Evidence for God

[Trailblazer]

Yes, Christians interpret OT in their own way. Jews know the meaning of OT and Christians know the meaning of NT. Baha'i interpretation is distortion of distortion.

Maybe the Jews or the Christians know the meaning of some of their scriptures, but I don't believe they have a clue when it comes to who will be the end times messiah or the return of Christ.

The promise of Comforter was fulfilled when the apostles (and others) also received the HS. In the OT the Spirit of God is not a person. Sometimes it is referred to as the power.

The promise of the Comforter was fulfilled because Jesus was a Comforter. It was fulfilled again by Baha'u'llah since He was 'another Comforter.'
The Comforter is a man who brings the Holy Spirit which is the Bounty of God that comforts people.

The Old Testament was superseded by the New Testament. Jesus was the Spirit of God.

“This is, truly, that which the Spirit of God (Jesus Christ) hath announced, when He came with truth unto you, He with Whom the Jewish doctors disputed, till at last they perpetrated what hath made the Holy Spirit to lament, and the tears of them that have near access to God to flow….”
Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 19

“WE, verily, have come for your sakes, and have borne the misfortunes of the world for your salvation. Flee ye the One Who hath sacrificed His life that ye may be quickened? Fear God, O followers of the Spirit (Jesus), and walk not in the footsteps of every divine that hath gone far astray… Open the doors of your hearts. He Who is the Spirit (Jesus) verily, standeth before them.” Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p, 92

In the video you posted "new name" was used in different meanings - sometimes referring to Christ, believers, God. The meaning of this is vague. I understand it as eschatological meaning - end of this world and beginning of the new (kingdom of God on earth). We don't know the new name because it hasn't happened yet.

It is important to note that Jesus never promised to return to earth, not once in the New Testament, and that means that the return of Christ referred to in the New Testament had to be another man. Baha'is believe that man was Baha'ullah. As the Bible says he would come with a new name, so we know he would not be called Jesus.

Isaiah 62:2 And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name.

Revelation 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

Revelation 3:12-13 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from 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.

The new name means that Christ would return as a man with a new name.

I know you believe Baha’u’llah is the only one who knows the real message of all religions. Why? Because he said so. Circular argument.

I never claimed that Baha’u’llah is the only one who knows the real message of all religions. I only ever said that He knows what parts of the Bible mean better than anyone else, not because He said so, but because of who He was.

 

[PearlSeeker]

The promise of the Comforter was fulfilled because Jesus was a Comforter. It was fulfilled again by Baha'u'llah since He was 'another Comforter.'
The Comforter is a man who brings the Holy Spirit which is the Bounty of God that comforts people.

The Old Testament was superseded by the New Testament. Jesus was the Spirit of God.

Yes, many people are comforters but the particular "another Comforter" in gospel of John is the Holy Spirit. Also elsewhere:

[John the Baptist:] "I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit!" (Mr 1:8)

“If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. The one who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.’” But this He said in reference to the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. (Jn 7)

It is important to note that Jesus never promised to return to earth, not once in the New Testament,

Many times.

Again the high priest was questioning Him, and *said to Him, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” And Jesus said, “I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” Tearing his clothes, the high priest *said, “What further need do we have of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy; how does it seem to you?” And they all condemned Him as deserving of death. (Mr 14)

I only ever said that He knows what parts of the Bible mean better than anyone else, not because He said so, but because of who He was.

And we know who he was because of the evidence that only he knows to interprete.

 

[CG Didymus]

Again... Why does something said to Daniel seal up the whole Bible plus the NT?

Then, when was the daily sacrifice abolished and the abomination set up? That's where the days/years should be counted... not from Muhammad announcing he was a prophet or something of the sort. Here Abdul Baha' ignores the daily sacrifice and the abomination and goes with the day Muhammad proclaimed his prophethood?

