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

[Trailblazer]

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

How do you know what I understand?
There is no irony since I well know the same applies to me....
Convincing to me does not mean it is true.

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.

Nice try, but the analogy does not fly because that is not the same situation, not even close.

"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.

No, you does not mean every Jew in the world will be gathered and returned to Israel.
The verse does not say: "I will gather all of you from all the nations, and from all the places whither I have driven all of you."

 

[Trailblazer]

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?

God sends Messengers to help 'guide' mankind to the straight Path of Truth, Truth about God.
The Messengers also spiritual and social reveal teachings and laws that help man live a moral life.

“The Prophets and Messengers of God have been sent down for the sole purpose of guiding mankind to the straight Path of Truth. The purpose underlying Their revelation hath been to educate all men, that they may, at the hour of death, ascend, in the utmost purity and sanctity and with absolute detachment, to the throne of the Most High.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 156-157

 

[Trailblazer]

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

I know, and I already beat you to the punch.
#461 Trailblazer, 9 minutes ago

 

[CG Didymus]

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.

Well, there you go. There's something we can all evaluate and see if what Baha'u'llah has said and done fit with what the Bible says. So, let's go over it again. Where in the Bible does it foretell of Jesus? Then where does it tell of the coming of Muhammad? Then, after you have established that Jesus and Muhammad were both predicted in the Bible, then we can take a look at the verses you say it foretells of the Bab and Baha'u'llah.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

I thought I already answered that but just in case I didn't here it is again, what Tony said in two posts:

The reason is that Shoghi Effendi went to England to study English so He could better translate the Writings of Baha'u'llah from Persian and Arabic into English.

From his studies he determined that King James English was the best form to portray Persian and Arabic to English speakers.

Apparently Persian and Arabic have a form of poetic prose that is hard to portray to English speakers. King James English must in a small way convey some of that poetic prose experienced by Persian and Arabic speakers.

Shoghi Effendi offered that the future may see different translations.

Regards Tony

#155 Tony Bristow-Stagg

Baha'u'llah spoken in both Persian and Arabic. Which was the language of the day where he was born.

Shoghi Effendi translated those writings in to King James English. Shoghi Effendi also spoke Persian and Arabic and was educated at Oxford University in English.

Thus a well Educated Persian and Arabic spoken person, chose King James English, as it was seen as the best way to portray the poetry of the Persain and Arabic in English.

Regards Tony

#419 TransmutingSoul​

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

There is nothing strange about it. See explanations above.
I also like the explanation given by @loverofhumanity. Plain English would not do justice to the Writings of Baha'u'llah.

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"

Got a problem with that passage?

 

[CG Didymus]

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.

Oh, and what about this?

Mirzā Ghulām Ahmad was an Indian religious leader and the founder of the Ahmadiyya movement in Islam. He claimed to have been divinely appointed as the promised Messiah and Mahdi—which is the metaphorical second-coming of Jesus.​

If you reject him are you rejecting Jesus? No, you probably reject him and him only. And do you use scriptural knowledge to reject him? What else would you use? I'd imagine you'd check if what he claimed fits with what you know about what the true Messiah will be like and what he will do. And, if this person doesn't fit those requirements, you reject him as a false Messiah. So, what if to me, the Bab and Baha'u'llah don't fit the requirements? Am I really rejecting Jesus? And about having a "pure heart"... lots of people fall for a smooth talking, charismatic spiritual leader, and were wrong. Shouldn't they have used a little spiritual knowledge?

 

[Trailblazer]

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

No, that is not the claim. The claim is that there is only one true God, the God that was revealed by all the Messengers.

“Regard thou the one true God as One Who is apart from, and immeasurably exalted above, all created things. The whole universe reflecteth His glory, while He is Himself independent of, and transcendeth His creatures. This is the true meaning of Divine unity.” Gleanings, p. 167

 

[CG Didymus]

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.

I'm sure most Baha'is do believe that some cultures have made up their own Gods. But they don't talk about it. I've asked them about the Greek Gods, the Egyptian Gods, the Aztec Gods and so on. I don't think there is a definitive Baha'i answer. Christians have one, all the other Gods are false. Hey Baha'is, are Christians right about that? Do some religions believe in false Gods?

 

[Trailblazer]

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

I think it was both, since He had a twofold nature, spiritual and human. His spiritual nature was supernatural and that worked together with His human nature and gave him a superhuman ability to write and acquire His knowledge of the world.

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?

I do not know what Tony is claiming but Imo that would not make someone a messenger of God, as much more would be required.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, that is not the claim. The claim is that there is only one true God, the God that was revealed by all the Messengers.

“Regard thou the one true God as One Who is apart from, and immeasurably exalted above, all created things. The whole universe reflecteth His glory, while He is Himself independent of, and transcendeth His creatures. This is the true meaning of Divine unity.” Gleanings, p. 167

That appears to be a difference without a distinction.

 

[CG Didymus]

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".

But the NT was written in the common Greek, but Baha'is use the KJV. And then about the "details"... It's hard to figure out what the point was sometimes because of all the flowery language.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

With all due respect, that is a very feeble cop-out.

