True and False Prophets - Just and Honest Determination

[Pete in Panama]

Lots of Hebrew names end with "El". In Arabic end with a form of "Allah." Lots of people are named Gabriel or Emmanuel. People even name their kids Jesus. Does that make a Bible verse about them?

To think they didn't know that the work "Baha'u'llah" was mentioned in the Bible, I think, is unlikely. And just because someone gave him that title or he took it for himself doesn't mean that the Bible is talking about him.

There's a person that took the name "Maitreya"... does that mean he's the return of the Buddha? Although, that's what he probably claims. But Baha'is wouldn't believe it, because they believe their prophet is the Maitreya.

So, "Glory of God", "The Lamb", "The Return of Christ", "The Messiah", don't mean anything unless the person can prove that they are who they claim to be.

It might be clear to you, but it's not clear to me. Oh, I said "not"... sorry for being so negative.

CG, please forgive me for intruding into your convo w/ TransmutingSoul. It's just that you never responded to my questions about what your beliefs are and I'm beginning to simply go w/ a working assumption that your only belief is a desire to disagree w/ anyone who has a belief.

This forum should be a great place for that...

 

[Trailblazer]

--on top of that, we just proved that religion doesn't have to be the cause of disunity!

It doesn't have to be the cause of disunity but it often is.

 

[CG Didymus]

I'm beginning to simply go w/ a working assumption that your only belief is a desire to disagree w/ anyone who has a belief.

Or... to question the claims and beliefs of a group of people that say their prophet is the return of Christ. I agree with TB... It can't be proven. It's only a belief. But Baha'is should still be able to give reasons why they believe the claims of the Baha'i Faith and Baha'u'llah are true. I just happen to disagree with most all of them.

I don't believe the Lamb that was slain is the Bab. I don't believe the "Three Woes" were Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah. I do believe the Gospels are claiming that Jesus came back to life in some sort of flesh and bone body... Baha'is don't. I believe that the Bible teaches that Isaac was taken by Abraham to be sacrificed. The Baha'is don't. And so on.

So, you can have your beliefs, but can Baha'is back them up?

 

[WonderingWorrier]

My bad, somehow I thought that you were asking me about how I studied the Bible but now we're talking about how I'm interacting w/ other people. We can drop this if you want.

I was asking. Do you not study the Bible in the same way as interacting with other people?

Yeah you could come up with different meanings of what was said but that doesn't mean any of the different meanings were intended.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

Did I ever say I know everything about Ahmad?

I do have 'some knowledge' about Ahmad. That is enough to form a belief.

No, I am only sharing what I believe. Everyone shares beliefs on this forum.
A belief is not a rumor.

You have not explained the difference between true prophets and false prophets. If you did know it then you would be able to explain the difference without using the 1000 year avoidance of the subject of how to identify a false prophet. In 800 years all Bahai will have to face this question.

So if you didn't have the 1000 year window of evading the question would you still know Ahmad is a false prophet?

If you can't explain how he is a false prophet without the reason being because Baha'ullah said so then that would be because you don't actually know the difference between true prophets and false ones. So the same would apply to your belief that Baha'u'llah is a true one.

 

[Brian2]

What I'm getting at is that you questioned the logic of claims you'd heard from Baha'is and I was interested in the claims so I could better understand what folks were saying and how the statements were being received. Please believe me when I say that I don't agree w/ everything that every Baha'i says, and that when everyone individually searches for the truth that we naturally come up w/ different conclusions. That's why the search never ends but maybe I'm rambling...

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

 

[Brian2]

Do you recall John the Baptist when he was asked ‘art thou elijah’? What did he reply? He said he was not Elijah. But Christ said Elijah had returned referring to John inferring that Elijah had indeed returned but in the person of John the Baptist.

So when we speak of Christ returning, the same understanding is applied that it is the Holy Spirit that works through another Person with a different worldly name but it is still that same Holy Spirit. This is what the Baha’is are saying about Baha’u’llah what Christ related about John that although his personality and body was different, John was the return of Elijah.

I can understand what you are saying but see it as a creative way to change the plain meaning of the Bible. There is no hint in the Bible that Jesus was talking about someone else coming in His place. He said "I am coming back" and that the Son of Man, whom He had identified as Himself, is going to come in His glory and with His angels and judge the world and rule.

