Documents relevant to this issue include:

• The original article, Baha'i-Christian Dialogue: Some Key Issues Considered
• A letter from the House complete with a memorandum, "Changes Made to "Baha'u'llah and the New Era" Regarding the Explanation of Daniel 12:12"
• Another letter from the House complete with a lengthy memorandum, "Daniel's Prophecies"
• a letter from the US National Spiritual Assembly on the same topic.
• Peter Terry's rebuttal "Truth Triumphs: A Baha'i Response to Misrepresentations of the Baha'i Teachings and Baha'i History"
• A lengthy informal essay by David Friedman, "A Baha'i response to Francis Beckwith's article 'Baha'i-Christian Dialogue: Some Key Issues Considered'"
• As well, Douglas Martin's review of William Miller addresses issues of Christian polemicism.

I have corresponded with numerous fundamentalist Christians. Based on my experiences with these people and clues in Beckwith's article, I will argue that he is largely unacquainted with the beliefs of the general Bahá'í adherents, and has misrepresented the Faith based on prejudiced assumptions and making unnecessary inferences, often from dealing with one Bahá'í. There is one gaping flaw with Beckwith's article. He states that "In this article I will respond to these arguments as they relate to the different views held by Bahá'ís and Christians on (1) the nature of God, (2) biblical prophecy, and (3) religious unity." Having said all this, throughout his article he draws on the personal opinions of individual Bahá'ís, tries to refute them, and then acts as if he has refuted the claims of the Bahá'í Faith. In some cases I would agree that the opinion of the person referred to is wrong, which he has proved, and I'm sure most other Bahá'ís would agree. However, Beckwith draws a direct line between the opinion of a single Bahá'í, and what the Bahá'í Faith teaches. A few months ago I held some beliefs concerning certain things in the Bible which I greatly disagree with now. The only reason that I believed something different then was because I hadn't read the Bible very much yet. I'm sure those in every religion will testify that from the first read or two of a certain book they misunderstood a lot of it. The Bible is a big book, and when a person hasn't read it through well they won't see how certain things relate to other passages, which can affect the meaning quite often. So based on what Beckwith seems to do, he could take something I said back when I hadn't read much of the Bible, refute it, and then make it seem like both the Bahá'í Faith and Bahá'u'lláh had been proven false. It seems like Beckwith thinks that we believe becoming a Bahá'í on paper makes our statements both infallible, and representing official Bahá'í view, without having read everything. It also seems like he thinks the claims of Bahá'u'lláh should be judged on the beliefs of many of His followers. After all, if one reads through his article, he doesn't exactly quote Bahá'u'lláh frequently. Bringing in irrelevant material is common in material challenging the Bahá'í Faith. Just out of interest, there is no official Bahá'í view on everything I will discuss during this response. Bahá'u'lláh wrote many books, but did not comment on everything. Jesus also left much unsaid. While both Christians and Bahá'ís accept that Daniel chapter 9 contains a numerical prophecy of Jesus, the New Testament makes no comment on this.

After reviewing Beckwith's article, it becomes clear from his own words that he has dealt with few Bahá'ís, and discussed prophecy with few Bahá'ís likewise. Perhaps this has changed in the time since his article was written, but I am only responding to what he wrote then. He refers to the opinions of a well known Bahá'í scholar, Robert Stockman (concerning prophecy), which he gave on the radio, and then acts as if Stockman represents official Bahá'í position, and that Stockman has the strongest arguments a Bahá'í can produce. He seems to think that by refuting some statements of Stockman which I and probably many other Bahá'ís disagree with, that he will then disprove the Bahá'í Faith. Actually the most amusing thing is that from recently writing to Stockman himself, he has testified that these statements which Beckwith attributed to him were those of a different Bahá'í. In his words "I once showed up at a Christian radio station in Boston with a Bahá'í friend and we were then told Beckwith would be on the telephone during our interview. He quotes me saying things my friend said insted (though I don't necessarily disagree with the points made)." Beckwith said nothing about there being two Bahá'ís on the radio in his article. I guess he got confused about who he was speaking to at the time. Beckwith had said "In February 1988 on a Boston radio program I had the opportunity to dialogue with Robert Stockman, a Bahá'í leader and doctoral candidate at Harvard Divinity School." From this one would believe that Stockman and Beckwith were in the studio together, debating some issues. One thing I have to wonder about is whether it was sheer chance that someone would be told when they got there that one of the few Christians who has ever written a book about the Bahá'í Faith would be on the telephone line at the same time. Why did Beckwith get better notice?

Regardless of who said what, if Beckwith is to refute a religion's claims by showing that something a scholar of that religion said is wrong then he should approve of an agnostic refuting Christianity by showing a legitimate error which a respected Christian apologist has made. I'm sure that wouldn't be too hard to find. However, since there is no striking reason to assume that he is resorting to anything in efforts to undermine the Bahá'í Faith, we will assume that he was unaware of this common error in his article. Beckwith says that his article is going to "respond to these arguments as they relate to the different views held by Bahá'ís and Christians on (1) the nature of God, (2) biblical prophecy, and (3) religious unity." This sentence seems to indicate that it will discuss the views of general Christians and Bahá'ís. Even if most Bahá'ís hold incorrect views on something not spoken of in our writings, that doesn't prove much. Numbers count little in determining truth to an argument. If numbers do count, then one would have to assume that the Jews were correct in rejecting Jesus, because the vast majority believed that Jesus didn't fulfil the prophecies of the Old Testament. We could also assume that those who built the molten calf were right, not God. So why does Beckwith act as if the majority view should be looked at, when speaking of the Bahá'í Faith? This is an article which has been written to refute our claims, and showing that most Bahá'ís hold incorrect views on a subject which is not even commented on in our writings will get a person nowhere. In this sort of writing, he should look at our strongest arguments, which maybe only a few have put forth. He should be trying to find places in our writings where these claims by individual Bahá'ís are given by main figures in our religion. Then if he proves them wrong he has succeeded in his mission. There are a couple other things to say about the quotation of Beckwith which talks about the views of Christians and Bahá'ís concerning some subjects. Since I guess general views are spoken of, he neglected to mention the fact that some Christians reject the Trinity. Many Christians differ quite considerably in their interpretation of Bible prophecy. I guess the minority people are excluded and assumed wrong. If Beckwith belonged to one of them, I'm sure the reverse would be the case.

