 |
Baha'u'llah's Station |
 |
|
Baha'u'llah's Station |
|
The professed station of Baha'u'llah is a critical aspect of the "independent investigation" anyone would have to do before accepting the legitimacy of Baha'i religion. Who exactly does Baha'i theology and Baha'u'llah himself say that he is? How do those doctrinal ideas line up with one another and how do they line up with Scripture, the Bible? For if we are, on any level, to exercise our intellects to discern truth, then doctrines on his station should form a coherent set of ideas when compared to one another. And, as the Baha'i religion says that the Bible is, in fact, the "Word of God", then Baha'u'llah's station should relate reasonably with what Scripture says about Jesus Christ.
In terms of investigating for internal consistency between Baha'i doctrines on Baha'u'llah's station and its defining principles for "manifestations" in general, there exist serious problems. In bold contradiction to other foundational Baha'i doctrines, it can be definitively observed that Baha'is are to consider Baha'u'llah the supreme manifestation for all time, past, present AND future. Baha'is I have spoken with have often been disturbed when I tell them that Baha'i doctrine can be demonstrated to proclaim Baha'u'llah to be the supreme manifestation for all time. They will accurately insist that Baha'i writings can be brought to bear that definitively prove that Baha'i theology teaches that there can be expected untold future manifestations. These, I am told, will bring messages in accordance with the concept of progressive revelation whereby mankind is only given more advanced doses of revelation as he/she is ready for it. Thus, they will say, it is impossible to consider Baha'u'llah the greatest manifestation for all time. They will also argue that Baha'i teachings insist that all manifestations consider their "persons messages, words, acts, manners, etc" to be "essentially the same". I am thereby accused of having a weak and inaccurate understanding of just what Baha'i theology teaches.
Yet how one can have an "accurate" understanding of Baha'i theology, given internally contradictory doctrinal concepts? Having read Gleanings from the writings of Baha'u'llah, and Townshend's Christ and Baha'u'llah, certain nagging problems persist. For the contradictions I observe come out of the same writings Baha'is quote from. I mean, if I suggested in the first place that I had found what seemed to be internal doctrinal contradictions, then the fact that a Baha'i adherent can find quotes on one side of the contradiction is only settling if the other contradictory side can be legitimately explained. I say this because the spiritual issues are of great importance (concerning what one believes), and my honest intentions must address all of what I have read, not just the side of an issue that is expedient for the moment.
Thus, from the outset, let the reader clearly understand. I fully realize that when I make an assertion about Baha'i doctrine, some Baha'i believer will always say, "But that's not what we believe. We believe something else." The point is that no matter which side of the contradiction I might choose to argue, Baha'i mentality simply argues the other side of the contradiction. I have not put words in anyone's mouth. I do, however, expect the "prophet" to be responsible for what he says. If he says things that are fundamentally contradictory this is very bad and revealing of a false prophet.
Baha'is will cite the following quote as evidence, for example, that Baha'u'llah does not consider himself to be the greatest and final manifestation of God.
"Can one of sane mind seriously imagine that... the portal of God's infinite guidance can ever be closed in the face of men? Can he ever conceive for these Divine Luminaries, these resplendent Lights either a beginning or an end?" (Gleanings XXVII, p. 68)
This, taken with the general Baha'i concept of progressive revelation, would necessarily make it also follow that Baha'u'llah is not only not the last manifestation, but that he is neither to be considered the greatest manifestation with the greatest of revelations for mankind. An inevitable line of logical reasoning according to any meaningful concept of progressive revelation thus follows; A) There will be future manifestations after Baha'u'llah, according to Baha'u'llah. B) Progressive revelation dictates that mankind is only "progressively" given doses of ever greater revelation according to his level of "advancement". C) There will be manifestations in the future whose revelations will supersede that of Baha'u'llah.
But internal doctrinal contradiction still remains a glaring problem. You see, the point is not that Baha'u'llah considers himself the last manifestation in all eternity (according to his belief of an endless creation). The contradiction comes from what he says about spiritual principles amongst manifestations within our world of religious history. Baha'is may not believe Baha'u'llah is the last great manifestation of God to historical humanity, but its pretty clear that Baha'u'llah thinks he is, as far as the universe of human affairs we know of is concerned, and stretching into the future. And the main problem with that, as far as internal contradiction within Baha'i theology goes, is the way all former manifestations are relegated to a subservient position after so much has been said about ALL manifestation's equality so as to commonize everything. In Gleanings from The Writings of Baha'u'llah, Effendi quotes him saying; pg 244;
"In this most mighty Revelation all the Dispensations of the past have attained their highest and final consummation. Whoso laith claim to a Revelation after Him, such a man is assuredly a lying impostor."
On pg 257 he says;
"Detach yourself from all else but me, and turn your face towards my face, for better is this for you than the things ye possess. The Tongue of God testifieth to the truth of my words, through Mine own Word that speaketh the truth, and embraceth and comprehendeth all things."
And on pg 259 Baha'u'llah tells us of himself;
"The measure of the favors of God hath been filled up, His Word hath been perfected..."
We find that as one amongst the many Manifestations, In Baha'u'llah alone we are told God's Word is "perfected". All former religions and their founders, wherein God's truths were only dimly revealed, now yield and bow before a new and final revelation of perfection. But the whole basis of the Baha'i commonality and unity of religions rests on the premise that the "Manifestations" that represent all the seemingly different religions of mankind are all "as one soul and the same person." According to his own words Baha'u'llah tells us that in terms of their Godly station "no distinction is to be made between them." Herein lies an irreconcilable internal contradiction in basic Baha'i dogma. Baha'u'llah DOES consider himself God's "final" and "perfected" word and it is a contradiction with the principle through which he gathered the world's religious leaders and founders in the first place. If we are to believe that we are only given doses of revelation appropriate to man's level of "advancement" (this supposedly explaining many of the apparent differences amongst world religions), then what are we to make of these incredible claims of Baha'u'llah! Is there anyone who cannot see plenty of room for Spiritual "advancement" amongst mankind within the cruel world we see around us even today long after his death? Are we ready for God's "highest and final consummation". I think not, and ANY legitimate concept of progressive revelation couldn't either. And, in the face of Baha'i belief that Baha'u'llah is not the final manifestation, how can Baha'u'llah tell us that, "Whoso laith claim to a Revelation after Him, such a man is assuredly a lying impostor.", or that his revelation is a "final" consummation of truth?
