True and False Prophets - Just and Honest Determination

[Brian2]

But there are a few major prophecy that Baha'u'llah did fulfill... the one that says there will be four "Messiahs", which we now know to be Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah, and that when "He, the Spirit of Truth comes", we now know that is Baha'u'llah... that he will guide us into all truth And the prophecy goes on to say how he will tell the kings and rulers of the Earth that he is the "Promised One", but they will reject him.

An important part of that prophecy is that he will come from Persian and will have another "Manifestation of God", or another "Christ", proceed him by just a few years. But that messenger will be killed. And he, the main messenger, along with being rejected, will be exiled and imprisoned and will die.

But before his death he will write several books that layout the plan for peace. Which, of course, is exactly as predicted in the prophecy. However, that plan won't go into effect for some time. But, as it says in the prophecy, someday, after the "Christ" has long since died, it will.

Another important part of that prophecy is that he won't need to go to Jerusalem. The "City of Peace" is going to be moved to Haifa... along with Mt. Zion and the Valley of Achor. And, that after several landscapers plant a bunch of trees and flowers and an irrigation system gets installed, the hill will blossom.

This prophecy makes it clear that the Promised One is Baha'u'llah. All we are waiting for is for the Baha'is to find that prophecy... but it's in there somewhere.

And clearly says that the Promised One will come get rejected, then thrown in jail and then die without bringing peace or ruling anywhere. Oh, and that wars and rumors of wars will continue and get worse. And, just like predicted, then the great tribulation will happen... long after the Messiah has come and gone.

Now where is that prophecy? It's gotta be here somewhere?

There is prophecy about the rejection of the Messiah, but that is taken by Jesus and when Jesus returns as King and ruler there is no rejection of whom He is, it cannot be denied when the dead are actually raised and judged etc.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

For Christians, EVERYTHING in the Bible is about Jesus, only it isn't all about Jesus.
The NT is about Jesus but the OT is not all about Jesus. It is about Moses and other prophets and the coming of the messiah of the latter days.
Some of the OT is referring to Jesus as the messiah who would come, just as He did.
Much of the OT is referring to Baha'u'llah, who was the messiah who would come in the latter days.

Isa 53 is not about Jesus.
Isa 9:6-7 is not about Jesus.
Psalm 2 is not about Jesus.
Psalm 110 is not about Jesus.

And I could go on.

 

[GoodAttention]

For Christians, EVERYTHING in the Bible is about Jesus, only it isn't all about Jesus.
The NT is about Jesus but the OT is not all about Jesus. It is about Moses and other prophets and the coming of the messiah of the latter days.
Some of the OT is referring to Jesus as the messiah who would come, just as He did.
Much of the OT is referring to Baha'u'llah, who was the messiah who would come in the latter days.

Isa 53 is not about Jesus.
Isa 9:6-7 is not about Jesus.
Psalm 2 is not about Jesus.
Psalm 110 is not about Jesus.

And I could go on.

So which Hebrew/Greek scriptures are considered unreliable, and which ones pertinent?

My understanding is the Quran is the word of God but not the others.

 

[Trailblazer]

So which Hebrew/Greek scriptures are considered unreliable, and which ones pertinent?

My understanding is the Quran is the word of God but not the others.

I don't really know which Hebrew/Greek scriptures are reliable or unreliable since I am not a Bible expert.

Pertinent to what?

 

[GoodAttention]

I don't really know which Hebrew/Greek scriptures are reliable or unreliable since I am not a Bible expert.

Ah sorry, another person said only the Quran was the word of God, because with the others we don’t know who the authors are??

Pertinent to what?

Sorry not pertinent, but reliable.

 

[Trailblazer]

Ah sorry, another person said only the Quran was the word of God, because with the others we don’t know who the authors are??

No, that was me, but that is just my personal opinion. I cannot understand how the Bible can be the word of God since it was written by men.
My opinion is influenced by what this Baha'i scholar wrote.

