Is Baha'u'llah true or false Prophet?

[Pete in Panama]

What I'm asking is that...

looks like my post was poorly worded. In case you missed it, I was asking you whether there was any prophet you you considered valid. If you don't want to respond that's ok, it would just mean you're not willing to answer the question I just asked of you

...one of the many people claiming to be some special person sent by God actually follow through. No peace in the Middle-East or anywhere else in the world.

Do you really mean that you see no peace anywhere in the world and you see armed conflict everywhere? That can't be right, maybe you'll want to change that.

Is that what the Messiah, Jesus, the Madhi, the Maitreya, Kalki and any other end-time promised ones were supposed to do?

Your prophet is supposed to be all of the promised ones rolled up into one. I've listened and watched Baha'is for fifty years. I'm not sure, but I think they were doing more fifty years ago. Enrollments were up. Giving signs of "entry by troops". Then it fizzled. In the 80's there was the "Promise of Peace" and a big peace conference in San Francisco. I was there. What happened?

What are Baha'is doing to promote their religion and to promote peace? Because what Baha'is are doing here on the forum seems to be causing a negative reaction in all but a few cases. Can Baha'is be the ones that help bring people together? Are they really all that together in their own Baha'i communities? If it's working great. But is it working?

These are all fair questions, and at the same time please understand that there are many proofs of prophethood but most of the proofs would be deemed inadequate/false/empty by most people. This doesn't mean that the proofs are wrong but rather the fact that we live in a big world w/ sooo many different kinds of people --each w/ his/her own needs. This is why before I answer your questions I really need to know where you're coming from.

If there's no prophet you accept then I'd need to explain the nature of the messengers. If you accept one of the prophets then we could talk about how that prophet has returned.

In your community, how many new Baha'is have been added in the last 10 years? How many have dropped out or are inactive? How many different people have been elected to your LSA and NSA? Or has it been mostly the same people? Like I said, if it's working great. But here in the U.S. I don't know that it is.

fwiw, in our little bario we got a lot going on.

When we moved here a couple decades ago there were no Baha'is. Now we got a half dozen kid's classes run by a half dozen different teachers, last Sunday a dozen of us had a really neat get together where my wife showed some movie clips on the wall then I got out my mandolin and we all made the rafters ring. That's us. Good things happening elsewhere but the size of the Faith's difficult to measure. In our town for example most activity's run by folks who aren't officially enrolled. This is how the world works. Let's say Baha'u'llah called for world peace & the world of people who are not Baha'is stops fighting. Does that make Baha'u'llah wrong because the Baha'is weren't those who stopped fighting?

Can we agree that the right now the world's a better place than it was in past centuries?

 

[Pete in Panama]

I once had a situation where what I said by the Holy Spirit was opposite by what another person said by the Holy Spirit. God later told me that both were correct so that was a viewpoint difference. However that is a rare thing. Most issues are black and white.

We can agree that many questions are black & white and others are murky.

You are either right or wrong and in either case must prove your point.

Like I was just saying in my previous post, there are many proofs but most proofs would be rejected by most people because everyone's different w/ different backgrounds and having different needs. I really need to understand what beliefs you've found to be useful. Chances are that I can accept your believes and from our sharing we can build from there.

 

[danieldemol]

Baha'u'llah claims to be the one foretold by Isaiah;

'I am the One Whom the tongue of Isaiah hath extolled, the One with Whose name both the Torah and the Evangel were adorned.'

Source: Bahá'í Reference Library - The Summons of the Lord of Hosts, Pages 83-88

Here is what the author/(s) of Isaiah had to say about the last days;

'This is what Isaiah son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem:

2 In the last days

the mountain of the Lord’s temple will be established
as the highest of the mountains;
it will be exalted above the hills,
and all nations will stream to it.
3 Many peoples will come and say,

“Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
to the temple of the God of Jacob.
He will teach us his ways,
so that we may walk in his paths.”
The law will go out from Zion,
the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
4 He will judge between the nations
and will settle disputes for many peoples.
They will beat their swords into plowshares
and their spears into pruning hooks.
Nation will not take up sword against nation,
nor will they train for war anymore'

Source: Bible Gateway passage: Isaiah 2 - New International Version

In my view let us lay aside for the moment that Baha'u'llah had nothing to do with Jerusalem and focus on the other details.

Read in context it would seem to me that the reason for nations not training in war anymore is because of "many" disputes being settled. It seems pretty clear that Baha'u'llah hasn't settled disputes between Russia and the US, India and Pakistan, Israel and Palestine and the list goes on, but let us even ignore that.

