How are these Great Beings explained?

[Vinayaka]

Anyone is free to believe whatever they want about anything. Flat earth, aliens in control, some old guy actually being God, or predictions that are accurate. Belief is one thing. Proof of said belief is entirely another. There is no proof for any of this stuff. It's just what people believe, nothing more.

So go ahead, believe whatever you want to. Just don't come wandering around saying, 'I can prove it.' because you can't.

 

[oldbadger]

Agree to all that you said except the spelling of 'Brahman'. 'Brahmin' is the priestly caste, not what equates to your deity. But as an atheist, I cannot have a deity. .

No Probs.....
Fair enough.

 

[Vinayaka]

According to history, Bahaullah did not go to any school.

As I said before, my great uncle was self-taught. As far as I know, he didn't have any tutors either. And I know he had little money. At that time (turn of the last century for him) it was quite common. It's really not that special. I fail to see any great significance in Baha'u'llah. Lots of people were learned, there were very few schools in those days.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Just plainly false. I (and many others) believe in a religion, but no manifestation. Unless of course you consider all of us as not believing in any religion.

I explained that the early believers what did they believe in? They had no Bible and no traditions or customs or sacraments. Their foundation belief at the time was in the Prophet or Manifestation.

Your religion may be an exception but I doubt if we go back to the earliest believers and I’m speaking about the first 5 or 10bdkivers, at a time they had no traditions had to believe in something somewhere if they had no Book. The typical be,iced was in a Manifestation and this is proven by the fact that even though you say your religion does not have ‘Manifestations’ You still follow deities no?

Somewhere along the line there is belief in a God or deity which when we go back millions of years could have come about from a Teacher or Manifestation but been lost in history?

All the current major religions follow a Teacher such as Buddha or Krishna or Christ. Yours may seem to be an exception but you still believe in Shiva don’t you?

Go back to the very first believers who had no deities and what did they initially believe in? It couldn’t have been the traditions you now follow because they were not in effect when there were only 2-3 believers. It began somewhere and only now after thousands of years has become what it is now but initially what was the original belief? There was even a time when Hinduism did not exist.

Even our own beliefs go back to the earliest Manifestations.

 

[Vinayaka]

I explained that the early believers what did they believe in? They had no Bible and no traditions or customs or sacraments.

It is believed that the earliest (recent, within 10 000 years, this time around) teachers in Hinduism were sages who meditated in caves or forests, delved within, then came out with knowledge. They're not manifestations of God like the way Abrahamics and Baha'i talk about, but enlightened humans who have wisdom from their inner experiences, and were willing to teach. The tradition is that a sage cannot teach unless asked. So they are sages, not manifestations. Of course you're free to call them whatever you want, according to Baha'i. I'm just pointing out that the Hindu interpretation is different. We see everyone as having the same potential, but the soul hasn't been around (in samsara) enough to know it. It's all God, we're all divine, God is knowable.

The tradition of sampradaya goes back a very long way. Sampradaya means a lineage starting with one teacher. So in the beginning, that one sage would have had one student, two at the most, and would have passed on his knowledge orally. Simultaneously there would have been other sages entering caves or forests, meditating for months on end.

You're free to differ, and claim that God only selected a select few, called 'manifestations'. But that's most certainly not Hinduism, nor is it Islam or Christianity.

The nastiest anti-Baha'i sites on line are either Christian or Islamic. They speak of the dangerous cult of Baha'i, and worse. I just point out differences, hoping you might acknowledge them.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Religion is dependant on culture. Manifestations is one belief not many religions/cultures share.

The sacraments of christ are baptism, repentence, commuion, and confirmation. Jesus and john was baptized. They all told peolle to repent to gain gods forgiveness. They ate together with christ at his supper. They told people "whoever says out their mouth jesus is lord...."

The sacraments are there. They arent patented by The Church. The OT has all but one, confirmation.

It means sacred inititation acts (of christ). The disciples lived the sacraments. Hindu the same. I watched a Hindu video earlier and Hinudism isnt the appropriate name for the religion. Its Sanatana Dharma. Probably many Hindu havent heard Hinduism applied to that faith to almost recently. It wasnt heard of until they were called that from the Persians. It wasnt even the name Hindu, as so reading, they called them Sindu. Its also because of communication barriers.

Krishna cant ideally become a christian. Krishna is god.

The sacraments were instituted by the Catholic Church hundreds of years after Christ died. There was no such thing as the sacraments when Christ was alive.

Belief in Christ as a Manifestation was acknowledged by Christ Hinself as the foundation of His religion.

