The Exclusivity of Christianity

[CG Didymus]

You are free to negate Bible verses about co-Creator and superiority of Jesus and believe what you want. But you can't make Bible mean something different than it means.

But these verses TB takes literally?

John 14:19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

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.

Why then doesn't she take the "flesh and bone" verse and the one in Acts where it says that Jesus showed himself to be alive verse literally?
That's why I can't believe, trust or accept what Baha'is say. They pick and choose what fits their beliefs. How is that different than any other religion or cult that claims it is The Truth. It all depends on whose "truth" a person wants to believe.

 

[CG Didymus]

i only got involved because @Trailblazer asked me to. I've said before in the past that prophecy is far from the best way to prove anything about a Prophet.

I think she even said that anybody can make a prophecy say pretty much anything. That's one thing that she and I can agree on.

 

[Truthseeker]

I think she even said that anybody can make a prophecy say pretty much anything. That's one thing that she and I can agree on.

Why the heck are we even doing this then? It's pointless.

 

[CG Didymus]

It doesn't say exactly. The age to come will be after the Judgement. The age of the Kingdom is when it is fully built (not before). The time of being prepared is not yet the age to come - it's called the end times (the final chapter before the age to come).

Not that it matters to Baha'is, because they can always find a symbolic interpretation to explain it away, but doesn't the NT, and especially Revelation, have a great tribulation and Israel being surrounded by its enemies and the battle of Armagedón all before Christ returns? If so, then Christ hasn't returned yet. Or, Baha'is have to explain how those things "symbolically" happened already.

 

[Truthseeker]

Not that it matters to Baha'is, because they can always find a symbolic interpretation to explain it away, but doesn't the NT, and especially Revelation, have a great tribulation and Israel being surrounded by its enemies and the battle of Armagedón all before Christ returns? If so, then Christ hasn't returned yet. Or, Baha'is have to explain how those things "symbolically" happened already.

You've said in effect in agreement that this is pointless. Yet you're obsessed with this stuff. I just want to be aware of that.

 

[PearlSeeker]

There are many ways this parable can be interpreted. I believe that Baha’u’llah is the Lord of the Vineyard.
Below is a brief interpretation of this parable:

Many and not so many. The Parable confirms that also the gospels (not just Paul) state that Jesus is superior to God's prophets before him. He is God's own Son. The parable says nothing who will come on behalf of God.

 

[PearlSeeker]

In some verses Jesus was speaking of Himself. We know when Jesus was speaking of Himself since we can connect these verses with what we know Jesus did on His earthy mission.

Mark 2:10 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins - he said to the paralytic

Mark 2:28 So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath .

Matthew 8:20 And Jesus said to him, "Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.

Luke 19:10 For the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.

From looking at the context we know if Jesus was speaking about Himself or referring to another man.

Look carefully at Mark 8:38. Look at how the verse is separated by a semicolon and Jesus says “also” indicating that the Son of man is someone other than Himself who would come in the glory of his Father with the holy angels

Mark 8:38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

of him also, when he cometh means there is another man involved.

Look carefully at Luke 9:26. Look at how Jesus separated Himself from the Son of man (ashamed of me, of him shall), and then Jesus said that the Son of man shall come in his own glory and in His Father’s glory. Jesus did not say that the Son of man will come in my glory.

Luke 9:26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father’s, and of the holy angels.

ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall means there is another man involved.

The age to come will be after Christ returns, and that is The Day of Judgment (see below).
The end times (end of an age) came when Christ returned.
The Bible does it say when during the new age the Kingdom of God will be 'fully built.'

