Trailblazer
Veteran Member
No, I do not have the entire list but that is a good question.Don't you know which Prophets are to be considered Universal Manifestations of God?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
No, I do not have the entire list but that is a good question.Don't you know which Prophets are to be considered Universal Manifestations of God?
I already have... Have you?You really need to think about what you just wrote.
I do not believe that dreams are God communicating directly.Dreams don't count?
I fully agree. It has too many negatives and the true God has definite attributes, but as the OP states I did not write that.I believe it has too many negatives. I think one can think of a straw man God as being anything you want to make it but the true God has definite attributes.
That is true and that is a good point. The prophecies Baha’u’llah made in the past have been fulfilled. Now, we can see that because it is the future. Some of His prophecies have not yet been fulfilled because they refer to the Messianic Age which is only beginning.i believe it isn't that way. A person was considered to have heard from God if his prophecies come true. Only a person in the future can determine that unless there is an immediate fulfillment.
Good catch.It takes two to communicate.
The way the argument is expressed (particularly the bit where it says "if God exists") implies that God is not assumed.Obviously, God is assumed or the argument is impossible.
As I have stated repeatedly:Yes, I believe all but two were all frauds, or con men, or delusional, and as such their followers are deluded.
However, followers of the true religions of the past are not deluded because their religions were established by real Messengers of God/Prophets.
I remember you responding to just the verse,...Now try to debunk that.
Baha’u’llah was not God, but He was the Lord of Hosts, which is what those verses were referring to.
As I have stated repeatedly:
All frauds, or con men, or delusional. Their followers? All deluded.
All except you and yours. Uh huh.
Can't you see how silly that is?
What prophecies have been fulfilled? Do you twist Babaullah's words like you tried to do with Micha's?The prophecies Baha’u’llah made in the past have been fulfilled
But conveying information requires two: one to speak, and one to listen. I probably argued this before, but some people are incapable of listening. It's not necessarily a failure on God's part to speak.Good catch.
Communicate is the wrong word because I do not think that the writer of the OP meant a back and forth conversation. The word he should have used is speaking, which would mean God saying something in order to convey information; for example, God might say "I am God and I exist.".
That is precisely God assumed.The way the argument is expressed (particularly the bit where it says "if God exists") implies that God is not assumed.
Logically speaking, how can anyone ever know which translation is correct?
Baha’u’llah was not God, but He was the Lord of Hosts, which is what those verses were referring to.
Actually, I put the verse in the context of the preceding verses. That is something you did not do. Based on preceding verses, I showed that Micah clearly was referring to God. How do we know this? Because the preceding verses said "God"!
There is nothing silly about it at all because there are only a handful of true Prophets.As I have stated repeatedly:
All frauds, or con men, or delusional. Their followers? All deluded.
All except you and yours. Uh huh.
Can't you see how silly that is?
I am not going to argue with you about the *meaning* of Bible verses. I stopped doing that long ago. I do not need to prove I am right about Baha'u'llah to anyone because I have absolute certitude and that is a personal thing you cannot take away from me.Actually, I put the verse in the context of the preceding verses. That is something you did not do. Based on preceding verses, I showed that Micah clearly was referring to God. How do we know this? Because the preceding verses said "God"!
That's right, Baha’u’llah is not God, Baha’u’llah was not God, and the Micah verses refer to God.
Your comments that Baha’u’llah was the Lord of Hosts is nonsensical. "Lord of Hosts" is a term Bahais made up to try to make it seem that when Micah was clearly talking about God he was talking about your Baha’u’llah.
You should realize that if you have to go through such mental gymnastics to make things fit, your concept is ridiculous. But you don't and you never will.
I already told you more than once where those prophecies can be found:What prophecies have been fulfilled?
So God speaking directly to everyone would mean God spoke but they did not necessarily listen and hear what God said....But conveying information requires two: one to speak, and one to listen. I probably argued this before, but some people are incapable of listening. It's not necessarily a failure on God's part to speak.
From the Jewish Bible Micah 7:12 There shall be a day when they shall come unto thee, from Assyria even to the cities of Egypt, and from Egypt even to the River, and from sea to sea, and from mountain to mountain.
New Revised Standard Micah 7:12 (NRS) In that day they will come to you from Assyria to Egypt, and from Egypt to the River, from sea to sea and from mountain to mountain.
New King James Micah 7:12 (NKJV) In that day they shall come to you From Assyria and the fortified cities, From the fortress to the River, From sea to sea, And mountain to mountain.
New American Standard Micah 7:12 (NAS) It will be a day when they will come to you From Assyria and the cities of Egypt, From Egypt even to the Euphrates, Even from sea to sea and mountain to mountain.
Who is "they"?
That is assuming that Sears had an agenda and that is not fair. He had to pick a translation since he could not quote and interpret the meaning of every translation.New International Version Micah 7:12 (NIV) In that day people will come to you from Assyria and the cities of Egypt, even from Egypt to the Euphrates and from sea to sea and from mountain to mountain."They" are people. It sounds like drawing the tribes of Israel back together? But, Bill Sears quotes from the King James...
Complete Jewish Bible Micah 7:12 (CJB) a day when [your] people will come [back] to you from Ashur and from the cities of Egypt, from Egypt and from as far as the Euphrates River, and from sea to sea, and from mountain to mountain.
Why would he quote from a translation that says "he" and leaves off any mention of "Egypt"? Duh, to fulfill a prophecy. So Ecco could be right.
Micah 7:12 (KJV) In that day also he shall come even to thee from Assyria, and from the fortified cities, and from the fortress even to the river, and from sea to sea, and from mountain to mountain.
But even if it is about the Jewish people, we all know that the Jewis people have come back since 1844 so the prophecy was fulfilled.The verse is about God. You and Bill Sears could be right. It is about Baha'u'llah. Or, all the other versions could be right and it is talking about "they", which might be "people", the Jewish people.
Do you understand how futile it is to try to figure this one verse out, given how the translations differ markedly? Unless we can KNOW which translation is actually correct, it makes no sense to bother conjecturing.Is it worth going any further, since I know, in the end, nobody is going to change their minds? Actually, we should. Because it would show if Baha'u'llah really fulfilled a prophecy. Or, if a prophecy was made out of an interpretation of one translation and ignored the other translations. And, do we trust the King James Version as being the most reliable and accurate?
I believe claims are evidence. They can be true or false evidence but what is evident is what is there and what is there is the claim.
I believe what is tried and true but you are delusional because you decide on something in your own mind where things can be quite imaginary.