If Jesus could heal blind men, why didn't he just heal blindness?

[InvestigateTruth]

....(For example the case where Jesus rubbed mud into the persons eye).

We need to think a little. If Jesus wanted to cure a physically blind person, He did not need to rub mud or anything into the eye. He could just give the command by His word, then it was done. This is how Scriptures tests us! Think about it a little more.

 

[1robin]

1 robin, I suggest you do some research on 'hidden and allegorical interpretations" by the early Christians.

"The biblical dimension refers to "hidden" or allegorical interpretations of Scriptures"
Mysticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mysticism is something that infected early Christianity (and many others) and was eventually condemned as heretical. I do not see the point. There is nothing hidden for instance in Jesus placing literal mud in a literal eye to get rid of literal blindness. There is nothing hidden behind it, it is simply what it says. Mysticism, Gnosticism, etc... and many other terms are labels for an excuse to change simple verses into something more convenient for groups or individuals with agendas. I have read many books that record the history and evolutions in interpretation in the past 2000 years of textual criticism. There is nothing in there that will (even if true which it is almost universally condemned) that would justify Baha'i's interpretation of scripture and it is not only Christians who say this. Jews, Muslims, and even Hindus have said the same thing. I have no problem with you believing whatever your faith tells you to, my only problem comes in when you use distorted interpretations as an argument.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My point in all these personal stories and anecdotes is, having a physical handicap or birth defect doesn't necessarily make us suffer. We're still able to succeed and live enriching, meaningful lives, despite whatever issues we may have. Our handicaps don't have to limit our choices in what we want to do. And those millions of blind children will often prove to be sources of comfort, support and compassion for each other, for their "normal" families and their "normal" friends.

So if we know by Jesus' example that the wisest course of action is not to heal blindness, does this mean that the people working to eradicate blindness are doing the wrong thing?

 

[1robin]

We need to think a little. If Jesus wanted to cure a physically blind person, He did not need to rub mud or anything into the eye. He could just give the command by His word, then it was done. This is how Scriptures tests us! Think about it a little more.

That is what is called an optimization fallacy. You have decided that if God does not accomplish his goal in a way (That you BTW) decide is not optimal it can't have happened. The entire Bible is full of God doing things through non-optimal ways. You could have just as easily said God should have created all of us in a way we would all have chosen him, or he should have stopped needless suffering, or should have fought Israel's wars himself instead of using their army. This is easily seen as fallacious when you look at what this type of think results in. If God must always act optimally then the only act he could perform is the creation of other God's identical to himself. I do not make it a habit of telling God how he must act (it requires far more arrogance than I have). God could have saved us all with a word. He did so instead by sending his son to Earth to suffer and die in agony. It is less than useless to demand that God act in the way our faulty and finite minds dictate. I know it will be less that useless to give you what the scholars said but I will give one example but none of them agreed with it being a symbolic act. I would bet that you can't find a reputable NT scholar on any side that believes those verses mean what you do.

ulpit Commentary
Verse 6. - When he had said these things, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and with the clay thereof anointed his (the) eyes (of the blind man). The precise meaning and motive of the process here described has been a source of great perplexity to the commentators. We see that, on other occasions, our Lord used his own saliva as a means of cure (Mark 7:33; Mark 8:23). Theme finds in the spittle the symbol of the impurity of the man thus dealt with (Isaiah 1:5, 6), but somewhat inconsistently compares the "clay" with the "collyrium" of Revelation 3:17-19, and the "ausfiuss des Logos." On some occasions Jesus touched the diseased or deficient organ, put his hand on the leper, and his fingers in the ears of the deaf mute. On other occasions, again, he healed with his word only, and even from a distance, those who. in the freeness and royalty of his love, he elected to relieve from their sufferings. He was moved, doubtless, in every case by the 'special condition and temperament of the objects of his compassion. The use of these means was probably intended to evoke the nascent faith that predisposed him to receive healing, to stir the mind of the sufferer into some conscious relation will himself through those other powers of tactile sensitiveness which were in all similar cases singularly acute. Moreover, the virtue of saliva in cases of blindness was well understood. Lightfoot gives some curious proof of this, and Tacitus ('Hist.,' 4:81) and Suetonius ('Vesp.,' John 7.) both record the healing of a blind man by the Emperor Vespasian by the use of jejuna saliva. Pliny (' Hist. Nat.,' 28:7) speaks of the same remedy for the diseases of the eye. "Clay" also is spoken of as being sanative by a physician by name Serenus Samonicus]PGBR> (see Tholuck, Wetistein, Lange, in loc.). These ideas may have had some truth in them, and for the blind man to find the process described, applied to himself by One who spoke of the Divine operations being wrought in him, would work some powerful effect on his moral, physical, and spiritual nature. Such result our Lord intended to produce. But this was only part of the healing process.
John 9:6 After saying this, he spit on the ground, made some mud with the saliva, and put it on the man's eyes.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

That is what is called an optimization fallacy. You have decided that if God does not accomplish his goal in a way (That you BTW) decide is not optimal it can't have happened......

