True and False Prophets - Just and Honest Determination

[CG Didymus]

For Baha'is it is just the change of the guard from one Manifestation to another. The Bible has a completely different story.

The Baha'is have several "changing" of the guard... Abraham, Moses, Saleh, Hud, Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, and then their two guys.

But it was never a "changing" of the guard. What did Abraham bring the Moses changed? What did anything Abraham, Moses and even Jesus have to do with Krishna and Buddha?

The Baha'i interpretation has this supposed progression being like the grades in school. But it's nothing like that. One teacher doesn't say, "Well, your second grade teacher taught you wrong, I'm going to correct it." Except it wasn't correct. For Baha'is, nothing was perfectly taught correctly until their prophet.

When Jesus returns it will be known by everyone. So in these verses we see that Baha'u'llah fits the description of a false Christ, the one about whom it has to be said, "He is over there come and see him". Jesus said, do not go to see these false prophets because when He (the self identified Son of Man) comes everyone will know about it because it will be like lightning which shines all the way across the sky.

Those verses about every one seeing him and knowing he has come back can never be made to fit. The Baha'is, instead, focus on the verses that imply that Jesus will come in secret. But even those verses seem to me to be saying he will come at a moment when they weren't expecting him and weren't ready. But when he did come, they all knew it, and it was too late.

 

[Trailblazer]

Baha'u'llah died and did not do that. All you have is a claim that he is doing it now, but he is dead, in the grave and will be one of the people who hear the voice of Jesus and rise from the grave.

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

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

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

Jesus has witnesses that say Jesus rose from the dead, He is alive and ruling in heaven. He is not in the grave.

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

ALL judgement has been given to Jesus, the Son (John 5) but denying the plain meaning and changing the Bible to agree with Baha'i is what Baha'is do best.

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

So you have a preconceived idea of who Psalm 2 must be about and ignore the identity in the Psalm of the one it is about, the Son of God.

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

 

[CG Didymus]

Verse 5--Coming in the name of Jesus means coming in the authority of Jesus. That is exactly what Baha'u'llah did.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

​

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Trailblazer]

Do all the good things that Baha'is are doing, but when you say that your prophet is the return of Christ, I just can't believe it. And, unfortunately, if he's not, then what is he?

Baha'u'llah either was or was not the return of Christ. What you or anyone else believes does not determine if He was the return of Christ or not.

If Baha'u'llah was not the return of Christ then He was a liar, since He claimed to be the return of Christ.
If Baha'u'llah was the return of Christ then He was telling the truth and He was the return of Christ.

The Bible can be used to try to prove that He was not the return of Christ or it can be used to try to prove that He was the return of Christ, but at the end of the day, the Bible does not prove a single thing because whether people conclude that He was the return of Christ or not all depends upon the accuracy of the Bible and what people think that certain verses mean.

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

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.”

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

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

 

[WonderingWorrier]

I know that Baha'u'llah has confirmed, by who He was and what He did on His mission and by fulfilling prophecy, that He was the return of Christ.

Have you ever had a close look at any other claimants like Mirza Ghulam Ahmad?

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Have you compared him to Baha'u'llah? What can you find?

I could find an example of some falling stars in the time of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad:

I found fireballs that fell in France:
"the same thing was noticed in the case of the shower of aerolites which fell in France on the 13th November 1835"

Detonating Meteor - Nature

MR. MAXWELL HALL's letter on this subject is of considerable interest. When the great meteor-shower of November 11–15 was traced to the orbit of the comet of 1866, it was natural to suppose that the fine fire-balls which occur about this period belong to the same series. Plainly, however, the...

www.nature.com

The 13th of November 1835 is the day Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was born.

Do you think this gives any credit to his claim?

 

[Trailblazer]

Have you ever had a close look at any other claimants like Mirza Ghulam Ahmad?

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Have you compared him to Baha'u'llah? What can you find?

No, I never compared him to Baha'u'llah but from what I have read about him I consider him to be a false prophet.

I could find an example of some falling stars in the time of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad:

I found fireballs that fell in France:
"the same thing was noticed in the case of the shower of aerolites which fell in France on the 13th November 1835"

Detonating Meteor - Nature

MR. MAXWELL HALL's letter on this subject is of considerable interest. When the great meteor-shower of November 11–15 was traced to the orbit of the comet of 1866, it was natural to suppose that the fine fire-balls which occur about this period belong to the same series. Plainly, however, the...

www.nature.com

The 13th of November 1835 is the day Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was born.

