Resurrection of Christ - What's the evidence for and against a literal resurrection

[CG Didymus]

CG Didymus said: Christians cling to believing the NT is the truth. Baha'is don't. Baha'is say things in it aren't authentic and some things reported as actual events aren't true and need to be taken as symbolic only.

Rough Beast Sloucher said: Why take them at all? With few exceptions, the writers intended what they wrote to be taken literally. IMO much of it is invented, but not symbolic, which would defeat the purpose of writing. In particular, the Gospel writers went to considerable lengths to stress that the resurrection of Jesus was an actual bodily resurrection, without which the promise of a future resurrection and judgment cannot be relied on. And without that there is no reason not to live just for today. Read 1 Corinthians 15.

The future resurrection of physical bodies from graves and judgment by Jesus is a fabricated fantasy based upon a gross misinterpretation of the New Testament. Where in the New Testament it all went wrong I cannot say, but wrong it is, terribly wrong.

1 Corinthians 15:12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

This is all about spiritual death, not physical death. Bodies once dead do not rise from graves. Souls then leave the body and rise to heaven and take on a spiritual body comprised of heavenly elements in that spiritual realm. They then continue to exist for eternity. The souls who are spiritually alive go to heaven the ones who are spiritually dead go to.... well, I do not know where they go, but they still have a chance to get close to God by reaching out to God, by the mercy of God and the prayers of others. There is no guarantee, and that is why it is best to get close to God before we die.

John 3:16: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

1 John 5:13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.

John 3:5-7 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Where did Jesus EVER talk about rising from the grave? Jesus said to let the dead bury their dead. Being born of the spirit has nothing to do with the body. It means spiritual rebirth, exactly the same thing that Baha’u’llah wrote about:

“Incline your ears to the sweet melody of this Prisoner. Arise, and lift up your voices, that haply they that are fast asleep may be awakened. Say: O ye who are as dead! The Hand of Divine bounty proffereth unto you the Water of Life. Hasten and drink your fill. Whoso hath been re-born in this Day, shall never die; whoso remainethdead, shall never live.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 213

How can anyone possibly believe this refers to the death of a physical body?

In 1 Corinthians 15, that Jesus was raised up means His spirit was resurrected, brought back to life. If Christ’s spirit was not brought back to life, then your faith would be in vain and you would still be in your sins. “22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” means that all shall be made spiritually alive, not physically rise and be alive in bodies. That does not mean Jesus’ soul (spirit) was brought back to life, it means that the Cause of Christ (what He taught and represented) were brought back to life after three days... Had it NOT been brought back to life you would still be in your sins because it was the Cause of Christ that needed to be brought back to life in order to save people from their sins... People needed to get the Gospel message that Jesus taught and the disciples needed to carry that far and wide. Their faith in Jesus needed to be renewed (resurrected).

In 1 Corinthians 15:12-22, Paul was referring to a spiritual resurrection. That Jesus was raised up means His spirit was resurrected, brought back to life. If Christ’s spirit was not brought back to life, then your faith would be in vain and you would still be in your sins. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive means that all shall be made spiritually alive, not physically rise and be alive in bodies.

16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: and 3 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: refer to the resurrection those who would have otherwise been spiritually dead if the Cause of Christ had not been resurrected; this has nothing to do with physical bodies rising from graves.
not to anyone rising from graves.

What I said in no way negates the cross sacrifice as saving humanity from its sins. The physical resurrection was in no way necessary to save people from their sins. The cross sacrifice and the teachings of Jesus accomplished that.

The only reason Christians have to believe in the resurrection is so they can believe in the ascension and so they can continue to cling to the idea that Jesus us alive in a glorified physical body and so they can continue to cling to the idea that Jesus will return from heaven someday. They also believe that they will rise from their graves and get a new glorified physical body when Jesus returns. This belief is completely untenable for anyone who has any ability to reason. Dead bodies do not rise from graves. Souls leave the body and go to the spiritual world where they take on another forum that best suits the spiritual progress they have made in this world. The mere fact that this is not something we can understand except in words we use to describe it does not mean it is not the truth. The spiritual world is too different from this world for us to understand now. Sure, people can understand having the same physical body that is glorified and they actually want to continue to eat and drink and have sex on earth for eternity.

Why would anyone even want that? I would rather be an atheist and believe I have no afterlife at all. No, we did not live through all the suffering in this mortal world just to be restored back to life and start all over again with a physical body. In eastern traditions that is reincarnation and it is punishment, returning to earth to learn more lessons so one can eventually be worthy of being in the spiritual world and not have to come back here. In Baha’i, we never come back here, our soul continues on our spiritual journey in the spiritual world. It is too bad that was not spelled out in the Bible as it is in the Baha’i Writings, but it is implied. God did not want it spelled out until now because people were not ready to hear it so plainly because they were not spiritually mature enough to understand.

Rising and having a physical body and doing physical things is the polar opposite of what Jesus taught, but of course the teachings of Jesus went straight out the window when the church misinterpreted the Bible and created false doctrines. Whether Paul actually believed a body would rise from the graves we cannot know for certain ,but from what I have read elsewhere that Paul never mentioned the empty tomb, the visit by a woman or women, the stone, the angel/angels/man/men at the tomb, and reunion of Jesus with his followers in his resuscitated body. Rather, he believed that Jesus was taken up into heaven in a spirit body. It was only later, when the four canonic Gospels were written, that the Christians believed that Jesus rose from the grave. Why is this?

“According to the Bahá’í teaching the Resurrection has nothing to do with the gross physical body. That body, once dead, is done with. It becomes decomposed and its atoms will never be recomposed into the same body.