It is not about being optimal or not. It is about God, who does not do useless and illogical things.

Firstly, if a blind person receives sight, he will eventually become sightless again, since he eventually dies and will loose his physical body. Therefore, causing a blind man to see is relatively of little benefit, for this type of sight will at the end disappear.
If the body of a dead person be raised physically, what's the benefit of this, when the body will die again? But what is important, is to give spiritual eye to see the Truth. For by seeing Truth, that person received everlasting life. This is the True Miracle.
Observe that Jesus called those who were seeing, blind, for He meant their spiritual eye was blind!

Secondly, God created everything. Science also comes from God, and God does not do things that contradicts Science. There is absolutely no scientific evidence for Putting a Mud on eye, can cause a blind to receive sight.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Mysticism is something that infected early Christianity (and many others) and was eventually condemned as heretical....

Even if it was condemned as heretical, there is no reason to say, those who condemned it were godly. On the contrary, this is a good evidence how Christianity went off the way of Truth that Jesus had taught. There is no doubt that Christianity did not remain on the right Path as Jesus had established originally.

I quote Baha'u'llah:

"Inasmuch as the Christian divines have failed to apprehend the meaning of these words, and did not recognize their object and purpose, and have clung to the literal interpretation of the words of Jesus, they therefore became deprived of the streaming grace of the Muḥammadan Revelation and its showering bounties. The ignorant among the Christian community, following the example of the leaders of their faith, were likewise prevented from beholding the beauty of the King of glory, inasmuch as those signs which were to accompany the dawn of the sun of the Muḥammadan Dispensation did not actually come to pass. Thus, ages have passed and centuries rolled away, and that most pure Spirit hath repaired unto the retreats of its ancient sovereignty. Once more hath the eternal Spirit breathed into the mystic trumpet, and caused the dead to speed out of their sepulchres of heedlessness and error unto the realm of guidance and grace. And yet, that expectant community still crieth out: When shall these things be? When shall the promised One, the object of our expectation, be made manifest, that we may arise for the triumph of His Cause, that we may sacrifice our substance for His sake, that we may offer up our lives in His path? In like manner, have such false imaginings caused other communities to stray from the Kawthar of the infinite mercy of Providence, and to be busied with their own idle thoughts." Book of Certitude

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I do not see the point. There is nothing hidden for instance in Jesus placing literal mud in a literal eye to get rid of literal blindness. There is nothing hidden behind it, it is simply what it says.

Just continue reading the story of the blind man until you reach the end of it, where Jesus says:

9:39 :And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into
this world, that they which see not might see;
and that they which see might be made blind."

 

[1robin]

So if we know by Jesus' example that the wisest course of action is not to heal blindness, does this mean that the people working to eradicate blindness are doing the wrong thing?

Good night nurse.

 

[1robin]

It is not about being optimal or not. It is about God, who does not do useless and illogical things.

As the commentators made clear there was much logic behind it and our entire existence is an example of doing that which he had no need of.

Firstly, if a blind person receives sight, he will eventually become sightless again, since he eventually dies and will loose his physical body. Therefore, causing a blind man to see is relatively of little benefit, for this type of sight will at the end disappear.

It is certainly of inestimable value to the blind person even if it was only one year of sight. Why give us sight at all in your world view? That was one terrible argument. Sight is of little benefit in comparison with what? WOW

If the body of a dead person be raised physically, what's the benefit of this, when the body will die again?

