"The Baha'i Faith"

[DavidMark]

Thanks DavidMark for reply. I was much interested in your analogy of the Sun and the Mirror which has been presented here by you quite a few times. It seems to emanate from Abdul Baha. But an Indian Muslim scholar had presented the same logic about the image of the Sun in the Mirror in year 1870 AD (Approx.) So could it be that Abdul Baha came to know about that Mirror logic from the published work of that Indian Muslim scholar?

Next we proceed to the idea of the Mirror calling itself Sun. That will not be true. The Mirror cannot claim to be the Sun. God talking to Moses in Bush (Even though He said, “I am Your God.”) does not mean that Bush was God. The sound may be coming from the Bush and it may appear to be saying “I am your God.” But would that mean that Bush could be God? I hope not.

We can say that God manifested Himself through the Bush. But the Bush could never be the God. Only the voice came from the Bush.

Let us say that God speaks to some one from behind a curtain. Will you say that curtain was the God? Or did any curtain claim to be God? or did the Bush claim that it was god or had any right to claim divinity??

But we see that Bahaullah claimed to be God because (he thought that) God manifested Himself through Bahaullah. According to your theology (baha’i beliefs), If God manifested Himself through Jesus then Jesus could be God. If God manifested Himself through Moses then Moses could say that he was God. If God manifested Himself through a stone then that Stone could claim some divinity?? Is that right please??

Also please explain about the Mirror and the Sun theory being quite well known before Bahaullah or Abdul Baha. Could that be true? Known in year 1870 etc.

Hello planten. Thank you for your thoughtfulness about this issue. First of all, there is no way that Abdu’l-Baha, a prisoner in Akka since 1868, had any access to the book from India. He wrote:
Thus, should the mirrored Sun proclaim, ‘I am the Sun!’ this is but truth; and should It cry, ‘I am not the Sun!’ this is the truth as well.(Selections from the Writings of Abdu’l-Baha, p. 50)

His teacher was His Father, Who said in Kitab-i-Iqan, (please observe closely)

Were any of the all-embracing Manifestations of God to declare: “I am God!” He verily speaketh the truth, and no doubt attacheth thereto. For it hath been repeatedly demonstrated that through their Revelation, their attributes and names, the Revelation of God, His name and His attributes, are made manifest in the world.

It is not the personality of Baha’u’llah saying he is GOD! It is the Voice of God, as you showed, speaking through the Bush, through Jesus, through Baha’u’llah.

You wrote: 'But we see that Bahaullah claimed to be God because (he thought that) God manifested Himself through Bahaullah. ’ That’s what it is: THROUGH Bahaullah.

See how slight twists in the use of terms gets us tangled, and careful use of the terms brings us together again? We worry about the claims to identity, but it is a question of our obedience, in the end.

**He that obeys the Apostle obeys Allah Himself. **(Qur’án 4:80)

 

[DavidMark]

**Beware lest ye speak of duality in regard to My Self, for all the atoms of the earth proclaim that there is none other God but Him, the One, the Single, the Mighty, the Loving.

From the beginning that hath no beginning I have proclaimed, from the realm of eternity, that I am God, none other God is there save Me, the Help in Peril, the Self-Subsisting; and unto the end that hath no end I shall proclaim, amidst the kingdom of names, that I am God, none other God is there beside Me, the All-Glorious, the Best-Beloved.

Say: Lordship is My Name, whereof I have created manifestations in the world of being, while We Ourself remain sanctified above them, would ye but ponder this truth. And Godhead is My Name, whereof We have created exponents whose power shall encompass the people of the earth and make them true worshippers of God, could ye but recognize it. Thus should ye regard all Our Names, if ye be endued with insight.**(Baha’u’llah, The Summons of the Lord of Hosts, p. 20)

 

[humble_maid]

From Bahá’í Sacred Scriptures:
**"Say: O concourse of monks! Seclude not yourselves in churches and cloisters. Come forth by My leave, and occupy yourselves with that which will profit your souls and the souls of men. Thus biddeth you the King of the Day of Reckoning.
Seclude yourselves in the stronghold of My love. This, verily, is a befitting seclusion, were ye of them that perceive it. He that shutteth himself up in a house is indeed as one dead. It behooveth man to show forth that which will profit all created things, and he that bringeth forth no fruit is fit for fire.
Thus counseleth you your Lord, and He, verily, is the Almighty, the All-Bounteous.
Enter ye into wedlock, that after you someone may fill your place.
We have forbidden you perfidious acts, and not that which will demonstrate fidelity. Have ye clung to the standards fixed by your own selves, and cast the standards of God behind your backs?

