• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Who Was Baha’u’llah, and How Can We Evaluate His Claims?

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
So, Bahaullah was not a Messenger/Prophet of G-d like Moses and Jesus.

Regards
Moses and Jesus and Baha'u'llah were all Messengers/Prophets/Manifestations of God, but but how they received their revelations from God was not exactly the same. There was also a difference in what they revealed and what they did on their missions.

Their first station is the station of essential unity......

“It is clear and evident to thee that all the Prophets are the Temples of the Cause of God, Who have appeared clothed in divers attire. If thou wilt observe with discriminating eyes, thou wilt behold Them all abiding in the same tabernacle, soaring in the same heaven, seated upon the same throne, uttering the same speech, and proclaiming the same Faith. Such is the unity of those Essences of Being, those Luminaries of infinite and immeasurable splendor! ….”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 52

Their second station is the station of distinction....

“The other station is the station of distinction, and pertaineth to the world of creation, and to the limitations thereof. In this respect, each Manifestation of God hath a distinct individuality, a definitely prescribed mission, a predestined revelation, and specially designated limitations. Each one of them is known by a different name, is characterized by a special attribute, fulfils a definite mission, and is entrusted with a particular Revelation.” Gleanings, p. 52
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Of course, and I have never claimed nor intentionally implied otherwise. In fact, I genuinely have never met a single person who thought that evidence causes existence. As such, I am not quite sure why you felt the need to state this?
You do not think that way because you are logical but I have met atheists who think that way. In fact there is an atheist I conversed with for over eight years who insists that if God existed there would be proof, and he says that the fact that there is no proof means God does not exist. Of course that is not logical, because God could exist and choose not to provide proof of His existence. I believe God provided evidence but not proof, because if God provided proof everyone would be a believer.
I suspect that we are using very different definitions of "evidence" and "proof." Proof, to me, is a facet of mathematics, and this includes statistical proofs based on mathematical statistics. These proofs are used quite frequently in conjunction with observation in the natural sciences.
Below are the definitions I use:

Evidence: anything that helps to prove that something is or is not true: EVIDENCE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.
Objective evidence definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

Something is scientifically verifiable if it can be tested and proven to be true. Verifiable comes from the verb verify, "authenticate" or "prove," from the Old French verifier, "find out the truth about." The Latin root is verus, or "true." Definitions of verifiable.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/verifiable

Something that's verifiable can be proven. In a courtroom, verifiable evidence is backed up with specific proof. If you have a birth certificate, your exact time and place of birth is verifiable — in other words, you can prove where and when you were born.
Verifiable - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms | Vocabulary.com

Proof is a kind of evidence (verifiable evidence) that establishes something as a fact.
Therefore verifiable evidence is proof.

Other kinds of evidence that are NOT verifiable do not establish anything as a fact.
They only indicate whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Perhaps when you think of proving something, that carries the connotation that what you have proven has been shown to be necessarily true and that it is impossible for something proven to be false. Proof here would therefore be in the narrow sense of deductive argumentation.
Yes, that is how I think of proof. It is impossible for something proven to be false because it has been proven as a fact.

fact
something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information:
fact
I think this is true for all beliefs, if I understand you correctly, but genuine proof is objective and can stand on its own.
That's true, but there is no objective proof of God since God has never provided such proof.
Likewise, there is no objective proof that an alleged Messenger was a Messenger of God, but there is objective evidence of the Messengers since they walked the earth and left such evidence for us to see and examine.
 

samtonga43

Well-Known Member
It depends on what you mean by "absolute certainty."

For instance, in Boolean statistics, the likelihood of a given state being true or false is 1/2 either way. However, if you have 198 iterations, and each one ends up "true," then there is a 199/200 chance that the next iteration will be true.

This is 99.5% certain, but rounded to the nearest integer it is 100% certain.

I have examined over 198 god-claims and I have found each one unlikely to be true, which means that I have a 100% certainty that there are no gods (due to the Law of Excluded Middle). I have yet to find a god-claim that I thought was likely to be true, but if I ever do then I will be a theist.

As such, I can say that I am certain that there are no gods. According to Bayesian epistemology, this means that I am also justified in claiming that there are no gods, and since I am justified in claiming that this statement is true I am also justified in claiming that I know it.

However, the existence of a god is not necessarily logically impossible. Gods violate none of the laws of logic. So I do think it is possible that gods exist. Indeed, it is quite possible that someone has already proven that gods exist and I am merely ignorant about their evidence.

