Who Has the truth? Who Will Bring World Peace?

[sooda]

I know you or one of the others has commented on this before, but it's pretty important, so if you could give a Baha'i explanation on some of these prophesies again. The "mountain", "Zion", and "Jerusalem", I was taught, was all talking about the same place... that is where the temple is, that is where Jesus is supposed to return and that is where the "gate" that faces east is. The "law" is not going out of Zion and the "word" of the LORD is not going out of Jerusalem. No one is judging the nations and settling disputes from Jerusalem. And no is beating their swords into plowshares.

Because of that, it makes it difficult for Christians to believe that the "end" has already happened... that "Jesus" has already returned. What is the Baha'i explanation. Thanks again Tony.

Isaiah wasn't predicting the end times.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Correction...they converted them to Christendom.....not Christianity. No one is "converted" to genuine Christianity at the point of a sword.

To understand history is to appreciate the brutality of humanity and the frequently of war, famine and pestilence. The Roman Empire was a world of male domination, slavery, and autocratic rule. Christianity didn't actually promote equality of men and women, the abolition of slavery nor democracy as we have it today. They are Baha'i techings of course. Nor did Christianity promote peace between nations and Christians throughout the age ages have found justification for war within the bible.

Christians have held diverse views towards violence and non-violence through time. Currently and historically there have been four views and practices within Christianity toward violence and war: non-resistance, Christian pacifism, Just war theory, and the Crusade (Holy or preventive war). The early church in the Roman empire adopted a nonviolent stance when it came to war since imitating Jesus's sacrificial life was preferable. The concept of "Just war", whereby limited uses of war were considered acceptable originated with earlier non-Christian Roman and Greek thinkers such as Cicero and Plato.This theory was adapted later by Christian thinkers such as St Augustine, who like other Christians, borrowed much of the justification from Roman writers like Cicero and Roman Law. Even though "Just War" concept was widely accepted early on, warfare was not regarded as a virtuous activity and expressing concern for the salvation of those who killed enemies in battle, regardless of the cause for which they fought, was common. Concepts such as "Holy war", whereby fighting itself might be considered a penitential and spiritually meritorious act, did not emerge before the 11th century.

Christianity and violence - Wikipedia

The capacity to engage in armed conflict was simply a necessity. There was no place for pacificism. If your territory and Empire went to war able bodied men were expected to participate and often put to death or imprisoned upon refusal.

The book of Joshua has God assisting the Israelites to reclaim the land of Caanan and its all rather brutal.

In short God is not a pacifist! Having the freedom to choose religion was often not an option. Interestingly Muhammad taught "Let there be no compulsion in religion".

Al-Baqara 256 - Wikipedia

So in that sense He promoted Teachings that were more advanced than Christianity.

My brotherhood was in its infancy at the end of the 19th century...just beginning to tackle the prophesies Jesus at Matthew 24. As time went on, more and more was revealed.

The 'cleansing, whitening and refining' foretold by Daniel were processes that were going to take time and effort....but one by one, Christendom's doctrines were examined and discarded as false. We separated completely from Christendom, no longer having any beliefs in common with them.

What I've been looking at today with history is how the concern for purifiying Christianity has been there since the birth of the Protestant movement, perhaps as far back as Erasmus over 400 years befoe the JWs came into existence.

Erasmus - Wikipedia

As I've made clear I think the attitude of the JWs seeing Christianity as corrupt and the JWs as pure as the driven snow simply doesn't gel for me.

God did move people at that time, but out of it came my brotherhood, now a united global family who all accept the truths dispensed by the ones we regard as "the faithful and discreet slave" appointed by Jesus to "feed" his household their "food at the proper time". (Matthew 24:45) That meant that we got what we needed, when we needed it, gradually revealing what God's purpose was for his people in these last days. Did we make some mistakes? Sure we did, but it was only at the right time that things were clarified. (Proverbs 4:18)

The events we see taking place since 1914 all fit in the scenario Jesus gave to identify the last days. It also fits in with the prophesies of Daniel and Revelation written over 400 years apart, yet still speaking about the same events.....leading to the "great day of God the Almighty"....Armageddon.

This is what we are prepared for. The world at large is not.

I haven't really explored the succession from Charles Taze Russell

Charles Taze Russell - Wikipedia

to Joseph Rutherford

Joseph Franklin Rutherford - Wikipedia

And then the leadership beyond that.