In the Bahá'í Faith, prophecy has not been given a high priority for study. Some fundamentalists will often make bold assertions about the Bahá'í Faith, backed by no evidence. Since the Bahá'í Faith is a new religion growing very fast it is perceived as a threat to Christianity. This is not only because it is a different religion, but that it teaches that the return of Christ has happened, and that the signs were symbolic. Fundamentalists, not seeing how the resurrection could possibly be non-physical, or that the signs aren't literal, will often now state that the Bahá'ís only take these prophecies metaphorically because they weren't fulfilled during the last century. It's interesting how they will often say this before the other person has provided proofs to the contrary. Of course, if some preliminary and rather weak proof has been presented to the fundamentalists, the people most certain that there could be no other interpretation will take this as an opportunity to act as if you have already supplied your strongest proofs. This has happened to me before. Nevermind that my best objections were left unanswered. The reason they say this is because to them any evidence to the contrary has to be extreme rationalizing, or unjustifiably claiming that the text should be interpreted metaphorically. I remember someone claiming, before I had provided much proof, that the only reason the Bahá'ís believe the trumpet blast promised for the second coming was silent is because no loud trumpet blast sounded during the time of the Báb or Bahá'u'lláh. This was especially annoying considering that in the same letter he was responding to I provided evidence of trumpet blasts having happened already, according to his chronology. I gave further proof in a few more letters, and this went unanswered. Often people assume that you have provided official Bahá'í position as proof, when there is no reason to do so. It seems like this assumption is made just so that if you make a mistake it can further assure them that the claims of the Bahá'í Faith are wrong. I have often seen people who according to their own testimony around the time are hardly knowledgeable as to what the Bahá'í Faith teaches, and don't know any Bahá'ís, yet before hearing much of what one person has to say they will make some wild assertions, such as that Bahá'ís believe something about the Bible because to believe the obvious meaning would destroy the claims of Bahá'u'lláh. If you pressed the person who made the assertion you could get them to admit that they knew no Bahá'ís, and had not studied books written by individual Bahá'ís to see just how good our argument is. Bahá'ís with the best answers may not have written a book yet, so in the future stronger arguments will be forthcoming. Since these people are so certain that the Bible couldn't teach anything different, they often make statements which act is if something is a fact, yet it is only a guess, based on what their prejudiced mind thinks is true. The prejudice is from expectation. I have even had people admit that they said something which was only their opinion, according to their testimony. The thing is, though; they stated it as fact, without accumulating evidence. In my opinion someone can state what they like about the Bahá'ís as long as evidence is provided. Noone should state something as fact when it is just an opinion. If it is opinion, then they should say so.

From Beckwith's article it is clear that he had read very little in the way of books written by individual Bahá'ís, or of the main Bahá'í figures such as Bahá'u'lláh and Abdu'l-Bahá. This seems to be the main fault of those who criticise the Bahá'í Faith. If they tested their material by sending it to some knowledgeable Bahá'ís prior to publication, they would find some of their points well refuted. The expectation that the Bahá'í books don't have the answer seems to be a critical factor in not reading through the books more before criticising. While I have seen many Bible critics who are well studied in the Bible, those who have written against the Bahá'í Faith are usually poorly studied.

In this article I will quote excerpts from Beckwith, in order, and then comment at various stages, not missing out anything he wrote. I will address many things in this response. He has made some factual errors about what the various Prophets accepted by the Bahá'í Faith teach about the nature of God which need to be addressed. He made it seem like the Bahá'ís realize that the concepts of God given by these Prophets are contradictory, but that we don't care. I can assure you that Bahá'ís don't believe that Zoroaster teaches polytheism, nor do those who have studied the religion. It seems Beckwith is the sole believer in this idea. Leading on from this I will address the issue of the Trinity. Beckwith has claimed that the Bible teaches this, yet not indicated whether he has read our argument against it. Based on the fact that he thinks we accept contradictory things about what the different Prophets teach on God, it seems like Beckwith actually thinks we believe that the Bible teaches the Trinity. I will first show the logical flaws with this doctrine. Beckwith claims it is ultimately noncontradictory, whereas I claim it is very much contradictory. I will also address some of the major Trinitarian proof verses. Note that I can't speak of every single verse Trinitarians will appeal to, as that would take up space, but I'll address those arguments which are the most difficult. Many non-Bahá'ís reading this will doubt that the Trinity could possibly be false, or that Jesus is not God. Let me just say now that there are a few verses that I don't think I could deny that they teach Jesus is God, in some Bible versions. That is either because of a dubious translation by a Trinitarian translating committee, or it is because some of the ancient manuscripts (most likely the later ones) have the verse saying something different, which gives support to the doctrine, and they have chosen to use these. Usually there is something in the surrounding context which shows that their usage is suspicious. It would be a matter of the Bible contradicting itself, which shows that the majority of manuscripts are correct, and this is to be expected. Verses I am referring to include Hebrews 1:8, Acts 20:28 and 1 John 5:20.

Also in my article I will give proof from Jesus' very words that the return would be quiet. I will provide evidence that someone other than Jesus will return. Proof that the resurrection was not a physical event will be supplied, as this is linked to the argument of who will return. However, if I provide good evidence from Jesus that He personally will not return then this would effectively show that the return wouldn't be noisy. A few pages of evidence will be given on these subjects. It will not be my full argument, but just enough to give Beckwith and others more than enough problems to deal with. I will give comments on the verses which apparently destroy Bahá'í claims, such as Revelation 1:7 and 1 Thessalonians 4:17, in a more detailed manner than the few short pieces I have seen Bahá'ís write on them. Numerical prophecies will be covered as well. Note that the quotes given will either be from the KJV or the RSV, which are well known. If I quote a verse from one chapter, comment on it, and then give another verse from that chapter, I will continue to use the translation stated in brackets after the first example unless otherwise specified.

Here is the beginning of his article:

Let me just say at this point that "Bahá'ísm" is a word the Bahá'ís never use in speaking of their religion. This word has been used by non-Bahá'ís, particularly in the early days of our religion, and is not something we use. In the writings of Bahá'u'lláh released so far, He never uses this word. It's difficult to know why Beckwith is using it here, as he does many times in this article. Sounds like poor research about the Faith to me. From a person who later claims to know what Bahá'ís in general feel about certain things, this seems suspicious. As we read through what Beckwith wrote, notice his own testimony that indicates he has made little contact with the Bahá'ís. This may be different now, but I am responding to the article he wrote a few years ago, so contact with Bahá'ís recently is irrelevant to the argument. Beckwith listed Confucius in the list of prophets Bahá'ís believe in. The Bahá'í writings are quite clear that Confucius was not a major Prophet. {1} However, there is strong indication that he was a prophet in some sense of the word, though some Bahá'ís will be unaware of this. The New Testament speaks of the gift as prophecy as one of the spiritual gifts. 1 Corinthians 14:24 speaks of those who prophesy, and verse 29 says "Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said." (RSV) The prophets are those who prophecy. This word also refers to those sent by God to do various tasks, showing that the word prophet can take on many meanings. Acts 11:27-28, speaking of the time of the early church, says "And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch. And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar."(KJV) Beckwith finishes his article by claiming that the final revelation to mankind prior to the consummation of history is that of Jesus, ignoring the fact that Revelation 11:3 speaks of two people who will prophesy for 1260 years, who are later confirmed to be prophets (Revelation 11:10). Many Christians hold that the two prophets are the Old and New Testaments. This argument ranks among the weakest I have ever seen, and is probably influenced by a mind which doesn't expect future Messengers of God, like that of Beckwith. Revelation was written around 96 AD. The people at the time couldn't possibly have known that when two prophets were referred to it meant the Bible, which hadn't even been completed at the time, nor had its canon been formed. There is no reason to believe that two humans are not intended by this reference to prophets. The first mention of them says that they will prophesy for 1260 years. One has no reason to believe that this doesn't refer to men, just like those who would prophesy in the church at the time. This does not mean that they will be alive for this whole time, just that their law and power will endure until this time finishes. The Bible can't prophesy, so this can't be what is meant. If it could, what would it say? The reference to these people in verse 4 says "These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth." (KJV) This is almost identical to Zechariah 4:2-3, 11-14, which speaks of two olive trees, and a candlestick. Perhaps the other candlestick was just not mentioned there. Zechariah 4:14 clarifies that "These are the two anointed ones, that stand by the Lord of the whole earth." (KJV) Clearly they are people, and seem to be the same as mentioned in Revelation 11:3-4. Some have objected to these people being men, because of verse 5 saying that if any man hurts them, fire will come out of their mouth and devour their enemies completely. This provides no blow to the Bahá'í belief, as while this is not fully literal, it still is the type of thing the Bible speaks of people doing. Revelation 19:21 speaks of a person, of whom a sword comes from His mouth to slay the enemies. The symbolic language of enemies being destroyed by the mouth of a person is the same as in Revelation 11:5. Revelation 19:20 speaks of fire, like in chapter 11. So chapter 11 does speak of people, although using symbols. Revelation 11:12 uses symbolism completely inappropriate to speak of a book. If it could refer to a book, then Acts 1:9 does also, since it is very similar. Based on what Revelation 11:15-18 shows will happen just after the 1260 years end, and what Daniel 7:25-27 says, it is clear that the two prophets are prophets of God, and that about when their time ends, the second coming takes place. However, it is clear that at the very time the 1260 years end, the time of the end begins. Bahá'ís will say that the return happened in 1260 AH, or 1844, despite the fact that the Báb declared His mission this year, and Bahá'u'lláh, who we commonly refer to as the second coming of Christ, began His mission later. We believe the Báb can be referred to as the return in a certain sense, just like Muhammad, but that He filled the role of Elijah. We associate the third woe with the day of Bahá'u'lláh, which was very soon after the time of the Báb, or shortly after the conclusion of the 1260 years. The Bahá'í belief is that the two prophets in Revelation 11 are Muhammad and Ali. While I will not comment now on the reasons why I am correct, the point shown is that Jesus is not the final Messenger, and future prophets will come. The fact that Revelation 11:4 says that they are standing before the God of the earth indicates that they are prophets of God in the sense that they are sent by God to do His will.