Fear God, and be not of the foolish. But for man, who would make mention of Me on My earth, and how could My attributes and My name have been revealed? Ponder ye, and be not of them that are veiled and fast asleep. He that wedded not** [Jesus]** found no place wherein to dwell or lay His head, by reason of that which the hands of the treacherous had wrought. His sanctity consisteth not in that which ye believe or fancy, but rather in the things We possess.
Ask, that ye may apprehend His station which hath been exalted above the imaginings of all that dwell on earth. Blessed are they who perceive it." **
And again: **"O concourse of monks! If ye choose to follow Me, I will make you heirs of My Kingdom; and if ye transgress against Me, I will, in My long-suffering, endure it patiently, and I, verily, am the Ever-Forgiving, the All-Merciful.

…Bethlehem is astir with the Breeze of God. We hear her voice saying: ‘O Most Generous Lord! Where is Thy great glory established? The sweet savors of Thy presence have quickened me, after I had melted in my separation from Thee. Praised be Thou in that Thou hast raised the veils, and come with power in evident glory.’ We called unto her from behind the Tabernacle of Majesty and Grandeur: ‘O Bethlehem! This Light hath risen in the orient, and traveled towards the occident, until it reached thee in the evening of its life. Tell Me then: Do the sons recognize the Father, and acknowledge Him, or do they deny Him, even as the people aforetime denied Him [Jesus]?’

And again: **“Consider, likewise, how numerous at this time are the monks who have secluded themselves in their churches, in My name, and who, when the appointed time came, and We unveiled to them Our beauty, failed to recognize Me, notwithstanding that they call upon Me at dawn and at eventide.”
“Read ye the Evangel,” **He again addresses them, "and yet refuse to acknowledge the All-Glorious Lord? This indeed beseemeth you not, O concourse of learned men!.. The fragrances of the All-Merciful have wafted over all creation. Happy the man that hath forsaken his desires, and taken fast hold of guidance."

Good Day,

I would like to ask you how would you defend your views against non-believers, specifically atheists who believe solely in the scientific realm. How would you say God exists. The reason I ask is simply because religion in itself is a problem. Everyone claims to have the full knowledge of God. I believe since God created everything then He is veritably Scientific Himself. How can we as believers in the Almighty and Jesus debate that the bible presents some clues that could reveal scientific facts. Perhaps somewhere in your scriptures there is a link?

God Bless

 

[Sen_McGlinn]

This good example of the Sun and the Mirror written above from Abdul Baha: Could you tell me in what year was that spoken or written?? Thank you. And where did he present it??

The source, Divine Philosophy is not an authentic Bahai text, it is analogous to the books that circulated in the early Christian community but were not canonised, such as the Shepherd of Hermes.

The source in this case is notes of a conversation between Abdu’l-Baha and Pasteur Monnier, a teacher of theology, in Paris in February 1913. According to this apocryphal report (in Bahai-talk it is called a ‘pilgrims note’ because pilgrims who met Abdu’l-Baha wrote letters home with such reports of things they had heard through an interpreter) :

"But we stated that every religious question must be tested by the criteria of science and reason, otherwise how can one accept it? If I propound a question which is rejected by the deduction of reason, it is not worthy of your acceptance.

Therefore let us investigate independently the reality of this matter and let us always be guided in our exposition by the light of reason and science.

What is the meaning of the Father and the Son? We say that this Fatherhood and Sonship are allegorical, and symbolical. The Messianic Reality is like unto a mirror through which the Sun of Divinity has become resplendent. If this mirror states “The Light is in me” it is sincere in its claim; therefore Jesus was truthful when He said "The Father is in me.’

When we look a the question from the above standpoint we see that the principle of the Trinity is explained. The sun which is in the sky, and the sun in the mirror are one, are they not? We do not believe that there are two suns, and yet we see that there are two suns."

As published in Star of the West, Vol. 4, p. 53, published April 28, 1913.

 

[Sen_McGlinn]

The source, Divine Philosophy is not an authentic Bahai text,… The source in this case is notes of a conversation between Abdu’l-Baha and Pasteur Monnier, a teacher of theology, in Paris in February 1913. According to this apocryphal report :

I have to amend this: while Divine Philosophy is not an authentic text, in this case what it is quoting is not an apocryphal report but a translation by Mirza Sohrab of Persian notes taken at the time. Abdu’l-Baha’s usual practice was to check and correct such notes, and Sohrab was a quite competent translator, so this is likely to be a good reflection of what Abdu’l-Baha said.

