True and False Prophets - Just and Honest Determination

[Aupmanyav]

When I look for answers to the thousands of attacks that are made against the bible, I usually find that the Bible is confirmed or at least not shown to be wrong.

Skeptics Annotated Bible.

 

[firedragon]

I said:

And I said and explained Gods words.

Oh sorry I misunderstood you. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I judge the religion to be wrong and the prophet to be a false prophet and a false Christ.
Gal 5:22-23 has nothing to do with that judgement.

If one was to judge Jesus Christ in the same way you placed judgement on Baha'u'llah, then you would also fail to embrace Jesus.

Many are attached to the Names and not the Spirit.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Salem was meant to be the city of Jerusalem. There was no change of location when the name was changed.
When God says this in the Psalm, He was not referring to Mt Carmel or Haifa or Akka.

Psalm 132: 13 For the Lord has chosen Zion,
he has desired it for his dwelling, saying,
14 “This is my resting place for ever and ever;
here I will sit enthroned, for I have desired it.

Mount Carmel was to see the Glory of the Lord. (Still being fulfilled, as the time is yet to come)

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

Many are attached to the Names and not the Spirit.

In this case I don't think it is the name but rather the body of Jesus he is attached to.

 

[Trailblazer]

Psalm 132: 13 For the Lord has chosen Zion,
he has desired it for his dwelling, saying,
14 “This is my resting place for ever and ever;
here I will sit enthroned, for I have desired it.

Question: "What is Zion? What is Mount Zion? What is the biblical meaning of Zion?"

Answer: Psalm 87:2–3 says, “The Lord loves the gates of Zion / more than all the other dwellings of Jacob. / Glorious things are said of you, / city of God.” According to this verse, Zion is synonymous with city of God, and it is a place that God loves. Zion is Jerusalem. Mount Zion is the high hill on which David built a citadel. It is on the southeast side of the city.......

The word Zion occurs over 150 times in the Bible. It essentially means “fortification” and The word Zion occurs over 150 times in the Bible. It essentially means “fortification” and has the idea of being “raised up” as a “monument.” Zion is described both as the city of David and the city of God. As the Bible progresses, the word Zion expands in scope and takes on an additional, spiritual meaning..... The word Zion is also used in a theological or spiritual sense in Scripture. In the Old Testament Zion refers figuratively to Israel as the people of God (Isaiah 60:14). In the New Testament, Zion refers to God’s spiritual kingdom.
Mount Zion as a geographical area is currently the center of much dispute.

What is Zion? What is Mount Zion? What is the biblical meaning of Zion? | GotQuestions.org

What is Zion? What is Mount Zion? Where is Zion? What is the biblical meaning of Zion? Is Zion the city of Jerusalem, or a section of Jerusalem, or a mountain near Jerusalem?

www.gotquestions.org

 

[CG Didymus]

Yes they are resistant to the facts as are all people who are devoted to and have life investment in a the false teachings of their particular cult.

Transmuting Soul and TB are very different in their Baha'i beliefs. I agree more with TB on how she doesn't care about the Bible and what it says... unless it says that Jesus' work is finished and he is not coming back, then those verses she takes literally.

But TS, or Tony, says that the Bible is a "sure" spiritual guide. But that is based on only one thing that the Baha'i writings say about the Bible. They don't take it literally, they don't believe it is "wholly" authoritative and believe the Quran is more accurate and authoritative.

But that puts them in an awkward position. I've asked them... If the Quran is more accurate and trustworthy for Baha'is, then do they believe that Mary gave birth to Jesus under a date palm like the Quran says? Or in a manger in Bethlehem like the NT says? I don't think any Baha'i has given me an answer yet.

But that's what I expect. How can they give me an answer that makes them look bad no matter what they say?

What they really hope for is that all the past religions get viewed as being a thing of the past... That none of them can be trusted to be completely true. They say that the religion has teachings that were meant for a different time and place and for a different people. There were specific "social" laws given to them. Those laws no longer apply to us today.

