How are these Great Beings explained?

[CG Didymus]

The coming of a new world was also prophesied to happen by Return of Christ:
I quote Revelation 21:

1Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,”a for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’b or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”

5He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”



In Baha'i View this Prophecy was fulfilled by God through Manifesting Bahaullah:

"Soon will the present-day order be rolled up, and a newone spread out in its stead. Verily, thy Lord speaketh the truth, and is the Knower of things unseen."

"Erelong shall We bring into being through thee exponents of new and wondrous sciences, of potent and effective crafts, and shall make manifest through them that which the heart of none of Our servants hath yet conceived. Thus do We bestow upon whom We will whatsoever We desire, and thus do We withdraw from whom We will what We had once bestowed. Even so do We ordain whatsoever We please through Our behest."


"THE world’s equilibrium hath been upset through the vibrating influence of this most great, this new World Order. Mankind’s ordered life hath been revolutionized through the agency of this unique, this wondrous System—the like of which mortal eyes have never witnessed."

"There will be no more death’b or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”

I take it that part isn't literal.

 

[Dawnofhope]

He knows more about Hinduism than any person I would think whose not in the culture and/or practice of the Hindu faith. His disbelief in god shouldnt change that. @Aupmanyav Il let him speak in his own behalf. In general, ones belief in god shouldnt change ones knowledge in faith. My disbelief in a creatoe doesnt mean I havent experienced christ. Context.

I have never heard you trying to prove the existence of God. Why would you? You are an atheist and that's fine.

Aup isn't a Vaishnavite so its not his belief, nor is @Vinayaka . It makes no sense for either of them to be trying to prove Krishna is God, when neither of them believe this to be true.

 

[siti]

Why would the Muslims be reading the OT, and why would Baha'u'llah be drawing Muslims attention to it?

Er...dunno...maybe because they considered the Torah, Psalms and Prophets to be the "Word of God" (albeit with corruptions) and specifically, that Muhammad was the "one like a Son of Man" in Daniel 7:13-14...perhaps? Bit odd that he would leave them hanging on that and say absolutely zip about the very next page that talked specifically about the culmination of the era of the "one like a Son of Man" that they were experiencing at first hand don't you think?

I'm thinking it is not me that is putting too much of a western swerve on this.

 

[CG Didymus]

Which prophecy failed? I am not aware of even one single failed prophecy. Both Prophecies of Messiah of Jews and Return of Christ are all fulfilled.

If you want to be made aware ask a Jew which prophecies Jesus didn't fulfill. Then ask a Christian which prophecies aren't fulfilled by Baha'u'llah. They both have a few.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Er...dunno...maybe because they considered the Torah, Psalms and Prophets to be the "Word of God" (albeit with corruptions) and specifically, that Muhammad was the "one like a Son of Man" in Daniel 7:13-14...perhaps? Bit odd that he would leave them hanging on that and say absolutely zip about the very next page that talked specifically about the culmination of the era of the "one like a Son of Man" that they were experiencing at first hand don't you think?

I'm thinking it is not me that is putting too much of a western swerve on this.

So where in the Quran is the book of Daniel?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I have never heard you trying to prove the existence of God. Why would you? You are an atheist and that's fine.

Aup isn't a Vaishnavite so its not his belief, nor is @Vinayaka . It makes no sense for either of them to be trying to prove Krishna is God, when neither of them believe this to be true.

I dont know what the first comment refers to. The other, for example, I dont have to be baptist to know about their beliefs. If we are all christian, we all have the basics.

Why would Krishna not be an incarnation? What is a reason to believe that he is not from you just because both Hindu are not Vaishvinites? I dont see how their "denomination" excludes them from knowing their neighbors religion And culture.

Many people dont see JW and Catholics as christians. I take Their word for it based on what They tell me and Their criteria. Since I am not JW, I have no right to say they are not christian based on my bias, if I had one. I wouldnt assume they dont know about christ divinity all because they have different definitions of what that means in relation to christ.

All gods and goddesses are incarnations of one god/creator. How can any Hindu prove that to you when you only accept what someone has written thousands of years ago after his death than the same religious practitioner who practices and talk with you now?

Why does time frame, death, and whats written authoritze ones comments than today of someone living?

 

[siti]

So where in the Quran is the book of Daniel?

