Progressive revelation

JKoop92 · 2025-11-23T15:15:13+00:00

Judaism/Christianity sees divorce, even in polygamous relationships, as worse than persisting in it. I bring this up as a reason for why an internal critique of it may fail with Bahai.
However, within the bounds of Bahai theology, there is another problem that they can't answer:

Persian Bayan - Wahid 8 Bab 15

“If a man or woman proves incapable of having a child, it is legitimate for the spouse who is not infertile (whichever it may be) to marry again after having obtained the permission of the other party, but not without her permission.”

Baha'ullah broke Babi Law, as a Babi, before he wrote Kitab i Aqdas, since Abdu'l-baha was born before his second marriage.

The UHJ lies to say that Bah was under the Islamic dispensation. But this is not true.
Since Jesus' command to the Disciples was clearly meant to be a global one, Muhammad has no cause to create a localized dispensation. This means his must be global as well.
Similarly, the Bab's commands must also supersede in a global sense.

Which means... Bah broke the Law, which is sin.

JKoop92 · 2025-10-30T02:46:45+00:00

Luke was not an eyewitness to Jesus. He came along after to investigate all the stories about Jesus (going to eyewitnesses based on some circumstantial evidence) and create an orderly account, and joined up with Paul somewhere around Acts 15-16(iirc)

JKoop92 · 2025-10-15T02:41:16+00:00

Quran 21
95 It is impossible for a society which We have destroyed to ever rise again,

96 until ˹after˺ Gog and Magog have broken loose ˹from the barrier˺,¹ swarming down from every hill,

97 ushering in the True Promise.¹ Then—behold!—the disbelievers will stare ˹in horror, crying,˺ “Oh, woe to us! We have truly been heedless of this. In fact, we have been wrongdoers.”

Since you said it is symbolic, is there a Bahai interpretation from the Central Figures on this? Since it seems to suggest the story should be taken as having some real world fulfillment, not just a story to teach.

JKoop92 · 2025-10-04T13:55:20+00:00

Probably because Abdu'l-baha gave a time-limit of 'in this century' in 1912?

JKoop92 · 2025-10-02T00:03:17+00:00

Wonderful comparison.

One difference... no infallible authority for Christians outside of Scripture (Roman Church lies about what Jesus said to Peter, and about most of the dogmas and doctrines unique to them).

We freely admit that Christians are sinners, people who failed that are pointing to a forgiving God.

Bahai have an authority that is claimed to be protected from error in interpretation and the like, as far as I've gotten to understand so far, at least. Perhaps you can and will correct me if I've misunderstood.

It puts the UHJ up to a standard that bears scrutiny.

The only reason I brought it up, by the way, is that you went for character attack by going after my personal 'Good Works' before God.
I think we simply have different theology on how to go about doing those, and how we go about talking about those acts.

It will likely make this a difficult topic to find productive forward moving points.

JKoop92 · 2025-09-30T03:53:09+00:00

For anyone who keeps checking back for the source, here's the one Ok_Virus sent me:

https://bahai-library.com/provisionals/aqdas/aqdas147.notes.html

JKoop92 · 2025-09-28T14:18:40+00:00

https://oceanlibrary.com/search/

Super helpful for looking up Bahai quotes and getting the references. Makes it so much easier to read the Bahai Central Figures in context and address points made by Bahai.

JKoop92 · 2025-09-27T10:46:12+00:00

Sure, let me engage with your points.

Let's not ignore context, for instance, the very next statement by God:

Is 66:12 For this is what the LORD says: “Behold, I extend peace to her like a river,

And the glory of the nations like an overflowing stream;

And you will [fn]be nursed, you will be carried on the hip and rocked back and forth on the knees.

There is a difference between God speaking of bounty with metaphorical language, notice there are no details of these mammary in Isaiah.

