Top critical review
One person found this helpful
on January 22, 2012
The author claims to be the latest in a long line of prophets or "manifestations" and also claims to teach very much the same thing previous "manifestations" have. For the record, according to the author and the advocates of this faith a "Manifestation" is basically a major religious figure such as Buddha, Moses, Muhammad, Jesus and others that they claim have been sent by God to proclaim His message. The only difference between them is that they were sent at different times. To insist that Jesus Christ is no greater or better than any other major religious figure is something no knowledgeable and confessing Christian could ever agree with. I shall endeavor to show in what limited space I have here that he has no Patristic authority for much if any of what he writes in this book.
For someone claiming to be in the line of "manifestations" that supposedly includes Jesus Christ the author doesn't know his Bible very well. On page 137 the author states that when Abel and Cain offered a sacrifice that they were able to call down fire from Heaven to consume their offering. Contrary to what the author would have us believe the Bible does not mention such an event ever occurring. The author may be confused because in 1 Kings Chapter 18 we read that the prophet Elijah was able to call down fire to consume the sacrifice that he offered and this occurred quite some time after Cain and Abel's time.
The author calls himself "Baha'u'llah" meaning "the glory of God". It is not possible for him to be so because Isaiah 42:8 reads: "I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images." Here we are expressly told that God will not give His glory to another. So why does this person make the claim that he is?
On page 156 the author wrote: "It hath been demonstrated and definitely established, through clear evidences, that by `Resurrection' is meant the rise of the Manifestation of God to proclaim His Cause..."
And is there any Patristic authority whatsoever for the author's definition of the Resurrection? No. But what is the Bible's definition or meaning of the word "Resurrection?" The answer to this can be readily ascertained by reading the following:
When the women found the tomb empty and were on their way to tell the others that Jesus Christ had risen, "And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, `All hail.' And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him." (Matthew 28:9). If Jesus Christ wasn't in bodily form after the Resurrection then how were the women able to hold him by the feet?
Luke 24:39, "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." Jesus Christ here shows His disciples the wounds in His hands and His feet that were made as a result of the crucifixion clearly demonstrating that His resurrection is a very literal one. If it was a spiritual one it would have taken another form than the one it has. Remember, He's showing them His physical body.
The apostle Thomas himself refused to believe that the resurrection was literal until he had seen the result with his own eyes. "But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said unto him, `We have seen the Lord.' But he said unto them, `Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.' And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, `Peace be unto you.' Then saith he to Thomas, `Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.' And Thomas answered and said unto him, `My Lord and my God.' Jesus saith unto him, `Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.'" (John 20:24-29). How can this be other than a literal resurrection if Jesus Christ is able to show someone the nail prints in His hands and the place where the spear pierced His side?
Acts 2:31, "He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption." The writer of Acts states that the body of Jesus Christ did not decompose as it most surely would have had it remained in the tomb.
Acts 13:35-37, "Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, `Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption: But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.'" Here the writer of Acts is telling us that the body of David was buried and suffered decomposition. Not so with the body of Jesus! Had the body of Jesus Christ decomposed the writer of Acts would have written about it as he did with David. The writer tells us that the reason it did not is that the resurrection of Jesus Christ was a physical and bodily resurrection. The writer leaves us with no other possibility. So what we have here is that the biblical example of the Resurrection and the author's definition of "Resurrection" are dead opposites.
What I wanted to show here is that the author is not who he claims to be and is just one of many false prophets that have plagued, and continue to plague, mankind.