Why don't you ask Lazarus's sister who rejoiced in ecstasy at the her brothers re-animation and was inconsolable before it how important it is? I don't think you are qualified to say what is important nor do I think any argument may be made as to the importance threshold that God my not go below. Christ gave wine to people at a party, according to non Biblical texts gave life to clay birds, told a women of her past (BTW what does Baha'i do with that miracle?), withered a fig tree, put a coin in a fishes mouth, calmed a storm, and even made an apostles catch a bunch of fish. BTW what do the Baha'i do with the millions of reports of modern miracles or those of even the apostles? I finally figured out what is so frustrating about debating even the most civil Baha'i. There is no frame of reference. Not textual consistency, not scholarship from even the secular side, not commentary, not the over all narrative, if the common ground is not whatever Bahaullah said to believe then there is no common ground. On what grounds can anything be resolved? BTW I saw some major celebrity (US) that said he was a Baha'i, do you which one?

But what is important, is to give spiritual eye to see the Truth. For by seeing Truth, that person received everlasting life. This is the True Miracle.
Observe that Jesus called those who were seeing, blind, for He meant their spiritual eye was blind!

Contrasting the importance between physical and spiritual healing has nothing to do with what God has done. God is not only the God of the most important.

Secondly, God created everything. Science also comes from God, and God does not do things that contradicts Science.

That is silly. The most common and intuitive proof of God is the supernatural. That is a very good indication the man or potential God has no authority over science. Not to mention there is no scientific explanation for many things even possible. Natural law never created anything, many constants are not derived from natural law, the entire universe has no scientific explanation even possible.

There is absolutely no scientific evidence for Putting a Mud on eye, can cause a blind to receive sight.

That is the very reason to believe it was miraculous as those involved and those scholars who have interpreted the events have almost all concluded. Even the ones who deny the miraculous claim that is the intent of the verse even if they think it wrong. In fact I have never heard a non Baha'i claim what you have even among the Bibles critics.

 

[1robin]

Just continue reading the story of the blind man until you reach the end of it, where Jesus says:

9:39 :And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into
this world, that they which see not might see;
and that they which see might be made blind."

Yes he is well known to have used literal events to teach spiritual lessons.

 

[1robin]

Even if it was condemned as heretical, there is no reason to say, those who condemned it were godly. On the contrary, this is a good evidence how Christianity went off the way of Truth that Jesus had taught. There is no doubt that Christianity did not remain on the right Path as Jesus had established originally.

That is what the term heretical means. You can claim they were wrong you can't claim they had no reason to claim it.

I quote Baha'u'llah:

"Inasmuch as the Christian divines have failed to apprehend the meaning of these words, and did not recognize their object and purpose, and have clung to the literal interpretation of the words of Jesus, they therefore became deprived of the streaming grace of the Muḥammadan Revelation and its showering bounties. The ignorant among the Christian community, following the example of the leaders of their faith, were likewise prevented from beholding the beauty of the King of glory, inasmuch as those signs which were to accompany the dawn of the sun of the Muḥammadan Dispensation did not actually come to pass. Thus, ages have passed and centuries rolled away, and that most pure Spirit hath repaired unto the retreats of its ancient sovereignty. Once more hath the eternal Spirit breathed into the mystic trumpet, and caused the dead to speed out of their sepulchres of heedlessness and error unto the realm of guidance and grace. And yet, that expectant community still crieth out: When shall these things be? When shall the promised One, the object of our expectation, be made manifest, that we may arise for the triumph of His Cause, that we may sacrifice our substance for His sake, that we may offer up our lives in His path? In like manner, have such false imaginings caused other communities to stray from the Kawthar of the infinite mercy of Providence, and to be busied with their own idle thoughts." Book of Certitude

Until you can give me a single reason to credit Bahaullah with spiritual authority I have no choice but to consider his words another example of a very very long list of words that came from prophets who never justified the label. There are libraries full of stuff men have said, some better, some worse, some wiser, and some not as wise as what you quoted here that are from others who claimed to be prophets but who did nothing to prove that claim. NO offense intended. BTW why was Bahaullah's name not given in any of the major religions texts?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Why don't you ask Lazarus's sister .....

:biglaugh: :biglaugh: :biglaugh: :biglaugh:
Say Hello to her for me.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

BTW why was Bahaullah's name not given in any of the major religions texts?

On the countrary, His Name does exist in Bible. Baha'u'llah means "Glory of God".

"and I saw the Glory of the God of Israel coming from the east. His voice was like the roar of rushing waters, and the land was radiant with his glory." Ezekiel 43:2

Baha'u'llah came from East to Israel.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Until you can give me a single reason to credit Bahaullah with spiritual authority I have no choice but to consider his words another example of a very very long list of words that came from prophets who never justified the label. There are libraries full of stuff men have said, some better, some worse, some wiser, and some not as wise as what you quoted here that are from others who claimed to be prophets but who did nothing to prove that claim.

