How are these Great Beings explained?

[Unveiled Artist]

Innnteresting.

Yes

You're not selling me with Bahaullah being indirectly hidden in the passage when all the passages so far quoted had to do with God's nation, God's people, and Jesus himself (as according to Christians). Other than the name, Bahaullah would have to literally be in the bible in order for his importance to make sense since everything is pointing to God's chosen people-the Jews-not anyone else.

Baha'u'llah does not appear in the Bible, for exactly the same reason as Jesus does not appear in the Tanakh. The Jews could not see Jesus fulfilling their prophecies and the Christians can not see Baha'u'llah fulfilling theirs.

Well, Christians say that there were prophecies in the Torah on up that lead to jesus. Bahai say there were prophecies leading to Bahaullah. I understand christian views because every gospel has jesus' genealogy back to Abraham so there no one needs to try to find a reference anywhere.

If Bahai had their own writings that didn't refer to the bible as part of their religion (as Islam sees Christ etc) then it's fine. Another issue is history. History can tell us events that we think happen but they can't tell us prophecies. That's all human self-prophecy and synchronicity. Sorry, out of fancy terms at the moment.

Only Mormons believe Joseph Smith heard from God.

Only Bahai think Bahaullah is a prophet from the bible. As someone who doesn't believe in god, both of you guys do so I don't see the difference.

That and mormons believe jesus as their lord and savior, the bible, and a creator so they are christian.

We are Baha'is and believe in Baha'u'llah. So the Christians see us as lost souls just as everyone else. As the Jews think Christians have got it wrong, Christians think Baha'is have got it wrong.

Bahai says similar but instead of wrong, just the original teachings have been misinterpreted by the people who a lot of you feel aren't following their teachings properly. I never got that abrahamic view of the world. I was raised in it but it always picked a my last nerve.

Muhammad and Islam emerged from the Arabia Peninsula so the locality is very significant. Persia is much more significant though. As the Jewish King David prefigured the Jewish Spiritual King Jesus, the Persian King Cyrus (the anointed one in Isaiah 44:28. Isaiah 45:1-2) prefigured the Persian Spiritual King Baha'u'llah.

I don't understand how location is important in a spiritual oriented text. I know you guys don't believe in the literal resurrection, but let's say it is literal, there doesn't need to be historical and scientific evidence to prove it. Spiritual facts have different criteria of validity. (Was talking to an atheist about this, actually).

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Read the link. The Buddha didn't say it.

I think you'd be interested in this

The Blessed One said: "Suppose a man were traveling along a path. He would see a great expanse of water, with the near shore dubious & risky, the further shore secure & free from risk, but with neither a ferryboat nor a bridge going from this shore to the other. The thought would occur to him, 'Here is this great expanse of water, with the near shore dubious & risky, the further shore secure & free from risk, but with neither a ferryboat nor a bridge going from this shore to the other. What if I were to gather grass, twigs, branches, & leaves and, having bound them together to make a raft, were to cross over to safety on the other shore in dependence on the raft, making an effort with my hands & feet?' Then the man, having gathered grass, twigs, branches, & leaves, having bound them together to make a raft, would cross over to safety on the other shore in dependence on the raft, making an effort with his hands & feet. [7] Having crossed over to the further shore, he might think, 'How useful this raft has been to me! For it was in dependence on this raft that, making an effort with my hands & feet, I have crossed over to safety on the further shore. Why don't I, having hoisted it on my head or carrying it on my back, go wherever I like?' What do you think, monks: Would the man, in doing that, be doing what should be done with the raft?"

"No, lord."

"And what should the man do in order to be doing what should be done with the raft? There is the case where the man, having crossed over, would think, 'How useful this raft has been to me! For it was in dependence on this raft that, making an effort with my hands & feet, I have crossed over to safety on the further shore. Why don't I, having dragged it on dry land or sinking it in the water, go wherever I like?' In doing this, he would be doing what should be done with the raft. In the same way, monks, I have taught the Dhamma compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto. Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas."

Alagaddupama Sutta

Buddhism isn't about The Buddha as a prophet. It isn't about Dhamma as an sacred text. It's about the Practice of non-attachment to these things.

Hence "kill the Buddha" means let go of the raft.