 

[arthra]

Good Day,

I would like to ask you how would you defend your views against non-believers, specifically atheists who believe solely in the scientific realm. How would you say God exists. The reason I ask is simply because religion in itself is a problem. Everyone claims to have the full knowledge of God. I believe since God created everything then He is veritably Scientific Himself. How can we as believers in the Almighty and Jesus debate that the bible presents some clues that could reveal scientific facts. Perhaps somewhere in your scriptures there is a link?

God Bless

There are some ways at least that we Baha’is approach the situation of say an atheistic view…

The First that for us God is Unknowable so any of us alone who claims to be able to have 'full knowledge" of God is not our view, that is, we would not claim that.

Secondly we accept that there should be harmony between science and religion… For many people today there is conflict between science and religion and this is due I think to the historical rifts in Western culture in the developement of science. So we should be accepting of the findings of science. We may not all agree of course how these findings are sometimes implemented… hence there are moral and ethical spheres that should weigh in on how scientific findings are implemented.

Third is that what knowledge we have of God is through His Manifestations and what was revealed. Beyond that human approaches to plumbing the nature of God are only speculative in our view…

Fourth, we believe scientific discoveries are also derived from God through inspiration.

 

[arthra]

Planten , thanks for your post…

I’m giving my own response in italics

Planten wrote:

But we see that Baha’u’llah claimed to be God because (he thought that) God manifested Himself through Baha’u’llah.

Actually the way Baha’is I believe would see it is that God can speak through Baha’u’llah as He did through Jesus when He said “before Abraham was I am”. Jesus in our view wasn’t pointing at Himself saying I am God either. Confusing the Mirror with what is revealed in it is a common problem… So we don’t worship Baha’u’llah as God … We worship the God revealed through Him though.

Planten wrote:

According to your theology (Baha’i beliefs), If God manifested Himself through Jesus then Jesus could be God. If God manifested Himself through Moses then Moses could say that he was God. If God manifested Himself through a stone then that Stone could claim some divinity?? Is that right please??

We distinguish between the creation and the Creator so a stone cannot claim to be God… A stone though as mute as it is reflects some of the attributes of God…just as we see there are attributes of God reflected in HIs creation… so you look at an artist and can see in his work his style perhaps…Baha’is don’t have theologians and as to a “theology” our Faith is quite young.

Now the Manifestations of God are Mirrors in an innate sense…They don’t have to polish Their Mirror to reflect better… We do. Why? Because effort is required to reflect the attributes of God in this life. If we don’t work for it it isn’t going to happen and this is not true for the Manifestations of God Who have an innate purity and Knowledge from God.

"Souls are like unto mirrors, and the bounty of God is like unto the sun. When the mirrors pass beyond all coloring and attain purity and polish, and are confronted with the sun, they will reflect in full perfection its light and glory. In this condition one should not consider the mirror, but the power of the light of the sun, which hath penetrated the mirror, making it a reflector of the heavenly glory."

(Abdu’l-Baha, Tablets of Abdu’l-Baha v1, p. 19)

Planten:

Also please explain about the Mirror and the Sun theory being quite well known before Baha’u’llah or Abdu’l-Baha. Could that be true? Known in year 1870 etc.

*I don’t think anyone claimed the concept is totally new or unique…actually it is quite ancient. The ancients would have to work hard to craft a copper mirror… and of course a still mountain lake as a mirror can also reflect the sun to us. *

But for us the concept of a Perfect Mirror as a Manifestation of God that needs no work to polish is probably more unique.

 

[Badi1919]

Read and download Baha’i books online
http://www.scribd.com/NaserEmtesali

 

[arthra]

Baha’i Library Online:

bahai-library.com/

 

[uscav_21]

Oh people, they are many religions that try and start and piggy back off of established accepted world religions. However this style is nothing more than a revised Islam. Note that given a finite set of letters one can draw many things out of a text that seems strange, so when they do this flip through a few pages and do the same thing with another page. When working with small amounts of things one can truly find connections in everything. Be smart and use good judgment. There is a reason why the following is so small.