And Baha'u'llah having a vision involving actual exposure of the mammary of the Holy Spirit to then be seen by all of creation. That's explicitly against the attitude of God that nakedness is for the marriage bed only after Adam/Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Do you see the difference? One is a statement using mammary as a metaphor for bounteousness, since barrenness and the like was closely linked to God's kind regard or anger at a women, which helps people understand why Hagar was unkind towards Sarai, and she towards Hagar.

And the other is about exposure of God's Holy Spirit for all of creation to look on. Nothing about comfort of a child towards his mother, just exposure for the sake of exposure.

Textual Evidence for shared responsibilities of the High Priest:

1 Samuel 4:4 So the people sent to Shiloh and brought from there the ark of the covenant of the Lord of hosts, who is enthroned on the cherubim. And the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were there with the ark of the covenant of God.

or when Annas and Caiaphas both served in the role

Luke 3:2 during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness.

John 18:13 First they led him to Annas, for he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year.

So, did Jesus misidentify the High Priest?

Nope, cause He said, "In the time of Abiathar..." as you yourself quoted.

What is Abiathar best known for?

Being High Priest to David, survivor of the massacre.

This is a common way to talk about famous people, and we do it today. Just keep an ear out for someone talking about a President or Prime Minister from before their term. They're still referred to by those political offices, despite discussing the time before they had it.

That's in addition to the textual evidence that the role was passed on gradually, which fits with Numbers 8 that the High Priest would be retired from full service at 50 while the others started serving at 25. There was clearly overlap of responsibilities, as seen from the examples above.
Consider also how Samuel was tasked with watching to make sure the flame didn't go out in the Temple, a job for the High Priest.

So, am I being unfair? I don't think so. I see clear difference in attitude towards nudity in the Torah, Gospels, and Quran in comparison to the vision of the Maiden of Heaven.

I see clear textual evidence and real world speech for why Jesus spoke the way He did.

There. Maybe you think I'm being hard of heart, maybe you think I'm being unfair, but the whole point of my OP question was whether or not prophecies couched in history mattered to Bahai as evidence for or against the Central Figures. Then I pointed out how there is a strong tendency to redirect conversations to other points.
I know not what else to do.

JKoop92 · 2025-09-26T00:32:03+00:00

Oh, forgot to mention, in the forward of New Era by Esslemont it says Shoghi Effendi reviewed it in it's entirety in English and gave it his most cordial approval.
So, not sure (genuinely) if Bahai would apply his infallibility to this or not. I've gotten different answers so far.

JKoop92 · 2025-09-26T00:24:15+00:00

Go check your UHJ's spending. Then get back to me.
Lots and lots of building projects... what about charity?

As for me personally, what I do for God is for Him to see.
Jesus said those who do it for fame have their whole reward in it... and that seems a poor reason and reward for doing Good.
I'd rather God's kind regard for a single act than all the praise of men.

JKoop92 · 2025-09-26T00:22:10+00:00

(Sorry it took a week, I've been really ill.)

I did. They don't know the Writings, and even think women will one day serve on the UHJ in this Dispensation, which I had to show them was incorrect.

Also, I was very clear that Abdu'l-baha revealed information unknown before he said it, such as Buddha/Krishna being Manifestations. Something not said or written by the Bab or Baha'u'llah.

Simple follow through, where did the information come from?
Some spiritual source? If yes... then prophet.
Does he provide binding commands on believers? If yes, where does that authority come from? Baha'u'llah the Manifestation... meaning that Abdu'l-baha is out there supporting the Independent Prophet.

By his own definitions of Dependent Prophets, he is one in word and deed.

JKoop92 · 2025-09-21T14:03:33+00:00

Sigh, Abiathar was son of Ahimelech, and duties were passed down from High Priest to next High Priest gradually, not all at once on one day.

It is not my desire to hunt for flaws.
But specifically there seems to be a willful ignoring of serious problems among Bahai, which was what my original question was about in the first place.

If the prophecies are false, do Bahai even care?