​

The Day of Judgment​

​

Christ spoke much in parables about a great Day of Judgment when “the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father … and … shall reward every man according to his works” (Matt. xvi, 27). He compares this Day to the time of harvest, when the tares are burned and the wheat gathered into barns:—​

​

… so shall it be in the end of this world [consummation of the age]. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.—Matt. xiii, 40–43.​

​

The phrase “end of the world” used in the Authorized Version of the Bible in this and similar passages has led many to suppose that when the Day of Judgment comes, the earth will suddenly be destroyed, but this is evidently a mistake. The true translation of the phrase appears to be “the consummation or end of the age.” Christ teaches that the Kingdom of the Father is to be established on earth, as well as in heaven. He teaches us to pray: “Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” In the parable of the Vineyard, when the Father, the Lord of the Vineyard, comes to destroy the wicked husbandmen, He does not destroy the vineyard (the world) also, but lets it out to other husbandmen, who will render Him the fruits in their season. The earth is not to be destroyed, but to be renewed and regenerated. Christ speaks of that day on another occasion as “the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory.” St. Peter speaks of it as “the times of refreshing,” “the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.” The Day of Judgment of which Christ speaks is evidently identical with the coming of the Lord of Hosts, the Father, which was prophesied by Isaiah and the other Old Testament prophets; a time of terrible punishment for the wicked, but a time in which justice shall be established and righteousness rule, on earth as in heaven.​

​

In the Bahá’í interpretation, the coming of each Manifestation of God is a Day of Judgment, but the coming of the supreme Manifestation of Bahá’u’lláh is the great Day of Judgment for the world cycle in which we are living. The trumpet blast of which Christ and Muhammad and many other prophets speak is the call of the Manifestation, which is sounded for all who are in heaven and on earth—the embodied and the disembodied. The meeting with God, through His Manifestation, is, for those who desire to meet Him, the gateway to the Paradise of knowing and loving Him, and living in love with all His creatures. Those, on the other hand, who prefer their own way to God’s way, as revealed by the Manifestation, thereby consign themselves to the hell of selfishness, error and enmity.​

​

Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, pp. 219-220​

That's right. The Holy Spirit can work through people besides prophets, but it is sent directly to prophets and then reflected off those other people.

The focus of the rays of the Holy Spirit was Christ, and from Christ the Holy Spirit reflected upon the Apostles, who mirrored forth the Holy Spirit. As that passage I quoted said, the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles means that the glorious divine bounties reflected and appeared in their reality, which is their soul. Baha'is do not believe that the Holy Spirit lived inside their bodies, because the Holy Spirit does not descend into the body.

This short chapter explains how Baha’is believe the Holy Spirit descended upon the disciples of Christ:

24: THE DESCENT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT UPON THE APOSTLES

For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.” (Mk 8)

The word "also" just indicates the same verb - being ashamed - and the same two persons but the the roles change.

"He", "his" and "Son of Man" is Jesus again speaking of himself in third person - just as in all other examples.

See: Illeism - Wikipedia


"For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you." (1 Pt)

We can see that the last times had been already when (and after) Jesus (first) appeared.

 

[Windwalker]

Yes, as described above. Modernity, the Age of Reason, the Enlightenment, and the rise of humanism all refer to the same cutoff in history when the world changed due the restraint of Christianity

Modernity is the preferred term, as humanism is part of it, but does not define what it is. Was this a change due to the restraint of Christianity? I wouldn't put it that way. It was a change due to cultural evolution, and Christianity just happened to embody that stage of Traditionalism which Modernity was emerging as a new stage out of it. It's not Christianity that caused it, anymore than being a prepubescent causes puberty.

The reason I think is more productive to not say it was "Christianity" that caused modernity, is because that same premodern stage of consciousness exists in all manner of different social and cultural systems. Christianity that is mythic-literal, is simply reflective of that Amber traditionalist, and Red tribalistic stages themselves, which you find in the MAGA crowd, in the KKK, in the GOP, in biker gangs, in militia groups, and so forth.

It is unhelpful to just image that "religion" is cause. It's not. Amber traditionalist religion is simply religion being practiced and filtered through that stage of consciousness itself. It can also be practiced and filtered through modernist stages, and postmodernist stages, and integral stages. What you are pointing a finger at is Traditionalism, not religion. Once we look at that, then we can see the forest through the trees and discuss it more productively.

That is why I suggested you read that link I sent you so you better understand the context I am speaking to all of this within. Here it is again in case you didn't get a chance to look at it yet. What Are the Stages of Development? – Integral Life

Yes, modernity, or humanistic influence, can be found in religion. That's why Christianity, which looks like Islam on paper, is rendered so differently in the parts of the word where they predominate. Christianity was modernized to a great extent by humanism.

