True and False Prophets - Just and Honest Determination

[TransmutingSoul]

But I'm asking what you, as a Baha'i, thinks... I don't see anything in any quotes that says that Joseph Smith is a false prophet. Yet, he claims an angel spoke with him. Which is what is claimed by Muhammad isn't it?

So, unless you openly are going to declare Smith a false prophet, then he is equal to at least Muhammad and maybe other manifestations.

As for my opinion, I question and doubt most all of the people Baha'is call manifestations. But what do I know. Actually... I know enough not to trust what people say about their own religion... but to double check the claims they make. Which is the correct thing to do, right?

It's not for the "Baha'i" to do that CG, as this is a personal responsibility.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

But I'm asking what you, as a Baha'i, thinks... I don't see anything in any quotes that says that Joseph Smith is a false prophet. Yet, he claims an angel spoke with him.

Maybe an angel spoke with him, but that does not mean he was a prophet.
Baha'is do not believe that Joseph Smith was a false prophet, but we also don't believe he was a true prophet.

“Joseph Smith we do not consider a Prophet, minor or otherwise. Certainly no reference he made could have foretold the Coming of this Revelation in his capacity as a Prophet.”
(Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual, 21 Feb. 1942)

https://bahai-library.com/pdf/c/collins_mormonism.pdf

Shoghi Effendi explained that Joseph Smith is a seer and not a prophet. He is not an independent prophet (a Manifestation of God who reveals a book) or even a minor prophet of God like Daniel or Ezekiel who were firm in the Covenant of God under the Manifestation of their day. Smith is only a seer. "Seer" means that he can "see" certain things that are true, but not that he is some sort of infallible guide, or even that he is part of the religion of God.

Joseph Smith was a seer, not a prophet of God, neither major nor minor prophet.
(Memories of 'Abdu'l-Baha, by R. A. Brown, p. 117)

What this means is that Smith could see visions and glimpses of the future, but he did not speak or write on behalf of God and is not a prophet of God.

 

[CG Didymus]

Also they give a New Message, they abrogate the old and give the new.

It was Tony that says it is the old message gets abrogated. And I don't see that is true. Now between related religions, things get changed, updated or corrected. But some of the beliefs are kept.

What I usually hear from Baha'is is that it is the old "social" laws are what get changed. I don't even agree with that. Since everybody had a religion that suited their culture, I tend to believe that those people made up their own religions and their own laws, then told the people that the laws came from their God. That way giving the laws divine authority.

If we look at the laws given in the Bible, they didn't abrogate the laws of some previous manifestation. They weren't universal laws that fit other people and cultures. They were laws very specific to the Israelites.

Now with the Baha'i laws, I'd agree... They are meant to be for everybody. But I don't see how they will ever be enforced.

 

[CG Didymus]

It's not for the "Baha'i" to do that CG, as this is a personal responsibility.

Regards Tony

Then why reject the Ahmadiyya? Either both the Ahmadiyya, Mormons are false religions or they aren't? But, my point was, you can't reject them by "their" fruits... both have as much "good" fruit as any other religion.

And if it's okay to judge them for having weird beliefs or false claims, then there are ways to reject every single religion. And Christianity might be the easiest one to reject.

And that comes with the help of the Baha'is... They believe in Satan. Baha'is say that is false. They say Jesus is God. Baha'i say that is false. The Gospels say that Jesus cast out demons. Baha'is say that demons aren't real.

But Baha'is make concessions for Christianity, because they need Jesus to be one of the manifestations. But Baha'is don't need the Ahmadiyya.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Then why reject the Ahmadiyya? Either both the Ahmadiyya, Mormons are false religions or they aren't? But, my point was, you can't reject them by "their" fruits... both have as much "good" fruit as any other religion.

And if it's okay to judge them for having weird beliefs or false claims, then there are ways to reject every single religion. And Christianity might be the easiest one to reject.

And that comes with the help of the Baha'is... They believe in Satan. Baha'is say that is false. They say Jesus is God. Baha'i say that is false. The Gospels say that Jesus cast out demons. Baha'is say that demons aren't real.

But Baha'is make concessions for Christianity, because they need Jesus to be one of the manifestations. But Baha'is don't need the Ahmadiyya.

That depends how much one wants to find God CG, the source of the light, the source of all that is good.

It's not about making concessions.

Regards Tony

 

[CG Didymus]

"..With respect to scripture, Mormons differ from traditional Christian groups in that they accept extra books in their canon. In addition to the King James Version of the Bible, they add the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price..."

Who are you quoting?

So again, Joseph Smith has added to the Bible of Jesus Christ, you know what the Bible says about adding to it, do you not?

