Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Because that is not the job that God gave them to do.
Ending disease and poverty and pollution, etc. is a job that God expects humans to do.
-
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?
- Thread starter Trailblazer
- Start date
Ending disease and poverty and pollution, etc. is a job that God expects humans to do.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
That is absolutely correct. All we can do is check out Baha'u'llah and determine for ourselves if He was telling the truth in His claim. Such a claim can never be proven as a fact that everyone will accept, we can only prove it to ourselves.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I do not know why the Bible was translated that way but there are other newer translations now for people who want to refer to them.
No, that has nothing to do with why the Writings of Baha'u'llah were translated into King James English, and they were not all translated that way, only some of them.
For example, this Tablet was not translated in that style:
LAWḤ-I-AQDAS (The Most Holy Tablet)
Last edited:
No there is no issue, as before one picks up a spanner, they have to understand what it is they are fixing.
The only God we can know is what the Messenger shows us and tells us about, thus to all sense and purpose, to us they are the 'Self of God' all we can know about God, they are the Essence of the Attrubutes that Eminate from God, they are the rays of light that gives us life. This theme is given in all the Holy Books of the past.
So the spanner is for those that think literally on this topic, an adjusting of our frame of reference to acknowledge that the Essence of God does not descend into the Material body and that God is exalted above all corporal existance.
Every Messenger was that 'Self of God'. They are our only source of knowledge about God.
There is no spanner in the works but the God of our own making, which is our own worldly Self and concepts, they are not of God.
Regards Tony
No I do not admit that, but history has recorded the most likely education Baha'u'llah had when born into nobility.
What that education did not include, was the education of a Mullah and as Baha'u'llah mostly came to teach us about God, the accepted dominated domain of well Educated Mullah's, this is what he offered;
"...The learning current amongst men I studied not; their schools I entered not..."
Then offered this;
"Ask of the city wherein I dwelt, that thou mayest be well assured that I am not of them who speak falsely."
To which no Mullah has negated, no did his enemy use these statements against Him, as they were the Truth.
Now I ask you, have you done what was asked, have you tried to find out if Baha'u'llah is speaking the Truth in this matter?
In asking that, I know that will not be easy, as Iran and its records are not assessable at this time and like Faiths gone before and those records, the Religious enemy has done all it can in its power to obliterate all records in connection with the Bab and Baha'u'llah. But what does remain are many records that Baha'is have gathered for future studies and who knows, what will come to light when Iran is finally open to the unity of all humanity?
Regards Tony
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
No, that is not true, if the Messenger is the only evidence that God has provided.
The fact that you do not accept it as evidence does not make it non-evidence.
But the claims of Baha'u'llah are not the evidence. The evidence is what supports the claims.
I have said this dozens of times on this forum.
Baha'u'llah made claims in His Writings. Otherwise there would be no way for anyone to know who He was claiming to be. However, the claims in His Writings are not the evidence that support His claims.
The evidence is as follows:
1. His own Self, who He was, His character (His qualities)
2. His Revelation, what He accomplished (His Mission on earth/ the history of His Cause)
3. His Writings are additional evidence because they show who He was as a person, what He taught about God and other things, and what accomplished on His mission.
There is no way to confirm that there is a God or that God has ever contacted anyone, that can only be believed on faith and evidence.
It is not what Baha'u'llah claimed that indicates that He was a Messenger of God, it is who He was as a Person and what He did on His mission, including what He wrote.
It is a tribute to the greatness of Christ, so it is written in the most respectful language available to man because Christ is not worthy of anything less. Of course it could of been translated into simple English but the emphasis here is on the Station of Christ so the most exalted words possible are used.
It is Baha’u’llah’s interpretation not the Baha’is.
Isaiah 55:12
For ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands.
The Bible is full of symbolic imagery as above, otherwise it cannot be understood because mountains and hills cannot sing nor trees clap their hands. Only a Messenger of God can bring us the correct interpretation, not any individual.
This is a provisional translation of the Tablet on Interpretation by Baha’u’llah. But you might find it interesting that He accepts both literal and symbolic interpretations but they are all relative to the context. Not all are symbolical and not all are literal.
Tablet on Interpretation of Sacred Scripture (<I>Ta'wíl</I>)
Concerning these interpretations, which were mentioned in explanation of wisdom, some of them are correct within their own context, for there is no contradiction with the principals of divine law. Those verses which contain divine commandments and prohibitions concerning worship, fines,[17] crime, and the like --the intent hath ever been, and wilt ever be, to act upon their evident meaning. However, those divine verses that have been revealed in the previous Books, as well as the Qur’án, regarding the coming of the last Hour and the Day of Resurrection[18] are mostly subject to interpretation. “And none knoweth its interpretation except God.” (Baha’u’llah)
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
So, the manifestation of God is evidence of God, because he said he was sent by God? And how do we know he is a manifestation of God? Because he said he was?
Truthseeker
Non-debating member when I can help myself
Your knowledge is a veil.No, I have read the Writings, and I have done a lot of pondering, and I understand that you see this as a possible interpretation.