Resurrection is the birth of the individual to spiritual life, through the gift of the Holy Spirit bestowed through the Manifestation of God. The grave from which he arises is the grave of ignorance and negligence of God. The sleep from which he awakens is the dormant spiritual condition in which many await the dawn of the Day of God. This dawn illumines all who have lived on the face of the earth, whether they are in the body or out of the body, but those who are spiritually blind cannot perceive it. The Day of Resurrection is not a day of twenty-four hours, but an era which has now begun and will last as long as the present world cycle continues. It will continue when all traces of the present civilization will have been wiped off the surface of the globe.” Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 222

That's swell, but it is not what most Christians believe is what the NT teaches. And one of my main complaints is, if the Baha'i pov is true, then Christianity never had and never taught the truth. They made up things that got written into their "Holy" book and then added more made up things trying to interpret the NT. No hell. No devil. No sin nature inherited from Adam. And, no resurrection. So what was the purpose of Jesus? We don't know for sure if anything in the NT is the truth. And, if it isn't necessarily true, what good is symbolic meanings to questionable events that probably never took place and are only myth and legend? Yet, Baha'is keep saying it is the Word of God? Why?

 

[CG Didymus]

I have no idea what the writer intended it to mean and I don’t care. I do not want it to mean anything because it does not matter to me what it means. I have my own religion and I know what happened to Jesus.

Who cares about what the writers intended? We can never know the answer to that question. All we have are words on a page and different people interpret them differently.

There is nothing about a body in those verses. The Essence of Jesus was not His body, it was His Spirit (soul). That a physical body ascended into the sky was just assumed because of other false assumptions that been made before that. One false assumption led to another till finally we have an entire religion based false upon assumptions. The Christian understanding of the NT is such a mess it took a new revelation from God to straighten it out.

This same Jesus does not refer to the body of Jesus. The disciples were staring up into the sky. The two men dressed in white (angels) came along and asked why they were staring up into the sky. The two men then wondered why the disciples were staring up into the sky and said that the same Jesus who was taken up to heaven will return as he went to heaven. It does not say that the disciple saw a body go up. That was just assumed because of previous false assumptions.

It was the Christ Spirit that ascended, not a body, which is why the angels wondered why the disciples were staring into the sky, since there was nothing to look at. That makes perfect sense since angels can see spirits. Descending from heaven upon the clouds means that the spirit of Jesus, the Christ Spirit, will be made manifest from the heaven of the will of God and will appear in the form of the human temple. Though delivered from the womb of Mary, Jesus in reality descended from the heaven of the will of God, so Baha’u’llah descended in like manner, from the heaven of the will of God.

So, is the purpose of the book and what the writer intended more important than what really happened?

What the writer said happened did not mention a body. Christians just assume it refers to a body because they are fixated on bodies when in reality Jesus never said the body was important, He said that the spirit is what matters; does anyone care what Jesus said, or do they just care what some Bible writers said in Acts?

John 3:6-7 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again

Just because appears early that does not mean it is correct. Even if Jesus did resurrect bodily, that would have been a miracle of God but that does not mean that bodies of all Christians are going to rise from graves when Jesus returns.

The assumptions that were made about what Corinthians means are ridiculous. Bodies do not rise from graves en masse. Only Christians believe such nonsense. That is one reason Christianity is no longer believable to many people and people are becoming nonbelievers. This is the age of reason. Science and religion need to be in harmony or religion is mere superstition.

Regarding 1 Corinthians 15 you can read what I just posted to CG Didymus.

Yet, Baha'is use those words on the page to prove their guy fulfilled all the prophecies. Without those words... who is Baha'u'llah? Nobody. There is no "progressive" revelation. All previous religions are "mere superstition". So much for the "oneness" of religion. And why bother quoting all those meaningless words? And still Tony keeps posting Baha'i quotes on how much Baha'is love and believe in the Bible? If it's myth and superstition Baha'is have to be more honest and just say so straight out. When Baha'is go talk to Christians, just tell them straight out without hesitation that their religion is dead just like their prophet Jesus... there is only one true religion and it's called the Baha'i Faith.

 

[CG Didymus]

I see you have both chosen to wait. This is a good read in you spare time - Christ and Baha'u'llah

If you are in North Queensland Gulf Country Australia one day, call in for a coffee and snack.

Stay well and Happy, Regards Tony

I've known about the Baha'i Faith since 1970. I've seen small, almost dead, Baha'i communities. I've gone with Baha'is on their "mass teaching" trips to try and make new converts. That's nearly fifty years now. What is happening? Are Baha'is changing the world or is the world changing in spite of the Baha'is? In the U.S. we have a problem with mass shootings. Are Baha'is at the forefront of the rallies to ban weapons? The President is threatening to nuke countries. Are Baha'is at the forefront of doing something to prevent this? Where are they? How many Baha'is are here on this forum trying to spread the message of love and peace and unity? What are the rest doing? Waiting? They've decided to wait? The end will come regardless of what they do, so they go to feasts and firesides and think they are doing well? Is the Baha'i Faith here to change the world or sit and wait?

 

[CG Didymus]

1559. Bahá’u’lláh was a Descendent of Abraham Through Both Katurah and Sarah—Jesse, Son of Sarah, was the Father of David and Ancestor of Bahá’u’lláh

"Regarding your question concerning the Jesse from whom Bahá’u’lláh is descended: The Master says in 'Some Answered Questions', referring to Isaiah, chapter 11, verses 1 to 10, that these verses apply 'Word for word to Bahá’u’lláh'. He then identifies this Jesse as the father of David in the following words: '…for Joseph was of the descendants of Jesse the father of David…', thus identifying the Jesse of Isaiah, chapter 11, with being the father of David. Bahá’u’lláh is thus the descendant of Jesse, the father of David.

