Identical symbolism in Non-Abrahami and Abrahamic Scriptures

CG Didymus said:

Malachi's prophecy wasn't about Jesus and John the Baptist?

Click to expand...

They are applicable to all Messengers, thus in spiritual terms John and Christ fulfilled that prophecy, but not materially.

Christ gave prophecy yet to come about the great and dreadful 'Day of the Lord'.

It is a big topic but this is that Great and dreadful 'Day of the Lord'.

As for your other post, no one should ever becone a Baha'i if they do not want to and are not prepared to accept great change and that first happens in ones own self.

This is a great day, but dreadful for the self that is not of God. As you have said and people have noted about Baha'i numbers, few take up the challenge. Many are called, few are chosen.

Does that not prove why a great day is also a dreadful day?

Regards Tony

Tony Bristow-Stagg said:

One has to consider it is the Laws for this age, suited to the times. Some of these laws yet to be implemented as the time is not right.

Click to expand...

ecco said:

I asked you where you got the authority to make such pronouncements. Since you feel you have the authority to make such pronouncements, you should be able to show us where or what gave you such authority.

Do you expect me to read all that was ever written about Bahai and come across something that says: A person using the internet name Tony Bristow-Stagg can proclaim when scriptural laws can and will be implemented because...?

Click to expand...

Tony Bristow-Stagg said:

You are free to do as you wish. If you were interested, you would look.

Click to expand...

In other words, your comment...
...is not based on any Bahai writings or beliefs. It is based on whatever something you felt like saying.

I have found that Christians have a tendency to make pronouncements, supposedly supported by scripture, and then carefully pick and choose some parts of scripture to support those arguments.

I have found that Bahais have a tendency to make pronouncements, supposedly supported by scripture, and then walk away when challenged to show that scripture.

Tony Bristow-Stagg said:

They are applicable to all Messengers, thus in spiritual terms John and Christ fulfilled that prophecy, but not materially.

Christ gave prophecy yet to come about the great and dreadful 'Day of the Lord'.

It is a big topic but this is that Great and dreadful 'Day of the Lord'.

As for your other post, no one should ever becone a Baha'i if they do not want to and are not prepared to accept great change and that first happens in ones own self.

This is a great day, but dreadful for the self that is not of God. As you have said and people have noted about Baha'i numbers, few take up the challenge. Many are called, few are chosen.

Does that not prove why a great day is also a dreadful day?

Regards Tony

Click to expand...

But what about good people in other religions that are working well and doing well with what they have and aren't "searching" for a new and different religions that is claiming that it has fulfilled the prophecies in all religions? Baha'is, at times, seem to be expecting those people in those religions to come to a place where their old religion no longer works. Is that true? Or, would you be good if they were just more accepting of other religions and tried to get along with them, rather than try and change them by telling them that their beliefs aren't true? Which, even Baha'i do when they tell Christians that there is no Satan, no physical resurrection, Jesus is not God. And with all the religions that have reincarnation in their belief system, Christians and Baha'is and I'm sure some others, are quick to point out that those religions are wrong about reincarnation.

So if others can become more accepting, will Baha'is too. Or, because, Baha'is believe their message is new and of the utmost importance to be implemented, would they continue to try and promote the Baha'i Faith and its beliefs by telling those other religions where they are wrong. 'Cause, as we see here on the forum, people will defend what they believe to be true and will point out why your religion is the one that is wrong?

ecco said:

In other words, your comment...

One has to consider it is the Laws for this age, suited to the times. Some of these laws yet to be implemented as the time is not right.
​

...is not based on any Bahai writings or beliefs. It is based on whatever something you felt like saying.

I have found that Christians have a tendency to make pronouncements, supposedly supported by scripture, and then carefully pick and choose some parts of scripture to support those arguments.

I have found that Bahais have a tendency to make pronouncements, supposedly supported by scripture, and then walk away when challenged to show that scripture.

Click to expand...

Exactly, I question them heavily on their interpretation of some of the verses in Revelation. But, for a religion that claims to have fulfilled prophecy of not only Christianity, but all religions, they don't even go through very much of Revelation. They leave a lot of things unanswered. And, if Baha'u'llah is the return of Christ, those things should have been answered, or better yet, easily seen by all to have been fulfilled. Things like Jerusalem being surrounded by her enemies when God intervenes and destroys them. An army of 200 million gathering in a valley in Israel. Beating swords into plowshares. Nobody's done that. So has the supposed return happened? It don't look like it. And, if it ain't going to happen as prophesied, then what good are those prophecies? Hey, great questions. I've enjoyed and learned a lot from them?