When He asked Peter who He thought Christ was Peter replied He was the Son of the living God. It was then Christ stated that His religion was founded on this foundation rock.

That was the foundation of Christianity according to Christ not any sacraments or traditions or customs Just acknowledgement that He was from God. That is the foundation of our Faith too, that Baha’u’llah was from God.

It’s impossible to divorce the Teacher from the religion unless time has lost the initial teachings. Buddhism identifies with Buddha. Take Buddha out and it’s no longer Buddhism. The same with Islam and Muhammad or the Jews and Moses.

The majority of the worlds religions believe in a Teacher. There is not one country on earth that has its national religion based on a Faith that had no Manifestation or Great Teacher.

And the question arises as to those who say that there is no Manifestation where then did their first believers get their belief in God?

Just because we have no recorded history regarding Manifestations before Hinduism doesn’t mean there weren’t any. Going back billions of years when we had no recorded history how do we know that initially Hinduism was not founded by a Manifestation?

Thr Buddha spoke of the disappearance of the practice of the Dhamma and look at the changes in the past 100 years scientifically alone. So why future Buddhas or Christs if their religion is meant to last forever? Because it’s only meant for an age if you study their Books.

Are we saying things don’t get lost in time? That we know all past history?

Can we be absolutely sure what we know now is all there is to know? We say of course not. We believe that long ago Buddha taught about God, that Hinduism was initially founded by a Manifestation. Can we provide it? No but neither can these things be conclusively disproven unless we are saying we know everything and we don’t so anything is possible and keeping an open mind is the best way to be with regard to things we just don’t know.

 

[siti]

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.

Oh Lord! His "tomb" is in Susa for crying out loud! It was (in the 19th century as well as before and since) a popular attraction for both Jews and Muslims in Persia as well as travellers from farther afield who (along with Persian and Arab historians and geographers had written about it since at least the 11th century). I doubt anyone but the most profoundly ignorant could have failed to have heard of him. Muslim scholars - whom Baha'u'llah spent considerable time conversing with - claimed part of Daniel's prophecy as prefiguring Muhammad's appearance. How could he not have been aware of that? And since the Muslim tradition did indeed incorporate Daniel and his prophesy - why would Baha'u'llah have avoided pointing out the very prophecy that indicated the exact year of the Bab's appearance? It is preposterous to suggest that He did not do so on account of Muslim ignorance of the Bible - and you surely must know that given that the Bab was 'discovered' by a Shaykhi who had been sent out on a quest specifically to find the 'Mahdi' who - it was believed - was already living among them. It certainly could not have been irrelevant to them could it?

But the real question here is not whether the "ignorant Persian Muslims" (I doubt you'd have got away with suggesting that back there and then) were unaware of Daniels 2300 days prophecy, but whether Baha'u'llah was ignorant of its "proper" Baha'i interpretation. Had this perfect and infallible Manifestation of God forgotten what He had caused to be written about himself?

 

[loverofhumanity]

It is believed that the earliest (recent, within 10 000 years, this time around) teachers in Hinduism were sages who meditated in caves or forests, delved within, then came out with knowledge. They're not manifestations of God like the way Abrahamics and Baha'i talk about, but enlightened humans who have wisdom from their inner experiences, and were willing to teach. The tradition is that a sage cannot teach unless asked. So they are sages, not manifestations. Of course you're free to call them whatever you want, according to Baha'i. I'm just pointing out that the Hindu interpretation is different. We see everyone as having the same potential, but the soul hasn't been around (in samsara) enough to know it. It's all God, we're all divine, God is knowable.

The tradition of sampradaya goes back a very long way. Sampradaya means a lineage starting with one teacher. So in the beginning, that one sage would have had one student, two at the most, and would have passed on his knowledge orally. Simultaneously there would have been other sages entering caves or forests, meditating for months on end.

You're free to differ, and claim that God only selected a select few, called 'manifestations'. But that's most certainly not Hinduism, nor is it Islam or Christianity.

The nastiest anti-Baha'i sites on line are either Christian or Islamic. They speak of the dangerous cult of Baha'i, and worse. I just point out differences, hoping you might acknowledge them.

I agree there is a different understanding as we don’t have records available to indicate either way.

At that time so long ago it’s impossible to define who these sages were and how they obtained their knowledge of God but we know recorded Teachers like the Buddha became ‘enlightened’ during meditation. Some had a vision like Muhammad in a cave so there might not be a real difference between a sage or Manifestation apart from semantics or what they each taught.

The early stages in India still taught about God and that’s something many religions agree upon.

 

[siti]

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.