Baha'u'llah Himself is the Miracle. The Problem is you have not really study the life and writings of Baha'u'llah much. On the other hand it is not my Job to prove anything to you, or convince you. Everyone is resposible for themseves to investigate the Truth of Baha'u'llah.

But I quote from Baha'u'llah, some of the proofs:

This is what Baha'u'llah said in the Tablet of Hikmat (Wisdom):

"Thou knowest full well that We perused not the books which men possess and We acquired not the learning current amongst them, and yet whenever We desire to quote the sayings of the learned and of the wise, presently there will appear before the face of thy Lord in the form of a tablet all that which hath appeared in the world and is revealed in the Holy Books and Scriptures. Thus do We set down in writing that which the eye perceiveth. Verily His knowledge encompasseth the earth and the heavens.
This is a Tablet wherein the Pen of the Unseen hath inscribed the knowledge of all that hath been and shall be—a knowledge that none other but My wondrous Tongue can interpret. Indeed My heart as it is in itself hath been purged by God from the concepts of the learned and is sanctified from the utterances of the wise. In truth naught doth it mirror forth but the revelations of God. Unto this beareth witness the Tongue of Grandeur in this perspicuous Book.
Say, O people of the earth! Beware lest any reference to wisdom debar you from its Source or withhold you from the Dawning-Place thereof. Fix your hearts upon your Lord, the Educator, the All-Wise."

"Consider this wronged One. Though the clearest proofs attest the truth of His Cause; though the prophecies He, in an unmistakable language, hath made have been fulfilled; though, in spite of His not being accounted among the learned, His being unschooled and inexperienced in the disputations current among the divines, He hath rained upon men the showers of His manifold and Divinely-inspired knowledge; yet, behold how this generation hath rejected His authority, and rebelled against Him! He hath, during the greater part of His life, been sore-tried in the clutches of His enemies." Baha'u'llah


"The learning current amongst men I studied not; their schools I entered not. Ask of the city wherein I dwelt, that thou mayest be well assured that I am not of them who speak falsely. This is but a leaf which the winds of the will of thy Lord, the Almighty, the All-Praised, have stirred." Baha'u'llah

 

[1robin]

On the countrary, His Name does exist in Bible. Baha'u'llah means "Glory of God".

What? That isn't even a name, it's a label.

"and I saw the Glory of the God of Israel coming from the east. His voice was like the roar of rushing waters, and the land was radiant with his glory." Ezekiel 43:2

In what way was Bahaullah's voice like the roar of waters? This is about a contemporary event that occurred in Ezekiel's day. It is not a prophecy and it has nothing to do with Bahaullah. It is in connection with the Temple that existed then. That Temple and Bahaullah are separated by over 3000 years.

Baha'u'llah came from East to Israel.

So have about a million other people. Boy this was a stretch in a half. Is that all you got concerning my request?

 

[1robin]

Baha'u'llah Himself is the Miracle. The Problem is you have not really study the life and writings of Baha'u'llah much. On the other hand it is not my Job to prove anything to you, or convince you. Everyone is resposible for themseves to investigate the Truth of Baha'u'llah.

The existence of a person is no miracle. It does however seem to be what those who can do no actual miracles claim is one. I never said you are required to do anything, I asked a question.

But I quote from Baha'u'llah, some of the proofs:

This is what Baha'u'llah said in the Tablet of Hikmat (Wisdom):

"Thou knowest full well that We perused not the books which men possess and We acquired not the learning current amongst them, and yet whenever We desire to quote the sayings of the learned and of the wise, presently there will appear before the face of thy Lord in the form of a tablet all that which hath appeared in the world and is revealed in the Holy Books and Scriptures. Thus do We set down in writing that which the eye perceiveth. Verily His knowledge encompasseth the earth and the heavens.
This is a Tablet wherein the Pen of the Unseen hath inscribed the knowledge of all that hath been and shall be—a knowledge that none other but My wondrous Tongue can interpret. Indeed My heart as it is in itself hath been purged by God from the concepts of the learned and is sanctified from the utterances of the wise. In truth naught doth it mirror forth but the revelations of God. Unto this beareth witness the Tongue of Grandeur in this perspicuous Book.
Say, O people of the earth! Beware lest any reference to wisdom debar you from its Source or withhold you from the Dawning-Place thereof. Fix your hearts upon your Lord, the Educator, the All-Wise."

