The Son of Man and the Saints of Daniel 7

[firedragon]

It is most likely because I am not listening to what you are offering and to that I apologise, my time is short before work and I am on my way.

I thought you would be aware that Muhammed was accused of error. A quick net search shows lots of information is available.

Regards Tony

Brother. I am sorry, but I dont do quick searches and find some useless guy like Abdul Fadi claiming 20 grammatical mistakes. Thats not scholarship. I am very well aware of this kind of evangelism and absurd propaganda, but that's not scholarship.

People can make bogus accusations but lack scholarship. For example, Abdul Fadi wrote a book with the same topic, and plagiarised 20 grammatical differences between the Fusha atthurath and the modern arabic dialects and pretended he discovered them to be grammatical mistakes of the Quran. Then many people like David wood, Jay Smith, Sam Samoun, and some other absolutely unscholarly laymen with no education whatsoever on the subject cut and paste his work with a little bit of extra writing in their websites.

Invalid.

 

[Trailblazer]

Actually the Bab's trail became a farse

I guess you intended to say the Bab's trial....
And it is farce.

Not that it really matters, that is just what I do, correct spelling and grammar when I see it is necessary, as my dad was an English professor, and I was grading his papers when I was 10 yrs old.

Of course content and intention matters more than spelling and grammar.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Brother. I am sorry, but I dont do quick searches and find some useless guy like Abdul Fadi claiming 20 grammatical mistakes. Thats not scholarship. I am very well aware of this kind of evangelism and absurd propaganda, but that's not scholarship.

People can make bogus accusations but lack scholarship. For example, Abdul Fadi wrote a book with the same topic, and plagiarised 20 grammatical differences between the Fusha atthurath and the modern arabic dialects and pretended he discovered them to be grammatical mistakes of the Quran. Then many people like David wood, Jay Smith, Sam Samoun, and some other absolutely unscholarly laymen with no education whatsoever on the subject cut and paste his work with a little bit of extra writing in their websites.

Invalid.

I guess you may be not agreeing with the point that was offered.

Back when Muhammad gave the Message, one of the things He was accused of was of grammar errors.

I may find time to research that, at this time I can not see I can.

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

Hmm. Well, it could be a mistranslation. But I doubt it. Yet, if I confirm this I will let you know. At the moment I cannot deny what you say is a possibility. I dont understand how someone like Effendi can make such an error. Its next to impossible, unless one intends to mistranslate.

If you could please be kind enough to find me the page number only, I can get it confirmed rather than making assumptions.

I have no page number for that previously untranslated tablet. I did a web search for the words in the tablet but I could not find anything.

Anyway if you do wish to compare like that, its alright. I can give you enough and more reasons.

1. Quran manuscripts go back to Muhammeds life time with carbon dating. Manuscripts Arabe 328.
2. Quran manuscripts date to Muhammeds time based on palaeographic dating.
3. Apply form criticism on the Quran and see if you could come up with a general outcome like you would with the Bible. Try the methodology of lets say "Wellhausen" and/or any of the latter, more sophisticated methodologies on the Qur'an.
4. Ask a philologist to read the Quran, analyse it and tell you how many authors wrote it.
5. Quran manuscripts are dated to Muhammeds time by the Maail of the script. Unmistaken.
6. Quran, in its text claims to be the Furqan given to Muhammed.

Thats why. I dont think you disbelieve in the Quran. You just asked the question as part of the discussion. No problem. But can you even think of meeting these criteria with any of the Bibles? Tanakh or the "New Testament", 40 or 50 authors, 66, 73, or 75 books, 27 or 29 books in the NT. Think of these points which are just very few and tell me if any of them can be met. I can vouch for you that none of them can be met.

Yes, I just asked the question as part of the discussion.

No, I do not believe that those criteria can be met with any of the Bibles, Tanakh or the New Testament. No doubt that is why Shoghi Effendi said that the Qur’an is authentic and the Bible isn’t. In my opinion that presents a serious problem for both Jews and Christians.

I will get you the link. But its not necessary that you go there and make a question. Hockey sis?

Quran and New Testament, are they the same in authorship, manuscript evidence, textual reliability?

Sounds like an interesting thread. I’ll try to get over there as soon as I can.

 

[Trailblazer]

Back when Muhammad gave the Message, one of the things He was accused of was of grammar errors.