Afterward, in verse 11, it is said: “And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolation be set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.” 7​

The beginning of this lunar reckoning is from the day of the proclamation of the prophethood of Muḥammad in the 44 country of Ḥijáz; and that was three years after His mission, because in the beginning the prophethood of Muḥammad was kept secret, and no one knew it save Khadíjah and Ibn Nawfal. 8 After three years it was announced. And Bahá’u’lláh, in the year 1290 from the proclamation of the mission of Muḥammad, caused His manifestation to be known. 9​

 

[Kenny]

As I have always said, there is no proof of God, only evidence. Evidence is not proof unless it is verifiable evidence. There is no verifiable evidence for God, but there is evidence.

My basis for saying I have evidence is my belief in who God is, and that determines what kind of evidence we could have for God. I do not believe that spiritual experiences are sufficient evidence for God because those are subjective and they cannot be experienced by everyone. If God provided evidence in the hope that everyone would believe He exists, I think God would provide some kind of objective evidence that can be examined by everyone. That would give everyone had the same opportunity to believe in God.

When I say I have evidence Atheists always say “that’s not evidence!”

Atheists say I have no evidence but how would they know that what I have is ‘not evidence’ if they don’t even know what evidence for God would look like if it existed?

I came up with a new idea while out on my daily two hour walk last night. Here is my analogy:

Let’s say there are natives who live deep in the jungles of Africa and they have never seen or heard anything from the outside world. Let’s say that an airplane crashed in that jungle and some men went to investigate the crash site. For the sake of argument let’s say that these natives can speak and understand English. So, the investigators ask the natives if they have seen any ‘evidence’ of the airplane that crashed in the jungle. The natives say they have no idea what the investigators are talking about since they have no idea what an airplane is. How would the natives know if there was any evidence for that airplane crash if they don’t even know what an airplane is or what it looks like? Airplane is only a word to them.

Likewise, since Atheists do not believe in the God of theism, they are only left with only a word, God. How can they say there is no evidence for God if they don’t even know what God is? How can they know what kind of evidence to look for if they don’t know what God is? How can they say the evidence would be verifiable if they don’t know what God is? How can they know that God would be verifiable if God existed? Do you understand the problem? It is not logical to say what that evidence should consist of or what it should not consist of if you don’t know anything about the entity you are looking for.

A case in point is what @It Aint Necessarily So said in #574 :

“What I say is that what you offer as evidence doesn't justify your conclusions about it. You have your own standards for justification different from the academic, legal, and scientific communities. Naturally, critical thinkers reject those other standards. That's not going to be changing.”

How does he know that what I offer as evidence for God doesn't justify my conclusions if he doesn’t even know what God is?

If you don’t know what God is how can you say that evidence for God would be according to the standards of academic, legal, and scientific communities? That is not logical.

To claim that evidence for God, if there is any, would be according to the standards of academic, legal, and scientific communities is nothing more than a personal opinion. Now if that is not his claim, and all he is saying is that he will not 'accept' any evidence for God that does not meet those standards, that is a reasonable statement, just as it would be reasonable for an Atheist to say they cannot believe in God without verifiable evidence. However, that is all about what they are willing to believe, not about what is actually possible.

I am looking for people who are logical with whom I can have a logical discussion. Personal opinions mean nothing unless they are based upon logical reasoning.

I see this as sound logic.

 

[CG Didymus]

The promise of Comforter was fulfilled when the apostles (and others) also received the HS.

Acts is all about the Holy Spirit descending on the followers of Jesus.

Acts 1:1 In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 3 After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. 4 On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. 5 For John baptized with[a] water, but in a few days you will be baptized with[b] the Holy Spirit.”​

​

Acts 2:2 When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. 2 Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues[a] as the Spirit enabled them.​

​

In John's gospel it tells who the "comforter"/ "advocate" is...

John 14:26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.​

​

For me, the Baha'is ignore too many verses to make the "comforter" their prophet. But what is even more troubling is how they ignore the resurrection story as being real. Yet... they believe the virgin birth? Too inconsistent for me. They are picking and choosing what to believe is true and what they can say is symbolic and re-interpret and use and apply to their prophet.