JC, you just go right on having this conversation with yourself, and not participating in any of the dialog here. Don't worry that you have left dozens of direct questions to your false statements unanswered. You just keep ignoring these direct challenges to your false teachings, and maybe they'll just go away.
I don't know much about Bahai. But I have a soimple question. Is bahai against Jesus Christ or God. Or are they.. I don't even know how to phrase this, I guess what I'm trying to say is, Muslim isn't with Christianity, or Catholic, it's different, But Bahai, is it with Jesus? Is that a belief? Im sorry, I don't even know what exactly Im saying. If you get me, please reply!
Bahai excepts jesus indeed but they put more value on Muhammed and Krishna.
It really depends where you live. In India ( most of the Bahai live here) they preach and highlight Kishna. for west Jesus get's More exposer,And to Muslim world Muhammed.
In fact Muslim faith is the only faith which have more similarity with the root of Christian doctrine and acceept him as a virgin birth and a messenger of Allah.
And Only Muslims follow which was preached by Jesus/Muhammed
@javedmahmood Bahai do not put more value on any of the prophets over the other, for they are all lights of God and their word will always be sacred jesus is of equal value as Muhammad as well as Buddha as well as all other prophets of the past and future.
@gurlfurlmagirl --- I'll answer that. I was a Baha'i for a long time. Baha'is are for one thing, and one thing only: Worldly power. They want to rule the world, plain and simple. Jesus sad: "My kingdom is not of this world." The world is all Baha'is care about. They basically have no spiritual life and their religion is externally focused. Their religious joy comes from seeing their expensive buildings on Mount Carmel and dreaming of power.
@SacredWord I'm sorry you had such a negative experience with the group situated out of Haifa & Chicago. This video is not affiliated with that group, though we respect their right to freedom of religion & expression.
well it looks like a lot of people need to open there eyes and ears, before u bag a faith do your research and dont be so stupid as to bag a faith because u have such a closed love for the faith u believe. I have a question, God would be and is seen in every religion as perfect beyond anything a human could possibly live up to yet Jesus "a human(a amazingly great one to say the least, but still human)" was God? if u think the christian faith is the only right faith read "thief in the night"
I'm sorry, but your ideas about the origins of the Baha'i Faith are entirely off base. Who ever told you such things? Since when do 6 million believers constitute a "cult". They said the same thing about Jesus & Mohamed, didn't they? They said Jesus' teachings were an offshoot of Judaism. Well that's partially true, as both Jesus & Moses are sent from the same Creator, but with independent Revelations. Likewise Baha'u'llah's Revelations comes from that same Creator, but hardly as an "offshoot".
Religion, faith and superstition are irrational. History shows that these are the source to most of humanitys DivisionsWage peacesay no to religionplease
As for I know, the religion from Haifa is controlled by the illuminati to easily gather everyone from every religion to create the new religion of all faith that will be brainwashed to believe in the lord of the hosts as the Messiah, however the only Messiah is Jesus Christ.
A ware between Haifa and Jerusalem will be risen, but the city of God (Jerusalem) will destroy Haifa.
The "only Messiah is Jesus Christ"? If that were true then he was either a fraud or a complete failure. The Bible is clear two Messiah's would appear: one would suffer and die rejected and alone (Isaiah 53), and the other a King on the Throne of David who would reign upon it over the House of the Lord. That very House of the Lord is the Baha'i House of Justice. Baha'u'llah, the lit. descendant of King of David, has established the House of the Lord, and his descendant shall forever be it's execs
Everyone in these so called religions have there roots tainted. Just like the followers of Isa, Yashua?, or some jesus people have used this all as an oppurtunity for there greed. Like catholicism is pagan and the Bahai'yanna is i believe in a similar situation.
You can't be serious with this? Jesus himself points to Daniel 8 when they ask him when he will return (Matt24:15). Every Biblical scholar worth his salt acknowledges it's Daniel 8 that gives the prophecy for the 2nd coming which is the 2300 years. Moreover in the 1800's several dozen independent observers independently came to the conclusion that this prophecy led to March 21st 1844. You really should wait til you're done with all your Sunday school lessons before getting into this deep stuff.
The Son has returned also as High Priest and Judge, not as Christ. Christ returns in the Glory of the Father, the Son returns as the Lamb with 7 eyes & horns & as the High Priest, not Christ on his 2nd coming.
Paul doesn't say that Jesus IS the "seed of David" in this verse, but instead clarifies that Jesus is "made OF the seed of David according to the FLESH"
As for your second statement, this is all speculative inference. Many times the Bible & Jesus distinctly DENY being God. "No man hath seen God at ANY TIME" John 1:18
If you think that Jesus is claiming to be God, then he is also claiming that all believers are God, when he says "that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one" John 17:21
So-called christians must always resort to a couple of far-stretched verses in attempt to justify their belief in the incarnate-god Lie. Jesus consistently chose NOT to speak when challenged by the "authorities". Your inference is unfounded Biblically. Sure, you can say you "think" it is inferred, but there is no substance.
JCouraged, we accept Jesus for what the Bible says he was: a prophet sent by God with a Revelation for man. We accept every word of the Bible; not one verse proclaims him as God so there's no need for twisting and cherry picking verses that you think imply he was. Thanks for sharing these great verses. We are not apologists for our beliefs; neither are we here to argue with others about their's. Engaging in this type of debating is fruitless. Thanks for sharing. Take care.
You're darn right it's a NAME! The name Baha'u'llah literally means "glory of the FATHER".
He is the Everlasting Father seated "upon the throne of David", something Jesus can never do as there is currently a man seated on David's throne this day in fulfillment of the Everlasting Covenant of God (see psalms 89)
Jesus received the authority of the throne, as the son of the king has authority of the throne when he is in another country. Jesus said "my kingship is not of this world" as he never physically inherited the throne, but only the authority of the Father, which is Baha'u'llah.
Agreed; the Bible says that. We concur, believe, & accept both verses, including the ones preceding & proceeding them. They are essential to understand the meanings. He became the "only begotten son" at his baptism at age 30 according to John and Paul. "And God said, 'this is my beloved son, with whom I'm well pleased; today I have begotten thee'".
What you've quoted doesn't support your original allegation:"by simple belief..our sins and mistakes are erased". It just doesn't say that.
JCouraged, those are lovely sentiments, but that's not what the Bible says. Where does it ever say that "by simple belief in his death and resurrection...our sins and mistakes are erased"? Or that we need this to commune with God? Those are two entirely different issues, and unfortunately you're mistaken about both of them. The Bible makes no such claims, and as Paul said to "prove all things; hold fast to that which is good" we must be diligent about what we accept into our hearts.
copasetic5, did you sign up for youtube yesterday just to comment on our videos? What a compliment.
The last time to you created a new user account to spam our channel under a new name it was really unpleasant for everyone involved. Do you have any intention of behaving yourself this time, or are you planning another take-over? We're happy to discuss these matters if you'd like to engage in dialog. But if you're only interested in dominating discussion w/ rhetoric we'll thank you to spare us.
Rev. 1:7 is a good verse to quote. Not seen with an inner eye, but literally seen in the sky coming with angels.
1 Thessalonians 3:13 May he strengthen your hearts so that you will be blameless and holy in the presence of our God and Father when our Lord Jesus comes with all his holy ones.
Jesus claimed to be the only access to God, His Father (John 14:6--7). He claimed to be able to forgive sins (Matt. 9:2--7). He claimed to be the judge of all mankind and to dishonor Him was to dishonor God His Father (John 5:22--23). He claimed to have had glory with His Father before the world began (John 17:5).
A light of revelation to the Gentiles, And the GLORY of Thy people Israel" - Luke 2:32 - quoting Isaiah 42:6
The last verse you quote in support of your theory shows that Jesus is the glory of the people, not of God. This comment sounds strangely like that of another user called richbee2.
heheh. had to make an account just to post. you are aware of the fact that mason isnt really a ghusn right.... and this neal chase guy. wouldnt it be more correct if he called himself ghusn instead of aghsan. sounds like you dont know what the word means. hehe. just a suggestion
I'm aware that there are many sans-guardians out there that don't accept the FACT that Mason IS a ghusn. Mason is the Son and Heir of 'Abdu'l-Baha, having been grafted by the Divine Gardener onto the Tree of the throne-line of King David.
The word Aghsan is more recognizable by the majority. Neal Chase is the great-grandson of 'Abdu'l-Baha, & the one currently seated upon the throne of King David in a direct line of succession from Baha'u'llah in the throne line of Kings.
funny. actually the word ghusn have been given a special meaning in the bahai writings. It is obvious for every logical thinking person that mason can't fit in to that description. Think you better find out what the word means and then give me your so called FACTS with capital letters;)
nice save on the aghsan question, but still doesn't make any sense if you are familiar with the arabic language. well i'll correct that. it does make sense, but it just sounds stupid.
You continue to post Bible verses to our videos, with no explanation.
You obviously have your own idea of what this verse means, & clearly you believe that we are blasphemers of the worst kind. If that's the case, just say it.
If you really believe that we have done something to warrant not being able to be forgiven, then why are you here?
The truth is, that where Judaism is the root, & Christianity the branch, the Baha'i Faith is the leaf, flower & fruit of the same Tree.
You've done nothing so far to refute any of the proofs put forward in our various videos. Read the Kitab-i-Iqan (Book of Certitude) for a full explanation from the Pen of Baha'u'llah of how these signs were fulfilled.
Why would you suggest to find prophesies of the Bible in another book? The Bible contains the real truths.
Matthew 16:27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done.
Matthew 25:31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory.
The "glory of the Father" (Mark 8:38) is a translation from the original Galilean Aramaic that Jesus spoke when he said "Baha'u'llah". This is also the Arabic rendering of the same name & title. But then, you already know this, don't ya.
John 5:46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"
Those titles you refer to are titles of the return of Jesus the High Priest, distinct from the 2nd coming of Christ. The confusion of the people here rests in lack of understanding of the concept of "Return" spoken of in the scriptures. Refer to the video "Return of Christ" for more on this.
The name "Baha'u'llah" literally meaning "glory of God", "glory of the Lord" or "glory of the Father" is prophesied of all throughout the Old & New Testaments. Refer to Ezekiel 1:26-28 to start.
It is the churches that present a different gospel from the "gospel of the Kingdom", defined further as "the Kingdom of our father David which is coming".
Paul warns that the Christians would come to accept a "different gospel" and "another Jesus", which they indeed have. The gospel preached in the churches is completely alien to the true "gospel of the Kingdom" which was proclaimed by Jesus.
The Kingdom of God which Jesus heralded is now come, brought by the Father, Baha'u'llah.
It is of no private interpretation, as it is only those that have come fulfilling the prophecies who then explain them to the people, 'breaking the seals' so to speak.
Do you call Jesus a false prophet because he explained how he fulfilled prophecy? Your objection is illogical & self-contradictory.
I have read John 6. I'm guessing you're referring to the "bread from heaven" verses? They only further prove that when Jesus says "heaven" he's not talking about the sky as you claim. Jesus said he came from heaven the first time, yet we know he was born of a woman. Why then do you have different expectations about the meaning of "heaven" for the 2nd coming?
What you're missing here is that the Return of Christ also comes "like a thief in the night".
A thief is not seen by anyone. It is only later, when the theft is discovered, that his picture is posted all over letting "every eye" see who it was that came.
I'm glad you brought up the verse from Acts, which explicitly says "HEAVEN" & NOT sky. Read the words of Jesus where he explains that he was "in heaven" while on earth (John 3:13 KJV)showing that Jesus understood "heaven" NOT as a physical place in the stratosphere, but as a spiritual condition of the soul.
The "clouds" he comes with are the myriad of false expectations held by the majority which VEIL them from seeing the LIGHT & Glory of God, Baha'u'llah.
Are you saying that the Return of Christ doesn't fulfill prophecy & can't explain how he fulfills prophecy? That's ridiculous. The way the apostles of Jesus were convinced that he was the Christ was by him opening their minds to the scriptures concerning himself. This is the same method (EDUCATION) that the 2nd coming of Christ has employed.
I thought JOSEPH ....was a descendant of King David. Mary was a "virgin", no?
