Is Baha'u'llah true or false Prophet?

[danieldemol]

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.

All I have to do is show the words (which I already did in post #523 then explain them without changing their meaning "nor will they train for war anymore" simply means the natiions won't learn how to fight wars anymore demonstration over.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

All I have to do is show the words (which I already did in post #523 then explain them without changing their meaning "nor will they train for war anymore" simply means the natiions won't learn how to fight wars anymore demonstration over.

Train for war can mean, training for the intention of going to war. This will not be anymore in furure.
But having security forces does not necessarily mean there will be wars. It is like if you have a security force at a bank, you can prevent Rubbery.

 

[CG Didymus]

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.

Fifty years ago, when my friends and I were singing "Give peace a chance", we all thought disarming was a solution. Now I question the wisdom in that. I might have missed a response, but I haven't seen a good answer to that question... What's going to keep a nation, even the U.S., from hiding weapons? Will they all really trust the other nations to get rid of all their weapons?

But how can a Baha'i answer any of these types of questions. It hasn't happened, therefore there must be an alternative explanation as to why there is no peace.

Except, I think they do believe that a coming disaster will force the people of the world to come together and then look to the Baha'is and adopt their plan for a peaceful and united world. However, I thought the big disaster, the Tribulation, happens before the Messiah comes. But again, Baha'is don't worry much about details.

 

[danieldemol]

Train for war can mean, training for the intention of going to war. This will not be anymore in furure.
But having security forces does not necessarily mean there will be wars. It is like if you have a security force at a bank, you can prevent Rubbery.

It doesn't say train "for the intention" of going to war, you are just changing the meaning of the words of your God to suit your personal desires in my view.

ETA here are the US bank robbery statistics from 2021 alone - 1,724 robberies.
Source: Bank Crime Statistics 2021 | Federal Bureau of Investigation
So having bank security won't reduce robbery to zero. It is also unlikely that with humans in charge of a world government there would never be civil war between nation member states either in my view as it would only take one unfair ruling by an international court or a perceived unfair ruling. So nations forseeably could still train with intent to war anyway.

 

[Trailblazer]

All I have to do is show the words (which I already did in post #523 then explain them without changing their meaning "nor will they train for war anymore" simply means the nations won't learn how to fight wars anymore demonstration over.

I agree that "nor will they train for war anymore" simply means the nations won't learn how to fight wars anymore, but you need to read the entire verse in order to understand what it means.

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.

This part of the verse is all one thought that must be taken together.
: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

I agree with this interpretation that I found on the website below:

This will bring universal peace; there will be no need for weapons, and all military efforts will cease.
War will end, and nobody will prepare to go to war against anyone else.

However, as a Baha'i I do not agree that this is referring to Jesus Christ. I believe it refers to Baha'u'llah:

"This points forward to the reign of Christ as king on earth, something Isaiah will describe in greater detail (Isaiah 11:1–10). Some Christian traditions understand this future era to be the millennium while others believe Isaiah is describing Christ's eternal reign over the new heavens and the new earth. In every Christian tradition this is the longed-for moment when life on earth will be as it should be under the rule of Christ and the grace of God."

Jesus NEVER promised to return to earth or rule on earth. Jesus said that His work was finished here and he was no more in the world.
(John 14:19, John 17:11, John 17:4, John 19:30). The Christian belief that the man Jesus is going to return to earth is an excellent example of how Bible verses can and are misinterpreted to mean what they do not mean.

What does Isaiah 2:4 mean?

This often-quoted verse is part of Isaiah's description of the far future (Isaiah 2:2), when the most unimaginable events will occur. The God of Israel will become the God of all peoples on earth, both Jew and Gentile. Everyone will come to Jerusalem to learn from the Lord how to follow His ways (Isaiah 2:3). In addition to being God over the world, the Lord will also rule as the leader of the world from Jerusalem. This will bring universal peace; there will be no need for weapons, and all military efforts will cease.

