True and False Prophets - Just and Honest Determination

[Trailblazer]

But from your dictionary link:

"the soft part containing seeds that is produced by a plant. Many types of fruit are sweet and can be eaten".
"Apricots are the one fruit I don't like".
"Oranges, apples, pears, and bananas are all types of fruit".

So would apples be the wrong meaning of fruit?

No, but that is not what fruits mean in the Bible.

AI Overview
Learn more

In the Bible, particularly in Matthew 7:16-20, "fruits" refers to the observable actions and results of someone's life, essentially meaning that you can identify a person's true character by the way they behave and the choices they make, just like you can identify a tree by the fruit it produces; good people will naturally produce good deeds, and bad people will produce bad deeds.

The way that you sort them can't tell the difference between a true prophet and a false one. For the reason that I explained being the same could be said for anyone suffering messiah syndrome promoting peace and doing good deeds.

Below is why I believe that Baha'u'llah is a true prophet.

Baha’u’llah wrote about the 'evidence' that establishes the truth of His claims. Baha’u’llah enjoined us to look at His own Self (His character), His Revelation (His mission and works, which can be seen in Baha'i history), and His words (His Writings).

“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 Baha'u'llah was a true prophet then that means Ahmad has to be a false prophet because of what Baha'u'llah wrote.

“Whoso layeth claim to a Revelation direct from God, ere the expiration of a full thousand years, such a man is assuredly a lying impostor. We pray God that He may graciously assist him to retract and repudiate such claim. Should he repent, God will, no doubt, forgive him. If, however, he persisteth in his error, God will, assuredly, send down one who will deal mercilessly with him. Terrible, indeed, is God in punishing! Whosoever interpreteth this verse otherwise than its obvious meaning is deprived of the Spirit of God and of His mercy which encompasseth all created things. Fear God, and follow not your idle fancies. Nay, rather follow the bidding of your Lord, the Almighty, the All-Wise.”

Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Page 346

 

[CG Didymus]

You stated the key, but clouded it in negation.

The Sun is God in the Mirror of the Messenger and each day that Sun rises, God is known by different name, but it is the same Sun.

Nobody should call be saying it is the God of Abraham, the God of Islam, the God of Baha'i, the God of Hinduism, the God of Buddha, etc

It is the Same God, It is a perfectly good analogy.

Regards Tony

And the "negation" of Baha'is... They never admit that some religions are false, and the Gods in those religions weren't real.

And the Bible supports that. The Israelites believed in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The neighboring people didn't. How do Baha'is deal with that?

But if Baha'is are going to make concessions to Christians and Hindus for their beliefs about God, then why not do it for those other religions? Like the Gods of the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Aztecs, Assyrians and others?

Or... were those Gods in those religions mythical and not real?

 

[Trailblazer]

And the "negation" of Baha'is... They never admit that some religions are false,

I am a Baha'i and I admit that in their current form some religions are false. I have said that repeatedly and quoted this passage.

“This is the Day when the loved ones of God should keep their eyes directed towards His Manifestation, and fasten them upon whatsoever that Manifestation may be pleased to reveal. Certain traditions of bygone ages rest on no foundations whatever, while the notions entertained by past generations, and which they have recorded in their books, have, for the most part, been influenced by the desires of a corrupt inclination. Thou dost witness how most of the commentaries and interpretations of the words of God, now current amongst men, are devoid of truth. Their falsity hath, in some cases, been exposed when the intervening veils were rent asunder. They themselves have acknowledged their failure in apprehending the meaning of any of the words of God.”

Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 169-172

and the Gods in those religions weren't real.

I do not believe that the Gods of any religion are real unless those religions were revealed by a real Messenger of God.

And the Bible supports that. The Israelites believed in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The neighboring people didn't. How do Baha'is deal with that?

Easily. The gods of the neighboring people are false gods since they were not revealed by a Messenger of God.

But if Baha'is are going to make concessions to Christians and Hindus for their beliefs about God, then why not do it for those other religions? Like the Gods of the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Aztecs, Assyrians and others?

Or... were those Gods in those religions mythical and not real?