It will be interesting to further examine your faith from an historic perspective. I'm getting a feel for your theology. Its not that hard when it comes down to it having grown up Christian and been a Baha'i for nearly 30 years.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I have obviously struck a nerve and you have responded accordingly.

You're projecting. My tone is balanced. You're agitated

Your trust is in men of science and mine is in men of faith.

I trust reason applied to evidence over faith.

If JW's were 'aloof or superior', then we would be doing what most people in this world do....taking care of number one and not caring much about anyone else at all.

There is no evidence that the Jehovah's Witnesses care about much more than one another and growing the business evangelizing. You care about the Jehovah's Witnesses and nobody else. You used those words - 'we don't care what others think of us.' If they are doing anything for the community, it is unapparent.

You don't really want answers

Answers to what? I have no problems or questions needing answers. The time to seek answers is in one's youth, answers that one can apply through decades of life. These days, useful information is reduced to things like good new restaurants. I'm not expecting any more answers to philosophical questions, nor new and better ways to go through this, the last third of life

But you're correct. I didn't come to you for answers, just as you did not. I came to you for discussion. I came to learn how you answered the important questions for yourself, not how you would answer them for me. I must admit that it's been eye-opening. I wonder how typical your pessimism and misanthropy for man and his world are? None of the other Jehovah's Witnesses I've interacted with here express what you do, but may agree with you nevertheless. You didn't make this stuff up. It was taught to you by an organized religion that very much cares what you believe and goes to great lengths to publish material for you to read and assimilate..

I've explained on this thread what my purpose here is, and there was nothing there about seeking the kind of answers that come from religions or any other source of faith-based thought. I'm very interested in seeing it at work, and seeing how it affects thinking, but not in joining in :

"Often in these venues, we are not really writing to the person named in the post even though we seem to be, but as you imply, for the benefit of others and ourselves. This is a place to learn from those one considers competent to teach, to share one's own ideas with those who decide what is true about the world by applying reason to evidence, to practice constructing arguments, to practice identifying and naming logical fallacies, and to improve one's vocabulary and writing skills. One doesn't even need one's apparent collocutor to read the reply to accomplish any of that, much less be moved by one's reply."

If you're interested, I can share a little bit about what I have learned about faith-based thought and its effect on people embracing it. It appears to be relatively harmless if it one can learn to compartmentalize faith-based beliefs, but potentially quite damaging for those who cannot.

That is, if you believe angels watch over you when you drive, but continue to drive as if there are none, there's no harm there. If you drive drunk because you think the angels will protect you, you may pay dearly for that belief. I look at the Baha'i, and I see mostly sensible, upbeat people that share my value in being a part of the world and making it a better place.

On the other hand, when I look at the creationists and the American evangelicals, I see damage from faith-based thought, including an anti-intellectualism that too often eventually interferes with education yielding citizens that simply can't compete or contribute except with their backs, and theocratic tendencies in voters that are also made into bigots. Those are the kinds of answers I seek here.

you just want the Bible and Christianity to be wrong

I've already answered that question for myself, long ago. It's no longer an issue for me.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Jesus fulfilled all of the prophesies written about his role. He even purposely orchestrated some of the features so that they would be fulfilled as written.

We call that self-fulfilling prophecy, one of the qualities of low quality prophecy. Others include being vague rather than maximally specific, coming after the event allegedly foretold, and trivial predictions such as predictions of commonplace events.

For examples of high quality prophecy, go to science. The Higgs boson was prophesied to exist at a very specific energy, charge, spin, and parity. A very large and powerful machine was built on the justified belief that science would be shown to accurate in its prophesy once again just as it had been with the prediction that matter could bend the path of light, and that there would be found a relatively homogeneous radiation detectable in all directions at a specific frequency and temperature, already an impressive track record for prophecy, or prediction as it is more commonly known in science. In every case, something unexpected was prophesied to exist, and its qualities specified.

If you listen to Jewish sources, of course you will get a different story. According to their interpretation of scripture, he did not fulfill any of the Messianic prophesies. Not because he didn't fulfill them, but because he didn't do so in the way they thought he should.

I've read the prophesies. The Jews are correct. Jesus does not meet them.

Even if I were unable to make that judgment myself, I would still believe the Jews over anybody disagreeing with them when it comes to what their scriptures say. Their incentive is to correctly understand their scriptures. Others are motivated to make them conform with their alien theologies.

Much of it is literal and some of it is figurative.

And each reader feels entitled to decide which is which with no consistent means of doing so, which is what makes claims of having the truth about the Bible easy to ignore. Scripture means what the believer wants it to mean.