"The Guardian hopes that this will clarify the matter for you. It is a tremendous and fascinating theme, Bahá’u’lláh's connection with the Faith of Judaism, and one which possesses great interest to Jew and Christian alike." (From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, July 11, 1942)

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

No, Baha’u’llah did not come through Ishmael:

“Aside from this, certain families and lineages have been singled out for a special blessing. Thus the descendants of Abraham received the special blessing that all the Prophets of the House of Israel were raised up from among their ranks. This is a blessing that God bestowed upon that lineage. Moses, through both His father and His mother; Christ, through His mother; Muhammad; the Báb; and all the Prophets and Holy Ones of Israel belong to that lineage. Bahá’u’lláh too is a lineal descendant of Abraham, for Abraham had other sons besides Ishmael and Isaac who in those days emigrated to the regions of Persia and Afghanistan, and the Blessed Beauty is one of their descendants.” Some Answered Questions

This passage clearly states that Baha’u’llah descended from Abraham via another son than Ishmael or Isaac. Since Ishmael and Isaac were Abraham’s only children by Hagar and Sarah, this leaves Keturah, the third wife of Abraham, as the mother of his other sons, as can be seen on this genealogy chart: Genealogy of The Báb and Bahá'u'lláh

I thought someone said something about Baha'u'llah being a descendant of David too? How about Noah and Adam? Is he descended from these probable fictional characters also?

 

[CG Didymus]

That is not true since the OT is about Moses, not Jesus. The NT is about Jesus, not Baha’u’llah.
However, Jesus was prophesied in the OT and Baha’u’llah was prophesied in the OT and NT.

I never inserted anything Baha’u’llah wrote into the Bible.

I am sorry but that is not true. John 14:26 is about Baha’u’llah, it is not about Jesus, since Baha’u’llah is the Comforter that the Father sent in the name of Jesus.

There is more than one Comforter. Jesus was one Comforter, and Baha’u’llah was another Comforter.

In context, who is the comforter? Hmmm? Oh wait, the very next line tells us... and it is not Baha'u'llah. But I know, I know, Baha'i writings says he is the comforter, so therefore, he is.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's swell, but it is not what most Christians believe is what the NT teaches. And one of my main complaints is, if the Baha'i pov is true, then Christianity never had and never taught the truth. They made up things that got written into their "Holy" book and then added more made up things trying to interpret the NT. No hell. No devil. No sin nature inherited from Adam. And, no resurrection.

One of my main complaints is when people (mostly Christians) say “Christians believe in what the NT teaches” when in fact it does not teach what they believe it teaches, not according to that chapter I posted you from the book entitled Christ and Baha’u’llah. From the back cover of the book:

“For centuries the return of Christ has been a central theme of Christian hope, and is associated with the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth. Could it be that the confusion and stress, the oppression and darkness of our day—a day which has witnessed the return of the Jews to the Holy Land—are the fulfillment of all the signs and portents which Christ gave to his followers?

The author of this book certainly believes it is so, George Townshend, a dignitary of the Anglican Church in Ireland and a Canon of St. Patrick’s Cathedral, Dublin, resigned his Orders after forty years to proclaim his conviction that Christ has come again to an unheeding world in the person of Baha’u’llah, Founder of the Baha’i Faith.”

Clearly, Bible interpretation of the Church that is not what Jesus taught. Townshend wrote another book called The Heart of the Gospel that explains that and many other things. That book just happens to be online: Heart of the Gospel

So clearly, Christianity never had and never taught the truth. Of course Christians are going to deny this, but that is the Baha’i belief.

So what was the purpose of Jesus? We don't know for sure if anything in the NT is the truth. And, if it isn't necessarily true, what good is symbolic meanings to questionable events that probably never took place and are only myth and legend? Yet, Baha'is keep saying it is the Word of God? Why?

What Jesus said in His parables is the truth. There is a lot of other truth intermixed in the NT, but as Rough Beast Sloucher said “This is a story with a purpose” meaning that the gospel writers had an agenda. That does not sound completely honest to me.

I think I already explained the “official” position of the Baha’i Faith as per Word of God, but here it is again.

From letters written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice:

In studying the Bible Bahá'ís must bear two principles in mind. The first is that many passages in Sacred Scriptures are intended to be taken metaphorically, not literally, and some of the paradoxes and apparent contradictions which appear are intended to indicate this. The second is the fact that the text of the early Scriptures, such as the Bible, is not wholly authentic.
(28 May 1984 to an individual believer)

...The Bahá'ís believe that God's Revelation is under His care and protection and that the essence, or essential elements, of what His Manifestations intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in Their Holy Books. However, as the sayings of the ancient Prophets were written down some time later, we cannot categorically state, as we do in the case of the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, that the words and phrases attributed to Them are Their exact words.
(9 August 1984 to an individual believer)
The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments

The essence, or essential elements, of what His Manifestations intended to convey is the Word of God. BY CONTRAST, The stories of the resurrection and the ascension are not the essence, or essential elements, of what Jesus intended to convey. They are in effect embellishments, NOT what Jesus intended to convey, but rather what the gospel writers who had an agenda intended to convey.