On that note: From your link

Whatever your conception is of the Buddha, it’s WRONG!

Now kill that image and keep practicing.

This all has to do with the idea that reality is an impermanent illusion. If you believe that you have a correct image of what it means to be Enlightened, then you need to throw out (kill) that image and keep meditating.

--Don't attach yourself to The Buddha (nor The Dhamma)

That is why abrahamic sacred-text believers and Dharmic believers don't mix. The former cannot let go of their raft.

 

[oldbadger]

Aramaic, almost certainly.

Eastern Aramaic, yes. The Galileans had their own coarse version, certainly different as pointed out by the woman who challenged Cephas about his identity just after the arrest of Jesus.

Greek, probably. He certainly travelled beyond Galilea. Koine Greek was the Lingua Franca not to mention the Septuagint in common usage.

Did Jesus Speak Greek?

I couldn't open your link.
In G-Mark Yeshua did travel over to the Gergesenes, Gadarenes, through the Decapolis, up to Sidon and Tyre, and down to Judea, Journeys which could be walked in one of two days. His Eastern Aramaic could certainly be understood in Judea, and I expect in the Northern provinces since they mostly spoke Eastern Aramaic anyway.

I don't think that many Jewish peasants could speak more than their native dialects, whereas the upper class (priesthood) did speak gentile languages, and practices gentile fashions, lifestyles and even religious ceremonies.

There was no Middle Class. and peasants did well to just live, even the 1st order of peasants the landed farmers did not actually own their land as we know ownership today, so the divide was clear and vast.

EDIT: I managed to open the link. And 'no', Galilean peasants just spoke Eastern Aramaic in local dialect. I expect that could be understood throughout most of Israel but rather looked-down-upon as a guttural language spoken by low-lifes.

The writer in the link thinks that these people could (generally) write....... amazing. Acts was written by a Levite Doctor and not a Galilean. Where do these folks get their degrees?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Buddhism is a good choice for atheists, I agree. I'm please you don't hold grudges and wouldn't kill the Buddha if you saw him.

Which is kinda odd, because Buddhism has more gods than Christianity does. Also, The Buddha wasn't an atheist.

 

[oldbadger]

Which is kinda odd, because Buddhism has more gods than Christianity does. Also, The Buddha wasn't an atheist.

Hi.......
I don't know much about the Buddha, but it still amazes me how folks from one religion can dismiss other religions with 'flourish of pen' or 'single sentence'. I don't like the word bigotry but it could be described thus.

The fact remains that Baha'u'allah was a privileged son of a massively wealthy and politically powerful family who could do and say mostly whatever he wanted, even to the extent of changing his name from Mirza Hussein Ali (?) to 'The Glory of God'.

If any ordinary Persian had shown such apostasy then I expect that he would have been executed out of hand and chucked in a pit, but this man could and did survive, probably because of position, wealth and class.

Does anybody know what the social status of the Bab was?

 

[arthra]

Does anybody know what the social status of the Bab was?

He was a Mercer a merchant. His family were Siyyids ... descendants of the family of Prophet Muhammad.

Shirazi, Sayyid Ali Muhammad - Oxford Islamic Studies Online
BBC - Religions - Bahai: The Báb
Siyyid ‘Ali Muhammad, the Báb, Born 190 years ago on this day | Iranian.com

Later this week October 20th-21st Baha'is will be observing the anniversary of His birth

 

[siti]

@Sen McGlinn - many thanks for the informative post. My knowledge of Persian history is woefully inadequate and you have given me a few 'keywords' to further my search for information on the subject. Do you know if there English translations of any of the works you have made reference to?

I would just like to pick up on one point from you post:

What is unique is not that he advocated democracy and popular representation -- which in his day were still unproven ideas, much discussed -- but that he made them religious principles.

I am not sure that this is entirely correct in the sense that I think that, for example, Robert Owen had indeed made it a religious principle. Although it was not really 'democracy' he was advocating, but certainly he recommended a Congress of Nations to implement what he called not only a "rational system of society" but also a "rational religion". His (Owen's) ideas grew out of the English Radical movement of a century earlier which was a challenge to both religious and monarchical authority. When the path split between 'democratic' republicanism and imposed 'socialism' the first time i.e. in France, the imposition of 'socialist' principles had very definitely become a matter of religious principle resulting in the monstrosity of the 'Culte de 'l'Etre Supreme'. Owen (and Baha'u'llah, if he was up to date with events in Paris) couldn't possibly have failed to be aware of that.