Once you know the Bible's overall message, the differences become clear.

Actually, once you have heard from the clergy what its particular theology is, you interpret scripture to make it conform to that. If the overall message includes that God is infinitely benevolent, then all apparently monstrous act need to be made into something else, and scripture is interpreted to do that.

All we need to know is contained in God's word.

That's too bad that you feel that way It confirms, however, my earlier comment that you also don't come here for answers.

Roman Catholicism and Christianity are not remotely connected and never were, according to my understanding. Protestantism is just the daughters of the same mother.....all subscribe to the same core doctrines...the ones we discarded as unchristian teachings over 100 years ago.

The devil has his way of leading men to distort the truth so that lies come to be accepted as doctrines....truth comes to be viewed as lies.

Except with the Jehovah's Witnesses, of course, who alone are in possession of the truth, immune to deception.

Correction...they converted them to Christendom.....not Christianity. No one is "converted" to genuine Christianity at the point of a sword.

Christianity would likely have died out by now without those swords. The Romans, the Crusaders, and the Conquistadores all spread Christianity at the point of a sword. Kings maintained it as the state religion using armies and inquisitions.

There are literally thousands of gods in different belief systems of this world, but in reality, there is only one true God

You mean at most one true god. You find it easy to dismiss those thousands of gods without knowing anything about most of them, so hopefully you are in agreement that human beings have a proclivity for inventing and believing in gods, and either everybody or almost everybody that has ever proclaimed that they were aware of the one true god was incorrect. Why should we disbelieve them but not you?

If we are genuine in our search for him, he will find us.

I can attest from personal experience that that is wrong. One can seek sincerely and with great passion and diligence, and still come up empty.

Jews were exterminated like vermin by Hitler....but he gave JW's options to renounce their faith or be executed. Many of my brothers lost their lives in those camps.

There's one of the dangers of faith. Sometimes, people are killed or give up their lives willingly for it.

there has never been any repentance on the part of the Jewish nation concerning the murder of Jesus Christ.

Jesus was legally executed for a capital crime, but not by the Jews, who also found Christ guilty of a different capital crime in a separate legal system, but was not executed for that or by them.

We are not vengeful or judgmental

You're not judgmental? You've just finished judging the Jews, Catholics, and Protestants, all unfavorably. You've judged me to be selfishly indifferent to others. You've judged the medical industry as being a means for robbing people. You've judged the scientific community. You've judged all of humanity as being corrupt, all governments as failures, and the world as being undesirable.

If you make yourself God's enemy, you can expect his anger.

I think that there is a better way to respond, especially for a god. First, not agreeing to believe in a god that is undetectable does not make one an enemy of that god. How could an entity of that power view any human being as an enemy?

Second, even if a given person was in some sense an enemy of that god, why can't it do what most mature human beings do, which is to limit one's reaction to the minimum necessary to protect oneself, which is generally dissociation without seeking retribution? The idea of deserving punishment seems like a religious idea to me, one based on a god that metes out gratuitous punishment for disobedience. When I used to "punish" my children, as with grounding, it was for a purpose, one in their own best interest - to teach them things expected to make their lives better, not to make them suffer for disobeying.

 

[CG Didymus]

According to the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, the one true God of the Bible is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who is also the God of Jesus Christ.

When Judaism rejected their Messiah, after centuries of disobedience, they then lost Yahweh as their God. They had abandoned him way too many times to be forgiven by just relying on their lineage. Jesus said that it was over for them. The God of Abraham no longer recognizes them as his people. (Matthew 23:37-39) This of course, they will hotly deny...but it doesn't matter. The die is cast. There is nothing preventing individuals out of any nation or belief system from coming to know the true God. (Acts of the apostles 10:34-35)

Baha'is may say that they worship the same God but they are an offshoot of Islam, not Judaism. The promise to Abraham was to be fulfilled in Isaac, not Ishmael. Their prophet is not my prophet and because their god is the god of Islam, he is not my god either.

Christendom's god is a trinity, so he is not the god we worship......there is no such god.

There are literally thousands of gods in different belief systems of this world, but in reality, there is only one true God who created all things. If we are genuine in our search for him, he will find us.

This God would not have a bar of those false gods, nor the people who support beliefs systems in opposition to him, his laws and to his incoming Kingdom.

Often times I've said that I thought the Baha'i Faith was a liberalized form of Islam. They have so much in common with them and so little in common with all of the other religions. Yet, all the religions are supposedly a progression of revelation from the same God.