Do you think this gives any credit to his claim?

No, I don't.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

No, I don't.

Why not? Bahai say exactly the same thing about a meteor shower in the time of Baha'u'llah. Do you give any credit to Baha'u'llah for a meteor shower in his time?

No, I never compared him to Baha'u'llah but from what I have read about him I consider him to be a false prophet.

So what makes him a false prophet? Lets take a closer look and compare him to Baha'u'llah.


On his Wikipedia page there is also the eclipse prophecy of the Mahdi to consider:

"The Sun and Moon eclipse​

After announcing his claim to be the Messiah and Mahdi, his opponents demanded that he should produce the "heavenly sign" detailed in the tradition attributed to the 7th-century Imam Muhammad al-Baqir,[47] also known as Muhammad bin Ali, in which a certain sign is stated about the appearance of the Mahdi:

For our Mahdi, there are two signs which have never happened since the earth and the heavens were created, i.e., the moon will be eclipsed on the first of the possible nights in the month of Ramadhan and the sun will be eclipsed in the middle of the possible days of the month of Ramadhan.
— Dar Qutni Vol. 1, page 188[48]

Ahmadis maintain that this prophecy was fulfilled in 1894 and again in 1895, about three years after Ahmad proclaimed himself to be the Promised Mahdi and Messiah, with the lunar and solar eclipse during the month of Ramadhan, according to the Ahmadiyya interpretation of the prophecy. Ahmad declared that this was a sign of his truth and was in fulfillment of the tradition or prophecy".


And consider he taught peace:

"With this proclamation, he also rejected the idea of armed Jihad and argued that the conditions for such Jihad are not present in this age, which requires defending Islam by the pen and tongue but not with the sword"


Consider his claim of the oneness of religions:

"His claim​

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad proclaimed that he was the Promised Messiah and Mahdi. He claimed to be the fulfilment of various prophecies found in world religions regarding the second coming of their founders".


So why do you think he is a false prophet. Do you have anything against his claim?

 

[CG Didymus]

o why do you think he is a false prophet. Do you have anything against his claim?

Part of it is just bad timing. He proclaimed himself about the same time as Baha'u'llah. For each, they've got to renounce the other as false.

And they probably use similar reasons to show how the other guy is a fraud.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why not? Bahai say exactly the same thing about a meteor shower in the time of Baha'u'llah. Do you give any credit to Baha'u'llah for a meteor shower in his time?

You said:
The 13th of November 1835 is the day Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was born.
Do you think this gives any credit to his claim?

I said: No, I don't.
(So I meant that the year he was born does not give any credit to his claim.)


Yes, I believe that there was a meteor shower in Baha'u'llah's time.

THE STAR-FALL OF 1833

So exceptional was this event that Clarke in his History of Astronomy in the Nineteenth Century writes: “… a tempest of falling stars broke over the earth.”

According to the millennial scholars of the 1840s, the third sign in the sixth chapter of Revelation came to pass on 12 November 1833, the night of the unique star-fall.

Clarke wrote of that night, saying: “Once and for all, then, as the result of the star-fall of 1833, the study of luminous meteors became an integral part of astronomy.” He goes on to say: “North America bore the brunt of its pelting. From the Gulf of Mexico to Halifax, until daylight with some difficulties put an end to the display, the sky was scored in every direction with shining tracks and illuminated with majestic fireballs.”

Denison Olmsted, Professor of Mathematics at Yale University, wrote the following in the American Journal of Science: “The morning of 13 November 1833, was rendered memorable by an exhibition of the phenomenon called shooting stars, which was probably more extensive and magnificent than any similar one hitherto recorded … Probably no celestial phenomenon has ever occurred in this country, since its first settlement, which was received with so much admiration and delight by one class of spectators, or with so much astonishment and fear by another class. For some time after the occurrence, the ‘meteoric phenomenon’ was the principle topic of conversation.”

Simon Newcomb in Astronomy for Everybody called the display of falling stars “the most remarkable one ever observed”.