Baha'u'llah's ideas on how many manifestations there might be in all of the endless Baha'i eternity of creation, is a completely different consideration from what he says about himself within our present world of human theological history. It is within our own human theological history itself that Baha'u'llah's self defining claims stand in contradiction to the principles with which he professes for all other manfestations within that same historical context.
For example, consider the following quote;
"His (God's) creation hath ever existed, and the Manifestations of His Divine glory and the Day Springs of eternal holiness have been sent down from time immemorial, and have been commissioned to summon mankind to the one true God. That the names of some of them are forgotten and the records of their lives lost is to be attributed to the disturbances and changes that have overtaken the world." (Gleanings From The Writings of Baha'u'llah LXXXVII, p. 174)
Now let's compare that one to this one;
Gleanings pg 244; "In this most mighty Revelation all the Dispensations of the past have attained their highest and final consummation. Whoso laith claim to a Revelation after Him, such a man is assuredly a lying impostor."
Evidently all those endless manifestations after Baha'u'llah will be "lying impostors", "assuredly". I find the contradiction troubling.
And what of the consistently stressed concept of commonality amongst the manifestations? If Baha'i s only quote one side of the issue (that which is expedient for the moment) they will always feel they have made a point. For as we will see with the following quotes, either side of the doctrinal coin can be supported from within authoritative Baha'i writings.
Gleanings pg 50; Even as He (God) hath revealed: 'No distinction do we make between any of His Messengers.
pg 59-60 "Whoso maketh the slightest possible difference between their persons, their words, their messages, their acts and manners, hath indeed disbelieved in God, hath repudiated His signs and betrayed the Cause of His Messengers."
pg 78 "God. the Creator, saith: There is no distinction whatsoever among the bearers of My Message. They all have but one purpose; their secret is the same secret. To prefer one in honor to another, to exalt certain ones above the rest, is in no wise to be permitted. Every true prophet hath regarded His Message as fundamentally the same as the Revelation of every other Prophet gone before him."
Baha'u'llah, on the other hand says things about himself like; Gleanings pg 31,
"There hath appeared what hath never previously appeared. He Who, from everlasting, had concealed His face from the sight of creation is now come."
But "their secret" is supposed to be the "same"??? And if through Baha'u'llah alone there hath appeared what hath never previously appeared, and all to follow are lying impostors, then what's the point in quoting him saying that there would be more manifestations ?? There exists here a pretty obvious and a pretty bad double standard. Indeed it is impossible to make rational sense out of this web of conflicting ideas!
Now one line of argument is to accuse me of eisegesis (isolating and absolutizing one passage to the exclusion of it's broad contextual setting). In the Kitab-I-Aqdas, for example, Baha'u'llah states the referenced passage from Gleanings a bit differently: "Whoso layeth claim to a Revelation direct form God, ere the expiration of a full thousand years, such a man is assuredly a lying impostor.
... Whosoever interpreteth this verse otherwise than its obvious meaning is deprived of the Spirit of God and of His mercy which encompasseth all created things. Fear God, and follow not your idle fancies." pg 32
This is a point worthy of consideration so we will look at the other passages where Baha'u'llah speaks of himself in this regard to see whether it is me who is taking quotes out of context of the overall writings, or if, in fact, it is Baha'i rationalizing to find one passage that renders a doctrinal loophole with which to negate the objectivity of the more universal claim. If we set both passages within the broader context of other claims and statements by Baha'u'llah (and other authoritative Baha'i leaders) we can discover where the greater weight of Baha'i doctrine leans with respect to intentions concerning Baha'u'llah's station. I say, "where the greater weight of Baha'i doctrine leans", specifically because it needs to be recognized once again that a mutually contradictory set of doctrinal assertions can indeed be set forth from Baha'i writings that negate the possibility that Baha'u'llah could claim ultimate supremacy. Thus, since mutually contradictory internal doctrines exist, one must find which side of the contradiction seems to receive the most weight and which seems the most objectively attributable.
Indeed, in this one passage, Baha'u'llah gives himself only 1000 years of supreme authority (much more, one might observe, than any other manifestation ever got!) Of course, considering the Baha'i license for symbolizing, this is only if you take the passage "literally". But let's look at some other quotes and see if Baha'u'llah can really be seen to give any space for more to come, ever, just because of this one quote's 1000 year limit.
Gleanings pg 259,
"The measure of the favors of God hath been filled up, His Word hath been perfected..."
Gleanings pg 12
"The promises of God, as recorded in the holy Scriptures, have all been fulfilled."
Taken in context of the other two quotes, even counting the 1000 year expletive, we see that if the "measure of the favors of God" have been "filled up" and His Word has been "perfected" there isn't any place left for anyone else to go who might come along after him! By definition he claims here that he is God's final word. For if the favors are "filled up" and the Word "perfected" there is no room left for improvement. Seen in context, the figurative use of 1000 years to show that no one would come after him is obviously the one not to be taken literally. And this is ironic when we consider how much symbolic license Baha'i theology otherwise allows itself. This is all especially telling since the differences one would expect in future manifestations would, according to Baha'i doctrine, only be due to a progressive development of man's spiritual capacity, just like former manifestations. The problem here is that Baha'u'llah isn't leaving any more room for progressive development, and thus no more room for future manifestations. This puts the other two quotes in a more proper context and leaves us still with a glaring double standard that begs an explanation.
This brings to mind another highly ironic quote used to insure the LITERAL use with respect to the 1000 years; ".. Whosoever interpreteth this verse otherwise than its obvious meaning is deprived of the Spirit of God and of His mercy which encompasseth all created things." In the first place, according to what I have just previously shown, this leaves Baha'u'llah contradicting himself. For 1000 years, or 10,000, still leaves no room for improvement of "perfection". Secondly, this quote is of EXACTLY the same attitude as that of all the New Testament authors who tell Baha'u'llah that his symbolic reinterpretations of their Gospel, do, in fact, leave his theology "deprived of the Spirit of God", though I pray not His mercy.
