Comforter and Prince of Truth

Feb 2019
197
Chicago
On the topic of "Prince of this World", this is in reference to John 12:31, which reads "Now judgment is upon this world; now the prince of this world will be cast out."

This verse and the surrounding verses speak of Jesus' death and resurrection. The conventional interpretation is, thus, the Devil is the "Prince of this World" who is cast out via resurrection.

Shoghi Effendi appears to have mistakenly read it as referring to Jesus' death, as him being the "prince of this world" who was "cast out" via crucifixion. This interpretation probably brought about since John 12:32 continues with "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself."

Thus with one sentence talking about someone being cast out and the very next sentence talking about Jesus being lifted from the world, one could easily make a connection that the two verses were speaking about the same thing.

(Some other Baha'is might take umbrage at how I used the word "mistakenly" to describe Shoghi Effendi's read of this verse. I think it is important to keep in mind that Shoghi, by his own words, only possesses Isma (Infallibility) in regards to his interpretation of the Baha'i writings. We are given divine no guarantee of his accuracy in regards to the interpretation of the Bible, and as such it is possible for him to be in error or mistaken about a piece of Bible terminology. Given the widespread understanding of John 12:31, I'd think this interpretation was simply an misunderstanding.)
I think Shoghi Effendi was closer to truth than the conventional interpretation. To properly understand what Jesus meant, we have to consider all the verses in John 12:27-33. By "Prince of this World", Jesus was referring to Christ Consciousness which is the "Son" present as Divine Intelligence in all creation and everyone including Jesus. He was saying that upon his death, the Christ Consciousness would be cast out from his body (since it is tied to the soul that will leave his body). Jesus went on to say that if his soul were lifted (resurrected) - that is victorious in spirit over death - word of his divine life and teachings would then attract the attention of all peoples.

Jesus was not referring to the Devil by "Prince of this World" because there is no evidence in the words of Jesus that he was possessed by the Devil.
 
Feb 2019
197
Chicago
There can be confusion regarding the terms “Prince of Peace” and “Prince of this world” as found in the Gospels and in the Baha’i teachings. This topic was discussed in another thread on this forum, and member Traveller posted this link to an article on Baha’i Teachings, which provides background and context. Please read the article, but my understanding is that it shows that the term “Prince of this world” was used in two separate contexts in the Bible, one context, in John 14:26-30 refers to the coming of the Comforter, and the Holy Spirit. The other context, as in John 12:31, refers to Satan. When Abdu’l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi mention the Prince of the world, they are referring to John 14:30, not 12:31.
I am curious why you think “Prince of Peace” in John 12:31 refers to Satan. Jesus certainly gives no indication that he was possessed by Satan.
 
Feb 2019
197
Chicago
This may be helpful as it is also a post where people have questioned how and where He got His reference to this topic.

"Concerning Hindu prophecies of the coming of Bahá'u'lláh and the relationship of the Hindu and Bahá'í Faiths, nothing authentic and specific is available at the World Centre, apart from the Guardian's statement in God Passes By that 'To Him the Bhagavad-Gita of the Hindus had referred as the "Most Great Spirit," the "Tenth Avatar", the "Immaculate Manifestation of the Krishna"', (p. 95); and a brief reference to Bahá'u'lláh as 'to the Hindus the reincarnation of Krishna . . .' (p. 94). Bahá'í teachings on progressive revelation do, of course, bear on the relationship of these Faiths. In a letter written on behalf of the beloved Guardian it is also written that 'We cannot be sure of the authenticity of the scriptures of Buddha and Krishna . . . ' (November 25, 1950); and in reply to a question as to whether Brahma is 'to be considered as referring to absolute diety' and Krishna 'as the Prophet of the Hindu Religion', his secretary wrote '. . . such matters, as no reference occurs to them in the Teachings, are left for students of history and religion to resolve and clarify.' (April 14, 1941)"

(From a letter dated September 1, 1977 written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer)

Regards Tony
There is nothing in the Bhagavad-Gita that refers to the Tenth Avatar (Kalki Avatar). There are references to Kalki Avatar in the Mahabharata and Srimad Bhagavatham but the description does not match that of Bahaullah. The description says the avatar would call himself Kalki, would be born in a Brahmin family and in a place called Shambala but Bahaullah did not call himself Kalki, he was born in a Muslim family in Tehran. There is also no evidence to suggest that Bahaullah was Maitreya of the Buddhists as claimed by Shoghi Effendi.

