• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Christianity vs Baha'i

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
It is ALL about interpretation, as the Bible does not interpret itself.
No where does it "interpret" itself?

Why do you disagree with Christian interpretations of the Bible? I believe that Jesus Christ was the final and complete revelation of God.
I've often heard pastors say that we need to use the Bible to interpret itself when it comes to things that aren't clear. But a lot of things in the Bible seem very obvious what it's talking about. Baha'is add to the need to do more "interpreting" than Christians by making historical stories not literally true, therefore, they come up with symbolic/metaphorical interpretations. Like with the resurrection. Since, for them, it can't be literal, then what could it mean? So they make up an interpretation.
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The Old Testament said that the Messiah would be the Mighty God, the everlasting Father, in human form, in Isaiah 9:6. Psalm 2:7 mentions Jesus being the only begotten Son of God.

May I introduce you to BAHA'U'LLAH, the 'Glory of God', the Father.

Baha'u'llah asks you to look at His person, his life and the Message given.

That is for you to choose, I can only offer it changes life dramatically.

Regards Tony
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
May I introduce you to BAHA'U'LLAH, the 'Glory of God', the Father.

Baha'u'llah asks you to look at His person, his life and the Message given.

That is for you to choose, I can only offer it changes life dramatically.

Regards Tony

Why do you think that the verse in the Old Testament is a reference to God the Father and not Yahweh? Yahweh is the closest name that we have to the Godhead, not God the Father.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Since Jesus was the only begotten Son of God, we know that Jesus was not the Messiah who would be the Mighty God, the everlasting Father, in human form, as per Isaiah 9:6. That Messiah was Baha'ullah.

“Give ear unto that which the Dove of Eternity warbleth upon the twigs of the Divine Lote-Tree: O peoples of the earth! We sent forth him who was named John to baptize you with water, that your bodies might be cleansed for the appearance of the Messiah. He, in turn, purified you with the fire of love and the water of the spirit in anticipation of these Days whereon the All-Merciful hath purposed to cleanse you with the water of life at the hands of His loving providence. This is the Father foretold by Isaiah, and the Comforter concerning Whom the Spirit had covenanted with you.Open your eyes, O concourse of bishops, that ye may behold your Lord seated upon the Throne of might and glory.” The Summons of the Lord of Hosts, p. 63

The expression Mighty God isn't necessarily a reference to God the Father. It can just as likely refer to Jesus. Someone can be a son and a father at the same time. All fathers are sons.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
People don't go to hell because they are sinners they go to hell for rejecting Jesus Christ. God made a way for everyone. Hell is eternal separation from God because our sins separate us from God.
That's a key difference here. Without believing and accepting the free gift of salvation from God, people will die in their sins. If they do accept the sacrifice of Jesus' death, then they are forgiven of their sins and will go to heaven. Baha'is have everybody moving on to a spiritual world where everybody continues to grow closer to God. The worst of us are just further away from God and the best of us, those who have worked on developing spiritual virtues, get closer to God. Those beliefs are quite a bit different. So you can probably see why anything about inheriting sin or a sin nature from Adam can't be true for them. And Jesus coming back to life can't be true, either. Now, regardless if it is true or not, I think that is exactly what the NT is teaching. So it makes the Baha'i Faith more like a "Works" type of religion. And it makes your type of Christian beliefs wrong.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
But Old Testament is speaking of a Messiah who biologically is a descendant of Jesse (out of Jesse). There is no evidence in Bible that Jesus was biologically a descendant of Jesse. But Bahai scriptures says Bahaullah was a descendant of Jesse.