If Baha'u'llah says he brings us God's "perfected" word, and manifestations have only "seemed" to differ because they bring progressive doses of revelation as we are ready for it, then how can we be foolish enough to possibly think, in this day, that we are ready for God's perfected revelation? The point seems very relevant to me since we aren't nearly spiritually advanced for such a "perfection" which then contradicts the Baha'i principle of progressive revelation in which we are only supposed to be given doses of truth that we are "advanced" enough to be able to handle.
In the Scriptures, Christ does make exclusive claims. He tells us, as Baha'u'llah does, that any to follow (save himself) are "assuredly lying impostors", period. What he does NOT do, which makes my point very relevant, is patronizingly offer His station or any share in the exclusiveness of His Mission, to any other "manifestations". He simply claims the authority. He tells us that He will return again, in His own PERSON. (Scripture is crystal clear in its intention to proclaim that the PERSON of Jesus Christ is essential in establishing His exclusive authority. Bahai's, like many other sects who want to claim His authority or claim fulfillment of prophecy, wish to reduce Christ's preeminence to some kind of "Christ consciousness" that others can have, telling us that the "person" of Jesus was unimportant. You may choose to believe this. But you can't make the Bible say so with any integrity.) Jesus tells us that any who lay claim to his coming again are fakes. All Scripture on the subject is clear in its intent of showing us that Christ, in person, will come again, and that it will not BY ANY MEANS be a controversial event. Baha'u'llah comes as one in the upper rooms who cries out, "Here I am, the Christ returned." Baha'is tell the Christians, "There he is, out there in the desert." And Jesus Himself tells us, "Do not go out." Matthew 24:23 is enough for any Christian, or Baha'i, to see this point clearly.
The relevance of my question now should be clear. In the first place it is Baha'is, not Scripture, that tell us that man can spiritually evolve. It is Baha'u'llah, not Jesus, who proclaims the principle of progressive revelation. Thus, it is Baha'i theology, not Christian, that becomes caught within the contradictory double standard of Baha'u'llah's "perfected" revelation "that hath never before appeared", in the face of his commonizing tool of all other manifestations whose messages are supposedly "essentially the same". Jesus Christ knows that the heart of man is hopelessly lost from Adam to the end outside of His Messianic mission. He does bring a perfected Revelation. But it is one that he KNOWS the "world" will reject, then as now, and until the end. He calls us OUT of that world even while we are still within it. He proclaims no time when the world will become enlightened and men will evolve into a spiritually pure race. He, as do all of the Scriptures, warn of a progressive spiritual degeneration within the world. My point is very relevant specifically because a contradiction with respect to Christian doctrine doesn't exist (there is no contradictory concept of progressive revelation). But with respect to Baha'i theology, it does.
Baha'u'llah says,
" pg 244 of Gleanings: "In this most mighty Revelation all the Dispensations of the past have attained their highest and final consummation."
It is commonly argued that this is similar to stating that when in school all the past grades are fulfilled in the grade the student is entering. For example, sixth grade is the consummation of grades 1 to 5, but it is certainly not the highest level that child can attain.
The problem with this analogy, as already noted, is that Baha'u'llah's "perfected" Word, "filled up favors", and "completed" prophecies, leave us no room for any more "grades". He is, as it were, claiming a terminal degree (School's out!) and the glaring double standard remains an unresolved (and unfaced) problem.
On page 60 of Gleanings Baha'u'llah says of himself,
"It is evident that every age in which a Manifestation of God hath lived is divinely ordained, and may, in a sense, be be characterized as God's appointed Day. This Day, however, is unique, and is to be distinguished from those that have preceded it. The designation "Seal of the Prophets" fully revealeth its high station. The Prophetic Cycle hath, verily, ended. The Eternal Truth is now come. He hath lifted up the Ensign of Power, and is now shedding upon the world the unclouded splendor of His Revelation."
So we see that the "eternal truth" is now come and the "prophetic cycle" hath ended. Thus, by definition, Baha'u'llah claims to be the final, perfected Word of God. Who could have anything to offer after that? Perfection is, after all, perfect. This, once again, couples with the other quotes of Baha'u'llah's cited that show him claiming ultimate and final spiritual authority. Taken altogether, these quotes establish the true and honest context for his invalid double standard amongst "manifestations".
Baha'is typically refuse to admit the double standard that exists in Baha'u'llah's having on the one hand commonized all past manifestations, and on the other hand claimed supreme and final authority for himself. It is easy enough, as just demonstrated, to prove that this is functionally, as well as formally, true from the implications of his own words concerning both ideas. But even if it were not, there would still be another major problem concerning the doctrinal loophole through which his theology attempts to escape the double standard. Baha'i doctrine would propose a principle to explain away this double standard that, in fact, Baha'u'llah doesn't have to live with, but that then offers him immunity from criticism of his otherwise terribly unacceptable claims of supremacy.
In the case of Baha'u'llah we see a person faced with a dilemma.
1) He must commonize all past manifestations if he is to pool all the world religions which are so steeped in their vast diversity.
2) If he himself is subject to the commonizing however, his own theology will have no more objective authority or independent integrity than the rest, and the next self styled prophet that comes down the pike can say, even from within Baha'u'llah's own theories of doctrinal relativism, that Baha'u'llah is passe' and stands superseded. This Baha'u'llah cannot afford.
Baha'u'llah wants and needs his theology to be objectively definitive after he has made all others subjectively relative. He says that he brings us the "perfected" Word of God. But those gone before are less, by very definition, than "what hath never before appeared", ie. his revelation. Those to follow are, "assuredly lying impostors." or, as Abdul Baha says, to "remain under his shadow." He cannot in FACT allow his ideas to be subject to his own commonizing principles. However he will look embarrassingly bad if he doesn't find a means of justifying the fact that he sets himself apart from other manifestations. Claiming, as he does, that no former manifestation has given mankind what he offers, and that "any to follow are assuredly lying impostors", there must be some at least THEORETICAL principle to cover the obvious gross double standard.