CG Didymus said:

Exactly, I question them heavily on their interpretation of some of the verses in Revelation. But, for a religion that claims to have fulfilled prophecy of not only Christianity, but all religions, they don't even go through very much of Revelation. They leave a lot of things unanswered. And, if Baha'u'llah is the return of Christ, those things should have been answered, or better yet, easily seen by all to have been fulfilled. Things like Jerusalem being surrounded by her enemies when God intervenes and destroys them. An army of 200 million gathering in a valley in Israel. Beating swords into plowshares. Nobody's done that. So has the supposed return happened? It don't look like it. And, if it ain't going to happen as prophesied, then what good are those prophecies? Hey, great questions. I've enjoyed and learned a lot from them?

Click to expand...

I get the feeling that The Bab, Ballulah, Shiogi Effendi and other Bahai leaders were under the impression that extensive meaningless writings could be passed off as wisdom, truth, and meaning.

Obviously, it's good enough to impress some people.

siti said:

Are you? Would you kindly direct me to the original "Buddhist Scriptures" version of the account in question - I have only found it in a 19th century book written in English so far.

Click to expand...

Ya, what do you think Buddha means in this Quote, by the term 'death';

"Those who live at home dissipate themselves unto death, while those who leave home live on with wisdom."

The Sutra of Mañjuśrī’s Questions

Does Buddha mean, if they stay home, they literally, and physically die!?. And if they leave home, they will literally live on, and never die!?

He continues and says:


"Those who live at home lose inner deliberation, while those who leave home obtain inner deliberation"


Here, 'death' is the 'death of wisdom'. It is not a physical death. It is that same death, when Jesus says 'let the dead, bury their own dead.'
'Dead' in these cases, is the misguided, lacking wisdom and true understanding.
When Buddha says, He resurrected them, He is saying, they were lacking true understanding, and thus, were as 'dead', and He guided them, gave them true understanding, and wisdom, thus He made them alive.

I suppose, in the same way, Jesus asked His disciples to go out and preach Christ teachings, Buddha, is asking same, encouraging them not to stay home, but go and teach.
What's your take?

CG Didymus said:

But what about good people in other religions that are working well and doing well with what they have and aren't "searching" for a new and different religions that is claiming that it has fulfilled the prophecies in all religions? Baha'is, at times, seem to be expecting those people in those religions to come to a place where their old religion no longer works. Is that true? Or, would you be good if they were just more accepting of other religions and tried to get along with them, rather than try and change them by telling them that their beliefs aren't true? Which, even Baha'i do when they tell Christians that there is no Satan, no physical resurrection, Jesus is not God. And with all the religions that have reincarnation in their belief system, Christians and Baha'is and I'm sure some others, are quick to point out that those religions are wrong about reincarnation.

So if others can become more accepting, will Baha'is too. Or, because, Baha'is believe their message is new and of the utmost importance to be implemented, would they continue to try and promote the Baha'i Faith and its beliefs by telling those other religions where they are wrong. 'Cause, as we see here on the forum, people will defend what they believe to be true and will point out why your religion is the one that is wrong?

Click to expand...

One most certainly doesn't have to accept a belief in order to accept the other person as being a person, worthy of respect. There simply is no need to try to change anyone's belief. Take yourself, and myself, as an example. I would imagine you would disagree with many of my beliefs, and me with yours. But I simply choose not to go there, because I don't see the need. It's of no value. This is very different than how the Baha'i view other beliefs. For some reason, they feel that they need to convert humanity to their version of thinking.

InvestigateTruth said:

What's your take?

Click to expand...

