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

[Trailblazer]

Neb said: ↑
"For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven, with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first;" -1Thessalonians 4:16

"then we that are alive, that are left, shall together with them be caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." -1Thessalonians 4:17

It's very clear that on Christ 2nd coming, Christians will be “be caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air” -1Thessalonians 4:17

Hey, I just repeated those same verses. It clearly says the name Jesus verse 14. And it says the Lord himself is the one coming back. So, for me, it's either the truth or it's false. If it's false still puts the Baha'is in a bad position, because they would have to commit to even more of the NT that is wrong or symbolic... anything but true.

Where does it say Jesus in those verses? I do not see the name Jesus. I only see Christ.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well then, again, the Baha'i Faith doesn't "believe" what the Bible says. Genesis says that Adam was the first man. He was the beginning of human existence. To believe that is to believe the Bible. To contradict that is to say the Bible is inaccurate. Which I could easily believe. But I wouldn't at the same time be saying how I great it is, or how inspired it is. If it's not accurate it is religious myth. It may contain some useful spiritual wisdom, but it can't be taken as absolute truth. Again, which is fine with me. I could easily believe it was written by men who put together laws and rules and a historical tradition to make it sound like an invisible God had put it all together.

To believe that is to believe that the creation is only 6000 years old and that flies in the face of science, so I cannot believe it. Not all Christians even believe it. No, the Bible can't be taken as absolute truth if interpreted literally. The Bible was never intended to be interpreted literally, although some of it can be interpreted literally. it is our job to parse out which is which.

So now what do we do with the resurrection? Like I believe and you sort of agreed, the writers presented it as something that actually took place. When someone commits to being a Christian, they are somewhat obligated to believe in the Christian Bible as "God's Word" and the ultimate truth. There is no room for other "Holy" books. There is no room for other Messiahs other than Jesus. Their Scriptures and early Church leaders established that. I have always said that if the Baha'i Faith is correct, these Church leaders and the writings have misinformation in it and have been wrong from the beginning. To be more in line with a "Baha'i" progressive revelation kind of truth, they should have made it clear that prophets/manifestations from other religions also had the truth. But the NT doesn't do that. The Jewish Scriptures don't do that. All other "religions" and beliefs are presented as being false.

You are correct, because that is what God chose for them to believe until the time of the end. It is now the time of the end and the Book has been unsealed.

Daniel 12:4 But 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. 12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.

So now God wants people to know that all religions are One, part of the unfolding process of truth from God from age to age... But no, the Jews and Christians just hold fast to their interpretations of their scriptures, which are wrong, at least regarding the identity of the Messiah... so there is will be a sore torment that awaits them:

“As to those who deny Him Who is the Sublime Gate of God,” the Báb, for His part, has affirmed in the Qayyúm-i-Asmá, “for them We have prepared, as justly decreed by God, a sore torment. And He, God, is the Mighty, the Wise.” And further, “O peoples of the earth! I swear by your Lord! Ye shall act as former generations have acted. Warn ye, then, yourselves of the terrible, the most grievous vengeance of God. For God is, verily, potent over all things.” And again: “By My glory! I will make the infidels to taste, with the hands of My power, retributions unknown of anyone except Me, and will waft over the faithful those musk-scented breaths which I have nursed in the midmost heart of My throne.” The Promised Day Is Come, p. 4

The teachings of the Baha'i Faith make the NT untrustworthy and probably the whole of the Bible. There can be no such thing as the Christian belief in the physical resurrection of Jesus. So that makes the resurrection mythology. The NT should be seen as no better than Greek or Roman mythology. There is no proof of a resurrection, 'cause the only place it is mentioned is the NT... and we don't really believe in it do we. So anything good that Christians do isn't because they have the truth. It is because they have been fooled into "turning the other cheek", helping the poor and following 9 of the 10 Commandments, because they have wrongly put their trust in the NT and the Bible as being the truth... and have listened to their religious leaders.

But Baha'is don't take it to that extreme. They'll say how all religions are from God and all have the truth. They'll quote Baha'i verses that say how great the Bible is and how wonderful Jesus was. But then, at the same time, cut to pieces all the things Christians believe true about the Bible. The Baha'is say the resurrection story is symbolic? Symbolic of what? The story is either true or it's fantasy... which makes Christianity a false religion.

Christianity is in effect a false religion, because they have turned away from Baha'u'llah as the return of Christ and they believe that the same Jesus is the only way forever and that Jesus is going to return from the sky on a cloud... In that sense it is false. The parables and teachings of Jesus are not false though, only the stories such as of the resurrection and the ascension, if taken literally, are false... What else can I say?