What kind of question is that? Are you suggesting that Persian Muslim culture of the 18th century was confined to what was written in the Qur'an? Daniel's status as a prophet - or at least a holy man, the accounts about his life, the lion's den episode and, particularly (in the context of this discussion) the Daniel 7 prophecy and its interpretation in regard to the Roman empire and the appearance of the Prophet Muhammad are all part of Muslim tradition. The fact that Daniel is not mentioned in the Qur'an is completely irrelevant. Seriously Adrian - you have some fact-checking homework to do before making glib (not to say ignorant) remarks like that.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Aup isn't a Vaishnavite so its not his belief, nor is @Vinayaka . It makes no sense for either of them to be trying to prove Krishna is God, when neither of them believe this to be true.

Let me explain it to you, Adrian. I am an 'advaitist', i.e., a non-believer in duality, that is a valid and a popular part of Hinduism. That precludes my accepting anything like God or Goddess, because that will constitute acceptance of something different. That also makes me a strong atheist.

We believe in existence of 'one entity' (and not one being, i.e., God), which we designate as Brahman. And we believe that this entity constitute all things in the universe. We do not define Brahman and do not claim to understand Brahman completely.

I equate Brahman to 'physical energy', because that is what the universe started with at the time of Big-Bang. All things in the universe, perceived or unperceived are none other than this 'physical energy'. Our scriptures say this over and over again. For example, they say "Sarvam Khalu Idam Brahma" (All things here are Brahman), "Eko sad, Dwiteeyo nasti" (What exists is one, there is no second) or "Aham Brahmasmi" (I am Brahman).

For me, Adrian, even you are none other than Brahman. Even Bahaullah irrespective of what trash he says is none other than Brahman, just like I too am. Even the most pious or the most devilish too are none other than Brahman. Therefore, Krishna too is none other than Brahman. I do not transgress my belief in saying that. Whatever exists, has existed or will exist, in reality or even in imagination, is none other than Brahman only.

Vinayaka names his Brahman as Shiva*. He believes that he can achieve this status not so easily, but in stages, with great devotion and piousness. That is where he differs from me. He does not start with an apriori belief that he is Brahman, but he has the potentiality to achieve the status of no difference with his perseverance. This is what I think of his approach, I may not be wholly correct about this.

* Shiva: gracious, benign, kind, friendly, in whom all things lie, auspicious, propitious, favorable, benevolent, dear, happy, fortunate, liberation, final emancipation (That is sort of anthropomorphization of Brahman).
(Meanings taken from Sanskrit dictionaries at Spokensanskrit.org and Monier-Williams)

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Well past time to leave this thread. Wonder if self will get in the way again.Regards Tony

I would advise you Tony not to let that self draw you back...it is time to go, go, be strong, you can do it.

Regards the stronger self!

 

[oldbadger]

But its easy to see how an insignificant group following an obscure prophet on the other side of the world might pick up on the "Great Disappointment" and turn it to their advantage by declaring someone else who happened to be around in 1844 to be the returned Messiah.

And the Bab was not the Great Messiah.......... Goodness knows where the person was who would decide to rename himself 'Glory of God' and stand up as the Messiah, but he was in obscurity during 44'.

You can do almost anything with Fortune Telling and Numerology, and Bahais use it as best they can. But the more I think about it, the funnier it seems to be............

 

[oldbadger]

We believe in existence of 'one entity' (and not one being, i.e., God), which we designate as Brahman. And we believe that this entity constitute all things in the universe. We do not define Brahman and do not claim to understand Brahman completely.

Believing that 'all is one', constituting all things in the universe (and beyond), and not fully comprehensibe, is what makes me a Deist.

But, calling the above 'The Reason for my Existence, and then shortening that phrase down to 'Goddess' does NOT seem to be so absurd to me.

I use the term 'Goddess' because I have always seen everything in nature as femine, 'Mother ature', that's all.

Of course, many Deists are atheist, and so am I a non-theist because I cannot accept a oneness-in-all that pays particular attention to me, or you.

 

[oldbadger]

I do not watch Stephen Fry anyway. ...............

No? Any particular reason?
His QI show is most popular here.

 

[oldbadger]

My research found Baha'u'llah could do anything He wished to do. He was a remarkable child and history has recorded that.
Regards Tony

Of course he could, he was born into an extremely wealthy and powerful household. Privileged.