Separation of Church and State was one way of avoiding such a disaster occurring again, but Owen obviously thought that it was possible to maintain a progressive and inclusive religious element in society as long as one were prepared to forego what he had referred to in an 1817 speech as "those parts of every religion that are direct and palpable contradictions to existing facts". If we could get rid of those 'contradictions' he felt - as expressed in an appendix to his 1840 "Manifesto" - "the 'Rational Religion' which I have since promulgated will be found to contain all that is truly valuable for practice in all the religions which have been taught to man". That sentiment, if not the language, would surely not seem out of place in Baha'u'llah's writings?

Unfortunately for Owen, it was probably precisely dissension among the members of his New Harmony community about the form of government and the role of religion that proved to be the nails in the coffin of his "new social order". That and human nature - greed, freeloaders etc. Owen was, of course, convinced that his ideas were guaranteed to succeed in the end - by virtue of what I earlier referred to as his "naive confidence" in the essential goodness of humankind - and that was no less true of the great and the good in his worldview than it was of the poor and downtrodden. Although his "new world" would necessarily have swept aside privilege and aristocracy, he fully expected that this would be with the full consent and approval of the privileged and the aristocratic resulting from their inevitable enlightenment. That did not happen of course and it was left to socialists of a rather redder hue to force the ultimate utopian experiment on aristocracy, bourgeoisie and proletariat alike - this time with religion officially declared 'anathema' but once again with disastrous consequences.

Somebody once said that democracy "can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury." - (often mis-attributed to Benjamin Franklin or Alexis de Tocqueville neither of whom really said it) - but I think there may be an element of truth in it. We are, after all, products of biological evolution - and if there is a way to gain an unfair survival advantage for our genes over those of another tribe or family, we are more than likely apt to do so. Or more likely - more favourably to our human reputation perhaps - we are stuck in a constant evolutionary battle between the our "selfish" individual genes and the overall "happiness" of our species. Religion and politics are both attempts to make sense of that unavoidable dilemma by balancing individual liberty and social cohesiveness. Owen knew that and I am sure Baha'u'llah did too. But I don't hold too much hope that Baha'u'llah's formulation will ultimately prove more successful than Owen's. And both are perhaps encapsulations of one side of the human story, whilst the rampant capitalism and consumerism of the 21st century is a manifestation of the other. Individually, we can think as we may, but as a species, I'm not sure we can help it. And if it ever turned out that we could, I dare say religion and politics will both have had their day.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Which is kinda odd, because Buddhism has more gods than Christianity does. Also, The Buddha wasn't an atheist.

It's is my belief and the belief of my Buddhist in-laws that the Buddha believed in God. Many Buddhists believe He did not teach about God at all so there must be no god. Some believe he believed in different gods. This is confusing. What did Buddha really teach and does it matter? I believe it does. Some believe It doesn't. They say it is good to have diversity of belief. Truth is what you believe and not what is true.

So what do you believe to be true?

 

[Dawnofhope]

@Sen McGlinn - many thanks for the informative post. My knowledge of Persian history is woefully inadequate and you have given me a few 'keywords' to further my search for information on the subject. Do you know if there English translations of any of the works you have made reference to?

I don't know of any of those works were the type of classics that warranted translation into another language but Sen can answer that.

Lord Curzon's Persia and the Persian question may be one of the best books from an outsiders perspective on Persia in the nineteenth century.

Persia and the Persian Question

But I don't hold too much hope that Baha'u'llah's formulation will ultimately prove more successful than Owen's. And both are perhaps encapsulations of one side of the human story, whilst the rampant capitalism and consumerism of the 21st century is a manifestation of the other. Individually, we can think as we may, but as a species, I'm not sure we can help it. And if it ever turned out that we could, I dare say religion and politics will both have had their day.

I suppose time will tell. What the Baha'is have is a community of 5 to 7 million worldwide with 184 elected national assemblies and approximately 20,000 elected local assemblies world wide.