And what does the Bible say?

One place it says, Daniel 12:4 says, "“But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book until the time of the end..."

I think that was referring to the prophecies in Daniel. And didn't "seal" up the whole Bible.

Or... how about this...

Matt 5:18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

And this is related to that...

Deuteronomy 4:2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you.

Did "all" get fulfilled? Because it didn't take long for Christianity to do away with the Jewish laws... including the Sabbath.

I think that you're probably talking about this...

Rev. 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

Like with Daniel, I think this is specifically saying not to mess with the prophecies in Revelation and does not mean the whole Bible.

But there are other books. It was the Jewish leaders that set which books got included. Then it was the Church leaders that decided what got included into the NT. How do we know they got it right? And no doubt, they didn't want other people adding things in. But they themselves added to the Hebrew Bible.

And, if you include coming up with other Scriptures from the one true God, then the Baha'is added their writings to the "official" Scriptures that came from God.

But... I want to know what the official Baha'is stance is? Do the Baha'is come right out and say that the Book of Mormon is not true? I believe it's not. But I'm officially nobody. Now who's got innate knowledge about everything? Who knows the truth about God and is able to correct the wrong beliefs held by people in the other religions? Who has even corrected the Bible by saying it should have been Ishmael in that story about Abraham taking his son to be sacrificed. That person should know... And what did he say?

Nothing. All I found are quotes from Shoghi Effendi...

Joseph Smith we do not consider a Prophet, minor or otherwise. Certainly no references he made would have foretold the coming of the Revelation in his capacity as a Prophet.​

Shoghi Effendi, Lights of Guidance, p. 484​

​

Regarding your question concerning Joseph Smith and the 'Book of Mormon'; as the Bahá’í Teachings quite clearly outline the succession of Prophets from the days of Christ as being Muhammad, the Báb, and finally Bahá’u’lláh, it is obvious that Joseph Smith is not a Manifestation of God.​

Shoghi Effendi, Lights of Guidance, p. 510​

And that's close enough for me to think that Baha'is don't believe the Book of Mormon. And yet, lots of Mormons doing good things. And if we go by that "good" fruit thing, then Mormons have got to be true. Or... does that only count when Baha'is do good things?

My conclusion? Is still... People can believe in false Gods and have all sorts of false religious beliefs, but can still be good, spiritual people. Even Mormons and Ahmadiyya... Oh, and even Baha'is. But it don't make what they believe true... that is... other than to themselves.

 

[Brian2]

Matthew 25:31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

These verses are not to be interpreted literally. There are no actual angels and there is no throne. Nations cannot gather before him and he cannot separate people one from another. That is physically impossible and that is how we know it is figurative and not literal.

That is not physically impossible and the scripture tells us that there are angels and Jesus will be sitting on His throne. You deny it only because the Bible disagrees with Baha'i.

The sheep are being separated from the goats right now. The sheep are the people who have recognized Baha'u'llah and are meeting with God, through His Manifestation, and the goats are those who have rejected Baha'u'llah because they prefer their own way to God’s way, as revealed by the Manifestation.

The judgement is talking about Jesus judging people through how they have loved their fellow man.
Interestingly it tells us that they inherit the Kingdom which was prepared for them since the creation of the world (Matt 25:34) IOW they don't have to work politically to create the kingdom.

Only the body of Baha'ullah is in the grave. The physical body of Jesus is MIA but it is not in heaven because there is nothing physical in heaven. Both Jesus and Baha'u'llah are in heaven in spiritual bodies.

Baha'u'llah is still dead, your belief about the dead just disagrees with the Biblical teaching.
Jesus is in heaven in His spiritual body, the resurrection body, which as 1Cor 15 tells us, is the physical body which has been transformed to be immortal and incorruptible. Jesus rose from the dead with this body. His body is not still in the grave or the Jews would have shown it and that Jesus had not risen from the dead.
I don't know what you meant by MIA.

That is past history. ALL judgement was given to Jesus, but time marches on and Jesus is not here to pass judgment, nor will he ever be.

That is no more than the claim of Baha'u'llah/Baha'i. The Bible teaches a completely different story. You can claim that the Bible is not true,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, which you do claim when you say that Jesus dispensation is over, but you cannot claim that the Bible has the teachings that Baha'i teaches.

Ask any Jew what it is about, those are their scriptures. Christians believe that everything is about Jesus, but not everything is about Jesus.
It is about the Messiah who will come in the latter days, so we know it is not about Jesus, who is never coming back to earth.