So we believe that Baha’u’llah has returned in the station of the Father , the Lord of the Vineyard. The Bab was the return of Jesus not Baha’u’llah. That is why in His Tablet to the Christians He said “Lo! The Father is come”.

That is an interesting concept and I know that Baha'u'llah is said to have the station of the Father. Muhammad is meant to be the return of the Christ also of course (he being Christ in spirit) The Bab also is the Christ in spirit and so is Baha'u'llah.
However I think you should slug it out with your Baha'i friends about whom they believe Baha'u'llah to be. Certainly they do not say that Baha'u'llah is not the return of Christ, but of course they deny that he is the return of the same Jesus that walked the earth 2000 years ago. (IOW they and you deny the Bible when it tells us that it is Jesus who is coming back in person.

It is only those who are attached to names and outward forms that deny. The Sun that rose and set on Monday is the same identical sun that rose and set on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and all week. But those who are attached to names and outward forms deny the inner reality that it is the same one sun that shines on all days. They say ‘ the sun of Monday (Jesus) is true, but the sun of Tuesday (Baha’u’llah) is false, yet it is the same one sun!

The sun on Monday is Jesus and the sun on Tuesday is Jesus etc etc. That is what the Bible teaches. The same Jesus is coming back.

The Spiritual world is oneness with no division but worldly eyes only see division and so are deprived of understanding let alone embracing the Sun of Truth when it shines from a different point in the horizon.

The Baha'i spiritual world is oneness in it's denial of the truth of the Bible.

 

[Pete in Panama]

It doesn't have to be the cause of disunity but it often is.

My view is that we're not seeing religion cause disunity but rather it's trouble makers using religion as an excuse for their trouble making.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Or... to question the claims and beliefs of a group of people...

From a quick scan of your post all I caught was negativity and conflict so I stopped. There might be good stuff that I was unable to see and it's for that possibility that I continue.

You say that you question beliefs, but my sense is that what you mean by "question" is not a search for information that you lack but rather your goal is to raise doubts with other's beliefs with a view toward proving them wrong. Unfortunately I can't spare the time to engage in your attacks but there are plenty of others on these threads that would enjoy conflicts w/ you so have at it with them.

If there really is something you'd like to understand and you want info then please ping me. If there's something that seems willfully blindly wrong and you take issue, please understand that we're not idiots, and that there is a possibility that we're looking at something other than the things you take issue with.

My take is that humankind is good, and we are one family. Another reality I'm seeing is that I consider the religions of the world to be in agreement and are of a common flow. You've never said what your beliefs are but if you think that these thoughts are nonsensical then one possibility could be that your unstated views assume say, humankind is bad and must be eliminated. That would end our discussion. However if you feel that people are good but that god and religion are bad, then we may be able to connect on say, how we define god and religion.

You're talking at me as if you desire an interaction, so what I'm describing here is my need to know what your thinking is in order to make the interaction possible.

 

[Pete in Panama]

I was asking. Do you not study the Bible in the same way as interacting with other people?

Yeah you could come up with different meanings of what was said but that doesn't mean any of the different meanings were intended.

Now that is something that happens a LOT when I study the Bible, even though interactions w/ people are worlds away from what we get from the Bible.

When I read a passage and rings a new bell in me, I have to take time and ponder what I'm reading to keep my thinking w/ that which is real. I change as time passes and each day my ability to understand expands, that's why new meanings are made possible. Sometimes my poor brain takes me down a blind alley. There will still be other times when I get a new truth and I'm better equipped to take on the world.

 

[Pete in Panama]

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

The issue you raise has profound significance and please be aware of my heartfelt thanks.

First let's agree together that Jesus was a manifestation of God --for me the word "manifestation" was something I learned when I as young and attended Sunday school. God is made manifest elsewhere, some say that his glory is manifest in the trees and birds. For me the question of whether a bird can be a manifestation of God crosses in mindless word games.

We can also agree that Jesus was/is the only Son of God manifestation and that his teachings had a huge impact in the world w/ Christianity now being the worlds largest major religion. Does that make Jesus "better" than Noah and Adam? One fact is that Noah and Adam existed long before Jesus, yet Jesus could not have brought his teachings had there been no Adam and Noah. As for whether that makes Noah and Adam "better" than Jesus my take is that the question is silly.