The French astronomer, Flammarion, in Popular Astronomy, wrote: “The Boston observer, Olmsted, compared them, at the moment of maximum, to half the number of flakes which are perceived in the air during an ordinary shower of snow.”

The New York Journal of Commerce wrote: “No philosopher or scholar has told or recorded an event like that of yesterday morning. A prophet eighteen hundred years ago foretold it exactly, if we will be at the trouble of understanding stars falling to mean falling stars.” (New York Journal of Commerce, 14 November 1833.)

Astronomers, after careful study, learned that this particular meteoric display occurs every thirty–three years. However, the display of 1833 was unique in its drama. The fall of 1866 did not rival it in any way, and that of 1899 was of even less interest.

From: http://bahai-library.com/pdf/s/sears_thief_night.pdf

So what makes him a false prophet? Lets take a closer look and compare him to Baha'u'llah.

On his Wikipedia page there is also the eclipse prophecy of the Mahdi to consider:

"The Sun and Moon eclipse​

After announcing his claim to be the Messiah and Mahdi, his opponents demanded that he should produce the "heavenly sign" detailed in the tradition attributed to the 7th-century Imam Muhammad al-Baqir,[47] also known as Muhammad bin Ali, in which a certain sign is stated about the appearance of the Mahdi:

Ahmadis maintain that this prophecy was fulfilled in 1894 and again in 1895, about three years after Ahmad proclaimed himself to be the Promised Mahdi and Messiah, with the lunar and solar eclipse during the month of Ramadhan, according to the Ahmadiyya interpretation of the prophecy. Ahmad declared that this was a sign of his truth and was in fulfillment of the tradition or prophecy".

Ahmadis can maintain anything that they want to maintain and believe whatever they want to believe. All signs that occur in the sky are not signs that someone is the return of Christ/Messiah. That is only one prophecy. Even if he fulfilled that one prophecy, he did not fulfill the other prophecies for the return of Christ/Messiah, and that is one way we know he was not.

And consider he taught peace:

"With this proclamation, he also rejected the idea of armed Jihad and argued that the conditions for such Jihad are not present in this age, which requires defending Islam by the pen and tongue but not with the sword"

Consider his claim of the oneness of religions:

"His claim​

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad proclaimed that he was the Promised Messiah and Mahdi. He claimed to be the fulfilment of various prophecies found in world religions regarding the second coming of their founders".

Baha'u'llah came before Ahmad. All Ahmad did was copy Baha'u'llah. That is enough of a reason to reject him, since he stole from Baha'u'llah.

So why do you think he is a false prophet. Do you have anything against his claim?

I believe that Baha'u'llah was who He claimed to be. If Baha'u'llah was who He claimed to be Ahmad has to be a false prophet.
I believe that Ahmad was either a liar or delusional, but I am leaning towards liar, and I'd really hate to be him.

62. Whoso layeth claim to a Revelation direct from God, ere the expiration of a full thousand years # 37

The Dispensation of Bahá’u’lláh will last until the coming of the next Manifestation of God, Whose advent will not take place before at least “a full thousand years” will have elapsed. Bahá’u’lláh cautions against ascribing to “this verse” anything other than its “obvious meaning”, and in one of His Tablets, He specifies that “each year” of this thousand year period consists of “twelve months according to the Qur’án, and of nineteen months of nineteen days each, according to the Bayán”.

The intimation of His Revelation to Bahá’u’lláh in the Síyáh-Chál of Ṭihrán, in October 1852, marks the birth of His Prophetic Mission and hence the commencement of the one thousand years or more that must elapse before the appearance of the next Manifestation of God.

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, Pages 195-196

“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. Erelong shall clamorous voices be raised in most lands. Shun them, O My people, and follow not the iniquitous and evil-hearted. This is that of which We gave you forewarning when We were dwelling in ‘Iráq, then later while in the Land of Mystery, and now from this Resplendent Spot.”
(The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, p. 32)

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, Pages 19-34

 

[Trailblazer]

So why do you think he is a false prophet. Do you have anything against his claim?