What's more, I understand why you cannot believe that in MrB. "the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily”. That would really throw a spanner in the works!
And, yes, I was detached. My BA degree in Theology and Religious Studies taught me about the necessity of detachment
Moreover, call thou to mind the one who sentenced Jesus to death. He was the most learned of his age in his own country, whilst he who was only a fisherman believed in Him. Take good heed and be of them that observe the warning.
(Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 9)
Intellectual knowledge can be a veil.
Last edited:
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
Did this really happen or was it symbolic?
John 19:1 Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged. 2 The soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on his head. They clothed him in a purple robe 3 and went up to him again and again, saying, “Hail, king of the Jews!” And they slapped him in the face.
How about this?
16 So the soldiers took charge of Jesus. 17 Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha). 18 There they crucified him, and with him two others—one on each side and Jesus in the middle.
Is this symbolic?
31 Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jewish leaders did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. 32 The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. 33 But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.
How about now?
38 Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jewish leaders. With Pilate’s permission, he came and took the body away. 39 He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds. 40 Taking Jesus’ body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs. 41 At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had ever been laid. 42 Because it was the Jewish day of Preparation and since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.
Did this really happen or is this a parable?
John 20:1
Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. 2 So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!”
3 So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. 4 Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5 He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7 as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head.
Has any of this been symbolic yet? And then this happens...Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. 2 So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!”
3 So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. 4 Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5 He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7 as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head.
11 Now Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb 12 and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus’ body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot.
13 They asked her, “Woman, why are you crying?”
“They have taken my Lord away,” she said, “and I don’t know where they have put him.” 14 At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus.
15 He asked her, “Woman, why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?”
Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.”
16 Jesus said to her, “Mary.”
She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, “Rabboni!” (which means “Teacher”).
Then this...13 They asked her, “Woman, why are you crying?”
“They have taken my Lord away,” she said, “and I don’t know where they have put him.” 14 At this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus.
15 He asked her, “Woman, why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?”
Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.”
16 Jesus said to her, “Mary.”
She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, “Rabboni!” (which means “Teacher”).
24 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”
But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”
26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”
28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Then in Acts, it says this...But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”
26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”
28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Acts 1:1 I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 3 After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive.
How do Baha'is justify making this, the story of the resurrection and appearances of Jesus, symbolic? Where did the story go from reporting what they believe really happened to the telling of a parable about a "spiritual" resurrection of Jesus? Like I've said before, call it a lie, a hoax, or anything you want, but a symbolic story? No, the gospel writer is telling about events that sure seems that he believes really happened.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
Wow, but "knowledge" of Baha'u'llah is true knowledge? How do we investigate the truth for ourselves if our knowledge is a veil? So, forget everything and trust what the Baha'i writings say?
That is so similar to what fundy Christians say, that people that don't accept Jesus, their version of Jesus, are blind. And then Baha'is tell us that those fundy Christians have the wrong interpretation and they are blind to the truth about Baha'u'llah? So many religions have only one "truth"... their truth. Anything else is false. Same with Baha'is.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
But the gospels were written in common Greek.
Koine is simply the Greek word for “common.” Many people may recognize the word koine from the word koinonia, which means “fellowship.” Fellowship is having something in common.
Koine Greek was simply the common language of the Mediterranean world in the first century. As Alexander the Great conquered the “civilized world” of his time, he spread Greek language and culture. Much like English has become today, Greek became the most common and pervasive “international language” of the day. Since most people could understand Koine, it was uniquely suited to proclaim the gospel throughout the world.
Not only was Koine Greek common in the sense it enjoyed widespread usage throughout the Roman Empire, but it was also common in the sense that it was not the language of the intellectual and academic elites. Classical Greek was used by the educated class. Koine Greek was the language of the working man, the peasant, the vendor, and the housewife—there was nothing pretentious about it. It was the vernacular, or vulgar language, of the day. The great works of Greek literature were written in Classical Greek.
Koine Greek was simply the common language of the Mediterranean world in the first century. As Alexander the Great conquered the “civilized world” of his time, he spread Greek language and culture. Much like English has become today, Greek became the most common and pervasive “international language” of the day. Since most people could understand Koine, it was uniquely suited to proclaim the gospel throughout the world.
Not only was Koine Greek common in the sense it enjoyed widespread usage throughout the Roman Empire, but it was also common in the sense that it was not the language of the intellectual and academic elites. Classical Greek was used by the educated class. Koine Greek was the language of the working man, the peasant, the vendor, and the housewife—there was nothing pretentious about it. It was the vernacular, or vulgar language, of the day. The great works of Greek literature were written in Classical Greek.
Truthseeker
Non-debating member when I can help myself
No, He was rich before He became a Babi, and gave that up to become a Babi. Don't be deceived that he ended up in a mansion, he suffered from the perfidy of his "friends". Consider the miracle that the edict of Him being a prisoner was still in effect, yet it had no force at the end. That's why He accepted to live in a mansion, to be victorious in the end despite His persecution. He didn't live luxuriously in the Mansion, and part of the year He lived in the prison city.