 

[oldbadger]

Veils? What veils did he give you? What do you even mean by veil? Is this more Baha'ispeak?

It's Orwellian...... If the system chooses not to communicate all to the people, this is Godly, because it's a veil.

50 years ago western bahais were keen to read all of the writings, translated into their languages....... Veils.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

OK - so the Divine Manifestation did not refer to the OT prophecies in Daniel because the Muslims generally believed the Gospels to be corrupted...even though the specific prophecies were specifically about him and the Bab and pinpointed the exact year of the start of the new world order that he was to usher in...and he knew all about his divine commission from a very tender age even before he was able to read...??? Maybe it just slipped his divine mind? So the Bab died not knowing that the very time of his appearance had been prophesied in Hebrew scripture? And Baha'u'llah - for all his miraculously obtained learning - had no clue that the 2300 days of Daniel 8 were referring to the time of his own appearance to 'cleanse the sanctuary'?

Baha'ullah did refer to Christian and OT Bible, alluding to its verses, saying All are fulfilled. He even specifically referred to the Bab as return of John the Baptist, He also referred to many verses of OT and NT saying they are prophecies of Himself. Those people around Him had Islamic background, and they were asking Him more questions from Islamic point of view, and Christianity. Just the details of them, that is, showing how these are exactly fulfilled eere explained by Abdulbaha, because the Christians asked Him.
Abdulbhaha never studied Religions, and when they asked questions, He replied to them right there immediately from mind and then they wrote His answers. That is how the Book Some Answered Questions was made.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But, calling the above 'The Reason for my Existence, and then shortening that phrase down to 'Goddess' does NOT seem to be so absurd to me.

I have already said that I do not believe in Gods and Goddesses. Being a strong atheist I reject even the possibility of existence of any such being/thing. However, the 'reason for my existence' remains Brahman, 'physical energy', (as I said) with which we started at the time of Big-Bang. Had there being no 'physical energy' involved in the process, I would also have not existed. For me Gods and Goddesses are characters in Hindu mythology. Where do you see a problem here?

BTW, Hindus do not term Brahman as male or female. It is always mentioned as 'it', since it is not a living being.

Abdulbaha never studied Religions, and when they asked questions, He replied to them right there immediately from mind and then they wrote His answers.

But Bahaullah did read the books of Jews, Christians and Muslims to answer their questions. He himself said that. As if the books of this kind are of any value. He added 17,000 of his own.

 

[loverofhumanity]

We have huge differences. For example, (no direspect Vinayaka) but I know Nothing at all, whatsoever about Hinduism. I know nothing about Siva. Nothing about Krishna. Im still figuring out the difference between Brahma and Brahman. Ive read part of the Gita. Ive read the bible. Part of the Quran. And one percent of over a thousand of suttas The Buddha's Dhamma.

Id never equate myself to a Hindu nor Muslim because I respect them and their teachings. Id never equate myself to a JW because I agree with how they define jesus' divinity. Id never equate to anyone's religion I do not practice.

My passion for Eastern faiths do not go no farther than Buddhism. My passion for christianity no father than Catholicism.

I feel it takes a lot of maturity to distance yourself from amother persons religion no matter how much passion we have for it. I never knew that Pagans believe in Eureopean gods and most are polytheistic. I used to be Pagan but now I Know I was never one because I am an atheist. I have no theistic beliefs. It would be entirely disrespectful to call myself a Pagan. pagan, yes. Im not abrahamic. Pagan, no. Witch the same. Its a European word. My family is from the south. Id use hoodoo but very very carefully.

But most of these things are highly highly cultural. You have to practice it. Passion and practice are two different things.

Yes I agree there. I could never know what it is like to be a practising member of any religion I have not practiced.

But traditions and practices handed down through the ages are not experienced by the first followers.

For instance the disciples of Christ believed in what? They had no practices or sacraments or even a Bible? So if they could be true believers without any Christian customs, traditions or practices then that opens the door for other people to do likewise and it is this the Baha’is claimed to have done.

Many of us were not brought up as Christians but that does not mean we cannot become true believers in Christ as the early disciples were. The same goes for Buddha, Muhammad, Krishna and so on.

The Quran took 23 years to reveal compile yet Muslims lived and gave their lives for Islam before the Quran existed.