I think we should look into other prophesies as well.
And why someone born in Persia a couple thousand years later would be known to be a descendant of David's father? The NT makes its argument why it is Jesus. And Baha'i writings tells why it isn't Jesus, but rather... Baha'u'llah. What proof is there of either one? We probably have no proof of there even being a Jesse... accept that the Bible says so.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
That's a key difference here. Without believing and accepting the free gift of salvation from God, people will die in their sins. If they do accept the sacrifice of Jesus' death, then they are forgiven of their sins and will go to heaven. Baha'is have everybody moving on to a spiritual world where everybody continues to grow closer to God. The worst of us are just further away from God and the best of us, those who have worked on developing spiritual virtues, get closer to God. Those beliefs are quite a bit different. So you can probably see why anything about inheriting sin or a sin nature from Adam can't be true for them. And Jesus coming back to life can't be true, either. Now, regardless if it is true or not, I think that is exactly what the NT is teaching. So it makes the Baha'i Faith more like a "Works" type of religion. And it makes your type of Christian beliefs wrong.

Do you think our sin nature is genetic? I think Jesus wasn't born of a father because sin is inherited through the father.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
And why someone born in Persia a couple thousand years later would be known to be a descendant of David's father? The NT makes its argument why it is Jesus. And Baha'i writings tells why it isn't Jesus, but rather... Baha'u'llah. What proof is there of either one? We probably have no proof of there even being a Jesse... accept that the Bible says so.

Do you think that the Bible says that Mary is a descendant of Jesse?
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Yes, that matches with Jesus. This is why Bahais believe some of the prophecies of OT matches with Jesus, and some of the Prophecies of OT matches with the Bab and Bahaullah. This is why in Bahai view there are more than one Messiah. One Messiah was Jesus, another Messiah was the Bab, and another Christ was Bahaullah, who came in the glory of the Father.
What verses do you think say or imply multiple "Messiahs"? And by that I mean more than one "The Messiah."
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Why do you think that the verse in the Old Testament is a reference to God the Father and not Yahweh? Yahweh is the closest name that we have to the Godhead, not God the Father.

This is fully explained and understood in the Baha'i Writings. This is the Day of Jehovah.

".... Of Him David had sung in his Psalms, acclaiming Him as the "Lord of Hosts" and the "King of Glory." To Him Haggai had referred as the "Desire of all nations," and Zachariah as the "Branch" Who "shall grow up out of His place," and "shall build the Temple of the Lord." Ezekiel had extolled Him as the "Lord" Who "shall be king over all the earth," while to His day Joel and Zephaniah had both referred as the "day of Jehovah," the latter describing it as "a day of wrath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and desolation, a day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness, a day of the trumpet and alarm against the fenced cities, and against the high towers."

All that applies to Baha'u'llah in the Holy scripture of the past has been noted by Shoghi Effendi.

That list under a spoiler if you wish to see what they may be.

To Israel He was neither more nor less than the incarnation of the "Everlasting Father," the "Lord of Hosts" come down "with ten thousands of saints"; to Christendom Christ returned "in the glory of the Father," to Shí'ah Islám the return of the Imám Husayn; to Sunní Islám the descent of the "Spirit of God" (Jesus Christ); to the Zoroastrians the promised Sháh-Bahrám; to the Hindus the reincarnation of Krishna; to the Buddhists the fifth Buddha.

In the name He bore He combined those of the Imám Husayn, the most illustrious of the successors of the Apostle of God--the brightest "star" shining in the "crown" mentioned in the Revelation of St. John--and of the Imám `Alí, the Commander of the Faithful, the second of the two "witnesses" extolled in that same Book. He was formally designated Bahá'u'lláh, an appellation specifically recorded in the Persian Bayán, signifying at once the glory, the light and the splendor of God, and was styled the "Lord of Lords," the "Most Great Name," the "Ancient Beauty," the "Pen of the Most High," the "Hidden Name," the "Preserved Treasure," "He Whom God will make manifest," the "Most Great Light," the "All-Highest Horizon," the "Most Great Ocean," the "Supreme Heaven," the "Pre-Existent Root," the "Self-Subsistent," the "Day-Star of the Universe," the "Great Announcement," the "Speaker on Sinai," the "Sifter of Men," the "Wronged One of the World," the "Desire of the Nations," the "Lord of the Covenant," the "Tree beyond which there is no passing." He derived His descent, on the one hand, from Abraham (the Father of the Faithful) through his wife Katurah, and on the other from Zoroaster, as well as from Yazdigird, the last king of the Sásáníyán dynasty. He was moreover a descendant of Jesse, and belonged, through His father, Mírzá Abbás, better known as Mírzá Buzurg--a nobleman closely associated with the ministerial circles of the Court of Fath-`Alí Sháh--to one of the most ancient and renowned families of Mazindarán.