I am not sure why Shoghi Effendi was promoting Bahaullah as the promised one of all religions and making claims about Bahaullah that Bahuallah himself never made. To add or remove something to Bahaullah teachings would be to change them.

Here are a few links to online copies of Bhagavad-Gita and unlike other scriptures there is no possibility that you will ever find two versions of the Bhagavad-Gita. Different prophets might interpret the verses in their own distinct way but the verses of the scripture itself will never differ. Anyone can verify that Shoghi Effendi's claim that Bhagavad-Gita has reference to the Tenth Avatar (Kalki Avatar) is false.


Srimad Bhagavad-Gita
Bhagavad Gita, The Song of God – Swami Mukundananda
Bhagavad-gītā As It Is
 
Jun 2014
1,081
Wisconsin
You are right in that I will go with Shoghi Effendi all the way.
I will go with Shoghi Effendi as well, and I will not choose to ignore his words when convenient. Shoghi Effendi has talked about the topic of his own writings, his authority, and the authority of his writings and letters on many occasions, and we would be remiss to ignore such statements.

If it is in Official Writings, this can not be the case.
That is not true.

"The infallibility of the Guardian is confined to matters which are related strictly to the Cause and interpretation of the teachings; he is not an infallible authority on other subjects." (Letter on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, 1944. Directives of the Guardian pg 33-34)

I am sorry, and mean no ill will, but assuming Shoghi Effendi is automatically correct in matters not relating to the Cause and interpretation of the Baha'i teachings is to go against the words and advice of Shoghi Effendi himself. It is possible his interpretation is the correct one, but we have no guarantee of that fact like we do in matters of guiding the Cause or interpreting the teachings.

Funny, or not so, this is the 2nd time today on two different Forums I have seen a Baha'i saying Shoghi Effendi may be mistaken.
Funny enough, and this was almost certainly not your intent, but you saying he cannot be mistaken, is in a sense, saying he was mistaken in his letter. So mark yourself as the third time someone has suggested he could be wrong that day.

One must either accept the authority of the Guardian's statement about his own authority, or one must assert that he was infallible in every thing except for when he talked about the limits of his own infallibility.

I get it. If the Guardian had perfect infallibility in all things, it would sure be convenient for us since we could just look at his words on all subjects and receive the same authoritative answers that Baha'u'llah himself could give us. It'd be nice to imagine the Isma/Infallibility of the Guardian was as great as the Isma of a Manifestation, but on the topic of the Guardian's infallibility, I have to go with Shoghi Effendi. I'm sure he knew the limits of his own infallibility better than you or I.
 
Jun 2014
1,081
Wisconsin
I think Shoghi Effendi was closer to truth than the conventional interpretation. To properly understand what Jesus meant, we have to consider all the verses in John 12:27-33. By "Prince of this World", Jesus was referring to Christ Consciousness which is the "Son" present as Divine Intelligence in all creation and everyone including Jesus. He was saying that upon his death, the Christ Consciousness would be cast out from his body (since it is tied to the soul that will leave his body). Jesus went on to say that if his soul were lifted (resurrected) - that is victorious in spirit over death - word of his divine life and teachings would then attract the attention of all peoples.

Jesus was not referring to the Devil by "Prince of this World" because there is no evidence in the words of Jesus that he was possessed by the Devil.
I can understand that interpretation, and if it was just John 12:27-33, I would agree completely.

The thing that stops me from endorsing that as the correct interpretation is that this verse is not the only instance where Jesus uses the phrase "prince of this world", and the other instance makes it kinda clear that the term does not refer to Himself.

