Baha’is claim that Matthew23:39 talks about their Prophet(Bahá’u’lláh) Because the Verse says: “For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.”
They say the Man who came in the name of God, is Bahá’u’lláh, Because he said “There are no God, but me, the Prisoner, the alone” They claim he came in the name of Lord by these words and so this verse talks about him.
The answer is that Christ warned us, in no uncertain terms, that many will come claiming to be the Messiah:
"Many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and will deceive many. (Mark 13:6)
“At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. 24For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25See, I have told you ahead of time.” (Matthew 24:23-25)
Christ will come in glory. Not only will everyone know, no one will be able to escape. There will be no debate as to whether it is really him. We will all stand before God in judgment. If someone has to tell you “there he is, it is him” you can be certain that he is a false prophet.
Baha’u’llah fits perfectly (except for great signs and wonders) into this category. He actually claims to be Christ, according to the Baha’i. This is only one of many who have and will make this claim but as Jesus said, “I have told you ahead of time.” So heed Christ’s warning!
Hi atefa. The claim itself is not definitive of anything; you or I could make the same statement but this wouldn’t offer any demonstrable authority.
The passage in question is amid an entire lament about the state of the people in Jerusalem. Just as in Ezekiel’s vision, God leaves the temple and rests in the Mount of Olives, the temple being destroyed shortly thereafter (Babylon), so too Jesus does the same and the temple will be destroyed again (Romans). The statement “Blessed is He…etc” is reminiscent of the entry into Jerusalem at ch.21,v.9. may be referring to the temple destruction in AD70, as this act was seen as a Divine Judgment for killing Jesus. Else it could refer to the end times, when all (even unbelieving Israel) will see clearly that Jesus is the Messiah.
Either way, the context alludes to the Jews being intimately present in Jesus’s lament. So it is a bit impractical to “jump ship” from the prophets, Gospels, and human history and attribute this sentiment to an individual that is clearly part of an “alternate religious view” that was in no way portion to this message.
I’m not sure where you got your information, but the Baha’i believe that Baha’u’llah is the second coming of Christ. Trust me, Tony and Servant will be filling us all in very soon. You can verify it with them.
Just another " messianic " crack pot, though more intelligent than most. No more credible than Joseph Smith. Matt. 23:49 refers to Christ. Just ignore the Bahai. The only thing they have going for them is persistence.
Baha’u’llah did not come in Christ’s name, nor in Messiah’s name. He came in His own glory, as the Glory of the Lord.
The very reasons that you rationalise why Jesus was the Messiah, should be, if one is to be just in their mind, body and soul, applied to Baha’u’llah. If, after testing the Spirit of Baha’u’llah one wishes to reject Him, fair enough, but I personally feel, that should that be the case, one should also reject Christ.
In spirit, there is no difference between the Prophet Elijah and John the Baptist.
In spirit, there is no difference between Jesus Christ and Baha’u’llah.
So we move the goal posts again. Are you really going to make me go back and dig out all of your posts where you have claimed that Baha’u’llah is the second coming of Christ?
And, by the way, I don’t rationalize anything to arrive at my beliefs. When asked: “Who do you say that I am?” Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”. Jesus told him that flesh and blood had not revealed this to him, but rather Jesus’ Father in heaven. That is how I know that Jesus is the Christ (Messiah). There is no rationalizing here, instead we have revealed truth from God himself. It was given to us from those that walked and talked and lived with Jesus and were anointed by him, and we have not changed our doctrines since that time, we have only protected and preserved them.
We don’t have to wonder what those first Christians understood. We were there. We don’t have to extract our beliefs from written texts. We possessed the truth before a word of it was written. I don’t even have to understand it all. I can believe it because of the One who gave it to us.
So rationalize away, Servant, because that is the only way one can arrive at your position. “If that really means this and this really means that…”. This seems to be the method of arriving at your beliefs. You rely on other’s Holy Scriptures and then you must add and subtract and twist and turn them until they resemble what you have already decided is the truth. And it contradicts and conflicts with the deposit of faith given once to the Apostles to such an extent that what comes out the other end is not recognizable as anything coming from God.
God is One and this is how we are too look at God’s Religions, they are One
"At the deepest level, as Bahá’u’lláh emphasizes, there is but one religion. Religion is religion, as science is science. The one discerns and articulates the values unfolding progressively through Divine revelation; the other is the instrumentality through which the human mind explores and is able to exert its influence ever more precisely over the phenomenal world. The one defines goals that serve the evolutionary process; the other assists in their attainment. Together, they constitute the dual knowledge system impelling the advance of civilization. Each is hailed by the Master as an “effulgence of the Sun of Truth”.**
It is, therefore, an inadequate recognition of the unique station of Moses, Buddha, Zoroaster, Jesus, Muammad—or of the succession of Avatars who inspired the Hindu scriptures—to depict their work as the founding of distinct religions. Rather are they appreciated when acknowledged as the spiritual Educators of history, as the animating forces in the rise of the civilizations through which consciousness has flowered: “He was in the world,” the Gospel declares, “and the world was made by him….” That their persons have been held in a reverence infinitely above those of any other historical figures reflects the attempt to articulate otherwise inexpressible feelings aroused in the hearts of unnumbered millions of people by the blessings their work has conferred. In loving them humanity has progressively learned what it means to love God. There is, realistically, no other way to do so. They are not honoured by fumbling efforts to capture the essential mystery of their nature in dogmas invented by human imagination; what honours them is the soul’s unconditioned surrender of its will to the transformative influence they mediate.
God has no religion. But going along with your line of thought, how does God being One translate into: “therefore, all religions are one”? How does one make that leap? Is it possible for man to believe in a false religion? If so, your statement makes no sense. If it is not possible than I suppose we can believe anything we choose and feel comfortable that it is the truth.
I would agree that at the deepest level man has an immense longing to know God. This does not at all, in the slightest, mean that there is but one religion. God gave us a rational mind to help us in discerning truth from error. Anyone with a rational mind can see that not all religions can be true for the simple reason that they conflict in what they propose as truth (i.e. one cannot simultaneously believe in the resurrection and reincarnation. They are inherently and objectively opposed to each other).
Now here we do agree. Are you telling me that all science, throughout the generations, has been true? We were told, before the advent of the automobile, that if we went over 30 miles per hour that our blood would boil. Plate tectonics was laughed at, as little as thirty years ago. We could fill pages here with scientific fallacies. And yes, the same is true for religions as well.
No. Once again you misinterpret the Christian Scriptures. John the Baptist came with the spirit and power of Elijah. He was not Elijah, and there are many, many evidences in the Bible that prove this. Aside from the fact that we do not accept reincarnation or migration of souls, on the Mount of Transfiguration, Elijah and Moses appear and Jesus talks to Elijah. The disciples all recognize him as Elijah, not as John the Baptist who they knew, unless John the Baptist transformed back into Elijah for this little event.
Since your reasoning is demonstrably flawed, it certainly cannot be applied to Jesus and Baha’u’llah.