"Consider this wronged One. Though the clearest proofs attest the truth of His Cause; though the prophecies He, in an unmistakable language, hath made have been fulfilled; though, in spite of His not being accounted among the learned, His being unschooled and inexperienced in the disputations current among the divines, He hath rained upon men the showers of His manifold and Divinely-inspired knowledge; yet, behold how this generation hath rejected His authority, and rebelled against Him! He hath, during the greater part of His life, been sore-tried in the clutches of His enemies." Baha'u'llah


"The learning current amongst men I studied not; their schools I entered not. Ask of the city wherein I dwelt, that thou mayest be well assured that I am not of them who speak falsely. This is but a leaf which the winds of the will of thy Lord, the Almighty, the All-Praised, have stirred." Baha'u'llah

How is he or what he wrote miraculous. Countless people have concocted theological sounding texts? Miracles are defined as suspensions of natural law. How is writing something an example of that.

 

[nash8]

Baha'i is definitely an interesting faith. My Grandparents mentioned a while ago, as they spent a lot of time in the Middle East, because my Grandfather was in the Coast Gaurd, but I didn't really delve deep into it as I was at the beginning of my spiritual search
That quote sounds like a reference to the akashic records. However, it sounds to me like he's saying that he's the only one that can access the akashic records, and speak the information contained within, which I do find slightly audacious to say the least.

To the debate.

A name is by definition, a label.
I would argue that the idea that any human exists is a miracle in and of itself, but I would also agree that the existance of one human is no more or less miraculous then the existance of another human.

The other thing I think is important to consider is what do we constitute as a miracle.
Would curing the blind be considered a miracle today?

Vitamin A defeciency is the leading cause of blindness in 3rd world countries. What if Jesus simply understood this was the cause of the man's blindness, gave the man some vitamin A, and whola his blindness was cured.

Vitamin A deficiency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think a lot of things we consider today as commonplace, would have been considered "miracles" during that time. At the least, I would say Jesus was ahead of his time as a healer, as I believe he was raised as an Essene, and the Essenes were extensively documented for their healing prowess, and often times, they were even called upon by the elite of Roman society above their own medical doctors.

Lastly, I would like to state that I find the original question in this thread totally illogical. I mean seriously, that's like saying, if one doctor cured one case of blindness in one person, why doesn't he just cure blindness in all people.

 

[Ken Brown]

The word atonement suggests that he paid our price. As a matter of fact it was our sin not his for which he died. 1 Peter 2:24 He himself bore our sins in His body on the tree. He was literally taking what our sinned deserved. His hanging on a tree was a curse, for what was he cursed if not our sin?. I think the term substitutionary atonement sums up what he did very well. Christ certainly did not die for his own sins (he had none). It is also recorded that Christ went to Hell. Is that not what our sin deserves and not anything he did. We can agree that Christ died, we can agree that he had no sin, we can agree that the act saves us if we believe. I think substitutionary atonement the best explanation for those facts.

So you think the only thing the crucifixion accomplished was to shock us so bad we quit sinning? that done at what level of perfection was the goal achieved or the standard met? Once you confirm exactly what it is you are claiming I can respond directly. I have never heard this concept before and need to ask questions and get the details of it before I evaluate it.

I read many commentaries about these verses and none of them claimed what you have. That does not prove your wrong but unless I have a revelation myself is the best that can be done. They all seem to agree that the armies surrounding Jerusalem is the abomination (they being pagans are standing on holy ground). The desolation is either the damage they caused or the wrath of God poured out at the same time. What the Romans did (Temple desecration and destruction is an example) is the most prevalent in commentaries. Do you have any respected scholars that support your interpretation.

I will ask a few more questions for clarity before I critique your salvation model. Do you believe that we must be born again and that occurs the moment we believe in what Jesus did and at that moment all sin is forgiven and the Holy Spirit enters our heart? Do you believe that we must merit salvation by works or lack of sin? That we can achieve a perfect sinless record? Please be brief but specific and address my questions directly as it will save much time.

It sure helps me understand what you are thinking but many questions remain. I do not think at this time it helps me understand the Bible message any better but that is only my opinion and I am not arrogant enough to dismiss something just because it does not agree with me. I dismiss things based on theological and philosophical impossibilities and inconsistency and that can only be examined once I understand what I have asked. Thanks for the info so far and I hope you can give a detailed description in the areas requested.