What has the beliefs of the Jews got to do with it?
Psalm 2 tells us it is about the Son of God. Baha'i teaching is that Baha'u'llah is not the Son of God, but Jesus is the Son of God.
Psalm 2 tells us that the Son of God is given the nations and rules and judges them.
You can deny that Psalm 2 is true if you want but it is ridiculous to claim that it is about Baha'u'llah when even Baha'i says he is not the begotten Son of God.

 

[CG Didymus]

It's not about making concessions.

Then why accept Christianity as a true religion? When did they ever teach the truth about God? That is the "truth" as believed by the Baha'is.

If you go to early Church beliefs, you've got to include Paul. He wasn't the "manifestation". Why was anything he said the truth from God? And I'm sure Baha'is can find lots of things that Paul said that the Baha'i Faith doesn't believe are true.

So, you've got to make concessions. "Well, that's not was he really meant." "Oh, there he's being symbolic." If it's not true, then just say so. "No, Paul was wrong. Lots of the things in Gospels are wrong."

But then what do you have? Just another religion that had some made up beliefs that they past on to the people as if they were true. And like with other religions, as long as the people believed it was true, it became true... for them. And many of them went on to do good deeds in the name of their God... the Trinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Which... going by your beliefs, that is a false God.

 

[Pete in Panama]

When did I agree with the Baha'i concept of the "oneness" of religion?

I give up, when did we?

 

[Pete in Panama]

It is the easy way to convince one's own self that one is justified in not searching for the truth. By bringing up all the obvious false claims, it supports the inaction of searching for the true claim.

It is an annoying negative trait, that we can so easily justify in our own selves, it manifests in us, in many ways. I see we all fight this in our own struggles on many fronts, I know I have and do, that is, justifying our choices in a chosen ignorance.

Regards Tony

Agreed. I keep wasting my time in vain efforts toward a meaningful conversation only to find myself in some kind of food-fight of negativity. Time to move on?

 

[Brian2]

I don't know how many times that Baha'is have said that their prophet is the return of Christ. And then they'd add, "Not Jesus himself, but Baha'u'llah is the return of the spirit of Christ."

Whatever, it is in the place and authority that Christians believe was to be Jesus himself. TB and other Baha'is make clear that Baha'is don't believe Jesus is coming back. But who do they say is the fulfillment of all those prophecies that Christians believe to be about Jesus? It is their prophet, Baha'u'llah.

He either is the promised return of Christ or he is a false Christ. It all depends on which verses and prophecies a person wants to look at. But, for sure, some verses and prophecies need a little creative interpreting to make them Baha'u'llah or about Baha'u'llah.

The ones that astound me the most is how they take every reference that can be made to mean 1260 years into a prophecy about the year 1844. But each time one of them is mentioned, it is talking about a different event. And some of the events happen after some of the others. Yet... Baha'is make all of them start in 621AD and end in 1844, because that is the start of the Islamic calendar and the year 1260 in their calendar. Here's an example...

Rev 11:3 I will appoint my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days...​

Now these "two witnesses" Baha'is say are Muhammad and Ali. And those 1260 days are converted to 1260 years. So, the Baha'is have Muhammad and Ali prophesying for 1260 years, but then they are killed and it says...

Rev 11:9 For three and a half days some from every people, tribe, language and nation will gaze on their bodies and refuse them burial.​

But after those 3 1/2 days are converted to be 1260 years, they get up and are alive again. The problem is... how can they prophecy for 1260 years, then be dead for 1260 years and have them both start and stop at the same time? Which is year zero to year 1260 in the Islamic calendar.

But, to complicate things even more... This happens during the second "Woe". Which is supposed to be about the Bab, not Muhammad and Ali. The first "Woe", which Baha'is say was Muhammad, ended in chapter 9.

Rev 9:12 The first woe is past; two other woes are yet to come.​

The second "Woe", which Baha'is say is the Bab ends in chapter 11 after all that stuff about Muhammad and Ali.

Rev 11:14 The second woe has passed; the third woe is coming soon.​

So now, supposedly, we are in the third "Woe"... the time of Baha'u'llah. But in chapter 12 and 13, we have more references to things that Baha'is convert into the same 1260 years, the year zero, or 621AD to year 1260 in the Islamic calendar, or the year 1844. In chapter 13 we have the beasts and the dragon...

Rev 13:1 The dragon stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. It had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on its horns, and on each head a blasphemous name... The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority...​

​

5 The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise its authority for forty-two months.​

This beast, according to the Baha'is, is the Umayyad's that took control of Islam in 661AD. And, of course, the 42 months are converted into 1260 years by the Baha'is to make it the same 1260 years of the Islamic calendar. But the Umayyads didn't take power in the year zero and they didn't last for 1260 years. They were out of power in 750AD.