In 1889, he took a pledge of allegiance from forty of his supporters at Ludhiana and formed a community of followers upon what he claimed was divine instruction, stipulating ten conditions of initiation, an event that marks the establishment of the Ahmadiyya movement. The mission of the movement, according to him, was the reinstatement of the absolute oneness of God, the revival of Islam through the moral reformation of society along Islamic ideals, and the global propagation of Islam in its pristine form. As opposed to the Christian and mainstream Islamic view of Jesus (or Isa), being alive in heaven to return towards the end of time, Ahmad asserted that he had in fact survived crucifixion and died a natural death. He traveled extensively across the Punjab preaching his religious ideas and rallied support by combining a reformist programme with his personal revelations which he claimed to receive from God, attracting thereby substantial following within his lifetime as well as considerable hostility particularly from the Muslim Ulama. He is known to have engaged in numerous public debates and dialogues with Christian missionaries, Muslim scholars and Hindu revivalists.

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Here are some other reasons I believe that Ahmad was a false prophet.

1. Ahmadis have made the same mistake that Christians and Jews make. They all believe that the Messiah is going to revive their religion, and establish it as the one true religion. The Ahmadiyya movement is not based upon the uniting of religions into one common faith, that which Bahais believe will eventually take place. It is the revival of Islam through the moral reformation of society along Islamic ideals, and the global propagation of Islam in its pristine form.

2. Ahmad asserted that Jesus had in fact survived crucifixion and died a natural death. Most Muslims also believe this but it is not in accord with the scholarly view, nor is it in accord with the Baha'i view, that Jesus sacrificed Himself for the sins and inequities of mankind.

Is the death of Jesus a historical event?

Scholars nearly universally accept the historicity of Jesus's crucifixion, although there is no consensus on the details. According to the canonical gospels, Jesus was arrested and tried by the Sanhedrin, and then sentenced by Pontius Pilate to be scourged, and finally crucified by the Romans.
Crucifixion of Jesus - Wikipedia

 

[WonderingWorrier]

You said:
The 13th of November 1835 is the day Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was born.
Do you think this gives any credit to his claim?

I said: No, I don't.
(So I meant that the year he was born does not give any credit to his claim.)


Yes, I believe that there was a meteor shower in Baha'u'llah's time.

THE STAR-FALL OF 1833

I was not talking about his birthday as being credit. I was talking about connecting a meteor shower to the day of his arrival in the world. Is there any credit in that like Bahai do with a meteor shower in 1833.

Denison Olmsted, Professor of Mathematics at Yale University, wrote the following in the American Journal of Science: “The morning of 13 November 1833, was rendered memorable by an exhibition of the phenomenon called shooting stars, which was probably more extensive and magnificent than any similar one hitherto recorded

The meteor shower you are connecting to Baha'u'llah was on the 13th November which is the date of the birthday of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad exactly 2 years before his birth and as I showed you another meteor shower came on the day of his birth.

So how can the event be as credit for Baha'u'llahs claim but not for Mirza Ghulam Ahmads claim?

62. Whoso layeth claim to a Revelation direct from God, ere the expiration of a full thousand years # 37

That claim from Baha'u'llah doesn't show he is a true prophet and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a false prophet.

I believe that Baha'u'llah was who He claimed to be. If Baha'u'llah was who He claimed to be Ahmad has to be a false prophet.
I believe that Ahmad was either a liar or delusional, but I am leaning towards liar, and I'd really hate to be him.

But you haven't shown a clear difference between them both. Yet you are accusing Ahmad as being a liar. Seems that you just assume he is the false prophet because you assume Baha'u'llah is the true one. Because you haven't explained a difference between them.

Baha'u'llah came before Ahmad. All Ahmad did was copy Baha'u'llah. That is enough of a reason to reject him, since he stole from Baha'u'llah.

Do you think the difference between a true prophet and a false prophet is who came first. Do you think a false prophet can't come before a true prophet?

You have not given a clear reason that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a false prophet.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

Part of it is just bad timing. He proclaimed himself about the same time as Baha'u'llah. For each, they've got to renounce the other as false.

And they probably use similar reasons to show how the other guy is a fraud.

So if they can't show exactly how the other guy is a fraud then they don't actually know the difference between a false prophet and a true prophet.

To prove someone is a false prophet would need exactly the same reason that could prove a true prophet. Something true prophets have which false prophets don't have.