Do you mean His spoken grammar? As i recall, Muhammad did not write the Qur'an, He dictated it to scribes who wrote it down years later. What I read is that some of them memorized what He said verbatim and some wrote it down.

 

[firedragon]

I guess you may be not agreeing with the point that was offered.

Back when Muhammad gave the Message, one of the things He was accused of was of grammar errors.

I may find time to research that, at this time I can not see I can.

Regards Tony

I have never heard of it. You see, it is only a few scholars like Ayman and Edip who think Muhammed wrote the Quran. Most think he was illiterate. Ummi Nabi.

So I dont really know where this accusation comes from really. There were some who said the Quran has grammatical mistakes, and I have already answered that.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Do you mean His spoken grammar? As i recall, Muhammad did not write the Qur'an, He dictated it to scribes who wrote it down years later. What I read is that some of them memorized what He said verbatim and some wrote it down.

I have never heard of it. You see, it is only a few scholars like Ayman and Edip who think Muhammed wrote the Quran. Most think he was illiterate. Ummi Nabi.

So I dont really know where this accusation comes from really. There were some who said the Quran has grammatical mistakes, and I have already answered that.

Well I consider people wrote it as Muhammad spoke it.

After it was wrote, the accusations happened.

What else can I say

Regards Tony

 

[Trailblazer]

Jesus said that after he would die, and after the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple, many would come in his name saying they were the Messiah and mislead many:

“Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look! Here is the Christ,’ or, ‘There!’ do not believe it.  For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will perform great signs and wonders so as to mislead, if possible, even the chosen ones.  Look! I have forewarned you. Therefore, if people say to you, ‘Look! He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out; ‘Look! He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it."-Matthew 24:23-26.

Do you think when Baha'ullah appeared and said he was the Christ the prophecy of false Messiahs was talking about him? Obviously you do not. But Jesus said not to believe it when they appeared and claimed to be him in the wilderness, or in the inner rooms.

Of course Jesus said that because there have been so many false prophets claiming to be Jesus, but that does not mean that all prophets are false, that is illogical. That would be like saying that because most of the cars in the used car lot are no good that means there is not one good car in the cat lot – illogical.

Besides that, Jesus said that if any man comes claiming to be Christ don’t believe Him:

Matthew 24:4-5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

But Baha’u’llah did not claim to be Christ, He claimed to be the return of the Christ Spirit, another man with a new 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 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.

So if Christ did return how do you think you would know it was Christ? Oh, I see you gave an answer:

Jesus said when he returned it will be as lightning coming out of the east and shining to the west. And that carcasses will be where the eagles are gathered together:

"For just as the lightning comes out of the east and shines over to the west, so the presence of the Son of man will be. Wherever the carcass is, there the eagles will be gathered together."-Matthew 24:27-28.

So I guess you interpret those verses literally. But lightening comes out of the east and shines over to the west in a lot of places on earth all the time, and eagles gather together in many places on earth, so I do not see how that would be a way to know if Jesus appeared. Obviously, these verses are symbolic, but nevertheless if we look at other verses and then look at what happened in history, we can see that Baha’u’llah fulfilled these verses.

18. Lightning from the East

I now began an earnest search for clues that would tell me something about the place in which the Messiah would appear. Two interesting things came to light. For the first coming, Daniel had given the time and Micah had given the place. Daniel had prophesied exactly when the Messiah would appear the first time and when He would be slain. Micah had said of the place: “But thou, Bethlehem … out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel.”(Micah 5:2)

Daniel had also prophesied with even greater exactness the time of the second coming of the Messiah in 1844 (see p. 20). Therefore, I turned to Micah for a possible clue as to the place of His second appearance. I was richly rewarded. In Micah 7:7 and 12 I found:

“I will wait for the God of my salvation … In that day also he shall come even to thee from Assyria …” (Micah 7:7, 12)

The Assyrian Empire at one time covered the entire area in which both Daniel and Micah lived out their lives. Therefore, I chose to study those parts of the Empire, in which these two prophets traditionally lived and taught. To my surprise, I found that there were many other clues to follow as well. Gradually one led to another, until a definite picture began to emerge, and I knew at least in which direction to turn my gaze.