Do you believe in God?

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

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?

Why wouldn't different religions be different and suit the geographic circumstances of their origin rather than there being the same as other religions?

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.

By the same token, my belief in God is based on the fact there is real evidence and the best explanations for Messengers of God and the ensuing religions suggest supernatural origins rather than natural.

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.

So what? Just because some of the older religions believed in many Gods that does not mean there are many Gods. After all, there are no original scriptures for any of those older religions and the alleged teachings were written down by men who had no communication with God decades or even centuries after the messenger lived. Abraham and Moses straightened that all out when they declared that there is only one God.

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.

I can know because we have the Original Writings of Baha'u'llah and they can never be corrupted since they are in a vault at the Baha'i World Centre for safekeeping, and since Baha'u'llah appointed interpreters His Writings cannot be misinterpreted. No other religion has such protections in place.

 

[CG Didymus]

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.

Again what do you do with Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. He claimed to have been divinely appointed as the promised Messiah and Mahdi. Is that true? Or was he delusional? Yet, he has more followers than Baha'u'llah? So, if he is a fraud, it just goes to show that people get fooled all the time about religious leaders and their claims.

Oh, and Baha'u'llah and his ability to tell people about those books. Well, let's take a look at what he said about

Among the Prophets was Noah. For nine hundred and fifty years He prayerfully exhorted His people and summoned them to the haven of security and peace. None, however, heeded His call. Each day they inflicted on His blessed person such pain and suffering that no one believed He could survive. How frequently they denied Him, how malevolently they hinted their suspicion against Him! Thus it hath been revealed: “And as often as a company of His people passed by Him, they derided Him. To them He said: ‘Though ye scoff at us now, we will scoff at you hereafter even as ye scoff at us. In the end ye shall know.’”3 Long afterward, He several times promised victory to His companions and fixed the hour thereof. But when the hour struck, the divine promise was not fulfilled. This caused a few among the small number of His followers to turn away from Him, and to this testify the records of the best-known books. These you must certainly have perused; if not, undoubtedly you will. Finally, as stated in books and traditions, there remained with Him only forty or seventy-two of His followers. At last from the depth of His being He cried aloud: “Lord! Leave not upon the land a single dweller from among the unbelievers.”​

Obviously, he hadn't read the Genesis account of Noah. No flood, no ark, no animals. Where did this story come from? From an Islamic tradition? Or is this brand new information never before told?

​

 

[TransmutingSoul]

But the NT was written in the common Greek, but Baha'is use the KJV. And then about the "details"... It's hard to figure out what the point was sometimes because of all the flowery language.

Here is the point, easy to understand, only a couple of verses from Baha'u'llah.

"Verily I say, this is the day in which mankind can behold the face, and hear the Voice, of the Promised One....Great indeed is this Day! The allusions made to it in all the sacred Scriptures as the Day of God attest its greatness. The soul of every Prophet of God, of every Divine Messenger, hath thirsted for this wondrous Day. All the divers kindreds of the earth have, likewise, yearned to attain it."

This is the promised Age of Peace:

"This is the Day in which God's most excellent favours have been poured out upon men, the day in which His mighty grace hath been infused into all created things. It is incumbent upon all the peoples of the world to reconcile their differences, and with perfect amity and peace, abide beneath the shadow of the Tree of His care and loving-kindness."

"The time foreordained unto the peoples and kindreds of the earth is now come. The promises of God, as recorded in the holy Scriptures, have all been fulfilled. Out of Zion hath gone forth the Law of God, and Jerusalem, and the hills and land thereof, are filled with the glory of His Revelation...This is the day which the Pen of the Most High hath glorified in all the Holy Scriptures."

Not much hidden in the outer meaning, it has been an open and clear proclamation, yet there is also much hidden meaning in all of it.

It is our choice how we evaluate that information.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

What it was about Him that could only be possible through contact with a God is a matter of opinion. I could tell you why in my opinion who He was as a Person, what He did on His mission, and what He wrote could only be possible if He was a Messenger of God, but I cannot prove that therefore He was a Messenger of God. Such a claim to have contact with God is not subject to proof. Think about why.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Again what do you do with Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. He claimed to have been divinely appointed as the promised Messiah and Mahdi.

How many times do we have to reply to the same questions? When it has been adequately answered every time.

Here is the link provided every other time this has come up. It is provided so you can make your own mind up on this issue.

Interaction with The People of Bahá: A response to Ahmadi Answers

Regards Tony

 

[samtonga43]

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.

You did not impugn my character, Truthseeker.
You impugned your own character.

 

[samtonga43]

How do you know what I understand?
There is no irony since I well know the same applies to me....
Convincing to me does not mean it is true.

Nice try, but the analogy does not fly because that is not the same situation, not even close.

No, you does not mean every Jew in the world will be gathered and returned to Israel.
The verse does not say: "I will gather all of you from all the nations, and from all the places whither I have driven all of you."

Sorry, Tb, but you are wrong. The 'you' here is the collective 'you'.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

He wrote what God revealed to Him the way a Messenger of God writes, and there was no need for any adjustments. God's Word does not need to be dumbed-down in order to appeal to the masses.