 

[planten]

The Muslims think that Baha’ism is another way of preaching Christianity. But we let then be. They are active. They have a right to preach their faith. They are organised. If their faith is true, it will triumph. No one will be able to defeat them. But if it is not true, they will soon disappear. So far they seem to have numbered only about 6-7 Million in the world. Good luck to them.

 

[DavidMark]

Good Day,

I would like to ask you how would you defend your views against non-believers, specifically atheists who believe solely in the scientific realm. How would you say God exists. The reason I ask is simply because religion in itself is a problem. Everyone claims to have the full knowledge of God. I believe since God created everything then He is veritably Scientific Himself. How can we as believers in the Almighty and Jesus debate that the bible presents some clues that could reveal scientific facts. Perhaps somewhere in your scriptures there is a link?

God Bless

Hi again Humble Maid! Thank you for your continuing interest, and this good question.
It is true, religionists need to realize they are one wing, and science is the other.
God is the Omni-scient, the All-Knowing --transcending time and space!
It is not difficult for God to know and be with and dominate every atom in existence.
Atheism is a challenge for me, because, in my way, I bow down to the God of our fathers.
It is understandable that any limited creature would be perplexed at the thought of the Eternal King; some respond to this by depending on the senses, which are inadequate as well. The animals surpass us in sense perception, and their hearts are incapable of relying on the promise of an invisible Entity. The divine love taught by God is the beginning and end of all things; if we succeed in loving as God loves, He will sort it all out later.

Here is a syllogism that i discovered in my own Writings:
…the part cannot possess perfections whereof the whole is deprived. (Tablet to August Forel, p. 11)
Man possesses certain virtues of which nature is deprived. (‘Abdu’l-Bahá, PUP, p. 79)
The truth is that God has given to man certain powers which are supernatural. (PUP, p. 17)

'Abdu’l-Baha said:
If we accept the supposition that man is but a part of nature, we are confronted by an illogical statement, for this is equivalent to claiming that a part may be endowed with qualities which are absent in the whole. For man who is a part of nature has perception, intelligence, memory, conscious reflection and susceptibility, while nature itself is quite bereft of them. How is it possible for the part to be possessed of qualities or faculties which are absent in the whole? The truth is that God has given to man certain powers which are supernatural. How then can man be considered a captive of nature? Is he not dominating and controlling nature to his own uses more and more? Is he not the very divinity of nature? Shall we say nature is blind, nature is not perceptive, nature is without volition and not alive, and then relegate man to nature and its limitations? How can we answer this question? How will the materialists and scholastic atheists prove and support such a supposition? As a matter of fact, they themselves make natural laws subservient to their own wish and purpose. The proof is complete that in man there is a power beyond the limitations of nature, and that power is the bestowal of God.(Abdu’l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 17)

It would be impossible to find an artist who does not love his own production. Have you ever seen a man who did not love his own actions? Even though they be bad actions, he loves them. How ignorant, therefore, the thought that God, Who created man, educated and nurtured him, surrounded him with all blessings, made the sun and all phenomenal existence for his benefit, bestowed upon him tenderness and kindness and then did not love him. This is palpable ignorance, for no matter to what religion a man belongs, even though he be an atheist or materialist, nevertheless, God nurtures him, bestows His kindness and sheds upon him His light. How then can we believe God is wrathful and unloving? How can we even imagine this, when as a matter of fact we are witnesses of the tenderness and mercy of God upon every hand? All about us we behold manifestations of the love of God. If, therefore, God be loving, what should we do? We have nothing else to do but to emulate Him. Just as God loves all and is kind to all, so must we really love and be kind to everybody. (‘Abdu’l-Bahá, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 267)

 

[DavidMark]

The Muslims think that Baha’ism is another way of preaching Christianity. But we let then be. They are active. They have a right to preach their faith. They are organised. If their faith is true, it will triumph. No one will be able to defeat them. But if it is not true, they will soon disappear. So far they seem to have numbered only about 6-7 Million in the world. Good luck to them.

This is a perceptive comment planten. I wish the 'ayatullah’s" thought the same way.
Gamaliel said something like it in the Book of Acts:

5:38 **And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: **5:39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.
But, the people of faith in every age do not wait for public opinion to support them.

Also, it is redundant to say ‘Bahaism’. It is like saying 'Christianity-ism, or ‘Islamism’, implying, to me, that it has gone beyond propriety and become a reactionary movement.

 

[DavidMark]

Oh people, they are many religions that try and start and piggy back off of established accepted world religions. However this style is nothing more than a revised Islam. Note that given a finite set of letters one can draw many things out of a text that seems strange, so when they do this flip through a few pages and do the same thing with another page. When working with small amounts of things one can truly find connections in everything. Be smart and use good judgment. There is a reason why the following is so small.