 

[Trailblazer]

Oh my God! I wouldn't expect this from Baha'is. The things you say about religion has to make sense scientifically is one of the things I like about the Baha'i Faith. This blows that whole belief. The whole first page assumes the Bible is accurate. Why? Everything starts with Adam? All branches dead end except for the one leading to Noah? So that presumes everyone else drowned in the flood? Please, you don't have to respond to this post. Please, let this genealogy thing end and never be mentioned ever again. Besides, we know this is not accurate because the line leading to Jesus ends. I think Dan Brown has proven that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had children.

Just one thing... If you are referring to the genealogy chart of Shoghi Effendi, and you think that implies that Baha'is believe that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman, you are wrong. As I posted to you before, there were Universal Cycles of religion before this present cycle which implies that humans go back much further than Adam and Eve. The Universal Cycles of religion that preceded Adam are too remote in history to know anything about.

“And now regarding thy question, “How is it that no records are to be found concerning the Prophets that have preceded Adam, the Father of Mankind, or of the kings that lived in the days of those Prophets?” Know thou that the absence of any reference to them is no proof that they did not actually exist. That no records concerning them are now available, should be attributed to their extreme remoteness, as well as to the vast changes which the earth hath undergone since their time.

Moreover such forms and modes of writing as are now current amongst men were unknown to the generations that were before Adam. There was even a time when men were wholly ignorant of the art of writing, and had adopted a system entirely different from the one which they now use. For a proper exposition of this an elaborate explanation would be required.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 172-173

 

[Trailblazer]

Besides, we know this is not accurate because the line leading to Jesus ends. I think Dan Brown has proven that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had children.

Question: "Did Jesus have children?"

Answer: The Bible gives no indication that Jesus was married or had children, nor is there any evidence from reliable historical sources to give credence to such an idea. For Jesus to have had children, marriage would have been necessary, according to His own teachings. Once again, there is no evidence, biblical or historical, that Jesus was married. His mission on earth was to make spiritual sons and daughters, not physical ones (Galatians 4:4–5; Ephesians 1:5; Hebrews 2:10).

There are several problems inherent in believing that Jesus had children. First, if Jesus were married or had children, certainly the Gospels would have included that information. In fact, such information would be crucial to our understanding of Him, His nature, and His mission. The biblical Evangelists speak of Jesus’ mother and father and brothers and sisters and cousins, and we can piece together enough detail to identify more probable cousins and an aunt. Peter’s wife and mother-in-law are mentioned (Matthew 8:14), as are Paul’s sister and nephew (Acts 23:16). If Jesus had a wife and/or children, certainly they would have rated a mention.

Another problem with the idea that Jesus was married or had children is that adding to Scripture is condemned (Revelation 22:18). The Word of God is complete, and it needs no additions. What we are told in Scripture is all that is relevant and needful to knowing God and His salvation. The Bible is sufficient (2 Timothy 3:15–17). We do not need to turn to fanciful interpretations of fragmented passages in the Gnostic gospels for “the rest of the story.”

Finally, in light of the life Jesus led, one of poverty and homelessness (Matthew 8:20), He would not have been able to provide for a family, and that would have been a direct violation of His own law, as expressed by the apostle Paul (1 Timothy 5:8). Jesus’ work on earth was to accomplish God’s will, which He finished (John 17:4). Doing so required a singleness of purpose that the responsibilities of fatherhood would only have detracted from: “An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife—and his interests are divided” (1 Corinthians 7:32–34). None of this is to say that marriage is wrong or that sex within marriage is sinful or that having children is less than ideal. The Bible honors marriage (Hebrews 13:4) and says that children are a blessing from God (Psalm 127:3). But the fact remains that Jesus lived a celibate life. We must reject the suggestion that Jesus was married or that He had children, for all the reasons listed above. Almost without exception, those who embrace such myths would deny the deity of Christ and seek to “humanize” Him in the sense of making Him just like any other man.

Did Jesus have children?

Recommended Resource: Reinventing Jesus: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture

 

[Trailblazer]

I think it is sad that Baha'is are obligated now to belief the "Virgin" birth and not doubt it. So why make the resurrection symbolic and not the Virgin Birth? I think there is some great possibilities. The magic star. The wise men and shepherds. Born in a barn and laid in a manger. But wait, do Baha'is believe the whole story about the Virgin Birth? Or, is the rest symbolic?