To Him Isaiah, the greatest of the Jewish prophets, had alluded as the "Glory of the Lord," the "Everlasting Father," the "Prince of Peace," the "Wonderful," the "Counsellor," the "Rod come forth out of the stem of Jesse" and the "Branch grown out of His roots," Who "shall be established upon the throne of David," Who "will come with strong hand," Who "shall judge among the nations," Who "shall smite the earth with the rod of His mouth, and with the breath of His lips slay the wicked," and Who "shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." Of Him David had sung in his Psalms, acclaiming Him as the "Lord of Hosts" and the "King of Glory." To Him Haggai had referred as the "Desire of all nations," and Zachariah as the "Branch" Who "shall grow up out of His place," and "shall build the Temple of the Lord." Ezekiel had extolled Him as the "Lord" Who "shall be king over all the earth," while to His day Joel and Zephaniah had both referred as the "day of Jehovah," the latter describing it as "a day of wrath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and desolation, a day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness, a day of the trumpet and alarm against the fenced cities, and against the high towers." His Day Ezekiel and Daniel had, moreover, both acclaimed as the "day of the Lord," and Malachi described as "the great and dreadful day of the Lord" when "the Sun of Righteousness" will "arise, with healing in His wings," whilst Daniel had pronounced His advent as signalizing the end of the "abomination that maketh desolate."

To His Dispensation the sacred books of the followers of Zoroaster had referred as that in which the sun must needs be brought to a standstill for no less than one whole month. To Him Zoroaster must have alluded when, according to tradition, He foretold that a period of three thousand years of conflict and contention must needs precede the advent of the World-Savior Sháh-Bahrám, Who would triumph over Ahriman and usher in an era of blessedness and peace.

He alone is meant by the prophecy attributed to Gautama Buddha Himself, that "a Buddha named Maitreye, the Buddha of universal fellowship" should, in the fullness of time, arise and reveal "His boundless glory." To Him the Bhagavad-Gita of the Hindus had referred as the "Most Great Spirit," the "Tenth Avatar," the "Immaculate Manifestation of Krishna."

To Him Jesus Christ had referred as the "Prince of this world," as the "Comforter" Who will "reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment," as the "Spirit of Truth" Who "will guide you into all truth," Who "shall not speak of Himself, but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak," as the "Lord of the Vineyard," and as the "Son of Man" Who "shall come in the glory of His Father" "in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory," with "all the holy angels" about Him, and "all nations" gathered before His throne. To Him the Author of the Apocalypse had alluded as the "Glory of God," as "Alpha and Omega," "the Beginning and the End," "the First and the Last."

And more Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By, pgs. 91-95

Regards Tony
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
In the book of Daniel, the Bible predicted that the one and only Jewish Messiah would come prior to the temple's demise. The Old Testament prophets declared He would be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), to a virgin (Isaiah 7:14), be betrayed for thirty pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12, 13), die by crucifixion (Psalm 22), and be buried in a rich man's tomb (Isaiah 53:9). Only Jesus Christ fits all of the prophecies about who the Messiah would be.
Jesus was the Messiah and He fulfilled all the prophecies for the first coming of Christ, including the ones you noted, but Jesus will not be the Messiah of the End Times (the second advent of Christ) because Jesus never planned to return to earth after He ascended to heaven. (John 14:19, John 17:4, John 17:11, John 19:30, John 18:36)

Baha'u'llah was the Messiah of the End Times and He fulfilled all the prophecies that Jesus did not fulfill.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Both of these I would say weren't clear and, like Trailblazer says, are Christian interpretations. Right now, I think there are difficulties believing either Christians or Baha'is.