They were modernized through culture which embraces modernity and postmodernity. Humanism is a specific philosophical movement within modernity that tends towards secularism. Not everything that embraces modernity, embraces secular humanism.

Whereas the latter are still stoning people, cutting off hands, pushing people off of towers, and burning them alive in cages, the Christians have stopped their inquisitions and witch killings.

You are describing the Red tribalistic and Amber tradtionals stages of developement. Relgion practiced at those stages can look like this. But religion not practiced at those stages doesn't. Biker gangs which are not religious at all, and could all be atheists for that matter, act the same ways. It has nothing to do with beliefs in God, or no God. It has to do with what they do and how they interact with those beliefs.

God has nothing to do with it, other than it's simply what they use to justify their triablistic tendencies. If there was no God, then it's the gangs colors, or their nation's flag, or their family name or reputation, etc, etc., etc.

The Christian West has accepted democracy, church-state separation, freedom of and from religion, and a few other notions alien to much of the Muslim world. These ideas came from humanism, not scripture.

No they did not come from humanism, as I said. They came from that stage of consciousness, the Rational stage of consciousness, which also created humanism, as well as many other products of modernity.

What bothers me here, is your saying it's humanism vs Christianity. That sounds like "who's got the true religion" mentality. To be accurate, it's simply modernity contrasted with premodernity. That's it. It's not about who has the true belief systems, or the correct doctrines, which is what this sounds like to me.

Really? That's the baby in the bathwater - dignity? I'd like to see something a little more specific for an answer. Besides, I don't see any dignity in myths, and wouldn't value it if I did.

That is not what I said. I'm sure if you re-read it, it might be clearer. I'm saying that each stage of development, in the link I shared above, has both a dignity and a disaster. Each stage brings something new and important online that didn't exist previously, along with dysfunctions or new disasters at each of those stages. Modernity itself has its diginities, and its disasters. Traditionalsm has its diginity and its disaster. Tribalism as its dignity and its disasters.

So what happens is the good bits of each stage, are brought forward into the next higher stage as important lessons that needed to be learned at that earlier stage. It is those that are the baby in the bathwater. Baby = the dignities, or positive contributions; Bathwater = the disasters or the negative effects. Growth works by 'transcending and including the good bits, building on those, while discarding the previous level's bad bits, or disasters, or bathwater.

But what it seems you are doing, which I push back against, is saying everything from premodernity is bad. You see religion, which was the dominant cultural expression of that previous stage, as a complete waste of human investments. And that is like saying, "My entire teenage years were a complete waste. I learned nothing positive at all. I should have gone straight from age 5 to age 30, and I would have been better off."

Please orient me to your purpose for introducing it and apply specific parts of it to this argument.

It's everything I said above. I had tried to explain that in the previous post, but hopefully this time I am being clearer.

You are really stretching here to find relevance in ancient scripture. Basically, all of math and language are mythic by that reckoning. And I routinely reject comments like that first sentence out of hand if they lack specifics.

I can give greater specifics, but I think it's important you grasp some of the contexts I am trying to explain these things from. And yes, of course there is relevance in ancient relgioius texts. They are embedded into our language and symbols of everyday reality in which we "live and move and have our being", viz., culture.

 

[CG Didymus]

Why the heck are we even doing this then? It's pointless.

No, I used to like reading about the different prophecies. And I wish they had a clear meaning to where people could know for sure what to look for and to know when they were fulfilled. Because the Baha'i Faith and Christianity uses them, they must be important... It is that anybody can make a prophecy mean whatever they want it to mean is what I agree with. But I hope that there is a more obvious and clearer fulfillment. But... if not then, yes, the prophecies are pointless and useless.

You've said in effect in agreement that this is pointless. Yet you're obsessed with this stuff. I just want to be aware of that.

