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

[Ella S.]

Oh, I'm sorry about the confusion!
Maybe I can put it this way:--
If A. said to me today that she is certain that there are no gods, but tomorrow says that she thinks it is possible that gods exist, I would consider this to be a contradiction.

But maybe this is just me.

If being certain about something means you think it's impossible that it's not true, then you can't even be certain that the sun will rise tomorrow or that other people really exist.

I am as sure that God doesn't exist as I am that the world wasn't created last Thursday.

 

[Truthseeker]

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

Regards

I can understand why you would come to that conclusion, but Baha'u'llah did claim to be a Messenger of God, or the usual term He used was Manifestation of God. What you believe about that claim is another matter.

 

[Truthseeker]

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".
?

Can you provide evidence that most scholars don't believe this?

 

[Truthseeker]

"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.

Not quite answering the question I don't think, but looking around I don't think @samtonga43 can say that most scholars don't believe the details in the Gospels were not accurate.

 

[samtonga43]

If being certain about something means you think it's impossible that it's not true, then you can't even be certain that the sun will rise tomorrow or that other people really exist.

No, I don’t think in terms of double negatives. As a Christian I could never say that I’m certain that God exists. When I was an atheist I could never say I was certain that God does not exist.

I could never have said, “I know that God does not exist”. Can you say this, Elsa?
Is certainty different from knowledge?

I’m with Descartes and his cogito ergo sum.

I am as sure that God doesn't exist as I am that the world wasn't created last Thursday.

Apples and oranges.

 

[samtonga43]

Not quite answering the question I don't think, but looking around I don't think @samtonga43 can say that most scholars don't believe the details in the Gospels were not accurate.

You are absolutely correct. Thank you.

 

[samtonga43]

Can you provide evidence that most scholars don't believe this?

Of course not. But then I would never say something as irrational as "most scholars don't believe the details in the Gospels were not accurate".

 

[samtonga43]

I can understand why you would come to that conclusion, but Baha'u'llah did claim to be a Messenger of God, or the usual term He used was Manifestation of God. What you believe about that claim is another matter.

The number of people who claim that God literally spoke to them must be in the thousands.

 

[Trailblazer]

The number of people who claim that God literally spoke to them must be in the thousands.

That is irrelevant to the point that @Truthseeker was making....
How many false messengers exist says nothing about how many true Messengers exist.

The fact that some messengers were false does not prove all messengers were false. That is the fallacy of hasty generalization, unless and until one has actually considered all the variables.

Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence—essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables.
Hasty generalization - Wikipedia

Hasty generalization usually shows this pattern:

1. messenger a was not a true messenger of God
2. messenger b was not a true messenger of God
3. messenger c was not a true messenger of God
4. messenger d was not a true messenger of God

Therefore, messenger d (in this case Baha’u’llah) was not a true messenger of God.

It is true that the world is full of men who claimed to speak for God, but logically speaking that does not mean that there were not one or more Messengers who did speak for God.

 

[samtonga43]

Evidence is information that indicates that something is true and causes you to believe it is true.
Evidence helps to establish if something is the truth but it does not establish it as a fact.

Proof is what establishes evidence as a fact.
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
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

*****

Argument: Claims, Reasons, Evidence
Critical thinking means being able to make good arguments. Arguments are claims backed by reasons that are supported by evidence. Claims are statements about what is true or good or about what should be done or believed. Claims are potentially arguable. "A liberal arts education prepares students best" is a claim, while "I didn't like the book" is not. The rest of the world can't really dispute whether I liked the book or not, but they can argue about the benefits of liberal arts. "I thought the movie was cool" is not an arguable statement, but "the movie was Paul Newman's best" is, for people can disagree and offer support for their different opinions.

Reasons are statements of support for claims, making those claims something more than mere assertions. Reasons are statements in an argument that pass two tests:

Want to know more?
Google Argument: Claims, Reasons, Evidence[/QUOTE]

 

[samtonga43]

That is irrelevant to the point that @Truthseeker was making....
How many false messengers exist says nothing about how many true Messengers exist.

The fact that some messengers were false does not prove all messengers were false. That is the fallacy of hasty generalization, unless and until one has actually considered all the variables.

Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence—essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables.
Hasty generalization - Wikipedia

Hasty generalization usually shows this pattern:

1. messenger a was not a true messenger of God
2. messenger b was not a true messenger of God
3. messenger c was not a true messenger of God
4. messenger d was not a true messenger of God

Therefore, messenger d (in this case Baha’u’llah) was not a true messenger of God.

It is true that the world is full of men who claimed to speak for God, but logically speaking that does not mean that there were not one or more Messengers who did speak for God.

1. messenger a was not a true messenger of God
2. messenger b was not a true messenger of God
3. messenger c was not a true messenger of God
4. messenger d was not a true messenger of God

.
.
.
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on

ad infinitum.

Therefore it is unlikely that MrB was a messenger of God, and, having learned a bit about him, I would now say that it is extremely unlikely.

Tb, have you heard of the fallacy fallacy?

 

[samtonga43]

Can you quote Baha'u'llah saying that we should revere the Holy Bible?
... Not Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'u'llah.

Interesting. Are you saying that, in your opinion, you (Baha'is) should NOT revere the Holy Bible?

 

[Trailblazer]

1. messenger a was not a true messenger of God
2. messenger b was not a true messenger of God
3. messenger c was not a true messenger of God
4. messenger d was not a true messenger of God

.
.
.
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on
and so on

ad infinitum.

Therefore it is unlikely that MrB was a messenger of God, and, having learned a bit about him, I would now say that it is extremely unlikely.

Tb, have you heard of the fallacy fallacy?