Some of the comments just made show how the word prophet can take on many meanings. Confucius seems to have been inspired. The Bahá'í writings lists Confucius as being sent of God (Promulgation of Universal Peace, page 346), mentioned along with some of the major Prophets, and his book is enlisted as one of the Holy Books which foretold this day (Promulgation of Universal Peace, pages 220-221). In Some Answered Questions, page 189, it says that "Confucius renewed morals and ancient virtues."

I may as well also comment on the footnote Beckwith supplied relating to Manifestations of God accepted by Bahá'ís. It reads:

 [2] This is the current list of the manifestations. The Bahá'ís have altered the list over the years. See Bahá'u'lláh, The Kitab-i-Iqan: The Book of Certitude, 2d ed., trans. Shoghi Effendi (Wilmette, IL: Bahá'í Publishing Trust [hereafter "BPT"], 1950), 7-65; `Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, trans. Laura Clifford Barney (BPT. 1930), 189; and a current Bahá'í tract, One Universal Faith (BPT, n.d.), 5.

It begins by saying, "This is the current list of the manifestations." The Kitab-i-Iqan doesn't mention all of the Manifestations, and doesn't have to. It doesn't claim that all Manifestations, or all that we know are mentioned. We have no "Official list." Krishna is not mentioned in the Kitab-i-Iqan. He says that the Bahá'ís have altered the list over the years, yet refers to a page of Some Answered Questions which doesn't change anything. The page he refers to begins by saying "The Manifestations of universal Prophethood who appeared independently are, for example, Abraham, Moses, Christ, Muhammad, the Báb, and Bahá'u'lláh. But the others who are followers and promoters..." From the first sentence is it clear that Manifestations, or major Prophets are referred to, and that these are just some examples.

Further down the page it writes:

It does indicate that Buddha is a major Prophet, saying that He established a new religion, yet it doesn't say the same for Confucius. It says that he renewed morals and ancient virtues. It doesn't require a Manifestation to do that, only a good person. Confucius is never named in our writings when speaking of independent Manifestations. In the writings of Bahá'u'lláh, at least those already translated into English, Buddha is not mentioned. Whether or not He does speak of Him in authentic writings really doesn't matter, unless He states that Buddha is not a Prophet. Abdu'l-Bahá was appointed as the authorised interpreter of the writings of Bahá'u'lláh, and the center of the covenant. His statements and opinions are considered infallible, and we believe He was guided by God. His writings speak of things that Bahá'u'lláh did not cover, or at least not in detail. Abdu'l-Bahá spoke often spoke about Prophets such as Buddha and Krishna. So unless there is a contradiction between the two on whether someone is a Prophet, the list doesn't change. There is never any final list, but you could say that more Prophets were officially accepted by at least the English speaking Bahá'ís during the ministry of both Abdu'l-Bahá and the Guardian, Shoghi Effendi. In the time of Abdu'l-Bahá this was because He was the expounder, and with Shoghi Effendi, he had access to the untranslated tablets which he could interpret, and thus he could state that the Prophet of the Sabaeans was a Prophet. So there have been no changes in the sense Beckwith implies. The Bahá'ís today have no authority to make additions to the list. If a formerly untranslated tablet from one of the three main Bahá'í figures were released into English, which gives the name of someone else, then this person would be officially recognised as a Prophet. This is not changing the list.

The final source provided is a Bahá'í pamphlet not reviewed by the Universal House of Justice. We don't claim infallibility for pamphlets, only the official writings. Even so, this pamphlet is fully in accordance with our writings, and has no new additions. In it, names of religions are given, with the Divine Revelator as founder alongside. The earlier pamphlet is different, in that it gives approximate dates for these founders, and it has a footnote after Krishna saying that He is a Revelator, though probably not the founder of Hinduism. The Sabaean religion is mentioned in the first one, but replaced by "ANCIENT RELIGIONS," with founder as "Unknown" in the later pamphlet. Our writings say that the name of the founder of the Sabaean religion is unrecorded, since He came a long time ago, so the change here is only minor. This shows that the Bahá'ís believe that there were earlier Prophets, which are not recorded in history or spoken of in our writings. The following two quotes illustrate what I am saying:

It was stated that the Báb founded a religious movement which laid the foundation for the Bahá'í Faith. The word "movement" may be a bit misleading, as the Báb did establish a new religion, though most became Bahá'ís because of the later claim of Bahá'u'lláh. There are very few Bab's left today.

When Beckwith speaks of the Bahá'ís denying "several essential Christian doctrines" he is naturally referring to those he believes in. This type of statement is a subjective term, which assumes the truth of your particular beliefs over others.

You have to wonder why Beckwith even allowed the last paragraph to be published in his article, as it is quite irrelevant, yet damning for those less acquainted with the Bahá'í Faith. He refers to a letter written by a non-Bahá'í, yet he makes it seem like this person should be an authority on the Bahá'í Faith. If McConnell agrees that the Bahá'í concept of God between the various manifestations is contradictory, that doesn't make it so. I'm sure he is just as poorly studied in the religions Beckwith later mentions as teaching things about God which they actually don't. You have to wonder why no evidence is provided in this article that the Prophets accepted by the Bahá'ís teach what he says they do. He does refer to a table as that in his book, but this doesn't give his claims truth. It seems he thinks that it is so obvious that no references are needed. It also seems like he is under the impression that Bahá'ís do believe that these teachings about God contradict each other, which is completely false. By mentioning the response of one non-Bahá'í to his book, who seems to have written something quite silly, it seems he believes this is supposed to add something to his argument. If anything it lowers his credibility. Why he gives an example of reaction from a non-Bahá'í, but ignores those from the "several" Bahá'ís he admits questioned his position is anyone's guess. Perhaps because the Bahá'ís gave better answers? I would be quite interested in reading the letter from McConnell, as it seems odd that someone who doesn't accept the Bahá'í Faith would defend it by such an argument. Perhaps the comments were incorrectly interpreted, and really meant that in relation to the contradictory beliefs Bahá'ís apparently have of God, the Trinity gives more problems. Beckwith fails to give information concerning the purpose of this letter, and what its conclusions were. Anyway, who cares what a non-Bahá'í had to say about his book? One could think that by doing all this he is trying to create the false impression that the Bahá'ís acted the same as McConnell. The whole part about the reaction to his book is completely irrelevant to the argument, and could create a misimpression in the minds of those reading his article. Luckily some of us are critical enough to see what this part really says.