Any of the moral precepts of Jesus such as love your neighbor, turn the other cheek, be humble, love God and not mammon, deny self, etc. are the essential elements...Those got completely submerged under the stories of the resurrection and ascension and return of Jesus... Whenever I think about it I get so angry.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yet, Baha'is use those words on the page to prove their guy fulfilled all the prophecies. Without those words... who is Baha'u'llah? Nobody. There is no "progressive" revelation. All previous religions are "mere superstition". So much for the "oneness" of religion. And why bother quoting all those meaningless words?

As I keep telling my Christian friend on another forum ---

He said.... They never will fit but if you want them both to be the Word of God then they should agree. And since Baha'i get's it's legitimacy from the Bible and the writings of other scriptures, if it's writings disagree with other scriptures, Baha'i has no legitimacy.

I said.... Baha’i does not get its legitimacy from any place other than the Writings of Baha’u’llah since that is what the religion is based upon.

Who is Baha’u’llah? Baha’u’llah IS who He is, logically speaking... Here is the proof, in case you missed this post to Siti:

We do not need the Bible to prove who Baha’u’llah -- the Greatest Messenger of God who ever lived -- is.

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.” Gleanings, pp. 105-106

People can take it or leave it. Baha’u’llah did not care. What He did was wholly for the sake of God, not for Himself.

Sure, Baha’u’llah fulfilled the prophecies in the Bible and prophecies of all the other religions, but that is a side-note to who he was as a Person, what He did on His mission, and what He wrote!

I had never read one page from the Bible before I became a Baha’i... It was just drop dead obvious that the Baha’i Faith was true, not just because of Baha’u’llah, but because of everything else in the Baha’i Faith... It is just a no-brainer, and I was only 17... I have never questioned it since and now that I know more and have read more of what Baha’u’llah wrote my faith is just firmer. It is 100%, not a belief, but I know. What others believe is their own business.

And still Tony keeps posting Baha'i quotes on how much Baha'is love and believe in the Bible? If it's myth and superstition Baha'is have to be more honest and just say so straight out. When Baha'is go talk to Christians, just tell them straight out without hesitation that their religion is dead just like their prophet Jesus... there is only one true religion and it's called the Baha'i Faith.

Many of the stories in the Bible are myth but the parables of Jesus are Truth. I am very honest about how I feel about the Bible as you have seen. I do not speak for any other Baha’is and I am not responsible for what they say. Some Baha’is have a sentimental attachment to the Bible, maybe because they used to be Christians, I do not know... But as a Christian on The Holy Trinity forum said to me a long time ago, Christianity is incompatible with the Baha’i Faith, so why pretend? There was a Baha’i there pretending to believe we believe the same things as Christians do, that was dishonest.

Christianity is on its way out, it is dying and it will die eventually, but Jesus lives on in heaven just as Baha’u’llah lives on in heaven, and both are at the Right Hand of God.

 

[Trailblazer]

In context, who is the comforter? Hmmm? Oh wait, the very next line tells us... and it is not Baha'u'llah. But I know, I know, Baha'i writings says he is the comforter, so therefore, he is.

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

The Comforter was the Holy Spirit that the Father sent to Baha'u'llah and Baha'u'llah brought the Holy Spirit to humanity. Baha'u'llah taught all things and brought all things that Jesus said to our remembrance.

P.S. The Muslims read the same Bible and they claim that Muhammad was the Comforter... and He was.
The Comforter is not the Holy Spirit that lives inside of Christians. The Christians are wrong, period.

 

[Trailblazer]

I thought someone said something about Baha'u'llah being a descendant of David too? How about Noah and Adam? Is he descended from these probable fictional characters also?

Noah and Adam were not fictional. No, I do not think that Baha'u'llah was descended from them, but I am no genealogist

 

[12jtartar]

Many Christians believe Jesus was crucified and literally rose from the dead. An empty tomb and the appearance of Jesus before many as recorded in the gospels are cited as irrefutable proofs by conservative Christians.

Dr Bart Ehrhart, Christian and biblical scholar has argued:

'Even if we want to believe in the resurrection of Jesus, that belief is a theological belief. You can’t prove the resurrection. It’s not susceptible to historical evidence. It’s faith. Believers believe it and take it on faith, and history cannot prove it.'

Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? The Craig-Ehrman Debate | Reasonable Faith

The resurrection as part of an allegorical narrative assists us understand the eternal nature of the soul and the power of Christ's Teachings to bestow new spiritual upon those who follow Him.

So did Christ really rise from the dead and what's the evidence He did? Is there evidence to support He didn't?

With all due respect to my Christian brothers and sisters, why is Christ's Resurrection so fundamental to Christian belief?