Mírza Abú'l-Fadl was praised and recommended by 'Abdu'l-Bahá and has been justifiably called the most learned and erudite Bahá'í scholar[16]
Regarding the Old Testament, Fadl said that it contained two types of teaching: a) revelation from God, such as the 10 commandments of Moses, the Psalms of David and the books of the Prophets, and b) historical information, such as the books Joshua, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles "...which contain no statement, sign or hint of being divine speech and therefore should not be considered as revelation."[17]

Concerning the Book of Christ, he wrote that "The Holy Gospels alone contain teachings which can be regarded as the true Words of God; and these teachings do not exceed the contents of a few pages."[18]

Conclusion

The Bahá'í viewpoint proposed by this essay has been established as follows: The Bible is a reliable source of Divine guidance and salvation, and rightly regarded as a sacred and holy book. However, as a collection of the writings of independent and human authors, it is not necessarily historically accurate. Nor can the words of its writers, although inspired, be strictly defined as 'The Word of God' in the way the original words of Moses and Jesus could have been. Instead there is an area of continuing interest for Bahá'í scholars, possibly involving the creation of new categories for defining authoritative religious literature.

Bahá'í Library Online

Baha'i articles, books, translations, and historical materials

bahai-library.com

Sorry not pertinent, but reliable.

I am not sure how reliable the Bible is, but I don't think it is as reliable as the Qur'an or the Writings of Baha'u'llah.

 

[GoodAttention]

No, that was me, but that is just my personal opinion. I cannot understand how the Bible can be the word of God since it was written by men.
My opinion is influenced by what this Baha'i scholar wrote.

Mírza Abú'l-Fadl was praised and recommended by 'Abdu'l-Bahá and has been justifiably called the most learned and erudite Bahá'í scholar[16]
Regarding the Old Testament, Fadl said that it contained two types of teaching: a) revelation from God, such as the 10 commandments of Moses, the Psalms of David and the books of the Prophets, and b) historical information, such as the books Joshua, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles "...which contain no statement, sign or hint of being divine speech and therefore should not be considered as revelation."[17]

Concerning the Book of Christ, he wrote that "The Holy Gospels alone contain teachings which can be regarded as the true Words of God; and these teachings do not exceed the contents of a few pages."[18]

Conclusion

The Bahá'í viewpoint proposed by this essay has been established as follows: The Bible is a reliable source of Divine guidance and salvation, and rightly regarded as a sacred and holy book. However, as a collection of the writings of independent and human authors, it is not necessarily historically accurate. Nor can the words of its writers, although inspired, be strictly defined as 'The Word of God' in the way the original words of Moses and Jesus could have been. Instead there is an area of continuing interest for Bahá'í scholars, possibly involving the creation of new categories for defining authoritative religious literature.

Bahá'í Library Online

Baha'i articles, books, translations, and historical materials

bahai-library.com

I am not sure how reliable the Bible is, but I don't think it is as reliable as the Qur'an or the Writings of Baha'u'llah.

No, that was me, but that is just my personal opinion. I cannot understand how the Bible can be the word of God since it was written by men.
My opinion is influenced by what this Baha'i scholar wrote.

Mírza Abú'l-Fadl was praised and recommended by 'Abdu'l-Bahá and has been justifiably called the most learned and erudite Bahá'í scholar[16]
Regarding the Old Testament, Fadl said that it contained two types of teaching: a) revelation from God, such as the 10 commandments of Moses, the Psalms of David and the books of the Prophets, and b) historical information, such as the books Joshua, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles "...which contain no statement, sign or hint of being divine speech and therefore should not be considered as revelation."[17]

Concerning the Book of Christ, he wrote that "The Holy Gospels alone contain teachings which can be regarded as the true Words of God; and these teachings do not exceed the contents of a few pages."[18]

Conclusion

The Bahá'í viewpoint proposed by this essay has been established as follows: The Bible is a reliable source of Divine guidance and salvation, and rightly regarded as a sacred and holy book. However, as a collection of the writings of independent and human authors, it is not necessarily historically accurate. Nor can the words of its writers, although inspired, be strictly defined as 'The Word of God' in the way the original words of Moses and Jesus could have been. Instead there is an area of continuing interest for Bahá'í scholars, possibly involving the creation of new categories for defining authoritative religious literature.