But what about things like reincarnation and multiple Gods of Hindus? Or the belief in Satan and demons of Christianity? Those aren't really "social" laws. Those seem to be teachings about spiritual things. So, how do Baha'is deal with them?

Easy. They can either say that those teachings came into the religion as "traditions" of men or misinterpretations. Like the resurrection was a misinterpretation. It might sound like the gospels say Jesus came back to life, but it wasn't being literal... it was being symbolic. But how do they get "symbolic" out of Jesus saying to touch him and see that he is real and has flesh and bone. And how in Acts it says that Jesus proved himself to be alive by many proofs?

It doesn't make sense. But, for Baha'is, to say that Jesus came back to life makes even less sense. So, there must be some other way to explain the resurrection... And that is what Abdul Baha' does...

We explain, therefore, the meaning of Christ’s resurrection in the following way: After the martyrdom of Christ, the Apostles were perplexed and dismayed. The reality of Christ, which consists in His teachings, His bounties, His perfections, and His spiritual power, was hidden and concealed for two or three days after His martyrdom, and had no outward appearance or manifestation—indeed, it was as though it were entirely lost. For those who truly believed were few in number, and even those few were perplexed and dismayed. The Cause of Christ was thus as a lifeless body. After three days the Apostles became firm and steadfast, arose to aid the Cause of Christ, resolved to promote the divine teachings and practise their Lord’s admonitions, and endeavoured to serve Him. Then did the reality of Christ become resplendent, His grace shine forth, His religion find new life, and His teachings and admonitions become manifest and visible. In other words, the Cause of Christ, which was like unto a lifeless body, was quickened to life and surrounded by the grace of the Holy Spirit.​

​

Such is the meaning of the resurrection of Christ, and this was a true resurrection.​

​

And here's something else he said...

“If religion becomes a cause of dislike, hatred and division, it were better to be without it, and to withdraw from such a religion would be a truly religious act,” said ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. “Any religion which is not a cause of love and unity is no religion.”

Poor Baha'is. They try and "teach" their religion, and by doing so, it creates divisions. Maybe they're doing it wrong?

Probably for you and I it wouldn't matter how nice they were, or how respectful and humble... It is their message that is the problem... The Baha'i Faith teaches contradictory things than all the other religions. They can reconcile those differences. But it means making all those contradictory beliefs go away by saying they are wrong.

For Born Again Christians... that is a long list of things. That would include the Creation story and the Flood, Ishmael instead of Isaac, no more Satan and hell, probably most of the miracles of Jesus, especially the ones that have him casting out demons and raising the dead. And the whole doctrine about salvation would be gone. Jesus' body would be dead and gone. He would not have ascended into the clouds and he definitely would not be coming back a second time.

What would it take for a Born Again Christian to stop believing all those things and believe that the Baha'i Faith is the new religion from God and the fulfillment of all the things promised in the Bible? Quite a lot I'd imagine.

And why would a Baha'i even think that by saying anything to a Born Again Christian on a forum is going to get them to dump all those beliefs and come to see the Baha'i Faith as being true?

What they should expect and what does happen is you and other Christians pointing out to them how their teachings are wrong.

And that is what I like about these Baha'i threads... It forces them to answer some very tough questions. And how they handle those questions becomes very important.

​

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes they are resistant to the facts as are all people who are devoted to and have life investment in a the false teachings of their particular cult.

The Baha'i Faith is a widely recognized world religion, not a cult. You only make yourself look foolish when you call it a cult.

When does a cult become a religion?

THE ESSENTIAL difference is openness. Religions publish their beliefs openly in the Bible, Koran, Bhagavadgita, etc, and seek to persuade the public of their truth. Anyone who accepts these beliefs and the accompanying rituals is recognised as a member of the religion. There is a priesthood which is open to any (normally male) person with the necessary commitment. Religions therefore seek a mass following. Cults, however, rely on secret or special knowledge which is revealed only to initiates by the cult's founder or his/her chosen representatives. Beliefs aren't normally published. Everything depends on a personal relationship between the founder and followers, who are required to separate themselves from the rest of the world. This enables the founder and his associates to dominate and exploit the members. All religions begin as cults. Christianity began as one of several competing messianic sects and became a religion when Paul and his followers began proselytising outside Judea. Cults fade away when those who knew the founder die. Who remembers the Ranters, the Sandemanians or the Muggletonians now?