Some Baha'is, as mentioned earlier, have pointed out one definitive statement where Baha'u'llah claims that there must be a 1000 year period before another manifestation can appear without being "assuredly a lying impostor". This, we are told, is proof positive that, in a tangible way, Baha'u'llah reconciles the seeming double standard. But what other "manifestation" has ever had exclusive authority for 1000 years? Many supposed manifestations have even lived concurrently? And with the cultural, philosophical, and religious diversity that still exists in today's world, who could claim to be the panacea of all revelation for everyone for 1000 years? This Christ claims, and for eternity, not 1000 years, but with no double standard. But I am speaking here of the Baha'i notion that tells us that the seeming differences in world religion are only because different people, according to their cultures and level of advancement, need truth presented to them at different levels. Are there no more differences in the levels of advancement or cultures within the world?
And let's consider once again, in context , another very revealing quote from pg 161 of Abdul Baha's, Some Answered Questions where, even after 1,000 years, subsequent alleged manifestations to come are still considered by Baha'i doctrine to remain, "under his shadow".
"...Manifestations appear with splendor in the realm of the visible until a great and supreme Manifestation makes the world the center of His radiance. His appearance causes the world to attain to maturity, and the extension of His cycle is very great. Afterward, other Manifestations will arise under His shadow, Who according to the needs of the time will renew certain commandments relating to material questions and affairs, while remaining under His shadow. We are in the cycle which began with Adam, and its supreme Manifestation is Baha'u'llah."
Baha'u'llah is specifically proclaimed as "supreme" with any to follow remaining "under his shadow", and it remains a glaring double standard with the Baha'i notion that all manifestations are to be considered equal "mirrors" of God with no "distinctions" in their "persons, words, messages, acts and manners." (Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah pp 60 and 78). Baha'u'llah simply does not live by the same universal principles he sets up for all other manifestations.
Thus we observe that such indefinite supremacy in and of itself defeats any legitimacy to the Baha'i doctrine of progressive revelation. Baha'u'llah brings what he calls "perfection" and all to follow are either "impostors" or "remain under his shadow". And this in a world that is anything but "advanced" enough for any such ultimate and final revelation. Think about how such a station for Baha'u'llah compares with the Baha'i notion that manifestations supposedly only give out enough "truth" to meet the abilities of the people at their immediate level of ability. It becomes theological double talk.
And so other Baha'i principles come into play that refute the idea that Baha'u'llah could be the "last word" for EVERYONE at ANY given time, and certainly not for 1000 years. Any true theory of progressive revelation could never accept the suggestion that man's "progress" will be frozen for 1000 years. It is an obvious attempt to throw theological competition with Baha'u'llah's ideology so far into the future that it is rendered moot. Still it offers a patronizing means of rectifying the terrible double standard of commonizing all others, while claiming supremacy for himself.
In an attempt to get around the observation that Baha'u'llah sets up vast distinctions for himself in contradiction to his own teaching that such distinctions don't exist amongst the "manifestations", Baha'is will argue that while the "station" of Baha'u'llah is basically the same as other prophets, it is his "message" that is the greatest, the message which all of humanity has waited for, the message which the previous Messengers have prepared mankind to receive. The message they could never have been able to grasp before because mankind hadn't "advanced" enough spiritually yet.
But this too contradicts Baha'u'llah's own claims about just what the nature of the MESSAGES of the various manifestations are. When Baha'u'llah is trying to build the case for the commonality of all world religions he says, (pg 78 Gleanings) "Every true prophet hath regarded His Message as fundamentally the same as the Revelation of every other Prophet gone before Him." But , as we have seen from the former quote I cited, Baha'u'llah nevertheless considers his own "message" to be ANYTHING but "fundamentally the same as every other prophet gone before him." Baha'is are correct in saying that Baha'u'llah claims to have the "greatest" of messages. And it sets up for him a humongous "distinction" that grossly contradicts the rationale he formerly used to pool all other "manifestations" into the Baha'i melting pot.
In another way, Baha'is have tried to downplay the quote wherein Baha'u'llah disallows that ANY may follow him without being "lying impostors". We recall Baha'u''lah's bold warning and claim of ultimate spiritual supremacy;
"In this most mighty Revelation (Baha'u'llah) all the Dispensations of the past have attained their highest and final consummation. Whoso laith claim to a Revelation after Him, such a man is assuredly a lying impostor."
Baha'is will say that although we are now in a new age, a new cycle, still, revelation has not ended. Baha'is argue that the above quote was only directed to an individual. The beginning of the paragraph was directed specifically to "Dhabih". Thus, Baha'is rationalize, Baha'u'llah was writing here only about the days of Dhabih, a time when many were trying to usurp the reigns of Baha'u'llah's mission, even claiming direct revelations from God.
But let's look at EXACTLY what Baha'u'llah has said here, and compare it with the Baha'i conclusion that he only said this in a context meant to apply to the particular individual Baha'u'llah happened to be addressing at the time. Immediate context is important. But let us also remember that we must also consider a broad based context in determining the legitimate meaning. The intentions of this quote must not be illogically found to disagree with other claims and statements authoritative Baha'i writers propose. Baha'u'llah says in this quotation, literally, that, "WHOSO" laith claim to a Revelation "after Him", "such a man is assuredly a lying impostor." Regardless of whether the conversation was with one individual Dahib, or a throng, Baha'u'llah does not specify the bold warning as being applicable to ANY individual or distinct or limited group, but specifically to "whoso", anyone who would make claim at any time "after him". It is a solidly definitive universal statement.
But, as I said, it is vital to set this statement into a much broader context of Baha'i writings. Looking into the past we find that Baha'u'llah tells us flatly that with his "revelation" "perfection" has arrived. He tells us that he offers "what hath never before appeared" and that he is the "consummation" and highest advanced dispensation superseding all past "manifestations" and their more primitive "dispensations."