See my responses to Adrian. But also - can you please show me where Abdu'l Baha explains the 2300 days of Daniel 8.

 

[Vinayaka]

Some had a vision like Muhammad in a cave so there might not be a real difference between a sage or Manifestation apart from semantics or what they each taught.

You've got to be kidding! But it shows the loyalty to Islamic roots, I guess.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The sacraments were instituted by the Catholic Church hundreds of years after Christ died. There was no such thing as the sacraments when Christ was alive.

The sacraments of christ is all throughout the bible. The Church does not hold claims on the sacraments just the name itself. If you change the name, its: baptism, confirmation (saying jesus is lord), repentance, and communion. Repentance and communion are in the OT. The rest are in the gospels and Acts. It has nothing to do with The Church.

Belief in Christ as a Manifestation was acknowledged by Christ Hinself as the foundation of His religion.

Christ isn't an incarnation or manifestation of god. He is a human blessed by his father, does the work of his father, represents his father's oral dictations: His-his father's-Words as The Word (play on words). He is no longer human once he is god.

When He asked Peter who He thought Christ was Peter replied He was the Son of the living God. It was then Christ stated that His religion was founded on this foundation rock.

The Church has nothing to do with what I am saying.

That was the foundation of Christianity according to Christ not any sacraments or traditions or customs Just acknowledgement that He was from God. That is the foundation of our Faith too, that Baha’u’llah was from God.

I think sacraments, traditions, and customs are trigger words for you. They are all there in the bible throughout the bible.

He is from god not a manifestation as god.

Muhammad was from god too. That does not make them god. Muslims and Jews know this with their prophets. Most Christians and Bahai do not.

It’s impossible to divorce the Teacher from the religion unless time has lost the initial teachings. Buddhism identifies with Buddha. Take Buddha out and it’s no longer Buddhism. The same with Islam and Muhammad or the Jews and Moses.

Buddhism does not identify with The Buddha. It is about the Dharma. Seeing The Buddha as a "prophet" or manifestation is totally against The Buddha's teachings.

The majority of the worlds religions believe in a Teacher. There is not one country on earth that has its national religion based on a Faith that had no Manifestation or Great Teacher.

What? There are religions that have multiple gods with no head god. There are Pagan gods from Greek mythology. There is a female concept of a creator (one creator) in Africa where ancestors and other gods/spirits relate to their believers so they can relate to their god: no deceased prophets and no teachers.

That is a total generalization. The Buddha is not "great." The Dharma is great. He realized the teachings. He did not create them.

And the question arises as to those who say that there is no Manifestation where then did their first believers get their belief in God?

All god-religions? That's a mistake and generalization. Explain how Bahaullah and Pagan Zues relate to each other. They both are divine for lack of better words. Explain how the Pagan god(s) are not the same as the god of abraham?

Believe in a god does not qualify that deceased believer(s) must be manifestations of these gods yet the ones who are alive are pushed aside and told they are limited in knowledge when these two "people" who found god are only separated by time and whether one has passed or lives.

Just because we have no recorded history regarding Manifestations before Hinduism doesn’t mean there weren’t any. Going back billions of years when we had no recorded history how do we know that initially Hinduism was not founded by a Manifestation?

We cannot speak for Hinduism. We can make assumptions. We can guess. We can try to interpret their books from our filters. That does not mean our opinions and beliefs are facts.

The Buddha spoke of the disappearance of the practice of the Dhamma and look at the changes in the past 100 years scientifically alone. So why future Buddhas or Christs if their religion is meant to last forever? Because it’s only meant for an age if you study their Books.

I mentioned this and you did not comment.

The Dharma: The physical Dharma will decay. A lot of the Sangha (monastics) will stop practicing but The Dharma does not disappear just because people stop practicing and keeping it. It's natural that physical teachings and customs die out with the times.

The Dharma does not.

The religion does not last. What they teach lasts.

Are we saying things don’t get lost in time? That we know all past history?

You'd have to quote what you're referring to.

Can we be absolutely sure what we know now is all there is to know?

We say of course not. We believe that long ago Buddha taught about God, that Hinduism was initially founded by a Manifestation. Can we provide it?

No but neither can these things be conclusively disproven unless we are saying we know everything and we don’t so anything is possible and keeping an open mind is the best way to be with regard to things we just don’t know.

No. That is why we have beliefs. They are facts to us but they are beliefs if talking universally. Facts are universal regardless who does not know it. Beliefs are not.

That is your belief. The Buddha taught that god (Brahma), who he believed existed-he is a theist-does not lead to enlightenment. He literally challenged the incarnation of Brahma (Mara) and said that there is nothing eternal; and, to say so is to go against the laws of nature: the nature of change and karma.