adrian009,
There is proof, Positive!!! According to Historians, there is more proof that Jesus lived on earth than there is that Abraham Lincoln lived on earth. More has been written about Jesus, and by very reliable witnesses.
Any person who calls himself a Christian is certain of Jesus’ resurrection, because they believe that the Bible is God’s word, and is true, John 17:17. Jesus said that God’s word is true. The Bible says that God cannot lie, Titus 1:2, Hebrews 6:18.
So, the whole question is; is God’s word true as the Bible says?
Consider the things written in the Bible, that could not have been known by anyone on earth, Job 26:7, tells us that God hanged the earth on nothing. At that time, all anyone except Moses, who was given the knowledge from God knew, were all kinds of silly myths, that we all have heard of. Then Job 26:10 mentions that the earth was round. Isaiah 40:22, says that God sits above the circle of the earth. No human knew that the earth was circular, as it sure seemed to men that it was flat.
Another thing to think about, The Mosaic Law Covenant given by God. In the Bible was written many vital rules that were about hygiene, and cleanliness, that no one knew about, that would have saved the lives of His Witnesses, Isaiah 43:10-12. The rule about not eating foods, such as pork, saved countless lives, because in the area of heat the Israelites lived in. A simple thing too was knowledge about animals, such as the Hare, which the Bible says chewed the cud. All down through history people argued against the Bible’s words, until the middle of the 19th century, it was finally found that the hare does chew the cud, in a very unusual way.
How can anyone read the Bible prophecies of the Bible and not recognize that only God can tell unerringly what will happen in the future. There are many prophecies that came true exactly on the time God said, some hundreds, even thousands of years after being written in God’s word. One great prophecy was written by Daniel was about the second Coming on The Christ as King of The Messianic Kingdom, Daniel 4:10-26. That prophecy was 2,520 long, and it came true exactly as fortold. Another prophecy in Daniel was about the first coming of the Messiah, Christ, which amounted to 483 years, and was so accurate, that the people were looking for the Messiah, and John the Baptist came preaching just before Jesus came, and the people understood the prophecy, and thought John was the Messiah, Luke 3:15-17. Jesus came in the same year, but 6Months later than John.
Then there was Cyrus the Great, that was mentioned by God 200 years before he became King and fulfilled a remarkable prophecy about conquering the Ancient Kingdom of Babylon and then letting the Israelites go free to return to their home in Jerusalem, all recorded by Isaiah hundreds of years in advance. At that time everyone thought that Babylon could not possible be conquered because of it’s huge walls gates and rivers around the Kingdom, Isaiah 44:24-45:13. Almost the whole book of Daniel is prophecy. Who, but God have told Isaiah these things and then caused it to come true exactly as written so far in advance?
Anyone who has researched the Bible can see that it could only be written by a superior mind, who has given His worshipers information that no human could know. Think about it, the Bible was written over a period of 1,600 years, by about 40 writers, all writing about, in one way or another, The Kingdom, Called the Golden Thread, winding throughout the Bible.
Think too, about the Bible, being tried to be destroyed, tried to be kept in Latin language, and tried to be corrupted, but just as God promised, He has protected His words from all generations, Psalms 12:6,7, Isaiah 40:8, 1Peter 1:25, John 17:17.
There is no doubt the Bible being accurate, so all the things written about Jesus are true, especially his resurrection, which is one of the most important things written in the Scriptures concerning the future of mankind, 1Corrinthians 15:1-23, Acts 17:29-31. Agape!!!

 

[siti]

The fact that Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi wrote some things about who Baha’u’llah was descended from does not imply that they thought it was remarkable or that it was proof of Baha’u’llah

OK - unpacking that, you're saying that the fact that they remarked on it does not imply it was remarkable...??? More Baha'i double speak methinks. And if Baha'u'llah's genealogy is irrelevant why did they - Abdu'l and Shoghi - and you and Tony more recently, bring it up at all? Here's why - because you (and they) were hoping that some gullible individuals would just accept it without question - as proof of Baha'u'llah's Messianic pedigree. And then if someone does happen to challenge the idea you can always fall back on the old "Baha'u'llah never said that" gambit followed by a lengthy quotation or two that are entirely irrelevant to the subject under discussion to distract attention from your disingenuous claims. Not working on me and I will keep on calling you on it if you keep on employing this dishonest debating tactic.

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: The fact that Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi wrote some things about who Baha’u’llah was descended from does not imply that they thought it was remarkable or that it was proof of Baha’u’llah.

Situ said: OK - unpacking that, you're saying that the fact that they remarked on it does not imply it was remarkable...???

More Baha'i double speak methinks. And if Baha'u'llah's genealogy is irrelevant why did they - Abdu'l and Shoghi - and you and Tony more recently, bring it up at all?

Simply put, Abdu’l-Baha wrote about it because it was one of his jobs to explain things about Baha’u’llah... Shoghi Effendi wrote about it because people asked him about it; Baha’is asked because as Baha’is they were either curious or they thought it was something they should know.

About five times I have explained on this thread why I brought up the genealogy.

In short, I only bring up genealogy when Christians bring up genealogy in the context that Baha’u’llah cannot be the Messiah because he was not descended from David... I am sure glad I finally got that all squared away and now I will know next time a Christian tells me that. You can take what I say at face value or think you know better. I have no ulterior motives and I do not lie.

Here's why - because you (and they) were hoping that some gullible individuals would just accept it without question - as proof of Baha'u'llah's Messianic pedigree.

That shows how little you know about me. I certainly do not expect that. This is all about Jesus vs. Baha’u’llah being the Messiah so it is really a Christian vs. Baha’i issue, not sure how others got involved...

And then if someone does happen to challenge the idea you can always fall back on the old "Baha'u'llah never said that" gambit followed by a lengthy quotation or two that are entirely irrelevant to the subject under discussion to distract attention from your disingenuous claims. Not working on me and I will keep on calling you on it if you keep on employing this dishonest debating tactic.

I have no disingenuous claims as I am not disingenuous... I have lots of faults but dishonesty is not one of them... Whenever you want to call me out feel free, and I will respond honestly.

Whatever I say about the Baha’i Faith I can back up with evidence but if you know something I don’t I am always willing to look at it. Just be prepared to back it up with evidence, not just a personal opinion.

On another forum, I was the only Baha’i. Other Baha’is knew about that forum but no other Baha’is were willing to take all the flak from what were mostly nonbelievers who did not like the idea of Messengers of God, so obviously they did not like the Baha’i Faith. I lasted four years and I finally left that forum for other reasons. After what I have been through, I can take any flak you can dish out.