When does a cult become a religion? | Notes and Queries | guardian.co.uk

www.theguardian.com

 

[CG Didymus]

If one was to judge Jesus Christ in the same way you placed judgement on Baha'u'llah, then you would also fail to embrace Jesus.

Many are attached to the Names and not the Spirit.

Regards Tony

Not exactly... They become attached to the teachings of the Scriptures in their religion, which then becomes attachment to what how their chosen religious leaders interpret those Scriptures. The Baha'i leaders do have an interpretation. That's the one you believe.

It is far different than the one Born Again Christians have chosen to believe. I would suspect that you are familiar with their beliefs... why are they wrong?

Here's one of the main doctrines... If the NT says that sin entered the world through Adam's sin, and that Jesus paid the penalty for that sin, how is that wrong?

Is it because it is based on something that Paul said? So, that would make things that Paul said not authoritative? But if you make anything that Paul said questionable, you take away a huge chunk of the NT.

Is it something in one of the Gospels? But, since the Gospels were written by men, can we really trust them?

I can see how lots of people could go along with that... How can we trust anything in the NT. It wasn't written by Jesus. It was his followers that wrote it. Why trust their biased opinions and their probable additions and embellishments to the stories?

But can Baha'is say that? But... can Baha'is say that whatever Paul said and the Gospels said is absolutely true and should be considered the infallible and inerrant word of God? I don't think Baha'is can say either one. But what they do say and do is make their own interpretations that nullify most all Christian doctrines and beliefs.

And that is the problem... You are asking Bible believing Christians to not believe the Bible in the way they were taught, but to believe it like the Baha'i Faith says it is. Which essentially is to not believe the Bible. Again... Achor means Akka. Mt. Zion is Mt. Carmel. Baha'u'llah is who's coming, not Jesus.

Pretty substantial changes. It's gonna take some pretty substantial proof. Much more than... "Well, Baha'u'llah said it." Yeah, Who is he? Why is he? How is he? And every question has lots of questionable things to believe. Like how do you get the Jewish Messiah to get born in Persia? And how do you get four Jewish Messiahs? Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah?

Simple for you to answer and believe, but why expect all of us to see things like you? Especially those people here that believe Jesus is God and Savior and is coming back? The Baha'i Faith has a lot of claims. Each one is like a mine field that Baha'is have to cross.

 

[Trailblazer]

Transmuting Soul and TB are very different in their Baha'i beliefs. I agree more with TB on how she doesn't care about the Bible and what it says... unless it says that Jesus' work is finished and he is not coming back, then those verses she takes literally.

I would not say that I don't care what the Bible says. I would only say that it is not reliable since it is the words of men, not the words of a messenger of God. If Jesus had written the NT that would be another story.

When debating with Christians I have no choice but to refer to the Bible since that is the only book they consider authoritative.
I am still waiting for Christians to present any verses where Jesus says that He is going to return to earth. Verses such as Acts 1:11 where others say Jesus is coming back do not count for anything since they are only a belief that others held. This is basic logic.

But TS, or Tony, says that the Bible is a "sure" spiritual guide. But that is based on only one thing that the Baha'i writings say about the Bible. They don't take it literally, they don't believe it is "wholly" authoritative and believe the Quran is more accurate and authoritative.

You have to ask yourself what it means to say the the Bible is a sure spiritual guide. I believe that the Bible is a sure spiritual guide but that does not mean that everything in the Bible is literally true or accurate. It doesn't need to be for the Bible to be a spiritual guide.

But that puts them in an awkward position. I've asked them... If the Quran is more accurate and trustworthy for Baha'is, then do they believe that Mary gave birth to Jesus under a date palm like the Quran says? Or in a manger in Bethlehem like the NT says? I don't think any Baha'i has given me an answer yet.