The EXACT same logic would apply to Jesus.... extremely unlikely that he was sent by God, let alone that He was God.

Belief in Jesus is faith-based, not evidence-based. The NT is not evidence of any kind, it is a book written about Jesus by men who never even met Jesus. There is no logical way these men could have known what Jesus said or did!

Your personal opinion of Baha'u'llah has nothing to do with likelihoods, not any more than my personal opinion about Jesus has anything to do with likelihoods.

 

[Trailblazer]

Interesting. Are you saying that, in your opinion, you (Baha'is) should NOT revere the Holy Bible?

I am not saying what any other Baha'is should do. How Baha'is consider the Bible is a personal decision.

Here are some Baha'i views of the Bible:

Introduction

Although Bahá'ís universally share a great respect for the Bible, and acknowledge its status as sacred literature, their individual views about its authoritative status range along the full spectrum of possibilities. At one end there are those who assume the uncritical evangelical or fundamentalist-Christian view that the Bible is wholly and indisputably the word of God. At the other end are Bahá'ís attracted to the liberal, scholarly conclusion that the Bible is no more than a product of complex historical and human forces. Between these extremes is the possibility that the Bible contains the Word of God, but only in a particular sense of the phrase 'Word of God' or in particular texts. I hope to show that a Bahá'í view must lie in this middle area, and can be defined to some degree.

Conclusion

The Bahá'í viewpoint proposed by this essay has been established as follows: The Bible is a reliable source of Divine guidance and salvation, and rightly regarded as a sacred and holy book. However, as a collection of the writings of independent and human authors, it is not necessarily historically accurate. Nor can the words of its writers, although inspired, be strictly defined as 'The Word of God' in the way the original words of Moses and Jesus could have been. Instead there is an area of continuing interest for Bahá'í scholars, possibly involving the creation of new categories for defining authoritative religious literature.

A Baháí View of the Bible

 

[CG Didymus]

No, never. No Indic religion, Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism, Buddhism, has any messengers of God and no messages from any God. As you know, Buddhism and Jainism did not even believe in existence of a God. Well, there always were.are discussions; and in the discussions, contestants tried to come up as they do in this forum also. Indians always delight in religious discussions and hold all kinds of views, from polytheism to monotheism to atheism. You cannot accuse the Hindu sages of old ever having spoken untruths. Of course, I am not talking of the current generation in which the dishonest are in majority. The myths have Gods and Goddesses speaking and engaging in various things, but we know these mentions are for advisory purposes.

Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism did not start as separate religions. They were known as matas. opinion and panths.ways.roads. They were parts of Hinduism for long times. They became separate religions only later. Hinduism always had various matas and panths. You see, my mata.opinion is radically different from that of a mainline Hindu.

Baha'is need to tie in Hinduism and Buddhism with their progression. With Buddhism, the decision who to make a "manifestation" was easy. But, with Hinduism? I guess Krishna was their best choice to make the divine manifestation for all of Hinduism. With the Buddha, all they to do is say that "originally" he did speak of God. And with Krishna, all they had to do is make the switch from an incarnation of one of the Hindu Gods, Vishnu... to a manifestation of the one "true" God of the Abrahamic religions. Then in both Buddhism and Hinduism make any belief in reincarnation a misinterpretation.

 

[Aupmanyav]

In theist Hinduism, the Gods, humans and even animals, all reincarnate. Gods by their will, and others by their karmas. But none has claimed to be a messenger and none has claimed to have a message of any God.

 

[rational experiences]

Natural history. All human's a topic are a human.

In law human living biology is a human.

Humans have sex gain a human baby medical terms.

Why a human baby life doesn't exist in life is seen advised human medical terms also.

Healer. Position in human life medical assessor.

Legal bible science technology pyramid temple changed earths heavens spirit gases. Made it fall out.

Fall of man teachings.

As humans for humans about humans and bad choices against a holy earth body. Planet earth men named as God.

Predicted future outcomes man's calculated thesis science. Known.

Said fall would come again in 1000 years as 0AD predictive agreement world community. What had been revealed.

So it owned no name. It was predictive cosmic causes not owned by any man.

In the future a man's life mind body gets changed. Correlated to old man's sciences predictive claims.

Realises.

Knew the Muslim community had refused personal human rights as new legal governing system. He knew about the legal testimony bible. Tried to implement the reasons again.

As Muslim men were regaining changed consciousness from star fall. Wanted as owners to rebuild the technology.

Is true to the history already notified of future inheritance.

The teaching said men became destroyer conscious theists due to star fall brain of man sacrificed. Of holy minds who in sciences theoried satanisms versus gods holy earth body.

He relived the human warning. That pre taught humans natural legal status. Equality. Governing community status and about rich men brothers evil past life choices.

As it's real. Phenomena is caused by heavens changed burning gases and ice the saviour body melting when Satan star fall came.

The theme life's suicide was going to war against your innocent family. As rich man brother in control had lied historic.

So it was a law about not going to war.

As human science was waging a science converting war against earths holy body mass spirit gases. A teaching.

 

[Truthseeker]

You are absolutely correct. Thank you.

What are you saying I'm correct about? I said two things. In my opinion it wasn't quite answering the question. I also said I don't think you can say that most scholars don't believe the details in the Gospels were not accurate. It can get confusing with that double negative.

 

[Truthseeker]

Of course not. But then I would never say something as irrational as "most scholars don't believe the details in the Gospels were not accurate".

That's not irrational.

 

[Truthseeker]

The number of people who claim that God literally spoke to them must be in the thousands.

Yes, that's true. But have you ever looked at the evidence for Baha'u'llah with an open mind?