 

[siti]

Simply put, Abdu’l-Baha wrote about it because it was one of his jobs to explain things about Baha’u’llah... Shoghi Effendi wrote about it because people asked him about it; Baha’is asked because as Baha’is they were either curious or they thought it was something they should know.

OK so unpacking again...Abdu'l Baha wrote about an irrelevant, unremarkable and unverifiable aspect of Baha'u'llah's genealogy because it was his job to make authoritative remarks about the relevance of unremarkable, irrelevant and unverifiable things about Baha'u'llah! Could he not simply have written something like "we have no idea whether Baha'u'llah was descended from Abraham or David and it makes no difference at all in any case because even if he was so was most everyone else in the middle east by the 18th century"? And Shoghi Effendi wrote about it because when asked he had no real idea so he just made something irrelevant, unremarkable and unverifiable up about it and remarked authoritatively on that. And you brought it up because you thought it was something you should know about - but when what you should know about it was explained to you you didn't like it because it was not what Abdu'l Baha, Shoghi Effendi etc. said so therefore it must be wrong but you don't know how to prove an unremarkable, irrelevant and unverifiable claim so at that point you changed the subject and started quoting Baha'u'llah's claims about revelation etc. because these are less prone to logical and reasonable refutation. That's about right isn't it?

Of course I don't expect you to agree - indeed you will quite likely be offended because you really don't know that you are doing this - but as an unbiased observer (and I am honestly) - this process is by some margin the most obvious feature of discussions with Baha'is. It is - as I may have noted elsewhere - very interesting from a psychological point of view.

 

[CG Didymus]

As I keep telling my Christian friend on another forum ---

He said.... They never will fit but if you want them both to be the Word of God then they should agree. And since Baha'i get's it's legitimacy from the Bible and the writings of other scriptures, if it's writings disagree with other scriptures, Baha'i has no legitimacy.

I said.... Baha’i does not get its legitimacy from any place other than the Writings of Baha’u’llah since that is what the religion is based upon.

Who is Baha’u’llah? Baha’u’llah IS who He is, logically speaking... Here is the proof, in case you missed this post to Siti:

We do not need the Bible to prove who Baha’u’llah -- the Greatest Messenger of God who ever lived -- is.

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.” Gleanings, pp. 105-106

People can take it or leave it. Baha’u’llah did not care. What He did was wholly for the sake of God, not for Himself.

Sure, Baha’u’llah fulfilled the prophecies in the Bible and prophecies of all the other religions, but that is a side-note to who he was as a Person, what He did on His mission, and what He wrote!

I had never read one page from the Bible before I became a Baha’i... It was just drop dead obvious that the Baha’i Faith was true, not just because of Baha’u’llah, but because of everything else in the Baha’i Faith... It is just a no-brainer, and I was only 17... I have never questioned it since and now that I know more and have read more of what Baha’u’llah wrote my faith is just firmer. It is 100%, not a belief, but I know. What others believe is their own business.

Many of the stories in the Bible are myth but the parables of Jesus are Truth. I am very honest about how I feel about the Bible as you have seen. I do not speak for any other Baha’is and I am not responsible for what they say. Some Baha’is have a sentimental attachment to the Bible, maybe because they used to be Christians, I do not know... But as a Christian on The Holy Trinity forum said to me a long time ago, Christianity is incompatible with the Baha’i Faith, so why pretend? There was a Baha’i there pretending to believe we believe the same things as Christians do, that was dishonest.

Christianity is on its way out, it is dying and it will die eventually, but Jesus lives on in heaven just as Baha’u’llah lives on in heaven, and both are at the Right Hand of God.

Here's a parable for you from Luke 16:19-31.

19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’

27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

30 “‘No, father Abraham," he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
​

I don't know all the verses that Christians use to come up with their belief in a hell, but this is probably one of them. And, it also has Jesus mentioning someone rising from the dead. I really don't think Christians misinterpreted everything. I think a lot of the beliefs are presented in the NT... like hell and the resurrection. In the case of the resurrection, I would much more easily believe that the writers made up the stories, rather than believing they wrote page after page of symbolic events that told of a spiritual resurrection.

Oh, and I did see something of superstition at a Baha'i meeting in San Diego. The speaker was talking about her teaching trip to an Indian village out in the desert. The road had gotten washed out, and she said she told the driver to back up and floor it. Supposedly the car flew 40 feet. Also, in the 70's. several Baha'i said that had visions of Abdu'l Baha. I expect this kind of stuff from Pentecostal Christians, but Baha's?

 

[Trailblazer]

OK so unpacking again...Abdu'l Baha wrote about an irrelevant, unremarkable and unverifiable aspect of Baha'u'llah's genealogy because it was his job to make authoritative remarks about the relevance of unremarkable, irrelevant and unverifiable things about Baha'u'llah!

OK, so unpacking again... First, whether it is irrelevant or remarkable is a subjective call, depending upon who is looking at it. It might matter to some people and not to others, for their own personal reasons. Second, I think it is verifiable that Baha’u’llah descended as Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi wrote. It is not necessary to know all the descendants to know that Baha’u’llah was the descendant of Jesse, the father of David, which is the ONLY relevant fact since this is about who could be the Messiah and sit on the throne of David (as per certain Bible verses). I am not saying that proves that Baha’u’llah was the Messiah, only that He cannot be ruled out, as Christians claim.

Could he not simply have written something like "we have no idea whether Baha'u'llah was descended from Abraham or David and it makes no difference at all in any case because even if he was so was most everyone else in the middle east by the 18th century"?