But that's what I expect. How can they give me an answer that makes them look bad no matter what they say?

I don't have the answer since I am not proficient in the Bible or the Qur'an, nor do I know why there is a discrepancy between the two.
But hypothetically, if a Baha'i said that Mary gave birth to Jesus under a date palm like the Quran says, why would that make the Baha'i look bad?

But what about things like reincarnation and multiple Gods of Hindus? Or the belief in Satan and demons of Christianity? Those aren't really "social" laws. Those seem to be teachings about spiritual things. So, how do Baha'is deal with them?

Easy. They can either say that those teachings came into the religion as "traditions" of men or misinterpretations.

Those are not spiritual teachings. They are dogma, and those beliefs came into the religion as "traditions" of men or misinterpretations of scriptures.

Like the resurrection was a misinterpretation. It might sound like the gospels say Jesus came back to life, but it wasn't being literal... it was being symbolic. But how do they get "symbolic" out of Jesus saying to touch him and see that he is real and has flesh and bone. And how in Acts it says that Jesus proved himself to be alive by many proofs?

No, that was not a misinterpretation. The NT says what it says about the resurrection, but whether it is true or not is another matter.
None of this story is coming from Jesus, it is men saying what Jesus allegedly said.
I don't trust Acts as far as I can throw an elephant.

It doesn't make sense. But, for Baha'is, to say that Jesus came back to life makes even less sense. So, there must be some other way to explain the resurrection... And that is what Abdul Baha' does...

We explain, therefore, the meaning of Christ’s resurrection in the following way: After the martyrdom of Christ, the Apostles were perplexed and dismayed. The reality of Christ, which consists in His teachings, His bounties, His perfections, and His spiritual power, was hidden and concealed for two or three days after His martyrdom, and had no outward appearance or manifestation—indeed, it was as though it were entirely lost. For those who truly believed were few in number, and even those few were perplexed and dismayed. The Cause of Christ was thus as a lifeless body. After three days the Apostles became firm and steadfast, arose to aid the Cause of Christ, resolved to promote the divine teachings and practise their Lord’s admonitions, and endeavoured to serve Him. Then did the reality of Christ become resplendent, His grace shine forth, His religion find new life, and His teachings and admonitions become manifest and visible. In other words, the Cause of Christ, which was like unto a lifeless body, was quickened to life and surrounded by the grace of the Holy Spirit.​

​

Such is the meaning of the resurrection of Christ, and this was a true resurrection.​

Abdu'l-Baha can say anything he wants to say but I don't have to buy it, although I also don't buy that Jesus rose from the dead in a physical body.
If the resurrection stories are true a more plausible explanation is that Jesus appeared in a spiritual body and since Jesus could perform miracles it was easy for Him to make that body appear and feel physical.

What would it take for a Born Again Christian to stop believing all those things and believe that the Baha'i Faith is the new religion from God and the fulfillment of all the things promised in the Bible? Quite a lot I'd imagine.

I don't know. I guess you'd have to ask some Baha'is who were formerly Christians and there are plenty of them.

And why would a Baha'i even think that by saying anything to a Born Again Christian on a forum is going to get them to dump all those beliefs and come to see the Baha'i Faith as being true?

We don't think that what we say is going to achieve that, nor do we care if it does, since we are not responsible for other peoples' beliefs.

What they should expect and what does happen is you and other Christians pointing out to them how their teachings are wrong.

And what does that achieve? Nothing. I am having some dialogues with Christians on other threads where that doesn't happen. They don't tell me I am wrong just because I am a Baha'i and hold different beliefs. That only happens with certain Christians who have a need to disparage the Baha'i Faith in order to hold onto their belief that Christianity is the only true religion.

 

[Trailblazer]

It is far different than the one Born Again Christians have chosen to believe. I would suspect that you are familiar with their beliefs... why are they wrong?

Here's one of the main doctrines... If the NT says that sin entered the world through Adam's sin, and that Jesus paid the penalty for that sin, how is that wrong?