Isaiah describes God's rule in this verse. The Lord will judge disputes between peoples and nations and bring absolute peace to the world. The Hebrew word for "judge" is the Hebrew term sōpetim', from the root word shaphat. This was used in the book of Judges, referring to people meant to restore order to Israel. This expression is translated into English as "judge," but carries a much broader meaning. The original word includes concepts such as vindication, vengeance, defense, rescue, and advocacy. The Lord will judge between the nations in the context that He will bring order to the earth.

Sword and spears will be converted into plows and pruning hooks. War will end, and nobody will prepare to go to war against anyone else. Isaiah describes the Jewish and, later, the Christian version of utopian peace on earth, a time believers are convinced will come to pass. This points forward to the reign of Christ as king on earth, something Isaiah will describe in greater detail (Isaiah 11:1–10). Some Christian traditions understand this future era to be the millennium while others believe Isaiah is describing Christ's eternal reign over the new heavens and the new earth. In every Christian tradition this is the longed-for moment when life on earth will be as it should be under the rule of Christ and the grace of God.

What does Isaiah 2:4 mean? | BibleRef.com

 

[Truthseeker]

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.

Whether he is saying that or not, and I don't believe he is, the international army is something proposed in the Writings for the Lesser Peace, not the Most Great Peace. You can see no armies in the Most Great Peace as being defenseless to a tyrant, but that's another matter that we don't believe will happen. You can see that way if you want, it doesn't affect me if you see it that way. I can understand why it looks that way to you.

When you challenge our understanding, you are benefitting us. Either you convince us of the error of being Baha'i, or you change our understanding of Baha'i for the better, or we demonstrate to those who watch the beneficial nature of out teachings. Maybe a combination thereof.

 

[Trailblazer]

It doesn't say train "for the intention" of going to war, you are just changing the meaning of the words of your God to suit your personal desires in my view.

But it does say: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, so that indicates that the 'intention' of the training is not for going to war.

 

[danieldemol]

I agree that "nor will they train for war anymore" simply means the nations won't learn how to fight wars anymore, but you need to read the entire verse in order to understand what it means.

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.

This part of the verse is all one thought that must be taken together.
: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

I agree with this interpretation that I found on the website below:

This will bring universal peace; there will be no need for weapons, and all military efforts will cease.
War will end, and nobody will prepare to go to war against anyone else.

However, as a Baha'i I do not agree that this is referring to Jesus Christ. I believe it refers to Baha'u'llah:

"This points forward to the reign of Christ as king on earth, something Isaiah will describe in greater detail (Isaiah 11:1–10). Some Christian traditions understand this future era to be the millennium while others believe Isaiah is describing Christ's eternal reign over the new heavens and the new earth. In every Christian tradition this is the longed-for moment when life on earth will be as it should be under the rule of Christ and the grace of God."

Jesus NEVER promised to return to earth or rule on earth. Jesus said that His work was finished here and he was no more in the world.
(John 14:19, John 17:11, John 17:4, John 19:30). The Christian belief that the man Jesus is going to return to earth is an excellent example of how Bible verses can and are misinterpreted to mean what they do not mean.

What does Isaiah 2:4 mean?

This often-quoted verse is part of Isaiah's description of the far future (Isaiah 2:2), when the most unimaginable events will occur. The God of Israel will become the God of all peoples on earth, both Jew and Gentile. Everyone will come to Jerusalem to learn from the Lord how to follow His ways (Isaiah 2:3). In addition to being God over the world, the Lord will also rule as the leader of the world from Jerusalem. This will bring universal peace; there will be no need for weapons, and all military efforts will cease.

Isaiah describes God's rule in this verse. The Lord will judge disputes between peoples and nations and bring absolute peace to the world. The Hebrew word for "judge" is the Hebrew term sōpetim', from the root word shaphat. This was used in the book of Judges, referring to people meant to restore order to Israel. This expression is translated into English as "judge," but carries a much broader meaning. The original word includes concepts such as vindication, vengeance, defense, rescue, and advocacy. The Lord will judge between the nations in the context that He will bring order to the earth.