Bahá'í statistics - Wikipedia

 

[Dawnofhope]

Major contradictory beliefs is a problem for Baha'is, 'cause you say that all religions came from the same source. To say that each and every time, people changed or misinterpreted the original teachings is too easy of an answer. It would mean that not once, the original teachings were put away and protected by someone, anyone. It's also saying that Jews and Christians don't have their original teachings.

OK. All the religions can't be right as they contradict each other. Are you saying the Jews and Christians are right and everyone else is wrong?

 

[Dawnofhope]

If you haven't already answered this and I missed it... I need to know how the first "Woe" is supposed to be Muhammad? The first Woe is described in Rev 9: 1-12. Verse 5 has a five month period of time that I've never heard an explanation for it. And in verse 11, a king called "Abaddon" or "Apollyon is mentioned. Who is this?

Revelation 9
1 And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.
2 And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit.
3 And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power.
4 And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.
5 And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.
6 And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.
7 And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of men.
8 And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions.
9 And they had breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron; and the sound of their wings was as the sound of chariots of many horses running to battle.
10 And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were stings in their tails: and their power was to hurt men five months.
11 And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.
12 One woe is past; and, behold, there come two woes more hereafter.

This prophecy concerns the Muslim invasions of Asian and African Christendom that began about 633 AD. At first, Muslim warriors were noted for their justice and tolerance of other Faiths, such as Christianity and Judaism. Muslim warriors were, however, ferocious fighters against idol worshippers and other enemies of monotheism. It is important to understand that
the aggressive invasions of Islam were not instigated by Muhammad but by the Successors (Caliphs) following the death of Muhammad.

The question of the Successorship was the historical origin of the Shi'ah and Sunni divisions of Islam. The first four Caliphs, often called the Rightly-Guided, generally followed the policy laid down by Muhammad. However, according to Shi'a belief, Muhammad had actually chosen His son-in-law, 'Ali, as His Caliph. Although 'Ali later arose to His appointed station, He was assassinated before He could consolidate His power. The caliphate fell to the Umayyad pretender, Mu'awiya, whose father, Abu-Sufyan, was the arch-enemy of Muhammad and His Revelation. The course of political intrigue set in motion by Abu-Sufyan eventually achieved success, and, by beclouding the principles of Islam, Abu-Sufyan became a "fallen star."

The bottomless pit is the pit of error. The smoke arising from the pit symbolizes obscurement. The sun of spiritual truth was dissensions, abrogation of obscured, and the atmosphere of nearness to God was stifled by the smoke.

The scorpion was a quickfirer that permitted rapid discharge of arrows. John describes the plague of mounted warriors as
"locusts." The magnificent horses of the Arabian warriors are commemorated in fable. Grass, green things and trees are the commoners, the righteous people and their spiritual leaders. The command not to hurt the righteous was given by Muhammad.

A "month" is 30 years therefore 5 months is 150 years. The Muslim Empire was carved out in a space of about 150 years, from the initial invasions of 633 AD until the peak of the Empire under Caliph Harun ar-Rashid in 786 AD. Verses 7 to 10 describe the appearance of the mounted Arabian warriors (locusts), their quickfirers (scorpions), and the sound of their chariots (wings).

Abaddon and Apollyon mean "The Destroyer" and refer to the Umayyad dynasty personified by Abu-Sufyan.

The woe that is past is the Advent of Muhammad. The two remaining woes are to be the Advents of the Bab and Baha'u'llah.

Adapted from Apocalypse unsealed (Robert Riggs)

Hope that helps.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Outside of Maitreya coming back said by The Buddha not god, where in the suttas does it say that The Buddha was blessed by god, his name was changed or given meaning by god (as Muhammad, Bahaullah, and Abraham), and that he is a prophet or manifestation of god in order for his oral teachings to be a reflection of the Oneness of the creator of Abraham not say Hinduism?

Oh. @adrian009 I want to ask you this too.

My knowledge of Buddhism is weak and very much a work in progress.

"There is, O monks, an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. Were there not, O monks, this Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, there would be no escape from the world of the born, originated, created, formed. Since, O monks, there is an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, therefore is there an escape from the born, originated, created, formed. What is dependant, that also moves; what is independent does not move" (Udana 8:3).