Bahá'í Library Online

Baha'i articles, books, translations, and historical materials

bahai-library.com

I am not sure how reliable the Bible is, but I don't think it is as reliable as the Qur'an or the Writings of Baha'u'llah.

No, that was me, but that is just my personal opinion. I cannot understand how the Bible can be the word of God since it was written by men.
My opinion is influenced by what this Baha'i scholar wrote.

Mírza Abú'l-Fadl was praised and recommended by 'Abdu'l-Bahá and has been justifiably called the most learned and erudite Bahá'í scholar[16]
Regarding the Old Testament, Fadl said that it contained two types of teaching: a) revelation from God, such as the 10 commandments of Moses, the Psalms of David and the books of the Prophets, and b) historical information, such as the books Joshua, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles "...which contain no statement, sign or hint of being divine speech and therefore should not be considered as revelation."[17]

Concerning the Book of Christ, he wrote that "The Holy Gospels alone contain teachings which can be regarded as the true Words of God; and these teachings do not exceed the contents of a few pages."[18]

Conclusion

The Bahá'í viewpoint proposed by this essay has been established as follows: The Bible is a reliable source of Divine guidance and salvation, and rightly regarded as a sacred and holy book. However, as a collection of the writings of independent and human authors, it is not necessarily historically accurate. Nor can the words of its writers, although inspired, be strictly defined as 'The Word of God' in the way the original words of Moses and Jesus could have been. Instead there is an area of continuing interest for Bahá'í scholars, possibly involving the creation of new categories for defining authoritative religious literature.

Bahá'í Library Online

Baha'i articles, books, translations, and historical materials

bahai-library.com

I am not sure how reliable the Bible is, but I don't think it is as reliable as the Qur'an or the Writings of Baha'u'llah.

Thanks.

 

[GoodAttention]

No, that was me, but that is just my personal opinion. I cannot understand how the Bible can be the word of God since it was written by men.
My opinion is influenced by what this Baha'i scholar wrote.

Mírza Abú'l-Fadl was praised and recommended by 'Abdu'l-Bahá and has been justifiably called the most learned and erudite Bahá'í scholar[16]
Regarding the Old Testament, Fadl said that it contained two types of teaching: a) revelation from God, such as the 10 commandments of Moses, the Psalms of David and the books of the Prophets, and b) historical information, such as the books Joshua, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles "...which contain no statement, sign or hint of being divine speech and therefore should not be considered as revelation."[17]

Concerning the Book of Christ, he wrote that "The Holy Gospels alone contain teachings which can be regarded as the true Words of God; and these teachings do not exceed the contents of a few pages."[18]

Conclusion

The Bahá'í viewpoint proposed by this essay has been established as follows: The Bible is a reliable source of Divine guidance and salvation, and rightly regarded as a sacred and holy book. However, as a collection of the writings of independent and human authors, it is not necessarily historically accurate. Nor can the words of its writers, although inspired, be strictly defined as 'The Word of God' in the way the original words of Moses and Jesus could have been. Instead there is an area of continuing interest for Bahá'í scholars, possibly involving the creation of new categories for defining authoritative religious literature.

Bahá'í Library Online

Baha'i articles, books, translations, and historical materials

bahai-library.com

I am not sure how reliable the Bible is, but I don't think it is as reliable as the Qur'an or the Writings of Baha'u'llah.

Right, thanks.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

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.

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.

Why assess the work or actions of a messenger rather than the message?

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.

Why not? Muhammad clearly speaks of very specific fruits along with other very specific words.

 

[Pete in Panama]

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

It's good we're in agreement there. One saying is "through the clash of differing opinions the spark of truth can be seen. I learn so much more from someone who has an opinion different than mine, someone who already agrees w/ me tells me nothing new.