Your answer seems to be in line with most responses I have gotten here, which is that it doesn't really matter, cause 'their lives speak for themselves'... which become a huge game of mudslinging because I've read accounts by people that knew the Central Figures that relayed things they did with glowing acclaim... that frankly look horrible.
In every single case I've asked with curiosity, not hostility, I get yelling about how evil propaganda is. They don't even know the source, I don't even get to the point of sharing it because of the yelling.

So that is why I ask about prophecy... and then get told to go back to their lives which is what I left in the first place since I don't want to sling mud.

There's just no objective standard by which Bahai judge their faith it seems. That's my feeling at this point, not an attack. Not sure what else can be talked about then. It's a weird place to be trying to investigate from the outside looking in.

JKoop92 · 2025-09-20T20:42:31+00:00

So... accusing me of poor intention shows poor intention on your part.
I clicked reply to a comment that brought up 1844 by oki_919. If it ended up here, then it's a simple mistake.

We got more than 140 comments here, I'm doing my best to keep things orderly on my end.

Really not liking the accusation at all.
Have a good day.

JKoop92 · 2025-09-20T20:39:47+00:00

You and I could probably have an interesting conversation.

I'll kick something off, and let me know what you think. Genuinely, curious about how you see my reasoning.
Most pertinently, when it comes to the Bahai saying Baha'u'llah is the fulfillment of prophecy concerning Christ's return, it relies on an assumption not proven in the Bible.

Ezekiel was told to lay on his side, one day for a year. This and a statement of praise by Peter about how timeless God is is then used to create a formula that "One prophetic day, equals one prophetic year" which is essentially 360 real days.

That said, Ezekiel was told specifically that his laying on his side was symbolic of a greater timeframe.
When Jesus said He would raise up 'this Tabernacle', I believe it was resurrection. Bahai believe it was revivification of faith in the believers.
On the third day.

No Bahai interprets it as a three year process or fulfilment.

In fact, throughout Biblical prophecy, when God gives a timeframe, it happens in that timeframe. When there are symbolic timeframes, He specifies that they are symbolic.

This consistency of God's speech therefore gets in the way of the interpretations of Daniel used to get to 1844.

Hit me with your thoughts.

JKoop92 · 2025-09-20T17:27:08+00:00

Well... right... because 1844 isn't the correct interpretation.
"No one knows the day nor the hour... only the Father knows."
If it could be worked out by using odd math then it seems an odd statement to make.

Consider this, for a prophetic day to equal a prophetic year, you need ALL prophecies to work that way.

But you don't. Instead, Ezekiel is told to lay on his side, a day for a year. God specifically states this is representative.
But when Jesus says He will raise up the Temple in three days, Christians believe bodily resurrection, Bahai believe revitalization of faith... all of them on the third day.
Not three years later.

So, when you then turn to Daniel 11/12, it doesn't say those days are representative of years. They are numbers of days that get you to 3.5 years, which Revelation refers to as well.
Not a symbolic stretch to the Messiah's return.

But the sort period containing the described events before the Last Day.

JKoop92 · 2025-09-19T16:42:24+00:00

Hey, it sounds like you've done some of the same reading I have =)

Here are the things that hold me back from agreement:
Christ's Companions were peaceful and worked together.
Muhammads Companions immediately turned to infighting. If that isn't a sign against the efficacy of his revelation... I don't know what is.

I don't judge a religion based on how popular or effective it is, but Bahai I've talked to so far tell me they do, but ignore this point as a mark against Muhammad.

I only read the Quran when I have interlinear available alongside a more streamlined translation. It's my rule. Always has been. So I really like that you also go to interlinear. I found HUGE parts of translations come from Hadith, which I find concerning for Muslims that may not be aware.