The book of Ezekiel spoke of a great Figure who would come in those days. He said: “And, behold, the glory of the God of Israel came from the way of the east.” (Ezekiel 43:2)

This was clearly a reference to the second coming of Christ and not the first, for Jesus did not come from the way of the East, He came from north and west of Jerusalem. Isaiah in like manner spoke of the wondrous Figure who would come from the East. Isaiah said that it was God Himself Who had “… raised up the righteous man from the east, called him to his foot, gave the nations before him, and made him rule over kings.” (Isaiah 41:2) Even Christ Himself pointed to the direction from which He would appear in the day of His second coming. Speaking of that day, He said: “For as the lightning cometh out of the East … so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.” (Matthew 24:27)

The Jewish Oracles, the Sibylline books, prophesied that the ‘King Messiah’ of the time of the end would come ‘from the sunrise’.(The Messianic Idea in Israel, J. G. Klausner, 1956, p. 376). Daniel had written his words of millennial prophecy while in the East. In fact, he was in Elam, a part of ancient Persia, when he foretold with such startling accuracy the exact time of both the first and the second comings of Christ. It was in the capital city of Persia, Shúshán, (Ancient Susa, Khúzistán, south-west Írán) that Daniel had the prophetic vision that revealed the year 1844 as the time for the return of the Messiah. Daniel not only gave the time 1844, but he also directed attention to the place, saying that ‘Elam’ (Persia) would be given as a place of ‘vision’ in the latter days (Daniel 8:2). The Prophet Jeremiah speaks of things that ‘shall come to pass in the latter days’ and in the verse preceding this, he says: “And I will set my throne in Elam (Persia) … saith the Lord.”(Jeremiah 49:38). I came across a prophecy well known among the Arabs. Speaking of the time of the end, it said:“When the promised One appears, the ‘upholders of His faith shall be the people of Persia.’”(The Dawn-breakers, Nabíl, p. 49). All these prophecies clearly showed that the Messiah would come from the East, and they put a strong emphasis on the territory of Persia. It was something definite to go on. The circle was narrowing.

William Sears, Thief in the Night, pp. 73-75

Daniel 8:2 And I saw in a vision; and it came to pass, when I saw, that I was at Shushan in the palace, which is in the province of Elam; and I saw in a vision, and I was by the river of Ulai.

It appears as if the Throne was set in Elam, not in Jerusalem, as many Christians believe.

The Lord was prophesied to set His throne in Elam, from which the Messiah would rule.
Elam is modern-day Persia, where Baha’u’llah was born.

Jeremiah 49:38 And I will set my throne in Elam, and will destroy from thence the king and the princes, saith the LORD.

When that verse was recorded Elam existed and the verses for the coming of the Lord refer to the latter days.

Jeremiah 49:39 But it shall come to pass in the latter days, that I will bring again the captivity of Elam, saith the LORD.

 

[Trailblazer]

The Baha'i faith teaches that Baha'ullah succeeded Jesus. But scripture says that Jesus needs no successor:

"But because he continues alive forever, his priesthood has no successors.  So he is able also to save completely those who are approaching God through him, because he is always alive to plead for them."-Hebrews 7:24, 25.

First of all, Baha’u’llah did not claim to be a “successor” to Jesus. He claimed to be the return of Christ and the Messiah, the Father foretold by Isaiah.

“O kings of Christendom! Heard ye not the saying of Jesus, the Spirit of God, "I go away, and come again unto you"? (John 14:28). Wherefore, then, did ye fail, when He did come again unto you in the clouds of heaven, to draw nigh unto Him, that ye might behold His face, and be of them that attained His Presence? In another passage He saith: "When He, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth." (John 16:13). And yet behold how, when He did bring the truth, ye refused to turn your faces towards Him, and persisted in disporting yourselves with your pastimes and fancies. Ye welcomed Him not, neither did ye seek His Presence, that ye might hear the verses of God from His own mouth, and partake of the manifold wisdom of the Almighty, the All-Glorious, the All-Wise.” The Summons of the Lord of Hosts, p. 191

“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

Secondly, I do not know what translation you are quoting.

You quoted: "But because he continues alive forever, his priesthood has no successors.  So he is able also to save completely those who are approaching God through him, because he is always alive to plead for them."-Hebrews 7:24, 25.

That does not say the same thing as the KJV and it means something different.

The KJV says nothing about Jesus having no successors, it says he has an unchangeable priesthood.

Hebrews 7 King James Version

24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

Moreover, I looked at all the English translations of Hebrews 7:24, 25 and they all say something different, so how can we know which one is accurate?