“I will not say much more to you, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold over me, but he comes so that the world may learn that I love the Father and do exactly what my Father has commanded me. Come now; let us leave." (John 14:30-31)

Now here, with the full chapter in context, it is very clear that the "prince of this world" is the thing that will come along to crucify him. Whether this refers to the devil as is conventional interpretation, or the Roman State as in less conventional interpretations, I am not sure. Pilate seems like a good candidate to me, since he died (was "cast out") not long after the Crucifixion, so he could fit both verses. But I don't really see how this title could be ascribed to Baha'u'llah, especially when using a more literal translation of John 14:30. "No longer will I speak much with you; for the ruler of this world comes, and in Me he has nothing." (Berean Literal Translation)

The same spirit (Holy Spirit, Christ Consciousness, what have you) is present in Jesus and Baha'u'llah, so how could one state "in Me (Jesus) he (Baha'u'llah or Christ Consciousness) has nothing"?? The original language and wording is exactly why the interpretation of "the prince of this world" as the devil came about: the devil being sin, and not being present in the sinless Christ, "in Me he has nothing".

I guess that one could say Jesus meant different persons by the same title in John 12:27-33 and John 14:30... but I don't see that as likely. Prophets tend to mean the same thing when they re-use a symbolic or mystic title (because otherwise it would cause needless confusion). It'd be weird to see, for instance, Baha'u'llah write about "the nightingale" meaning anything but himself. Likewise it'd be very odd for Jesus to use the title once to refer to himself and then another time to refer to the one coming to kill him, and that in him has nothing.
 
Last edited:

Jcc

Mar 2013
572
Edwardsville, Illinois, USA
I am curious why you think “Prince of Peace” in John 12:31 refers to Satan. Jesus certainly gives no indication that he was possessed by Satan.
In John 12:31 it doesn’t say “Prince of Peace”, it says “Prince of this world” and I think the understanding is that this refers to worldly desires and materialistic inclinations, as opposed to heavenly inclinations.

As you may know, Baha’u’llah taught that the concept of Satan is really the evil and materialistic tendencies of people, so if he says that someone is possessed with “satanic desires” it is because they are giving in to those evil tendencies. Evil the absence of good just like darkness is the absence of light, it is not a real thing in and of itself, but it does have a real effect. Baha’u’llah referred to Satan in many tablets, using the metaphors found in older scriptures like the Quran or Bible.
 
Feb 2019
197
Chicago
I can understand that interpretation, and if it was just John 12:27-33, I would agree completely.

The thing that stops me from endorsing that as the correct interpretation is that this verse is not the only instance where Jesus uses the phrase "prince of this world", and the other instance makes it kinda clear that the term does not refer to Himself.
You are right that Jesus was not referring to himself by "Prince of this World". I can try to address the seeming contradictions and conflicts between the verses you have quoted. I will present the Hindu perspective and you don't have to accept it but what I can assure you is that the Hindu perspective, regardless of how you feel about it, will be consistent and resolve the contradictions.

Before I get in to the details, let me define the basic terms - Father, Son (Christ Consciousness) and Holy Ghost which are the Sat, Tat and Aum of the Hindu scriptures. When Spirit desired to manifest creation, it became God, the Father (masculine or positive force) and Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit, the Mother (feminine or negative force). In to the "womb" of this feminine force, the masculine force (Father) deposited his seed of "Divine Intelligence" and as a result the creation was "born" with the Divine Intelligence manifest in it everywhere. This Divine Intelligence also known as Christ Consciousness is the only begotten Son of God, the Father and it is important to keep in mind that it is present in all of creation which is why Jesus calls it Prince of this World. In human beings Christ Consciousness is centered at the spiritual eye which is the point between the eye brows (the sixth chakra called the Ajna chakra). Jesus taught in John 1:12 that everyone that can receive the Holy Spirit and become the Son of God and in John 14:12 he taught that it is possible for anyone to accomplish the same things he did. Jesus refers to Holy Ghost/ Holy Spirit as the Comforter and he told the apostles that the Comforter will teach them many things in John 14:26. When an individual through spiritual effort receives the Holy Ghost/ Holy Spirit the process of spiritual baptism starts and it eventually leads to the spiritual eye opening up (Matthew 6:22). At this point the individual realizes in his own consciousness his true relationship with God as His child (son) instead of simply understanding it intellectually or believing in it. Such an individual is called Son of God or a Christ because he has realized the truth about Christ Consciousness manifest in him. The flow of Christ Consciousness is blocked in a normal individual that is identified with his body and is steeped in egotistic and selfish pursuits. But through spiritual effort and renunciation of egotistic and selfish pursuits, man can receive Holy Spirit and fully manifest Christ Consciousness. This is a gradual process and can take many years of determined spiritual effort. It will result in the destruction of human nature and ordinary human consciousness and man will manifest divine nature and Christ Consciousness.