My personal opinion is that religion has "progressed" or more accurately "evolved". But was it because of God or because of people trying to sort spiritual reality out and trying to find more suitable answers and explanations?

Unfortunately, I don't like or agree with many of the Baha'i explanations, especially those concerning the Bible. Anything they don't agree with is given a "symbolic" meaning, even if it is plainly written as if it is an historical event. Creation, the Flood, and the literal resurrection of Jesus are part of that. I don't know if JW's believe those things were literal or not, but most Christians I know do.

You mentioned Isaac. Baha'is say it was Ishmael, not Isaac, that was taken to be sacrificed. It gets to where I question what in the Bible and NT do they believe in? Naturally, they say everything. Except they only believe in it symbolically, not literally. But then we get to the prophecies. They think that The Bab and Baha'u'llah have fulfilled all the prophecies. The big one for me is their 1260 days, which matches the time when Islam started and the coming of The Bab. For me, most of the rest are too vague to be sure what is meant. Things like the "Two Witnesses" being Muhammad and Ali. And, the "Three Woes" being Muhammad, The Bab and Baha'u'llah.

But, there is one prophecy that, no matter what they say, hasn't been fulfilled... peace. And I always ask them if Jesus said that there will be wars and rumors of wars, but that is not yet the end... then, since we still have wars and rumors of wars, it isn't yet the end. Thanks Deeje

 

[CG Didymus]

It would be good if @Tony Bristow-Stagg could cobble something together from Dawn Breakers. Otherwise I'll work on it when I've got some time. It would be helpful if you had a few more specific questions.

In regards to the JWs I thought it interesting to better understand the conditions that led to 'both' the expectation of the Return of Christ and how the JW movement fits in. The Dawn Breakers certainly captures the social millieu from which the Babi movement arose. Its essential reading for any Baha'i and a good read for anyone investigating the Baha'i Faith.

I hope you have the time and are already familiar with some of the history. So the split between Sunni's and Shia's, and then the Shia sect, I think it is called the "Twelvers", that led to The Bab. Thanks.

 

[CG Didymus]

It does not matter what people believe or worship. Just because different religions have different ideas about what God is like, that does not mean there is more than one God. That is patently illogical.

There is ONLY ONE GOD, the God who revealed all the major religions. I am sorry if some Christians believe they have the only true God and nobody else knows who that God is... They are simply wrong.

“The Purpose of the one true God, exalted be His glory, in revealing Himself unto men is to lay bare those gems that lie hidden within the mine of their true and inmost selves. That the divers communions of the earth, and the manifold systems of religious belief, should never be allowed to foster the feelings of animosity among men, is, in this Day, of the essence of the Faith of God and His Religion. These principles and laws, these firmly-established and mighty systems, have proceeded from one Source, and are the rays of one Light. That they differ one from another is to be attributed to the varying requirements of the ages in which they were promulgated.....” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 287-288

No, it means people have different ideas about what and who is God. Is God The Father, the Son and Holy Spirit? Is God Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu? Is God an unknowable essence? Did religions have many lessor gods? Are there lessor gods? Why wouldn't God delegate some of the work to lessor spirit beings, or gods? And, I can't follow your "logic". If religions have different ideas about God, like that God is a three in one or there are many gods, then, to those religions, there is more than what the Baha'is believe to be the One God.

But, they are "simply" wrong? And, they say that the Baha'is are the ones that are "simply" wrong. So where does that get us? It is still one religion arguing over which beliefs are true and which ones aren't. And all religions are supposed to be one? They aren't. They have different beliefs, especially about who God is and how many gods there are.

But this thread is about the "Truth" and "World Peace". A major obstacle to peace is religions. The Baha'i answer seems to be that Baha'is have the truth and that all the other religions should be able to see that.

 

[CG Didymus]

It is also good to consider that prophecy also unfolds over time, there is not just a day of miraculous unfolding.

Thus the Guardian in a talk given to some pilgrims was reported to have said that catastrophic events as described by biblical prophecy can still be a material reality.