The Bible warns that if anyone comes after the gospels to rewrite them or go beyond what they say that they are cursed, be it a human or an angel in heaven:

"However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed."-Galatians 1:8.

I see you found a different translation again, and it means something different.

Galatians 1 King James Version

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

But the Revelation of Baha'u'llah is not "another gospel." Only Jesus had a gospel.
The Baha'i Faith is a new Revelation from God, just as the New Testament was a new Revelation from God that was added to the Old Testament.

Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

But then the New Testament was an addition to the Old Testament, wasn't it?
So Jesus came with a new Revelation from God and added to what Moses revealed.

You were shown clearly in the Bible that Jesus is the son of man foretold but you do not believe the Bible. You don't believe God's word. You need to look inward and assess why your heart rejects what God is telling us from his inspired word of truth.

I know that Jesus was the Son of man, because He claimed to be the Son of man, but Jesus was not the Son of man who was foretold to return in the clouds of heaven. Jesus will never be the return of the Son of man in the clouds because Jesus said He was no more in the world and His work was finished here:

(John 14:19, John 17:4, John 17:11, John 19:30, John 18:36)

Even if you try to circumvent all those verses and say that Jesus will stay up in the clouds and not land on earth, that won’t work because those verses are not about Jesus. It is obvious by the way they are written that Jesus is referring to someone other than Himself.

Look carefully at Mark 8:38. Look at how the verse is separated by a semicolon and Jesus says “also” indicating that the Son of man is someone other than Himself who would come in the glory of his Father with the holy angels

Mark 8:38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

Again, in Matthew 16:27, Jesus said that the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father. Jesus did not say “I will come in the glory of my Father.”

Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Look carefully at Luke 9:26. Look at how Jesus separated Himself from the Son of man (ashamed of me, of him shall), and then Jesus said that the Son of man shall come in his own glory and in His Father’s glory. Jesus did not say that the Son of man will come in my glory.

Luke 9:26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father’s, and of the holy angels.

Obviously, to anyone with reading comprehension skills, those verses are not Jesus saying He is the son of man who will return in the glory of His Father. That was Baha’u’llah, as He claimed:

“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

And since there cannot be more than one Son of man who will return in the clouds, logically speaking, that means all these other verses also must refer to Baha’u’llah:

Mark 14:62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Matthew 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Matthew 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Mark 13:26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.

The title ‘Son of man’ is symbolic of the perfect humanity that Jesus represented, but it does not apply exclusively to Jesus. It ultimately comes from the Book of Daniel, where it refers to the Messiah.

To explain in brief, the ‘Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven’ means that the return of the Christ Spirit promised in the Bible will be made manifest from the heaven of the will of God, and will appear in the form of a human being. The term “heaven” means loftiness and exaltation. Although Jesus was delivered from the womb of His mother, in reality He descended from the heaven of the will of God. Though dwelling on this earth, His true habitation was the realms above. While walking among mortals on earth, Jesus soared in the heaven of the divine presence.

 

[firedragon]

Well I consider people wrote it as Muhammad spoke it.

After it was wrote, the accusations happened.

What else can I say

Regards Tony

Okay. People wrote it. What ever you wish to say is fine.

But who said that he made grammatical mistakes? I would like to know who you are referring to.

 

[firedragon]

Back when Muhammad gave the Message, one of the things He was accused of was of grammar errors.

So Muhammed gave the message in an around 610-632. I would like to see who claimed this in that period just to analyse it.

Please be specific. Thank you in advance.

 

[firedragon]

I have no page number for that previously untranslated tablet. I did a web search for the words in the tablet but I could not find anything.

Okay.

I have no page number for that previously untranslated tablet. I did a web search for the words in the tablet but I could not find anything.

Yes, I just asked the question as part of the discussion.

No, I do not believe that those criteria can be met with any of the Bibles, Tanakh or the New Testament. No doubt that is why Shoghi Effendi said that the Qur’an is authentic and the Bible isn’t. In my opinion that presents a serious problem for both Jews and Christians.

Sounds like an interesting thread. I’ll try to get over there as soon as I can.

I understand.

In my opinion this poses a serious problem for Bahai's too when they take prophecies of the Tanakh as authentic.

I have been asking the methodology of authenticating some parts of it from the first day I asked my first question about the Bahai faith and no one has given a single valid response to that other than "my faith says so".