I agree that if a person wants to, that they can make any prophecy say whatever they want. And anybody can cherry-pick a verse and make it a prophecy. You say "obsessed"? Baha'is are claiming that Baha'u'llah has fulfilled every prophecy from every major religion. Is it obsessive to research it and see if Baha'is are right about those claims?

 

[Trailblazer]

But these verses TB takes literally?

John 14:19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.
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.

Why then doesn't she take the "flesh and bone" verse and the one in Acts where it says that Jesus showed himself to be alive verse literally?

Because those other verses are subject to a literal or a spiritual interpretation, but

the world seeth me no more;
​

I have finished the work
I am no more in the world,

is not subject to a spiritual interpretation. They have only a 'plain meaning' and are not subject to any other interpretation.

 

[CG Didymus]

King James Bible
Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

NIV
Act 1:1 In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 3 After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.

Tell me Baha'is, why are these subject to a "spiritual" interpretation? Say you don't believe it. Say it was written by a person who was not an eyewitness, and therefore, not trustworthy. But why "spiritualize" these verses? It's only to make the NT and the Bible fit Baha'i beliefs. Along with prophecy, this also makes what the Bible and NT says pointless. Because once you start "spiritualizing" verses and coming up with symbolic meanings, anybody can make those verses say and mean anything they want.

 

[Trailblazer]

King James Bible
Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

NIV
Act 1:1 In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 3 After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.

Tell me Baha'is, why are these subject to a "spiritual" interpretation? Say you don't believe it. Say it was written by a person who was not an eyewitness, and therefore, not trustworthy. But why "spiritualize" these verses? It's only to make the NT and the Bible fit Baha'i beliefs. Along with prophecy, this also makes what the Bible and NT says pointless. Because once you start "spiritualizing" verses and coming up with symbolic meanings, anybody can make those verses say and mean anything they want.

I don't believe it. It was written by a person who was not an eyewitness, and therefore, not trustworthy.

Anybody can make any verses say and mean anything they want, not only Baha'is, but also Christians.

 

[Windwalker]

I don't believe it. It was written by a person who was not an eyewitness, and therefore, not trustworthy.

Then why accept anything at all written in the texts? Why accept anything at all that anyone says about anything written in those texts? So when Bahaullah references those writings, you shouldn't trust that either since the source is not trustworthy, as you just claimed?

This kind of makes me think of this paradoxical sentence: "This sentence is false". Is that a true statement, or is a false statement? If it is false, then it is true. If it is true, then it is false.

Anybody can make any verses say and mean anything they want, not only Baha'is, but also Christians.

Everyone interprets verses through their interpretive frameworks. Some interpretations may have greater merit than others, as they are using better frameworks of interpretation than just pulling something out of one's own bag of biases with no support beyond, "That's what I believe". That is where the art of cherry picking betrays a lack of interpretative integrity.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then why accept anything at all written in the texts? Why accept anything at all that anyone says about anything written in those texts? So when Bahaullah references those writings, you shouldn't trust that either since the source is not trustworthy, as you just claimed?

I choose what to accept based upon what I already believe is true from the Baha'i Faith since that is my compass. Therefore, if Baha'u'llah references the Bible I accept those verses as being accurate.

I do not believe that the resurrection stories are literally true since I do not believe that Jesus rose physically from the dead. I am not alone in this belief as many liberal Christians do not believe that Jesus rose from the dead and they are reading the same Bible as the Christians who believe Jesus rose.

What many liberal theologians believe about Jesus' death

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

I choose what to accept based upon what I already believe is true from the Baha'i Faith since that is my compass. Therefore, if Baha'u'llah references the Bible I accept those verses as being accurate.

I do not believe that the resurrection stories are literally true since I do not believe that Jesus rose physically from the dead. I am not alone in this belief as many liberal Christians do not believe that Jesus rose from the dead and they are reading the same Bible as the Christians who believe Jesus rose.

