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

[Trailblazer]

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.

That is only your personal opinion based upon a disbelief in God, nothing you can ever prove.

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.

What people 'believe' is not an argument against what is actually true since people are prone to believe anything. There is no logical connection whatsoever between belief and reality..

There is a logical explanation as to why people believe differently about God. It is because many religions have been revealed by God throughout the ages and those religions have been changed by man over time, so they no longer represent what was revealed. Not only that but the scriptures were misinterpreted, leading people to have different conceptions of God.

 

[KWED]

Convincing to you, but that does not mean it is true.

Hopefully you have understood the irony of your statement.
(Just kidding. Of course you haven't)

It was never God's plan to bring ALL the Jews in the world back to Israel. That's why there is nothing in the verse that says all Jews will return to Israel.

The verse says God will gather Jews from all the nations, but it does not say God will gather all Jews from all the nations and return all Jews to Israel.

Jeremiah 29:14 And I will be found of you, saith the Lord: and I will turn away your captivity, and I will gather you from all the nations, and from all the places whither I have driven you, saith the Lord; and I will bring you again into the place whence I caused you to be carried away captive.

When one addresses a specific group with the term "you", it refers to all members of that group.
When the police tell a crowd "You will disperse or you will be arrested", it refers to everyone in the group, not just the ones who decide to disperse.

"I will gather you from all the nations, and from all the places whither I have driven you" certainly implies that it applies to everyone, wherever they have settled. Also note the imperative form used. God will gather you and bring you back. It is not a request or suggestion. It is a statement of fact.

 

[KWED]

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.

So if god expects humans to sort out their own affairs without his help or interference - why did he send a messenger to tell humans what to do?

 

[KWED]

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.

It may seem convincing to you, but that does not mean it is true.

 

[KWED]

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.

Indeed. So why did Shoghi, in the 20th century, decide that an archaic, Elizabethan English was the best form of English to use?

No, that has nothing to do with why the Writings of Baha'u'llah were translated into King James English,

How do you know? It seems like a reasonable explanation for a strange event.

For example, this Tablet was not translated in that style:
LAWḤ-I-AQDAS (The Most Holy Tablet)

Really?...
"Flee ye the One Who hath sacrificed His life that ye may be quickened?"
"whilst Sinai circleth round the House, and the Burning Bush calleth aloud"

 

[KWED]

The only God we can know is what the Messenger shows us and tells us about,

So we are back to the same old "My god is true, all the others are false" claim again.

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.

And the meaningless platitudes, of course.

 

[KWED]

No I do not admit that,

Either his ability to write and his knowledge of the world came from supernatural or traditional means. Which was it?

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

So what is it you are claiming here? That if a person has knowledge of and opinions on religion but did not attend a religious education establishment, they must therefore be a messenger of god?

 

[KWED]

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.

The question included "or benefit himself in some way?"
It clearly did. he became the revered leader of a religious cult. That is something some people aspire to.

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.

It is irrelevant what the cause is. The fact is that people sacrifice themselves for causes, so his actions are nothing remarkable.

The delusions are not evident in His life and His Writings. He was remarkably cogent.

"Delusional" does not mean you are incoherent or an idiot. It simply means that you believe imaginary stuff is real.
Google John Forbes Nash.

 

[KWED]

That is only your personal opinion based upon a disbelief in God, nothing you can ever prove.

So what is your explanation for all the different versions of god suiting the cultural and geographic circumstances of their origin rather than there being an underlying similarity?
You see, my disbelief in god is based on the fact there is no real evidence and the best explanations suggest natural origins rather than supernatural.

What people 'believe' is not an argument against what is actually true since people are prone to believe anything. There is no logical connection whatsoever between belief and reality..

Excuse me but that is my argument. Get your own!

There is a logical explanation as to why people believe differently about God. It is because many religions have been revealed by God throughout the ages and those religions have been changed by man over time, so they no longer represent what was revealed. Not only that but the scriptures were misinterpreted, leading people to have different conceptions of God.

That is not a "logical argument" because there is no evidence to support the claim. Every religion can be traced back to something similar to its current form, not to the universal monotheism suggested by Bahaiism.

What's more, you are admitting that even when the message comes via a divinely appointed messenger, it can still be misinterpreted and corrupted. So you cannot know if the version you favour is true to god's original intention any more than any of the others that you claim are wrong.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Either his ability to write and his knowledge of the world came from supernatural or traditional means. Which was it?

There is no ultimatum. It is for you to research and decide.

Your question is extremely limited, focused on an agenda, thus I see no need to offer any more than that.

Regards Tony

 

[KWED]

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.

Ok, be specific.
What, precisely, was it about him that could only be possible through contact with a god.
No vague platitudes or handwaving please. Specific, verifiable examples.

 

[KWED]

There is no ultimatum. It is for you to research and decide.

With all due respect, that is a very feeble cop-out.
Either he did or he didn't, your, my, or the neighbours' cat's opinion on the natter do not change the reality of it.
In a murder case, the defendant either killed the victim or they did not. The fact of the matter is no altered by the evidence presented or the jury's deliberations of verdict.