According to the Baha'i Faith that belief is not wrong. We just look at it a little differently than Christians.

What Baha’is believe regarding how Adam brought sin into the world and how Christ paid the penalty by sacrificing Himself, thereby saving us from that sin, is explained below:

Question.—In verse 22 of chapter 15 of 1 Corinthians it is written: “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” What is the meaning of these words?

Answer.—Know that there are two natures in man: the physical nature and the spiritual nature. The physical nature is inherited from Adam, and the spiritual nature is inherited from the Reality of the Word of God, which is the spirituality of Christ. The physical nature is born of Adam, but the spiritual nature is born from the bounty of the Holy Spirit. The first is the source of all imperfection; the second is the source of all perfection.

The Christ sacrificed Himself so that men might be freed from the imperfections of the physical nature and might become possessed of the virtues of the spiritual nature. This spiritual nature, which came into existence through the bounty of the Divine Reality, is the union of all perfections and appears through the breath of the Holy Spirit. It is the divine perfections; it is light, spirituality, guidance, exaltation, high aspiration, justice, love, grace, kindness to all, philanthropy, the essence of life. It is the reflection of the splendor of the Sun of Reality.

All sin comes from the demands of nature, and these demands, which arise from the physical qualities, are not sins with respect to the animals, while for man they are sin. The animal is the source of imperfections, such as anger, sensuality, jealousy, avarice, cruelty, pride: all these defects are found in animals but do not constitute sins. But in man they are sins.

Adam is the cause of man’s physical life; but the Reality of Christ—that is to say, the Word of God—is the cause of spiritual life. It is “a quickening spirit,” meaning that all the imperfections which come from the requirements of the physical life of man are transformed into human perfections by the teachings and education of that spirit. Therefore, Christ was a quickening spirit, and the cause of life in all mankind.
Adam was the cause of physical life, and as the physical world of man is the world of imperfections, and imperfections are the equivalent of death, Paul compared the physical imperfections to death.

But the mass of the Christians believe that, as Adam ate of the forbidden tree, He sinned in that He disobeyed, and that the disastrous consequences of this disobedience have been transmitted as a heritage and have remained among His descendants. Hence Adam became the cause of the death of humanity. This explanation is unreasonable and evidently wrong, for it means that all men, even the Prophets and the Messengers of God, without committing any sin or fault, but simply because they are the posterity of Adam, have become without reason guilty sinners, and until the day of the sacrifice of Christ were held captive in hell in painful torment.

This is far from the justice of God. If Adam was a sinner, what is the sin of Abraham? What is the fault of Isaac, or of Joseph? Of what is Moses guilty?

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 118-121

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes there are many words in the Bible that Baha'u'llah needs to change the meaning of so that Baha'is have something to hang onto when they notice that the actual dictionary meaning of those words in the Bible shows that Baha'u'llah cannot be whom he claimed to be.

Whenever you say that Baha'u'llah changed the meaning of words that is begging the question since it presupposes that there is a correct meaning and someone other than Baha'u'llah knows what that meaning is.

Please show me some words that you think Baha'u'llah changed the meaning of.

That is begging the question. It shows the working of your mind and faith, but shows nothing about who Baha'u'llah is.
Actually changing the plain meaning of words in the Bible to try to make the Bible not show that you are a false prophet and false Christ is the work of a deceiver.

Please show me some words that Baha'u'llah changes the meaning of.

The plain meaning of the Bible shows that Jesus is never going to return to this world, but you choose to ignore these verses since there is no way you can have Jesus returning if these verses are true.

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.

But of course even after doing that, the Bible still shows the truth about Baha'u'llah.

Doing what? Talk is cheap. You have not shown me what Baha'u'llah did, so there is nothing to discuss.

Yes, the Bible shows the truth about Baha'u'llah. It shows that He was the return of Christ and the messiah of the latter days.

The bottom line is this:
In your mind, you need Baha'u'llah to be a deceiver in order to hold onto the Christian belief that Jesus is the ONLY WAY for all of time and that Jesus is going to return to earth.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

This is just a belief that you hold. It is not a fact, yet you act as if it is a fact.