But it does make a difference because if it could be proven that Baha’u’llah was not descended from Abraham and David through Jesse, then Baha’u’llah could not be the Messiah, according to the Bible... Do you see why this is important?

And Shoghi Effendi wrote about it because when asked he had no real idea so he just made something irrelevant, unremarkable and unverifiable up about it and remarked authoritatively on that.

Can you prove that Shoghi Effendi just made that up? First off, you would have to prove that Abdu’l-Baha was wrong, since Shoghi Effendi was quoting Abdu’l-Baha. You would have to look at the Bible verses that Abdu’l-Baha referred to: 12: COMMENTARY ON THE ELEVENTH CHAPTER OF ISAIAH

And you brought it up because you thought it was something you should know about - but when what you should know about it was explained to you you didn't like it because it was not what Abdu'l Baha, Shoghi Effendi etc. said so therefore it must be wrong but you don't know how to prove an unremarkable, irrelevant and unverifiable claim so at that point you changed the subject and started quoting Baha'u'llah's claims about revelation etc. because these are less prone to logical and reasonable refutation. That's about right isn't it?

Why do you speak for me? No, that is not right. As I said over five times now, I only addressed genealogy because it came up because a Christian brought it up first.

Why talk in circles? It is unremarkable and irrelevant to you, but it is remarkable and relevant to anyone who wants to rule Baha’u’llah out as the Messiah.

Regarding unverifiable, can you prove that Abdu’l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi are wrong about Baha’u’llah descending from David through Jesse? Do Christians have any verifiable proof as to who Jesus descended from? In short, what proof do Christians have for Jesus that Baha’is do not have for Baha’u’llah? Christians have what the Bible says, that is all. Baha’is also have what the Bible says and we can trace the genealogy back to David. That is the ONLY relevant point here. Do you really think that Abdu’l-Baha would make stuff up, knowing that it could be later discovered he made it up and it would destroy the credibility of the Baha’i Faith? Think logically.

Of course I don't expect you to agree - indeed you will quite likely be offended because you really don't know that you are doing this - but as an unbiased observer (and I am honestly) - this process is by some margin the most obvious feature of discussions with Baha'is. It is - as I may have noted elsewhere - very interesting from a psychological point of view.

I am not doing what you say I am doing. I am doing what I say I am doing. That is very disrespectful to tell me what I am doing after I have already told you what I am doing. Why can’t you take what I say at face value? If you can’t, you are the one with the problem, because you think you know more about me than I know. What does that say about you? Do I tell you what you know, what your motives are?

The implication is that I do not know what I am doing, that I am unaware. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have been posting on these forums for five years and this is all I do in my free time. I know the Baha’i Faith and I know how to communicate with people. This is not just entertainment for me, it is serious business.

And yet, just like everyone else who comes down on the Baha’is, you cannot even answer my questions or even acknowledge what I said. You just keep saying you know what I am thinking and my motives but you cannot possibly know anything I don’t tell you. You just project your own thoughts onto what I say and thus it is not my thoughts, it is your thoughts, what you think I think. My thoughts are what I write, not what you write about me.

 

[Trailblazer]

Here's a parable for you from Luke 16:19-31.

19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’

27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

30 “‘No, father Abraham," he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
I don't know all the verses that Christians use to come up with their belief in a hell, but this is probably one of them. And, it also has Jesus mentioning someone rising from the dead. I really don't think Christians misinterpreted everything. I think a lot of the beliefs are presented in the NT... like hell and the resurrection. In the case of the resurrection, I would much more easily believe that the writers made up the stories, rather than believing they wrote page after page of symbolic events that told of a spiritual resurrection.

I am not even going to pretend to understand what those verses mean. Yes, it makes more sense that the writers who wrote the scriptures had an agenda, rather than that they believed in a spiritual resurrection. It does not mean that they outright lied, but maybe embellished what they saw. As I think I said before, if the Bible was inspired by God, the most important question is what God intended it to mean, not what the Bible writers intended it to mean. It could be that God inspired them to write what they wrote knowing that most Christians would interpret it literally, but also knowing that Baha'u'llah would come to straighten it out at the time of the end:

Daniel Chapter 12: 4But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased. 8 And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? 9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. 12Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.

The early Church fathers simply interpreted the Bible the way they did because they could not understand it. The "Book" was intended to be sealed up until the time of the end, the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days. Baha’is believe that the 2,300 years was up in 1844 and the book was unsealed. There is a starting point from which the waiting in Dan 12:12 began, so if one knows how to do the math, the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days comes out to the exact year the Bab came to announce the coming of Baha’u’llah. This and the math is explained by Abdu’l-Baha in Some Answered Questions, 10: TRADITIONAL PROOFS EXEMPLIFIED FROM THE BOOK OF DANIEL.

Does that mean that we can “know” what every verse in the Bible means? Certainly not... It means that we can know what we NEED to know, particularly about the Return of Christ and we can know the essence, or essential elements, of what His Manifestations intended to convey in Their Holy Books.... All the other details are not important to know.

Why God would allow people to believe these things for 2000 years I do not know. I can only say there is no way I will ever believe that bodies rose from graves or ascended into the sky. I will become an atheist before I believe that. Just because something is written in a book a certain way does not mean I am obliged to believe it. Thank God Bahaullah came to straighten it out.

Oh, and I did see something of superstition at a Baha'i meeting in San Diego. The speaker was talking about her teaching trip to an Indian village out in the desert. The road had gotten washed out, and she said she told the driver to back up and floor it. Supposedly the car flew 40 feet. Also, in the 70's. several Baha'i said that had visions of Abdu'l Baha. I expect this kind of stuff from Pentecostal Christians, but Baha's?