It says, "nor will they train for war anymore". But this evidently won't be the case in the Baha'i system in my view because Baha'u'llah said that if any nation takes up arms against another nation all must unitedly arise to oppose that nation militarily.

In my view anyone who knows anything about armies knows you can't just wait for someone to invade then start building an army from scratch. You have to have your army largely built and trained even in peacetime so it is prepared for the possibility of war. Therefore even under the Baha'i peace plan which requires nations to have armies they will always have to train for war even in peacetime, therefore the statement that they won't train for war becomes false prophecy.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

the mountain of the Lord’s temple will be established
as the highest of the mountains;
it will be exalted above the hills,
and all nations will stream to it.
3 Many peoples will come and say,

“Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
to the temple of the God of Jacob.
He will teach us his ways,
so that we may walk in his paths.”
The law will go out from Zion,
the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
4 He will judge between the nations
and will settle disputes for many peoples.
They will beat their swords into plowshares
and their spears into pruning hooks.
Nation will not take up sword against nation,
nor will they train for war anymore'

It is still in progress the first half has fulfilled and will continue to be fulfilled, the remaining is still unfolding because humanity has rejected the most great peace.

Mount Carmel, which is extolled in prophecy, has all the nations flowing up the Mountain of the Lord to the Shrine of the Bab. The Law now goes out from Zion via the Universal House of Justice.

"The name Zion is often used to describe a place appointed by the Lord where his followers can live and serve God. Scripture refers to Zion as the “City of Holiness” and a “city of refuge” where the Lord protects his people from the evils in the world." (Web Source)

In the new Testament Jesus promised a 'New Jerusalem' (Jerusalem means 'Abode of Peace') and Haifa and Akka are now that Abode of Peace.

The judgement of the Nations has happened and the judgement is unfolding in our neglect ro embrace peace. The rime will come when the Narions will learn war no more.

Prophecy does not instantly unfold, it unfolds over Dispensations.

Regards Tony

 

[danieldemol]

The rime will come when the Narions will learn war no more.

Prophecy does not instantly unfold, it unfolds over Dispensations.

That doesn't address that Baha'u'llah has required nations to have armies in his texts which in turn requires them to "learn war" in my view Tony. Which means they would have to go against Baha'u'llah 's requirements for this dispensation to fulfill Isaiah's prophecy in this dispensation.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

That doesn't address that Baha'u'llah has required nations to have armies in his texts which in turn requires them to "learn war" in my view Tony. Which means they would have to go against Baha'u'llah 's requirements for this dispensation to fulfill Isaiah's prophecy in this dispensation.

You would need to know what else was offered by Baha'u'llah and in the Baha'i Writings about war Daniel. Those bases are covered, but it requires more quotes that would have already been posted in the past.

It is a topic that everyone can research, all the Writings are available.

The number one teaching for me is "it is better to be killed, than kill"!

Regards Tony

 

[Truthseeker]

Baha'u'llah claims to be the one foretold by Isaiah;

'I am the One Whom the tongue of Isaiah hath extolled, the One with Whose name both the Torah and the Evangel were adorned.'

Source: Bahá'í Reference Library - The Summons of the Lord of Hosts, Pages 83-88

Here is what the author/(s) of Isaiah had to say about the last days;

'This is what Isaiah son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem:

2 In the last days

the mountain of the Lord’s temple will be established
as the highest of the mountains;
it will be exalted above the hills,
and all nations will stream to it.
3 Many peoples will come and say,

“Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
to the temple of the God of Jacob.
He will teach us his ways,
so that we may walk in his paths.”
The law will go out from Zion,
the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
4 He will judge between the nations
and will settle disputes for many peoples.
They will beat their swords into plowshares
and their spears into pruning hooks.
Nation will not take up sword against nation,
nor will they train for war anymore'

Source: Bible Gateway passage: Isaiah 2 - New International Version

In my view let us lay aside for the moment that Baha'u'llah had nothing to do with Jerusalem and focus on the other details.

Read in context it would seem to me that the reason for nations not training in war anymore is because of "many" disputes being settled. It seems pretty clear that Baha'u'llah hasn't settled disputes between Russia and the US, India and Pakistan, Israel and Palestine and the list goes on, but let us even ignore that.

It says, "nor will they train for war anymore". But this evidently won't be the case in the Baha'i system in my view because Baha'u'llah said that if any nation takes up arms against another nation all must unitedly arise to oppose that nation militarily.