Belief in a religion is dependent solely upon the Manifestation. We can all believe and accept every Manifestation.

 

[Aupmanyav]

We can all believe and accept every Manifestation.

And what proof the manfiestation has for his authenticity? Just because he says so? Bahaullah did not even walk over water or turned water into wine. Did he?

 

[oldbadger]

I hve already said that I do not believe in Gods and Goddesses. Being a strong atheist I reject even the possibility of existence of any such being/thing.

I have already said that for there to be a 'Reason for all' or 'Brahmin' as you said, my translation of that is 'Deity'.

However, the 'reason for my existence' remains Brahman, 'physical energy', (as I said) with which we started at the time of Big-Bang.

No no...... t'was there before then, and before that. And since our reason for existence is all energy and all material existences, then 'Deity seems to be a reasonabnle translation of Brahmin.

Had there being no 'physical energy' involved in the process, I would also have not existed. Fopr me Gods and Goddesses are characters in Hindu mythology. Where do you see a problem here?

It would appear that the problem is all yours. I'm perfectly prepared to accept that 'Brahmin' is just another word for 'Reason for all' or yet another word for Deity.

Where do you see a problem here?

BTW, Hindus do not term Brahman as male or female. It is always mentioned as 'it', since it is not a living being.

BTW, many Western cultures see 'everything beyond mankind' as 'Mother Nature' and so I like to think of my Deity as feminine, that's all. I don't mind you seeing yours (Brahmin) as neuter.... that's OK.

But Bahaullah did read the books of Jews, Christians and Muslims to answer their questions. He himself said that. As if the books of this kind are of any value. He added 17,000 of his own.

The above sent to another......... but.....
So what?
I never read 'em, did you?

Come on! You yourself have already shown that your religion is extreeemely complex, and based on maassses of intellectual .... well..... junk. The fact of our existence requires nothing more than that we ....... are. All else is just a part of the enegy and material chaos, and your demands about how you see all are just ...... demands, surely?

The Greatest Being is simplicity itself.

 

[Dawnofhope]

What kind of question is that? Are you suggesting that Persian Muslim culture of the 18th century was confined to what was written in the Qur'an? Daniel's status as a prophet - or at least a holy man, the accounts about his life, the lion's den episode and, particularly (in the context of this discussion) the Daniel 7 prophecy and its interpretation in regard to the Roman empire and the appearance of the Prophet Muhammad are all part of Muslim tradition. The fact that Daniel is not mentioned in the Qur'an is completely irrelevant. Seriously Adrian - you have some fact-checking homework to do before making glib (not to say ignorant) remarks like that.

OK, lets do some research then.

Daniel is neither part of the Quran nor the Hadith.

Daniel (Arabic: دانيال, Daniyal) is usually considered by Muslims to have been a prophet. Although he is not mentioned in the Qur'an, nor hadith but are taken from Isra'iliyyat reports, which bear his name and which refer to his time spent in the den of the lions.

Daniel in Islam - Wikipedia

The traditions they for part of are Isra'iliyyat.

In hadith studies, Isra'iliyyat (اسرائیلیات "of the Israelites") is the body of narratives originating from Jewish and Christian traditions, rather than from other well-accepted sources that quote the Islamic prophet Muhammad. These narratives are found mainly in works of Qur'anic commentaries and history compilations. They contain information about earlier prophets mentioned in the Bible and the Qur'an, stories about the ancient Israelites, and fables allegedly or actually taken from Jewish sources.


Muslim scholars generally classify the narratives of the Isra'iliyyat into three categories:

• Those considered to be true because the revelation to Muhammad confirms them.
• Those considered to be false because the revelation to Muhammad rejects them.
• Those not known to be either true or false

Isra'iliyyat - Wikipedia

Would it not be fair to say that as Daniel is neither part of the Quran, nor the Hadith? So we are in the territory of narratives that are not known to be either true or false. So in all likelihood Daniel is a relatively obscure part of Islamic traditions. It seems unlikely therefore that too many Persians in the nineteenth century would have heard about Daniel let alone been well acquainted with the stories.

There are allusions to some of the story in Daniel 7 as you say, but none to Daniel 8 and Daniel 9 that have the specific numbers/prophecy that relate to 1844. That was my point. Why would Baha'u'llah refer to prophecies that Muslims had no knowledge of?