The Umayyad dynasty lasted less than a century in Damascus before it was driven out in 750 by the ʿAbbāsid dynasty.​

Now Baha'is are all for personal investigation of truth. Is what I'm doing. And they want people to look at things with open mind and judge things honestly. But, honestly, all this really makes the Baha'i Faith look like they are just force fitting things into the Book of Revelation. And are they looking at things honestly and without bias? I don't think so. They've already committed themselves to believe that whatever the Baha'i Faith teaches is the truth.

Sorry Baha'is, but I don't see how any of this type of interpreting can be seen as the truth. Work for peace... Promote the oneness and equality of humanity... Do all the good things that Baha'is are doing, but when you say that your prophet is the return of Christ, I just can't believe it. And, unfortunately, if he's not, then what is he?

It's true, the Baha'is have to use some creative interpretations of the Bible that just cannot be logically true.

 

[Pete in Panama]

No, I'm saying why reject him...

Right, you're saying not asking it. Thank you for your time & cheers.

 

[Brian2]

All this is why Baha'u'llah never suggested that we use the Bible to determine the truth of His claims. He told us what to look at.

“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.”

Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 104-107

If people insist on using the Bible instead of looking at Baha'u'llah based upon His own merit that is not the independent investigation of truth since that entailed NO investigation of Baha'u'llah whatsoever. Since it is not the independent investigation of truth it can never lead to knowing the truth about Baha'u'llah.

To investigate if Jesus is the promised Messiah we should use the OT scriptures. That is the only way to do it. It is the same with investigating the truth of Baha'u'llah's claims.
If Baha'u'llah is not the one prophesied then he is not the one prophesied and should not be believed.

 

[Brian2]

For me, the Baha'is need a progressive chain of religious teachings to have been going on, but there are too many giant leaps between all the other religions and Judaism. And one of the biggest is between Judaism and Christianity. It's not a progression... it's a major change.

Now between Judaism, with its laws, and Islam and the Baha'i Faith, it's close to a progression. The new religion brings new laws, and each brought a new book and religion.

But Christianity doesn't fit in there very well. New laws are the focus. It is showing a person can get their sins forgiven and get saved from eternity in hell.

The progression of religions only works for Baha'i when the earlier religions are denied to an extent and said to be corruptions.
Christianity is different in that it does not bring a law but brings the promised Spirit of God instead, and this Spirit of God in us can perfect us. Jesus also suffered and died to bear our sins as prophesied. I don't think the Bible teaches eternity in hell, it teaches salvation from death.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There are many considerations, but I will start the OP with but one more consideration, that is the the perdon of the Messenger will be known by their fruit.

This seems to make no sense at all.

Why would we ever think that there's some threshold of moral goodness where, if a person exceeds it, their claims about the future become reliable?

Does this work with other skills? If someone is good and honest enough, can we rest assured that they're an excellent welder, for instance?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

To investigate if Jesus is the promised Messiah we should use the OT scriptures. That is the only way to do it. It is the same with investigating the truth of Baha'u'llah's claims.
If Baha'u'llah is not the one prophesied then he is not the one prophesied and should not be believed.

Why have many Christians embraced Baha'u'llah, even ministers and a queen who wrote books and letters encouraging Christianity to search out the Message of Baha’u’llah, and many haven't?

Who has made the right choice, those that have chosen to not look, or those that have looked and found the Biblical prophecy was indeed fulfilled?

Consider, the Bible does warn that a vast majority will not make the choice to look. Every eye has indeed seen this great and dreadful "Day of the Lord", yet many choose not to he born again, they are bewildered at the current state of affairs, unaware why the old world order is self destructing.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Then why accept Christianity as a true religion? When did they ever teach the truth about God? That is the "truth" as believed by the Baha'is

From the time Jesus was foretold in the scriptures, since the beginning of time, until the end of time, the Truth Jesus brought to us is the image we have been created in, it is our human spirits given potential.

What else are you looking for CG?

Regards Tony

 

[Truthseeker]

My personal view however is that unity is the world's dominant trend. I'd say we're generally good.

That depends on the time frame. There is increasing conflict in the world at this time, and it's not likely to get better over the next decades (in my opinion) If you go back to the first part of the 20th century, there was WWI and WWII.

 

[Truthseeker]

I already told you that I know the difference between a true prophet and a false prophet. A true prophet has good fruits and a false prophet has evil fruits. I believe that Baha'u'llah had good fruits and Ahmad had evil fruits.

Have you investigated to see if Ahmad had bad fruits, or are you assuming he did?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Have you investigated to see if Ahmad had bad fruits, or are you assuming he did?

The teachings are very inclusive of good fruits!

Regards Tony