My take is that you have dodged the question - you quoted a 19th century English text, equated the word "quickened" with "resurrection" and then claimed that you were "sure the word translated 'quickened' meant 'resurrect' in the original Buddhist scriptures" - I asked you to reference the "original Buddhist scriptures" you were referring to and you have (rather belatedly) responded with an entirely unrelated passage from a completely different source that shows that somebody long ago used the idea of death in a figurative sense. I don't for one second doubt that sages of different persuasions have used the notions of death/resurrection figuratively - I never questioned that - but I absolutely fail to see why you should assume that because two (or more) people used the same kind of figurative language they must be the same person. And your clutching at straws to divert attention from the fundamental flaw of your argument - namely that it makes no sense whatsoever - is really not helping your argument at all.

siti said:

My take is that you have dodged the question - you quoted a 19th century English text, equated the word "quickened" with "resurrection" and then claimed that you were "sure the word translated 'quickened' meant 'resurrect' in the original Buddhist scriptures" - I asked you to reference the "original Buddhist scriptures" you were referring to and you have (rather belatedly) responded with an entirely unrelated passage from a completely different source that shows that somebody long ago used the idea of death in a figurative sense. I don't for one second doubt that sages of different persuasions have used the notions of death/resurrection figuratively - I never questioned that - but I absolutely fail to see why you should assume that because two (or more) people used the same kind of figurative language they must be the same person. And your clutching at straws to divert attention from the fundamental flaw of your argument - namely that it makes no sense whatsoever - is really not helping your argument at all.

Click to expand...

It is a translation of Buddhism Sutta. Not a text of 19th century. Right? I don't have the original language of Buddhists scriptures.
This is what I am getting at:
Only in Scriptures of great religions, you can find 'dead', and 'living', having this figurative meaning, and only those scriptures that Bahai Scriptures confirm to be from One God. The quotes were attributed to Buddha, not sages. The only time, sages may have spoken figuratively, is when they were followers of those Manifestations. You cannot find an ordinary poet, writer or whoever else speak this type of language. Why? Because only God speaks that way. If you think other non-religious texts ever used the terms 'dead' and 'living', in this way, go ahead and quote! Can you find Mirza gholam Ahmad, or, the founder of LSD, Joseph Smith spoke in that manner? No, you can't. And I say this, without even searching their books! Now you have a chance prove me wrong.
And the word quicken and resurrect mean the same. Just look at the bible, different translations. See how many times, one translates same verse using the word Resurrect, and another one translates same verse using the word quicken.

@InvestigateTruth

Let me show you an instance that is much closer (at least in my opinion)

Matthew 6:26
"Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?"

And read the following




My point being - you will come across similarities - these were enlightened souls preaching to individuals of all stripes - they provided examples from what was around them

That does not make the main differences disappear

ManSinha said:

@InvestigateTruth

Let me show you an instance that is much closer (at least in my opinion)

Matthew 6:26
"Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?"

And read the following

View attachment 27853


My point being - you will come across similarities - these were enlightened souls preaching to individuals of all stripes - they provided examples from what was around them

That does not make the main differences disappear

Click to expand...

I don't think there is any 'main difference' between them. Sure there are differences, but the differences does not mean all of them cannot be from same divinity source. Now, go ahead and show just one difference, which you think is really main difference.

InvestigateTruth said:

Sure there are differences, but the differences does not mean all of them cannot be from same divinity source. Now, go ahead and show just one difference, which you think is really main difference.

Click to expand...

Are you contradicting yourself? You admit that there are differences and then ask me to show you the main one. As long as there is any - they are different. You just admitted that yourself

Vinayaka said:

One most certainly doesn't have to accept a belief in order to accept the other person as being a person, worthy of respect. There simply is no need to try to change anyone's belief. Take yourself, and myself, as an example. I would imagine you would disagree with many of my beliefs, and me with yours. But I simply choose not to go there, because I don't see the need. It's of no value. This is very different than how the Baha'i view other beliefs. For some reason, they feel that they need to convert humanity to their version of thinking.

Click to expand...

Supposedly in Christianity and the Baha'i Faith, and probably every religion, others can see the good and truthful and righteous ones. The Baha'i quote is something like "let deeds be your adorning". With Christianity, it was something about letting your light shine that all can see. I wonder which religion actually has the most people that live their religion and spirituality more than talk about it? But, then again, telling others about their religion, I guess, is how they are "living" it.