 

[TransmutingSoul]

So Muhammed gave the message in an around 610-632. I would like to see who claimed this in that period just to analyse it.

Please be specific. Thank you in advance.

Good afternoon, I think my memory of this was from the Movie done in 1976 called the Message.

Have you seen this? It is supposed to be quite an accurate portrayal.

Other than that, I have3 read som much material, I do not know where to look for specific references.

Wiki indicates that Muhammad would have faced verbal accusations as an unlettered person saying a Message was of God. It is not hard to conclude that some of this is recorded somewhere.

"...Muhammad's early teachings invited vehement opposition from the wealthy and leading clans of Mecca who feared the loss not only of their ancestral paganism, but also of the lucrative pilgrimage business. At first, the opposition was confined to ridicule and sarcasm which proved insufficient to arrest Muhammad's faith from flourishing, and soon they resorted to active persecution. These included verbal attack, ostracism, unsuccessful boycott, and physical persecution. Biographers have presented accounts of diverse forms of persecution on the newly converted Muslims by the Quraysh.

Regards Tony

 

[firedragon]

Good afternoon, I think my memory of this was from the Movie done in 1976 called the Message.

Have you seen this? It is supposed to be quite an accurate portrayal.

Other than that, I have3 read som much material, I do not know where to look for specific references.

Wiki indicates that Muhammad would have faced verbal accusations as an unlettered person saying a Message was of God. It is not hard to conclude that some of this is recorded somewhere.

"...Muhammad's early teachings invited vehement opposition from the wealthy and leading clans of Mecca who feared the loss not only of their ancestral paganism, but also of the lucrative pilgrimage business. At first, the opposition was confined to ridicule and sarcasm which proved insufficient to arrest Muhammad's faith from flourishing, and soon they resorted to active persecution. These included verbal attack, ostracism, unsuccessful boycott, and physical persecution. Biographers have presented accounts of diverse forms of persecution on the newly converted Muslims by the Quraysh.

Regards Tony

So nothing about him making "Kindergarten grammatical mistakes" like you said?

It seems like you said that in the heat of discussion but with out any basis. I dont know, but this is what it seems like.

This is why Tony, we must always and heavily try to not commit Tu Quoque fallacies no matter what the discussion is. What happened with that attempt is you have missed the whole point I was making earlier, you misunderstood it completely, and made a claim that's not substantiated.

When a question or a research is launched to understand Shoghi Effendi's translation of Bahaullahs writing, try not to do the Tu Quoque by saying "You too". I hope you understand.

 

[Brian2]

You should study their "New Light" doctrine as it allows previous beliefs to be changed based on better understanding of the scriptures. So the idea that the 144 000 has been fulfilled could possibly be an outdated belief that has been updated. So yes, they do acknowledge that previous beliefs they have had were wrong, even though they might not explicitly express it in that way.

What is definitely happening is that they predicted that the amount of people partaking of the Lord's Supper should decrease, but with the increase of people partaking, they have said that many of those people might be mentally or emotionally unstable, therefore they are wrong.

The question then is, how do they know who is "anointed" and who is not.

I have heard that another reason for ongoing people claiming to be anointed is that some of the previous ones have been rejected by God and new ones have been chosen to take their place.
The new light is a cover all reason for their changes of doctrine over the years. A problem with it, which they do not see is that it means the old light was actually darkness.
The true history of the organisation is hidden somewhat from members with changes to the reprints of previous publications and changes to what was in old Watch Towers in the Year Books, which contain what purports to be the old Watch Tower Magazines.
The reason given is something like they don't want people to be confused by the old light when the new light has come. The truth is probably that they don't really want people to know that they have been so wrong about so many things and have practically prophesied that the end would be in various years.
There is always the hope, no doubt, that word will not get around that the Year Books etc have been altered.

 

[Brian2]

Christ is head of the congregation.-Ephesians 5:23. He is thus ruler over the congregation of God on earth, both of the chosen and called, and those who have the earthly hope. He is now ruling as king over the entire Christian congregation on earth and has been over his people since returning to heaven.

Being Lord and head of true Christians means He has been their King for 2000 years.
How is it He is called their King only now? especially when people have been entering His Kingdom since He announced it 2000 years ago?