Regards Tony


A brief extract...I'm no speed typist

In the Shiah line there is the line of the 12 Imams (Church of the 12)

1 Ali-ibn-i-Abi-Talib - Assassinated a.d 661
2 Hasan, son of Ali and Fatimih - poisoned a.d 670
3 Husayn, son of Ali and Fatimih - killed at Karbila a.d 680
4 Ali, son of Husayn and Shahribanu - poisoned
5 Muhammad-Baqir - poisoned
6 Ja far-i-Sadiq - poisoned
7 Musa-Kazim - poisoned
8 Ali-ibn-i-Musar-Rida - poisoned a.h 203
9 Muhammad-Taqi - poisoned a.h 220
10 Ali-Naqi - poisoned a.h 254
11 Hasan-i-Askari - poisoned a.h 260
12 Muhammad - called the Imam-Mihdi a.h 260 - Held that he did not die and will come forth heralded by Jesus Christ.

I think this is Sunni Line

Abu-Bakris-Siddiq-ibn-i-Abi-Quhafih 632-34 a.d
Umar-ibn-i'l-Khattab 634-44 a.d
Uthman-ibn-i-Affan 644-56 a.d
Ali-ibn-i-Abi-Talib 656-61 a.d
Umayyad Caliphs 661-749 a.d
Abbasid Caliphs 749-1258 a.d
Fatimite Caliphs 1258-1517 a.d
Ottomon Caliphs 1517-1924 a.d

Regards Tony

So how about in the 1800's, were there sects of Shia that were splitting off and claiming the "End" is near kind of stuff? Did they tie in the year 1260 as being the year when Christ was to return or anything like that?

 

[ManSinha]

T

So what is @Deeje doing rubbing shoulders with us here on the Internet? I suspect that considers herself immune to our effect, and I would agree with her. Nobody will be budging her from any religious position by any means.

I guess there are plenty of us willing to discuss but ultimately won't be budged from our respective positions

 

[CG Didymus]

Isaiah wasn't predicting the end times.

The question is whether Haifa and Mt. Carmel replace Jerusalem and Mt. Zion. Would you as a Christian buy that?

 

[sooda]

The question is whether Haifa and Mt. Carmel replace Jerusalem and Mt. Zion. Would you as a Christian buy that?

I have no idea what you are talking about. Is this a contest?

 

[Dawnofhope]

I hope you have the time and are already familiar with some of the history. So the split between Sunni's and Shia's, and then the Shia sect, I think it is called the "Twelvers", that led to The Bab. Thanks.

Hi CG,

I was pretty ill yesterday with a viral infection so was didn't have too much energy physically or mentally. I'm a little better today.

If you look at Islam as a whole there is roughly 90% Sunni and 10% Shi'a. There are a few other groups like the Sufis but Sunni and Shi'a are the two main divisions of Islam. As you probably know the split happened early on and a key issue is the succession of Muhammad, that has ultimately led to the division between Shi'a and Sunni Islam. Divisions emerged early in the first century of the Muslim community. A few months prior to his death, Muhammad delivered a sermon at Ghadir Khumm where he announced that Ali ibn Abi Talib would be his successor. After the sermon, Muhammad ordered the Muslims to pledge allegiance to Ali. Both Shia and Sunni sources agree that Abu Bakr, Umar ibn al-Khattab, and Uthman ibn Affan were among the many who pledged allegiance to Ali at this event. However, just after Muhammad died, a group of approximately fourteen Muslims met at Saqifa, where Umar pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr then assumed political power, and his supporters became known as the Sunnis. Despite that, a group of Muslims kept their allegiance to Ali. These people, who became known as Shias, held that while Ali's right to be the political leader may have been taken, he was still the religious and spiritual leader after Muhammad.

Eventually, after the deaths of Abu Bakr and the next two Sunni leaders, Umar and Uthman, the Sunni Muslims went to Ali for political leadership. After Ali died, his son Hasan ibn Ali succeeded him, both politically and, according to Shias, religiously. However, after six months, he made a peace treaty with Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan, which stipulated that, among other conditions, Muawiya would have political power as long as he did not choose who would succeed him. Muawiya broke the treaty and named his son Yazid ibn Muawiya his successor, thus forming the Umayyad dynasty. While this was going on, Hasan and, after his death, his brother Husain ibn Ali, remained the religious leaders, at least according to the Shia. Thus, according to Sunnis, whoever held political power was considered the successor to Muhammad, while according to Shias, the twelve Imams (Ali, Hasan, Husain, and Husain's descendants) were the successors to Muhammad, even if they did not hold political power.

In addition to these two main branches, many other opinions also formed regarding succession to Muhammad.

Succession to Muhammad - Wikipedia

The majority Shi'a are twelvers in they believe in the rightly guided 12 Imams that @Tony Bristow-Stagg listed here:

Who Has the truth? Who Will Bring World Peace?