In my view anyone who knows anything about armies knows you can't just wait for someone to invade then start building an army from scratch. You have to have your army largely built and trained even in peacetime so it is prepared for the possibility of war. Therefore even under the Baha'i peace plan which requires nations to have armies they will always have to train for war even in peacetime, therefore the statement that they won't train for war becomes false prophecy.

Besides what Tony said, there are other passages in Isaiah that refer to Baha'u'llah, and this one doesn't refer to Him directly in this prophecy. It says there will be mountain someday that will referred to as “The mountain of the Lord's temple”. Baha'u'llah wasn't in charge of the nations where He could directly judge between the nations, as in bringing them to justice. He did write letters to some powerful kings, and they rejected His call for the Most Great Peace. He urged them then to make moves towards the Lesser peace. As to having armies and there still being war at a stage in our development, that is a description of the Lesser Peace, and Baha'is will not be responsible for bringing that into being, though we can give advice about how to achieve that that can be rejected or accepted. In the Most Great Peace there will be no armies involved eventually to be trained it appears.

A couple of other reference to Baha'u'llah in Isaiah:

9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
(King James Bible, Isaiah)

I will say at this point that the world government will not at a some point in the future by a theocracy run entirely by Baha'is running roughshod over the peoples of the world. That is not how He fulfills this prophecy. For me, it is the pattern of the Baha'u'llah administrative order that will be the guide in some ways the world government eventually. Baha'is will be part of this government in some way. Certainly in my mind Christ didn't fulfill “the government shall be upon his shoulder” in that sense, though the Catholic churrch in Western Christianity did wield a lot influence for a while. As to the Prince of Peace, I think Jesus did advocate peace between people as well as inner peace, though He didn't give instructions or principles of how international peace might be possible. Anyway, it appears that Baha'u'llah is a better fulfillment of this prophecy, though Jesus may have been in mind as well.

Another prophecy, this one mentioned by Baha'u'llah:

2:10 Enter into the rock, and hide thee in the dust, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty.
2:11 The lofty looks of man shall be humbled, and the haughtiness of men shall be bowed down, and the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day.
(King James Bible, Isaiah)

People that attained to the presence of Baha'u'llah have testified to His glory, and many could not say a word in His presence. This includes some who were not aware of His claimed station or it was before He made His claim. I'm sure that scholars are skeptical about this, and that's their right.

 

[Trailblazer]

That doesn't address that Baha'u'llah has required nations to have armies in his texts which in turn requires them to "learn war" in my view Tony. Which means they would have to go against Baha'u'llah 's requirements for this dispensation to fulfill Isaiah's prophecy in this dispensation.

Isaiah 2:4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

Having armies does not require nations to "learn war." The armies are to safeguard their own nations.

“O rulers of the earth! Be reconciled among yourselves, that ye may need no more armaments save in a measure to safeguard your territories and dominions. Beware lest ye disregard the counsel of the All-Knowing, the Faithful.” Gleaning, p. 254

 

[Truthseeker]

“O rulers of the earth! Be reconciled among yourselves, that ye may need no more armaments save in a measure to safeguard your territories and dominions. Beware lest ye disregard the counsel of the All-Knowing, the Faithful.” Gleaning, p. 254

This in my view is about the Lesser Peace, and in safeguarding their own territories they would have be trained to fight. This won't work as an argument in my view.

Now that ye have refused the Most Great Peace, hold ye fast unto this, the Lesser Peace, that haply ye may in some degree better your own condition and that of your dependents.

O rulers of the earth! Be reconciled among yourselves, that ye may need no more armaments save in a measure to safeguard your territories and dominions. Beware lest ye disregard the counsel of the All-Knowing, the Faithful.

Be united, O kings of the earth, for thereby will the tempest of discord be stilled amongst you, and your peoples find rest, if ye be of them that comprehend. Should any one among you take up arms against another, rise ye all against him, for this is naught but manifest justice.
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 253)

It's clear. This is what He is recommending for the Lesser Peace.

 

[danieldemol]

This in my view is about the Lesser Peace, and in safeguarding their own territories they would have be trained to fight. This won't work as an argument in my view.

Now that ye have refused the Most Great Peace, hold ye fast unto this, the Lesser Peace, that haply ye may in some degree better your own condition and that of your dependents.

O rulers of the earth! Be reconciled among yourselves, that ye may need no more armaments save in a measure to safeguard your territories and dominions. Beware lest ye disregard the counsel of the All-Knowing, the Faithful.

Be united, O kings of the earth, for thereby will the tempest of discord be stilled amongst you, and your peoples find rest, if ye be of them that comprehend. Should any one among you take up arms against another, rise ye all against him, for this is naught but manifest justice.
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 253)

It's clear. This is what He is recommending for the Lesser Peace.