There are no manifestations in Buddhism. That is all bahai beliefs.

They don't need to be proven or disprove. You can hit someone and that person will hit you back or run away. That is karma. You made an action. The person either defended himself or fled. You were affected by your actions via consequences of them. Things change. What you believe now years later you may believe something else. Your perspective changes with time. Your mind changes. If not? Did you think the same way when you were a kid as you do now? We suffer. We have unsatisfactory events we go through in life. A woman with a dying child does not need The Buddha's teachings to know she is suffering.

You do not need god to know this.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Oh Lord! His "tomb" is in Susa for crying out loud! It was (in the 19th century as well as before and since) a popular attraction for both Jews and Muslims in Persia as well as travellers from farther afield who (along with Persian and Arab historians and geographers had written about it since at least the 11th century). I doubt anyone but the most profoundly ignorant could have failed to have heard of him. Muslim scholars - whom Baha'u'llah spent considerable time conversing with - claimed part of Daniel's prophecy as prefiguring Muhammad's appearance. How could he not have been aware of that? And since the Muslim tradition did indeed incorporate Daniel and his prophesy - why would Baha'u'llah have avoided pointing out the very prophecy that indicated the exact year of the Bab's appearance? It is preposterous to suggest that He did not do so on account of Muslim ignorance of the Bible - and you surely must know that given that the Bab was 'discovered' by a Shaykhi who had been sent out on a quest specifically to find the 'Mahdi' who - it was believed - was already living among them. It certainly could not have been irrelevant to them could it?

But the real question here is not whether the "ignorant Persian Muslims" (I doubt you'd have got away with suggesting that back there and then) were unaware of Daniels 2300 days prophecy, but whether Baha'u'llah was ignorant of its "proper" Baha'i interpretation. Had this perfect and infallible Manifestation of God forgotten what He had caused to be written about himself?

His tomb certainly was in Susa along with at least seven other localities we know of.

Tomb of Daniel - Wikipedia

You make it sound like all the Persians would be going to this tomb as it was a significant historic site to them or perhaps part of their pilgrimage. Then when they made this journey, for some over many months at considerable expense, they would open up their bibles or at least the amended version without the gospels to check the details.

I suspect in reality this is just one of many sites that are important to Jews or Christians but of marginal importance, if any for most Muslims.

Of course Muslims didn't read the Bible, OT or NT. Why would they? They view it as corrupted and it has been superseded by the Quran. So why would they hold an OT prophet in high regard that Muhammad never mentioned?

Does Islam Believe in the Old Testament? | Synonym

Islamic view of the Christian Bible - Wikipedia

So once again, why would Baha'u'llah explain to Muslims that He fulfilled biblical prophecies that they do not know about or care for?

Here's a references to Daniel made by Abdu'l-Baha.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 36-44

 

[Dawnofhope]

Funny how prophecies always work much better after the fact. It's like at the Roulette table after it's 35, and the guy says, 'I just knew it was going to be 35'. You can be right every single time ... after the fact. 'Oh yeah, that's exactly what we were saying all along." Frankly, from a logical perspective, it's totally laughable.

I think Aup joining us, has you really fired up. Its time to take the battle to those predatory, wolf like Abrahamics.

 

[Vinayaka]

I think Aup joining us, has you really fired up. Its time to take the battle to those predatory, wolf like Abrahamics.

Oh Aup and I have had our battles. I think he's a closet theist, lol.

 

[Vinayaka]

Oh Aup and I have had our battles. I think he's a closet theist, lol.

Adrian, I don't think you need worry about a couple of old Hindus getting youtr goat. You have much larger enemies than two old fools.

New Zealand Cults, Sects, Religions, Christian Organisations, and other groups

 

[Dawnofhope]

Adrian, I don't think you need worry about a couple of old Hindus getting youtr goat. You have much larger enemies than two old fools.

New Zealand Cults, Sects, Religions, Christian Organisations, and other groups

In that case I hate to break it to you but you are following a false religion. Yes, false!

It is said that although there are millions of gods in Hinduism, not one is a god of love. (There are many gods of lust.) You are invited to read an

open letter to Hindus on the

Christian Answers site.

New Zealand Cults, Sects, Religions, Christian Organisations, and other groups

 

[Dawnofhope]

Adrian, I don't think you need worry about a couple of old Hindus getting youtr goat. You have much larger enemies than two old fools.

New Zealand Cults, Sects, Religions, Christian Organisations, and other groups

Of course no one with any sense in New Zealand pays any attention to this kind of trash.