What is sad about it? We know that miracles can happen and that God is omnipotent, if we are a Baha'i or a Christian.

I only know what is in Baha'i Writings about the Virgin Birth, and that it is true. I cannot say about all the stories in the Bible.

 

[Trailblazer]

Weird huh? And it kind of implies that it is Jesus coming back? Now that's super weird. So don't blame Christians for thinking it is Jesus coming back. It's the NT itself.

All they would have to do is listen to Jesus and they would know Jesus is not coming back..... NOWHERE does Jesus say He is coming back, nowhere. In fact, Jesus says He is not coming back.

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

But no, they believe a bunch of things Paul wrote and they misinterpret them by taking them literally. Meeting the LORD in the air does not mean Jesus is coming back because Jesus is not God.

 

[Neb]

I have told you at least 5 times that Baha'u'llah was not from Ishmael... Why do you KEEP saying that He was? Please answer my question.

Baha'u'llah was in NO WAY carried by His Own Will... Baha'u'llah was not only being CARRIED by the Holy Spirit like the Bible writers.... Baha'u'llah actually HEARD from the Holy Spirit directly, a distinction that makes a huge difference:

There is only ONE Holy Spirit and that is “the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters” –Genesis 1:2

Read this again: The word "ullah" in baha-ullah or "allah", both in Arabic, was never in the bible or it does NOT translate into the "TRUE GOD" of the Bible, like Elohim, Jehovah, or Yahweh. IOW, the god of the shiite/baha'i faith and the sunni/muslim, aka, "ullah/allah" is NOT the same as the "TRUE GOD" of the Bible. There is no similarity, WHATSOEVER, between these two beliefs.

So, what spirit are you talking about? Well, the apostle John explained it in 1 John 1:3

"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it cometh; and now it is in the world already." -1 John 1:3

Now, can you tell what spirit you guys have or Bahaullah? Do you believe "that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh", as in "And the Word became flesh" -John 1:14? NO? Then you guys have the "spirit of the antichrist", right?

 

[Neb]

“God is My witness, O people! I was asleep on My couch, when lo, the Breeze of God wafting over Me roused Me from My slumber. His quickening Spirit revived Me, and My tongue was unloosed to voice His Call.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 90


“And whenever I chose to hold my peace and be still, lo, the voice of the Holy Ghost, standing on my right hand, aroused me, and the Supreme Spirit appeared before my face, and Gabriel overshadowed me, and the Spirit of Glory stirred within my bosom, bidding me arise and break my silence. If your hearing be purged and your ears be attentive, ye will assuredly perceive that every limb of my body, nay all the atoms of my being, proclaim and bear witness to this call: “God, besides Whom is none other God, and He, Whose beauty is now manifest, is the reflection of His glory unto all that are in heaven and on earth.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 103-104


“O KING! I was but a man like others, asleep upon My couch, when lo, the breezes of the All-Glorious were wafted over Me, and taught Me the knowledge of all that hath been. This thing is not from Me, but from One Who is Almighty and All-Knowing. And He bade Me lift up My voice between earth and heaven, and for this there befell Me what hath caused the tears of every man of understanding to flow.” Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 57

In common parlance the word “God” is synonymous or has the same meaning to all types of religion who called their gods as “God” but if one study the real meaning of the word “God” in the Bible then one can differentiate it from any other “gods”.

Read this again: The word "ullah" in baha-ullah or "allah", both in Arabic, was never in the bible or it does NOT translate into the "TRUE GOD" of the Bible, like Elohim, Jehovah, or Yahweh. IOW, the god of the shiite/baha'i faith and the sunni/muslim, aka, "ullah/allah" is NOT the same as the "TRUE GOD" of the Bible.

You could use words and cap it like the “Holy Ghost”, “Supreme Spirit”, “Spirit of Glory” or “the Glory of Allah” and translate “Allah” in English to “God” to make it look like the “Glory of God” and teach people that Bahaullah, i.e., translated into “the Glory of Allah/God” is or was in the bible because of the phrase the “Glory of God” is in the Bible.

The “Glory of God/ Elohim, Jehovah, or Yahweh” in the Bible is NOT in any way the same, in meaning, as “Bahaullah” or the “glory of allah” in Arabic no matter how you dressed it up or even cap it. IOW, there is no similarity, WHATSOEVER, between these two beliefs.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

There are several problems inherent in believing that Jesus had children. First, if Jesus were married or had children, certainly the Gospels would have included that information.

