In the Bhagavad-Gita Ch 9 verse 18 Lord Krishna says:
I am the Supreme Goal of all living beings, and I am also their Sustainer, Master, Witness, Abode, Shelter, and Friend. I am the Origin, End, and Resting Place of creation; I am the Storehouse and Eternal Seed.
In Ch 10 verse 32 He also says:
Of all creations I am the beginning and the end and also the middle, O Arjuna. Of all sciences I am the spiritual science of the Self, and among logicians I am the conclusive truth.
Centuries before Christ appeared Krishna had already made these claims. Christ’s Words are not unique nor confined to Himself only, as previous Avatars have uttered the same Words thousands of years earlier.
One way of understanding such a statement is if the sun said “I am the only sun which gives light”. But considering the days of the week, to conclude there are seven Suns would be incorrect because in reality it is the same sun reappearing each day.
As the people have not understood this, they have thus claimed that the Light of their Lord is the superior one when the light of all the Messengers in reality all emanates from the same one sun.
Usual problems... Who wrote the Bhagavad-Gita and who wrote the gospels? Was it the "manifestation" or people? If people when did they write it? Can we trust them to be quoting the manifestation accurately? Well, probably not... 'Cause with the Scriptures of one it talks about reincarnation and in the other it has Jesus resurrecting from the dead. So, only with verses that support Baha'i beliefs are quoted as "literal", while other verses, that contradict Baha'i beliefs, must have some other meaning.
Other problem... Jesus is made into being part of a Godhead by Christians. Krishna is an incarnation of the God Vishnu. Not all "avatars" are made into a God, or say they are Gods. But these others, the other people that Baha'is believe are "manifestations", didn't make the same kind of claims that Jesus and Krishna did.
The other problem is with the analogy. The sun is the same sun. But Krishna is not Jesus, and they didn't "shine" the same type of light. Their messages were way different. And with Krishna, there is an expectation and acceptance of other "suns" or avatars. With Christians, Jesus is it. Are they wrong? Lots of people think so. But, the biggest problem I have with Baha'is, is that they deny the Christian Jesus almost as much as an Atheist would. But then, they make up their own concept of a Jesus... that is not God, that didn't come back to life, that didn't die to pay some ransom or penalty, and that didn't conquer an evil spirit being named Satan and all the rest of the Christian mythology. But all that mythology is what Christianity is. Take that away and, like the Atheists, you've taken away and denied Christianity.
And that is fine with me. But why then make up your own version of Christianity? You don't need to answer that, I know why. It is to make the Baha'i Faith the "sun" for today and to make them true but the "sun" of yesterday... and no longer needed. But to fully get rid of them, all the contradictions have to be explained away. That means he is the "sun", but not the "sun" that is shining today. He was the "sun", but his follower misinterpreted and misunderstood his message... making "clouds" that blocked the light of that sun to shine. Fine, great, in a lot of ways I can see that and agree with you. But Baha'is also change things around that are clearly stated in the NT. So by the time Baha'is are done, nothing about Christianity remains true. And, like I said, that's fine with me. But then why call Christianity a true, "revealed" religion? What's true about it?