I think the Baha'is are probably more with it than a lot of groups but... you cannot go around applying Western thought to Eastern concepts, including translations. This applies to modern Christianity as well, as it seems many if not most Baha'is are refugees from the church.
Too many loose ends ....many much too tight.
I'm sorry if this is insulting but someone's got to say something.
The Baha'i view on the virgin birth is addressed in the video "Christ & Antichrist" in part. Mary was a virgin, but the Bible is clear that Jesus was made of the "seed [from the greek SPERMA = male sperm] of David according to the flesh", showing that only Joseph could be the dad. Women become pregnant regularly without penetration. She is still a "virgin", but the egg & sperm come together. True science & true religion must correspond.
unfortunatly you and other Bahia's are not even honest to your own hart and "independent finding the true" in baheis cultur means reading only their books from your writing i undrestand you are either ignoring the truth or realy naive how ever disunity wasnt only between his sons it was among all those i manchant befor and as historian recorded in many books he was jaild 4 month in tehran for involving asasination of king and few yars latr was jaild for ordring of kiling 4of his brothr folowrs.
intersting part is non of the profits clame unity of man kind he IS only one claming that ples chck wikipdia type bahaullah about his teaching that couldnt even teach unity to his own sons, brothrs,wives grand daughters and his grand childern and great grand childrn and,now we arent talking about AZAL his othr brother,why he orderd to kill mohmad esfahani and in "aghdas" teling azal"you see god kiled him" if that so why you went jail for it?although wasnt first &only 1 guy it was 4 of them kild
What entirely original attacks on Baha'u'llah's character; Kudos for originality. Yet you don't quite have the facts straight, & a few of your details are skewed, yes he did go to jail (for about 40 years), but it wasn't for murder, or for ordering any murders. That's not on his Wiki page & you know it.
The disunity among his two sons after his passing really shows the weakness of the human heart, but hardly reflects badly on the truth of his message. One son was jealous of the other; so?
The Will says Shoghi had to pick his 1st born, or "another Ghsun". Abdul'-Baha had no natural male heirs, but he made it clear to many he regarded Mason as his son. He wrote: "I have adopted you as my real son.". In this light, Mason was the only Aghsan left after Shoghi Effendi declared every last one of the Covenant Breakers. He appointed this only Ghsun as the prez of the 1st IBC.
The Hands were instructed that they "must give their assent", which they refused, thus breaking the covenant.
Okei. Thanks for reply. Where it says Mason was adopted as real son? have not seen this in abdulbahas scripture. And even so he is not decendant. Guardian must be decendant. Is this correct?
The hands were instructed to give assent but they didn't. is this a passage ment to test the hands or prevent covenent breaking? It dipends how you look at it. When i read this passage i get the feeling that it is ment to prevent covenet breakers. Just my personal opinion. what you think?
"Whoso interpreteth what hath been sent down from heaven of Revelation, and altereth its evident meaning, he, verily, is of them that have perverted the Sublime Word of God, and is of the lost ones in the Lucid Book." -The KITAB-I-AQDAS
Amen to that! When those darned "Hands" had the Baha'is turn to something other than the IBC/UHJ which Shoghi Effendi set up on Jan. 9 1951, they did indeed pervert the "Sublime Word of God" as set forth in the Sacred Will & Testament where it states:
"All must seek guidance and turn unto the Center of the Cause [Shoghi] and the House of Justice. And he that turneth unto whatsoever else is indeed in grievous error."
When they turned to the "Hands" instead of the IBC/UHJ, they erred.
swahela, didn't you say "hahaha. I think i will end my discussion with you guys now."? What more can we offer you? We've graciously indulged all of your questions, patiently endured your child-like goading, and shown from all aspect our understandings. You are free to continue believing you know more than those of us who've studied these matters for as many years as you've been alive. Thanks for your help in our teaching efforts. Take care.
Upheld by Shoghi Effendi "to go against him is to go against God" (W&T, p. 11): "Coagulated drops of Baha'u'llah's all-Sacred Blood and Ringlets of His Most Blessed Locks Presented as my most precious possession to 'Abdu'l-Baha's 'dear son' Mr. Charles Mason Remey" (signed) Shoghi March 1922"
"To his honor Mr. Remey -- Upon him be BAHA'O'LLAH EL ABHA!"
,
"HE IS GOD!"
"O thou who art rejoiced by the Divine Glad Tidings!"
"Verily, I beseech God to make thee confirmed under all circumstances. Do not become despondent, neither be thou sad. Ere long, thy Lord shall make thee a SIGN of guidance among mankind"
('Abdu'l-Baha to his son [aghsan] Mason, May 3, 1906, published in 'Star of the West' Volume V, No. 19, 2 March 1915, pp. 296-297)
hahaha. I think i will end my discussion with you guys now. It's clear to me that you have no idea of what the bahai scripture say.
And thank you for bringing forth Mason Remeys diary as evidence. hehe. You could have just as well said "i heard this from Mason myself". You just proved my point. That nowhere in bahai scripture is Mason refered to as Ghusn. Thanks man.
ps. I love how you wrote [aghsan] after son. You have to study persian language if you think son translates to aghsan. hahah
The true Universal House of Justice (uhj dot net) of Baha'u'llah has an open door policy, so you're always welcome in the Kingdom. Just drop them a line.
The outfit in Haifa on Golem Street has NO EXECUTIVE branch, therefore, according to the EXPLICIT text of the Will & Testament, they are of the Covenant Breakers.
hahaha? Your immature childishness is slipping out here. Check yourself.
We "have no idea what the baha'i scriptures say"? How do you figure when we're the only ones providing direct quotes from them? You haven't once used a direct quote for refutation. We've provided you with quotes directly from Shoghi calling him "Abdu'l-Baha's dear son", and 2 quotes from Star of the West from the Master. By who's def. do these not qualify as Scripture? Your arrogance is only surpassed by your ignorance.
Stop embarracing yourself. Son doesn't translate into Ghusn. Why is this so hard to understand. Go and study the persian language before you start saying things.
I now it said son, but you say Abdu'l-Baha called Mason his ghusn and have failed to provide the untranslated tablet where you allegedly saw this. If you really have read where Abdu'l-Baha called Mason his Ghusn, you would have no problem in showing me this.
Either you accept that Mason is the "dear son" of 'Abdu'l-Baha and THEREFORE AGHSAN or you go against Shoghi Effendi. It's up to you.
The burden of investigation is on you.
Either you accept the Everlasting Covenant or you don't. 'Abdu'l-Baha (The Branch) inherited the throne of David from Baha'u'llah. Mason Remey inherited the throne of David from his father, 'Abdu'l-Baha. Today, the great-grandson of 'Abdu'l-Baha, Neal Chase ben Joseph, is seated on the throne of David. uhj dot net
"I have adopted you as my son [Persian: aghsan]. You have to appreciate this favor very much indeed. One should see that you are living according to the requirements of this sonship. You should be aware of your responsibilities. My prayers will help you. I always pray for you. "
('Abdu'l-Baha to Mason Remey, cf. "The Diaries of Mason Remey", Folio 2, "A Pilgrimage to the Holy Land: Reminisces of the Master, 1921", pp. 127-129. New York Public Library Collection)
"Give My greatest love to Mr. Remey and say: You are very dear to me. You are so dear that I think of you day and night. You are My real son [aghsan]. Therefore I have an idea for you. I hope it may come to pass."
('Abdu'l-Baha, Diary of Juliet Thompson, page 71)
Why have the Baha'is abandoned Shoghi Effendi for their saintly Hands of the Cause? They have deemed him a failure at his mission to establish the Administration. At age 61 he knew he was having no children, & had personally expelled all the other Aghsan. He established the IBC & "chose another Branch" for it's prez, but the Hands felt they could override his choice and did, thus breaking the Covenant. Now you are here championing this horrible deceit, proposing we go along and agree SE failed.
swahela, if you'd actually read the document, then you would already have the answers you're repeatedly asking. At best you made a cursory glance. He called him his "ghsun" in Star of the West. He never wrote in English, so every instance he stated was ghsun in Farsi. Juliet Thomson diary states so, Mason's diary state "I have adopted you as my real son". You are free to reject these things and make a dramatic exit, but you've made your points & we've shared what you've asked. Accept it, or go.
Okei, thank you Jeff. That's all i wanted to know. Now i guess you have read the untranslated persian text when you clearly say that Abdu'l-Baha wrote the word Ghusn. Now if you would be so kind and direct me to where i can read this with my own eyes i would really appreciate it.
swahela, you're desperately clinging to your own interpretations of the Will, instead of going by the Explicit version even the UHJ adheres to. This connection you're making is your own invention, and when called out on it you dance around my direct challenges. You adamantly insist that the Tablet to Taqi has any relevance today, when clearly it was only relevant in the pre-Will era. Now like the child you are boast that you know better regarding the Will. Since when are U the interpreter?
swahela, you're stooping to astonishingly new lows with this absurd connection that not even the UHJ proposes in it's explanations. "Any idiot" can see for themself that 'sulalih' is used specifically in regards to SE's "first born lineal descendant", who would by all accounts be an Afnan since SE was an Afnan by his father. If his sulalih wasn't up to par, then he had to pick from "another Aghsan". The two are not interchangeable, and you're being disingenuous suggesting they are. Get a grip.
Mason Remey is a descendant (in a straight line of descent) of Baha'u'llah, & nowhere in "baha'i scripture" is Aghsan even defined that way. The word refers to Branches of a Tree, in this case the Family Tree of Baha'u'llah, & is defined by Shoghi Effendi as "sons", not "blood relatives" or "descendants" the way you are claiming. Mason Remey was grafted to the Tree by 'Abdu'l-Baha. Please back up these definitions of yours with anything authoritative.
One definition of "descendant" is "in a straight line of descent", so it would be irrelevant. You have said several times that the definition is "blood relative". Where is that reference please?
i've given you the reference but you wont accept it.
why can't you just answer the question? if i show you the text where aghsan is refered to as DESCENDANTS of baha'u'llah, will you then agree that mason can't be aghsan? just answer
This is absolute double talk. First you said Ahghsan meant "only blood relatives" & you could prove it. Then you stated because Aghsan were "sulihah" that =blood relative. Now you've been proven wrong & that sulihah are SE's descendents and not all of Baha'u'llah's in the reference you provided, so you're double talking now. We agree aghsan are Baha'u'llah's descendants; your faulty thinking has decided only "blood relatives" are descendants. Mason is a descendant through adoption. Child please!
nope no double talk here. sulalih is refered to as the line which shoghi must choose from or he has to choose another ghusn which means along side sulalih. not this notion that he can choose whoever he wants. thats something mason said so that it could be of personal benefit to him.
i love it how when you can't answer a question you try to go to personal attacks on me. not my fault that your clinging to the things you were thaught.
You just now admitted, sulalih OR another ghusn. What are you implying by saying "along side sulalih"? You make no sense. We never said he could "choose whoever he wants", but within the Provisions of the Will he can, & neither you with your own interpretation of the Will (do you think you're the guardian?) nor the Hands can deny his choice.
At this point you seem to be turning to yourself for guidance.
Who's avoiding the question here! WHERE does it say Aghsan is "blood relative"?
Aghsan is not only a son of Baha'u'llah but also a descendant. This is two different words. Mason isn't a descendant of Baha'u'llah. You're making up your own interpretation of the word so it would fit for your guy.
Yes another Ghusn. Meaning another blood child. This excists in islam as well. A seyyed is a blood relative of muhammad. This question is a century old one which if you really had studied you would understand
You're avoiding my question of were Abdu'l-baha calls Mason Ghusn?
First, Mason IS an adopted descendant of Baha'u'llah, grafted onto the Tree by 'Abdu'l-Baha. Your interpretation of Aghsan connected to Islamic culture is irrelevant, as this is the continuation of the Davidic Kingship & Everlasting Covenant, of which it is prophesied to go to the gentiles after the coming of the Messiah (Root) & His Son (Branch). Whereas there are many legal examples of 'descendant' referring to adopted children, there are NO definitions of Aghsan as "blood child".