This is a myopic view. One should compare what Baha’i has done in 165 years with say Christianity. It was 325 CE before Constantine legitimized Christianity. Already Baha’i has achieved a singular thing: the most diverse assembly of races, tribes, nationalities and languages in the history of the world, at the Baha’i World Congress in Manhattan in 1992 and periodic world conventions since. Of course this was facilitated by an ‘increase in knowledge’ as predicted by Daniel 12; but why has such a thing happened in this age?
We see ourselves at the outset of not just a new divine Dispensation, but an entirely new Cycle of maturity in human history, which will stretch into the future for 500,000 years!
That is half a million years, approaching geologic time-scales…
and people think the human race is soon to go caput!

Matthew 6:8 **…your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

That which the Lord hath ordained as the sovereign remedy and mightiest instrument for the healing of all the world is the union of all its peoples in one universal Cause, one common Faith. This can in no wise be achieved except through the power of a skilled, an all-powerful and inspired Physician. This, verily, is the truth, and all else naught but error.**(Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah, p. 255)

 

[DavidMark]

uscav_21: You were fated to write post #666 here.

(This explanation of the meaning of “666” is not made up by me; it is authoritative and is based on the interpretations of Revelation by the Central Figures of the Bahá’í Revelation.)

The “Three Woes” were Muhammad, the Báb (1819-1850) and Bahá’u’lláh (1817-1892).

The “Two Witnesses” of Rev. chap. 12 are Muhammad and 'Alí, who “stand up again” in the Persons of the Báb and His chief follower Quddus.

The “Woman and the Dragon” illustrates the feud beween the Hashemites and the Ummayads. Like Hagar, the progenitress of Muhammad, the Law of God went “into the wilderness” --that is the Center was moved from Jerusalem to Mecca. Abu Sufyan hated Islam and only became a believer when it was evident the cause of Muhammad would predominiate. His descendents sought to kill the descendents of Muhammad, as Herod sought to kill the children at the time of Infant Jesus.

The Umayyads had no interest in compassion generally, but exulted in cruel subjugation. This is the Beast that “came out of the pit” and took over the outward authority of the Cause of God, which was represented already at that time by Islámists, not muslims. The center of power was moved north to Damascus; and it was even attempted to re-locate the Ka’aba there, the Abrahamic Shrine designated by Muhammad as the Point of Adoration!

‘Alí ibn Abú Talib was married to Muhammad’s daughter Fatima, and was the father of Hasan and Husayn, and the line of Imams, those “12 Princes” promised to Abraham, through Ishmael.
In 638, Jerusalem was turned over to Caliph Umar by Patriarch Sophronius. Unfortunately, the third Caliph Uthman (pronounced Osman), had promoted the Umayyad Yazíd to administer Syria; and his brother Mu‘awiya succeeded him. Mu’awiya ordered ‘Alí, the fourth Caliph, attacked in Kufa (Najaf), Iraq, 27 January, 661, and he died two days later. ‘Alí, the first believer, the cousin and son-in-law of the Prophet, designated by Him orally as the Successor. ‘Alí was the first spiritual Imam, the first Muslim scribe and teacher of calligraphy.
By 666, Umayyad power was firmly established in Damascus. Mu’awiya dismissed the claims of Hasan ibn ‘Alí, and it is said he was poisoned by his wife, at Mu’awiya’s urging, in 669.
During October, A.D. 680, the third Imam, Husayn, second son of Imam 'Alí, was slaughtered with other members of his family at Karbila. The passion plays about this event resemble those of the Crucifixion.

So, 666 is the “number of a man” a calendar year, but all of this has worked to throw into distinct contrast the Cause of God in the world and base worldliness.

 

[Lapell]

Are you sure [Khalil Gibran’s case] was a case of excommunication and not a warning issued against his writings? When was it issued?

Sorry, Anthra, I thought you were implying a negative judgement on the Maronite Church. Hence what I was saying… However, you haven’t answered these two questions. The interdiction of publishing writings and an excommunication are not quite the same thing, even though one might lead to the other. It depends. This is why I asked these questions,especially the first one.

 

[Lapell]

Planten , thanks for your post…

I’m giving my own response in italics

Planten wrote:

But we see that Baha’u’llah claimed to be God because (he thought that) God manifested Himself through Baha’u’llah.