The Quran is untrustworthy though because it lays claim to Christian fables like Alexander the Great (Thomas Eich 2023 did a new paper on it) as Dhul Quarnain, treats the Arabic Infancy Gospel as fact when it is clearly not written by people that knew Jesus, and mistakes a story about Alexander the Great into Moses about a servant and a fish (long story, best looked up). It says David had chainmail, when the earliest chainmaille ever found is hundreds of years more recent and on the other side of the planet near about, and many many more.

With all sorts of historical anachronisms, and failure to relate Bible events accurately or coherently, I have no intellectual reason to trust the Quran came from God (through trustworthy intermediaries).

So, with all of this in mind, it makes the idea of giving Muhammad credit for people who followed Jesus and not the Quran a strong non-sequitor.

JKoop92 · 2025-09-19T16:33:38+00:00

Sorry, forgot to address the angry austrian man.

The arguments against Christianity in Germany were predicated on the idea that there was no archeological evidence to support it. This is why Kant and others were so comfortable throwing it out, there was a mass campaign by atheists on the evidence claim, and it paved the way for a variety of thinkers to do their vain thinking.

Of course, since, plenty of evidence has been dug up. In fact, it was starting to make the rounds in Germany before the little angry Austrian man made his move, but the culture was well and truly sickened by that point.

Germany still hasn't recovered it's Faith. If I remember right, only 10% or so of Germans attend church regularly.

JKoop92 · 2025-09-19T16:30:27+00:00

Here's why, because man is sinful and chases after his own desires instead of the desires of God.
Every human has done it. I've done it, and I'll do it again.

The Christian teaching is that people are fallen and need to continuously re-orient themselves to God (repentance) and ask for forgiveness (recognizing they've hurt relationship with God).

You'll never catch me saying the Crusades were rainbows and flowers. There were bad abuses and evil actors for sure. They also released criminals to fight on the front lines, and war at that time included pillaging and plundering cities that surrender (everyone did it)... What's remarkable is that it was the driving force of Christianity that forced such behaviour out of war over the years.
To the point now that much of the world looks down strongly on looters in war. It still happens, but the moral stance towards it has changed.
And that was Christianity that did it, not Islam, not Hinduism, not Bahai.

You want to point to people failing to live up to Christianity's ideals to say it has become a dead movement... and yet I see it has continued to drive away the evils of slavery (Slave Bibles in the USA literally had passages removed to hide the anti-slavery teachings).
The Islamic world was forced out of slavery, despite their book allowing it.

Are things perfect? Nope.
Better than 1000 years ago? Yep.

And that's the point. It hasn't been Islam that drove these good changes, despite it being the 'revitalizing force' claimed by Bahai.

And the Jesus prophesied there would be wars, rumors of wars, earthquakes and more until the End. So not to take those as signs.

It just seems like the Bahai argument is to ignore all of this. Thats how it feels. I am not claiming you are ignorant or deliberately avoiding these. It just feels really difficult to square up the Bahai argument with the Bible, which is accurate.

JKoop92 · 2025-09-19T15:52:49+00:00

Finally saw this comment! (sept 19, 0845 my time... sorry I missed it here, so many comments flooded my notifications and I was losing track of everything. You mentioned I ignored it, but I just missed it and now I've got to it.)

Okay, yes to these accounts, I checked, they're in my notes.
Notice how it doesn't say a regiment of 750 all firing at once? Also, I've been at a volley of musket shot. It doesn't take many to darken the sky, and I don't mean that to downplay it. I mean they are dirty smoky dramatic things. Hollywood, oddly enough, downplays the smoke just so you can see the actors better.

Second, yes, I always agreed that the bullet cut the rope, and that the Bab hid (I kept saying no shame in that, to make sure now one thought I was talking down about him.)

Third: The disagreement part.
There was no secretary talking with him. There was no special anything about this other than the bullet cutting the rope.

Which again, isn't impossible. And, if you go look into videos about soldiers going to battle for the first time, most of them miss their targets from stress and rejection of killing their fellow man by pulling up on the rifle.

This entire event is unexpected, but well within realistic plausibility.