 

[Brian2]

Fred Franz made the statement that the call to heavenly life ended in 1935. But since then many 10's of thousands have been called. The Watchtower has several times printed the fact that that understanding was wrong. And that Jehovah has continued to call people to heaven all throughout the last days. This has been in print for well over a decade. How many decades have you been out of touch with the truth?

Does it bother you that the Watchtower has made many mistakes like this in the things they have announced happened or would happen and in various doctrines which have changed over the years?
It seems to me that an organisation which makes mistakes like this and changes doctrine like the Watchtower has, has no right to call itself the one source of God's truth in this age and the faithful and discreet slave who feeds the sheep their food at the appointed times.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I have heard that another reason for ongoing people claiming to be anointed is that some of the previous ones have been rejected by God and new ones have been chosen to take their place.
The new light is a cover all reason for their changes of doctrine over the years. A problem with it, which they do not see is that it means the old light was actually darkness.
The true history of the organisation is hidden somewhat from members with changes to the reprints of previous publications and changes to what was in old Watch Towers in the Year Books, which contain what purports to be the old Watch Tower Magazines.
The reason given is something like they don't want people to be confused by the old light when the new light has come. The truth is probably that they don't really want people to know that they have been so wrong about so many things and have practically prophesied that the end would be in various years.
There is always the hope, no doubt, that word will not get around that the Year Books etc have been altered.

Yeah, I started a whole thread about "New Light" a while back if you want to check it out:

Christian denominations vs JW "New Light", Unity and Truth

Your third sentence is one of the main problems with the "New Light" doctrine. The believers think that they have truth, but do not acknowledge the obvious contradiction with that belief and updating their beliefs. Another interesting point is that if their views are subject to change, then why take any of their current interpretations seriously? On top of that, they often say that they just teach obvious truths from the Bible, as if they rely on the Bible for their faith when in fact they rely on the interpretations of the Bible as put forth by men, otherwise the organisation changing their "understanding" wouldn't result in the followers suddenly adapting their "beliefs".

This topic is a deep rabbit hole though. I was even discouraged from reading the books of the founder for some reason. Probably because he calculated the 1914 prophecy based off the measurements of the pyramids rather than taking it from the scriptures. Then the organisation retrofitted the Bibles text to suit that prophecy and in the process had to reject history in order to get it to match.

 

[Trailblazer]

In my opinion this poses a serious problem for Bahai's too when they take prophecies of the Tanakh as authentic.

I have been asking the methodology of authenticating some parts of it from the first day I asked my first question about the Bahai faith and no one has given a single valid response to that other than "my faith says so".

Why do you think that the truth about who Baha'u'llah claims to be hinges upon whether the prophecies on the Tanakh are authentic? I guess you are questioning their accuracy? That is a valid point, but if the Tanakh is not accurate that brings down the entire Jewish religion like a house of cards, and all the prophecies that Christians claim are about Jesus at His first coming also come toppling down.

The claims of Baha'u'llah are not contingent upon whether the Bible is wholly authentic or accurate, the claims are contingent upon the Revelation of Baha'u'llah, who Baha'u'llah was as a person, the history of the Baha'i Faith, and the Writings of Baha'u'llah. I would say the same is true for Islam, it does not rely upon the Bible for validation because it is a Revelation from God through Muhammad that stands on its own merit, even though it was preceded by what happened in the past as represented in the Tanakh and the New Testament.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

So nothing about him making "Kindergarten grammatical mistakes" like you said?

It seems like you said that in the heat of discussion but with out any basis. I dont know, but this is what it seems like.

This is why Tony, we must always and heavily try to not commit Tu Quoque fallacies no matter what the discussion is. What happened with that attempt is you have missed the whole point I was making earlier, you misunderstood it completely, and made a claim that's not substantiated.

When a question or a research is launched to understand Shoghi Effendi's translation of Bahaullahs writing, try not to do the Tu Quoque by saying "You too". I hope you understand.

I understand what I said about Muhammad happened, no doubts. The learned of the age of a Messenger always ridicule God's Word in such a manner, as it is new and revolutionary.

So I ask you a question, what persecution did Muhammad face, can you rightly name everything?

My comments are based on knowing what Baha'u'llah has said Muhammad faced and what he faced, the Bab and Baha'u'llah also faced.

If you watch the movie, I think that is where I may have seen what happened to Muhammad was the same as the Bab.

If you have not seen the movie, this is what most likely also happened to Muhammad.