Why do you think that Baha’is cannot have visions or dreams? Some people are just more susceptible to those. I am not but my husband had a spiritual experience with Abdu’l-Baha when he went on his Pilgrimage in 1972 and then later in the 1980s.

 

[Neb]

"Regarding your question concerning the Jesse from whom Bahá’u’lláh is descended: The Master says in 'Some Answered Questions', referring to Isaiah, chapter 11, verses 1 to 10, that these verses apply 'Word for word to Bahá’u’lláh'. He then identifies this Jesse as the father of David in the following words: '…for Joseph was of the descendants of Jesse the father of David…', thus identifying the Jesse of Isaiah, chapter 11, with being the father of David. Bahá’u’lláh is thus the descendant of Jesse, the father of David." (From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, July 11, 1942)

No, what happened with the Holy Spirit in Acts chapter 2 is not connected to what Jesus said in John 14:26, and not connected to what Jesus said about the Comforter and the Spirit of truth in John 15 or 16. All those verses refer to Baha’u’llah and He did everything that Jesus said He would do. Referring to Jesus as the Son of Man, Baha’u’llah testified of Jesus and glorified Jesus in His Writings (see below).

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

John 16:13-14 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

John 16:8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

“Know thou that when the Son of Man yielded up His breath to God, the whole creation wept with a great weeping. By sacrificing Himself, however, a fresh capacity was infused into all created things. Its evidences, as witnessed in all the peoples of the earth, are now manifest before thee. The deepest wisdom which the sages have uttered, the profoundest learning which any mind hath unfolded, the arts which the ablest hands have produced, the influence exerted by the most potent of rulers, are but manifestations of the quickening power released by His transcendent, His all-pervasive, and resplendent Spirit.

We testify that when He came into the world, He shed the splendor of His glory upon all created things. Through Him the leper recovered from the leprosy of perversity and ignorance. Through Him, the unchaste and wayward were healed. Through His power, born of Almighty God, the eyes of the blind were opened, and the soul of the sinner sanctified.

Leprosy may be interpreted as any veil that interveneth between man and the recognition of the Lord, his God. Whoso alloweth himself to be shut out from Him is indeed a leper, who shall not be remembered in the Kingdom of God, the Mighty, the All-Praised. We bear witness that through the power of the Word of God every leper was cleansed, every sickness was healed, every human infirmity was banished. He it is Who purified the world. Blessed is the man who, with a face beaming with light, hath turned towards Him.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 85-86

NO! baha'u'llah was never in the bible or was never mentioned in the bible at all until you twisted the word of God so you could fit it into your speculative philosophy.

 

[Neb]

That is not true since the OT is about Moses, not Jesus. The NT is about Jesus, not Baha’u’llah.
However, Jesus was prophesied in the OT and Baha’u’llah was prophesied in the OT and NT.

No persian shi'ite was prophesied anywhere in the bible at all.

I never inserted anything Baha’u’llah wrote into the Bible.

"Baha’u’llah was prophesied in the OT and NT."

I am sorry but that is not true. John 14:26 is about Baha’u’llah, it is not about Jesus, since Baha’u’llah is the Comforter that the Father sent in the name of Jesus.

Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí Núrí, aka, Baha’u’llah, a Persian Shi'ite, came from Ishmael and NOT from Isaac. Never was in the bible unless you inserted it there to make it look like it belongs to the lineage of Christ.

There is more than one Comforter. Jesus was one Comforter, and Baha’u’llah was another Comforter.

Again, Not in the Bible. The word "another" in Greek is the same. Christ and baha'u'llah were never the same at all. Christ came from the lineage of Isaac while baha'u'llah came from Ishmael. Is this really hard to understand?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

No persian shi'ite was prophesied anywhere in the bible at all.

This is but one passage;

Ezekiel 43:4"The glory of the LORD entered the temple through the gate facing east.

Glory of the Lord is the English translation of Baha'u'llah.

Bab is the English translation of Gate.

Baha'u'llah came by the way of the Bab, from the East, Persia.

Fulfilled and taken from the Bible, no additions needed, just plain and simple understanding and acceptance, all that Christ has ever asked for.

Regards Tony

 

[Neb]

This is but one passage;

Ezekiel 43:4"The glory of the LORD entered the temple through the gate facing east.

This is about God's glory returning to the temple entering from the outer court or the east gate and NOT about baha'u'llah. Read this verse, Eze 43:5 "And the Spirit took me up, and brought me into the inner court; and, behold, the glory of Jehovah filled the house." "The inner court" of the temple is the Most Holy Place where God is.

Glory of the Lord is the English translation of Baha'u'llah.

Bab is the English translation of Gate.

You could name Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí Núrí, a Persian Shi'ite, as "MERCY" or “rahmah” in Arabic, and then argue that whenever one sees the word "Mercy/rahmah" in the bible then that's Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí Núrí in the bible or God was talking about Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí Núrí, a Persian Shi'ite, as "MERCY"/rahmah/allah’s messenger or one of God’s attributes.

Baha'u'llah came by the way of the Bab, from the East, Persia.

The temple or the tabernacle entrance is from the east, the outer court of the tabernacle, going west to the Most Holy Place and NOT Persia.

Fulfilled and taken from the Bible, no additions needed, just plain and simple understanding and acceptance, all that Christ has ever asked for.

NO! It was about the temple of God from the east gate into the inner room where God is. This verse is NOT about baha'u'llah.