Nonetheless, with the information I have available to me, I am 100% certain that I know that there are no gods. I have and will continue to re-examine my position on this matter based on new evidence, though.
An interesting point of view, EllaS, and you express it well. However, you say:

1. I am certain that there are no gods.
2. I do think it is possible that gods exist.

How would you account for this apparent contradiction?
 

samtonga43

Well-Known Member
Find the answer to that and it will lead us to the Promised One if He has appeared.

But one word of caution. Can we judge God and His Prophet’s legitimacy by fallible human reason and logic? Those who have relied on this method have inevitably led them to oppose the Prophets so what left is there?

A clue was given by Jesus when He mention that ‘the pure in heart shall see God’.

So if our hearts are not pure, will all the rhetoric and human reasoning help us ‘see God’?

“The earth is but one country and mankind it’s citizens”
(Baha’u’llah)

Only God can purify our hearts.
Only God can help us see God.

(I hope you don't mind, loverofhumanity, if I offer you a better way of communicating your quote at the end of your posts. It should read:
“The earth is but one country and mankind its citizens”). :)
 

samtonga43

Well-Known Member
Tb said: Every Bible scholar knows that those details were not accurately represented in the gospels?

sam43 said: LOL! Are you sure about this, Tb?

Tb said "As sure as all those Bible scholars are."

No, not every Bible scholar, but most Bible scholars.

OK. So now you are changing 'every scholar' to 'most scholars'. I think this is less irrational. However, can you provide evidence that 'most Bible scholars know that those details were not accurately represented in the gospels'?

Or perhaps you will agree to state facts rather than wishful thinking and say that "some Bible scholars think that those details were not accurately represented in the gospels".
?
 

samtonga43

Well-Known Member
All religions teach love and brotherhood but after a while this is forgotten so God sends another Messenger to reestablish love and harmony.

I don’t believe that Jesus was just another Messenger. I can look at Jesus say, with Thomas, “My Lord and my God!”

He will always be the Alpha and the Omega. He is no ‘go-between’. He is God Incarnate.

IMO.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Only God can purify our hearts.
Only God can help us see God.
Why should God purify our hearts?
Why do you think that God needs to help us see Him? Why aren't we capable?

Matthew 5:8 ESV

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
(I hope you don't mind, loverofhumanity, if I offer you a better way of communicating your quote at the end of your posts. It should read:
“The earth is but one country and mankind its citizens”). :)
He added Baha'u'llah underneath since it is a quote of Baha'u'llah, not something that @loverofhumanity came up with on his own.
 

samtonga43

Well-Known Member
Why should God purify our hearts?
Why do you think that God needs to help us see Him? Why aren't we capable?

Matthew 5:8 ESV

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.

He added Baha'u'llah underneath since it is a quote of Baha'u'llah, not something that @loverofhumanity came up with on his own.
Yes, I realize this. But you miss the point. However, I think loverofhumanity will understand.
 

samtonga43

Well-Known Member
They might be talking about me, but it applies to you too. My "beef" actually I'm a vegetarian, so my "tofu burger" with them is the same we all have... Baha'is say stuff. We disagree with some of it. So, what proof and evidence do you have to support your beliefs? In these last years, and in the many threads and posts, we've pretty much heard all they've got. And it's not enough to convince us. You'd think, think if the "End of the World" happened... And the "Promised One of all the Ages" had appeared... that there'd be more evidence that the person making the claim was for real.

I'm sure he was a nice guy and believed he was "The One"... But so have others. And we don't believe or trust their claims. And neither do Baha'is. We just include their guy in with the group that we don't believe are really "The Messiah". Take care Samtonga43. I still enjoy reading your posts and your opinions.

Thank you, CG Didymus. I appreciate your posts too.

I think I have learned more about Baha'is from what you write than from any other source. You are a natural educator.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
OK. So now you are changing 'every scholar' to 'most scholars'. I think this is less irrational. However, can you provide evidence that 'most Bible scholars know that those details were not accurately represented in the gospels'?
"what do most bible scholars agree on about Jesus"

The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. According to New Testament scholar James Dunn, nearly all modern scholars consider the baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion to be historically certain.

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia

Or perhaps you will agree to state facts rather than wishful thinking and say that "some Bible scholars think that those details were not accurately represented in the gospels".
?
Perhaps you will agree to state historical facts rather than religious beliefs.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
He will always be the Alpha and the Omega. He is no ‘go-between’. He is God Incarnate.
Then the Bible is wrong when it called Jesus a mediator, which is a go-between?