Great, so Baha'u'llah would leave us all defenceless against any tyrant that decided to build even the smallest of armies as I see it.

Good luck convincing people to be naive enough to accept your allegedly "most great" peace plan, you are going to need it in my view.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's clear. This is what He is recommending for the Lesser Peace.

So you don't think that nations will need armies to safeguard their own territories after the Most Great Peace has been established?

 

[Truthseeker]

Great, so Baha'u'llah would leave us all defenceless against any tyrant that decided to build even the smallest of armies as I see it.

Good luck convincing people to be naive enough to accept your allegedly "most great" peace plan, you are going to need it in my view.

It doesn't say that at all. Review what this clearly says. It says that each should only have an army to be able to defend their territories and recommends to them to rise up against any aggressor. In real life, of course, they didn't do this. They all would have an army to defend themselves. This is not the Most Great Peace plan, either. it is the "Lesser Peace" plan. He clearly says that.

After I wrote this, it occurred to me I mistook what you were saying. You may be merely saying that the Most great Peace is unrealistic, and a tyrant could take advantage during the so-called Most Great Peace. Yes, it could for some if that's all they know they would find it hard to believe the Most Great Peace would come, and is realistic at all. However, for those like me who have seen the signs that Baha'u'llah is a true Messenger of God, we do have faith that the Most Great Peace will come.

If the people of the world are truly in unity as a prerequisite of the Most Great Peace, the conditions for tyrant taking advantage of disunity in the country they try to take over don't exist, they will not succeed in their quest to be tyrant that wages war. This is all dependent on true unity existing, of course. It may take a very long time, but I believe that man has been created noble, and has a spiritual side that over time can through education and training bring out their inherent noble spiritual nature.

 

[Truthseeker]

So you don't think that nations will need armies to safeguard their own territories after the Most Great Peace has been established?

No, but I don't know of any text at the moment that says that. There is this:

The Golden Age of the Faith itself that must witness the unification of all the peoples and nations of the world, the establishment of the Most Great Peace, the inauguration of the Kingdom of the Father upon earth, the coming of age of the entire human race and the birth of a world civilization, inspired and directed by the creative energies released by Bahá’u’lláh’s World Order, shining in its meridian splendor, is still unborn and its glories unsuspected.
Shoghi Effendi, "God Passes By", rp.13

If the peoples of the world are unified, what need then for armies?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Great, so Baha'u'llah would leave us all defenceless against any tyrant that decided to build even the smallest of armies as I see it.

Good luck convincing people to be naive enough to accept your allegedly "most great" peace plan, you are going to need it in my view.

You know what was offered does not say that Daniel, in fact the writings offered we will need an international army to ensure that any Nation does not arise against any other Nation.

How the Lesser Peace will come about and how the transition from the lesser to the Most Great Peace will happen, is not really known. It has been foretold that the lesser peace will come after ever increasing calamities across the globe, while a world is being ravaged by wars an event that causes the limbs of mankind to quake will also be unleashed. (I am not sure that is before the Lesser Peace, it may trigger the most great peace?)

We rejected the 2nd part of the Isaiah prophecy, but Baha'u'llah has written the Most Great Peace shall come.

Abdu’l-Bahá said, "Bahá’u’lláh declared the coming of the Most Great Peace. All the nations and peoples will come under the shadow of the Tent of the Great Peace and Harmony -- that is to say, by general election a Great Board of Arbitration shall be established, to settle all differences and quarrels between the Powers; so that disputes shall not end in war." ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in London, p. 29-30

I still expect there will be an age where the Nations of the Earth try to do away with religion, has that already transpired? Will it be an act that is part of the Lesser Peace? I think that is more than likely.

What is in the Bible and the Baha'i Writings is, that if these days were not cut short, that we would destroy ourselves.

In Mathew 24 "....“For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect’s sake those days will be shortened” (verses 21-22).

Abdu'l-Baha offered back in 1912 that the world was on the eve of the Battle of Armageddon, the start of the great tribulations, as foretold in the Bible in Luke 21:20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near”. This happened at the end of World War 1. It is the lesser known story of General Allenby, who himself thought he was fighting that battle. It is amazing story how he took back Jerusalem, Haifa and Akka.

There is so much to consider Daniel. Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

So you don't think that nations will need armies to safeguard their own territories after the Most Great Peace has been established?