Something important is that many feel that Jesus was the example of how we should all be. OK, so it's true that Jesus had a lot on the ball and gave us much to ponder. At the same time if humanity were to have copied Jesus completely then the human race would have been all dead in a generation. Jesus never reproduced. While Jesus was divinely glorious, he was still human and had some human limitations.

Are we still in agreement?

 

[CG Didymus]

It is only those who are attached to names and outward forms that deny. The Sun that rose and set on Monday is the same identical sun that rose and set on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and all week. But those who are attached to names and outward forms deny the inner reality that it is the same one sun that shines on all days. They say ‘ the sun of Monday (Jesus) is true, but the sun of Tuesday (Baha’u’llah) is false, yet it is the same one sun!

The sun on Monday is Jesus and the sun on Tuesday is Jesus etc etc. That is what the Bible teaches. The same Jesus is coming back.

That's one of the worst Baha'i analogies. A much better one is about lamps. In that one, Jesus is one lamp, and Baha'u'llah is another lamp, but it is the same electricity that lights them. But same thing, don't get attached to the lamp but see that it is the power of God through the Holy Spirit that lights them.

If they would have just used that one and let it alone, they would have been better off... But they had to ruin it with this comparing the Sun that shines on different days? It is the same Sun. Nobody is calling it the Sun of Monday and the Sun of Tuesday.

Then they have one that compares their manifestations to the different teachers that a kid has as they go through grade school? But in school, each teacher builds on the things that were learned in the previous grade. With religions, the teachings of the previous religions have to be unlearned and corrected by the next religion.

Baha'is come close in many ways. Like why wouldn't there be one God that sends a new teacher with new teachings as humankind progresses? But the religions are not teaching the same kinds of things. How do we go from reincarnation to being saved by grace? And after being saved by grace back to saving yourself by good works? And how do we go from being taught that the story about Jesus is literally true... to... no it's not literally true, it's symbolically true.

But not only him... Adam and Noah? They are real, and they are manifestations of God. But the Bible story about them is not true... The garden, the serpent, the tree... all symbolic. And the Ark, the flood, the animals... all symbolic. Then with Abraham, no it wasn't Isaac... it was Ishmael. Then who knows what Baha'is do with Moses? Are any of those stories literally true? The plaques, the parting of the seas, his staff turning into a snake?

What is genius about making all those things symbolic, the Baha'is can then say, "We believe it is all true... symbolically true... just not literally true." Which still serves the same purpose as calling all of it a great big lie... It gets rid of it.

The only truth that is left after that... is the Baha'i truth.

And for you Baha'is... that doesn't mean what you say isn't true... it's just that I have my doubts.

 

[CG Didymus]

Another reality I'm seeing is that I consider the religions of the world to be in agreement and are of a common flow.

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

I don't see it as a "reality" that all religions of the world are in agreement. Even the major religions disagree. And what's wrong with that? Reincarnation and multiple Gods doesn't "flow" into one God and one lifetime. They are both "right" for the people that believe them. But who knows if either one is true? Of course, Baha'is know.

But also? "All" the religions? Like I mentioned several times, the Israelites were surrounded by people that believed in false religions that had false Gods. And again, even some of the major religions have false beliefs mixed in. And Baha'is are quick to point them out. "Jesus is God"? Baha'is say "no" that is a false belief. "Jesus came physically back to life"? Baha'is? No, they say he is physically dead, and that it was his spirit the rose.

That's not agreement. That's saying what those people believe is wrong, and it implies that what the Baha'is say is true. And maybe it is... But let's keep questioning the Baha'is on their claims, because maybe what they say isn't true. And, sometimes, that's going to sound a little negative.

But isn't telling those Christians they are wrong being negative? And isn't it meant to "raise" doubts about their beliefs that they take for granted as being true? Now you personally may not do that. But it's part of the beliefs of the Baha'i Faith

 

[TransmutingSoul]

If they would have just used that one and let it alone, they would have been better off... But they had to ruin it with this comparing the Sun that shines on different days? It is the same Sun. Nobody is calling it the Sun of Monday and the Sun of Tuesday

You stated the key, but clouded it in negation.