Actually the way Baha’is I believe would see it is that God can speak through Baha’u’llah as He did through Jesus when He said “before Abraham was I am”. Jesus in our view wasn’t pointing at Himself saying I am God either. Confusing the Mirror with what is revealed in it is a common problem… So we don’t worship Baha’u’llah as God … We worship the God revealed through Him though.

My understanding is, that no Israelite prophet, not even Moses, ever said a thing like: “Before Abraham (or whoever) was, I am”. Muhammad never said such a thing either, and I take it neither the Bab nor Baha’ullah ever said such a thing either. You don’t find this rather odd?

 

[Lapell]

uscav_21: You were fated to write post #666 here.

(This explanation of the meaning of “666” is not made up by me; it is authoritative and is based on the interpretations of Revelation by the Central Figures of the Bahá’í Revelation.)

The “Three Woes” were Muhammad, the Báb (1819-1850) and Bahá’u’lláh (1817-1892).

The “Two Witnesses” of Rev. chap. 12 are Muhammad and 'Alí, who “stand up again” in the Persons of the Báb and His chief follower Quddus.

The “Woman and the Dragon” illustrates the feud beween the Hashemites and the Ummayads. Like Hagar, the progenitress of Muhammad, the Law of God went “into the wilderness” --that is the Center was moved from Jerusalem to Mecca. Abu Sufyan hated Islam and only became a believer when it was evident the cause of Muhammad would predominiate. His descendents sought to kill the descendents of Muhammad, as Herod sought to kill the children at the time of Infant Jesus.

The Umayyads had no interest in compassion generally, but exulted in cruel subjugation. This is the Beast that “came out of the pit” and took over the outward authority of the Cause of God, which was represented already at that time by Islámists, not muslims. The center of power was moved north to Damascus; and it was even attempted to re-locate the Ka’aba there, the Abrahamic Shrine designated by Muhammad as the Point of Adoration!

‘Alí ibn Abú Talib was married to Muhammad’s daughter Fatima, and was the father of Hasan and Husayn, and the line of Imams, those “12 Princes” promised to Abraham, through Ishmael.
In 638, Jerusalem was turned over to Caliph Umar by Patriarch Sophronius. Unfortunately, the third Caliph Uthman (pronounced Osman), had promoted the Umayyad Yazíd to administer Syria; and his brother Mu‘awiya succeeded him. Mu’awiya ordered ‘Alí, the fourth Caliph, attacked in Kufa (Najaf), Iraq, 27 January, 661, and he died two days later. ‘Alí, the first believer, the cousin and son-in-law of the Prophet, designated by Him orally as the Successor. ‘Alí was the first spiritual Imam, the first Muslim scribe and teacher of calligraphy.
By 666, Umayyad power was firmly established in Damascus. Mu’awiya dismissed the claims of Hasan ibn ‘Alí, and it is said he was poisoned by his wife, at Mu’awiya’s urging, in 669.
During October, A.D. 680, the third Imam, Husayn, second son of Imam 'Alí, was slaughtered with other members of his family at Karbila. The passion plays about this event resemble those of the Crucifixion.

So, 666 is the “number of a man” a calendar year, but all of this has worked to throw into distinct contrast the Cause of God in the world and base worldliness.

Any symbol used in the Book of the Apocalypse (or Revelation), written in a time of heavy persecution against the Christians, is to be understood according to what was known in the Apostle John’s time, not according to ours, which puts different meanings in a number of cases. Nothing like some Nostradamus’ so-called “predictions”…

 

[Lapell]

Any symbol used in the Book of the Apocalypse (or Revelation), written in a time of heavy persecution against the Christians, is to be understood according to what was known in the Apostle John’s time, not according to ours, which puts different meanings in a number of cases. Nothing like some Nostradamus’ so-called “predictions”…

There have been some unfortunate misconceptions about what the Book of Revelation (Apocalypse) was written for… It’s mainly a book of prayer and hope for all the disciples of Jesus Christ.

 

[Sen_McGlinn]

(This explanation of the meaning of “666” is not made up by me; it is authoritative and is based on the interpretations of Revelation by the Central Figures of the Bahá’í Revelation.)

What’s the source for this DavidMark? I’ve studied the Bahai teaching for decades and I’ve never heard it before. You’re also the first Bahai I’ve ever heard claim to give authoritative interpretations - that’s something normally thought to be reserved for the Guardian and Abdu’l-Baha.