No, but I don't know of any text at the moment that says that. There is this:

The Golden Age of the Faith itself that must witness the unification of all the peoples and nations of the world, the establishment of the Most Great Peace, the inauguration of the Kingdom of the Father upon earth, the coming of age of the entire human race and the birth of a world civilization, inspired and directed by the creative energies released by Bahá’u’lláh’s World Order, shining in its meridian splendor, is still unborn and its glories unsuspected.
Shoghi Effendi, "God Passes By", rp.13

If the peoples of the world are unified, what need then for armies?

I see there is texts that does offer this. It is in these 2 quotes, the way I read them anyway. The nations will only have enough arms for internal police forces.

"Such a peace demandeth that the Great Powers should resolve, for the sake of the tranquillity of the peoples of the earth, to be fully reconciled among themselves. Should any king take up arms against another, all should unitedly arise and prevent him. If this be done, the nations of the world will no longer require any armaments, except for the purpose of preserving the security of their realms and of maintaining internal order within their territories. This will ensure the peace and composure of every people, government and nation."
(Baha'u'llah: Gleanings, p.?)

True civilization will unfurl its banner in the midmost heart of the world whenever a certain number of its distinguished and high-minded sovereigns - the shining exemplars of devotion and determination - shall, for the good and happiness of all mankind, arise, with firm resolve and clear vision, to establish the Cause of Universal Peace. They must make the Cause of Peace the object of general consultation, and seek by every means in their power to establish a Union of the nations of the world. They must conclude a binding treaty and establish a covenant, the provisions of which shall be sound, inviolable and definite. They must proclaim it to all the world and obtain for it the sanction of all the human race. This supreme and noble undertaking - the real source of the peace and well-being of all the world - should be regarded as sacred by all that dwell on earth. All the forces of humanity must be mobilized to ensure the stability and permanence of this Most Great Covenant. In this all-embracing Pact the limits and frontiers of each and every nation should be clearly fixed, the principles underlying the relations of governments towards one another definitely laid down, and all international agreements and obligations ascertained. In like manner, the size of the armaments of every government should be strictly limited, for if the preparations for war and the military forces of any nation should be allowed to increase, they will arouse the suspicion of others. The fundamental principle underlying this solemn Pact should be so fixed that if any government later violate any one of its provisions, all the governments on earth should arise to reduce it to utter submission, nay the human race as a whole should resolve, with every power at its disposal, to destroy that government. Should this greatest of all remedies be applied to the sick body of the world, it will assuredly recover from its ills and will remain eternally safe and secure.
(`Abdu'l-Baha: Secret of Divine Civilization, p. 64-65)

Regards Tony

 

[danieldemol]

You know what was offered does not say that Daniel, in fact the writings offered we will need an international army to ensure that any Nation does not arise against any other Nation.

What was offered by whom Tony? What was offered by @Truthseeker is that those armies would be done away with at the most great peace in my view.

I suspect what you are saying - that there will be an international military in the Baha'i most great peace - more accurately reflects the writings, however you can't have your cake and eat it. Either Baha'u'llah will leave us defenceless or Isaiah was a false prophet. I dont see a third option in my view.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

What was offered by whom Tony? What was offered by @Truthseeker is that those armies would be done away with at the most great peace in my view.

I suspect what you are saying - that there will be an international military in the Baha'i most great peace - more accurately reflects the writings, however you can't have your cake and eat it. Either Baha'u'llah will leave us defenceless or Isaiah was a false prophet. I dont see a third option in my view.

The third option is always the one you currently dancing around Daniel, that the promises are fulfilled, being fulfilled and will be fulfilled, and the most great peace will come.

That is the option I see and it is a magnificent future instore for humanity. Even if the current age is intent on destroying any hope there is of this wonderful future. We can give hope to the future generations that they can build the Lesser Peace,the foundations of that most great peace.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

I suspect what you are saying - that there will be an international military in the Baha'i most great peace - more accurately reflects the writings, however you can't have your cake and eat it. Either Baha'u'llah will leave us defenceless or Isaiah was a false prophet. I dont see a third option in my view.

The third option is that you might have misunderstood the meaning of those verses in Isaiah and/or misunderstood the meaning of what Baha'u'lalh wrote.

 

[danieldemol]

The third option is that you might have misunderstood the meaning of those verses in Isaiah and/or misunderstood the meaning of what Baha'u'lalh wrote.

That's a pretty big "might" which if I were a betting man I would bet you can't demonstrate in my view.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's a pretty big "might" which if I were a betting man I would bet you can't demonstrate in my view.

It is not a big might since there is no reason to think you have interpreted Isaiah or the Baha'i Writings correctly.
But of course I cannot demonstrate that...
Likewise, you cannot demonstrate that you have interpreted Isaiah or the Baha'i Writings correctly.