Sword and spears will be converted into plows and pruning hooks. War will end, and nobody will prepare to go to war against anyone else. Isaiah describes the Jewish and, later, the Christian version of utopian peace on earth, a time believers are convinced will come to pass. This points forward to the reign of Christ as king on earth, something Isaiah will describe in greater detail (Isaiah 11:1–10). Some Christian traditions understand this future era to be the millennium while others believe Isaiah is describing Christ's eternal reign over the new heavens and the new earth. In every Christian tradition this is the longed-for moment when life on earth will be as it should be under the rule of Christ and the grace of God.

What does Isaiah 2:4 mean? | BibleRef.com

In the Christian version of Isaiah you have Jesus to magically defend people against any tyrant that arises though, in the Baha'i faith dependant on how the Bahai interpret Baha'u'llah's words you either have the peoples of the world left defenseless in the most great peace or under the defence of an international force. And I believe i've already outlined why either one is problematic.

 

[Trailblazer]

It doesn't say train "for the intention" of going to war, you are just changing the meaning of the words of your God to suit your personal desires in my view.

It doesn't say train "for the intention" of going to war, so if you believe that is what the verse means you are just adding to the Bible.

 

[Truthseeker]

rain for war can mean, training for the intention of going to war. This will not be anymore in furure.
But having security forces does not necessarily mean there will be wars. It is like if you have a security force at a bank, you can prevent Rubbery.

We are arguing about armies in the "Lesser Peace" which is unnecessary. There are armies that will train in the "Lesser Peace" though they may not fight. The "Most Great Peace" will not involve armies at all it appears to me, though there is no text saying that. If everybody accepts the oneness of mankind, the unity of mankind, there will be no reason for armies I reason. In the "Lesser Peace" the oneness of mankind will not embraced fully yet.

 

[danieldemol]

But it does say: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, so that indicates that the 'intention' of the training is not for going to war.

I guess you missed the edit to my post, here it is again:
'here are the US bank robbery statistics from 2021 alone - 1,724 robberies.
Source: Bank Crime Statistics 2021 | Federal Bureau of Investigation
So having bank security won't reduce robbery to zero. It is also unlikely that with humans in charge of a world government there would never be civil war between nation member states either in my view as it would only take one unfair ruling by an international court or a perceived unfair ruling. So nations forseeably could still train with intent to war anyway.'

 

[Trailblazer]

In the Christian version of Isaiah you have Jesus to magically defend people against any tyrant that arises though,

How much sense do you think that makes? How would Jesus do that? The Christian view is totally unrealistic. It is a fantasy.

in the Baha'i faith dependant on how the Bahai interpret Baha'u'llah's words you either have the peoples of the world left defenseless in the most great peace or under the defence of an international force. And I believe i've already outlined why either one is problematic.

Sorry, I was not following that part of the discussion. Can you explain in brief why you think that the peoples of the world left defenseless in the most great peace or under the defence of an international force?

 

[Truthseeker]

It doesn't say train "for the intention" of going to war, so if you believe that is what the verse means you are just adding to the Bible.

Why are you all arguing about armies in the Lesser Peace? It is unnecessary. If @danieldemol thinks no armies in the Most Great Peace is unrealistic, what's it to us?

 

[danieldemol]

We are arguing about armies in the "Lesser Peace" which is unnecessary. There are armies that will train in the "Lesser Peace" though they may not fight. The "Most Great Peace" will not involve armies at all it appears to me, though there is no text saying that. If everybody accepts the oneness of mankind, the unity of mankind, there will be no reason for armies I reason. In the "Lesser Peace" the oneness of mankind will not embraced fully yet.

The reason for armies is to maintain that unity. As I pointed out in an unarmed world it would only take a relatively small army to run tyranny over the majority of the world's peoples.