Another point is that he might be playing to silence as proof of the success of his book. What I mean is that no book refuting his charges has been made, according to my knowledge, and if it has, it either hasn't been reviewed by Beckwith, or it didn't convince him. He doesn't speak of a response, so I'll assume that there wasn't one. The fact that there hasn't been one doesn't necessarily mean anything. The Bahá'í administration does not undertake any special action whenever a book written against the Bahá'í Faith is released. No team is chosen to write a convincing response. Probably Beckwith is not going to search out new material written by members of the Bahá'í Faith, as he doesn't expect them to have the answers. The only way he will find out is by a direct response which is brought to his attention, like this one.

Beckwith writes that Bahá'ís believe that Bahá'u'lláh, as the most recent manifestation should now be revered. I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean, but from how it was written it could make someone think that we don't revere the past Prophets anymore. This is incorrect.

There are a few points to be addressed. I don't know what is meant by saying that Stockman was a "Bahá'í leader." Stockman had no special rank at the time, and wasn't in a position which claimed to have the best argument on things. Stockman didn't even say what he claims. Even if he did, trying to impress the audience by Stockman's apparent credential would seem like a way to make people think that by showing Stockman wrong the Bahá'í Faith is also wrong.

It seems to me that the Bahá'í was arguing what he felt to be the case, being a believer in Bahá'u'lláh. From what Beckwith wrote above, it seems that he was saying this before evidence was provided. Basically, it seems like he was suggesting to the audience that the same thing happened twice, not that the Christians should immediately become Bahá'ís despite the two religions being incompatible. So the message was not that since the Jews were wrong at the time of Jesus they must logically be wrong now, therefore they must convert to the Bahá'í Faith. The Bahá'í who made the comments would agree that a person need not accept the Bahá'í Faith if many things haven't been explained well enough to them. The fact that he said that Bahá'u'lláh has been widely rejected because of literal views of the Bible doesn't mean he believes there are no other factors as well. After all, the Bahá'í Faith started in the middle East, and this may give some westerners a reason to pause, as it may be seen as an obscure eastern religion. The Bahá'í Faith may also be misinterpreted as some type of general peace loving group which will never become a large and influential religion, by people who haven't looked past the surface. It should have been added that the Christians began to follow imitation, and because of this strayed from the path. The main issue of importance is whether he provided any decent proof that the signs of the second coming are symbolic. Beckwith neglected to mention this. If the Bahá'í who made the comments had mentioned the signs in such a way that the Bahá'í beliefs were demonstrated correct, then his previous comments would not have been criticized. Only since the Bahá'í Faith has been found incorrect by Beckwith has he said these things. He would have no problems with someone making statements that assumed the truth of Christianity before proving it, for the sole reason that it had already been proved to him. I can't help but think of many apologists in his religion which attempt to prove the validity of the Bible, yet do little more than write that the Bible is the word of God because it says so. That's not proof!

As to Bill Garbett, his answer may not be the best one, and I would have said something slightly different. Beckwith should bear in mind that Bahá'ís have personal opinions, and that these are not necessarily correct. One moment he is speaking of what the Bahá'í Faith teaches, and comparing this to Christianity, but he then switches to refer to the opinions of only one Bahá'í on a particular subject. Beckwith has to make up his mind who this article is for, and what it is supposed to accomplish. He indicates that it is aiming to show the differences between the teachings of the two religions, yet he often appeals to personal opinions which our writings don't support. This shows how off track he is getting. Gladly he doesn't claim that the two opinions given above reflect the Bahá'í teachings.

The fact that the Bahá'í Faith has had no divisions may provide some proof of the divine origin of the Bahá'í Faith, but perhaps not conclusive proof. The more important thing to look at is why this is, and from examining the system of Bahá'í administration it is clear why. Garbett's comment could make it look like he thinks that the earlier religions, even the ones who the Bahá'í Faith recognises, were not divinely ordained, or that the fact we have no divisions makes us the religion which will finally bring peace, and that we are the last religion. We don't claim to be the final religion or revelation to mankind, and future Messengers of God are promised.

The Doctrine of God Taught by the Alleged Manifestations [5]

Now this is getting interesting. I agree that the Manifestations of God cannot represent God in contradictory ways, as you couldn't separate the true from false. I will now attempt to argue that the Bahá'í concept of God is not reduced to meaninglessness, as Beckwith is not well acquainted with the history or literature of many religions. He refers to the teachings of God associated with these people. The fact that most will think of the Trinity and the teaching of Jesus together doesn't make the Bible support it. Neither does it make someone else teach polytheism.

Most of what Beckwith said about Moses is correct. Yes, Moses taught one God. Considering he believes in the Trinity I'm sure he thinks this was a Godhead consisting of three members, despite the fact that the Old Testament gives no clue of such a fact, which will be shown further in the part where I refute the idea that it was prophesied that the Messiah would be God. He said that Moses taught the universe was not eternal. Perhaps he meant the word earth, because nowhere does the Old Testament say that the universe is not eternal. Incidentally, the word universe is not mentioned once in the Old Testament. Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (KJV) Maybe Beckwith thinks that this means everything, because heaven is mentioned as being created on the second day of creation. 1 Kings 8:39 says that the dwelling place of God is in heaven. The Bible does indicate that apart from what is in heaven and earth there is nothing, so universe could encompass the two. However, unless Genesis chapter 1 is allegorical God could not have existed prior to the creation of the world. If He did, He would have had to dwell in a place that was neither heaven nor earth, as heaven and earth weren't created until the second and third days of creation. So God could only have existed from the second day onward. This raises the question as to who created on the first day, and who brought God into existence. In a footnote, Beckwith says "It should be noted that it is untenable both philosophically and scientifically to maintain that the universe is without a beginning." He then proceeds to list some books which apparently show that this is correct.

Genesis chapter 1 is an allegorical story that was written according to the knowledge of the people of the time, and in this chapter heaven is defined as the atmosphere. This was the literal belief prevalent at the time and after. Throughout the Bible heaven is simply defined as directly up from the place a person is. So Genesis might speak of earth and its atmosphere being created. Otherwise there would have been a time where God dwelled somewhere which wasn't in heaven. If Genesis chapter 1 is taken literally we have to believe that absolute non existence became existence, and that God couldn't have existed before the creation of everything. Here is a short passage from the Bahá'í writings showing why we believe the universe is eternal:

If Beckwith wants to argue that the universe is not eternal then He will have to give proof that the Bible indirectly talks of the existence of the universe, not earth. He will also have to show that it is possible that God could have existed prior to creation, based on the book itself, and refute the above argument given from the Bahá'í writings. Interestingly, the Bible refutes creationism, and thus may support the theory of evolution.

Now on to Krishna. Hinduism is a very old religion, and it must be studied well to divide the original teachings from those which arose later. Krishna did not teach polytheism, though it might appear that He did. I can and will assume that Beckwith is not sufficiently acquainted with the origins of this religion. He has to also acknowledge that most people in a religion believing something about God does not make his claim true, unless he can show that their book teaches what they say. If Beckwith had different doctrinal beliefs to most Christians I doubt he would renounce his beliefs because most hold that he was wrong. Going by this logic, everyone at the time of Christ should have rejected Him, considering the Pharisees said that the signs were yet to come. After all, could such a large number of people be wrong?