I've answered your question several times in referring you to the article here:
bupc dot org/test-of-god dot html
Now if you'd be so kind as to answer the question you keep avoiding. You said you accept the Everlasting Covenant. And I assume you acknowledge Baha'u'llah's statement that He sat upon the throne of David which then went to 'Abdu'l-Baha.
Who then do you accept as the current heir seated upon the throne of David, IF you REALLY accept the Everlasting Covenant?
You're using biblical theology to justify that your guy is the guardian.
I've read this article and nowhere does Abdu'l-baha call mason his ghusn. Why do you keep making things up. Give me the tablet where Abdu'l-Baha calls Mason his Ghusn. Why is this so hard to understand? Just give me the tablet
Mason broke the covenant when he appointed himslef to be guardian. Shoghi didn't choose him as succsessor in any text. He remains the everlasting Guardian
That article tells you everything you need to know in order to pass this TEST. 'Abdu'l-Baha adopting Mason as his REAL SON makes him a Ghusn.
You mentioned in one of your responses a while back that you 'of course' accept the Everlasting Covenant. But time after time you are unable to answer the question.
It's not "Biblical theology", it's Biblical Truth, & is upheld & continued in the Baha'i Faith!
WHO do you acknowledge TODAY as being the current HEIR to the THRONE OF DAVID?
It doesn't say Ghusn. Show me the tablet which says Ghusn. Pilgrim notes doesn't count as evidence in the bahai faith, so stop reffering me to them. And BTW, son doesn't translate into Ghusn. You need to get your facts straight.
Shoghi didn't appoint any successor. He left no Will which appointed a Guardian. We know this possibility excists through the tablet to Muhammad Taqi Afnan.
The word "son" in persian doesn't translate into Ghusn or Aghsan. Not my fault that you don't understand the persian language. You said Abdu'l-Baha called Mason Ghusn but failed to produce any evidence. Son and Ghusn are to different words with different meanings. What about this is so hard to understand.
I'm not sure if i understand your question. I've already said in a dusin posts that Shoghi didn't choose a successor.
The evidence is right there in those Tablets. You reject before you investigate.
You didn't answer EITHER of my questions.
1. Do you deny that a "REAL SON" of the Master would be an Aghsan? In reality, it doesn't matter if 'Abdu'l-Baha called Mason "ghusn" (which he DID), as Mason is Aghsan by virtue of being the LEGITIMATE SON of 'Abdu'l-Baha.
2. Do you even know what the Everlasting Covenant IS? You stated before that you accept it. Do you know what you're claiming to accept?
1. Where in the text is Mason refered to as Abdu'l-Baha's "REAL SON". I don't deny that a son of Abdu'l-Bahas flesh would be Aghsan.
2. I'm not quite sure of what your interpretation of the everlasting covenant is? This is why i'm having difficulty understanding this question.
ps. You said the evidence is there in those Tablets. I asked you to give me the tablet where Abdu'l-Baha calls Mason his Ghusn and you failed to provide it.
If you had read the article I've directed you to several times, you could see there the envelope HAND-WRITTEN by Shoghi Effendi where he calls Mason "'Abdu'l-Baha's 'dear son'" & the Tablets are from Star of the West. You can certainly find those yourself.
What do you mean "interpretation of the everlasting covenant"? It's not open to interpretation. I assumed when you stated that you accepted it that you knew what it was. Do you?
This isn't a reply to my question and you know it. You said Abdu'l-Baha called Mason his Ghusn. Now you say son. Son and Ghusn are to different words. Give me the tablet which says Ghusn. I already know the son part.
Since you have your own interpretation of everything else i assume you have an interpretation for this as well.
I think that there is a spiritual meaning beyond the physical heir to the throne that you present. I accept Gods covenant to mankind. Not your interpretation of it
Shoghi Effendi accepts Mason as the Son & therefore Aghsan of 'Abdu'l-Baha, why don't you?
The Everlasting Covenant spoken of all throughout the Bible specifically states that David shall NEVER lack a man to sit upon his throne as long as there is a sun, moon & stars in the sky. The Davidic Kingship is the SIGN by which to recognize the true Kingdom of God on earth.
Baha'u'llah inherited this throne, passed it to His Son. Who is the heir?
1. Son and Aghsan are to different words. plain and simple. You can't say since he said son this meen he is aghsan.
2. Okei now i understand. Well the thing is that that bahais see this as both a literal and spiritual statement. Baha'u'llah inherited this throne and will forever sit on the everlasting throne of david. This question has many aspects to it and difficult to understand. Since there isn't any clear bahai scripture about it people have to study and interpret for themselves
The word used IS Aghsan, & it WAS translated to "Son". We are quite aware that it can also be translated as "branch", but that Shoghi Effendi DEFINES it as "SON".
Your position concerning Baha'u'llah & the throne of David IS NOT SCRIPTURAL, & in fact is the SAME FALSE DOCTRINE the Christians try to use with Jesus, saying that he inherited the throne & is seated on it eternally.
The Bible is CLEAR that after the Root (Baha'ullah) then the BRANCH inherits the throne.
Shoghi Effendi didn't inherit the throne of David, as this is a father to son inheritance ONLY.
Do you even know WHO Baha'u'llah IS? Ever read the Bible? He is the Return of Christ, the Prince of Peace seated upon the throne of King David. Baha'u'llah proclaims this! Shoghi Effendi re-confirms this!
So, WHO do you accept as the current HEIR to the throne of David, as you stated before that you "of course" believe in and accept the Everlasting Covenant of God?
How masterfully articulate. You're going straight to the ad hominem instead of the Writings? Typical.
The point I was making is our lineage is derived from the father in every culture, oh wise one. SE's sulihah, or "first born" would be Afnan. Your belief is not explicit; sulihah is his blood relative, and not connected to aghsan. Regardless of the semantics you're proposing, "sulihah" refers to SE's descendant, or he is to pick from the Aghsan. Your rhetoric is denying fundamental truths & .
This question has been answered many times now. Please refer to the article linked below for a detailed & full answer, as there's not enough room in the comment box:
bupc dot org/test-of-god dot html
Also, read the Book of the Establisher of the Baha'i Faith, Dr. Leland Jensen, at entrybytroops dot org
Are you serious? "lost the discussion"? If that's the way you approach your Independent Investigation then it's no wonder that you're completely closed off to anything different from what you've heard before.
Not everything is a competition friend. I'm here to educate & teach the Cause, not to "win" anything other than my own station.
Boy, you just can't help from coming back here again & again. It's good to see someone so devoted to supporting our teaching effort with these videos.
And as for scripture, I for one can say that I accept the Everlasting Covenant of God proclaimed throughout the Bible & the Baha'i writings.
Thanks for your continued support. God's Blessings.
I personally choose to reject your interpretations of you're one&only Scripture (Tablet to Taqi) which you've taken liberties to infer meaning not explicit within it. That is indeed the version the UHJ wishes the believers to accept, so you are being an exemplary and obedient steward to that fallible body. If only someone could present any support in Scripture for the idea that the Hands could act beyond the Guardian they served under.
This has nothing to do with being "obedient" to Mason Remey.
Mason Remey is the Son & Aghsan of 'Abdu'l-Baha, as attested to by the several Tablets from 'Abdu'l-Baha to Mason & the token of inheritance presented to Mason from 'Abdu'l-Baha via Shoghi Effendi.
This is about being obedient to God & His Everlasting Covenant. Do you accept the Everlasting Covenant of God?
I accept the fact that Mason wasn't adopted by Abdu'l-baha in any tablet or scripture.
And since you can't provide this evidence i don't know why you cling to this fantasy. It's so obvious that he wasn't adopted. Calling someone "son" doesn't constitute adoption. This is something that even a 5 year old knows
Did you ever go to the article I posted on the Law of Adoption? Here it is again:
bupc dot org/test-of-god dot html#adoption
Also, 'Abdu'l-Baha wasn't just calling him "my son" which according to the law DOES constitute adoption, but he was calling him his "ghusn".
This is the TEST of God for you. Do you accept the Everlasting Covenant of God or not? Why do you refuse to answer this question? Are you familiar with the Everlasting Covenant?
What law. We are talking about bahai scripture here. Can you show me the persian tablet were he calls Mason a ghusn. And since Abdu'l-baha calls a dusin people his son then they would all be adopted. If you are gonna use this argument for Mason then you must apply it for everyone else as well.
Do you agree?
So we see that this isn't something special for Mason. An aghsan is a blood line decsendant of Baha'u'llah. Every idiot knows this
I cannot post the entire law here as there's not enough room. That's why I keep posting the link. Read it. 'Abdu'l-Baha didn't refer to anyone else the way he referred to Mason.
There is NO definition "in bahai scripture" that says "blood line". Are you sure it's "every idiot", or just you?
If you accept the Everlasting Covenant, then WHO do you accept as the heir to the throne of David after 'Abdu'l-Baha? Please address this question. Thanks.
Abdu'l-baha appointed Shoghi as guardian as stated in the W&T. This is very clear
I can't believe you wrote this. "Abdu'l-baha didn't refer to anyone else the way he did Mason". Come on. Are you serious. Now tell me what was so special about the way he referred to Mason. please enlighten me? And you still haven't given any proof of Abdu'l-baha calling Mason ghusn btw...
"in bahai scripture" more specifically the W&T the word used is sulalih which means offspring. This means blood line.
The WORD being referred to here is AGHSAN, not sulalih. We've been over this. You keep saying that Aghsan is a "blood relative" according to Baha'i scripture. Where does it say this? The word sulalih is from a different passage. All you're trying to do is muddy the waters to you can fish. Nobody's biting.
Have you read that article yet? And still no reply about my question regarding the heir to the throne.
No more pearls today. Read the article. Read the Bible. Good day.
why did you delete my post. Afraid that someone will realize that you are wrong.
I said that after abdu'l-baha came shoghi. This is clear form the W&T. No the word sulalih is from the same passage. Read it before you say something.
Still no answer regarding Mason and the argument you use to justify that he was adopted. Do you have the evidence of Abdu'l-Baha calling Mason ghusn or don't you? GIve me the tablet...
The Will says that Shoghi MUST appoint either "the first born of his lineal descendants" or if that's not possible, "then MUST he choose another branch [ghusn]"
You're trying vainly to connect the word sulalih with the word Aghsan.
Where "in baha'i scripture" does it say Aghsan means "blood relative"? This is what you've been claiming from the beginning. Now provide your proof!
Refer to the article I posted for answers to your other questions.
You clearly wont accept clear evidence from the W&T. The word sulalih means blood relative. Anyways sins you wont accept it i'm gonna give you something else
In the W&T it says that the hands have to choose 9 people from themselves to give their approval of the choosen branch. None of the hands approved Mason.
Nice when you don't have an answer for something you just say read this article which have nothing to do with it. Were does Abdu'l-baha call mason Ghusn?
"The statement in the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha (the passage in the Masters Will which provides for the successor to the Guardian, in which reference is made to the Hands of the Cause) does not imply that the Hands of the Cause of God have been given the authority to overrule the Guardian. 'Abdu'l-Baha could not have provided for a conflict of Authority in the Faith."
what have this to do with anything. so you claim that there is a contradiction between the W&T and this passage.
The passage in the W&T was specifically for the purpose to provent covenant breakers like mason.
if not every idiot can come and claim guardianship. The reason for the passage, where the hands have to give their approval, is to prevent covenant breaking. none of the hands approved of mason. you can't pass this.
Did you even READ this passage from Shoghi Effendi? He outright DENIES what the Hands created as their "theology" in order that they might deny Mason as guardian. He says they CANNOT "overrule the Guardian". That is what you are claiming, that the Hands would have had the power to overrule Shoghi's choice. This is WHY Shoghi clarified this in the article, so "any idiot" couldn't just interpret it how they wanted to. You're again turning to "whatsoever else" for guidance.
nope wrong. i said that they have to approve shoghi's choice. stop putting words in my mouth.
since shoghi effendi didn't appoint any guardian, the passage from the W&T is very important. Nowhere in no text can you show me that shoghi appointed mason as his successor. That's the fact.
