Claims vs. Beliefs

[Trailblazer]

And you endorsing Baha'u'llah's claims in these discussions is you becoming a proxy for that claim.

You aren't talking to yourself in the car. You are on a public forum that discusses religion, and when you express what you believe is true to others that is a claim of truth.

No, it is not a claim of truth, it is a belief of truth.
I believe that Baha'u'llah's claims are true.
I cannot claim it is true because I did not get any messages from God.
Baha'u'llah claimed it because He knew it.
I can only believe what He claimed. I cannot know it so I cannot make a claim.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yet he wasn't proclaimed the "Son of God" until the council of Nicea. So it took 300 years post resurrection to make that connection? Hmmm

Now you're changing the subject, and you're still wrong. Obviously He was referred to as the Son of God in the New Testament (What Does the Bible Say About Son Of God?), so that didn't start at the Nicean Council, which was the first major Church council (there's been many more since). Christians always recognized Christ as Divine, but the disagreement was over how and what that meant, but the issue became settled.

But the dating of the Gospels is what we were talking about.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is the problem with messengers, interpretation. Throw in translation and it's meaningless waffle.

There will always be a need for interpretation and translation but that does not make it meaningless waffle.

 

[Trailblazer]

I have standards I won't lower for anyone. Child abuse is one of those standards.

Do you have any proof of child abuse?

 

[sun rise]

The Messengers of God made claims in their scriptures. The main things they claimed were that:

1) They were sent by God
2) That God communicated to them

Those who claim to be Messengers do that. There are those who claim to be One with God but outside of that what you write is reasonable to me. We are all responsible to hopefully apply our best judgement in evaluating such claims.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm ruling out any that married young teenage girls.

You mean a 9 year old?

 

[The Hammer]

Now you're changing the subject, and you're still wrong. Obviously He was referred to as the Son of God in the New Testament (What Does the Bible Say About Son Of God?), so that didn't start at the Nicean Council, which was the first major Church council (there's been many more since). Christians always recognized Christ as Divine, but the disagreement was over how and what that meant, but the issue became settled.

But the dating of the Gospels is what we were talking about.

The gospels were written earlier sure. And as I said, not by eyewitnesses.

"The four canonical gospels were written between AD 66 and 110. All four were anonymous (with the modern names added in the 2nd century), almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission."

Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus say "I am God" or "I am the Son of God made flesh". Afaik


The council of Nicaea determined whether or not Jesus was the Son of God, or God based on trinitarian vs non-trinitarian viewpoints.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The gospels were written earlier sure. And as I said, not by eyewitnesses.

"The four canonical gospels were written between AD 66 and 110. All four were anonymous (with the modern names added in the 2nd century), almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission."

Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus say "I am God" or "I am the Son of God made flesh". Afaik


The council of Nicaea determined whether or not Jesus was the Son of God, or God based on trinitarian vs non-trinitarian viewpoints.

You keep changing the subject with every post. First it was the dating of the Gospels, then Nicea and now it's whether the Bible says Christ is God. It's okay to admit you were wrong in the first place, you know. Also, it's possible that the Gospels were written by the traditional authors. We don't really know who first wrote them down. So it could go either way. They were, at the very least, based on very recent events that they were told of by eye-witnesses.

 

[The Hammer]

You keep changing the subject with every post. First it was the dating of the Gospels, then Nicea and now it's whether the Bible says Christ is God. It's okay to admit you were wrong in the first place, you know. Also, it's possible that the Gospels were written by the traditional authors. We don't really know who first wrote them down. So it could go either way. They were, at the very least, based on very recent events that they were told of by eye-witnesses.

You obvs aren't following me either.

Have a good day gentleman.

Edit: all of my posts stem back to this.

"Yet he wasn't proclaimed the "Son of God" until the council of Nicea. So it took 300 years post resurrection to make that connection?" (And I'll add now for clarity "make that connection official.)

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You obvs aren't following me either.

Have a good day gentleman.

Edit: all of my posts stem back to this.

"Yet he wasn't proclaimed the "Son of God" until the council of Nicea. So it took 300 years post resurrection to make that connection?" (And I'll add now for clarity "make that connection official.)

You're the one sounding confused, buddy. But have a nice night.

 

[The Hammer]

You're the one sounding confused, buddy. But have a nice night.

We believe all the things we tell ourselves the hardest huh?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

We believe all the things we tell ourselves the hardest huh?

???? I don't know what you're talking about. You did just keep changing the subjects with each post.

 

[Nimos]

I am tired of being accused of making claims. I am not making any claims because I have nothing to claim since I am a nobody.

The Messengers of God made claims in their scriptures. The main things they claimed were that:

1) They were sent by God
2) That God communicated to them
3) That God exists

I believe their claims but I am making no claims since I have nothing to claim.

Its a fine line and often it gets mixed up. Obviously as you say in regards to the things you mentions here are the claims of the messengers and you as such are not required to prove them right to others.

But often the issue will be in regards to someone asking or wanting a clarification of how a person know that their claims are true. Which means that these are basically claims:

The evidence that supports the claims of any alleged Messenger of God is as follows:

1) Their Person (their character, as demonstrated by the life they led)
2) Their Revelation (the history, which is what they accomplished on their mission from God)
3) Their Words (the words that were attributed to them in scriptures, or what they wrote)

Its sort of the same as when a biologist say that evolution is true and someone might question the claim, such person wouldn't simply throw their hands in the air and say that the burden of proof is on Darwin, because he made the "claim".

So obviously the burden of proof that Baha'u'llah was a messenger of God is on him, but in the same way as with the biologist, if you claim that it is true, then you do have a burden of proof of how you know that. But obviously it is not exactly easy to prove that, whereas the biologist would very easily be able to demonstrate why evolution is true, because there are so many evidence for it, compared to whether or not Baha'u'llah were a messenger or not.