With the claim of polytheism, it seems Beckwith is referring to what seems to be a Hindu Trinity. Vishnu, Shiva, and Brahma are not taught to all be the Supreme God. Instead they are created gods, who represent different things. Polytheism refers to many Gods, not gods. The Bible also speaks of gods. The way God has been presented in Hinduism is slightly different to the Bible, but ultimately the same. One has to take into account the fact that God's revelation and teachings are given in accordance with the time and place in which the Prophet comes, and may thus be given in a slightly different way depending. Hinduism has a very similar flood myth to the Bible, but adapted slightly to fit the historical context. So like much of the scientific information in the Bible that is outwardly false, it is correct in a sense. It could take up a huge amount of space commenting on this issue in depth. If I knew Beckwith had studied this religion I would attempt a long response, but since it doesn't look like it I'll give a few short comments. Various deities are worshipped by Hindu's today, but that doesn't mean Krishna taught about these. The Vedas are early books in Hinduism, which teach a slightly different concept of God to later books, and it seems that they are heavily mythical. An article in The 1989 World Book Encyclopedia says "A new group of gods gradually replaced the gods of the Vedas. The chief divinity was Brahman, the Supreme World-Spirit. Hindus believe that Brahman takes many forms. The three most important forms are Brahma, the Creator; Vishnu, the Preserver; and Shiva, the Destroyer. Hindus call these three divinities the Trimurti, which means three forms in the Sanskrit language."

This is very similar to the Bible teaching about angels of God. Some hold that there is a single angel, called "the angel of the Lord." They claim that this angel is the Messiah, despite the fact that the Bible doesn't say this. It can't be Him, considering Matthew 2:13 "And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother..." (KJV) Jesus was in flesh at this time, so couldn't be the angel. It certainly doesn't claim that it was Jesus. Surely He would have been recognised. Luke 1:11 speaks of an angel of God, later said to be Gabriel, appearing to Zachariah. Some say that "the" angel of the Lord is different to "an" angel of the Lord. The scriptures show that this is incorrect. Judges 6:12 says that an angel of the Lord appeared. The next verse says that the angel of the LORD appeared. It also says that God is with the person. As Isaiah 63:9 says, the angel of God is the sign of His presence. So now it is clear that Gabriel can be referred to as the angel of the Lord. "The" angel of the Lord appeared in Exodus chapter 3; yet is referred to as "an" angel of the Lord in Acts 7:30. Angels of the Lord are referred to as God, which is very interesting. In Luke 1:19, Gabriel says that he is standing in the presence of God. 1 Kings 8:39 says that God dwells in heaven. Jude 9 has Michael saying the same thing that the angel of the LORD said in Zechariah 3:2. Angels always refer to God in the third person. They can be referred to as one, like Genesis 18:3 shows, with the address to the three angels. Some think that these angels are the Trinity. Many problems exist with this assertion. With the usual rigid definition of heaven, and knowing that God dwells in heaven, none of the three could be in heaven, thus God wasn't there. The Father is never said to be an angel, and Malachi 4:6 says that He doesn't change. So He didn't go down. God the Father is the one who sends the angels, while staying in heaven. Exodus 23:20 shows this. Also, if Jesus were an angel then He would have lost greatness temporarily, since Hebrews 1 says that He is greater than the angels. I thought Jesus only lost greatness when putting on a human nature? Genesis 18:20-21 shows that God was in heaven during the whole time. These angels can all be referred to as God. This is because they have the same substance of God, but the different angels differ in characteristics. Gabriel is the prince of fire and the spirit who presides over thunder and the ripening of fruits. So Gabriel is an aspect of divinity, different to other angels.

The writings of Hinduism provide indication that my beliefs concerning Brahman are correct. Brahman is the Absolute and, simultaneously, the omnipresent Reality conceived as pervading the universe. It is the goal of the Hindu to attain, by personal experience through direct revelation, some understanding of the essential being of Brahman. Brahman is beyond all material forms and consists of knowledge and bliss. As eternal, infinite, and conscious being, it is the subject, rather than the object, of thought. Thus, as the Absolute of all things known, it is incapable of being characterized or circumscribed by any one thing, or even by the totality of things. Hindus believe in one Supreme Being, and the various gods are perceived as divine creations of that one Being. Many look at the gods as mere symbols, representations of forces or mind strata, or as various personifications generated as a projection of man's mind onto an impersonal pure state of Being. The Atharva Veda says:

Brahman is simultaneously Purusha, the Primal Soul. He is perfection of being, the original soul who creates/emanates innumerable individual souls, such as the gods. The gods are so close to Brahman that they fulfill their cosmic functions in perfect accord with God's wisdom, intent and action. In the Rig Veda:

The Maitrayana Upanishad says:

It was claimed that Krishna taught impersonal pantheism. I think the Hindu writings show that things in the universe are an emanation from God, not part of Him. For example, the sun emanates light without descending.

Beckwith says that Zoroastrian teaches religious dualism. It sounds like he has to study this religion a little more carefully, as there are not two Gods, one good and one evil. In fact it teaches just what the Bible teaches. "The basic tenets of the Gathas consist of a monotheistic worship of Ahura Mazda (the "Lord Wisdom") and an ethical dualism opposing Truth (Asha) and Lie, which permeate the entire universe. All that is good derives from, and is supported by, Ahura Mazda's emanations: Spenta Mainyu (the "Holy Spirit" or "Incremental Spirit," a creative force) and his six assisting entities, Good Mind, Truth, Power, Devotion, Health, and Life. All evil is caused by the "twin" of Spenta Mainyu, who is Angra Mainyu (the "Fiendish Spirit"; Persian. Ahriman), and by his assistants."

("Zoroastrianism," Microsoft (R) Encarta. Copyright (c) 1994 Microsoft Corporation. Copyright (c) 1994 Funk & Wagnall's Corporation). Doesn't this sound like what the Bible teaches? Angra Mainyu is just like Satan, who the Bible refers to as "the god of this world" in 2 Corinthians 4:4. So Angra Mainyu is a "god," not God. I don't think you would find any Zoroastrian text which refers to it as God with a capital G. Previously in this article, Beckwith referred to Zoroastrianism as having "One good god and one evil god." Notice that he uses lower case both times. He knows that Zoroastrians believe in the good and wise type of God which most people believe in, so why didn't he capitalize the first mention of God? Throughout his article he often doesn't capitalize words that should be capitalized. From what Beckwith wrote we must conclude that he thinks Zoroastrianism teaches that there is an evil being which is another God, not "a god" like the Bible refers to Satan as. Where is his evidence? Throughout the writings of Zoroaster, Ahura Mazda, or Ohrmazd, it's plural, is used to refer to the God who created the world. In Chidag Andarz i Poryotkeshan, Zoroaster said "My father is Ohrmazd. My humanity is from Mashye..." He also says "To perform my function and to do my duty means that I should believe that Ohrmazd is, was, and evermore shall be, that his Kingdom is undying, and that he is infinite and pure; and that Ahriman is not, and is destructible; that I myself belong to Ohrmazd and his Bounteous Immortals, and that I have no connection with Ahriman, the demons, and their associates." The evil god Beckwith speaks of is no doubt Angra Mainyu, which in plural is Ahriman. The above quote mentions Ahriman in a way which shows that it is not God. Further on Zoroaster says "I must have no doubt that there are two first principles, one the Creator and the other the Destroyer. The Creator is Ohrmazd who is all goodness and all light: and the Destroyer is the accursed Destructive Spirit who is all wickedness and full of death, a liar and a deceiver." Sounds like the same thing John 8:44 says! Beckwith must show that Zoroastrianism teaches something different to the Bible, otherwise I'll hold that it teaches the same thing.