 

[Trailblazer]

I was not talking about his birthday as being credit. I was talking about connecting a meteor shower to the day of his arrival in the world. Is there any credit in that like Bahai do with a meteor shower in 1833.

Baha'is do not claim that Baha'u'llah was the return of Christ just because of the meteor shower on 1833.

The meteor shower you are connecting to Baha'u'llah was on the 13th November which is the date of the birthday of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad exactly 2 years before his birth and as I showed you another meteor shower came on the day of his birth.

So how can the event be as credit for Baha'u'llahs claim but not for Mirza Ghulam Ahmads claim?

I already explained that. All signs that occur in the sky are not signs that someone is the return of Christ/Messiah. That is only one prophecy. Even if Ahmad fulfilled that one prophecy, he did not fulfill the other prophecies for the return of Christ/Messiah, and that is one way we know he was not.

That claim from Baha'u'llah doesn't show he is a true prophet and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a false prophet.

62. Whoso layeth claim to a Revelation direct from God, ere the expiration of a full thousand years # 37

That was not a claim.

But you haven't shown a clear difference between them both. Yet you are accusing Ahmad as being a liar. Seems that you just assume he is the false prophet because you assume Baha'u'llah is the true one. Because you haven't explained a difference between them.

I am not going to explain the difference between them on this forum. Anyone who wants to know can do their own research.

I believe he is the false prophet not only because I believe Baha'u'llah is the true one. I believe he is the false prophet because of what he taught, which I believe is false.

Do you think the difference between a true prophet and a false prophet is who came first. Do you think a false prophet can't come before a true prophet?

No, I do not think the difference between a true prophet and a false prophet is who came first and I do not think a false prophet can't come before a true prophet.

I think a true prophet cannot come after a true prophet if the true prophet said that no true prophet could come for 1000 years.

You have not given a clear reason that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a false prophet.

I did not claim that he was a false prophet. I believe he is a false prophet because Baha'u'llah wrote that no true prophet could come for 1000 years from 1852 AD.

Here are some other reasons I believe that Ahmad was a false prophet.

1. Ahmadis have made the same mistake that Christians and Jews make. They all believe that the Messiah is going to revive their religion, and establish it as the one true religion. The Ahmadiyya movement is the revival of Islam through the moral reformation of society along Islamic ideals, and the global propagation of Islam in its pristine form. I believe it is wrong to believe that Islam is the only true religion and push Islamic ideals on everyone.

2. Ahmad asserted that Jesus had in fact survived crucifixion and died a natural death. Most Muslims also believe this but it is not in accord with the scholarly view, nor is it in accord with the Baha'i view, that Jesus sacrificed Himself for the sins and inequities of mankind.

 

[Trailblazer]

So if they can't show exactly how the other guy is a fraud then they don't actually know the difference between a false prophet and a true prophet.

I know the difference between a false prophet and a true prophet.

Matthew 7:15-20 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

To prove someone is a false prophet would need exactly the same reason that could prove a true prophet. Something true prophets have which false prophets don't have.

Something true prophets have which false prophets don't have are fruits.

Fruits: the pleasant or successful result of work or actions: fruit

 

[Brian2]

Where does the New Testament say that Isa 53 is about Jesus? I have posted why it cannot be about Jesus and why is about Baha'u'llah before, so I won't repeat all of that.

Regarding Isaiah 53:3, Jesus was despised and rejected by certain Jews who wanted Him executed, but He was not rejected by most men. Jesus was a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief, but He was esteemed by many men. Certainly, Isaiah 53:4, Isaiah 53:5, and Isaiah 53:8 could apply to Jesus, but they also apply to Baha’u’llah. However, Isaiah 53:9 and Isaiah 53:10 cannot apply to Jesus because Jesus did not make His grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death. Jesus made his soul an offering for sin, but He did not see his seed and His days were not prolonged, so there is no way Isaiah 53:10 can be about Jesus, and that is why we know it is about someone else who would be the Messiah of the end days.

We begin the prophecy at Isa 52:13. We see at Isa 52:14 that the person spoken of was disfigured. That seems to leave Baha'u'llah out of contention as the suffering servant since he died of a fever.
Isa 52:14 As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:

Isa 53:9He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.