InvestigateTruth said:

It is a translation of Buddhism Sutta. Not a text of 19th century. Right? I don't have the original language of Buddhists scriptures.
This is what I am getting at:
Only in Scriptures of great religions, you can find 'dead', and 'living', having this figurative meaning, and only those scriptures that Bahai Scriptures confirm to be from One God. The quotes were attributed to Buddha, not sages. The only time, sages may have spoken figuratively, is when they were followers of those Manifestations. You cannot find an ordinary poet, writer or whoever else speak this type of language. Why? Because only God speaks that way. If you think other non-religious texts ever used the terms 'dead' and 'living', in this way, go ahead and quote! Can you find Mirza gholam Ahmad, or, the founder of LSD, Joseph Smith spoke in that manner? No, you can't. And I say this, without even searching their books! Now you have a chance prove me wrong.
And the word quicken and resurrect mean the same. Just look at the bible, different translations. See how many times, one translates same verse using the word Resurrect, and another one translates same verse using the word quicken.

Click to expand...

Did the man who got enlightened and became the Buddha think of himself from the One God? And, did he ever say anything about being a manifestation?

CG Didymus said:

Supposedly in Christianity and the Baha'i Faith, and probably every religion, others can see the good and truthful and righteous ones. The Baha'i quote is something like "let deeds be your adorning". With Christianity, it was something about letting your light shine that all can see. I wonder which religion actually has the most people that live their religion and spirituality more than talk about it? But, then again, telling others about their religion, I guess, is how they are "living" it.

Click to expand...

I have a somewhat provocative question for you - if one is truly living their religion - are they supposedly able to accept the flaws within if pointed out to them? Or is the truest adherent one who (perhaps illogically to others) defends the religion because "My prophet is perfect and my religion cannot be wrong"??

I don't think belief is the same thing as 'living'.

ManSinha said:

Are you contradicting yourself? You admit that there are differences and then ask me to show you the main one. As long as there is any - they are different. You just admitted that yourself

Click to expand...

Ok now

CG Didymus said:

Did the man who got enlightened and became the Buddha think of himself from the One God? And, did he ever say anything about being a manifestation?

Click to expand...

Certainly the disciples of Buddha, as well as Buddha believed Buddha was divine, as can be seen, in certain occasions, His disciples consider Him as All-knowing, and All-powerful, and Buddha confirms it. They may not have used the term God in His case, but in terms of attributes, He was described as divine. Now, He presented Himself as someone who became divine, after getting enlightened, but that is just so, others would not be disturbed by His claim, saying why you did not proclaim from beginning. Similar to Jesus, or the Bab and Bahaullah.

CG Didymus said:

But, then again, telling others about their religion, I guess, is how they are "living" it.

Click to expand...

Certainly the ex-Baha'i I have engaged seem to think that was the main activity ... talking about it.

ManSinha said:

I have a somewhat provocative question for you - if one is truly living their religion - are they supposedly able to accept the flaws within if pointed out to them? Or is the truest adherent one who (perhaps illogically to others) defends the religion because "My prophet is perfect and my religion cannot be wrong"??

Click to expand...

The spiritual/religious person that I like and respect the most I would call the "Golden Rule" type of people. They don't push their beliefs but are more on the liberal side and not dogmatic. For the "True Believer" type, they are very dogmatic, fund mentalistic and believe everything their religion believes in.

Christians are obviously have liberals and then their conservative very fundamental people. But, I saw it in the Baha'i Faith also, and maybe it is in all religions. The easy going Baha'is were more like humanists or wanting peace and love over beliefs about whether or not all the laws and all the prophecies are true. The more conservative Baha'is kind of leaned toward being legalistic. And I think that is because anybody can be voted in to serve on the Baha'i local and national spiritual assemblies. So since they are running things in the city or town for the Baha'i community, they were definitely more focused on knowing and doing what Baha'i laws required.

The Baha'is I hung out with in the 70's went to New Age religious meeting, Peace group meetings, Environmental Meetings, Native American Pow-Wows, and even Reggae Concerts. They told people they were Baha'is but only pushed acceptance and wanting to know about the other people's reasons for doing what they were doing. Later, around '86 or so, I went with my Baha'i friends to an Interfaith gathering on Peace. Everyone from the other religions kept it short, about 5-10 minutes. Unfortunately, a Baha'i, one of the more legalistic types, got up and started reading a Peace Statement written by the Baha'i Universal House of Justice. It was long and tedious and not personal, because she was just reading it.

Anyway, for me, the truest are the ones that show their acceptance and love for others no matter what those others believe. The other strict believers aren't being "true" to their dogmatic beliefs if they don't try and change the minds of the "poor lost" souls that need to find salvation or to hear about the "new" truth from the "new" prophet that is going to save the world.