Buddha didn't teach that God is irrelevant. Buddha taught the existence of a supreme spiritual Being, whom He called the Absolute or the Lovely. While His own words about the nature of this God are not many, they didn't need to be. Buddha firmly established Himself as part of a prophetic succession, which included people such as Manu, Rama, and Krishna. "Of these I am and what they did I do," He said. This means that if you had studied the Bhagavad-Gita or the Upanishads from which Buddha often gave lessons to His disciples, then you already understood the existence and nature of God. Buddha didn't have to start at the beginning. In the old Indian culture the concept of a personal God would be out of place. So while Buddha didn't seem to teach about God in an outward way, from the Buddhist writings there are many signs that a God is taught. There is one place in writings of Buddha where the existence of God is quite clearly taught, but indirectly. {2}

Where does Confucius teach Polytheism?

Now to Muhammad. Beckwith has made the allegation that Muhammad taught that God can't have a Son. The suggestion is that this contradicts with the Bible, when it speaks of Jesus as the Son of God. I will argue that the Qur'an does not deny the words of Jesus, but the meaning given to them by Christians. Firstly, here is a quote from the Bahá'í writings on this issue:

The message of the Qur'an is no different to that of the Bible in this subject. It is very important to note the context of the statements that repudiate the idea that God could beget a Son, to see what they really mean. The Qur'an often has statements which speak in such a way that shows that the opinion of God is being given. In other words, what is really correct is stated, not what people incorrectly think. The following quotation is a good example:

The reason stated for not believing in the Trinity is because God is one. Trinitarians do believe that God is one. However, I will show later on that the Trinity is logically impossible, as well as biblically unsound, and amounts to there being three Gods. Then it will be seen that the Qur'an is correct in making this statement. The verse just quoted says many things. It says that Jesus was an apostle of Allah, or of God. The word apostle is used in the Qur'an to speak of those who bring a new revelation, which is in a different sense to how the New Testament uses this term. The New Testament uses the word prophet to mean many things, from one who prophesies in the church to a Messenger of God. The above verse also says that God is exalted above having a son. Notice the context of this statement. The opinions of others are being referred to. The same is true with Sura 5:75-76, and these opinions are contrasted with the truth.

Sura 6:100-101 show that by denying that God could have a son, it is only the corporeal relationship, which is being spoken of:

This passage makes it clear that the Bahá'í belief about this subject is true. These verses speak of the opinions of others, and are speaking in physical terms. Sura 5:19 says that those who say that God is Christ the son of Mary blaspheme. It then asks who has the least power against God, if His will was to destroy Christ, Mary, and everyone on earth. Then it says that to God belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and He has power over all things. This shows, as does the rest of the Qur'an, that a being made of flesh cannot be associated with God in a physical sense, and that the Bible doesn't teach the Trinity. It does not comment on the spiritual relationship here, but the rest of the Qur'an indicates that it was the same as in the Bible, thus allowing Jesus to be the Son of God. Jesus was not the only Son of God, as shown by 1 John 3:1, which speaks of the sons of God being people at the time, and Job 38:7, which speaks of the sons of God being present at the time of creation, thus making the reference be to angels. Exodus 4:22-23 shows how this term was used, in saying: "And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn." (KJV)

This is quite interesting, as the initial usage of "son" and "firstborn" has a metaphorical meaning, expressing a relationship with God, and the next usage, speaking of the son of Pharaoh, is literal. Colossians 1:12-13 speaks of God the Father, and His Son Jesus. In verse 15 it refers to Him as the "firstborn." The usage here and in Exodus must be the same, thus no reference to the human body of Jesus is intended. As we have seen, the Qur'an refers to the false opinions of others, and they believed that "Son of God" had a more physical meaning. The Qur'an often refers to Jesus as the son of Mary, for example, Sura 5:49. This was His human mother. It says that Jesus was the son of Mary again in Sura 19:34. The next verse says that it is not befitting to the majesty of God that He should beget a son. It says that "When He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be, and it is." This implies that begetting a son is a physical act, depending on the needs of men's animal nature. God is independent from such needs, so it is derogatory to attribute such an act to Him. When we read from verse 16 up to verse 35 in this chapter, a clear distinction is made between what is meant by Jesus being called the son. Those verses talk about the announcement of a son to Mary by an angel. A physical son is meant. However, many verses show that God gave her the son, and gave Jesus the bounty of prophethood. So in this sense, and as shown by the spiritual relationship between Jesus and God, it could also be said that Jesus was the Son of God. As I mentioned, it finishes by saying that Jesus was the son of Mary, and that God does not beget sons. These verses spoke of a physical act, so it is apparent that there is no denial of the spiritual idea of Sonship, only the physical. The Qur'an never refers to the words of Jesus in the gospel as being incorrect, so it is only refuting the interpretation given to them by others.

Beckwith says that Christ teaches "One personal God who does have a Son," though Muhammad taught "One personal God who cannot have a Son." He is obviously agreeing that Muhammad taught that only the Father was God. The fact that "One personal God" is mentioned in both shows that Jesus is not the God spoken of. After all, he refers to Christ teaching one personal God who has a Son. The God mentioned thus couldn't be Jesus, unless Jesus was the Father, which would make Jesus His own son. The Bible itself says that Jesus is the Son of God the Father. So if Beckwith wants to indicate that the Trinity is taught then he should say so in a way that indicates Jesus is God. The personal God who has a Son could only refer to the Father, thus teaching Unitarianism. Trinitarians use God to mean whatever they want. At times the full Trinity is referred to, and at other times an individual member is spoken of. If there is one personal God with a Son, like he says, and since neither the Holy Spirit nor Jesus can be referred to as that one God, then if those two are God then they must be separate Gods.

Regardless of this, to prove that Beckwith is wrong about the Trinity (which he later makes clear that he believes) I will have to appeal to the Bible itself. Space won't permit a long rebuttal, so I'll just tackle a few of the most standard proof verses as well as giving proof against the doctrine.

Jesus said "I and my Father are one." (John 10:30 KJV). Does that mean they are the same being? Jesus said something similar in John 17:22, "And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one." (KJV) Here again, Jesus says He and the Father are one. But He also prays that His followers will be one in the same sense that He and Yahweh are one. This is a oneness of mind, purpose, and will, not a oneness of being. And it certainly doesn't mean that there are two Yahweh's. This verse would have been a good time to teach the Trinity, were it a valid doctrine.

Jesus said "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." (John 14:9 KJV) This is a fairly popular proof text, but it works better against than for. It simply shows that by seeing Jesus the Father is seen. Throughout Paul's epistles, the Father and Jesus are mentioned in the same verse, yet only the Father is referred to as God. The Father is commonly known simply as "God." This is shown in 2 Corinthians 13:14, which mentions all three members of the Trinity, with the Father being "God." Perhaps there's a message here? So to see Jesus is to see the Father, or God. If this text is taken literally you could only try to show that Jesus is the Father, as it shows that God the Father is spoken of. Colossians 1:15 and Hebrews 1:3 are examples which show that Jesus is the express image of the Father. Thus to see Jesus is like seeing the Father. This resolves the paradox with John 1:18, which says that no man has seen God at any time. It then says that the Son has declared the Father. So in this way the Father can be seen, but it is shown that God cannot be seen directly. John 14:10 continues on, saying "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. (KJV) Verse 13 says that the Father is glorified in the Son. So we see that in qualities and attributes, Jesus fully identifies with God. So in a sense, Jesus can be referred to as God, while not actually being God in essence. Confused?

This is actually no different to how John the Baptist can be called Elijah. There are a few clues from the way John chapter 1 is written to show that Jesus is separate from God, and not God Himself, so I will give an in depth examination of this chapter.