Nagarjuna, the founder of the Madhyamika school of Buddhism, argues from this passage that without the acceptance of an Ultimate Reality (Paramartha) there can be no deliverance (nirvana) (Madhyamika Karikas, cited in Murti 235).


"Know, Vasettha, that (from time to time) a Tathagata is born into the world, a fully Enlightened One, blessed and worthy, abounding in wisdom and goodness, happy, with knowledge of the world, unsurpassed as a guide to erring mortals, a teacher of gods and men, a Blessed Buddha. He, by himself, thoroughly understands, and sees, as it were, face to face this universe--the world below with all its spirits, and the worlds above, of Mara and of Brahma--and all creatures, Samanas and Brahmins, gods and men, and he makes this knowledge known to others. The truth doth he proclaim both in its letter and in its spirit, lovely in its origin, lovely in its progress, lovely in its consummation: the higher life doth he make known, in all its purity and in all its perfectness" (DN 13:1:44; tr. Davids, Suttas 186-7).

This was Buddha's response when asked about the way to attain a state of union with Brahma. So the Manifestations of God could be like Tathagatas that are the intermediaries between the highest reality and this world. They are thoroughly familiar with the highest reality and can show us the path to that world.

What are your thoughts about Buddha's words? What are some of His words that would suggest contradictory meanings or support my belief?

 

[Dawnofhope]

I assume it's your central authority, the Universal House of Justice, that does the authorising?

There are hundreds of volumes of writings from the Bab, Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi and the Universal House of Justice itself to translate into hundreds of languages. It is a massive enterprise. Much of the responsibility is devolved to National Spiritual Assemblies and their agencies but translations into English are generally arranged through our International Centre in Haifa.

Periodically, then, the House of Justice will announce the completion of a new English-language compilation or publication with selections from the writings, chosen specifically by it from the immense range available on the basis of their “immediate relevance to the work of the Cause at this stage of its development.” From the English version, every selection is then taken into other languages, with the assistance, as necessary, of reference to the original Persian or Arabic. There are only a few exceptions where the translation is made directly from the original, for example, Turkish and Urdu, languages closely related to Persian and Arabic. The translation work usually proceeds under the aegis of National Spiritual Assemblies, but for certain languages widely spoken in the world that cross national borders, the House of Justice has set up international panels to oversee the translation of the Bahá’í writings. It has also placed special funds at the disposal of the Counsellors to help National Assemblies in their efforts to ensure basic Bahá’í literature is available in every language. Now highly organized, the translation work worldwide moves with a dispatch unimaginable in decades past.
(Ruhi Book 8, Unit 3, p. 85)

BTW, I believe everyone has an agenda.

Of course

 

[Dawnofhope]

You're not selling me with Bahaullah being indirectly hidden in the passage when all the passages so far quoted had to do with God's nation, God's people, and Jesus himself (as according to Christians). Other than the name, Bahaullah would have to literally be in the bible in order for his importance to make sense since everything is pointing to God's chosen people-the Jews-not anyone else.

I'm just telling you how I see it. No sales pitch

The words Glory of God (Baha'u'llah) feature in the Bible over 100 times, but what's in a name?

Where was Jesus in the OT?

How was Jesus literally in the OT?

If everything is pointing to God's chosen people, why did they reject Jesus?

Well, Christians say that there were prophecies in the Torah on up that lead to jesus. Bahai say there were prophecies leading to Bahaullah. I understand christian views because every gospel has jesus' genealogy back to Abraham so there no one needs to try to find a reference anywhere.

It is true that a genealogy exists in Matthew 1 and Luke 3:23-38 but none of the other gospels have this.

Genealogy of Jesus - Wikipedia

These genealogies were retrospective, and any genealogy linking biblical characters to Baha'u'llah are prophetic as were the OT prophecies were for Jesus.

You would need to demonstrate that the prophetic verses in the OT referring to the lineage of Jesus are stronger than the prophetic verses for Baha'u'llah to prove your point.

If Bahai had their own writings that didn't refer to the bible as part of their religion (as Islam sees Christ etc) then it's fine. Another issue is history. History can tell us events that we think happen but they can't tell us prophecies. That's all human self-prophecy and synchronicity. Sorry, out of fancy terms at the moment.