Twelvers have beliefs based most on Hadiths that the Twelth Imam will return at the end of the age, so end time eschatology like the Christians with the Return of Christ.

The Mahdi (literally "the guided one") is an eschatological redeemer of Islam who will appear and rule for five, seven, nine or nineteen years (according to differing interpretations) before the Day of Judgment (literally "the Day of Resurrection") and will rid the world of evil.

There is no direct reference to the Mahdi in the Quran, only in the hadith (the reports and traditions of Muhammad's teachings collected after his death). In most traditions, the Mahdi will arrive with 'Isa (Jesus) to defeat Al-Masih ad-Dajjal (literally "the false Messiah", or Antichrist). Although the concept of a Mahdi is not an essential doctrine in Sunni Islam, it is popular among both Sunni and Shia Muslims. Both agree that he will rule over the Muslims and establish justice; however, they differ extensively on his attributes and status.

Mahdi - Wikipedia

 

[Dawnofhope]

The Safavid conversion of Iran from Sunni Islam to Shia Islam took place roughly over the 16th through 18th centuries and made Iran the spiritual bastion of Shia Islam. It also ensured the dominance of the Twelver sect within Shiism over the Zaydiyyah and Ismaili sects – each of whom had previously experienced their own eras of dominance within Shiism. Through their actions, the Safavids reunified Iran as an independent state in 1501 and established Twelver Shiism as the official religion of their empire, marking one of the most important turning points in the history of Islam.

As a direct result, the population of the territory of present-day Iran and neighbouring Azerbaijan were converted to Shia Islam at the same time in history. Both nations still have large Shia majorities, and the Shia percentage of Azerbaijan's population is second only to that in Iran.

A key individual in the conversion (often by force) of Muslim's to Shi'a was Ismail I.

From 1500–2 Ismail I conquered Tabriz in Iran, as well as Armenia, Azerbaijan, and parts of Dagestan (North Caucasus, nowadays part of Russia). He would take most of the next decade to consolidate his control over Iran, where most of the Persian population was still Sunni.

....According to Daniel W. Brown, Isma'il was "the most successful and intolerant Shi'i ruler since the fall of the Fatimids". It appears that he aimed for complete destruction of Sunni Islam, and he largely achieved that goal in the lands over which he ruled. His hatred of the Sunnis knew no bounds, and his persecution of them was ruthless. He required the first three caliphs to be ritually cursed, abolished Sunni Sufi orders, seizing their property, and gave Sunni ulama a choice of conversion, death, or exile. Shi'i scholars were brought in from other regions to take their place.

Safavid conversion of Iran to Shia Islam - Wikipedia

Not suprisingly admisdt this violent Millieu during the 18th century there was a growing sense that Islam had run its sourse and could only be redeemed through the Return of the 12th Imam.

Shaykh Ahmad i(1753–1834) was a prominent 19th-century Muslim theologian and jurist who founded the influential Shaykhí school of Twelver Shiism, which attracted followers from throughout the Persian and Ottoman Empires.

Shaykh Ahmad - Wikipedia

His appointed successor was Sayyid Kazim.

Sayyid Kāẓim was appointed as the successor of Shaykh Ahmad al-Ahsa'i, and led the Shaykhí movement until his death.

On the death of Sayyid Kazim on 31 December 1843, some Shaykhis went on to become Babis, some of whom later became Bahais, It is reported that before dying, instead of appointing a successor, he sent his disciples out to find the Promised One. One of his most noted followers, Mullá Husayn said:

"Our departed teacher insistently exhorted us to forsake our homes, to scatter far and wide, in quest of the promised Beloved... Regarding the features of the Promised One, he told us that He is of a pure lineage, is of illustrious descent, and of the seed of Fatimah. As to His age, He is more than twenty and less than thirty. He is endowed with innate knowledge. He is of medium height, abstains from smoking, and is free from bodily deficiency."
(quoted in Nabil-i-A'zam's The Dawn-Breakers", or "Nabil's Narrative", translated by Shoghi Effendi, p. 57)

In 1844 Mullá Husayn, after meeting the Siyyid `Alí-Muhammad (the Báb) in Shiraz accepted him as the Mahdi.

Kazim Rashti - Wikipedia

Hope that helps

 

[TransmutingSoul]

So how about in the 1800's, were there sects of Shia that were splitting off and claiming the "End" is near kind of stuff? Did they tie in the year 1260 as being the year when Christ was to return or anything like that?