... 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.

That's the one I was thinking of. Our convo here concerns the time of the end, the return. The disciples asked Jesus about the return and He referred them to Daniel/abomination/desolate. Those two words only appear in the 9th thru 12 chapters --ya got to just LOVE this info age where anyone can do a quick internet search thru the whole Bible.

What I saw there was in the 9th chapter was a prediction of the Christ being crucified. It was in a discussion where Gabriel was answering Daniel query about the abomination prophesy of the 2300 days/nights.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why assess the work or actions of a messenger rather than the message?

We need to asses both of those, but we need to assess the content of the message, not the way it is worded.

Why not? Muhammad clearly speaks of very specific fruits along with other very specific words.

What does that tell us about the person of Muhammad and what He did on His mission from God?
The way people speak is only a personal preference. It does not tell us anything about them.

 

[CG Didymus]

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.

Hey Baha'is.... Things are getting a little confusing on these different names and titles... Which ones do Baha'is claim are about Baha'u'llah? Of course the "Glory of God" and that he has come in the "station" of the Father. That he is the Prince of Peace and also the Prince of this world... that he is the Spirit of Truth and Comforter, which should also make him the Holy Spirit? But do Baha'is really claim that he is the Son of Man also?

Then Baha'is take the Lamb and Lamb that was slain and say that was the Bab. Any others? Oh, probably Christ and Messiah.

So Brian, they've got pretty much all the names and titles covered.... including the ones from Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. And even one that Christians believe to be about Satan, the Prince of this world, they take that one too.

 

[CG Didymus]

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)

And that's why I keep asking... Why does a religion that goes out of it way to show how Bible verses cannot and should not be taken literally, then have one Baha'is insist on those verses being taken literally?

But then what is taught in Islam? A religion whose Scriptures believe to be more accurate than the Bible.

At least some Muslims believe this...

Muslims hold the following beliefs about the second coming of Jesus:​

​

Jesus was a real person and a blessed prophet of God who lived some two thousand years ago, preaching to his people, the Israelites.​

He was the Messiah (Masih) prophesied by the earlier Israelite prophets.​

The return of Jesus is a sign of the end times.​

He will clear all the confusion prevailing in the world regarding his life and mission.​

He will follow the law of God as perfected by the final Prophet, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).​

​

The foregoing clearly shows that Jesus will return to the earth. But as Islam has been made perfect by God through Prophet Muhammad, Jesus will not make any addition or subtraction to the teachings of Islam. Rather, he will follow the Shariah (Islamic law) of Muhammad.​

​

One of Jesus’ chief functions on his second coming will be to correct the false beliefs that are spread about him and his religion. And then his true followers will be the followers of Prophet Muhammad.​

​

The followers of Jesus will merge with the followers of Muhammad.​

​

Muslims do not know when Jesus will come, but they surely believe he will come.​

​

Since Baha'is can't believe that Jesus is coming back, what is their explanation going to be?

 

[Trailblazer]

But do Baha'is really claim that he is the Son of Man also?

No, we do not claim that Baha'u'llah was the Son of Man.
We believe that Baha'u'llah was the return of the Christ spirit, one like the Son of Man.

Daniel 7:13-14 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

Then Baha'is take the Lamb and Lamb that was slain and say that was the Bab.

Some Baha'is say that the Lamb that was slain was the Bab, but that is not an official Baha'i belief.

Any others? Oh, probably Christ and Messiah.

Some of the titles of Baha’u’llah – compiled by the Guardian​

He was formally designated Bahá'u'lláh, an appellation specifically recorded in the Persian Bayan, signifying at once the glory, the light and the splendor of God, and was styled.