While I think Dan Brown is stupid, he has a point that the Church wouldn't have permitted someone with blood ties to Christ lead the Church.

It's kind of like how I think Joseph is Jesus' father, but when the bible was being written, Joseph became a theological problem for those who wanted to make Jesus something he wasn't, thus he disappears quickly from the story without mention of why.

If Jesus had a wife and/or children, certainly they would have rated a mention.

Not if you are trying to avoid people claiming blood ties to Jesus so they can lead the Church. Inheriting spiritual leadership was such a bad idea according to the church they ended up banning priests from having families too. The Vatican wanted to be in charge of HR.

Another problem with the idea that Jesus was married or had children is that adding to Scripture is condemned

Didn't stop the New Testament from being written, did it?

The Word of God is complete, and it needs no additions.

That's what the Old Testament thought.

He would not have been able to provide for a family, and that would have been a direct violation of His own law, as expressed by the apostle Paul

Jesus has family issues and Paul never met the guy.

Jesus’ work on earth was to accomplish God’s will, which He finished

Then there's no need for a second round.

“An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife—and his interests are divided”

Translation: Paul has been sleeping in the dog house for awhile and is bitter about it.

 

[Neb]

Revelation 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

Besides that, Jesus never promised to return a second time. Rather, He said His world was finished and He was no more in the world:

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

Jesus also said that His kingdom is not of this world, meaning that His kingdom was in heaven. That means that what Christians believe about Jesus returning and setting up a kingdom on earth is wrong.

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

They are not analogous at all. You are extracting an analogy that is not there.

 

[Neb]

Hey, I just repeated those same verses. It clearly says the name Jesus verse 14. And it says the Lord himself is the one coming back. So, for me, it's either the truth or it's false. If it's false still puts the Baha'is in a bad position, because they would have to commit to even more of the NT that is wrong or symbolic... anything but true.

As I have explained before, the word "ullah" in baha-ullah or "allah", both in Arabic, was never in the bible or it does NOT translate into the "TRUE GOD" of the Bible, like Elohim, Jehovah, or Yahweh. IOW, the god of the shiite/baha'i faith and the sunni/muslim, aka, "ullah/allah" is NOT the same as the "TRUE GOD" of the Bible.

They mixed the Bible with bahaullah's writings and it creates conflict instead of harmony and to some people who are still looking or shopping around for a religion or a belief this may sound appealing to them, you know, the more the merrier, the tyranny of choice, too many choices make someone happy but at the end of the day these choices have an enslaving effect hence the term "tyranny". This new found religion in effect is tyrannizing you without you knowing it and that's what you called oppression of the mind or brainwashed, you know, follow the leader to wherever or whatever.

“Let them alone: they are blind guides. And if the blind guide the blind, both shall fall into a pit.” Matthew 15:14

 

[Neb]

Where does it say Jesus in those verses? I do not see the name Jesus. I only see Christ.

if you read from verse 1 Paul was talking about the Lord Jesus Christ and NOT bahaullah.
"Finally then, brethren, we beseech and exhort you in the Lord Jesus, that, as ye received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, even as ye do walk, --that ye abound more and more." -1 Thessalonians 4:1

 

[Trailblazer]

Thanks for your commentary... You raise some very good points.

Trailblazer said:
If Jesus had a wife and/or children, certainly they would have rated a mention.

Not if you are trying to avoid people claiming blood ties to Jesus so they can lead the Church. Inheriting spiritual leadership was such a bad idea according to the church they ended up banning priests from having families too. The Vatican wanted to be in charge of HR.

You have a good point.

Trailblazer said:
Another problem with the idea that Jesus was married or had children is that adding to Scripture is condemned

Didn't stop the New Testament from being written, did it?

Trailblazer said:
The Word of God is complete, and it needs no additions.

That's what the Old Testament thought.

There seems to be a pattern here.

To say that the Word of God is complete is saying that one cannot add to a revelation from God after it has been revealed and the scriptures are completed. That is not the same thing as God being unable to send a new Prophet with a new revelation. That is what happened when Jesus came; God sent a new prophet with a new revelation. God can send as many Prophets with as many revelations as He wants to. God’s hands are not tied.

All religions want to believe that they are the last revelation from God, the best, the Only Way to God. Baha’is believe we are the most recent and the current revelation from God, but not the best or the last, as there will be more Prophets who bring revelations in the future.

Trailblazer said:
Jesus’ work on earth was to accomplish God’s will, which He finished

Then there's no need for a second round.