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

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

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

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

You have not explained the difference between true prophets and false prophets.

I did explain it, at least three times already. Good fruits vs. bad fruits. I am not going to list the good and bad fruits of each, not my job.

If you did know it then you would be able to explain the difference

I could easily explain the difference but I am not going to spend my time that way. I have other things to do.
If you want to know the difference all the information is readily available on the internet.

So if you didn't have the 1000 year window of evading the question would you still know Ahmad is a false prophet?

No, I would not know, but I would suspect just by the way he talks and acts, and how he stole teachings from Baha'u'llah.
He is also arrogant to the hilt. He thinks he is really something.

If you can't explain how he is a false prophet without the reason being because Baha'ullah said so then that would be because you don't actually know the difference between true prophets and false ones.

I don't have to do that because Jesus did it for me. Thank you Jesus!

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.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Moses didn't acknowledge any Gods or messengers of the Egyptians or anybody else. Jesus never mentioned Krishna or the Buddha. In fact, neither did Baha'u'llah.

And to disagree with that is being too negative?

The point is CG, instead of exploring what the Messengers offered about past Messengers, you first looked for what they did not offer.

It is more than logical in a more ancient age, where people were not even aware of Messengers on other continents, or even aware there was other continents, that the Message was suited to their capacity. Within that Message will be found metephor stating the wider truths.

As religion has progressed with our scientific and worldly knowledge, the Messengers have given us a greater insight into this, but all Messengers, in one way or another confirm who has come before, and who will come after.

There were Buddha's before Buddha and a Buddha to come.

There were Avatars before Krishna and Avatars to come.

Regards Tony

 

[WonderingWorrier]

I did explain it, at least three times already. Good fruits vs. bad fruits. I am not going to list the good and bad fruits of each, not my job.

I could easily explain the difference but I am not going to spend my time that way. I have other things to do.
If you want to know the difference all the information is readily available on the internet.

No, I would not know, but I would suspect just by the way he talks and acts, and how he stole teachings from Baha'u'llah.
He is also arrogant to the hilt. He thinks he is really something.

I don't have to do that because Jesus did it for me. Thank you Jesus!

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.

No. You just say that you know the difference between true prophets and false prophets but you avoid giving an explanation. So it appears that you just assume so.

Just like @TransmutingSoul your idea of fruits has nothing to do with fruits. You changed the word fruits into meaning work or actions.

So are you stuck (finished) in the same place as @TransmutingSoul or can you take that explanation of fruits any further:

You are finished there because you are unable to explain the difference between false prophets and true ones.

It is your explanation of prophets that is fruitless. Because you quote you know them by their fruits but you changed the word fruits into "the fruits of their labour" and talk about their lives and what they have done. You went away from fruits. And you can't actually sort true and false prophets in that way because the same could be said for anyone suffering messiah syndrome promoting peace and doing good deeds.

So since you are now done I have a question for you.

Are you aware of the fact that the Bible prophets speak of a variety of different specific fruits? Are you aware of the pomegranates the figs and the apples, the corn the olives and the grapes?

So I say the same to you. "You can't actually sort true and false prophets in that way because the same could be said for anyone suffering messiah syndrome promoting peace and doing good deeds".

 

[Trailblazer]

Just like @TransmutingSoul your idea of fruits has nothing to do with fruits. You changed the word fruits into meaning work or actions.

I did not have to change the meaning. Fruits means what it says in the dictionary.

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

So I say the same to you. "You can't actually sort true and false prophets in that way

I can sort them in any way I want to and so can you.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

Now that is something that happens a LOT when I study the Bible, even though interactions w/ people are worlds away from what we get from the Bible.

When I read a passage and rings a new bell in me, I have to take time and ponder what I'm reading to keep my thinking w/ that which is real. I change as time passes and each day my ability to understand expands, that's why new meanings are made possible. Sometimes my poor brain takes me down a blind alley. There will still be other times when I get a new truth and I'm better equipped to take on the world.

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

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

 

[WonderingWorrier]

I did not have to change the meaning. Fruits means what it says in the dictionary.

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

But from your dictionary link:

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

So would apples be the wrong meaning of fruit?

I can sort them in any way I want to and so can you.

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