Unless and until scientists can develop treatment for psychopathy we will have new tyrants being born amongst us from time to time. Abdul-Baha refers to such people;

'Some people are like bloodthirsty wolves: if they see no punishment forthcoming, they will kill men merely for pleasure and diversion. One of the tyrants of Persia killed his tutor merely for the sake of making merry, for mere fun and sport. The famous Mutavakkil, the Abbasid, having summoned his ministers, councillors and functionaries to his presence, let loose a box full of scorpions in the assembly and forbade anyone to move. When the scorpions stung those present, he burst forth into boisterous laughter.'
Source: Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 268-272

So in your interpretation of the "most great peace" the world is left defenseless against such people as I see it.

 

[Trailblazer]

I guess you missed the edit to my post, here it is again:
'here are the US bank robbery statistics from 2021 alone - 1,724 robberies.
Source: Bank Crime Statistics 2021 | Federal Bureau of Investigation
So having bank security won't reduce robbery to zero. It is also unlikely that with humans in charge of a world government there would never be civil war between nation member states either in my view as it would only take one unfair ruling by an international court or a perceived unfair ruling. So nations forseeably could still train with intent to war anyway.'

I do not like to surmise about the future since there s NO WAY we can ever know what the world and its peoples will be like in the future.
Baha'u'llah laid out a plan, but there is no way we can know how that will be carried out.

No Baha'is, not even the UHJ, knows what will happen in the future. Only God knows because God is All-knowing so God has perfect foreknowledge of the future.

 

[danieldemol]

How much sense do you think that makes? How would Jesus do that? The Christian view is totally unrealistic. It is a fantasy.

That is post hoc rationalisation in my view. In a world where God magic is accepted as possible - eg the virgin birth, it is completely within the realm of magical possibilty for God to strike down the wolves of the earth as they appear.

Sorry, I was not following that part of the discussion. Can you explain in brief why you think that the peoples of the world left defenseless in the most great peace or under the defence of an international force?

I don't interpret the Baha'i "most great peace" as leaving people defenceless, but since there is nothing in the Baha'i writings that unambiguously states either way that there will or won't be an international force remaining in the Baha'i most great peace that i'm aware of I decided to be magnanimous and accept @Truthseeker interpretation as one possible interpretation alongside it's inverse interpretation.

As for why they would be left defenceless, without God's constant magical intervention and without a human security force see post #554

 

[Trailblazer]

We are arguing about armies in the "Lesser Peace" which is unnecessary. There are armies that will train in the "Lesser Peace" though they may not fight. The "Most Great Peace" will not involve armies at all it appears to me, though there is no text saying that. If everybody accepts the oneness of mankind, the unity of mankind, there will be no reason for armies I reason. In the "Lesser Peace" the oneness of mankind will not embraced fully yet.

I do not think that Baha'is know any of this. None of this is specified in the Baha'i Writings.
I think it is all conjecture based upon individual Baha'i interpretations of the Baha'i Writings.
This is no different from Christians who read the Bible and conjecture about what the future will be like.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why are you all arguing about armies in the Lesser Peace? It is unnecessary. If @danieldemol thinks no armies in the Most Great Peace is unrealistic, what's it to us?

I am not arguing about armies in the Lesser Peace.
See post #557

 

[Truthseeker]

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

That doesn't prove via Writings to me that the Most Great Peace will have no armies. Again, this is about the Lesser Peace. This describes before the oneness of mankind is firmly in the hearts of all of humanity.

Notice for instance in Baha'u'llah's description "preserving the security of their realms and of maintaining internal order." The description of to "reduce a country to utter submission" indicates arms being possibly used to maintain the Lesser Peace

 

[danieldemol]

I do not like to surmise about the future since there s NO WAY we can ever know what the world and its peoples will be like in the future.
Baha'u'llah laid out a plan, but there is no way we can know how that will be carried out.

No Baha'is, not even the UHJ, knows what will happen in the future. Only God knows because God is All-knowing so God has perfect foreknowledge of the future.

I agree that we don't positively know what will happen in the future, however I see it as reasonable to project trends based on past performance