That is what Jesus said:

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

Question: If Jesus accomplished His work as Savior, and Christians are saved and forgiven, why do they believe that Jesus is going to return?

Answer: Because they want Jesus to return. There is also the part about setting up a Kingdom on earth, but Jesus said:

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

 

[Trailblazer]

There is only ONE Holy Spirit and that is “the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters” –Genesis 1:2

Read this again: The word "ullah" in baha-ullah or "allah", both in Arabic, was never in the bible or it does NOT translate into the "TRUE GOD" of the Bible, like Elohim, Jehovah, or Yahweh. IOW, the god of the shiite/baha'i faith and the sunni/muslim, aka, "ullah/allah" is NOT the same as the "TRUE GOD" of the Bible. There is no similarity, WHATSOEVER, between these two beliefs.

The Glory of God is in the Bible. Baha'u'llah means the Glory of God in Arabic.

So, what spirit are you talking about? Well, the apostle John explained it in 1 John 1:3

"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it cometh; and now it is in the world already." -1 John 1:3

Now, can you tell what spirit you guys have or Bahaullah? Do you believe "that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh", as in "And the Word became flesh" -John 1:14? NO? Then you guys have the "spirit of the antichrist", right?

Baha'u'llah testified that Jesus is came in the flesh.

“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.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 86

When God sent Jesus, Jesus was “manifested” in the flesh, and the Word that was God and was with God became flesh and dwelt among us. That does not mean that God became flesh, but rather that the Attributes of God were manifested in Jesus who came in the flesh and revealed God to humanity..

As Abdu’l-Baha wrote: “For the Word does not signify the body of Christ, no, but the divine perfections manifested in Him.” Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 206

 

[Trailblazer]

The “Glory of God/ Elohim, Jehovah, or Yahweh” in the Bible is NOT in any way the same, in meaning, as “Bahaullah” or the “glory of allah” in Arabic no matter how you dressed it up or even cap it. IOW, there is no similarity, WHATSOEVER, between these two beliefs.

I never said that Baha'u'llah was God. Jesus was not God either. Both were Manifestations of God.

Jesus was called the Son of God and Baha'u'llah is called the Glory of God. These are just titles.

 

[Trailblazer]

They are not analogous at all. You are extracting an analogy that is not there.

I do not know what you mean by analogy.

I guess you could not explain why Jesus said His work was finished and He was no longer in the world and what He said about His kingdom not being of this world.

 

[Trailblazer]

if you read from verse 1 Paul was talking about the Lord Jesus Christ and NOT bahaullah.
"Finally then, brethren, we beseech and exhort you in the Lord Jesus, that, as ye received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, even as ye do walk, --that ye abound more and more." -1 Thessalonians 4:1

That is a different verse that has the word Jesus in it... Jesus is not in these verses you had cited:

16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

The Lord did descend, when Baha'u'llah was manifested... He came from heaven with a shout.

The same man Jesus ain't coming back. Jesus said so:

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

 

[Neb]

That is a different verse that has the word Jesus in it... Jesus is not in these verses you had cited:

16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

The Lord did descend, when Baha'u'llah was manifested... He came from heaven with a shout.

The same man Jesus ain't coming back. Jesus said so:

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

Bahaulla NOT in the Bible. Bahaullah was a Persian Shiite.

 

[Neb]

I never said that Baha'u'llah was God. Jesus was not God either. Both were Manifestations of God.

Jesus was called the Son of God and Baha'u'llah is called the Glory of God. These are just titles.

NO! bahaullah translate into "the glory of allah" and NOT "the glory of God/Elohim, Jehovah, or Yahweh" Bahaullah is one of the "other/different gods" in Exodus 20:3 “Thou shalt have no other gods before me" IOW, bahai faith and Christianity do not have the same God.

 

[Neb]

The Glory of God is in the Bible. Baha'u'llah means the Glory of God in Arabic.

Baha'u'llah testified that Jesus is came in the flesh.

“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.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 86

Where did the Lord Jesus come from? From eternity, i.e., before everything was created, right?

When God sent Jesus, Jesus was “manifested” in the flesh, and the Word that was God and was with God became flesh and dwelt among us. That does not mean that God became flesh, but rather that the Attributes of God were manifested in Jesus who came in the flesh and revealed God to humanity..

As Abdu’l-Baha wrote: “For the Word does not signify the body of Christ, no, but the divine perfections manifested in Him.” Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 206

So, how many being did you see here? "and the Word that was God and was with God"