• the "Lord of Lords,"
• the "Most Great Name,"
• the "Ancient Beauty,"
• the "Pen of the Most High,"
• the "Hidden Name,"
• the "Preserved Treasure,"
• "He Whom God will make manifest,"
• the "Most Great Light,"
• the "All-Highest Horizon,"
• the "Most Great Ocean,"
• the "Supreme Heaven,"
• the "Pre-Existent Root,"
• the "Self-Subsistent,"
• the "Day-Star of the Universe,"
• the "Great Announcement,"
• the "Speaker on Sinai,"
• the "Sifter of Men,"
• the "Wronged One of the World,"
• the "Desire of the Nations,"
• the "Lord of the Covenant,"
• the "Tree beyond which there is no passing."

Some of the titles of Baha’u’llah – compiled by the Guardian

He was formally designated Bahá'u'lláh, an appellation specifically recorded in the Persian Bayan, signifying at once the glory, the light a...

thebabhistory.blogspot.com

 

[CG Didymus]

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.

Ah, TB provided a quote...

Know thou that when the Son of Man yielded up His breath to God, the whole creation wept with a great weeping. By sacrificing Himself, however, a fresh capacity was infused into all created things. Its evidences, as witnessed in all the peoples of the earth, are now manifest before thee. The deepest wisdom which the sages have uttered, the profoundest learning which any mind hath unfolded, the arts which the ablest hands have produced, the influence 86 exerted by the most potent of rulers, are but manifestations of the quickening power released by His transcendent, His all-pervasive, and resplendent Spirit.​

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

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

There's some interesting things there...

Wow! The "leprosy" of perversity cleansed. Not the actual disease... but a symbolic leprosy.

But one big problem... Did you see Jesus' name in there anywhere? I didn't. So, how do we know when Baha'u'llah says, "the Son of Man", he is talking about Jesus? Are we to assume? Or is it kind of obvious? It is pretty obvious. It's talking about Jesus.

But when it seems "obvious" in the Bible and NT, that a verse is talking about Jesus it is not? Like when it says the "Lamb" in Revelation. But, at least, we now know that any reference to the "Son of Man" is about Jesus.

But... there is another problem... In Revelation it says, "14:14 I looked, and there before me was a white cloud, and seated on the cloud was one like a son of man..." One "like" a son of man?

Who do Baha'is say this is? Jesus or Baha'u'llah?

And chapter 14 starts with... "Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads..."

Are Baha'is still claiming this "Lamb" is the Bab and not Jesus? Is it obviously about one or the other?

Let's see what an unbiased robot has to say...

AI Overview​

Learn more​

​

The lamb is mentioned 28 timesin the Book of Revelation as a metaphor for Jesus:

​

​

• Revelation 5:1–7: The lamb is the only one worthy to take the judgment scroll from God and break the seals.
  
  ​
  ​
• Revelation 5:6: The lamb is related to the Seven Spirits of God, which are associated with Jesus.
  
  ​
  ​
• Revelation 6:1: The Lamb of God opens the first of seven seals.
  
  ​
  ​

The lamb is a dominant metaphor for Jesus in Revelation. The title "Lamb" is used to reference the Old Testament sacrifice of an unblemished lamb, which was central to the Passover celebration.​

Never mind, what does a robot know? Let's hear from the Baha'is how every mention of the "Lamb" in Revelation is clearly about the Bab.

 

[CG Didymus]

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.

Ah, TB clarified it. Baha'u'llah is one "like" the Son of Man. But Jesus can hold on to the "Son of Man". However, it looks like every other title ever thought of goes to Baha'u'llah.

 

[Trailblazer]

Ah, TB clarified it. Baha'u'llah is one "like" the Son of Man. But Jesus can hold on to the "Son of Man". However, it looks like every other title ever thought of goes to Baha'u'llah.

No, Jesus is still the Son of God and the Messiah. He just isn't the Messiah of the latter days.

 

[CG Didymus]

There is prophecy about the rejection of the Messiah, but that is taken by Jesus and when Jesus returns as King and ruler there is no rejection of whom He is, it cannot be denied when the dead are actually raised and judged etc.

The thing that I keep asking Baha'is is about the placement of the tribulations. They might try and things were bad when the Bab and Baha'u'llah came, but it was nothing like what they say is coming. So, that puts the worst of the bad stuff after Baha'u'llah has come and gone. And the reason why there will be great turmoil is because the world rejected him.