You just answered your own question. The gods in those religions are mythical and not real.
The real God has real Messengers. The mythical gods have no Messengers.

 

[CG Didymus]

Seems that you assume what the Bible says is true and come up with different meanings of how it could be true.

Your explanation of different meanings might seem like a simple way to get everyone to agree. But if people can't agree on one meaning how could they ever agree on which of the different meanings are the intentional true different meanings of each verse?

That's easy, the Baha'i Faith tells you their "true" meaning. Born Again Christians tell you theirs. And people in other religions tell you theirs.

And, although Baha'is like to think of themselves as always being positive and never negative... to always seeking the things that people can agree on, and always seeking to bring unity and build bridges between people, they don't always. Their interpretations "negate" the interpretations that other people may hold. Their interpretation "negate" long-held beliefs that people have about their own Scriptures.

But Baha'is believe they are in the right... it is the other people, with their old traditional beliefs and interpretations, that are wrong. Baha'is believe that their religion is the absolute truth from God... that has been delivered to us by their prophet. They must go out and tell everybody this new truth. They must find a way to convince others at least look at the teachings and the life of their prophet and see for themselves that it is the truth.

And that truth of theirs makes everybody else's truth false. Jesus is not coming back. Reincarnation is false. Muhammad is not the last prophet etc.

Maybe all they say is true. But some of us don't believe them. And it's how they react and respond to criticism that makes me question their truth even more.

Yes, they have some good fruit. Baha'is do a lot of good things. But which religion doesn't? And also which religion has some people and leaders that have done some rotten things?

There are other ways to determine if some guy is telling the truth when he makes claims that he is a God-sent prophet. Trouble is, we all use a different set of things to determine it. Some of us will agree with him, and others will think he is the biggest liar the world has ever seen.

Even with the common denominator of the Bible, Baha'is see it saying one thing, Christians and others see it different.

 

[CG Didymus]

Or... were those Gods in those religions mythical and not real?

I also believe there were false Messiahs/messengers/gurus/[prophets etc. I know Baha'is don't believe that Baha'u'llah is anywhere close to being a false prophet, but not everybody is so confident in that.

If I ask tough questions and sound so "negative", it's for a reason... Baha'is too easily try to sugar-coat their answers and sound like they accept everybody and their beliefs. They don't, and I don't think they should. If Baha'is have the truth... tell it like it is. And that's going to be... Oh, that ugly word... being negative.

But we all know that Baha'is don't believe a lot of things that people in the other religions believe... even stuff they believe about God. Which means... Is it the same God? If they are defining God differently, and they believe things that aren't true, then that concept of God is false. Baha'is got to be negative sometimes... if it is the truth... that is... the truth as they believe it. And those of us that disagree can then challenge Baha'is and ask why they think that way.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

Below is why I believe that Baha'u'llah is a true prophet.

Baha’u’llah wrote about the 'evidence' that establishes the truth of His claims. Baha’u’llah enjoined us to look at His own Self (His character), His Revelation (His mission and works, which can be seen in Baha'i history), and His words (His Writings).

If Baha'u'llah was a true prophet then that means Ahmad has to be a false prophet because of what Baha'u'llah wrote.

I understand what you are saying but comparing one mans life to another to determine if they are true prophets or false prophets would be difficult to come to any agreement that someone is a true prophet.

No, but that is not what fruits mean in the Bible.

In the Bible, particularly in Matthew 7:16-20, "fruits" refers to the observable actions and results of someone's life, essentially meaning that you can identify a person's true character by the way they behave and the choices they make, just like you can identify a tree by the fruit it produces; good people will naturally produce good deeds, and bad people will produce bad deeds.

No. That is just an assumption of what the fruit in Matthew 7:16-20 means in the Bible. That meaning would have to disregard all the specific fruits spoken of through the Bible. Like apples etc.

In the Bible prophets speak in multiple symbol sentences so they also speak their fruits with other specific words. Perhaps seemingly unrelated words like the Bible also speaks about the three metals brass, silver, and gold for an example:

It is when their fruits and seemingly unrelated words are put together is how you can get golden apples.