King David said that he was brought forth in iniquity. I think that supports sin being genetic.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Jesus was the Messiah and He fulfilled all the prophecies for the first coming of Christ, including the ones you noted, but Jesus will not be the Messiah of the End Times (the second advent of Christ) because Jesus never planned to return to earth after He ascended to heaven. (John 14:19, John 17:4, John 17:11, John 19:30, John 18:36)

Baha'u'llah was the Messiah of the End Times and He fulfilled all the prophecies that Jesus did not fulfill.

Jesus indirectly told the apostle Peter that he planned to return to earth after he ascended to heaven, in the last chapter of the Gospel of John.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
The expression Mighty God isn't necessarily a reference to God the Father.
What other God would it be? There is only one God.
It can just as likely refer to Jesus. Someone can be a son and a father at the same time. All fathers are sons.
Jesus was not the Father, He was the Son.
Jesus was not the fulfillment of Isaiah 9:6-7.

Isaiah 9:6-7 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

Baha’u’llah was the Prince of Peace because world peace will be established during His religious dispensation. Baha’u’llah set up a system of government and it has already been established among the Baha’is. The institutions of that government are fully operational, but still in their infancy. They will be more developed in the future as the prophecy says (increase in government).

These prophecies cannot refer to Jesus because Jesus disclaimed being the Mighty God when He called Himself “the Son of God” (John 5:18-47) and in those verses Jesus repudiates the charge that He claimed equality with God. Jesus disclaimed being the everlasting Father when He said, “my Father is greater than I” (John 14:28) and Jesus disclaimed being the Prince of Peace when He said, “I came not to send peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34). Jesus disclaimed bearing the government upon His shoulder when He said to “rend onto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's” (Mark 12:17, Matthew 22:21). Jesus disclaimed that He would establish a kingdom where he would rule with judgment and justice forever when He said, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36).
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Where in the NT does it teach that? So if Jesus didn't exist prior to being born does that also go for Baha'u'llah?

The Old Testament talks about Daniel seeing a figure that looked like a Son of Man. The Bible talks about Jesus existing before he was born.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
I believe the verse is Jesus telling the churches to listen to Him, telling them that He will return with a new name which will be written on a white stone.

It is all explained in this article. Exploring Christ’s New Name
Here is an excerpt from that article:

In fact, Christ declared that those who would overcome the trials of the end days would receive His new name:

Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God … and I will write upon him my new name. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches. – Revelation 3:12-13

This shows that not only will Christ not come in His own name, but those who try to come in His name will deceive many.

For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. – Matthew 24:5

Clearly, no one, not even Christ Himself, can come in the name of Christ. Anyone doing so would be false. Of course, Baha’u’llah does not do this. He does not claim the name Jesus Christ nor claim to be the person Jesus Christ. Instead, He claims to be the Return of Christ because He is the Return of the Spirit of Christ in a new name, just as Christ prophesied.​
But Jesus forgot to tell them that there will be three "new" names? Muhammad, The Bab and Baha'u'llah? Too many "prophecies" jump over Muhammad and The Bab and go right to Baha'u'llah. Then some go directly to The Bab as if he is "The Messiah" Like the ones that predict 1844 and being the return of The Christ.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Where in the NT does it teach that? So if Jesus didn't exist prior to being born does that also go for Baha'u'llah?
The souls of both Jesus and Baha'u'llah existed in the spiritual world before they were born into bodies in this world.
When Shoghi Effendi said "Prophets" He was only referring to the universal Manifestations of God, not the other two kinds of Prophets. (The Three Kinds of Prophets)

(96) PRE-EXISTENCE - of Prophets
The Prophets, unlike us, are pre-existent. The soul of Christ existed in the spiritual world before His birth in this world. We cannot imagine what that world is like, so words are inadequate to picture His state of being.

(Shoghi Effendi: High Endeavors, Page: 71)
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
In our view, when the Bible is saying Christ returns with a new name, and that new name is written in believers, this is an allusion to the name "Baha". Christ returned with a new name "Baha", and this new name was written on believers "Bahai".
Again, skips over Islam and Muslims and The Bab and the Babi's? Things get interpreted to fit whatever works best for Baha'is.
 
Top