Extract from Bab's trial;

Spoiler

At last the stillness which brooded over them was broken by the Nizámu’l-‘Ulama’. “Whom do you claim to be,” he asked the Báb, “and what is the message which you have brought?” “I am,” thrice exclaimed the Báb, “I am, I am, the promised One! I am the One whose name you have for a thousand years invoked, at whose
mention you have risen, whose advent you have longed to witness, and the hour of whose Revelation you have prayed God to hasten. Verily I say, it is incumbent upon the peoples of both the East and the West to obey My word and to pledge allegiance to My person.” No one ventured to reply except Mullá Muhammad-i-Mamaqání, a leader of the Shaykhí community who had been himself a disciple of Siyyid Kázim. It was he on whose unfaithfulness and insincerity the siyyid had tearfully remarked, and the perversity of whose nature he had deplored. Shaykh Hasan-i-Zunúzí, who had heard Siyyid Kázim make these criticisms, recounted to me the following: “I was greatly surprised at the tone of his reference to Mullá Muhammad, and was curious to know what his future behaviour would be so as to merit such expressions of pity and condemnation from his master. Not until I discovered his attitude that day towards the Báb did I realise the extent of his arrogance and blindness. I was standing together with other people outside the hall, and was able to follow the conversation of those who were within. Mullá Muhammad was seated on the left hand of the Valí-‘Ahd. The Báb was occupying a seat between them. Immediately after He had declared Himself to be the promised One, a feeling of awe seized those who were present. They had dropped their heads in silent confusion. The pallor of their faces betrayed the agitation of their hearts. Mullá Muhammad, that one-eyed and white-bearded renegade, insolently reprimanded Him, saying: ‘You wretched and immature lad of Shíráz! You have already convulsed and
subverted ‘Iráq; do you now wish to arouse a like turmoil in Ádhirbayján?’ ‘Your Honour,’ replied the Báb, ‘I have not come hither of My own accord. I have been summoned to this place.’ ‘Hold your peace,’ furiously retorted Mullá Muhammad, ‘you perverse and contemptible follower of Satan!’ ‘Your Honour,’ the Báb again answered, ‘I maintain what I have already declared.’
6 The power to produce such evidence has been given to Me by God. Within the space of two days and two nights, I declare Myself able to reveal verses of such number as will equal the whole of the Qur’án.’ ‘Describe orally, if you speak the truth,’ the Nizámu’l-‘Ulama’ requested, ‘the proceedings of this gathering in language that will resemble the phraseology of the verses of the Qur’án so that the Valí-‘Ahd and the assembled divines may bear witness to the truth of your claim.’ The Báb readily acceded to his wish. No sooner had He uttered the words, ‘In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate, praise be to Him who has created the heaven and the earth,’ than Mullá Muhammad-i-Mamaqání interrupted and called His attention to all infraction of the rules of grammar. ‘This self-appointed Qá’im of ours,’ he cried in haughty scorn, ‘has at the very start of his address betrayed his ignorance of the most rudimentary rules of grammar!’ ‘The Qur’án itself,’ pleaded the Báb, ‘does in no wise accord with the rules and conventions current amongst men. The Word of God can never be subject to the limitations
of His creatures. Nay, the rules and canons which men have adopted have been deduced from the text of the Word of God and are based upon it. These men have, in the very texts of that holy Book, discovered no less than three hundred instances of grammatical error, such as the one you now criticise. Inasmuch as it was the Word of God, they had no other alternative except to resign themselves to His will.’
“He then repeated the same-words He had uttered, to which Mullá Muhammad raised again the same objection. Shortly after, another person ventured to put this question to the Báb: ‘To which tense does the word Ishtartanna belong?’ In answer to him, the Báb quoted this verse of the Qur’án: ‘Far be the glory of thy Lord, the Lord of all greatness, from what they impute to Him, and peace be upon His Apostles! And praise be to God, the Lord of the worlds.’ Immediately after, He arose and left the gathering.”

An extract what the Bab said at His trial about the Quran.

".... Nay, the rules and canons which men have adopted have been deduced from the text of the Word of God and are based upon it. These men have, in the very texts of that holy Book, discovered no less than three hundred instances of grammatical error, such as the one you now criticise. Inasmuch as it was the Word of God, they had no other alternative except to resign themselves to His will.’..... "

Regards Tony