"A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver". Proverbs

Brass - Silver - Gold
Pomegranate - Fig - Apple

And also Brass pomegranates:
"And a chapiter of brass was upon it; and the height of one chapiter was five cubits, with network and pomegranates upon the chapiters round about, all of brass. The second pillar also and the pomegranates were like unto these". Jeremiah.

Brass - Silver - Gold
Pomegranate - Fig - Apple

You can tell a true prophet by how they speak. By what they are doing with their words. Even the fruits in the Bible are spoken according to a law made of words. The different fruits are put into different specific positions of judgement.

 

[Trailblazer]

I also believe there were false Messiahs/messengers/gurus/[prophets etc. I know Baha'is don't believe that Baha'u'llah is anywhere close to being a false prophet, but not everybody is so confident in that.

If I ask tough questions and sound so "negative", it's for a reason... Baha'is too easily try to sugar-coat their answers and sound like they accept everybody and their beliefs. They don't, and I don't think they should. If Baha'is have the truth... tell it like it is. And that's going to be... Oh, that ugly word... being negative.

But we all know that Baha'is don't believe a lot of things that people in the other religions believe... even stuff they believe about God. Which means... Is it the same God? If they are defining God differently, and they believe things that aren't true, then that concept of God is false. Baha'is got to be negative sometimes... if it is the truth... that is... the truth as they believe it. And those of us that disagree can then challenge Baha'is and ask why they think that way.

I think that Baha'is should be honest about what they believe, and sometimes that requires disagreeing with other believers, or even telling other believers that we think they are wrong, but I don't know why you consider that negative?

 

[Trailblazer]

I understand what you are saying but comparing one mans life to another to determine if they are true prophets or false prophets would be difficult to come to any agreement that someone is a true prophet.

I understand what you are saying, but we have to look at their person, their lives, and their teachings in order to come to any conclusions.
We can only determine for ourselves if we believe a man is a true prophet. There is no way everyone is going to come to an agreement on that matter.

No. That is just an assumption of what the fruit in Matthew 7:16-20 means in the Bible. That meaning would have to disregard all the specific fruits spoken of through the Bible. Like apples etc.

In the Bible prophets speak in multiple symbol sentences so they also speak their fruits with other specific words.

The meaning of fruits as the pleasant or successful result of work or actions only pertains to true and false prophets as per Matthew 7:16-20.

Applying that meaning to Matthew 7:16-20 would not have to disregard other meanings of fruits that apply to other verses in the Bible, like apples etc.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

I understand what you are saying, but we have to look at their person, their lives, and their teachings in order to come to any conclusions.
We can only determine for ourselves if we believe a man is a true prophet. There is no way everyone is going to come to an agreement on that matter.

The meaning of fruits as the pleasant or successful result of work or actions only pertains to true and false prophets as per Matthew 7:16-20.

Applying that meaning to Matthew 7:16-20 would not have to disregard other meanings of fruits that apply to other verses in the Bible, like apples etc.

If you can understand what I am saying we could objectively look at the fruits of Muhammad and come to the same conclusions. With the Bible as the common denominator we could get to know Muhammad by his fruits.

For example Muhammad says:

"gardens of grapes, and olives, and pomegranates, each similar (in kind) yet different (in variety): when they begin to bear fruit, feast your eyes with the fruit and the ripeness thereof. Behold! in these things there are signs for people who believe".

And I know what fruits he is talking about. They are fruits that are mentioned in the Bible. And I know their positions according to the bible law made of words.

Observe this explanation:

Postion1 - Position2 - Position3
Corn - Olive - Grape
Pomegaranate - Fig - Apple

We can see his fruits are in the three different positions. He has swapped corn for pomegranates which is still acceptable because both words share the same position so it is still said in the correct three position sequence.


Also in the Quran Muhammad puts the words fig and olive together:
"By the Fig and the Olive"

Position1 - Position2 - Position3
Brass - Silver - Gold
Corn - Olive - Grape
Pomegaranate - Fig - Apple
Moon - Star - Sun

And he puts olive and star together:
"as it were a brilliant star: Lit from a blessed Tree, an Olive".