I don't know how Baha'is can tie in Bible prophecy with that? But also prophecies from other religions. Do any of them have the end times Promised One come before the bad stuff happens? It seems like things get bad, real bad, and then the Promised One comes and fixes things.

Like in Revelation... the guy on the white horse comes and defeats all the evil rulers. All the bad stuff has already happened.

I haven't gotten an answer from the Baha'is. And I doubt there is one. But... who knows. By using their symbolic interpreting, I'm sure they'll eventually find something.

 

[Trailblazer]

There's some interesting things there...

Wow! The "leprosy" of perversity cleansed. Not the actual disease... but a symbolic leprosy.

It might have been both symbolic and literal since Jesus could heal actual diseases. You never saw the movie Ben-Hur?

But one big problem... Did you see Jesus' name in there anywhere? I didn't. So, how do we know when Baha'u'llah says, "the Son of Man", he is talking about Jesus? Are we to assume? Or is it kind of obvious? It is pretty obvious. It's talking about Jesus.

Yes, it is pretty obvious, especially because Jesus did everything that is in that quote.

But when it seems "obvious" in the Bible and NT, that a verse is talking about Jesus it is not? Like when it says the "Lamb" in Revelation. But, at least, we now know that any reference to the "Son of Man" is about Jesus.

But... there is another problem... In Revelation it says, "14:14 I looked, and there before me was a white cloud, and seated on the cloud was one like a son of man..." One "like" a son of man?

Who do Baha'is say this is? Jesus or Baha'u'llah?

seated on the cloud was one like a son of man could not be Jesus since Jesus was the Son of Man.
I believe it is referring to Baha'u'llah, who was one like the Son of Man.

And chapter 14 starts with... "Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads..."

Are Baha'is still claiming this "Lamb" is the Bab and not Jesus? Is it obviously about one or the other?

It is not obviously about one or the other, but I think it is about Jesus in that verse, since it says his Father’s name. Jesus is the Son and God is the Father.

Let's see what an unbiased robot has to say...

Never mind, what does a robot know? Let's hear from the Baha'is how every mention of the "Lamb" in Revelation is clearly about the Bab.

Of course A1 is going to say that the Lamb is Jesus, because that is the commonly accepted belief.

I don't believe that every mention of the "Lamb" in Revelation is clearly about the Bab.
Depending upon the verse it could be referring to the Bab or to Jesus.

 

[Trailblazer]

They might try and things were bad when the Bab and Baha'u'llah came, but it was nothing like what they say is coming. So, that puts the worst of the bad stuff after Baha'u'llah has come and gone. And the reason why there will be great turmoil is because the world rejected him.

What do you call WWI and WWII? Those wars were bad, but there could be more bad stuff to come.

The following was written during WWII.

"A tempest, unprecedented in its violence, unpredictable in its course, catastrophic in its immediate effects, unimaginably glorious in its ultimate consequences, is at present sweeping the face of the earth. Its driving power is remorselessly gaining in range and momentum. Its cleansing force, however much undetected, is increasing with every passing day. Humanity, gripped in the clutches of its devastating power, is smitten by the evidences of its resistless fury. It can neither perceive its origin, nor probe its significance, nor discern its outcome. Bewildered, agonized and helpless, it watches this great and mighty wind of God invading the remotest and fairest regions of the earth, rocking its foundations, deranging its equilibrium, sundering its nations, disrupting the homes of its peoples, wasting its cities, driving into exile its kings, pulling down its bulwarks, uprooting its institutions, dimming its light, and harrowing up the souls of its inhabitants."

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Promised Day Is Come, Pages 3-4

AI Overview
Learn more

"The Promised Day is Come" was written on March 28, 1941.

Explanation: This is a significant letter in the Baha'i faith, penned by Shoghi Effendi, the leader at the time, specifically addressed to the Baha'is of the West.