I'll start with a few sentences to show what the Bible meant. The descent of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles signifies that the divine bounties reflected and appeared in their reality. Entrance and exit, descent and ascent are characteristics of bodies and not of spirits. That is say, sensible realities enter and come forth, but intellectual subtleties and mental realities, such as intelligence, love and knowledge do not enter, come forth, or descend, but rather they have direct connection. For example, knowledge, which is a state attained to by the intelligence, is an intellectual condition; and the entering and coming out of the mind are imaginary conditions; but the mind is connected with the acquisition of knowledge, like images which are reflected in a mirror. Because of this it is clear that intellectual realities do not enter and descend, and is impossible that the Holy Spirit should do this, as it can only be that it appears in splendour, like the sun in a mirror. Sometimes the Bible speaks of the Spirit, signifying a certain person; as it is currently said in speech and conversation that such a person is an embodied spirit, or he is a personification of mercy and generosity. In this case it is the light we look at, and not the glass. This is shown by John 16:12-13, which shows that the Spirit of truth is embodied in a man who has individuality. The whatever he hears is what he speaks is the same as with Christ, who was a man. So the reference "Spirit of God" could speak of Christ; as you speak of a light to mean both the light and the lamp.

Based on what has been shown, it is clear that the Word is the Christhood in Jesus. Letters on their own have individual significance, but a word has complete meaning. The essence of God reflected itself in this mirror, and manifested its light and heat in it; but from the exaltation of its holiness, and the heaven of its sanctity, the Sun did not descend to dwell and abide in the mirror. It continues to subsist in its exaltation while appearing and becoming manifest in the mirror in beauty and perfection. If we say that we have seen the Sun in two mirrors - one the Christ and one the Holy Spirit - that is to say, that we have seen three Suns, one in heaven and the two others on the earth, we would speak correctly. Alternatively we could say that there is one Sun, which is pure singleness with no partner or equal, and again speak right. So the attributes of God become visible in the mirror. The meaning is not that the Sun, which is the Essence of the Divinity, became divided; for the Sun is one, but it appeared in the mirror. That is why Christ could say that the Father is in the Son, meaning that the Sun is manifest in this mirror. One could say that because of this verse Jesus could be called God, and I would agree. In one sense He is, in another not. After all, wasn't Elijah in John? What's the difference in the two examples? The Bible says that by Christ all become alive. This shows that the reality of Christ, which is identical to God, gives life. However, as John 5:26 shows, the life was in the Father and given through the Son. During the ministry of Jesus everyone agrees that God gave the life, thus the fact that Jesus gave life then doesn't make Him God. The thing is who had the life. Hosea 12:13 says that by a prophet God brought Israel up from Egypt (the Exodus). Genesis 50:24 has a promise that God will bring the people out of Egypt. Then in Exodus 23:20 God says that He is sending His angel to bring the people from Egypt. So which of the three brought the Israelites from Egypt to Canaan, the angel, God, or Moses? It is clear that all did, though each in a different sense. The Word signifies the divine appearance, which has neither beginning or end. This is why the Word was in the beginning. What the gospel shows is that while Jesus lived He was identical to the Father in various ways.

The Old Testament says that "by wisdom" God created the heavens. The New Testament seems to contradict this, saying that "by him (the reality of Jesus)" they were made. Obviously it means the same, and Luke 11:49, which says that the Wisdom of God spoke, makes this clear.

I think I've covered this. It would be contradictory to say that life wasn't in Him.

The strong indication is that the God mentioned here is the Father. 1 John 4:9 says that God sent Jesus into the world, and in verse 14 it says that the Father sent Jesus. John 1:12 refers to the sons of God. Never does the Bible indicate that these are of Jesus. In fact the Father is associated with them in 1 John 3:1. John 1:13 speaks of the will of God, which is commonly associated with the Father in the epistles of Paul. Verse 14 speaks of the Father, in a way which shows that He was the God spoken of. After all, the Word was with God the Father. Verse 18 says "No man hath seen God at any time." Many people saw Jesus. Since the rest of the verse says that Jesus declared Him, it is clear that when speaking of the qualities of Jesus, He is God. If I was to send a photo of me to someone else, they would be correct in thinking it was me. In a different sense, they would be wrong, as the photo is not me. The photo only declares and reflects my image.

Perhaps now it is clear where I'm coming from. Anyone possessing the qualities of the Word can be it, just as Jesus said John the Baptist was Elijah. Only in qualities, not in essence. John 1:19-21 tells of priests and Levites being sent to ask John who he was. Here John denied being Elijah. This seems quite appropriate for this chapter, as it previously indicates that Jesus is only God in a sense. The part concerning John shows that he was not Elijah, but it does not deny that he is the same in spirit, which is shown in other places. Colossians 2:9 is often appealed to by Trinitarians. It says "For in him (Christ) the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily." (RSV) This can't be taken to mean that Jesus was the deity, just that the Father was in Him, and the Holy Spirit was with Him. The Holy Spirit, while related, is not God. John 14:9-11 shows how God dwells in Jesus, while only being in the image of the mirror.

The fact that Jesus was worshipped is often given as proof that Jesus is God. This really provides no problem. People can receive worship, if the worship is ultimately for God. Daniel 2:46 records Daniel being worshipped, 1 Kings 29:20 speaks of David and God being worshipped, and Revelation 3:9 says that the members of the Philadelphia church would receive worship.

Matthew 28:19 is a verse commonly mentioned by Trinitarians. This verse has the commission to baptize "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." (RSV) However, this verse does not suggest that the three are God or constitute the same being. The use of the word "name" seems to indicate that the three stand for the same thing. One is the giver of grace, one is the receiver of grace at the time, and the other is the intermediary. In John 5:43 Jesus says that He came in His Father's name, showing that Jesus came in the name of God. This verse also says that if another comes in his own name, him they will receive. Now his own name means not in the name of God. So each divinely sent messenger comes in the Father's name. This shows why Philippians 2:9 says that God exalted Jesus and bestowed on Him a name which is above every name. Many are quick to appeal to this verse for proof that Jesus is God. However it doesn't indicate this, and Philippians 2:8-9 indicates that Jesus was given this name after He died. Did Jesus become God at a certain point in time?

John 8:58 is often appealed to by Trinitarians. They say that Jesus claimed to be God in this verse, by saying "I am," which is used for God in Exodus chapter 3, and which they assure you should be capitalized. The context shows this idea false, as the context is time and pre-existence. Jesus said that Abraham rejoiced to see the day of Him. In John 8:57, the Jews ask Jesus how He could have seen Abraham, considering He is less than fifty years old. In the next verse, Jesus answers "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." (RSV)

As we could expect, the beginning of the verse speaks of time, which is the topic being addressed. The point of Jesus was that He had existed before Abraham was alive. The "I am" is a Hebrew figure of speech used to indicate a non-terminated existence. "I was" would be incorrect, as that would mean that He ceased to exist. If the "I am" was a sudden claim to be God it is not only out of context, but it makes an incomplete sentence. "I AM" is another way of writing Yahweh, as Exodus 3:14-15 shows. The second verse uses Yahweh, which is there connected with the verb hayah, to be. Neither "I AM" or Yahweh was used for God at the time of Jesus, so it's doubtful that He would use these words in a claim to be God.

The Trinitarians often appeal to the fact that the Jews went to stone Him after this apparent claim to be God. This is supposed to be proof that Jesus was God. After all, the Jews knew, didn't they? This is weak proof, because these are the same Jews who rejected Jesus, and couldn't understand much of what He said. If these same people hold that John 10:30 is not a proof verse, then they should stop using this argument, because the Jews went to stone Jesus then. John 7:1 says that the Jews sought to kill Jesus at that time. It doesn't say that this was because He claimed to be God.