What many liberal theologians believe about Jesus' death

Well let me ask you, is there anything special or miraculous about the way the messengers came into existence? Supposedly Jesus was born of the virgin Mary, so his father accordingly to Christians isn't Joseph, but God. Baha'is reject Jesus' sole divinity of being born of a virgin and being resurrected after death - yet they do not deny that Jesus was a prophet or messenger. However, is there anything special about the messengers that mark them as prophets for a time and age? Is there a litmus test that God created that only prophets can answer? Did Baha'u'llah do anything special or miraculous in his life that people can go and definitively say he was divine? And are all the messengers of God composed of the same soul, the same energy, as all the other prophets? If Baha'u'llah did not get born of a virgin, and did not physically rise after death, what makes him so special to begin with?

I get the fact that Baha'u'llah was an incredible writer, writing almost every single day of his adult life, but why is that enough to declare him a prophet? There are people out there who can write as much if not more than him and they aren't considered prophets. I get that Baha'u'llah foretold the beginning of world unity, which is still being worked on to this day, but how did Baha'u'llah's message achieve this when after over a hundred years after his death there is still war, with World War 1, 2, the Cold War, and the War of Terror all happening after his death? What makes Baha'u'llah so special to begin with? Maybe the problem isn't that that Christianity is so exclusive, maybe the real problem is, the Baha'i Faith isn't exclusive enough!

 

[Windwalker]

I choose what to accept based upon what I already believe is true from the Baha'i Faith since that is my compass. Therefore, if Baha'u'llah references the Bible I accept those verses as being accurate.

So it's only accurate when your prophet corrects it? It's only trustworthy, when your prophet decides something is valid or not in it? So we basically can throw scholarship out the window, because only a prophet can weigh in on it? We don't need academics, when we have prophets. Is this what you are saying?

 

[Trailblazer]

Well let me ask you, is there anything special or miraculous about the way the messengers came into existence?

Yes, their souls existed in the spiritual world before they were born into this world. By contrast, the souls of ordinary humans come into existence at the time of conception, so our souls did not exist before we were conceived.

The Prophets, unlike us, are pre-existent. The soul of Christ existed in the spiritual world before His birth in this world. We cannot imagine what that world is like, so words are inadequate to picture His state of being.
(Shoghi Effendi: High Endeavors, Page: 71)

Supposedly Jesus was born of the virgin Mary, so his God accordingly to Christians isn't Joseph, but God. Baha'is reject Jesus' sole divinity of being born of a virgin and being resurrected after death - yet they do not deny that Jesus was a prophet or messenger.

Baha'is do not believe that Jesus was resurrected after death but we do believe that Jesus was born of a virgin.

"First regarding the birth of Jesus Christ. In light of what Bahá’u’lláh and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá have stated concerning this subject it is evident that Jesus came into this world through the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit, and that consequently His birth was quite miraculous. This is an established fact, and the friends need not feel at all surprised, as the belief in the possibility of miracles has never been rejected in the Teachings. Their importance, however, has been minimized."

(From a letter dated December 31, 1937 written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer)
Lights of Guidance/Christ - Bahaiworks, a library of works about the Bahá’í Faith

However, is there anything special about the messengers that mark them as prophets for a time and age? Is there a litmus test that God created that only prophets can answer? Did Baha'u'llah do anything special or miraculous in his life that people can go and definitively say he was divine?

The Messengers of God have always appeared among men destitute of all earthly dominion. They appeared just like an ordinary man. If a Messenger manifested all that is latent within Him and were He to shine in all His glory, nobody would be found to question His power or repudiate His truth. That defeats God’s Purpose, which is to test humans, not to make it easy to recognize the Messengers.

And are all the messengers of God composed of the same soul, the same energy, as all the other prophets? If Baha'u'llah did not get born of a virgin, and did not physically rise after death, what makes him so special to begin with?

Jesus was was born of a virgin, but that is not what made Him special. It was what He did on His mission and His message that made Him special.

Even if Jesus had risen from the dead why would that matter? It would just have been another miracle, like the virgin birth.
Christians use that to claim that Christianity is superior to all the other religions but it is completely superfluous because all bodies decay and rot eventually.

The Resurrection: Why does it matter?