Jesus would have been thrown in a grave for the criminals who were executed but Joseph of Arimathea, a rich dude, got Jesus body and buried Him in his own new grave. I note that Baha'u'llah has a pretty flash grave but I don't know about him being assigned a grave with the wicked.

Isa 53:10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.

So the suffering servant was killed. He was led like a lamb to the slaughter (verse 7) and was cut off from the land of the living. (verse 8)
Baha'u'llah died of a fever. That is not the description we have in Isa 53 of the death of the suffering servant, and is not an offering for sin, (as in a lamb that was killed in the temple for the sins of the Israelites)
After being killed (not of fever) and buried the suffering servant saw His offspring (His children, Christians who were born again of the Word of God) and He prolonged His days by rising from the dead.
How did Baha'u'llah prolong his days after dying and being buried?

Isa 53:5But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

Was Baha'u'llah pierced for our iniquities or wounded for our healing?

Isa 53:12Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

Did Baha'u'llah pour out his life unto death, or did he die of a fever?

When I peruse Isa 52,53 I see that Baha'u'llah cannot be the suffering servant whose image was marred and who was pierced and made into a sin offering and rose from the dead.

Jesus never said He was coming back, not even once in the entire New Testament.

I have adequately refuted every verse you have ever presented where you believe Jesus said He was coming back.
I see no reason to do that again.

You do like to repeat things that are imo not true.

Jesus said that the Holy Spirit that would dwell in the disciples, but Jesus never said that the Spirit of Truth is the Holy Spirit that would teach them and dwell in them. That is only a Christian belief.

I show you the verses where Jesus said this and you deny that Jesus said it.
John 16:13However, when the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth. For He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and He will declare to you what is to come.

John 14:16And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Advocate to be with you forever— 17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot receive Him, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. But you do know Him, for He abides with you and will be in you.
Jesus said those verses to His disciples.

And just so that you know who this Spirit of Truth is, I will post these next couple of verses. And notice in John 15:26, that Advocate, Spirit of Truth, was sent to "you", the disciples Jesus was talking to.
John 14:26But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have told you.
John 15:26 “But when the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.

John 14, 15 and 16 says that the Comforter/Spirit of truth will do all these things on the list below.
None of the things on list below happened during the lifetimes of the disciples. Those things were not supposed to happen until Christ returned. Baha’u’llah has already done all those things and the rest will happen during His dispensation as the result of His coming.

• Teach you all things
• Call to remembrance what Jesus said
• Testify of Jesus
• Glorify Jesus, receive of Jesus, and shew it unto you
• Guide you into all truth
• Speak what He hears and shew you things to come
• Reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment

The Holy Spirit could not do the things on the list above unless it was working through a man. Only a man who had the Holy Spirit could do those things by speaking and writing, as Baha'u'llah did.

I do not deny that the Holy Spirit teaches and guides Christians today as it did in the first century. Of course the New Testament says different things than Baha'u'llah said. Why would we have needed Baha'u'llah if everything had been said in the New Testament?

So you say that the Holy Spirit teaches and guides Christians these days but could not do that 2000 years ago.
Do you think that the Spirit of Truth could remind people of what Jesus said to them if they had not heard Jesus say things to them. Jesus must have meant that His disciples who had heard Him were reminded of what He said.

How do you know what He has done? Have you read the Baha'i history books?

I can see that what Jesus will do when He returns have not been done. So Baha'u'llah did not do them.
But no I have not read all the things that Baha'u'llah did. I thought he wrote letters and articles etc. Maybe I missed the parts where he raised the dead and judged them and brought world peace etc.

I cannot speak about what Muhammad offered, only about what Baha'u'llah offered. Baha'u'llah unsealed the Bible making it possible to understand what it really means.

ROFLOL First of all he should fulfill the prophecies for the return of Christ and then I will trust him to tell me what the scriptures mean. You do it the other way round. You trust him to tell you what the prophecies about the return of Christ mean before he has shown himself to be the return of Christ by fulfilling those prophecies without changing the meaning.

Baha'ullah glorified Jesus and the proof is in His Writings which He penned in His own hand.
Baha'u'llah never glorified Himself and the proof is in His Writings which He penned in His own hand.

Baha'u'llah pretends to glorify Jesus but in reality he tears Him down and replaces Jesus with Himself and by his own authority he glorifies himself.
Really? You never noticed how Baha'u'llah tells everyone how magnificent he is?