"And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe. Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me. But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence". - John 14:29-31

Interpretation of John 14:29-31

I have prophesied to you about things that will come to pass, that when they happen it will strengthen your faith in the truth of whatsoever I have said to you. I have told you everything necessary and this hearafter I will not talk much to you; for now I must be ready for the great ordeal. Christ Consciousness, the prince of this world (cosmic creation), is manifesting fully in my consciousness and absorbing my human consciousness - leaving little power for outward expression in words (''hath nothing in me"). But the Christ Consciousness in me will manifest such action as would declare my utmost love for the Father. And as the Father revealed ideal wisdom within me, so I reveal to you that wisdom, the commandments and laws that should govern your actions.

Now here, with the full chapter in context, it is very clear that the "prince of this world" is the thing that will come along to crucify him.
Jesus did not say that "prince of this world" is the thing that will come along to crucify him. On the contrary Jesus in Luke 22:37-42 acknowledges that it was will of God that he be crucified. He says in Matthew 26:54 the scriptures will not be fulfilled if he is not crucified. So he is not blaming "prince of this world" for his crucifixion but is saying that crucifixion must happen so that the spiritual truths in the scriptures will not be proven false and the will of God will not be violated.

But I don't really see how this title could be ascribed to Baha'u'llah, especially when using a more literal translation of John 14:30. "No longer will I speak much with you; for the ruler of this world comes, and in Me he has nothing." (Berean Literal Translation)
If "prince of this world" refers to Christ Consciousness as I have been saying, it can be used as a title for Bahaullah since he also manifested Christ Consciousness in my opinion.

The same spirit (Holy Spirit, Christ Consciousness, what have you) is present in Jesus and Baha'u'llah, so how could one state "in Me (Jesus) he (Baha'u'llah or Christ Consciousness) has nothing"?? The original language and wording is exactly why the interpretation of "the prince of this world" as the devil came about: the devil being sin, and not being present in the sinless Christ, "in Me he has nothing".
When Christ Consciousness manifests in an individual, he becomes deeply absorbed in that state and his human nature is pretty much replaced with divine nature of God. In such a condition, man becomes silent and withdrawn from the world as the consciousness is fully interiorized and he has no words of his own to express. Even if he speaks, the words flow not from human consciousness but from Christ Consciousness. That is what is meant by "in Me he has nothing".


I guess that one could say Jesus meant different persons by the same title in John 12:27-33 and John 14:30... but I don't see that as likely. Prophets tend to mean the same thing when they re-use a symbolic or mystic title (because otherwise it would cause needless confusion). It'd be weird to see, for instance, Baha'u'llah write about "the nightingale" meaning anything but himself. Likewise it'd be very odd for Jesus to use the title once to refer to himself and then another time to refer to the one coming to kill him, and that in him has nothing.
I agree. You brain is working just fine.
 
Last edited:
Sep 2010
4,546
Normanton, Far North West Queensland
That is not true.

"The infallibility of the Guardian is confined to matters which are related strictly to the Cause and interpretation of the teachings; he is not an infallible authority on other subjects." (Letter on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, 1944. Directives of the Guardian pg 33-34)

I am sorry, and mean no ill will, but assuming Shoghi Effendi is automatically correct in matters not relating to the Cause and interpretation of the Baha'i teachings is to go against the words and advice of Shoghi Effendi himself. It is possible his interpretation is the correct one, but we have no guarantee of that fact like we do in matters of guiding the Cause or interpreting the teachings.
No ill will seen, but this is an important aspect of the Covenant, thus we must have clarity in these matters. There is an important difference, as 'God Passes By' is from the pen of Shoghi Effendi and it is an account of and an Interpretation of many aspects of the Faith of Baha'u'llah. In the Foreword Shoghi Effendi says;

"The weight of the potentialities with which this Faith, possessing no peer or equal in the world’s spiritual history, and marking the culmination of a universal prophetic cycle, has been endowed, staggers our imagination. The brightness of the millennial glory which it must shed in the fullness of time dazzles our eyes. The magnitude of the shadow which its Author will continue to cast on successive Prophets destined to be raised up after Him eludes our calculation...."