But what did they sacrifice themselves for? Baha'u'llah sacrificed Himself to unify mankind, to better the conduct of many people, to raise them up spiritually.
The Ancient Beauty hath consented to be bound with chains that mankind may be released from its bondage, and hath accepted to be made a prisoner within this most mighty Stronghold that the whole world may attain unto true liberty. He hath drained to its dregs the cup of sorrow, that all the peoples of the earth may attain unto abiding joy, and be filled with gladness. This is of the mercy of your Lord, the Compassionate, the Most Merciful. We have accepted to be abased, O believers in the Unity of God, that ye may be exalted, and have suffered manifold afflictions, that ye might prosper and flourish. He Who hath come to build anew the whole world, behold, how they that have joined partners with God have forced Him to dwell within the most desolate of cities!
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 99)
The delusions are not evident in His life and His Writings. He was remarkably cogent.
Im sure the Writings are translated into Greek also, but as far as English goes, they are translated into a language befitting of the Author Who’s designation is the ‘King of Kings’.
A King of Kings would not write as a commoner or as common folk does but in a heavenly, exalted tone representative of His Station.
Baha’u’llah confirmed that Christ was crucified as far as history is concerned. But when we go into life, resurrection and death, He interprets these things a different way.
Baha’u’llah explains resurrection in the Book of Certitude and also Abdul-Baha explains how the disciples often experienced visions and dreams.
So did the disciples really see Christ or did they see a ‘vision or dream’?
Refer to this also in the Bible.
Thou didst ask as to the transfiguration of Jesus, with Moses and Elias and the Heavenly Father on Mount Tabor, as referred to in the Bible. This occurrence was perceived by the disciples with their inner eye, wherefore it was a secret hidden away, and was a spiritual discovery of theirs. Otherwise, if the intent be that they witnessed physical forms, that is, witnessed that transfiguration with their outward eyes, then there were many others at hand on that plain and mountain, and why did they fail to behold it? And why did the Lord charge them that they should tell no man? It is clear that this was a spiritual vision and a scene of the Kingdom. Wherefore did the Messiah bid them to keep this hidden, ‘till the Son of Man were risen from the dead,’ 1 —that is, until the Cause of God should be exalted, and the Word of God prevail, and the reality of Christ rise up.
Anybody can be reborn spiritually, so it’s possible that others too recognised the true station of Christ after He died. People today recognise the truth of Christ without seeing His physical body but one cannot believe in Jesus unless one recognise Him spiritually.
Last edited:
No, I have read the Writings, and I have done a lot of pondering, and I understand that you see this as a possible interpretation.
What's more, I understand why you cannot believe that in MrB. "the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily”. That would really throw a spanner in the works!
And, yes, I was detached. My BA degree in Theology and Religious Studies taught me about the necessity of detachment
It’s great you have a degree but do degrees confer upon the recipient a pure heart for Jesus said ‘ Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God”.
However learned and however many degrees the Pharisees and Sadducee’s had, did their knowledge lead them to recognise Christ or turn away from Him?
Whereas a simple fisherman, bereft of earthly knowledge recognised his Lord.
So how reliable are earthly degrees and knowledge in assisting us to ‘see God’? It all comes back to what Jesus said about the benchmark for seeing God which is not human learning but a ‘pure heart’.
Its just my own personal opinion nothing much else but I understand a pure heart to mean we accept Christ. Those who used their scriptural knowledge to attack Christ were not pure.
But Baha’is go a little bit further by claiming that rejection of Muhammad, the Bab and Baha’u’llah constitutes disbelief in Christ and Moses because They were foretold by Them in the Bible.
So for example, I accept Christ when He first appeared but turn against Him when He appears a second time - then that negates my belief in Christ altogether even though I may call myself a Christian. Same goes for the Jews who accepted Jesus. They were not distracted by their own self opinionatedness but humbly accepted Him whereas others were too proud in their own knowledge, condemning Him to a shameful death.
Now Baha’u’llah has appeared. Do we act like the high priests or Peter?
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
Of course it is. Cultures make up gods to suit their circumstances, which is why they are all different - rather than there only being one true god who has sent messengers, which would result in all cultures displaying similar beliefs.
1. That isn't an ad pop argument. Ad pop would be saying that Christianity is the one true religion because it has the most followers.
2. The fact that most people believe in different gods is not supposed to be evidence of more than one god. It is an argument against any god at all.
So just because it makes sense that there would only be one omnipotent, omniscient unicorn, it is therefore logically valid to insist that said unicorn actually exists.
Not sure you understand how "logical argument" works.
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
But why was portraying the "poetry" more important than the factual details?
A rational explanation is that he wanted it to sound "authentic" and "Biblical".
And he didn't just translate Abdulbaha's writings, he also interpreted them, so what you read in English is Shoghi's version of "god's message".