In terms of forward looking considerations of Baha'u'llah's supremacy, we find (besides the immediate quote we have been considering) that Abdul Baha also tells us that even after 1,000 years of supremacy (a double standard in and of itself against any legitimate theory of progressive revelation), that any to follow Baha'u''lah still yet "remain under his shadow". The larger context of Baha'i writings actually show that,
1) there is an objectively observable internal contradiction in terms of the station of Baha'u'llah in the Baha'i writings,
or
2) The 1,000 year "term limit" given in the other quote was a figurative expletive not to be taken literally (ie; Baha'u'llah meant to say that anyone who EVER laid claim to a revelation, even if a thousand years past, was a lying impostor, and he remains supreme.)
The first possibility shows a false religion in its internally confused ideology. God is not the author of such contradictory theology. The second possibility would line the quote up with the 1,000 year limit so that it matches the other assertions of Baha'u'llah's supremacy within the broader context of Baha'i writings. But then all that does is to reinforce the terrible double standard through which we find that Baha'u'llah, as the indefinitely "supreme" manifestation for all time, completely renders the theory of progressive revelation which he used to justify such a station as utterly invalid.
In fact, the only reasonable interpretation for those quotes wherein Baha'u'llah claims supremacy for himself (or other Baha'i writers claim it for him) is to give it the plain meaning of the text. Total and permanent supremacy is, in fact, claimed. Which leads to the observation that plain contradictions are rife within the Baha'i writings. There is no argument that there are plenty of other claims and assertions that speak of the limitless future of the world and manifestations without number in the established Baha'i writings. Still, in the face of such quotations that might be brought to bear, you can't get more than "highest" or go further than "final". You can't justify progressive revelation when you stagnate progress by having a "perfected" revelation stuck in the middle in which all to follow "remain under his shadow". Such theology is a breech with rationality and a clear example of breaking the law of non contradiction.
Now often in the course of discussion another problematic doctrinal contradiction arises. This happens as the Baha'i believer expresses disappointment, saying that I am in error in that I read the words and put an erroneous personal interpretation on them. This reflects the established doctrine wherein ONLY manifestations are said to be enlightened enough to interpret "Scripture". I would submit however that neither the Baha'i adherent nor I can do anything else if we are going to pursue an "independent investigation for truth" according to the standard of Science and intellect that Baha'i theology also espouses. I read the words. I consider their meaning and implications. I find the same principles discussed elsewhere (in a variety of contexts). I consider further. I compare these ideas with Scriptural ones; "searching the Scriptures to see if what Baha'u'llah says is true." I find that the doctrines are not internally valid. I find that they do not fit scriptural principles, symbolism notwithstanding. This has been the thrust of my having "interpreted". It seems like a basic definition for "independent" investigation?
"The Baha'i Faith", I have often been told by Baha'is, "teaches that each individual must do an individual search for truth just as Jesus also taught us to "seek and ye shall find." Like gold mixed with ore we must learn discernment and how to separate truth and untruth--and before that is even possible we must have an open mind."
But it seems that Baha'u'llah gives his believers anything BUT the opportunity for any level of independent investigation, often saying that any who disagree with his "final and greatest revelation" are "as one dead though they seem to walk and breathe" etc.. In reality he allows for no such "open mindedness" as the "independent investigation" side of this contradictory double standard would presume to teach the believer. The double standard is quite obvious. You may have an "independent investigation after truth" as long as it isn't truly independent! You may have an open mind as long as it remains closed within Baha'u'llah's self proclaimed supreme "perfected" revelation. Either one has the ability to "independently" seek truth, or one does not, and must thereby rely on the exclusive insight of Baha'u'llah. What Baha'i religion is really saying is that WITHIN THE CONFINES of Baha'u'llah's theology one can seek independently. That is not "independent" investigation.
Baha'is do not concede the contradiction between "seeking independently" and having Baha'u'llah tell you what you will find. Jesus and Baha'u'llah, they say, each admonished seekers to earnestly seek, but also told us what we would find when we did in fact search.
My response is to agree that both Jesus and Baha'u'llah do indeed tell seekers what they will find if they search. But what Jesus did not do was to tell believers, on the one hand, that their search must be "independent" and thus based upon intellectual logic and Science as the methodology of discernment, and then propose prophecy, literal miracles, and divine, supernatural revelation that the believer has NO WAY of testing according to that methodology. Christ does not say that all religions and their leaders are really the same and that there is to be made no "distinctions" concerning their "messages", and then establish elaborate distinctions for himself in contradiction to the proposed principle. Christ tells us what we will find if we find truth, but it is not a "truth" riddled with irrational double standards as is Baha'u'llah's.
A significant claim of Baha'u'llah is that he is the return of Christ, admittedly in the "person" of another human being, namely the person of himself, Baha'u'llah. Thus the assertion is made that Jesus' promise to return was not intended to be taken as a literal and personal return, but was to be considered symbolic of someone else who represented God (Baha'u'llah) who would be the "Christ come again".
Now keep in mind that in Scripture Christ did not tell us that the false prophets he warned of would come as blatant promoters of wickedness, but that they would come as wolves in sheep's clothing. He said they would come in God's name and even as Christ Himself and that we should not listen to them.
Baha'is respond at this point by saying that the warning against watching for a false prophet implies that there must be a true prophet. "Why warn people about prophets at all?", I am told. "Why not say: ignore anyone who comes to you unless he comes on a physical cloud from the sky. There will be no other prophets, so you don't have to worry about anyone else coming. Just look for me on the clouds."
But this IS exactly what the Gospel DOES tell us. Just look for Him on the clouds in glory. His coming again will be PERSONAL. His coming again will be SINGULAR. His coming again will be dramatic and will NOT be subject to controversy like all the others who Baha'i theology claims have come as "manifestations" to fulfill the prophecy of His return. There is indeed proclaimed a "true" prophet (SINGULAR). It is Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Everything else prophetically mentioned either speaks of His own PERSONAL return, or the universally false "Christ's" that will surely come in His name, but with "another gospel which is really no gospel at all".
Two key passages can help us discover, with reason, the inarguable intentions of Christ's message in this regard; Luke17:22,
"Then he (Jesus) said to his disciples, "The time is coming when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, but you will not see it.
Men will tell you, 'There he is!' or 'Here he is!' Do not go running off after them. For the Son of Man in his day will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other."