...........except that I have learned many new Bible verses that will be valuable for me to know since they clearly demonstrate that Jesus is never coming back to this world. I can thank you for that.

No, I did not tell you those verses, you saw them and decided for yourself that you would interpret them that way and deny the places where Jesus said that He is coming back.

 

[Brian2]

You have absolutely no evidence that shows that Baha'u'llah ever stabbed Jesus in the back and you will never find any.
All you will ever find is passages where Baha'u'llah glorifies Jesus.

Baha'u'llah tells us that Jesus is a Manifestation of God like Adam, Noah, Moses, Muhammad, the Bab etc. That is stabbing Jesus in the back by telling lies about Him.
Baha'u'llah also tells us that Jesus dispensation ended. That is telling lies about Jesus.
Satan does these things because he is angry and wants to destroy the church.

Rev 12:11They triumphed over him
by the blood of the Lamb
and by the word of their testimony;
they did not love their lives so much
as to shrink from death.
12 Therefore rejoice, you heavens
and you who dwell in them!
But woe to the earth and the sea,
because the devil has gone down to you!
He is filled with fury,
because he knows that his time is short.”
13 When the dragon saw that he had been hurled to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. 14 The woman was given the two wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the wilderness, where she would be taken care of for a time, times and half a time, out of the serpent’s reach. 15 Then from his mouth the serpent spewed water like a river, to overtake the woman and sweep her away with the torrent. 16 But the earth helped the woman by opening its mouth and swallowing the river that the dragon had spewed out of his mouth. 17 Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring—those who keep God’s commands and hold fast their testimony about Jesus.

2Cor 11:14........for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15 It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness.

Any bright spirit that appears before you or appeared before Baha'u'llah and says that the Bible is wrong, is probably Satan or a demon. But of course he is more subtle than that and convinces people that he is telling the truth. After all, he is a bright spirit so he must be telling the truth.

 

[Brian2]

Jesus never said that He would come back or told us what He would do.

But I even showed you places where Jesus even uses pretty much those words, I am coming back.
And I showed you where Jesus (the Son of Man) tells us that He would come and judge the earth,,,,,,,,,,, Jesus having been given all judgement makes this Son of Man Jesus. Somebody else claiming to be this "Son of Man" means nothing, and means even less when he comes and does no gather all the living and dead before him, while he is seated on his throne, and judge them.

It has been shown that you twist the meaning of the verses that say that Jesus will never be seen again and interpret them to mean that Jesus will be seen again AND that you just ignore other sayings of Jesus that plainly show that He will never come back Himself.

What other sayings? All you have are the "when I go people won't be able to see me sayings" and I have shown you that you are inconsistent in your interpretations and that they should not be seen as literal.

You also pick and choose whatever you want from the rest of the Bible and claim it is about Jesus (no more than a claim) and say that anything that disagrees with Christian belief is not true.

Well you just refuse to hear anything except what Jesus said and you even deny that and alter the meaning when it does not match Baha'i teachings.

All of this should be obvious to anyone who has been following us. But why would anyone want to do that. We are both a bit loony.

 

[Brian2]

And it kind of fits... If the Kings and rulers would have listened to him, wars would have ended. But... since they didn't... there were more wars and greater wars. But there's also a problem with that. Revelation has the Messiah coming down on a white horse and destroying all the evil kings and rulers. But again I ask.... Where is the prophecy that says the end time Messiah comes, gets rejected, thrown in jail, dies and never brings peace in his lifetime?

Yes even when it is plain that Baha'u'llah has not fulfilled prophecy, there is a reason.

But we're talking about the Baha'i Faith here... each and every little detail doesn't matter. It's the overall concept of someday we will have peace because of Baha'u'llah's teachings. All that has to happen is the old world order crumbles apart, the people of the world elect a world tribunal that has all the nations disarm and sometime after that... the people of the world will let the Baha'i Faith rule the world.

Just as predicted in the Bible and all the other Holy Books... I mean not exactly as predicted. But kind of like it was predicted... that is symbolically, not literally. Or maybe not even close to being how it was predicted.