It probably contributes to the rapidly dwindling numbers of Christians in New Zealand through.

 

[Vinayaka]

Of course no one with any sense in New Zealand pays any attention to this kind of trash.

It probably contributes to the rapidly dwindling numbers of Christians in New Zealand through.

Us versus them. Who do you think they hate more, you guys or us guys, or are we equally hated?

From browsing, I would say 90% of the anti-Baha'i stuff is either Christian or Islamic. In comparison, I find ex-Baha'i rather reasonable. Anti-Hindu stuff tends to be scholarly, and harder to find the true point.

 

[siti]

Here's a references to Daniel made by Abdu'l-Baha.

So neither the Bab nor Baha'u'llah had any idea they were fulfilling Daniel's prophecy in Daniel 8? In fact nobody knew this until it was 'revealed' (oops, sorry, 'interpreted') by Abdu'l Baha in 1908! And he didn't get the idea from any Messianic Christian writings such as Miller's or those who followed him? Honest - he didn't!

 

[InvestigateTruth]

....
I read this from Saoshyant in Wikipedia (Denkard 7.10.15ff): "Thirty years before the decisive final battle, a maiden named Eredat-fedhri ("Victorious Helper") and whose nickname is "Body-maker" will enter a lake (in Yasht 19.92, this is "Lake Kansava"). Sitting in the water, the girl, who has "not associated with men" will receive "victorious knowledge." Her son, when born, will not know nourishment from his mother, his body will be sun-like, and the "royal glory" of the Khvarenah will be with him. Then, for the next 57 years he will subsist on only vegetables (17 years), then only water (30 years) and then for the final 10 years only on "spiritual food." "
Saoshyant - Wikipedia

So Bhaullah also was the son of a woman who had not associated with men? Did Bahaullah subsist only on vegetables for 57 years and the next 30 years only on water? And in the last 10 years, he would not even have water? That makes 97 years in all. But Bahaullah lived only for 74 years. Surely, he was not the 'Saoshyant that Zoroaster meant. Further there was no war in Middle-East in 1847 (30 years after the birth of supposed Saoshyant, Bahaullah). All made up, not even a kernel of truth. Only those who have some benefit by these stories tell them.

Change your nick, 'Investigate Truth', you are not doing that. It should be 'Believe in Falsehood'.

There are 2 issues that needs to be considered with regards to Prophecies and their fulfilment.

First is the issue of authenticity. We need first to see if it can be established that a prophecy is actually from a Prophet or not. For this particular prophecy, it cannot be known if it is authentic and accurate.
Second is the issue of interpretation. The Prophecies often are in a symbolic language, and their interpretations requires knowing the meaning of the symbolic terms and difficult allusions, which is believed is only possible through divine knowledge.

Having said these two issues, I actually find this Prophecy quite compatible with Baha'i Revelation.
There are similar Prophecies like this one in the Bible and Quran, and fortunately Abdulbaha has explained the meaning of many of these symbols for us.
Briefly, the Maiden who is Pregnant symbolizes the Religion of God which is Pregnant with a new Revelation. The new born boy or man, symbolizes the newly born humanity through the new Revelation, and different periods, signifies gradual stages of the growth of the new born Revelation.
There is a period of 57 years in these stages: a 10 years, when the new born is fed spiritually food, a 30 years when he is fed water, and a 17 years, when his food is vegetables.
The Birth of the Bahai Revelation begin in late 1852 and early 1853.
At this stage, Bahaullah did not declare His new revelation until the year 1863, when 10 years passed. This is the 10 years period, beginning of the Revelation.
The second period is after declaration of Bahaullah till His ascension(passing), in year 1892. These are the next 30 years.
Then immediately after passing of Bahaullah, His son, Abdulbaha continued His mission of farther establishing the Revelation of Bahaullah. At that time Abdulbaha was imprisoned, but when 17 years passed from 1892, He was freed in 1908 and this was a milestone for Bahai Faith. He travelled to western countries and spread the Revelation of Bahaullah. Different type of food, in my opinion, signifies different stages of spiritual food or guidance for the new humanity who was born as a result of the new Revelation.
When you add, these three priods, 10, 30 and 17 years, it adds up to the 57 years mentioned in the Prophecy.
Other parts of the Prophecy is also compatible. For instance it refers to the name 'glory', which is equivalent to 'Baha'. It also refers to His Body being like the Sun. The Sun signifies Source of Light, and Bahaullah referred to Himself as Sun of Truth. Light of the sun is the Light of knowledge.
These interpretations are my personal understandings based on Baha'i Scriptures.