And why would it not be a fact? Is it not a fact only because you don't care so you don't give it any attention?

I looked at the Bible from a neutral perspective without needing the words to be true. I was not questioning God, just interested in reading what the book says.

I listening to the nonsense I couldn't understand and realised the same words were being said in other verses of nonsense (At first I kept shrugging off the word coincidences but they kept happening so I started writing them down).

With an overview I realised the words were staying with other associated words like being in separate groups.

I then used a Bible word search and began looking at other words. To examine a sentence I searched every time each word was said throughout the Bible and copied the texts so I could get an overview of what is being said in the sentence.

This speech of word group positioning that I am talking about goes way beyond coincidence. If I could have shrugged it off as coincidence I would have.

I first learned of the three groups of words before learning of a fourth. I later learned each of the four groups has three groups within so there is a total of twelve groups/positions of words/symbols.

It reminds me of a Zodiac wheel with different symbols assigned to each position. The Zodiac wheel is known as a map of the heavens. Thats how I could describe it.

Speaking a Zodiac wheel speech was the conclusion I reached, not my starting point.

This word positioning belief is a belief you developed all on your own. If not, tell me where it came from.

If I didn't develop this point of view on my own I wouldn't bother being here trying to explain it to someone. I have now told you where it comes from which can be verified and replicated. Anyone who looks will come to the same conclusions as I have because every sentence can only be taken at face value with absolutely no twisting or changing of any words in a verse.

I do show a verse or two to make a point but I could also show all verses that have a shared word also make the same point.

No, I don't care because I don't believe it determines if a man is a true messenger.

Regardless of your belief it can still sort all so-called messengers into two groups. Those that speak positioning their words into the structure, and those that don't.

 

[IamYourYahaweh]

I decided to put this in the debate section as truth does at times require the clash of differing opinions. (In the right context)

I start the OP with a disclaimer. This is my view based on my understanding of what God has offered Humanity in the religious scriptures. As it is placed in the debate section. I will state this position is that of being founded in the Truth of those scriptures and as such is not able to be proven false (Supported by Scriptures). If you are on the team that want to prove any aspect false. Then it also must be supported by Scriptures, from your source of truth, this is not a debate that is to be supported only by personal views.

I see in Scriptures, that the view there is only one ultimate source of truth which in this OP will be known as God, is fully supported, and that is the purpose for all of humanity to obtain to, the knowledge of the One God.

1 Kings 8:60 "That all the people of the earth may know that the LORD is God, and that there is none else.

Everything is from the One God.

Romans 11:36 "All things come from God, through God, and return to God. Praise him for ever! Yes, it is so!"

That is the position of Truth used to establish the Authenticity of the Prophets, Messengers or Manifestations, all these donate the person who is "Annointed" of the One God, also known as "Messiah" in prophecy. (For this OP Messenger will be used)

Isaiah 11:2 "And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord."
Luke 4:18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed."

The Annointed Ones, also are supported by one that prepares the way.

Isaiah 40: 1-11 I will.use verse 3

A voice of one calling: “In the wilderness prepare the way for the Lord; make straight in the desert a highway for our God.

Mark 1 supports this for John the Baptist for Jesus, who jesus said was Elijah and Elijah always comes first.

"2as it is written in Isaiah the prophet: “I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way”, 3 “a voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.’”"

It would then be logical that all Messengers are supported by a person preparing the way, an "Elijah" proclaiming the soon to arrive Messenger.

Malachi 4:5 “See, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes."

This is not a time of peace as Malachi in verse 6 continues to offer, "He will turn the hearts of the parents to their children, and the hearts of the children to their parents; or else I will come and strike the land with total destruction.”

At this time all things are made new. A True Messenger will give a New Revelation, they will not piggyback from the last Message and identify as one who is giving the last message in its true form. They will be born into a Faith, but claim a new Message from God and give a New book.

Isaiah 43:19 "See, I am doing a new thing! Now it springs up; do you not perceive it? I am making a way in the wilderness and streams in the wasteland."