God Passes By | Bahá’í Reference Library

I have a very good friend that works on translations and on checking sources of quotes etc and what they have found is that many are found in sources that are deep in Islam traditions. To which many Eastern religious thought or Christian west thought may not have heard of. Thus, because we are not clear as to what Shoghi Effendi knew on these subjects, subjects that He wrote about as the Guardian, on the 'Station of Baha'u'llah', then we can not take a statement he made about infallibility to include this;

We are given divine no guarantee of his accuracy in regards to the interpretation of the Bible, and as such it is possible for him to be in error or mistaken about a piece of Bible terminology. Given the widespread understanding of John 12:31, I'd think this interpretation was simply an misunderstanding.
If we take the Oneness of God and His Messengers into consideration, Shoghi Effendi, as Abdul'Baha before Him, were given authority over interpretation of scripture, this scripture is all inclusive, as it is us that makes of the writings different books by different authors.

We can not forget that many people reject the Koran as the quoted references to the bible are seen to be incorrect. They also did that to the Bab and Baha'u'llah. What we must not do, is put our doubt into Baha'i Writings. Why? Because where does that doubt then stop?

Regards Tony
 
Jul 2017
456
Olympia, WA, USA
I think both of us agree that spiritual truths are perceived in our own consciousness. Just to be sure, let me explain that with an example. If you pray to God deeply and as a result experience peace in your consciousness, the experience would be true to you but no one can objectively verify it. Likewise, if I read Bahaullah's writings and experience a certain spiritual vibration within my consciousness, no one can objectively verify it. Because of my experience, I may conclude that Bahaullah is a great avatar but a Muslim who may believe that there will be no prophets after Mohammed may conclude that Bahaullah is a false prophet. Even an unbiased scientist that is not conditioned by religious dogma, will never be able to objectively prove that Bahaullah is a manifestation of God. He may at best say Bahaullah appears to be a good man or a great leader.
I agree with everything you said, right up to this point.
So the truth about Bahaullah is relative.
I do not agree with this. Baha’u’llah was either who he claimed to be or not. There is nothing relative about that; it is a yes/no proposition. Certain conclusions follow if it is a yes, other conclusions follow if it is a no.

If Baha’u’llah was a Manifestation of God, then, then everything that Baha’u’llah revealed is identical with the Will of God. Of course, we have to interpret what He wrote. When it is straightforward, most people can understand what Baha’u’llah wrote quite easily, but if there is any question as to what he meant, we also have the Writings of Abdu’l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi.

“Regard thou the one true God as One Who is apart from, and immeasurably exalted above, all created things. The whole universe reflecteth His glory, while He is Himself independent of, and transcendeth His creatures. This is the true meaning of Divine unity. He Who is the Eternal Truth is the one Power Who exerciseth undisputed sovereignty over the world of being, Whose image is reflected in the mirror of the entire creation. All existence is dependent upon Him, and from Him is derived the source of the sustenance of all things. This is what is meant by Divine unity; this is its fundamental principle.
Some, deluded by their idle fancies, have conceived all created things as associates and partners of God, and imagined themselves to be the exponents of His unity. By Him Who is the one true God! Such men have been, and will continue to remain, the victims of blind imitation, and are to be numbered with them that have restricted and limited the conception of God.
He is a true believer in Divine unity who, far from confusing duality with oneness, refuseth to allow any notion of multiplicity to becloud his conception of the singleness of God, who will regard the Divine Being as One Who, by His very nature, transcendeth the limitations of numbers.
The essence of belief in Divine unity consisteth in regarding Him Who is the Essence as one and the same. By this is meant that whatever pertaineth to the former, all His acts and doings, whatever He ordaineth or forbiddeth, should be considered, in all their aspects, and under all circumstances, and without any reservation, as identical with the Will of God Himself. This is the loftiest station to which a true believer in the unity of God can ever hope to attain. Blessed is the man that reacheth this station, and is of them that are steadfast in their belief.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 166-167
You asked "How accurate do you think Bhagavad-Gita is? Can you prove everything in it is the Truth from God?". If you can prove that everything in Bahaullah's writings is the Truth from God, then perhaps I can do the same with the Bhagavad-Gita. But it would be impossible for you to objectively prove that everything in Bahaullah's writings is the Truth from God or that Bahaullah is a manifestation of God.
No, I cannot objectively prove that the Writings of Baha’u’llah are the Truth from God. But IF Baha’u’llah was a Manifestation of God, THEN they are the Truth from God. It all hinges upon that yes/no proposition noted above.