But since it was predicted, that is according to Baha'is, this is what they are told to do. "It's your job to figure out how it fulfills all the prophecies... No matter what you've got to do to make them fit. Let's start with Mt. Zion, listen closely, it becomes Mt. Carmel. Haifa becomes Jerusalem. The Valley of Achor is Akka. "Woes" are manifestations... and so on. Then repeat it over and over until it sinks in."

Whatever happens it will fit the Bible prophecies imo and that does end with the horseman of Rev 19 coming to save Israel from a lying antichrist who brings peace really wants to destroy the Jews etc. (I think that is how the prophecy goes)

Or... Why don't Baha'is just say, "You know what... The Bible is nuts. I don't believe it. I like the Baha'i Faith. That's what I believe. All the rest of the religions have some really crazy beliefs, especially Christianity."

I guess it works better to say "We know exactly what our Prophet said and so it is true and all the others have been corrupted," or something like that. Then step in and Baha'u'llah tells everyone what their scriptures really mean and interprets them to say that he is the one they have all been waiting for.

Gospels... Jesus came back to life. One of them has Jesus saying that he has flesh and bone and is not a ghost. In Acts.... it says that Jesus proved himself to be alive.

The Baha'i Faith has him rising in spirit. His physical body is dead and stays dead.

Yes they certainly deny and change the meaning of the Bible.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

Baha'is do not claim that Baha'u'llah was the return of Christ just because of the meteor shower on 1833.

So it can't be used for either proving Baha'u'llah true or Ahmad false because they both had the same thing happen in their time.

That is only one prophecy. Even if Ahmad fulfilled that one prophecy, he did not fulfill the other prophecies for the return of Christ/Messiah, and that is one way we know he was not.

That being one prophecy. Have you actually looked to see if Ahmad possibly fulfilled any other prophecies?

62. Whoso layeth claim to a Revelation direct from God, ere the expiration of a full thousand years # 37

That was not a claim.

Anyone after Baha'u'llah within a thousand year period is a lying imposter. That is his claim.

"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". Baha'u'llah.

Was Baha'u'llah claiming the thousand year reign of Christ:
"And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years". Revelation.

Claiming the thousand years doesn't prove Baha'u'llah Christ or a true prophet. He could just be a lying imposter himself.

I am not going to explain the difference between them on this forum. Anyone who wants to know can do their own research.

I believe he is the false prophet not only because I believe Baha'u'llah is the true one. I believe he is the false prophet because of what he taught, which I believe is false.

If you actually knew a difference you would clearly say it. Because the reason you show would also show why Baha'u'llah is a true prophet.

No, I do not think the difference between a true prophet and a false prophet is who came first and I do not think a false prophet can't come before a true prophet.

I think a true prophet cannot come after a true prophet if the true prophet said that no true prophet could come for 1000 years.

Do you think a false prophet could also say no true prophet could come for a thousand years.

I did not claim that he was a false prophet. I believe he is a false prophet because Baha'u'llah wrote that no true prophet could come for 1000 years from 1852 AD.

So you are calling Ahmad a false prophet and a liar because of something Baha'u'llah said. But Baha'u''llah could be a false prophet and a liar.

Here are some other reasons I believe that Ahmad was a false prophet.

1. Ahmadis have made the same mistake that Christians and Jews make. They all believe that the Messiah is going to revive their religion, and establish it as the one true religion. The Ahmadiyya movement is the revival of Islam through the moral reformation of society along Islamic ideals, and the global propagation of Islam in its pristine form. I believe it is wrong to believe that Islam is the only true religion and push Islamic ideals on everyone.

2. Ahmad asserted that Jesus had in fact survived crucifixion and died a natural death. Most Muslims also believe this but it is not in accord with the scholarly view, nor is it in accord with the Baha'i view, that Jesus sacrificed Himself for the sins and inequities of mankind.

1. Are you possibly making a mistake thinking religions get replaced rather than revived?

2. Why does anything Ahmad says need to be in accord with Bahai view?

One of them (or both of them) would be a false prophet.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

I know the difference between a false prophet and a true prophet.

Matthew 7:15-20 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Something true prophets have which false prophets don't have are fruits.

Fruits: the pleasant or successful result of work or actions: fruit

You are talking as if you know something but you are not actually saying anything.

Did Mirza Ghulam Ahmad not do any work or actions?

Can you be more specific or not?