This is also the place sad crossroads that the Baha'is have abandoned Shoghi Effendi for their saintly Hands of the Cause, as they would deem him a failure at his mission to establish the Cause. At 61 he knew he was having no children, and had personally expelled all the other Aghsan. He indeed "chose another Branch", but the Hands felt they could override his choice and did, thus breaking the Covenant. Now you are here championing this horrible deceit, proposing we go along and agree SE failed.
This ruse about the Tablet to Haji aside, the issue at hand is following Shoghi Effendi's passing, the Hands identified themselves as having the powers of a collective guardianship --powers which were not theirs to assume -- and they decided that they could establish the sans-Guardian UHJ that they did. They did that, of course, at a time when they were not "under the direction of the guardian" inasmuch as they did not accept that the Guardianship continued after Shoghi Effendi's death.
What you're brazenly ignoring in Mirza Taqi's tablet is that the Master was the one initiating the projected action. Haji Mirza Taqi Afnan was not in a position to take the matter into his own hands. Forming the UHJ upon the Master's untimely death was later overridden in Part 3 of the Will, which was written beyond this Tablet. This is a ridiculous ruse. The Hands were given no authority to act beyond SE's death and establish the UHJ, which is the issue at hand.
You're saying that the UHJ without a Guardian is impossible. I'm saying it is possible based on a tablet written by Abdu'l-Baha to Muhammad Taqi Afnan.
Are you suggesting that this Tablet takes precedence over the Sacred Will & Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha, which Shoghi Effendi calls the CHARTER for the Order of Baha'u'llah? If so, then there is nothing left to discuss, as the Kitab-i-Ahd followed by the Will & Testament are the Authorities, which NOBODY has the authority to change or deviate from, which is exactly what the "Hands" led by Ruhiyah Khanum did. Is that what you are suggesting?
Do you admit that the Will & Testament further defines the exact Plan of God in this all important matter?
Do you feel that the "Hands" or that anyone outside of "the Center of the Cause and the House of Justice" has any right to deviate even a hair's breadth from any provision of the Will?
Actually, it's not about "what feels right" at all, as "what feels right" to the majority has rarely if ever corresponded to what is true.
The purpose of the Will & Testament is to safeguard against every individual putting forth their "particular conviction" & to instead turn to the UHJ with the Aghsan Executive Head (uhj dot net), which ALONE is upheld in the Charter.
Do you accept Part 3 of the Will or not? This is the LAST WORD on the subject, where the guardianship is reaffirmed, and the line of succession CLEARLY established that the people must turn 1st to Shoghi Effendi and 2nd to the UHJ, & to turn to "whatsoever else" would be "grievous error". When they turned to the non-authoritative "Hands" that was "grievous error" as the IBC/UHJ was already in existence with the Aghsan Executive Branch, Mason Remey.
IBC isn't UHJ. To different institutions. IBC is the forerunner "talie" of UHJ as written by Shoghi. IBC was Chosen by Shoghi. UHJ have to be chosen by the bahai community.
Here we go again. If you read the entire message, which Shoghi calls the "Constitution" of the UHJ, you'll see that he describes the IBC going through a 4-stage "evolution" into the UHJ. He's clearly speaking of the same Institution, as he places the formation of the IBC second only to the ministries of the 3 Central Figures of the Faith, even over himself.
I have read the passage and nowhere does it say that IBC is UHJ. In fact it's the opposite. Mason isn't aghsan and wasn't adopted. No one in their right mind would belive such nonsence. You are making things up which clearly is nowhere to find in the scripture. Mason appointed himself as guardian without any evidence. This is why all the hands denied him as guardian. I'm done with this. You guys have fun trying to convince anyone of your covenant breaking theories.
Thanks for stopping by. You should know that the true UHJ of Baha'u'llah (uhj dot net) with the Davidic King as its President/Executive has an "open door" policy and you're always welcome.
Read the Book of the Establisher of the Baha'i Faith at entrybytroops dot org. All of your questions will be answered.
Shoghi Effendi clearly explains that the IBC/UHJ would go through 4 stages of "development", the 1st & 2nd being appointed, the 3rd & 4th being elected. Have you even read past the first couple of sentences?
Those two words appear in the same chpt.; he has to choose either his 1st born or another from the Aghsan. Any "1st born lineal descendant" to SE would be an Afnan; they were of diff. lineage. You should already know this- are you just creating subterfuge? That can't be all you're hinging your condescending dismissal of these things, for you're clearly mistaken. You're here criticizing us with misguided ideas, yet can't defend the fallible admin. you accept. Pity.
And another thing. Aghsan in the bahai writings refer to decendants of Baha'u'llah. Is Mason a decendant of Baha'ullah? Now, you may say that Mason was adopted and so on and so forth, altough you don't have any evidence of it. Anyways. The word Aghsan refers to Farzandan meening children of Baha'u'llah. It doesn't say Farzand Khande which meens adoptive child. Two different words. See, either way you twist it, still Mason isn't Aghsan
Who say mason is the real son? You? Mason? this isn't enough for me. Abdu'l-Baha have to say i adopted you MR. Mason and he didn't. That's the fact.
The word Aghsan in arabic refers to branches. In the bahai scriptures it is specifically used in context to Farzandane Baha'u'llah, which means the children of Baha'u'llah. Adoptive children is another word (Farzand Khande). Every word have a meaning. Like Afnan also refers to Branches, but it is used in context to Babs children
Shoghi Effendi wrote in his own handwriting to Mason when he sent him the packet of hair & blood of Baha'u'llah from the Master, addressing him as "'Abdu'l-Baha's 'dear son'". Have you not seen this? I can certainly direct you to where you can see Shoghi's own handwriting. Also, The Baha'i writings don't specify how 'Abdu'l-Baha could or couldn't adopt his son. It's too bad you don't accept it. Oh well.
Then Mason is Farzand Khande Baha'u'llah, and STILL Aghsan. Are you saying that the Master didn't have the right? "Consider! The Divine Gardener cuts off the dry or weak branch from the good tree and grafts to it (the tree) a branch from another tree. He both separates and unites." AB Last Tablet to America
You said "Abdu'l-Baha have to say i adopted you MR. Mason" and that would be enough.
I've provided you with evidence that he DID say that to Mason, but you don't accept it. Because in REALITY 'Abdu'l-Baha DID SAY IT. And in your heart you probably know it to be true, & it really disturbs you. An American as guardian! A gentile grafted onto the Holy Tree!
Islam is foretold in the Bible. When Abraham sends away his son by Hagar and predicts out of him will spring a great nation......
donprsct 2 years ago
JC, you just go right on having this conversation with yourself, and not participating in any of the dialog here. Don't worry that you have left dozens of direct questions to your false statements unanswered. You just keep ignoring these direct challenges to your false teachings, and maybe they'll just go away.
jeffmichaud999 3 years ago
*crickets chirping*
*chirp, chirp*
*yet more chirping*
jeffmichaud999 3 years ago 2
I don't know much about Bahai. But I have a soimple question. Is bahai against Jesus Christ or God. Or are they.. I don't even know how to phrase this, I guess what I'm trying to say is, Muslim isn't with Christianity, or Catholic, it's different, But Bahai, is it with Jesus? Is that a belief? Im sorry, I don't even know what exactly Im saying. If you get me, please reply!
gurlfurlmagirl 3 years ago
gurlfurlmagirl,
Baha'is accept Jesus Christ and believe in the One True Invisible God that Jesus believed in & made manifest to the people.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
thankyou!
gurlfurlmagirl 3 years ago
Bahai excepts jesus indeed but they put more value on Muhammed and Krishna.
It really depends where you live. In India ( most of the Bahai live here) they preach and highlight Kishna. for west Jesus get's More exposer,And to Muslim world Muhammed.
In fact Muslim faith is the only faith which have more similarity with the root of Christian doctrine and acceept him as a virgin birth and a messenger of Allah.
And Only Muslims follow which was preached by Jesus/Muhammed
javedmahmood 2 years ago
That's because they focus on the prophet that the people are most familiar with.
thegreatcheesedemon 2 years ago
@javedmahmood Bahai do not put more value on any of the prophets over the other, for they are all lights of God and their word will always be sacred jesus is of equal value as Muhammad as well as Buddha as well as all other prophets of the past and future.
BAHAIRULES 10 months ago
@gurlfurlmagirl --- I'll answer that. I was a Baha'i for a long time. Baha'is are for one thing, and one thing only: Worldly power. They want to rule the world, plain and simple. Jesus sad: "My kingdom is not of this world." The world is all Baha'is care about. They basically have no spiritual life and their religion is externally focused. Their religious joy comes from seeing their expensive buildings on Mount Carmel and dreaming of power.
SacredWord 3 months ago
@SacredWord I'm sorry you had such a negative experience with the group situated out of Haifa & Chicago. This video is not affiliated with that group, though we respect their right to freedom of religion & expression.
adamjacob9 1 month ago
well it looks like a lot of people need to open there eyes and ears, before u bag a faith do your research and dont be so stupid as to bag a faith because u have such a closed love for the faith u believe. I have a question, God would be and is seen in every religion as perfect beyond anything a human could possibly live up to yet Jesus "a human(a amazingly great one to say the least, but still human)" was God? if u think the christian faith is the only right faith read "thief in the night"
mauythaifighterau 3 years ago
How do Bahais reject Jesus Christ when Baha'u'allah professes that Jesus Christ was the Lord and Messiah?
HolyN0va 3 years ago
Exactly; they don't. Baha'is accept Jesus as well as all the messengers God has sent.
jeffmichaud999 3 years ago 8
oh please your so called prophet name is arabic and has Allah in it
Bahallah please get life and go BS north americans
Bahai faith is a offshoot of Shia Islam
pasargad22 3 years ago
Bahai faith is an offshoot of shia Islam.
An early attempt to change shia irrationalism by introducing the 12th emam Baha, however it did not work and turned into cult
Khomeini put an end by introducing velayat faghif and changed the lives of millions of people, injecting rationalism into religion
pasargad22 3 years ago
I'm sorry, but your ideas about the origins of the Baha'i Faith are entirely off base. Who ever told you such things? Since when do 6 million believers constitute a "cult". They said the same thing about Jesus & Mohamed, didn't they? They said Jesus' teachings were an offshoot of Judaism. Well that's partially true, as both Jesus & Moses are sent from the same Creator, but with independent Revelations. Likewise Baha'u'llah's Revelations comes from that same Creator, but hardly as an "offshoot".
jeffmichaud999 3 years ago 8
Religion, faith and superstition are irrational. History shows that these are the source to most of humanitys DivisionsWage peacesay no to religionplease
ormonclark 3 years ago
Whatever do you mean? Of course we accept Jesus; we accept all the Prophets God has sent.
jeffmichaud999 3 years ago 4
As for I know, the religion from Haifa is controlled by the illuminati to easily gather everyone from every religion to create the new religion of all faith that will be brainwashed to believe in the lord of the hosts as the Messiah, however the only Messiah is Jesus Christ.
A ware between Haifa and Jerusalem will be risen, but the city of God (Jerusalem) will destroy Haifa.
ALingua 3 years ago
The "only Messiah is Jesus Christ"? If that were true then he was either a fraud or a complete failure. The Bible is clear two Messiah's would appear: one would suffer and die rejected and alone (Isaiah 53), and the other a King on the Throne of David who would reign upon it over the House of the Lord. That very House of the Lord is the Baha'i House of Justice. Baha'u'llah, the lit. descendant of King of David, has established the House of the Lord, and his descendant shall forever be it's execs
jeffmichaud999 3 years ago
Everyone in these so called religions have there roots tainted. Just like the followers of Isa, Yashua?, or some jesus people have used this all as an oppurtunity for there greed. Like catholicism is pagan and the Bahai'yanna is i believe in a similar situation.