Matthew 24:3,
"As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ, and will deceive many. ...At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect--if that were possible. See, I have told you ahead of time. So if anyone tells you, 'There he is, out in the desert,' do not go out; or, 'Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it."
Now let's investigate what Jesus has said, and compare it to Baha'is' claim that Jesus was prophesying many future "manifestations" to come whose greater "dispensation" would surpass Christ's message due to the alleged "progressive" nature of revelation.
In both Gospel passages the first thing we must notice is that the entire context of these forward looking Words of Christ speak in the SINGULAR about His return. There is NO mention of coming "manifestations" (plural). There is only His mention of His own personal return, the passage goes on to read, "For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man." (Singular). Furthermore, we notice that Jesus specifically tells us that we should reject ANYONE who says "Look, there is the Christ". Again He repeats,
"So if <ANYONE> tells you, 'There he is, out in the desert,' do not go out; or, 'Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it."
<Anyone> is a pretty all inclusive term, and clearly shows Christ's intention to proclaim that there would be NO ONE to come in the role of His prophesied return but Himself.
But if we are to reject ANYONE who comes claiming the fulfillment of Christ's return then how will we know it when it really happens? Jesus tells us how and his answer proves, by way of this present debate for example, why Baha'u'llah is, according to Jesus' Words, a false prophet. Christ tells us that we will know His return when it comes because it will be so dramatic that we won't need ANYONE to tell us, "There he is in the upper rooms", or "There he is out in the desert" (or, "There he is at Haifa"). Jesus' return will be unmistakable to ALL MANKIND. It will not be controversial. Men will not evangelize to convince anyone that it has happened. The image of His return as lightning that illuminates the whole sky is Jesus' symbol telling us that His true return will need NO heralding by mortals. This is especially emphasized in the context of His having told us, at the same time, to UNIVERSALLY reject the false Messiahs that ANYONE might proclaim.
Now although we are categorically told by Christ to reject ALL ("ANYONE") who comes claiming His return, He also tells us that those who do come claiming it will come as effective deceivers with signs and wonders. We are told by Jesus that many will be deceived by these impostors. Our response is to be simple. Reject them all. These are Jesus Christ's undisputable and clearly proclaimed words and they leave no room for Baha'u'llah or anyone else except Jesus Christ of Nazareth, in person and in Glory.
As I said before, you do not have to agree with this outlook, but it is clearly Jesus' intention. And so the Baha'i notion that Scripture is "really" saying the same things as Baha'i theology is a false claim. Baha'i's proposal that Jesus meant to proclaim many manifestations to come after him in fulfillment of the prophesy of His return is shown to be an utterly impossible interpretation when we look at what Jesus actually said. There are FUNDAMENTAL differences in Christ's spiritual and world view as opposed to Baha'u'llah's. He proclaims Himself as the one and only "manifestation" (if we are to use Baha'i parlance). For His biblical claim as Messiah MUST be that of God the Son who, only as God incarnate, could offer a pure and perfect sacrifice as that Messiah/ Redeemer to intercede for mankind's sin. His Mission of Salvation implies automatically both His EXCLUSIVE deific incarnate station amongst all men, and the singular exclusiveness of His "once for all" Mission; the "Salvation of all mankind". The full weight of both the Old and New Testaments support this unanimously.
So Baha'is are mistaken when they say that Christ's intent was to warn us that there would be true prophets to come. In point of fact, Jesus specifically told us to reject "ANYONE'S" proclamation of His return. What He warned was that there would be false prophets to come. Baha'i doctrine definitely claims Baha'u'llah to be Christ's return, claiming, as it does through its interpretation of Scripture, that he fulfills the prophecy of the return of Jesus. Thus, according to Christ's own Words, Baha'u'llah must be rejected as a false prophet.
Another way in which Baha'i theology twists scriptures away from their intended Message is in the way in which they assume a positive meaning from a verse that was given in the context of only a negative warning. Baha'is will quote Scripture saying,
"You shall know them by their fruits". That's another indication that there would be TRUE prophets to watch for. You don't have to watch for them coming on physical clouds but you should watch for the results of their actions."
But Christ said, "Ye shall know them by their fruits.", after just having warned of false prophets to come, not true ones to follow. His point that good trees cannot bear bad fruit is given in that same context. When he says, "You will know them by their fruit." He is talking about knowing false prophets by their fruit, not true ones. Let's put that verse in context.
Matthew 7:15
"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them."
He goes on to say,
"Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them."
The logical flow of Christ's reasoning is apparent here.
1) There will be false prophets.
2) You will know them by their fruit.
It is anything but a proclamation of "manifestations" to come. In fact, given what we just observed in what He said in the broader context of Luke 17 and Matthew 24 (where he commands us to reject "anyone" who proclaims to fulfill His return), it is ever more clear that He is only warning us of falsehood to come, not true prophets.
Jesus even goes on in this passage to remind us that these false prophets will indeed come as would be "holy" bringers of enlightenment.
"Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"
For, you see, while Baha'is proclaim the wondrous and "advanced" goals of Baha'u'llah (World peace, universal languages, elimination of abject poverty, unity of all religion), they do so at a spiritually suicidal cost doctrinally. They must reject the exclusive Salvation that comes by way of Christ's death and Resurrection alone, for they are set to reject the ultimate, final and exclusive nature of who He was and what He did. Their "faith" in Jesus must become a misguided faith as they relegate His "dispensation" to that of a more primitive message for a more primitive age. Thus, they relegate the singular Salvation of all mankind to such a degraded station. Once again, the Jesus Baha'is say they honor is some mystical teacher/ guru not found in Scripture. It is not the Messiah that Jesus claimed to be. The Baha'i world view does not allow Baha'is to really honor who He was, who and what we are (lost sinners), and the infinite significance of what he alone accomplished (our true and ONLY Salvation). All the wonderful goals Baha'is claim as "fruit", are, to quote Scripture, "as filthy rags", IN COMPARISON to their real and God rejecting refusal to recognize their hopelessly sinful condition, and thereby rejecting the unfathomable and singular grace of God through Christ. Baha'i theology can only see the "good" Baha'is might do in pride. God can see their far greater wickedness as sinful people (as are we all), and the false pride of a self proclaimed holiness that assumes an ability to "attain to the shores of that most great ocean by their own innate powers", to paraphrase Baha'u'llah. Thus, Baha'is willfully reject Salvation for they will not humble themselves to worship Jesus Christ alone as Savior of all for all time, but gather to themselves teachers to tickle their ears with false and foolishly destructive doctrines of men that degrade the exclusive and universally supreme reality of Jesus' station.