It seems to me that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is a matter of great concern for both Christians and atheists. Since there has been so much discussion about the resurrection on this forum, I thought now would be a good time to ask: 1. Why does it matter so much to so many people if...

www.religiousforums.com

I get that Baha'u'llah foretold the beginning of world unity, which is still being worked on to this day, but how did Baha'u'llah's message achieve this when after over a hundred years after his death there is still war, with World War 1, 2, the Cold War, and the War of Terror all happening after his death? What makes Baha'u'llah so special to begin with? Maybe the problem isn't that that Christianity is so exclusive, maybe the real problem is, the Baha'i Faith isn't exclusive enough!

The coming of Baha'u'llah was only the beginning of world unity. How do you think world unity can be established when most people reject the message of Baha'u'llah? How is it Baha'u'llah's fault if most people reject Him and continue waiting for Jesus to return or continue waiting for who they believe will be the messiah of their chosen religion?

The Bible does not say that world peace ill be established all at once, it says it will be a process.

Isaiah 9:6-7 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

Please note that the prophecy does not say 'when' peace will be established. It says that it will increase which means it will unfold over time. Where it says there shall be 'no end to the peace' means that the world will become more and more peaceful over time. The same is true for the government. It says that there shall be 'no end' to the government which means it will begin and be established gradually and continue to develop over time. The government will be more developed in the future as the prophecy says (increase in government).

Baha’u’llah set up a 'system of government' and it has already been established among the Baha’is. The institutions of that government are fully operational, but still in their infancy. What we now refer to as Local Spiritual assemblies (LSAs) and will eventually evolve into what will be called Houses of Justice. This certainly qualifies as an 'increase' in government.

 

[Trailblazer]

So it's only accurate when your prophet corrects it? It's only trustworthy, when your prophet decides something is valid or not in it? So we basically can throw scholarship out the window, because only a prophet can weigh in on it? We don't need academics, when we have prophets. Is this what you are saying?

No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that I believe that Baha’u’llah was the Representative of God among men and He appointed interpreters through His Covenant, so if any of them interpreted the Bible, their interpretation supersedes the interpretations of scholars. That does not mean that the scholars are necessarily wrong, as the Bible can have many correct meanings.

“Know assuredly that just as thou firmly believest that the Word of God, exalted be His glory, endureth for ever, thou must, likewise, believe with undoubting faith that its meaning can never be exhausted. They who are its appointed interpreters, they whose hearts are the repositories of its secrets, are, however, the only ones who can comprehend its manifold wisdom. Whoso, while reading the Sacred Scriptures, is tempted to choose therefrom whatever may suit him with which to challenge the authority of the Representative of God among men, is, indeed, as one dead, though to outward seeming he may walk and converse with his neighbors, and share with them their food and their drink.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 175-176

 

[Windwalker]

The Messengers of God have always appeared among men destitute of all earthly dominion.

The Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, was born to royalty. He renounced it later in life to live as an aesthetic, but he was not born destitute.

They appeared just like an ordinary man.

Except for those stories of walking on water, and raising the dead?

If a Messenger manifested all that is latent within Him and were He to shine in all His glory, nobody would be found to question His power or repudiate His truth. That defeats God’s Purpose, which is to test humans, not to make it easy to recognize the Messengers.

So, God's purpose is to make the Truth difficult for humans to find? God deliberately hides the Truth from humans, you are saying, to test to see who are worthy by just being able to believe it when someone claims to come from God?

This somewhat reminds me of those who claim that dinosaur bones are put there by God to test your faith to see if you really believe in the creation story in Genesis or not. Doesn't it?

 

[Windwalker]

No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that I believe that Baha’u’llah was the Representative of God among men and He appointed interpreters through His Covenant, so if any of them interpreted the Bible, their interpretation supersedes the interpretations of scholars. That does not mean that the scholars are necessarily wrong, as the Bible can have many correct meanings.

That is exactly what I was saying. Scholars are okay, up to the point their scholarship is thrown upon the fire because the prophet gets to throw all that out the window if he doesn't like it. Isn't that like saying we can disregard the evidence that the sun is the center of the solar system as science says, because the Pope decides the earth is the center instead? What's different there?