EoanNation 3 years ago
Whats the Bahai Yanna?
jewilcox91 3 years ago
you guys are crazy
EoanNation 3 years ago
Yup, crazy like a fox :)
jeffmichaud999 3 years ago
You can't be serious with this? Jesus himself points to Daniel 8 when they ask him when he will return (Matt24:15). Every Biblical scholar worth his salt acknowledges it's Daniel 8 that gives the prophecy for the 2nd coming which is the 2300 years. Moreover in the 1800's several dozen independent observers independently came to the conclusion that this prophecy led to March 21st 1844. You really should wait til you're done with all your Sunday school lessons before getting into this deep stuff.
jeffmichaud999 3 years ago
jcour,
The vision of Daniel is for several Promised Ones of God, Jesus Christ being one of Them.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
jcour,
The Son has returned also as High Priest and Judge, not as Christ. Christ returns in the Glory of the Father, the Son returns as the Lamb with 7 eyes & horns & as the High Priest, not Christ on his 2nd coming.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
jcour,
Paul doesn't say that Jesus IS the "seed of David" in this verse, but instead clarifies that Jesus is "made OF the seed of David according to the FLESH"
As for your second statement, this is all speculative inference. Many times the Bible & Jesus distinctly DENY being God. "No man hath seen God at ANY TIME" John 1:18
adamjacob9 3 years ago
jcour,
If you think that Jesus is claiming to be God, then he is also claiming that all believers are God, when he says "that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one" John 17:21
adamjacob9 3 years ago
jcour,
So-called christians must always resort to a couple of far-stretched verses in attempt to justify their belief in the incarnate-god Lie. Jesus consistently chose NOT to speak when challenged by the "authorities". Your inference is unfounded Biblically. Sure, you can say you "think" it is inferred, but there is no substance.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
jcour,
The Bible is clear that a prophetic day is equal to a year. What's your question?
adamjacob9 3 years ago
JCouraged, we accept Jesus for what the Bible says he was: a prophet sent by God with a Revelation for man. We accept every word of the Bible; not one verse proclaims him as God so there's no need for twisting and cherry picking verses that you think imply he was. Thanks for sharing these great verses. We are not apologists for our beliefs; neither are we here to argue with others about their's. Engaging in this type of debating is fruitless. Thanks for sharing. Take care.
jeffmichaud999 3 years ago
jcour,
You're darn right it's a NAME! The name Baha'u'llah literally means "glory of the FATHER".
He is the Everlasting Father seated "upon the throne of David", something Jesus can never do as there is currently a man seated on David's throne this day in fulfillment of the Everlasting Covenant of God (see psalms 89)
adamjacob9 3 years ago
jcour,
Where does the Bible EVER say these titles refer to the Son?
It says he'll be called EVERLASTING FATHER!! NOT "Son".
Jesus NEVER claimed to fulfill any of this.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
jcour,
Jesus received the authority of the throne, as the son of the king has authority of the throne when he is in another country. Jesus said "my kingship is not of this world" as he never physically inherited the throne, but only the authority of the Father, which is Baha'u'llah.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
Agreed; the Bible says that. We concur, believe, & accept both verses, including the ones preceding & proceeding them. They are essential to understand the meanings. He became the "only begotten son" at his baptism at age 30 according to John and Paul. "And God said, 'this is my beloved son, with whom I'm well pleased; today I have begotten thee'".
What you've quoted doesn't support your original allegation:"by simple belief..our sins and mistakes are erased". It just doesn't say that.
jeffmichaud999 3 years ago
JCouraged, those are lovely sentiments, but that's not what the Bible says. Where does it ever say that "by simple belief in his death and resurrection...our sins and mistakes are erased"? Or that we need this to commune with God? Those are two entirely different issues, and unfortunately you're mistaken about both of them. The Bible makes no such claims, and as Paul said to "prove all things; hold fast to that which is good" we must be diligent about what we accept into our hearts.
jeffmichaud999 3 years ago
copasetic5, did you sign up for youtube yesterday just to comment on our videos? What a compliment.
The last time to you created a new user account to spam our channel under a new name it was really unpleasant for everyone involved. Do you have any intention of behaving yourself this time, or are you planning another take-over? We're happy to discuss these matters if you'd like to engage in dialog. But if you're only interested in dominating discussion w/ rhetoric we'll thank you to spare us.
genraldisarray 3 years ago
Rev. 1:7 is a good verse to quote. Not seen with an inner eye, but literally seen in the sky coming with angels.
1 Thessalonians 3:13 May he strengthen your hearts so that you will be blameless and holy in the presence of our God and Father when our Lord Jesus comes with all his holy ones.
copacetic5 3 years ago
Jesus is the GLORY of God the FATHER!
Jesus claimed to be the only access to God, His Father (John 14:6--7). He claimed to be able to forgive sins (Matt. 9:2--7). He claimed to be the judge of all mankind and to dishonor Him was to dishonor God His Father (John 5:22--23). He claimed to have had glory with His Father before the world began (John 17:5).
A light of revelation to the Gentiles, And the GLORY of Thy people Israel" - Luke 2:32 - quoting Isaiah 42:6
copacetic5 3 years ago
copec,
The last verse you quote in support of your theory shows that Jesus is the glory of the people, not of God. This comment sounds strangely like that of another user called richbee2.
1 chance to come clean.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
heheh. had to make an account just to post. you are aware of the fact that mason isnt really a ghusn right.... and this neal chase guy. wouldnt it be more correct if he called himself ghusn instead of aghsan. sounds like you dont know what the word means. hehe. just a suggestion
wikikid99 3 years ago
wikikid99,
I'm aware that there are many sans-guardians out there that don't accept the FACT that Mason IS a ghusn. Mason is the Son and Heir of 'Abdu'l-Baha, having been grafted by the Divine Gardener onto the Tree of the throne-line of King David.
The word Aghsan is more recognizable by the majority. Neal Chase is the great-grandson of 'Abdu'l-Baha, & the one currently seated upon the throne of King David in a direct line of succession from Baha'u'llah in the throne line of Kings.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
funny. actually the word ghusn have been given a special meaning in the bahai writings. It is obvious for every logical thinking person that mason can't fit in to that description. Think you better find out what the word means and then give me your so called FACTS with capital letters;)
nice save on the aghsan question, but still doesn't make any sense if you are familiar with the arabic language. well i'll correct that. it does make sense, but it just sounds stupid.
wikikid99 3 years ago
Richbee,
You continue to post Bible verses to our videos, with no explanation.
You obviously have your own idea of what this verse means, & clearly you believe that we are blasphemers of the worst kind. If that's the case, just say it.
If you really believe that we have done something to warrant not being able to be forgiven, then why are you here?
The truth is, that where Judaism is the root, & Christianity the branch, the Baha'i Faith is the leaf, flower & fruit of the same Tree.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
Richbee,
You've done nothing so far to refute any of the proofs put forward in our various videos. Read the Kitab-i-Iqan (Book of Certitude) for a full explanation from the Pen of Baha'u'llah of how these signs were fulfilled.
Ta Ta.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
Why would you suggest to find prophesies of the Bible in another book? The Bible contains the real truths.
Matthew 16:27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done.
Matthew 25:31 "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory.
copacetic5 3 years ago
copac,
The "glory of the Father" (Mark 8:38) is a translation from the original Galilean Aramaic that Jesus spoke when he said "Baha'u'llah". This is also the Arabic rendering of the same name & title. But then, you already know this, don't ya.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
John 5:46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"
copacetic5 3 years ago
Richbee,
Those titles you refer to are titles of the return of Jesus the High Priest, distinct from the 2nd coming of Christ. The confusion of the people here rests in lack of understanding of the concept of "Return" spoken of in the scriptures. Refer to the video "Return of Christ" for more on this.
The name "Baha'u'llah" literally meaning "glory of God", "glory of the Lord" or "glory of the Father" is prophesied of all throughout the Old & New Testaments. Refer to Ezekiel 1:26-28 to start.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
Rich,
It is the churches that present a different gospel from the "gospel of the Kingdom", defined further as "the Kingdom of our father David which is coming".
Paul warns that the Christians would come to accept a "different gospel" and "another Jesus", which they indeed have. The gospel preached in the churches is completely alien to the true "gospel of the Kingdom" which was proclaimed by Jesus.
The Kingdom of God which Jesus heralded is now come, brought by the Father, Baha'u'llah.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
Rich,
It is of no private interpretation, as it is only those that have come fulfilling the prophecies who then explain them to the people, 'breaking the seals' so to speak.
Do you call Jesus a false prophet because he explained how he fulfilled prophecy? Your objection is illogical & self-contradictory.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
Rich,
I have read John 6. I'm guessing you're referring to the "bread from heaven" verses? They only further prove that when Jesus says "heaven" he's not talking about the sky as you claim. Jesus said he came from heaven the first time, yet we know he was born of a woman. Why then do you have different expectations about the meaning of "heaven" for the 2nd coming?
adamjacob9 3 years ago
Rich,
What you're missing here is that the Return of Christ also comes "like a thief in the night".
A thief is not seen by anyone. It is only later, when the theft is discovered, that his picture is posted all over letting "every eye" see who it was that came.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
Rich,
"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." John 3:13 KJV
Do you believe that Jesus "came down from heaven" on his 1st coming or not? If so, what is your explanation of this, as you claim it is literal.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
Rich,
"And while they looked stedfastly toward HEAVEN" Acts 1:10
"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." John 3:13 KJV
How do you explain that Jesus claimed to be in "heaven" while on earth?
adamjacob9 3 years ago
Rich,
I proclaim that Jesus is Lord! According to the Bible, I can only proclaim this "by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3)
And in the same breath, I declare that Baha'u'llah is the Return of Christ.
The name of Jesus that saves is his "new name" on his return. Are you aware that Jesus said he would be called by a "new name", NOT the name 'jesus'?
The "name" by which all are saved is the name of the Father, which is the "inherited" name of Jesus (Hebrews 1:4).
Jesus is Lord. Baha'u'llah is Lord.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
Rich,
I'm glad you brought up the verse from Acts, which explicitly says "HEAVEN" & NOT sky. Read the words of Jesus where he explains that he was "in heaven" while on earth (John 3:13 KJV)showing that Jesus understood "heaven" NOT as a physical place in the stratosphere, but as a spiritual condition of the soul.
The "clouds" he comes with are the myriad of false expectations held by the majority which VEIL them from seeing the LIGHT & Glory of God, Baha'u'llah.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
Rich,
Are you saying that the Return of Christ doesn't fulfill prophecy & can't explain how he fulfills prophecy? That's ridiculous. The way the apostles of Jesus were convinced that he was the Christ was by him opening their minds to the scriptures concerning himself. This is the same method (EDUCATION) that the 2nd coming of Christ has employed.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
WHAT?????
rivv3t 3 years ago
I thought JOSEPH ....was a descendant of King David. Mary was a "virgin", no?
I think the Baha'is are probably more with it than a lot of groups but... you cannot go around applying Western thought to Eastern concepts, including translations. This applies to modern Christianity as well, as it seems many if not most Baha'is are refugees from the church.
Too many loose ends ....many much too tight.
I'm sorry if this is insulting but someone's got to say something.
We live in dire times.
rivv3t 3 years ago
riw3t,
The Baha'i view on the virgin birth is addressed in the video "Christ & Antichrist" in part. Mary was a virgin, but the Bible is clear that Jesus was made of the "seed [from the greek SPERMA = male sperm] of David according to the flesh", showing that only Joseph could be the dad. Women become pregnant regularly without penetration. She is still a "virgin", but the egg & sperm come together. True science & true religion must correspond.
adamjacob9 3 years ago
unfortunatly you and other Bahia's are not even honest to your own hart and "independent finding the true" in baheis cultur means reading only their books from your writing i undrestand you are either ignoring the truth or realy naive how ever disunity wasnt only between his sons it was among all those i manchant befor and as historian recorded in many books he was jaild 4 month in tehran for involving asasination of king and few yars latr was jaild for ordring of kiling 4of his brothr folowrs.
hedayatullah19 3 years ago
heda,
Baha'u'llah's original imprisonment was due to the actions of a Babi which sparked wholesale persecution of all Babi's.
Baha'u'llah never ordered anyone to be killed. Your source is complete propaganda & unfounded in reality.
Good day & God's blessings to you.