So one could say that it is probably more reasonably for the biologist to claim that evolution is true, than it is for you to claim that Baha'u'llah were right/true. Obviously you are free to believe it, but it will simply be a believe, just as people believing that Jesus were the son of God.

All this makes logical sense if people could only remove their bias and think about what I just said. Of course, it would require atheists to think differently than they have always thought about claims and evidence and see another point of view that they had never considered.

I don't think people should change their point of view on what a claim and evidence is. If you look at the definition of claim:

1. state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.

But there seem to be a huge difference in how people understand what evidence and proofs are and what it means whether these are good or weak, or whether they can even be considered evidence at all.

For example in my opinion, none of those (3) you mentioned above I would consider evidence at all, because I don't see how one could draw a line or conclusion to that meaning that they are a messenger of God.

 

[John53]

You mean a 9 year old?

Some sources say 9, some say early teens.

 

[John53]

Do you have any proof of child abuse?

Evidence yes, 2 of the prophets married young teenage girls.

 

[John53]

There will always be a need for interpretation and translation but that does not make it meaningless waffle.

That is your claim, I disagree.

 

[ppp]

"There is absolutely NO WAY to ever know anything about God without Messengers of God" is a claim, but I did not make that claim. Baha'u'llah made that claim and I believe His claim.

What makes you think it's not a claim when you state it?

 

[Aupmanyav]

The evidence that supports the claims of any alleged Messenger of God is as follows:
1) Their Person (their character, as demonstrated by the life they led),
2) Their Revelation (the history, which is what they accomplished on their mission from God),
3) Their Words (the words that were attributed to them in scriptures, or what they wrote).

The messengers should first prove the existence of God before they make the claim that they are his messengers. Which messenger did that?
"I am a messenger from Orangutan Khan". Now who is Orangutan Khan?
If they did not prove the existence of Orangutan Khan, then they are liars and their message is false.

 

[rational experiences]

Natural first humans were innocent.

Day night balanced with natural life on earth.

No sin as man's science invented mans sin as earth mass removal thesis began about the sun...nothing.

As the sun had in fact on the earth where life of man stood caused sink holes. As first position sun to earth in science as a sink sin hole.

Science position only.

Sun said theists lying as it's only a belief was where earth came from.

Earth in natural terms actually self manifested it's planet body in space womb. Self entity natural human only teaching versus theist. The planet.

No sun theories allowed taught spiritual humanity. No science was accepted. Only a belief.

As natural human is a human thinking as natural first is to life eat drink survive sex. First. Natural thoughts.

No theories first. As a human.

So you ask do we have human evidence that science was practiced before and destroyed all life on earth?

As thought says to a human to be informed means pre advice exists to inform you.

Yes said archaeology machines parts found snap frozen was instant in earths fusion. Human artefacts also.

So how does science manifest it's machine out of gods earth? Is it instant?

It's not instant. Earths body only was instantly fused. The answer why science is wrong. As a practice.

So if all life was destroyed memory is a voice first is only in the clouds mass first all life on earth already destroyed. Memory.

All life including nature stripped back bare to earth machines man of science position only.

Cloud mass owning holographic giant machine used transmitters image human angels and voice. Satan's.

Humans self bio advice where and how a modern man copied giant pyramid destruction of all life on earth.

In one place first origin life was O on earth in America. A crime A. Scene of the crime.

So I was given a human warning by a psychic about a message relating man of God told by angel cloud transmitters....belonged to causes of design of man's machines. Historic. Very ancient.

American pie...bye bye ....all in one place a generation lost in space. No time left to start again.

Americans believed in UFO robotics does a tv program about the robot as lost in space and will Robinson.

Rob in son.

Son of God was taught human man's science had attacked life by new sin holes... yet Gods son clouds saved life on earth. As Phi fallout caused sin had stopped as hovering above the ground.

Life had been saved from burning to death. As nuclear was never above as it wasn't below either. Earth was dust sealed.

As heavens mass stopped it. God is cold and Satan separation lots of burning gas colours sacrificed life.

Science hence is told even before they begin as any theories that the mass of cold heavens being God is not a burning gas as Satan ...
saved humanities life.

No man is God it was a humans only teaching. For humans about human technology attacked causes satanisms.

The teaching said after all life on earth had been destroyed Satan owned the memories of destroyed human life. It was encoded as story images in the clouds.

Satan was by terms clouds first owner knowledge of all life destroyed. Biology nature.

Pretty basic a humans teaching.

If humans die newly sacrificed Satan angel encodings share the data then give new voiced messages.

Which is not a computer program as a computer is an exact machine designed by living man's control. As exact machine only bio humans encoded questions then answers.

The satanic AI is natural as it owns the state itself in natural causes. Only hurt human's ever heard it.

Mind brain prickling as I endured experienced then was taught.

We were specifically human taught why that phenomena status existed as it was human warnings. Science chosen only then as life begins to unnaturally die we are warned.

As Satan's angels fall out and also leave above dispersed into a higher heavens.

So if clouds have to amass far higher in our life supported heavens the earths ground pressures change. We get life attacked as huge storms develop.

Was a human scientists own aware teaching. As humans knew where modern day science advice came from. It was seen and heard by men brothers.

Not from just maths thesis of a biological calculus as a man but from Satan's lies of man's science memory being safe.

Satan's angels safe as cloud mass only was never human life.

The advice why Satan's angels held recorded memories of destroyed human life as men of science had conjured Satan's presence itself was a humans scientific teaching.

Exactly told why by living humans to living humans.

 

[The Hammer]

Evidence yes, 2 of the prophets married young teenage girls.

Doesn't make it child abuse. Doesn't even make it sexual for that matter.

Marriage =\= Consummation