Baha'u'llah claims to be both Christ's return, the coming of the promised "comforter" promised by Jesus and the return of the Father proclaimed in Revelation. This makes it necessary for Baha'i theology to somehow deal with the Pentecostal story from the book of Acts. Just to be certain that no assumptions are made, I will quote the passage from pg 106 of Some Answered Questions where Abdul Baha discusses the Pentecost and compare it to the appropriate Scriptures. On page 106 of Some Answered Questions Abdul Baha says of Christ's Resurrection;
" Answer.--The descent of the Holy Spirit is not like the entrance of air into man; it is an expression and a simile, rather than an exact or a literal image. No, rather it is like the entrance of the image of the sun into the mirror--that is to say, its splendor becomes apparent in it. After the death of Christ the disciples were troubled, and their ideas and thoughts were discordant and contradictory; later they became firm and united, and at the feast of Pentecost they gathered together and detached themselves from the things of this world. Disregarding themselves, they renounced their comfort and worldly happiness, sacrificing their body and soul to the Beloved, abandoning their houses, and becoming wanderers and homeless, even forgetting their own existence. Then they received the help of God, and the power of the Holy Spirit became manifested; the spirituality of Christ triumphed, and the love of God reigned. They were given help at that time and dispersed in different directions, teaching the Cause of God, and giving forth proofs and evidences. So the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles means their attraction by the Christ Spirit, whereby they acquired stability and firmness."
Let's compare this interpretation of the Pentecost to the promise of Christ for a Comforter/Counselor (the prophecy Baha'u'llah claims). We can then see whether or not Abdul Baha's interpretation agrees with Both Baha'u'llah's claims to be the promised Counselor and Christ's Words about the fulfillment of the promise.
At John 14:16 we find Christ speaking of the promised Counselor that Baha'u'llah claims to be, and that Jesus promised in these passages.
"And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever-- the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you... (14:25) All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
Jn.15:26,
When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.
Jn.16:7,
But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.
Now, at Acts Ch 1:3 we are told of Jesus that;
"After his suffering, he showed himself to these men (the Disciples) and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."
This passage specifically tells us that Jesus Resurrection had nothing whatsoever to do with a symbolic theory that "After the death of Christ the disciples were troubled, and their ideas and thoughts were discordant and contradictory" and that later, when they became "steadfast", that that was the Resurrection of Christ. Let's not have any nonsense about the Bible meaning to say it, in any honest appraisal of its intent. Symbolism has nothing to do with it. It says that the Disciples were given many convincing proofs that He was "alive" AFTER His death on the cross. The passage tells us that Jesus spoke with them, and ate physical food in their presence, AFTER His death on the cross. Jesus told them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait SPECIFICALLY "for the gift my Father promised, WHICH YOU HAVE HEARD ME SPEAK ABOUT." (John 14:16, Jn.15:26, Jn.16:7). Jesus tells us SPECIFICALLY that upon waiting in Jerusalem that, "in a few DAYS you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit." Not nearly two thousand years later in the middle of the 19th Century. And, as Jesus' original promise of John 14:16 says that the Counselor promised was to "live with you and be in you" and that this was to be "forever", we must concede that the Counselor was never intended by Christ to be seen as another incarnation of a person such as Baha'u'llah who could never fulfill those criterion, but the direct indwelling of God's Spirit.
The most relevant point concerning all this when we consider Abdul Baha's answered question however, is that all of this excitement and adulation on the part of the Disciples concerning the risen Jesus in Acts ch 1, is BEFORE the Pentecost and thus reveals the false theory that the Pentecost itself was the symbolic story wherein they became "steadfast". In terms of their reaction to having witnessed the literal reality of Jesus' Resurrection, they were already steadfast BEFORE the Pentecost. It is also worth mentioning that Abdul Baha' is wrong when he says that "At the feast of Pentecost they gathered together and detached themselves from the things of this world. Disregarding themselves, they renounced their comfort and worldly happiness, sacrificing their body and soul to the Beloved, abandoning their houses, and becoming wanderers and homeless, even forgetting their own existence." This too had already happened long before the Pentecost event of Acts ch2. The Apostles had to give those things up at the very inception of their walk with Christ at the beginning of His ministry. Peter had to give up his profession as a fisherman to become a "fisher of men" long before the Pentecost. This reveals another false attempt to try to give another different meaning to the Pentecost account than the obviously intended one.
Acts ch 2,
When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place.
Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. ...All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues [a] as the Spirit enabled them.
...Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: "Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say.
...Exalted to the right hand of God, He (Jesus) has received from the Father the PROMISED Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. "
It would seem that perhaps the one thing that God could find unforgivable concerning all this is that one has to TRY, HARD, to ignore what is clearly spelled out and intended here in order to pervert it with theories it obviously cannot intend. It reminds me of another quote of Baha'u'llah's that is much more to the point here than in the instance he first said it.
"Whosoever interpreteth this verse otherwise than its obvious meaning is deprived of the Spirit of God and of His mercy which encompasseth all created things. Fear God, and follow not your idle fancies."
Read Acts again and repent of theories that are "idle fancies" that "interpreteth" Holy Scripture "otherwise than its obvious meaning." No symbolism can account for this blatant clash of basic doctrine.