"Say: All are created by God"
adamjacob9 3 years ago
intersting part is non of the profits clame unity of man kind he IS only one claming that ples chck wikipdia type bahaullah about his teaching that couldnt even teach unity to his own sons, brothrs,wives grand daughters and his grand childern and great grand childrn and,now we arent talking about AZAL his othr brother,why he orderd to kill mohmad esfahani and in "aghdas" teling azal"you see god kiled him" if that so why you went jail for it?although wasnt first &only 1 guy it was 4 of them kild
hedayatullah9 3 years ago
What entirely original attacks on Baha'u'llah's character; Kudos for originality. Yet you don't quite have the facts straight, & a few of your details are skewed, yes he did go to jail (for about 40 years), but it wasn't for murder, or for ordering any murders. That's not on his Wiki page & you know it.
The disunity among his two sons after his passing really shows the weakness of the human heart, but hardly reflects badly on the truth of his message. One son was jealous of the other; so?
jeffmichaud999 3 years ago 2
u do know that entry by troops was made by the Haifan UHJ right?
bigmannn80 3 years ago
I'm not sure why you'd think that? It was written by Dr. Jensen, the establisher of the Baha'i Faith. Have you read any of it?
jeffmichaud999 3 years ago
oki. i have read on alot of things you said. it is very interesting. still have some problems i can't find answer to.
1. Guardian have to be decendent of bahaullah. Mason was not decendant?
2. Hands of cause must give their approval of the chose Guardian? They did not approve.
If you can clarify this questions for me i appreciate. sorry for my english. still learning
nonadare 3 years ago
The Will says Shoghi had to pick his 1st born, or "another Ghsun". Abdul'-Baha had no natural male heirs, but he made it clear to many he regarded Mason as his son. He wrote: "I have adopted you as my real son.". In this light, Mason was the only Aghsan left after Shoghi Effendi declared every last one of the Covenant Breakers. He appointed this only Ghsun as the prez of the 1st IBC.
The Hands were instructed that they "must give their assent", which they refused, thus breaking the covenant.
jeffmichaud999 3 years ago
Okei. Thanks for reply. Where it says Mason was adopted as real son? have not seen this in abdulbahas scripture. And even so he is not decendant. Guardian must be decendant. Is this correct?
The hands were instructed to give assent but they didn't. is this a passage ment to test the hands or prevent covenent breaking? It dipends how you look at it. When i read this passage i get the feeling that it is ment to prevent covenet breakers. Just my personal opinion. what you think?
nonadare 3 years ago
"Whoso interpreteth what hath been sent down from heaven of Revelation, and altereth its evident meaning, he, verily, is of them that have perverted the Sublime Word of God, and is of the lost ones in the Lucid Book." -The KITAB-I-AQDAS
akidian 4 years ago
akidian,
Amen to that! When those darned "Hands" had the Baha'is turn to something other than the IBC/UHJ which Shoghi Effendi set up on Jan. 9 1951, they did indeed pervert the "Sublime Word of God" as set forth in the Sacred Will & Testament where it states:
"All must seek guidance and turn unto the Center of the Cause [Shoghi] and the House of Justice. And he that turneth unto whatsoever else is indeed in grievous error."
When they turned to the "Hands" instead of the IBC/UHJ, they erred.
adamjacob9 4 years ago
swahela, didn't you say "hahaha. I think i will end my discussion with you guys now."? What more can we offer you? We've graciously indulged all of your questions, patiently endured your child-like goading, and shown from all aspect our understandings. You are free to continue believing you know more than those of us who've studied these matters for as many years as you've been alive. Thanks for your help in our teaching efforts. Take care.
jeffmichaud999 4 years ago
"I will not lie to David. His line shall endure forever, his throne as long as the sun before me."Psalms 89:37
"The Most Great Law is come, and the Ancient Beauty ruleth upon the throne of David" Proclamation of Baha'u'llah p89
"I knew that we were soon to see the Blessed face of the Prince of the House of David, the King of the whole world [referring to Abdu'l-Bahá]."
(Lua Getsinger,"Persia" by Asaac Adams,p484).
Who do you suppose succeed the "Prince of the House of David" after the Master?
jeffmichaud999 4 years ago
Upheld by Shoghi Effendi "to go against him is to go against God" (W&T, p. 11): "Coagulated drops of Baha'u'llah's all-Sacred Blood and Ringlets of His Most Blessed Locks Presented as my most precious possession to 'Abdu'l-Baha's 'dear son' Mr. Charles Mason Remey" (signed) Shoghi March 1922"
jeffmichaud999 4 years ago
In the Will the Guardian is the "sign" of God.
"To his honor Mr. Remey -- Upon him be BAHA'O'LLAH EL ABHA!"
,
"HE IS GOD!"
"O thou who art rejoiced by the Divine Glad Tidings!"
"Verily, I beseech God to make thee confirmed under all circumstances. Do not become despondent, neither be thou sad. Ere long, thy Lord shall make thee a SIGN of guidance among mankind"
('Abdu'l-Baha to his son [aghsan] Mason, May 3, 1906, published in 'Star of the West' Volume V, No. 19, 2 March 1915, pp. 296-297)
jeffmichaud999 4 years ago
hahaha. I think i will end my discussion with you guys now. It's clear to me that you have no idea of what the bahai scripture say.
And thank you for bringing forth Mason Remeys diary as evidence. hehe. You could have just as well said "i heard this from Mason myself". You just proved my point. That nowhere in bahai scripture is Mason refered to as Ghusn. Thanks man.
ps. I love how you wrote [aghsan] after son. You have to study persian language if you think son translates to aghsan. hahah
swahela 4 years ago
swahela,
The true Universal House of Justice (uhj dot net) of Baha'u'llah has an open door policy, so you're always welcome in the Kingdom. Just drop them a line.
The outfit in Haifa on Golem Street has NO EXECUTIVE branch, therefore, according to the EXPLICIT text of the Will & Testament, they are of the Covenant Breakers.
God's blessings.
adamjacob9 4 years ago
hahaha? Your immature childishness is slipping out here. Check yourself.
We "have no idea what the baha'i scriptures say"? How do you figure when we're the only ones providing direct quotes from them? You haven't once used a direct quote for refutation. We've provided you with quotes directly from Shoghi calling him "Abdu'l-Baha's dear son", and 2 quotes from Star of the West from the Master. By who's def. do these not qualify as Scripture? Your arrogance is only surpassed by your ignorance.
jeffmichaud999 4 years ago
Stop embarracing yourself. Son doesn't translate into Ghusn. Why is this so hard to understand. Go and study the persian language before you start saying things.
I now it said son, but you say Abdu'l-Baha called Mason his ghusn and have failed to provide the untranslated tablet where you allegedly saw this. If you really have read where Abdu'l-Baha called Mason his Ghusn, you would have no problem in showing me this.
swahela 4 years ago
swahela,
Either you accept that Mason is the "dear son" of 'Abdu'l-Baha and THEREFORE AGHSAN or you go against Shoghi Effendi. It's up to you.
The burden of investigation is on you.
Either you accept the Everlasting Covenant or you don't. 'Abdu'l-Baha (The Branch) inherited the throne of David from Baha'u'llah. Mason Remey inherited the throne of David from his father, 'Abdu'l-Baha. Today, the great-grandson of 'Abdu'l-Baha, Neal Chase ben Joseph, is seated on the throne of David. uhj dot net
adamjacob9 4 years ago
"I have adopted you as my son [Persian: aghsan]. You have to appreciate this favor very much indeed. One should see that you are living according to the requirements of this sonship. You should be aware of your responsibilities. My prayers will help you. I always pray for you. "
('Abdu'l-Baha to Mason Remey, cf. "The Diaries of Mason Remey", Folio 2, "A Pilgrimage to the Holy Land: Reminisces of the Master, 1921", pp. 127-129. New York Public Library Collection)
jeffmichaud999 4 years ago
"Give My greatest love to Mr. Remey and say: You are very dear to me. You are so dear that I think of you day and night. You are My real son [aghsan]. Therefore I have an idea for you. I hope it may come to pass."
('Abdu'l-Baha, Diary of Juliet Thompson, page 71)
jeffmichaud999 4 years ago
Why have the Baha'is abandoned Shoghi Effendi for their saintly Hands of the Cause? They have deemed him a failure at his mission to establish the Administration. At age 61 he knew he was having no children, & had personally expelled all the other Aghsan. He established the IBC & "chose another Branch" for it's prez, but the Hands felt they could override his choice and did, thus breaking the Covenant. Now you are here championing this horrible deceit, proposing we go along and agree SE failed.
jeffmichaud999 4 years ago
swahela, if you'd actually read the document, then you would already have the answers you're repeatedly asking. At best you made a cursory glance. He called him his "ghsun" in Star of the West. He never wrote in English, so every instance he stated was ghsun in Farsi. Juliet Thomson diary states so, Mason's diary state "I have adopted you as my real son". You are free to reject these things and make a dramatic exit, but you've made your points & we've shared what you've asked. Accept it, or go.
jeffmichaud999 4 years ago
Okei, thank you Jeff. That's all i wanted to know. Now i guess you have read the untranslated persian text when you clearly say that Abdu'l-Baha wrote the word Ghusn. Now if you would be so kind and direct me to where i can read this with my own eyes i would really appreciate it.
swahela 4 years ago
swahela, you're desperately clinging to your own interpretations of the Will, instead of going by the Explicit version even the UHJ adheres to. This connection you're making is your own invention, and when called out on it you dance around my direct challenges. You adamantly insist that the Tablet to Taqi has any relevance today, when clearly it was only relevant in the pre-Will era. Now like the child you are boast that you know better regarding the Will. Since when are U the interpreter?
jeffmichaud999 4 years ago
swahela, you're stooping to astonishingly new lows with this absurd connection that not even the UHJ proposes in it's explanations. "Any idiot" can see for themself that 'sulalih' is used specifically in regards to SE's "first born lineal descendant", who would by all accounts be an Afnan since SE was an Afnan by his father. If his sulalih wasn't up to par, then he had to pick from "another Aghsan". The two are not interchangeable, and you're being disingenuous suggesting they are. Get a grip.
jeffmichaud999 4 years ago
You are an idiot. Shoghi is both afnan and aghsan according to the W&T. You are denying the W&T when you say hes not a ghusn.
An aghsan is a descendant of baha'u'llah. Is mason a descendant of baha'u'llah? I don't think so.
case closed.
swahela 4 years ago
swahela,
Mason Remey is a descendant (in a straight line of descent) of Baha'u'llah, & nowhere in "baha'i scripture" is Aghsan even defined that way. The word refers to Branches of a Tree, in this case the Family Tree of Baha'u'llah, & is defined by Shoghi Effendi as "sons", not "blood relatives" or "descendants" the way you are claiming. Mason Remey was grafted to the Tree by 'Abdu'l-Baha. Please back up these definitions of yours with anything authoritative.
adamjacob9 4 years ago
okei. if i show you the text where aghsan is refered to as descendants of baha'u'llah, will you then agree that mason remey isn't aghsan?
still no answer for your claim that mason was called ghusn.... can't find it anywhere can you.
swahela 4 years ago
swahela,
One definition of "descendant" is "in a straight line of descent", so it would be irrelevant. You have said several times that the definition is "blood relative". Where is that reference please?
adamjacob9 4 years ago
i've given you the reference but you wont accept it.
why can't you just answer the question? if i show you the text where aghsan is refered to as DESCENDANTS of baha'u'llah, will you then agree that mason can't be aghsan? just answer
swahela 4 years ago
swahela,
No, because Mason Remey IS a descendant of Baha'u'llah. He succeeds 'Abdu'l-Baha to the throne of King David in a straight line of descent.
You have NEVER shown where the word Aghsan is defined as "blood relative", something which you stated early on.
adamjacob9 4 years ago
This is absolute double talk. First you said Ahghsan meant "only blood relatives" & you could prove it. Then you stated because Aghsan were "sulihah" that =blood relative. Now you've been proven wrong & that sulihah are SE's descendents and not all of Baha'u'llah's in the reference you provided, so you're double talking now. We agree aghsan are Baha'u'llah's descendants; your faulty thinking has decided only "blood relatives" are descendants. Mason is a descendant through adoption. Child please!
jeffmichaud999 4 years ago
nope no double talk here. sulalih is refered to as the line which shoghi must choose from or he has to choose another ghusn which means along side sulalih. not this notion that he can choose whoever he wants. thats something mason said so that it could be of personal benefit to him.
i love it how when you can't answer a question you try to go to personal attacks on me. not my fault that your clinging to the things you were thaught.
swahela 4 years ago
swahela,
You just now admitted, sulalih OR another ghusn. What are you implying by saying "along side sulalih"? You make no sense. We never said he could "choose whoever he wants", but within the Provisions of the Will he can, & neither you with your own interpretation of the Will (do you think you're the guardian?) nor the Hands can deny his choice.