There were claiments, but I have not looked them up. I have been born with the bounty of time and thus am able to see the progress of any claiment from the mid 1800's. Time is the greatest test, as a false message will not last.

The start of the Baha'i era goes back into the mid 1700's there was also twin heralds to the Message of the Bab. They were well accepted by the Muslims of their time as being progressive in reform of a degarded Islam in Persia. Reformation was everywhere.

There was Shaykh-Ahmad who was telling everyone that the promise was just about to be fulfilled and he knew when the Bab and Baha'ullah were born, he passed in 1834 and handed over to Kazim-Rahti who passed these teachings on to the first Disciple of the Bab and all the Letters of the Living. He knew he would not meet the Bab in a dream and passed away in 1843 telling all the students to disperse and find the promise One. It was Mulla Hussan that responded to this call and thus was the first to find the Bab.

Shaykh Ahmad - Wikipedia

Kazim Rashti - Wikipedia

This is absolutly the most amazing history that will be the foundation of learning in the future.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

But this thread is about the "Truth" and "World Peace". A major obstacle to peace is religions. The Baha'i answer seems to be that Baha'is have the truth and that all the other religions should be able to see that.

Baha'u'llah has said the peace and security of mankind is unatainable unless and until its unity is firmly established. He said that unity can not happen until the counsel's of the Most high are heeded.

I ask how we can say otherwise? I see we just have to keep offering and let peoples hearts make the choice in time and what events unfold.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

But, there is one prophecy that, no matter what they say, hasn't been fulfilled... peace. And I always ask them if Jesus said that there will be wars and rumors of wars, but that is not yet the end... then, since we still have wars and rumors of wars, it isn't yet the end

This is because we expect it all to happen immediately.

From the time Baha'u'llah struck holy war from the book and said it is better to be killed than kill, peace was established. The elixer was given and time is now required for us to recover.

Colossians 3:15 "Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful."

Isaiah 52:7 How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news, who proclaim peace, who bring good tidings, who proclaim salvation, who say to Zion, “Your God reigns!”

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I was pretty ill yesterday with a viral infection so was didn't have too much energy physically or mentally. I'm a little better today.

Not a great thing for the first day of a 19 day fast

Hope you kept up the fluids and are on the mend.

Regards Tony

 

[Dawnofhope]

LOL...all you had to do was ask Adrian. In "the time of the end" God was going to 'cleanse, whiten and refine' his people and supply them with "knowledge" that only they would understand. The "wicked" would go on in their way, unclean in their worship and happy to stay that way. (Daniel 12:4; 9-10)

It has been a useful exercise for me personally to explore 19th century Christianity, particulalry in the USA to better understand the origins of the Jehovah Witness movement.

One key aspect of this thread is who has the truth when it comes to unsealing the hidden meanings and truth within Daniel and Revelation. In regards purity, the capacity of unravel the Divine mysteries certainly is dependant on qualities of the heart. If I examined the origins and leadership of the JW movement, I don't think I'll find anything too special. Certainly neither Charles Taze Russell or his successor Joseph Rutherford haven't distinguished themselves above any other leader in Christendom. I'm not sure what I'll find if I explore the leadership beyond Rutherford.

Baha'is are able to interpret much of Daniel, Matthew 24 and Revelation based on known history and sound exegesis. So when so much has clearly happened and been fulfilled the Jehovah Witnesses exegesis based on largely literal interpretations appears more like fantsy than fact. Besides the Watch Tower society has a well documented history of failed predictions.

Watch Tower Society unfulfilled predictions - Wikipedia

 

[Dawnofhope]

Not a great thing for the first day of a 19 day fast

Hope you kept up the fluids and are on the mend.

Regards Tony

Not great

I won't be 'physically' fasting until I'm better.

 

[Dawnofhope]

We firstly have to thank the man responsible for the Reformation....Martin Luther, because this gave the Bible back to the common man.....Luther didn't intend to start a reformation, but he changed history by breaking the power of the corrupt Roman Church. That was the start. But Protestantism was not going to unify Christianity....just the opposite in fact. It broke it up into many bickering factions, who all claimed that their particular leader had the truth. So again we have confusion as to who was teaching the truth.

I agree with much of this. Rome had been the main Centre for Christianity for over a thousand years and with the schism the errupted it marked the beginning of a period of significant decline.

I have criticisms of Martin Luther though, particularly his doctrine of being saved by faith alone.