Revelation 21:5 “And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” Also he said, ‘Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.’”

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.

Matthew 7:16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

Using this information, I see the position of Truth can state that the last 4 Messengers from God, oldest to newest are Jesus Christ, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah.

In the cause of the Bab, He was also the Elijah for Baha'u'llah.

The debate is from those that support and oppose that position. What support do you have that Jesus Christ, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah are not Messengers.

It is also possible we can broach the truth of any other claimed Messenger.

View attachment 97978

Regards Tony @CG Didymus

What support do you have that they are messengers? It is debatable if they even existed let alone were messengers from god

 

[WonderingWorrier]

Find anyone on this forum who recognizes what you believe is true, just one person.

There was once an atheist that came to this forum.

Here is some of his background:

Critical thinking and skepticism led me to Atheism. For a little background. I have an associates in religion, a bachelor's in theology, an associates in philosophy, and am a law student. I've always been fascinated by world religions and have continued my education on the subject in spite of my other studies. In answer to your question, " What am I willing to be convinced of"? I'm willing to be convinced of the truth. I want my model of reality to match actual reality as closely as possible. I find discourse to be one of the many tools we can use to root out fallacious beliefs that would misalign our model of reality with actual reality. I'm very open to changing my mind if the evidence warrants it. I like science am not static.

He was educated in religious studies:

As someone with a bachelors in theology, an associates in religion, an associates in philosophy, and a current student of law I've studied religions for over half my life and I have not heard anything new for a very long time. Maybe you'll be the first person in 600 years to come up with a brand new argument for the existence of god? Wouldn't that be cool. You may even win a debate with it someday.

I told him my point of view and he said:

these are really unique ideas I haven’t heard before.

And he said:

I can’t tell if you’re as genius, crazy, or a crazy genius. Let’s start with the wheel. How are the different categories assigned and how are the animals assigned within them? Is there something you have online that could give me a visual representation so I can understand better? Thanks in advance for your patience.

And he said:

I’m going to draw it and see. I’m definitely curious. Thanks for your patience with me.

Unfortunately he left this forum so I was not able to continue the discussion.

 

[CG Didymus]

What support do you have that they are messengers? It is debatable if they even existed let alone were messengers from god

Yes, it's very debatable, because it's all based on his Baha'i beliefs. Baha'is add Krishna and Buddha into their mix of "messengers/manifestations." I don't see how his little formula works for them.

I see in Scriptures, that the view there is only one ultimate source of truth which in this OP will be known as God, is fully supported, and that is the purpose for all of humanity to obtain to, the knowledge of the One God.

Krishna? Many Gods and many incarnations of the Gods.

Buddha? Very little or no need for a God.

The Annointed Ones, also are supported by one that prepares the way.

Who prepared the way for Krishna and Buddha? Maybe there was, but who were they?

It would then be logical that all Messengers are supported by a person preparing the way, an "Elijah" proclaiming the soon to arrive Messenger.

Why is it "logical"? But it is necessary for Baha'is, because they need to show a pattern. Jesus had John the Baptist. Muhammad had whoever they say he had. And Baha'u'llah had the Bab. But the Bab, they claim, was also a manifestation, so they have to have an "Elijah" prepare the way for him too. I'm sure they can come up with somebody, but I have never had a Baha'i mention anyone.

At this time all things are made new. A True Messenger will give a New Revelation, they will not piggyback from the last Message and identify as one who is giving the last message in its true form. They will be born into a Faith, but claim a new Message from God and give a New book.

Did Krishna or Buddha give a new book? Krishna was a character in the Bhagavad Gita, which was part of the Mahabharata. And I don't think Buddha wrote anything down. But neither did Jesus, so to say they "give" a book isn't accurate.

But it's part of the Baha'i beliefs. And for sure there are spiritual teachings attributed to them. But the books based on the teachings of Krishna, Buddha and Jesus are so very different that it is a stretch to think that the God that Baha'is claim is real was the inspiration behind all of them.