Position1 - Position2 - Position3
Brass - Silver - Gold
Corn - Olive - Grape
Pomegaranate - Fig - Apple
Moon - Star - Sun

Muhammad putting the Fig, Olive, and Star together is OT accurate law exactly like as in Revelation where it says the stars are as figs.

"And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind". Revelation.

Position1 - Position2 - Position3
Brass - Silver - Gold
Corn - Olive - Grape
Pomegaranate - Fig - Apple
Moon - Star - Sun

That is why I accept the specific fruits of Muhammad. He speaks exactly the same as the Bible prophets.

But you are suggesting it has something to do with assessing the life of Muhammad that makes him a true prophet. And you haven't explained how that's done.

 

[CG Didymus]

It is an annoying negative trait, that we can so easily justify in our own selves,

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.

your only belief is a desire to disagree w/ anyone who has a belief.

all I caught was negativity and conflict so I stopped.

You stated the key, but clouded it in negation.

Oh, that ugly word... being negative.

That's why I'm using that word... "negative". It's hard to disagree with someone in a positive way. What can a person say? "Hey, you're a real nice person, but what you believe is stupid."

 

[Pete in Panama]

Considering the Bible in general and the Baha'i claims about Adam and Noah and Abraham and Moses having been Baha'i type Manifestations. That is a very creative way to try to change the overall Bible story to a completely different story which fits in with Baha'i teachings about Manifestations.
These people in the Bible are shown to be no more than men, and flawed men at that who sinned according to the Bible.
So not only creative but illogical when Manifestations in Baha'i are said to not sin.

From what I gather here your post makes perfect sense w/ regard to what you've probably heard. There's more and I've sent it. After you sent out the above post you'll hopefully come across what I'd sent to you in my post #831 and that post may explain a few things. Please share you thoughts after you've seen #831.

 

[Pete in Panama]

"Another reality"? Yeah, don't bother, we're not on the same page. That's too far into a "Baha'i" reality for ...

Right, you disagree w/ me and that's all I know of your religious beliefs is that it's a religion where I'm wrong and you're right. One reason I'm saying that is that this is my honest take on what little I know of your beliefs to date.

Another reason I'm say it is so you'll contradict me again by saying "Oh yeah, well you're totally wrong because I agree w/ everything you've said, so there!! Ooops, I shouldn't have said that because now you'll say you disagree w/ everything I say.

Hmm, maybe now you'll say...

Seriously, I don't mean any offense & maybe I need to go soak my head in ice water...

 

[Pete in Panama]

Seems that you assume what the Bible says is true and come up with different meanings of how it could be true.

Your explanation of different meanings might seem like a simple way to get everyone to agree.

What I'm sensing from you here is the idea that if two people come up w/ different understandings from a Biblical context then one or both are wrong. What my thinking is that both may be right, understanding the reference for different applications for different people w/ different environments. My thought is that the Bible is rich, and provides import to an extremely diverse human population.

But if people can't agree on one meaning how could they ever agree on which of the different meanings are the intentional true different meanings of each verse?

All this is getting to be a bit hard for me to follow w/ any serious accuracy. Maybe I could explain by example.

Let's say I'm reading the Bible from the beginning and I've just read "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." What are the heavens? Those guys never talked about traveling light-years to visit other stars, all they had was the light that came to them from the stars. They had no concept of the Planet Earth. Most probably their idea of "earth" was like our idea of "soil", as in "digging up the earth". So a more accurate understanding might be "In the beginning God created the energy and matter in space.

Somehow that makes more sense to me although I can still see the possibility that others may have other points of view.

 

[Trailblazer]

If you can understand what I am saying we could objectively look at the fruits of Muhammad and come to the same conclusions. With the Bible as the common denominator we could get to know Muhammad by his fruits.

I believe that the fruits of a prophet are the pleasant or successful result of work or actions.
I do not believe that we can know the fruits of Muhammad by the way the Qur'an was written, i.e., because of the positioning of words in sentences.

That is why I accept the specific fruits of Muhammad. He speaks exactly the same as the Bible prophets.

But you are suggesting it has something to do with assessing the life of Muhammad that makes him a true prophet. And you haven't explained how that's done.

Again, I do not believe that we can know the fruits of Muhammad because of how He spoke.
One can assess the life of Muhammad by reading about his life and mission.