The Bhagavad-Gita is not comparable to the Writings of Baha’u’llah because it was not written by a Manifestation of God. The only Manifestations of God for which we have the original scriptures penned in their hands are the Bab and Baha’u’llah. The next most authentic scripture we have is the Qur’an since it was dictated by Muhammad and written down by scribes. We have nothing of the sort for Jesus or Moses or any other Manifestation of God.

That does not mean there are no spiritual truths contained in the Bhagavad-Gita but it is not identical to the Will of God because it was not written BY a Manifestation of God. This is logic 101 stuff.

I looked it up on the internet and it says that Vyasa is the one who is responsible for authoring the Vita and that he was a central and revered figure in most Hindu traditions. On another website it says that the Gita was written by multiple persons. Another one says that it was written by three persons over 400 years and that is why narrative lacks continuity. This is starting to sound a lot like the New Testament, yet I believe that the New Testament was inspired by God as was the Gita, but that is not the same as a direct revelation from God, as was the case with Muhammad, the Bab and Baha’u’llah.
Humanity is a collection of human beings and each human being will have to uplift himself through spiritual effort. Spiritual growth cannot be induced from outside. It can only come from the inside. Even Jesus or Bahaullah could not uplift everyone. Judas treacherously let down Jesus. You may dismiss it as a story but Bahaullah also had his Judas in his son Mirza Muhammad `Alí that Abdul Baha had to expel from the Bahai faith. How is it that Bahaullah could not uplift Mirza Muhammad `Alí? God has given everyone freedom and people misuse it under the influence of human nature. There is not much Bahaullah or any of his followers can do if people choose to immerse themselves in worldly pursuits and pleasures and neglect spiritual growth.
I fully agree that we are all responsible to uplift ourselves and grow spiritually, and nobody can do that for us. That was not my point. My point is that the Revelation of Baha’u’llah has an organized program to build the Kingdom of God on earth.
When asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The kingdom of God will not come with observable signs. Nor will people say, ‘Look, here it is,’ or ‘There it is.’ For you see, the kingdom of God is within you - Luke 17:20-21

Bahaullah would not contradict Jesus. The kingdom of God is not a physical kingdom.
You cannot use one verse or a few verses to prove anything. That is called cherry picking. Moreover, what does that mean, the Kingdom of God is within you? Even if it is true in a certain sense, that does not mean there is not also an outer kingdom that God wants us to build. Clearly, Jesus spoke of a kingdom that would be built.

Matthew 6:9-13 King James Version (KJV)
9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
11 Give us this day our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
Do you deny the Old Testament? The entire Old Testament is full of prophecies that refer to a Messiah who will come after which time we will see the Kingdom of God on earth. Some of these prophecies refer to Jesus but most of them do not refer to Jesus because Jesus did not fulfill those prophecies. For one example of many:

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

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

This is the Kingdom of God on earth.
 
Feb 2019
197
Chicago
I agree with everything you said, right up to this point.

I do not agree with this. Baha’u’llah was either who he claimed to be or not. There is nothing relative about that; it is a yes/no proposition.
You are missing the point I was making which is that the claims Bahaullah made about himself cannot be verified objectively. As to who Bahaullah is varies from person to person. To the Bahai he may be manifestation of God. To the Muslim he may be a false prophet and to the atheist he may be a good man. Since the truth about Bahaullah changes from person to person, it is relative and subjective. It is not objective as in 2+2 = 4 for a Bahai, Muslim and an atheist. This is simpler than logic 101.