But I think the real intent of the Baha'i Faith is to get people to stop following those teachings from the older religions, and to get people to believe that their prophet, Baha'u'llah, has brought new that are suited for this day and age.

So, if they can show a connection between all the other religions, and then show how their religion is the logical fulfillment of all those other religions, then people will see how the Baha'i Faith is the truth, and we should all join hands and live in peace and unity following the teachings and laws and rules of their religion. Nice huh? But is any of it true?

 

[IamYourYahaweh]

Yes, it's very debatable, because it's all based on his Baha'i beliefs. Baha'is add Krishna and Buddha into their mix of "messengers/manifestations." I don't see how his little formula works for them.

Krishna? Many Gods and many incarnations of the Gods.

Buddha? Very little or no need for a God.

Who prepared the way for Krishna and Buddha? Maybe there was, but who were they?

Why is it "logical"? But it is necessary for Baha'is, because they need to show a pattern. Jesus had John the Baptist. Muhammad had whoever they say he had. And Baha'u'llah had the Bab. But the Bab, they claim, was also a manifestation, so they have to have an "Elijah" prepare the way for him too. I'm sure they can come up with somebody, but I have never had a Baha'i mention anyone.

Did Krishna or Buddha give a new book? Krishna was a character in the Bhagavad Gita, which was part of the Mahabharata. And I don't think Buddha wrote anything down. But neither did Jesus, so to say they "give" a book isn't accurate.

But it's part of the Baha'i beliefs. And for sure there are spiritual teachings attributed to them. But the books based on the teachings of Krishna, Buddha and Jesus are so very different that it is a stretch to think that the God that Baha'is claim is real was the inspiration behind all of them.

But I think the real intent of the Baha'i Faith is to get people to stop following those teachings from the older religions, and to get people to believe that their prophet, Baha'u'llah, has brought new that are suited for this day and age.

So, if they can show a connection between all the other religions, and then show how their religion is the logical fulfillment of all those other religions, then people will see how the Baha'i Faith is the truth, and we should all join hands and live in peace and unity following the teachings and laws and rules of their religion. Nice huh? But is any of it true?

Is any of the other scriptures true?

 

[firedragon]

Question: "What is Zion? What is Mount Zion? What is the biblical meaning of Zion?"

Answer: Psalm 87:2–3 says, “The Lord loves the gates of Zion / more than all the other dwellings of Jacob. / Glorious things are said of you, / city of God.” According to this verse, Zion is synonymous with city of God, and it is a place that God loves. Zion is Jerusalem. Mount Zion is the high hill on which David built a citadel. It is on the southeast side of the city.......

The word Zion occurs over 150 times in the Bible. It essentially means “fortification” and The word Zion occurs over 150 times in the Bible. It essentially means “fortification” and has the idea of being “raised up” as a “monument.” Zion is described both as the city of David and the city of God. As the Bible progresses, the word Zion expands in scope and takes on an additional, spiritual meaning..... The word Zion is also used in a theological or spiritual sense in Scripture. In the Old Testament Zion refers figuratively to Israel as the people of God (Isaiah 60:14). In the New Testament, Zion refers to God’s spiritual kingdom.
Mount Zion as a geographical area is currently the center of much dispute.

What is Zion? What is Mount Zion? What is the biblical meaning of Zion? | GotQuestions.org

What is Zion? What is Mount Zion? Where is Zion? What is the biblical meaning of Zion? Is Zion the city of Jerusalem, or a section of Jerusalem, or a mountain near Jerusalem?

www.gotquestions.org

I think the Rastafarians believe it's in Africa.

 

[IamYourYahaweh]

I think the Rastafarians believe it's in Africa.

Tell god to pick a different mountain then. Or let him come and tell whoever shouldn't be there to leave, why are we speaking and acting on his behalf.

 

[firedragon]

Tell god to pick a different mountain then. Or let him come and tell whoever shouldn't be there to leave, why are we speaking and acting on his behalf.

Never did. I was just engaging with someone I have for many many years.

I am guessing you are barking up the wrong tree.