 

[Brian2]

It's the only path I go. It's the thing about "if religion be the cause of disunity better there be no religion". When I'm chatting religion w/ someone and sense conflict/hostility I wish them well & move on.

Disagreements seem unavoidable. That does not mean that there needs to be conflict/hostility.

You're not feeling a hostile conflict we me are you?

No

The reference what Jesus pointed out in Daniel is profound & I'm wondering if & how you considered it.

I presume you mean 'the abomination of desolation spoken by the prophet Daniel'(Dan 11:31, Dan 9:27, Dan 12:11) (Mark 13:41)
The abomination that makes desolate seems to be a reference to a thing or person who desecrates the Temple.

 

[Brian2]

Baha'u'llah did perform miracles.

Bahá’u’lláh forbade His followers to attribute miracles to Him because this would have amounted to the degradation of His exalted station. Nevertheless, there are many accounts left to posterity by His disciples, describing the circumstances in which He either healed incurables or raised the dead.

None of these supernatural acts were considered by His followers to be a proof of the truth of His Cause, since they are only convincing to a limited number of people and they are not decisive proofs even for those who see them.

With this caveat in mind, it’s fun to look back on our history, and see how the Central Figures handled miracles.

OK miracles are reported but he did not spend his time travelling around healing people etc

No meanings had to be changed in order for Baha'u'llah to fulfill the prophecies.
But you keep making that claim, so let's have some evidence to supports that claim.

P.S. When you say that meanings had to be changed you are claiming you know the correct meaning and that was changed to something else.
Problem is, nobody ever gave you any authority to interpret the Bible and establish the correct meaning. That means your meaning is no more correct than my meaning.

He changed the meaning of "Son of Man" to be referring to himself when Jesus had already identified the Son of Man as being Jesus.
I go by the plain meanings that we can get from a dictionary and/or the Bible. I might be wrong. Your might be wrong.
But I presume you are wanting to say that Baha'u'llah had authority to interpret the Bible and prophecies. If you want to say that then you should show where Baha'u'llah was given authority to do that.

Jesus never said "I will come back."
It was only other people who believed and hoped Jesus would come back.
That is no basis for any belief, not for any logical person.

I have no reason to believe any of those people since they all contradict Jesus, who said that He was going to be NO MORE in this world.

All you have is a belief whereas I have a real person who fulfilled the prophecies.

That was never debunked because it cannot be debunked without changing the Bible.

If these verses are a lie, then Jesus is a liar.

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 16:10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more.

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.

Sorry you cannot face reality.

Why do you just keep quoting the same verses over and over when I have shown you that they cannot be taken literally.
For a start even one of the verses you quote says that Jesus disciples would see Him no more. But both of us know that the disciples would see Jesus again.
John 16:10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more.
You should try to answer my objection instead of just repeating the verses which we both know should not be taken literally. (as in John 16:10)
Secondly we know that the verses which you parrot should not be taken literally when Jesus actually did say "I will come again" (John 14:3, 14:28)
You do try to say tell us that Jesus could not have meant that He would return to earth, but that is based on your Baha'i beliefs and not on the actual meaning of the verses which tell us that Jesus said that He will go (obviously from the earth) and come again (obviously to the place He left, the earth).
And Jesus did say that He would come again according to the verses I refer to. It is not someone telling us what they think would happen. But I guess you really don't care what Jesus said.

 

[Brian2]

Isa 53 is not about Jesus. More than once I have explained why it cannot be about Jesus, so I don't plan to repeat myself..
Baha'u'llah did not claim that Isa 53 was about Him. I am making that claim.

Baha'u'llah does not seem to care what the Bible tells us and is willing to deny it. It is the same with Baha'u'llah's disciples, they also don't seem to care what the Bible tells us, and are willing to deny the Bible.
And in this case you are denying the Bible and it is not even for the Cause of Baha'u'llah if Baha'u'llah did not say it was about him.