Why is it acceptable that the NT(Christianity) refers to the OT (Judaism) and not acceptable that the Baha'i writings refer to the another religion? How about Buddha's references to Hinduism? Are they OK?

Only Bahai think Bahaullah is a prophet from the bible. As someone who doesn't believe in god, both of you guys do so I don't see the difference.

If someone who wasn't a Baha'i believed Baha'u'llah was a prophet, then he would almost be a Baha'i by definition.

I know you don't believe in God, and that's fine.

That and mormons believe jesus as their lord and savior, the bible, and a creator so they are christian.

That is true.

Bahai says similar but instead of wrong, just the original teachings have been misinterpreted by the people who a lot of you feel aren't following their teachings properly. I never got that abrahamic view of the world. I was raised in it but it always picked a my last nerve.

Christianity hasn't exactly been a constant shining light of justice and decency throughout history, so either the religion taught violence or the Christians have misunderstood Jesus's message.

I don't understand how location is important in a spiritual oriented text. I know you guys don't believe in the literal resurrection, but let's say it is literal, there doesn't need to be historical and scientific evidence to prove it. Spiritual facts have different criteria of validity. (Was talking to an atheist about this, actually).

Location is important because the prophets and authors of biblical texts refer to real places.

I agree that spiritual facts have a different criteria to scientific facts.

Innnteresting.

Always

 

[Dawnofhope]

That is why abrahamic sacred-text believers and Dharmic believers don't mix. The former cannot let go of their raft.

But I love my raft very much, so will cling on a little longer.

Hopefully will read your sutta soon.

 

[loverofhumanity]

From Revelation 5:

“Who is worthy to break the seals and open the scroll?” 3 But no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth could open the scroll or even look inside it. 4 I wept and wept because no one was found who was worthy to open the scroll or look inside. 5 Then one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep! See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll and its seven seals.”

6 Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing at the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. The Lamb had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. 7 He went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne.
​

One being is worthy, not two. The Lion and the Lamb are the same being.

From Rev 7:

...before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. 10 And they cried out in a loud voice:

“Salvation belongs to our God,
who sits on the throne,
and to the Lamb.”

“These in white robes... are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb... the Lamb at the center of the throne
will be their shepherd..."
​

The Lamb is the dominant figure in the Revelation. The symbolism of robes washed white in the blood is so very Christian and alludes to Jesus. The Bab doesn't fit the descriptions. God is the one on the throne, not Baha'u'llah. So still unclear to me.

The best thing to do is accept only what you feel is true and correct. The Bible is not a literal Book but in many places symbolical and it often takes a spiritual eye to discern spiritual truths not purely intellectual ones.

In Revelation it is saying spiritual Beings will appear at the end of this age Who will ‘make all things new’ reveal a ‘new name’ and ‘sing a new song’. To me, that matches very precisely what the Bab and Baha’u’llah have done. We have a new religion with a new name and new teachings. It couldn’t really be any simpler but remember it was Peter the fisherman who couldn’t count to 10 who recognized the true greatness of Christ whereas the intellectuals such as Caiphas were blinded by their own logic which entrapped their own minds causing them to be unable to see God for it is written in the Bible that the pure in heart see God not necessarily the best intellectuals.

Christ often says in Revelation he that has ears hear and he that has eyes see. What He means is it requires spiritual eyes and ears to understand the truth.

Rev 5:7

And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.

The One on the throne and the Lamb are two different Persons. While Christians say it is God it can also be God’s Manifestation in this instance Baha’u’llah. Who is on the throne and how did He have the Book that was sealed. Only the Lion was worthy to unseal the Book so He had it in His Hands. But both the Bab and Baha’u’llah were Manifestations so they were one and the same Person in that respect.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Yes it makes sense, somewhat. The death of the ego/peronsality, so 'death' could well be the same as mokhsa, never having to come back. Not use though, as usual.

I was just wondering with regards to reincarnation. How does it work according to your belief - do you always return as a Hindu or might you return as a Muslim or Christian or even a Baha’i??

 

[loverofhumanity]

Innnteresting.