Hi 1robin, it might help if an overall view of what Elohim is doing would be presented.

What Elohim wants is for us to BECOME like Him, knowing good and evil, and reject the evil and choose the good. For that to transpire, Elohim had to FIRST create us FLESH, being CONSIGNED to sin, and THEN delivering us OUT from that consignment or slavery. Most feel Adam and Eve were sinless with no propensity toward sin, and they with full knowledge did choose to sin. That belief is most certainly false because Adam and Eve were created with the same sinful nature as their offspring (see 1 Cor 15:43-49). The Messiah IS the 2nd Adam or Last Adam, the Spiritual Man, and He did not come FIRST, but rather the sinful, corrupt, dishonoured, and WEAK natural or earthy/fleshly man (see v.46). So in Elohim's plan, man was created IN darkness (blindness) and sin, with a propensity to be AGAINST Him and not to obey Him, because of our naked flesh and it's desires.

Now, as a act of fair play, all according to Elohim's Grace, He is allowing us to use the disobedience that He created us under, to fulfill what the Law required us to do, which is "sinner, sacrifice for your sin." All have sinned and all have this righteousness (doing what the Law required for your sin--which is to sacrifice) as a free gift. In fact, where you increase sin, you increase this Grace for it is by each and everyone one of us sinning, that we did place Yeshua up on the cross as OUR sacrifice.

It takes faith to believe and accept that Yeshua is your offering for sin, but once "seen" a redemption and atonement FROM sin occurs. This redemption should be viewed as being redeemed OUT from the slavery of sin, and the atonement is in how we come up INTO a NEW LIFE without sin. Only doing what is right atones for evil, and ONLY in Yeshua can that atonement occur. This is why the Law requires that on the day of Atonement everyone was to "afflict" themselves. What is that "affliction" or "fast" that Yahweh requires (see Isa 58)? Isn't it to "loose" the bands of wickedness, and undo sinful burdens, and break the yoke of every sin? Entering INTO this FAST causes suffering, for anyone who desires to do Elohim's WILL, undergoes persecution (see 2 Tim 3:12). So LEARNING how to SUFFER as He suffered (see 1 Pet 4:13-19, 1 Pet 2:21) is the atonement and redemption FROM sin, and He suffered and died for us to bring us to that knowledge of the Truth.

Yeshua knew that what was going to happen to Him was THE Abomination which causes desolation, and that those who could SEE, would flee from their sin and no longer have anything to do with lifting Him up on the Cross. The Law and the Prophets specifically state that the shedding of Innocent blood is an abomination, and that putting the Righteous and Innocent to death is abominable. But Elohim knew that our killing of Yeshua would open our blind eyes to see the result of what our wickedness causes...the shedding of innocent blood, and bless us to TURN from our iniquity and have our blindness healed. Hopefully, 1robin you may start to see the difference between a substitutionary atonement and a true and living atonement. KB

 

[InvestigateTruth]

The word atonement suggests that he paid our price. As a matter of fact it was our sin not his for which he died.

Sacrifice of Jesus was like how a seed is sacrificed and its form is destructed but instead a Tree comes to existence that would give good fruits.
Jesus was that Good Seed. By Sacrificing Himself a good Tree came to existence. That good Tree, was no other than the Word of God that was established through Jesus as a new Faith in its own time, and the fruits appeared in the form of Betterment of the World of mankind, so those who are blind may see the Truth. However, after centuries the Tree became too old and no more fruit it gives.

I also quote from the writings of Abdulbaha:

"the religion of God is one, and it is the educator of humankind, but still, it needs must be made new. When thou dost plant a tree, its height increaseth day by day. It putteth forth blossoms and leaves and luscious fruits. But after a long time, it doth grow old, yielding no fruitage any more. Then doth the Husbandman of Truth take up the seed from that same tree, and plant it in a pure soil; and lo, there standeth the first tree, even as it was before. "

 

[InvestigateTruth]

What? That isn't even a name, it's a label.

Baha'u'llah was the Title of the Promised One.

In what way was Bahaullah's voice like the roar of waters?

The Prophecy is saying when the Promised One comes, His Words, the Word of God, is like Water of Life for the Spiritually Thirsty.

Baha'u'llah wrote:

"O peoples of the earth! God, the Eternal Truth, is My witness that streams of fresh and soft-flowing waters have gushed from the rocks, through the sweetness of the words uttered by your Lord, the Unconstrained; and still ye slumber." Baha'u'llah