" are referring to the before mentioned "Most Great Peace". To read it in any disconnected manner is to accuse Abdul-Baha of stringing together irrelevancies in my view....

If you are interpreting these quotes to mean that--

... Abdul-Baha was saying Baha'u'llah's vision of the "Most Great Peace" is come to pass in the twentieth century-...

--then that's your privilege. Of course that leads us to the problem that you and I are simply not communicating. Maybe some other path will come to me later but it looks like we're done for now.

Cheers.

 

[Truthseeker]

He probably did mean that it became inevitable that it will come to pass...in the twentieth century in my view.

Otherwise to add the words, "The powers of earth cannot withstand the privileges and bestowals which God has ordained for this great and glorious century." become irrelevant as if he were merely talking about it being made possible that it will happen it has always been possible that it will happen at an unspecified point in the future, the twentieth century had nothing to do with it in my view.

I'm basically finding it funny that if the most great peace had come in the twentieth century Baha'i everywhere would be claiming this as fulfilled prophecy but solely because it failed Baha'is are saying it merely meant that it was possible at an unspecified future date and that too after the fact.

You have your interpretation, and I have mine. I see nothing there that says definitely that the Most Great Peace in the 20th century. The "privileges and bestowals" of the 20th century what were evident in the 20th century made it inevitable, but where is the smoking gun that it would happen in the 20th century? I will leave it at that, and hope you will too. In the light of all other statements in the Baha'i Faith, this makers your interpretation less credible to me. You had a better case when you thought that the "Lesser Peace" would take place in the 20th century. I don't understand why you are reaching for a less likely way to discredit the Baha'i Faith.

 

[danieldemol]

You have your interpretation, and I have mine. I see nothing there that says definitely that the Most Great Peace in the 20th century. The "privileges and bestowals" of the 20th century what were evident in the 20th century made it inevitable, but where is the smoking gun that it would happen in the 20th century?

If you study the false prophets such as Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and others in my view you would know that one of the modes of operation of the false prophet is to make vague statements in which those who follow fill in the details and edit out the errors through an interpretive process (in addition to sometimes literally editing the quotes). So there need not necessarily be a smoking gun. Nevertheless I feel that the smoking gun here is the context which you and other supporters of Abdul-Baha appear to ignore.

Besides we have another stronger example of a "smoking gun" false prophecy from Abdul-Baha, so it can be established beyond reasonable doubt to the critical thinker that Abdul-Baha was a false prophet in my view. Once that is established you can recognise the MO of the false prophet in slightly vaguer statements which can be denied by simply ignoring context.

I will leave it at that, and hope you will too. In the light of all other statements in the Baha'i Faith, this makers your interpretation less credible to me.

Funny, as if you were prepared to give any credibility to a denier of Abdu'l-Baha no matter what they show you in my view.

You had a better case when you thought that the "Lesser Peace" would take place in the 20th century. I don't understand why you are reaching for a less likely way to discredit the Baha'i Faith.

Because it is supported by the context and critical thinkers who also have reading comprehension skills are able to process context to obtain meaning

 

[CG Didymus]

Of course, and you fix only the broken tiles and you get paid for the good tiles. Most the the world is good. It must be celebrated.

Religions begin w/ the text of the teachings of the founder and then the followers add things. We can accept just about all the founders teachings and most (not all) of what the followers say. The idea that we "consort with the peoples of all religions" is good and works well.

But we're using the tiles as an analogy about religion. Other than your religion, the Baha'i Faith, do all the other religions have things that have been added in and things that they believe that are problems and hard to accept?

To just look at the "Golden Rule" and whatever else they have in common, is fine, but what are the differences? Are these differences important?

Should we disregard and actually do away with the differences and only focus on the things that the religions have in common? If so, now add your religion into the mix. Should we disregard those things that are distinctive to only the Baha'i Faith and only take as being true those things that the Baha'i Faith has in common with all the other religions?

But there's been so many religions. And even the religions that are still practiced today have so many beliefs that contradict the beliefs held in some of the others. Baha'is don't focus much on the religions of the past. Like those from China, Egypt, Greece and others. Baha'is only focus on a few religions that are still practiced today. And even with those, Baha'is have to make adjustments to some of the beliefs held by the followers in those religions. That is, focus on the differences, and not ignore them, and find a way to explain them away.

To me, "consorting" with people in the other religions doesn't mean much when Baha'is believe they have replaced the teachings and practices of all those other religions. Whether Baha'is want to admit it or not, they are here to promote their religion and their beliefs. That is what is true and real and necessary according to what Baha'is believe. As is obvious here on the forum, anyone who disagrees with the Baha'i beliefs is wrong.

Which is okay, sort of, it is what Baha'is think is the truth. But, to those of us who challenge the beliefs and claims of the Baha'i Faith, it is Baha'is acting just like all those "true believers" in any other religion... It is your truth that is The Truth. We are all wrong and need to see the light as you see it.