Sola fide - Wikipedia

For Baha'is it is both faith and works that save fro a tree that bears no frut is fit for the fire.

O MY SERVANTS! Ye are the trees of My garden; ye must give forth goodly and wondrous fruits, that ye yourselves and others may profit therefrom. Thus it is incumbent on every one to engage in crafts and professions, for therein lies the secret of wealth, O men of understanding! For results depend upon means, and the grace of God shall be all-sufficient unto you. Trees that yield no fruit have been and will ever be for the fire.

Bahá'í Reference Library - The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 50-51

I understand Martin Luther referred to Muhammad a:

"a devil and first-born child of Satan."Luther's primary target of criticism at the time was the Pope, and Luther's characterization of Muhammad was intended to draw a comparison to show that the Pope was worse.

Criticism of Muhammad - Wikipedia

The devil has never changed his tactics. How do you hide a tree...plant a forest! The bigger the forest, the more confusion you see.

Baha'is don't being in a literal Satan. We do believe that our human nature can become corrupted and Satan is a symbol of our lower nature.

As discussed Jesus didn't come to bring peace but a sword. There was never going to be a completely united church which would go on to united the world. That was never the mission of Christ.

The last days of this present system were to be characterized by a "sign" that Jesus gave his disciples to indicate that he had begun to rule as King. (Matthew 24:3-14) We have seen all the features clearly since 1914....a year calculated from Daniel's prophesy.

Matthew 24:3-13 is largely about the coming persecutions awaiting the rise of the Church, the fate of Judaism and a warning not to follow false prophets (Jesus had already come). Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed 70 AD. Jesus had provided advice to flee Judea (Matthew 24:16-26). Simon Bar Kokhba emerged as the epitome of false prophets for the Jews leading them on yet another failed revolt against the Romans 132 AD.

Simon bar Kokhba - Wikipedia

There is nothing specifically in Matthew 24 or Daniel that supports the date 1914 but for Baha'is WWI was the beginning of Armageddon.

Day-year principle - Bahaikipedia, an encyclopedia about the Bahá’í Faith

There are a few other dates we can extrapolate from Daniel but I'm not aware of 1914 being one of them.

In his parable of the' wheat and the weeds' we see how the scenario was to be played out....Jesus planted seeds of truth in his disciples, but while "men were sleeping" (either in death or spiritually asleep), the devil sowed seeds of a well known and poisonous weed in the Middle East....in all probability, bearded darnel.

I agree Christ warned about false teaching that would become part of Christianity, for example Matthew 7:25-30.

In its early growing stages it looks for all the world like real wheat, but as the harvest time nears, the characteristics of the two plants show which is which, and then each is easily identifiable. This is the time of the separation, which Jesus says he will carry out. He likened this to a shepherd separating sheep from goats.

The angels are said to be the reapers in this harvest, who first gather the "weeds" and burn them in the fire. Then the master has them gather his wheat into his storehouse.

If we take the parable of the wheat and the weeds at face value, then its the difference that makes the wheat stand out from the weeds. The two do not resemble one another at all at this point in time.

It is easy to identify because the weeds are those that are either all talk and no action or do harm.

Matthew 25:31-46 and Matthew 7:15-20.

When we look at the churches of Christendom, what do we see? They are all basically the same....same doctrines, same tired tired old rituals and only minor differences separating them. At this time of the end, we have those who do not resemble Christendom at all. Among these is the wheat....and viva la difference!

However the churches I have dealings with have a significant charity focus.
(James 2:14-26)

The JWs have none as far as I can see.

We believe that we are the present day wheat because the one thing that Jesus commanded his disciples to do, was to go out and preach the kingdom message to everyone. (Matthew 24:14; Matthew 28:19-20)
There is no other global brotherhood who is preaching about "the good news of God's Kingdom in all the inhabited earth" as Jesus said they would. And we have done this consistently for over 100 years. Have any of the churches of Christendom called on you lately? I have never had them call on me.

If you ask them what the good news of the Kingdom is, you will most likely get a blank stare. They do not preach because they have no message. They do not preach because they do not have Christ's backing. He said he would be 'with' his disciples in this work right up to the end of the age.....we believe that we are staring down the barrel of the great tribulation right now.....soon to take an unsuspecting world by surprise. (Matthew 24:37-39)

That is how we got here..... That is what we believe.

If door knocking is the new standard of exemplary behviour you may want to add the Mormons. Hey, even the Baha'is are going door to door.