The Bhagavad-Gita is not comparable to the Writings of Baha’u’llah because it was not written by a Manifestation of God.
The Bhagavad-Gita was given by Krishna and recorded by Vyasa. Abdul Baha recognized Krishna as a Manifestation of God and so was Vyasa. How do you know Krishna and Vyasa were not Manifestations of God. I wonder how you get that certainty without ever reading the Bhagavad-Gita and lives of Krishna and Vyasa.

That does not mean there are no spiritual truths contained in the Bhagavad-Gita but it is not identical to the Will of God because it was not written BY a Manifestation of God.
You are making conclusions about Krishna and Vyasa that are identical to conclusions that Muslims have made about Bahaullah. Since the Bahai faith originated from Islam, I suspect it is not entirely free of the fanaticism characteristic of mainstream Islam. You are not going to build a Kingdom of God on earth with this kind of fanaticism and ignorance. You are sowing the seeds of conflict when you promote a belief system like the one you cling to because belief systems from different religions can never be reconciled and they will inevitably clash with each other. For example, Christians believe Jesus is the only Son of God while Muslims believe God does not have Son and Jesus was a just a prophet like Moses was. But none of these beliefs can be objectively verified and neither can they be logically reconciled. However, they have been responsible for crusades and jihads. Muslims believe Mohammed was the last prophet and they deny the prophethood of Bahaullah while Bahai believe Bahaullah was a prophet. Again these beliefs cannot be reconciled or objectively verified but they have resulted in the persecution of Bahaullah and his followers. If you really want to build the Kingdom of God on earth, I will challenge you to start with Iran where the Bahai faith originated out of Islam and demonstrate that it is possible for the Bahai to not just peacefully co-exist with Muslims and Islam but actually grow the Faith in Iran. If you cannot accomplish peace with Muslims in the region where the Bahai faith originated, then any talk of the Bahai faith promoting global peace and brotherhood does not cut much ice. You would be sounding like a person who cannot maintain peace in your own backyard but want to preach and promote it in the entire society.

I looked it up on the internet and it says that Vyasa is the one who is responsible for authoring the Vita and that he was a central and revered figure in most Hindu traditions. On another website it says that the Gita was written by multiple persons. Another one says that it was written by three persons over 400 years and that is why narrative lacks continuity.
Anyone can say anything on the internet. Is that your standard of truth? Why don't you go with the authentic sources if you care about the truth. I have read on the internet that Abdul Baha made certain predictions for the year 1957 and when those predictions turned out to be false, the UHJ quietly wiped out his failed predictions from Bahai publications. Is that the truth since it is found on the internet? I would be an idiot if I embrace anything I find on the internet without verifying it's authenticity.

You cannot use one verse or a few verses to prove anything. That is called cherry picking. Moreover, what does that mean, the Kingdom of God is within you? Even if it is true in a certain sense, that does not mean there is not also an outer kingdom that God wants us to build. Clearly, Jesus spoke of a kingdom that would be built.
When Jesus said "Thy kingdom come" he was referring to the kingdom of God within us. It is only when the kingdom of God is manifest within us, the will of God on earth can be done and that is why "Thy kingdom come" precedes "Thy will be done in earth". If the kingdom of God is not manifest with in us, we will act under the influence of human nature which means more wars including religious conflicts. But if the the kingdom of God is manifest within us, then we become peaceful, loving, understanding and accepting of others and it would be possible to carry out God's will on earth. That's what Jesus was saying. You cannot separate the words of Jesus you quoted from the ones I quoted. Both have to be reconciled.

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

This is the Kingdom of God on earth.
You just sound like Christian ministers before the year 2000 claiming that the Y2K problem was the apocalypse predicted in the Bible and that Jesus would come again in 2000. Well, we all know how that went. These kind of prophesies make good bed time stories for children. I am too old for that.
 
Thread starter Similar Baha'i Discussions Baha'i Forum Replies Date
T Baha'i Discussions 25
arthra Baha'i History 5