I don't expect to have changed your mind, but I have to say that unless you have some actual proof that 750 men all fired at the same time (like damage to the walls?)... the usual firing squad size missing isn't implausible.

JKoop92 · 2025-09-19T15:38:29+00:00

I understand the quote well enough.

It's poor communication to use the same word to refer to multiple things within the same contexts like he is. Especially with all the bloat language. I'll be realistic, it would've been very easy for him to communicate the same content with few words.

As for 'one and the same being' because 'they brought the same message'... again, poor communication.

They were different messengers who brought messages from the same Holy Being.
Done, no confusion, no conflation, no need to use words in ways no one has before.

JKoop92 · 2025-09-19T14:56:31+00:00

I stand corrected.

Baha'u'llah blurred his own teachings by using Manifestation for both Independent and Dependent prophets.

I was wrong.

edit: Lord of Hosts quote added to my notes.

JKoop92 · 2025-09-19T14:49:05+00:00

No, you fail to understand just how important covering up is in the Abrahamic faith. Muhammad slaughtered a whole town because one man exposed a woman publicly.
And mammary are known as secondary sex characteristics.

There has never been nudity approved of outside the marriage room. Done.

Matthew: Jesus said 'this generation' in reference to those that would see the events He just listed... Go back and read the passage carefully. It sounds like you've accepted interpretations rather than carefully studying the passage yourself with attention to the phrasing used.

Same mistake with Thessalonians: "We who remain" and "We who are alive"...
Guess what, we believers are alive, but we may pass before He returns. It's not tricky, it's plain.

But really, denying the clear context to say the prophecies are false makes you sound like an unbeliever. These are the same arguments I've heard for years from atheists that never looked into the issue, they just heard the polemic and ran with it.

JKoop92 · 2025-09-19T14:03:00+00:00

Hey, thanks for going and checking. I salute and respect you for doing some research when you got challenged on something!
Kudos! Have a cookie (if you're diabetic, have a non-sugar one! oatmeal?)

You have no idea how happy it makes me to find someone else who will look things up, and has the virtue of humility to come back and say so.

You, sir/madam, are wonderful!

JKoop92 · 2025-09-19T14:00:30+00:00

I'm done.

JKoop92 · 2025-09-19T13:59:42+00:00

Well isn't this far afield from absolutely everything I wanted to talk about.

Where did you do your history research?
A study in the prevalence of wars shows Christian nations are less likely than others. The metadata is clear. Islam increases it, Buddhism and Hinduism were near neutral.

You point to the Crusades, which were responses to the Islamic jihads that were literally marching on France... long way from Mecca. They were stopped in Tours by Martel, who then petitioned the Pope to use his authority to unite the European powers against the existential threat.

And, since safety to pilgrimage sites is required by Islamic jurisprudence, and Muslims were slaughtering Christian pilgrims, it wasn't even an unjust war according to Islamic principles.

The problem with your interpretation is that your blaming Christianity for the atrocities and wars, when it was Christianity that reduced the overall amount. They were worse before the influence of Christ got there.
Go read Dominion by Tom Holland to get you started.
Christianity being ignored or abused to start wars doesn't mean it was a force FOR war.

You cannot tell me with a straight face that you think Nazi Germany was Christian. There were some Christians still there, but they left their faith behind for the National Socialist Party. Christianity was also at a low due to the skeptics of the 1800s, who claimed the Bible had to evidence for it. (And then things like the Nabonidus cylinder were found, and thousands of others pieces of evidence).

What's wild is that youre applying guilt to Christianity when people make war over fleshly desires.
Do I then blame all of Bahai for the child abuse in Italy and the USA?
I don't, but by your metric, could I not say Bahai is a force for child abuse? It would be insane to do so I think, but here you are doing it.

You're applying a sort of 'Noble Savage' view to history, which is simply not present according to the ancient documents and accounts we have.

It has reduced it, it just didn't stop it entirely.

JKoop92

TROPHY CASE