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

We know that many people saw Jesus but Jesus said that no man has ever seen God, so how can Jesus be God?

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

1 John 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.


If Jesus is the image of God that means Jesus cannot be God. If God is invisible Jesus cannot be God, since we know many people saw Jesus.

Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.

The Bible also says that God is not a man. Jesus was a man so Jesus cannot be God.

Hosea 11:9 I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city.

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?


The Bible says what Baha'is believe about Jesus, that Jesus was a Manifestation of God.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Jesus was an incarnation of God. That is a Christian doctrine.

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

A Manifestation of God has a twofold nature, so He is part God and part man, kind of like a hybrid, but He is not fully God and fully man, as Trinitarians believe, because that is logically impossible.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Then the Bible is wrong when it called Jesus a mediator, which is a go-between?
We know that many people saw Jesus but Jesus said that no man has ever seen God, so how can Jesus be God?
If Jesus is the image of God that means Jesus cannot be God.
The Bible also says that God is not a man. Jesus was a man so Jesus cannot be God.
The Bible says what Baha'is believe about Jesus, that Jesus was a Manifestation of God.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Jesus was an incarnation of God. That is a Christian doctrine.
A Manifestation of God has a twofold nature, so He is part God and part man, kind of like a hybrid, ..
Yes, Bible can be wrong. Look at the description of creation of the universe. It is totally unscientific and contradictory in itself.
That is the problem. No one has seen God and no one has ever given a proof of his existence. There are stories only.
If there is no God, then whose image are you talking about? Jesus, if he was historical, the chances are that he might have been, he was just like any other man.
At least, here the Bible is correct. If there is no God, then whose manifestation?
How is a hybrid born? The Ghost breathes into the womb of a woman? Every thousand years or so?
 
Last edited:

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
How is a hybrid born? The Ghost breathes into the womb of a woman? Every thousand years or so?
A hybrid is born of spirit and flesh.
God assigned a twofold nature upon the Messengers of God; the physical nature, pertaining to the world of matter, and the spiritual nature, which is born of the substance of God Himself.

Messengers got their spiritual nature from God before being born into this world because their souls existed in the spiritual world with God before they were born into this world.

(96) PRE-EXISTENCE - of Prophets
The Prophets, unlike us, are pre-existent. The soul of Christ existed in the spiritual world before His birth in this world. We cannot imagine what that world is like, so words are inadequate to picture His state of being.
(Shoghi Effendi: High Endeavors, Page: 71)

It is the spiritual nature from which Jesus declares that He is the Voice of God, but from His human mature He declares that He is just a human like the rest of us.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
God assigned a twofold nature upon the Messengers of God; ..
..because their souls existed in the spiritual world ..
The soul of Christ existed in the spiritual world before His birth in this world. (Shoghi Effendi: High Endeavors, Page: 71)
It is the spiritual nature from which Jesus declares that He is the Voice of God, ..
Before starting on manifestations, should you not first establish the existence of God? If not, why are you taking us on a ride?
Soul! Again, establish the existence of soul.
What proof did Shoghi give for his statement? It is just an assertion.
If you cannot establish the existence of God, then there is no Voice of God.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Before starting on manifestations, should you not first establish the existence of God? If not, why are you taking us on a ride?
Soul! Again, establish the existence of soul.
What proof did Shoghi give for his statement? It is just an assertion.
If you cannot establish the existence of God, then there is no Voice of God.
The Manifestations of God are the only way we can ever know that God exists but it can never be established as a fact that God exists, it can only be believed based upon the evidence.
 

Ella S.

Well-Known Member
An interesting point of view, EllaS, and you express it well. However, you say:

1. I am certain that there are no gods.
2. I do think it is possible that gods exist.

How would you account for this apparent contradiction?

If something is 99.95% certain, then there is still a 0.05% chance that it's false. However, if we round to the nearest tenth, it would be 100.0% certain. If we round to the nearest integer, it would be 100% certain.

So it is both 100% certain and it has a 0.05% chance of being false, but this is not a contradiction. It's just a consequence of rounding.

That's a heavily formalized understanding of certainty. In a colloquial sense, "certain" just means "highly confident." You can be highly confident in a position and still admit that you might be wrong.

Either way, I don't really see any apparent contradiction that needs to be accounted for. I'm a little confused by your question.
 
Top