At this point you seem to be turning to yourself for guidance.
Who's avoiding the question here! WHERE does it say Aghsan is "blood relative"?
adamjacob9 4 years ago
Aghsan is not only a son of Baha'u'llah but also a descendant. This is two different words. Mason isn't a descendant of Baha'u'llah. You're making up your own interpretation of the word so it would fit for your guy.
Yes another Ghusn. Meaning another blood child. This excists in islam as well. A seyyed is a blood relative of muhammad. This question is a century old one which if you really had studied you would understand
You're avoiding my question of were Abdu'l-baha calls Mason Ghusn?
swahela 4 years ago
swahela,
First, Mason IS an adopted descendant of Baha'u'llah, grafted onto the Tree by 'Abdu'l-Baha. Your interpretation of Aghsan connected to Islamic culture is irrelevant, as this is the continuation of the Davidic Kingship & Everlasting Covenant, of which it is prophesied to go to the gentiles after the coming of the Messiah (Root) & His Son (Branch). Whereas there are many legal examples of 'descendant' referring to adopted children, there are NO definitions of Aghsan as "blood child".
adamjacob9 4 years ago
swahela,
I've answered your question several times in referring you to the article here:
bupc dot org/test-of-god dot html
Now if you'd be so kind as to answer the question you keep avoiding. You said you accept the Everlasting Covenant. And I assume you acknowledge Baha'u'llah's statement that He sat upon the throne of David which then went to 'Abdu'l-Baha.
Who then do you accept as the current heir seated upon the throne of David, IF you REALLY accept the Everlasting Covenant?
adamjacob9 4 years ago
You're using biblical theology to justify that your guy is the guardian.
I've read this article and nowhere does Abdu'l-baha call mason his ghusn. Why do you keep making things up. Give me the tablet where Abdu'l-Baha calls Mason his Ghusn. Why is this so hard to understand? Just give me the tablet
Mason broke the covenant when he appointed himslef to be guardian. Shoghi didn't choose him as succsessor in any text. He remains the everlasting Guardian
swahela 4 years ago
swahela,
That article tells you everything you need to know in order to pass this TEST. 'Abdu'l-Baha adopting Mason as his REAL SON makes him a Ghusn.
You mentioned in one of your responses a while back that you 'of course' accept the Everlasting Covenant. But time after time you are unable to answer the question.
It's not "Biblical theology", it's Biblical Truth, & is upheld & continued in the Baha'i Faith!
WHO do you acknowledge TODAY as being the current HEIR to the THRONE OF DAVID?
adamjacob9 4 years ago
It doesn't say Ghusn. Show me the tablet which says Ghusn. Pilgrim notes doesn't count as evidence in the bahai faith, so stop reffering me to them. And BTW, son doesn't translate into Ghusn. You need to get your facts straight.
Shoghi didn't appoint any successor. He left no Will which appointed a Guardian. We know this possibility excists through the tablet to Muhammad Taqi Afnan.
swahela 4 years ago
swahela,
The Tablets published in Star of the West.
Do you deny that any "REAL SON" of 'Abdu'l-Baha would be an Aghsan? Is there any other way to define the "REAL SON" of 'Abdu'l-Baha?
Your outright denial that Shoghi Effendi fulfilled his mission is horrendous. Where does it say he must appoint his successor in a Will?
I've answered your questions.
Now, do you accept the Everlasting Covenant of God, & if so, who do you accept as the current heir of that Promise?
adamjacob9 4 years ago
The word "son" in persian doesn't translate into Ghusn or Aghsan. Not my fault that you don't understand the persian language. You said Abdu'l-Baha called Mason Ghusn but failed to produce any evidence. Son and Ghusn are to different words with different meanings. What about this is so hard to understand.
I'm not sure if i understand your question. I've already said in a dusin posts that Shoghi didn't choose a successor.
swahela 4 years ago
swahela,
The evidence is right there in those Tablets. You reject before you investigate.
You didn't answer EITHER of my questions.
1. Do you deny that a "REAL SON" of the Master would be an Aghsan? In reality, it doesn't matter if 'Abdu'l-Baha called Mason "ghusn" (which he DID), as Mason is Aghsan by virtue of being the LEGITIMATE SON of 'Abdu'l-Baha.
2. Do you even know what the Everlasting Covenant IS? You stated before that you accept it. Do you know what you're claiming to accept?
adamjacob9 4 years ago
1. Where in the text is Mason refered to as Abdu'l-Baha's "REAL SON". I don't deny that a son of Abdu'l-Bahas flesh would be Aghsan.
2. I'm not quite sure of what your interpretation of the everlasting covenant is? This is why i'm having difficulty understanding this question.
ps. You said the evidence is there in those Tablets. I asked you to give me the tablet where Abdu'l-Baha calls Mason his Ghusn and you failed to provide it.
swahela 4 years ago
swahela,
If you had read the article I've directed you to several times, you could see there the envelope HAND-WRITTEN by Shoghi Effendi where he calls Mason "'Abdu'l-Baha's 'dear son'" & the Tablets are from Star of the West. You can certainly find those yourself.
What do you mean "interpretation of the everlasting covenant"? It's not open to interpretation. I assumed when you stated that you accepted it that you knew what it was. Do you?
adamjacob9 4 years ago
This isn't a reply to my question and you know it. You said Abdu'l-Baha called Mason his Ghusn. Now you say son. Son and Ghusn are to different words. Give me the tablet which says Ghusn. I already know the son part.
Since you have your own interpretation of everything else i assume you have an interpretation for this as well.
I think that there is a spiritual meaning beyond the physical heir to the throne that you present. I accept Gods covenant to mankind. Not your interpretation of it
swahela 4 years ago
swahela,
We've referred you to the pertinent Tablets.
Shoghi Effendi accepts Mason as the Son & therefore Aghsan of 'Abdu'l-Baha, why don't you?
The Everlasting Covenant spoken of all throughout the Bible specifically states that David shall NEVER lack a man to sit upon his throne as long as there is a sun, moon & stars in the sky. The Davidic Kingship is the SIGN by which to recognize the true Kingdom of God on earth.
Baha'u'llah inherited this throne, passed it to His Son. Who is the heir?
adamjacob9 4 years ago
1. Son and Aghsan are to different words. plain and simple. You can't say since he said son this meen he is aghsan.
2. Okei now i understand. Well the thing is that that bahais see this as both a literal and spiritual statement. Baha'u'llah inherited this throne and will forever sit on the everlasting throne of david. This question has many aspects to it and difficult to understand. Since there isn't any clear bahai scripture about it people have to study and interpret for themselves
swahela 4 years ago
swahela,
The word used IS Aghsan, & it WAS translated to "Son". We are quite aware that it can also be translated as "branch", but that Shoghi Effendi DEFINES it as "SON".
Your position concerning Baha'u'llah & the throne of David IS NOT SCRIPTURAL, & in fact is the SAME FALSE DOCTRINE the Christians try to use with Jesus, saying that he inherited the throne & is seated on it eternally.
The Bible is CLEAR that after the Root (Baha'ullah) then the BRANCH inherits the throne.
adamjacob9 4 years ago
swahela,
Shoghi Effendi didn't inherit the throne of David, as this is a father to son inheritance ONLY.
Do you even know WHO Baha'u'llah IS? Ever read the Bible? He is the Return of Christ, the Prince of Peace seated upon the throne of King David. Baha'u'llah proclaims this! Shoghi Effendi re-confirms this!
So, WHO do you accept as the current HEIR to the throne of David, as you stated before that you "of course" believe in and accept the Everlasting Covenant of God?
adamjacob9 4 years ago
How masterfully articulate. You're going straight to the ad hominem instead of the Writings? Typical.
The point I was making is our lineage is derived from the father in every culture, oh wise one. SE's sulihah, or "first born" would be Afnan. Your belief is not explicit; sulihah is his blood relative, and not connected to aghsan. Regardless of the semantics you're proposing, "sulihah" refers to SE's descendant, or he is to pick from the Aghsan. Your rhetoric is denying fundamental truths & .
jeffmichaud999 4 years ago
Do you meen that when Abud'l-Baha calls Mason son, that this constitutes adoption.
swahela 4 years ago
swahela,
This question has been answered many times now. Please refer to the article linked below for a detailed & full answer, as there's not enough room in the comment box:
bupc dot org/test-of-god dot html
Also, read the Book of the Establisher of the Baha'i Faith, Dr. Leland Jensen, at entrybytroops dot org
adamjacob9 4 years ago
Yeah alright. Whatever man. I've read this stuff and it's all a big lie. You lost the discussion and now your trying again. I'm done with this
swahela 4 years ago
swahela,
Are you serious? "lost the discussion"? If that's the way you approach your Independent Investigation then it's no wonder that you're completely closed off to anything different from what you've heard before.
Not everything is a competition friend. I'm here to educate & teach the Cause, not to "win" anything other than my own station.
God's Blessings.
adamjacob9 4 years ago
yeah whatever. you are the one who won't accept clear evidence from scripture.
you are teaching a cause that you invented yourself. this is not the bahai faith.
swahela 4 years ago
swahela,
Boy, you just can't help from coming back here again & again. It's good to see someone so devoted to supporting our teaching effort with these videos.
And as for scripture, I for one can say that I accept the Everlasting Covenant of God proclaimed throughout the Bible & the Baha'i writings.
Thanks for your continued support. God's Blessings.
adamjacob9 4 years ago
I personally choose to reject your interpretations of you're one&only Scripture (Tablet to Taqi) which you've taken liberties to infer meaning not explicit within it. That is indeed the version the UHJ wishes the believers to accept, so you are being an exemplary and obedient steward to that fallible body. If only someone could present any support in Scripture for the idea that the Hands could act beyond the Guardian they served under.
jeffmichaud999 4 years ago
yeah yaeh. every idiot in this world know that mason isn't agshan. you are being obedient to mason remey who got you fooled.
what you personally choose to reject is your own buisness. if you can't accept the fact than that's to bad
swahela 4 years ago
swahela,
This has nothing to do with being "obedient" to Mason Remey.
Mason Remey is the Son & Aghsan of 'Abdu'l-Baha, as attested to by the several Tablets from 'Abdu'l-Baha to Mason & the token of inheritance presented to Mason from 'Abdu'l-Baha via Shoghi Effendi.
This is about being obedient to God & His Everlasting Covenant. Do you accept the Everlasting Covenant of God?
adamjacob9 4 years ago
I accept the fact that Mason wasn't adopted by Abdu'l-baha in any tablet or scripture.
And since you can't provide this evidence i don't know why you cling to this fantasy. It's so obvious that he wasn't adopted. Calling someone "son" doesn't constitute adoption. This is something that even a 5 year old knows
swahela 4 years ago
swahela,
Did you ever go to the article I posted on the Law of Adoption? Here it is again:
bupc dot org/test-of-god dot html#adoption
Also, 'Abdu'l-Baha wasn't just calling him "my son" which according to the law DOES constitute adoption, but he was calling him his "ghusn".
This is the TEST of God for you. Do you accept the Everlasting Covenant of God or not? Why do you refuse to answer this question? Are you familiar with the Everlasting Covenant?
adamjacob9 4 years ago
What law. We are talking about bahai scripture here. Can you show me the persian tablet were he calls Mason a ghusn. And since Abdu'l-baha calls a dusin people his son then they would all be adopted. If you are gonna use this argument for Mason then you must apply it for everyone else as well.
Do you agree?