You're not selling me with Bahaullah being indirectly hidden in the passage when all the passages so far quoted had to do with God's nation, God's people, and Jesus himself (as according to Christians). Other than the name, Bahaullah would have to literally be in the bible in order for his importance to make sense since everything is pointing to God's chosen people-the Jews-not anyone else.



Well, Christians say that there were prophecies in the Torah on up that lead to jesus. Bahai say there were prophecies leading to Bahaullah. I understand christian views because every gospel has jesus' genealogy back to Abraham so there no one needs to try to find a reference anywhere.

If Bahai had their own writings that didn't refer to the bible as part of their religion (as Islam sees Christ etc) then it's fine. Another issue is history. History can tell us events that we think happen but they can't tell us prophecies. That's all human self-prophecy and synchronicity. Sorry, out of fancy terms at the moment.



Only Bahai think Bahaullah is a prophet from the bible. As someone who doesn't believe in god, both of you guys do so I don't see the difference.

That and mormons believe jesus as their lord and savior, the bible, and a creator so they are christian.



Bahai says similar but instead of wrong, just the original teachings have been misinterpreted by the people who a lot of you feel aren't following their teachings properly. I never got that abrahamic view of the world. I was raised in it but it always picked a my last nerve.



I don't understand how location is important in a spiritual oriented text. I know you guys don't believe in the literal resurrection, but let's say it is literal, there doesn't need to be historical and scientific evidence to prove it. Spiritual facts have different criteria of validity. (Was talking to an atheist about this, actually).

Hi Carlita. Actually I’ve posted this before and it’s a proven fact not anything hidden that up until 1858 Bible translations commonly used the word Baha’u’llah in prophecies from Revelation to Isaiah. If you know someone who can read Arabic they can confirm that Baha’u’llah was actually mentioned in the Bible mainly in prophetic passages.

http://bahaistudies.net/kf/bibles.html

This web page contains facsimiles of the Bibles of 1833 and 1858 clearly showing BAHÁ'U'LLÁH IN REVELATION 21:23.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It's is my belief and the belief of my Buddhist in-laws that the Buddha believed in God. Many Buddhists believe He did not teach about God at all so there must be no god. Some believe he believed in different gods. This is confusing. What did Buddha really teach and does it matter? I believe it does. Some believe It doesn't. They say it is good to have diversity of belief. Truth is what you believe and not what is true.

So what do you believe to be true?

The Buddha believes that Brahma exist. Always have since he practiced hinduism before he was enlightened. Once he was enlightened, he challenged his Hindu beliefs saying that since Brahma is eternal and nothing changes foundationally once one gets to moksha, he no longer believes Brahma leads to enlightenment since even in enlightenment, everything changes.

I posted suttas on this a couple of times. Buddhist like Hindu aren't sacred-text people. One Buddhist may worship more deities than the Buddhist beside him. One Buddhist treats The Buddha as how we would think of when people worship god. Others worshiped The Dhamma before The Buddha (and others The Buddha before the Dhamma). Unless the Tibetan monk, suttas, and Buddhist I have practiced with in the past are wrong, the only god The Buddha "came in contact" with is Brahman not the god of abraham.

I did say The Buddha is not an atheist. Many atheists come to Buddhism thinking there is no god(s). There is a god/creator (Brahma/Mara) and there are gods, just Buddhist teachings do not support the belief of the existence of these gods to lead to enlightenment.

It only matters if you want to end rebirth. Most Buddhist probably won't care because we gain merit for good things we do for people not for other Buddhists only. If you want to end rebirth and help others, one comes a Bodhisattva. If one wants to be enlightened faster, one goes to monastic training and becomes an arahant. If one wants to be a laity, one serves the people and helps out the monastic. Love is part of that equation. The Buddha speaks about the role between husband and wife in the suttas.

Other people aren't bound by The Buddha's teachings unless they want to end rebirth. That's universal Buddhist teaching. Anyone can meditate. Monastic training is totally different story.

 

[Vinayaka]

Yes, like taking reincarnation out of Hinduism and the resurrection out of Christianity completely changes those religions.

Very true. Something minor wouldn't be so awkward, but removing a fundamental tenet, well. yeah, it's more than awkward, it's insulting.