I never said that Baha'u'llah will fulfill prophecies over the next 1000 years.
I only ever said that the prophecies will be fulfilled over the next 1000 years.
The Bible does not say that those prophecies would be fulfilled by the messiah, they are referring to what will happen during the messianic age. We are only about 170 years into that age so there is no reason to think that all of those prophecies would be fulfilled by now.
A little logic goes a long way.

Jesus hasn't done anything to fulfill the OT prophecies for the end times, and He never will.
You have nothing but a belief, a belief that is false.

Believing that Jesus is going to come and fulfill those OT prophecies when He returns is like telling everyone what they will be able to travel around the world after they win the lottery

Jesus is building the Temple of God, the Church.
There are other prophecies which will be fulfilled when Jesus returns. So impatient. As Revelation says, "Come Lord Jesus". And yes that is what the early church believed and it is because of what Jesus told them about returning to earth.

 

[Trailblazer]

OK miracles are reported but he did not spend his time travelling around healing people etc

No, because that was not part of His mission from God.

He changed the meaning of "Son of Man" to be referring to himself when Jesus had already identified the Son of Man as being Jesus.

No, Baha'u'llah never claimed to be the Son of Man. He referred to Jesus as the Son of Man.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 85-86

But I presume you are wanting to say that Baha'u'llah had authority to interpret the Bible and prophecies. If you want to say that then you should show where Baha'u'llah was given authority to do that.

I believe that Baha'u'llah was given that authority by God because God appointed Him as the Representative of God among men.

“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.”

Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 175-177

Where were any Christians given authority to interpret the Bible and prophecies? Jesus certainly did not confer authority upon anyone.

Why do you just keep quoting the same verses over and over when I have shown you that they cannot be taken literally.

They can be taken literally and were intended to be taken literally. They have to be literal because there is no way they can be symbolic.

And Jesus did say that He would come again according to the verses I refer to. It is not someone telling us what they think would happen. But I guess you really don't care what Jesus said.

I am not going around that merry-go-round again. What would be the point?
I do care what Jesus said and that is what I am going by. Jesus said He would be no more on the world.

You can keep waiting for Jesus if you want to, it is no skin off my nose.

 

[Brian2]

No, the New Testament does not apply those prophecies to Jesus. It can't apply them to Jesus because Jesus never did any of those things.
All you have is a belief that Jesus will come back and do those things later, but later has never come and it never will.

The OT and NT fit together like a hand and glove. Isa 53 is about Jesus and the NT tells us that Jesus is the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. (as in Isa 53)
The NT also tells us of the resurrection of Jesus to see His children. (as in Isa 53)
The child in Isa 9 is Jesus because he will rule forever on the throne of David, as Jesus is said to do in the NT.
Psalm 2 is about Jesus who is the begotten Son of God and who rules and judges the nations as the NT tells us.
Psalm 110 is about Jesus who is a priest in the order of Melchizedek (as the NT tells us) and who will rule and judge the nations as the NT tells us.
And I could go on.
Baha'u'llah has done nothing but make claims about the meaning of the Bible which contradict the Bible, hence a false prophet whose fruit is to contradict and deny the Bible.

 

[Trailblazer]

Baha'u'llah does not seem to care what the Bible tells us and is willing to deny it. It is the same with Baha'u'llah's disciples, they also don't seem to care what the Bible tells us, and are willing to deny the Bible.
And in this case you are denying the Bible and it is not even for the Cause of Baha'u'llah if Baha'u'llah did not say it was about him.

Baha'u'llah does not care about the Bible. He wrote His own scriptures.

You are the one who is denying what the Bible says and means.
Isa 53 is not about Jesus and I have explained why it cannot be about Jesus, based upon the life of Jesus as recorded in the NT.

Jesus is building the Temple of God, the Church.

The Christians are building the Church. Jesus is in heaven.

There are other prophecies which will be fulfilled when Jesus returns. So impatient. As Revelation says, "Come Lord Jesus". And yes that is what the early church believed and it is because of what Jesus told them about returning to earth.

Many people believed and hoped that Jesus was going to return when the Bible was recorded and that is why Christians still believe that.
But Jesus said He was no more in this world and Christians choose to gloss over His words.

You can keep waiting but I am tired of arguing about it. Thinking anything is ever come from discussing this further is like beating a dead horse.