But, as the intention of passages like Acts ch1 is clear, and there is left no legitimate explanation for the obvious conflict, it is instances like this where I come upon another Baha'i explanation from authors like William Sears who asserts that the Apostles wrote what they wrote but "misunderstood" Christ's true intentions. This is easily revealed as wrong when we consider that Jesus hand picked these individuals to be the ONLY representatives of His whole mission to the world. If, as a "manifestation", whose knowledge was "equal" to that of God, He either chose corrupt men to write His story, or allowed them as the sole representatives of His mission and Message to write it misinformed, He would hardly have been able to have been the enlightened manifestation He was supposed to be. We notice that Baha'i prophets are personally prolific by comparison, and with their own pens. Christ SPECIFICALLY left it up to those that He Himself Commissioned to represent His ministry in writing to the world. It would be foolish to suggest that He let the job be done inaccurately. This is not to say that He has not allowed that many would work wickedness and falsehood in His name down through the ages. But to suggest that He would have allowed the only extant record of His teachings, life, ministry, and mission to be utterly left in the hands of men who were either going to dishonestly lie or who had the wrong idea about what He intended is unacceptable. To let Scripture have the last word we can leave it at this. Of the Apostles it says in Luke 24:45 that Jesus, "...opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures." It is a lie to suggest that they did not understand Christ's intentions in what they wrote.
Thus, in terms of Baha'u'llah's station, we see the claim that he represents Christ's second coming and the coming of the "comforter/counselor" is an impossible claim. It is demonstrably against any possible interpretation of Scripture's intention.
But Baha'i doctrine teaches that the Bible's meaning has been largely "sealed" and that only Baha'u'llah's interpretation of it is true and legitimate. Bible verses from Daniel or Revelation are cited (out of context) to support this idea. But as far as Revelation or Daniel telling us that "the books are sealed", Baha'i faith jumps to false assumptions to use these verses as license to alter even basic Scriptural themes like mankind's fallen and sinful nature. This idea that Baha'u'llah has unsealed the meaning of Scripture is an interesting claim. First of all, in terms of the moral teachings of right and wrong that the Baha'i religion says are the only things that really count in religion, there is nothing to be unsealed! Baha'i religion says that "teaching" is the great commission of the manifestations and "ignorance" mankind's only sickness. But Moses was given the Ten Commandments and there is not one mystery among them. Peace, love of God and fellow man, selfless generosity; these are not teachings that must be unsealed before we can understand what they would have us do. They have always been clearly understandable. Jesus even showed that the "Law" was much simpler to understand than ten commands for He told us that all of the Law was summed up in two simple truths; that we should love God with all our hearts and that we should love our neighbor as our self. This does not change the Law, it confirms it and reinforces the Scriptural concept that mankind has ALWAYS been responsible for knowing the Truth and acting according to it.
Nowhere does it say, or is it implied in the Bible that "all" Scripture is sealed. According to Baha'i ideology itself the idea would make no sense if the Bible was to have ever had any value as a teaching tool by which men might improve their behavior. In truth, only certain passages of prophecy were said to have been sealed and these deal only with specifics concerning dates and times in the end times. They do not refer to intellectually acceptable symbolic meanings for Jesus' nature and Resurrection, miracles, angels, Satan, Heaven and Hell, or any of the other Baha'i scriptural redefinitions by "unsealing". Beyond this fact there are several scriptural proofs that negate the possibility that Baha'u'llah unsealed the true meaning of Holy Scripture. Luke 24:45 tells us once and for all that Jesus Himself unsealed and made clear to the Apostolic authors of the New Testament the intentions of the Bible nearly 2,000 years before Baha'u'llah.
"Then He (Jesus) opened their minds so they could understand the scriptures."
It is wrong to suggest that they either misunderstood Jesus or that the Scriptures were sealed to them.
However Christians are told that Baha'u'llah unsealed the Scripture's true meaning, which was formerly sealed. Having lived in the 19th century, his then must be "another Gospel" than that of Paul and the Apostles who presumably misunderstood the Bible and Christ's intentions. Paul tells us in Galatians 1:6,
"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different Gospel- which is really no Gospel. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the Gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from Heaven should preach a Gospel other than the one WE preached to you, let him be eternally condemned. As we have already said, so now I say again. If anybody is preaching a Gospel other than what you accepted let him be eternally condemned."
Paul's words seem harsh, presumptuous, and unforgiving. But they are in agreement with Christ's own words of warning about blaspheming against the Holy Spirit. For the "one who called you by the grace of Christ" that Paul refers to is the Holy Spirit, Jesus' promised Counselor sent to them at the Pentecost.
In closing we should recognize several things at this point concerning Baha'u'llah's professed "station". He creates a double standard between his own defining principles for himself as opposed to all other manifestations. He attempts to make all other's theology seasonal and subjective while asserting objective, supreme, and final permanence to his own. He contradicts the established Baha'i principle wherein every manifestation's "Message" is said to be corrupted by humanity, promising that his revelation will not fall into a "Winter" type state. Yet this, however, also contradicts the other passages he has written where he specifically laments the fact that, just as has always happened with all manifestations, his dispensation too was historically rejected by "corrupt" humanity. We observe that if he is correct in that his revelation will remain supreme, even for only 1,000 years, (still a double standard against the station he assigns all other manifestations), it negates the possibility of any concept of progressive revelation. Yet Baha'i doctrine rests needy of the concept to try to justify Baha'u'llah's claiming a higher, "advanced" revelation in the first place! Baha'u'llah's 1,000 year term limit that would freeze human progress for a millennium is completely irrational from the proposed persepctive of progressive revelation wherein revelation is said to be periodically updated as man "progresses" spiritually. But the concept of progressive revelation itself is observably irrational when we consider its claim that man is only given "doses" of spirituality according to his immediate level of capacity, and then look out into the present world of spiritual ills and recall how Baha'u'llah's "revelation" supposedly represents, as he claims, the "final" and "perfected" fulfillment of "all the promises of God as recorded in the Scriptures."
But the most significant problem lies in the fact that the entire mass of doctrine defining Baha'u'llah is utterly incompatible with the Savior -Messiah Christ of the Bible. One who is wise will reject such a false prophet and turn fully to the untainted Gospel of Jesus Christ who died, once for all, worthy by virtue of His exclusive incarnate deity, to stand in the gap for a sinfully doomed humanity. Messiah, not "good teacher". Able, by way of His singularly sinless Godhood, but more significant, willing. Willing to take the penalty for our unrighteousness. A gift unparalleled in all of human history.