So we see that this isn't something special for Mason. An aghsan is a blood line decsendant of Baha'u'llah. Every idiot knows this
Offcourse i accept the everlasting covenant.
swahela 4 years ago
swahela,
I cannot post the entire law here as there's not enough room. That's why I keep posting the link. Read it. 'Abdu'l-Baha didn't refer to anyone else the way he referred to Mason.
There is NO definition "in bahai scripture" that says "blood line". Are you sure it's "every idiot", or just you?
If you accept the Everlasting Covenant, then WHO do you accept as the heir to the throne of David after 'Abdu'l-Baha? Please address this question. Thanks.
adamjacob9 4 years ago
Abdu'l-baha appointed Shoghi as guardian as stated in the W&T. This is very clear
I can't believe you wrote this. "Abdu'l-baha didn't refer to anyone else the way he did Mason". Come on. Are you serious. Now tell me what was so special about the way he referred to Mason. please enlighten me? And you still haven't given any proof of Abdu'l-baha calling Mason ghusn btw...
"in bahai scripture" more specifically the W&T the word used is sulalih which means offspring. This means blood line.
swahela 4 years ago
swahela,
The WORD being referred to here is AGHSAN, not sulalih. We've been over this. You keep saying that Aghsan is a "blood relative" according to Baha'i scripture. Where does it say this? The word sulalih is from a different passage. All you're trying to do is muddy the waters to you can fish. Nobody's biting.
Have you read that article yet? And still no reply about my question regarding the heir to the throne.
No more pearls today. Read the article. Read the Bible. Good day.
adamjacob9 4 years ago
why did you delete my post. Afraid that someone will realize that you are wrong.
I said that after abdu'l-baha came shoghi. This is clear form the W&T. No the word sulalih is from the same passage. Read it before you say something.
Still no answer regarding Mason and the argument you use to justify that he was adopted. Do you have the evidence of Abdu'l-Baha calling Mason ghusn or don't you? GIve me the tablet...
swahela 4 years ago
swahela,
I didn't delete any of your posts.
The Will says that Shoghi MUST appoint either "the first born of his lineal descendants" or if that's not possible, "then MUST he choose another branch [ghusn]"
You're trying vainly to connect the word sulalih with the word Aghsan.
Where "in baha'i scripture" does it say Aghsan means "blood relative"? This is what you've been claiming from the beginning. Now provide your proof!
Refer to the article I posted for answers to your other questions.
adamjacob9 4 years ago
You clearly wont accept clear evidence from the W&T. The word sulalih means blood relative. Anyways sins you wont accept it i'm gonna give you something else
In the W&T it says that the hands have to choose 9 people from themselves to give their approval of the choosen branch. None of the hands approved Mason.
Nice when you don't have an answer for something you just say read this article which have nothing to do with it. Were does Abdu'l-baha call mason Ghusn?
swahela 4 years ago
swahela,
"The statement in the Will of 'Abdu'l-Baha (the passage in the Masters Will which provides for the successor to the Guardian, in which reference is made to the Hands of the Cause) does not imply that the Hands of the Cause of God have been given the authority to overrule the Guardian. 'Abdu'l-Baha could not have provided for a conflict of Authority in the Faith."
[Shoghi Effendi, "Baha'i News," February,1955, page 1]
You have yet to answer the question of who the heir to the throne is.
adamjacob9 4 years ago
what have this to do with anything. so you claim that there is a contradiction between the W&T and this passage.
The passage in the W&T was specifically for the purpose to provent covenant breakers like mason.
if not every idiot can come and claim guardianship. The reason for the passage, where the hands have to give their approval, is to prevent covenant breaking. none of the hands approved of mason. you can't pass this.
swahela 4 years ago
swahela,
Did you even READ this passage from Shoghi Effendi? He outright DENIES what the Hands created as their "theology" in order that they might deny Mason as guardian. He says they CANNOT "overrule the Guardian". That is what you are claiming, that the Hands would have had the power to overrule Shoghi's choice. This is WHY Shoghi clarified this in the article, so "any idiot" couldn't just interpret it how they wanted to. You're again turning to "whatsoever else" for guidance.
adamjacob9 4 years ago
nope wrong. i said that they have to approve shoghi's choice. stop putting words in my mouth.
since shoghi effendi didn't appoint any guardian, the passage from the W&T is very important. Nowhere in no text can you show me that shoghi appointed mason as his successor. That's the fact.
swahela 4 years ago
swahela,
Shoghi Effendi CLEARLY appointed Mason Remey as President & HEAD (Ra'is) of the IBC/UHJ, which is the position reserved SOLELY for the Guardian.
This is where you deny that Shoghi Effendi established the UHJ in its embryonic form.
adamjacob9 4 years ago
This is also the place sad crossroads that the Baha'is have abandoned Shoghi Effendi for their saintly Hands of the Cause, as they would deem him a failure at his mission to establish the Cause. At 61 he knew he was having no children, and had personally expelled all the other Aghsan. He indeed "chose another Branch", but the Hands felt they could override his choice and did, thus breaking the Covenant. Now you are here championing this horrible deceit, proposing we go along and agree SE failed.
jeffmichaud999 4 years ago
This ruse about the Tablet to Haji aside, the issue at hand is following Shoghi Effendi's passing, the Hands identified themselves as having the powers of a collective guardianship --powers which were not theirs to assume -- and they decided that they could establish the sans-Guardian UHJ that they did. They did that, of course, at a time when they were not "under the direction of the guardian" inasmuch as they did not accept that the Guardianship continued after Shoghi Effendi's death.
jeffmichaud999 4 years ago
What you're brazenly ignoring in Mirza Taqi's tablet is that the Master was the one initiating the projected action. Haji Mirza Taqi Afnan was not in a position to take the matter into his own hands. Forming the UHJ upon the Master's untimely death was later overridden in Part 3 of the Will, which was written beyond this Tablet. This is a ridiculous ruse. The Hands were given no authority to act beyond SE's death and establish the UHJ, which is the issue at hand.
jeffmichaud999 4 years ago
You're saying that the UHJ without a Guardian is impossible. I'm saying it is possible based on a tablet written by Abdu'l-Baha to Muhammad Taqi Afnan.
swahela 4 years ago
swahela,
Are you suggesting that this Tablet takes precedence over the Sacred Will & Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha, which Shoghi Effendi calls the CHARTER for the Order of Baha'u'llah? If so, then there is nothing left to discuss, as the Kitab-i-Ahd followed by the Will & Testament are the Authorities, which NOBODY has the authority to change or deviate from, which is exactly what the "Hands" led by Ruhiyah Khanum did. Is that what you are suggesting?
adamjacob9 4 years ago
No. I'm saying they don't contradict each other. That is the tablet to Muhammad Taqi Afnan and the W&T. There is no contradiction.
But as i said to Jeff. This is a difficult subject and up to each individual believer to read the scriptures and decide what feels right.
swahela 4 years ago
swahela,
Do you admit that the Will & Testament further defines the exact Plan of God in this all important matter?
Do you feel that the "Hands" or that anyone outside of "the Center of the Cause and the House of Justice" has any right to deviate even a hair's breadth from any provision of the Will?
adamjacob9 4 years ago
swahela,
Actually, it's not about "what feels right" at all, as "what feels right" to the majority has rarely if ever corresponded to what is true.
The purpose of the Will & Testament is to safeguard against every individual putting forth their "particular conviction" & to instead turn to the UHJ with the Aghsan Executive Head (uhj dot net), which ALONE is upheld in the Charter.
adamjacob9 4 years ago
swahela,
Do you accept Part 3 of the Will or not? This is the LAST WORD on the subject, where the guardianship is reaffirmed, and the line of succession CLEARLY established that the people must turn 1st to Shoghi Effendi and 2nd to the UHJ, & to turn to "whatsoever else" would be "grievous error". When they turned to the non-authoritative "Hands" that was "grievous error" as the IBC/UHJ was already in existence with the Aghsan Executive Branch, Mason Remey.
adamjacob9 4 years ago
IBC isn't UHJ. To different institutions. IBC is the forerunner "talie" of UHJ as written by Shoghi. IBC was Chosen by Shoghi. UHJ have to be chosen by the bahai community.
swahela 4 years ago
swahela,
Here we go again. If you read the entire message, which Shoghi calls the "Constitution" of the UHJ, you'll see that he describes the IBC going through a 4-stage "evolution" into the UHJ. He's clearly speaking of the same Institution, as he places the formation of the IBC second only to the ministries of the 3 Central Figures of the Faith, even over himself.
adamjacob9 4 years ago
I have read the passage and nowhere does it say that IBC is UHJ. In fact it's the opposite. Mason isn't aghsan and wasn't adopted. No one in their right mind would belive such nonsence. You are making things up which clearly is nowhere to find in the scripture. Mason appointed himself as guardian without any evidence. This is why all the hands denied him as guardian. I'm done with this. You guys have fun trying to convince anyone of your covenant breaking theories.
swahela 4 years ago
swahela,
Thanks for stopping by. You should know that the true UHJ of Baha'u'llah (uhj dot net) with the Davidic King as its President/Executive has an "open door" policy and you're always welcome.
Read the Book of the Establisher of the Baha'i Faith at entrybytroops dot org. All of your questions will be answered.
God's blessings.
adamjacob9 4 years ago
swahela,
Shoghi Effendi clearly explains that the IBC/UHJ would go through 4 stages of "development", the 1st & 2nd being appointed, the 3rd & 4th being elected. Have you even read past the first couple of sentences?
adamjacob9 4 years ago
Those two words appear in the same chpt.; he has to choose either his 1st born or another from the Aghsan. Any "1st born lineal descendant" to SE would be an Afnan; they were of diff. lineage. You should already know this- are you just creating subterfuge? That can't be all you're hinging your condescending dismissal of these things, for you're clearly mistaken. You're here criticizing us with misguided ideas, yet can't defend the fallible admin. you accept. Pity.
jeffmichaud999 4 years ago
And another thing. Aghsan in the bahai writings refer to decendants of Baha'u'llah. Is Mason a decendant of Baha'ullah? Now, you may say that Mason was adopted and so on and so forth, altough you don't have any evidence of it. Anyways. The word Aghsan refers to Farzandan meening children of Baha'u'llah. It doesn't say Farzand Khande which meens adoptive child. Two different words. See, either way you twist it, still Mason isn't Aghsan
swahela 4 years ago
swahela,
Mason is the Real Son of 'Abdu'l-Baha.
Please provide these Baha'i writings where you claim Aghsan is defined as "blood relative".
'Abdu'l-Baha had the authority to graft Mason onto his own family tree. "The divine gardener both separates and unites."
adamjacob9 4 years ago
Who say mason is the real son? You? Mason? this isn't enough for me. Abdu'l-Baha have to say i adopted you MR. Mason and he didn't. That's the fact.
The word Aghsan in arabic refers to branches. In the bahai scriptures it is specifically used in context to Farzandane Baha'u'llah, which means the children of Baha'u'llah. Adoptive children is another word (Farzand Khande). Every word have a meaning. Like Afnan also refers to Branches, but it is used in context to Babs children
swahela 4 years ago
swahela,
Shoghi Effendi wrote in his own handwriting to Mason when he sent him the packet of hair & blood of Baha'u'llah from the Master, addressing him as "'Abdu'l-Baha's 'dear son'". Have you not seen this? I can certainly direct you to where you can see Shoghi's own handwriting. Also, The Baha'i writings don't specify how 'Abdu'l-Baha could or couldn't adopt his son. It's too bad you don't accept it. Oh well.
adamjacob9 4 years ago
swahela,
Then Mason is Farzand Khande Baha'u'llah, and STILL Aghsan. Are you saying that the Master didn't have the right? "Consider! The Divine Gardener cuts off the dry or weak branch from the good tree and grafts to it (the tree) a branch from another tree. He both separates and unites." AB Last Tablet to America
adamjacob9 4 years ago
swahela,
You said "Abdu'l-Baha have to say i adopted you MR. Mason" and that would be enough.
I've provided you with evidence that he DID say that to Mason, but you don't accept it. Because in REALITY 'Abdu'l-Baha DID SAY IT. And in your heart you probably know it to be true, & it really disturbs you. An American as guardian! A gentile grafted onto the Holy Tree!
adamjacob9 4 years ago