However, I have researched the issue and concluded that the abilities and knowledge he displayed were entirely in keeping with someone who had received private tuition and subsequently read books and talked to people about a variety of issues. There is no apparent justification for any claims of supernatural knowledge or abilities.
presumably you have also researched the issue, so what did you conclude?

Your question is extremely limited, focused on an agenda

Er, yuh! Because it relates to one, limited, specific issue, with the intention of determining your position on that issue.
Judge: "Did you, or did you not, commit the offence on the night in question?"
You: "But Your Honour, your question is extremely limited, focused on an agenda."

 

[samtonga43]

I was told that Shoghi Effendi was sent to Oxford just so he could learn to translate the writings into that kind of old English. But it's the on and on of the "Oh thou most effulgent... Oh thou most Magnificent One and Oh thou most this or that... I keep thinking, Yeah, get to the point of what you are trying to say. Way to wordy and flowery. But some people love it.

Ah, indeed! There are Christians whose Biblical understanding rests upon all the archaic words of the KJV.

I sometimes think they believe that God Himself is way behind the times, unable to communicate using the language of the people,

It is ironic that MrB, the so-called messenger for today, cannot speak in the language of today.

 

[samtonga43]

Obviously that's true.

No, that is not basic logic and rational thinking because it is not possible to know that there is a God without a Messenger of God since the Messenger is the only evidence of God.

In other words, God cannot be demonstrated to exist without the Messenger who represents God on Earth.

God cannot be 'demonstrated to exist' under any circumstances.

 

[samtonga43]

That is all a matter of opinion and since I am far from a Bible scholar I really cannot say.

You don’t know. OK.

Scholars: The Gospel truth is, Jesus' words not precise - Tampa Bay Times

The Jesus Seminar? Have you sunk this low, Tb? Read and learn:---
Presuppositions and Pretensions of the Jesus Seminar | Reasonable Faith

Being Skeptical of the Skeptics: a Critique of the Jesus Seminar

From your article:
"People need to be reminded that whether Jesus said something or not does not touch the question of faith claims about Jesus as being true or not. "The claims about Jesus as the Christ in the creeds are not based on his sayings or dependent upon them for their truth."

 

[Truthseeker]

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

Sorry I impugned your character. This quote is more relevant, anyway:

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)

Learning, if it is just intellectual, and you are attached to whatever you think you know, actually works against accepting the new Manifestation. You need to see the spirit of the scriptures, not just have intellectual knowledge concerning them.

 

[Truthseeker]

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.

A better quote for this situation is this one. I impugned her character with that other quote, and it didn't address the situation as well anyway. Here's the quote:

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. 10)

Learning, if it is just intellectual, and you are attached to whatever you think you know, actually works against accepting the new Manifestation. You need to see the spirit of the scriptures, not just have intellectual knowledge concerning them.

I apologized to her, and offered this second quote.

 

[Truthseeker]

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.

Giving people that kind of knowledge also doesn't help, or any scientific knowledge if the knowledge isn't used for good ends. Listen to this @KWED.

 

[Truthseeker]

It clearly did. he became the revered leader of a religious cult. That is something some people aspire to.

A person might make a claim for that reason. However, Baha'u'llah suffered for that claim more than He gained

It is irrelevant what the cause is.

That reply of yours just shows your lack of morality or judgement. Or perhaps that is your attempt o win the argument at all costs, regardless of the truth.

"Delusional" does not mean you are incoherent or an idiot. It simply means that you believe imaginary stuff is real.
Google John Forbes Nash.

I saw the movie about Nash. I suppose you think that Baha'u'llah believing He is a Manifestation of God is a delusion about something that is imaginary. He also claimed to be able to know and quote from scriptures or other books without reading them or people telling Him those scriptures or books. He said that God revealed them to Him. He could have been lying about that theoretically, but He couldn't have been deluded about that in my opinion. If He was lying, that goes back to motive for His claim. I addressed that above.

 

[CG Didymus]

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.

The question is... where in any of the gospels do the writers switch from telling about the events they believe really happened to telling of a symbolic parable? Which verse do you see where they made that switch?

Then about it being a vision? Why then does Jesus say to touch him and see that he is not a ghost but has flesh and bone? Then the quote from Acts where it says he proved himself to be alive? I think that is exactly what they wanted people to know and believe... that Jesus had risen, in some kind of body that had flesh and bone, from the dead. Looking back at that and so many other stories in the Bible and for lots of us today, we'd say that was all make believe. If the Baha'is said that, I'd have no problem... But you don't.

Baha'is say those verses are "true"... symbolically, not literally. No, I don't agree. It was written as if the event really happened. When Jesus told a parable, it was made clear it was a parable. When people were saying things metaphorically it was clear it was metaphorical. The resurrection of Jesus was told as if it really happened. Again, if it didn't really happen, then they were lying and the resurrection was a hoax.