Some point to John 5:18 for proof that Jesus is God, because it speaks of being equal with God. However, this verse is written in a way that shows what the Jews were thinking. It also says that Jesus broke the sabbath, with the implication that this was a transgression. Either both or none are true. It's amazing how this is appealed to, in light of the fact that in John 14:28, Jesus said that God is greater than Him. This means Jesus is lesser. Someone who is lesser than someone cannot be equal to them. Philippians 2:6 is used to show that Jesus was equal to God. Since Jesus claimed to be lesser, it is clear that whatever equality there was is related to authority while Jesus was on earth, as John 5:27 shows. The verses in Philippians chapter 2 refer to the human life of Jesus, in which He was less than God.

Now on to a few places in the Bible which refute the Trinity:

I would regard this verse as direct proof that Jesus is not God. In verse 16, a ruler who didn't know Jesus came to Him, saying "Good Master, what good thing shall I do." (KJV) In the next verse it says Jesus said to him "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God..." That is a claim not to be God. When Jesus asked the person why he called Him good, this was because the person wasn't supposed to refer to Jesus in such an exalted way. This is because the source of all power is God. Jesus says that only one is good, and that is God. This not only further shows that Jesus asked the question because the person said something wrong, but also shows that only God is to be referred to in this way. A paraphrase would be "Don't call me good. None is good, but one, that is, God." The one that is good is not Jesus. The one is to who this form of address should be used for. If it wasn't a high enough form of address then Jesus wouldn't allow it to be used for God. There is no evidence that this "one" should be taken to allow a composite entity. This obviously refers to the same God as mentioned in verse 26. Jesus was also meaning to teach humbleness to the man by this address. It does not mean to say that Jesus was not good.

"But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." (Mark 13:32 KJV) If Jesus is God, how couldn't He know something? This verse also shows that the Holy Spirit isn't a knower either, but this is probably because it is an emanation from God, not a person. 1 Corinthians 8:6 says there is one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus. The Holy Spirit is not mentioned, and noone could believe that anyone but the Father could be God after reading this verse. Romans 1:7 mentions the Father as God, and Jesus as Lord, showing a distinction. Psalm 110:1 refers to the Father, then apparently Jesus. The first "Lord" is Yahweh, the second adown. If Yahweh was used both times it could have settled it. 1 Peter 1:2 refers to the members of the Trinity, and only the Father is called God. The next verse says "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." (RSV) This shows the distinction between Lord and God. God can be called Lord, but He is also called God. Jesus is never called God.

One of the best verses showing that the Redeemer does not refer to Jesus is Isaiah 63:16 "For thou art our Father, though Abraham does not know us and Israel does not acknowledge us; thou, O LORD, art our Father, our Redeemer from of old is thy name." (RSV) The name of the Redeemer is the Father. If Yahweh the Redeemer is also the Son then Jesus must actually be the Father, which is false. To argue that the word Father is metaphorical here is weak in light of the fact that Jesus spoke of the Father as God. John 20:17 certainly shows that to the people He is "our Father." Ephesians 1:17 shows the same, and shows that at that time Jesus had a God. Noone who has a God is God. Mark 16:19 speaks of Jesus sitting on the right hand of God. Being at someone's right hand means that you derive strength from that person.

It is suggested by Trinitarians that Jesus now functions independently as God. From looking at the epistles of Paul this is not seen to be the case. Romans 7:25 says "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!" (RSV) Romans 16:27 says "To the only wise God be glory for evermore through Jesus Christ! Amen." (RSV) This verse not only indicates that Jesus isn't God, but that He isn't included as a wise God. Trinitarians claim that the Father is different to the Son. If this verse doesn't eliminate Jesus being God then it shows He is the Father. This verse also shows that Jesus is still an intermediary, as Galatians 3:20 shows, when writing "Now an intermediary implies more than one; but God is one." (RSV) 1 Timothy 2:5 puts a nail in the coffin, saying "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." (RSV) Mediators aren't God. When God is mentioned here, does this include the Holy Spirit? Romans 8:34 says that Jesus is at the right hand of God, and intercedes for us. This verse does not in any way say that Jesus is an independent life giver. Since He is an intermediary, and things are offered through Him, this says not. 1 Corinthians 6:14 says that God raised Christ and will raise others. Surely this shows that only the Father is God. 2 Corinthians 1:9 says that God raises the dead, and context shows that the Father is referred to. Nowhere does the Bible say that Jesus will raise the dead. 1 Corinthians 3:23 says "And you are Christ's; and Christ is God's." (RSV) This shows the chain of superiority. Philippians 4:19-20 provides indication that God was still providing everything, and that the Father was their only God. Jude 25 shows the same thing.

Is that enough?

How does Beckwith know the attitude Bahá'ís have towards God on a large scale? From what is written above, he makes it seem like Bahá'ís realize that the different religions teach contradictory things about God, and that the table he has provided is correct, but that we just don't care. This is certainly not the case. The silence of Bahá'í writers to refute claims such as his is not exactly great proof that they are unconcerned about whether their doctrine of God is consistent. The claims aren't even correct, though a few of them are only small errors. I'm sure most Bahá'ís have never seen such a comparison given by a non-Bahá'í, and if we saw it we wouldn't agree with it. As it is, much of what he says other religions teach about God is wrong, and leads me to believe Beckwith has spent little time looking into other religions. I don't think you will easily find a Bahá'í defence on a criticism such as his, because most Bahá'ís have chosen to write about different things. Beckwith wrote "the Bahá'ís do not seem particularly concerned about whether their doctrine of God is internally consistent." I'd like those reading this article to look at this sentence carefully. From it, a non-Bahá'í may assume that the usual Bahá'í realizes that the different Prophets teach contradictory things about God, that we know these things can't be reconciled (and perhaps our scholars have unsuccessfully tried doing so), but that it doesn't bother us. This paints a bad and inaccurate picture of the Bahá'í community. It is upsetting that Beckwith makes it seem like the Bahá'ís agree with the apparent contradictory concepts of God given earlier in this article. He could have mentioned the fact that Bahá'ís don't believe the Prophets of God teach contradictory things about God, but he didn't. Then it would simply be his turn to show that the Prophets do contradict each other, which I'm sure he wouldn't think hard to do. Bahá'ís have written almost nothing on the Trinity, and I have yet to see something in any detail, and which would have a good chance of convincing Trinitarians they are wrong. Beckwith doesn't say he has heard our arguments against the Trinity, so I would say he hasn't. Let's quote the end of his comment again:

From a Christian who refers to the Bahá'í Faith as "Bahá'ísm, I guess you can expect that he would know little about what goes on in our administration. Notice that he says Christian philosophers and theologians have spent much time in explaining doctrines, which ultimately don't contradict, but that Bahá'ís are unconcerned about whether our doctrine of God is consistent. Throughout Beckwith's article, he makes statements like these which claim to know something about our operations without providing evidence. Or is he meaning that by not being particularly concerned we have chosen to remain Bahá'ís, members of a religion which contradicts itself? Considering he says that Christians have taken some time to explain things, but that the Bahá'ís haven't bothered, again indicates that the Bahai writers realize they are wrong. Some people are involved in religions which they believe to be fallible, seeing that religion as the closest to the truth. If they remain in the religion despite it's faults this isn't necessarily bad. I'm just mentioning this because even if the Bahá'ís were wrong on this issue, and realized this, it is not necessarily bad to stay in the religion. This could apply to other groups as well.

Beckwith makes the lamentable assertion, with the indication from his article that the Trinity is one of the doctrines spoken of, that philosophers and theologians have explained it in such a way that is coherently and philosophically sound. He says that the doctrines are logically reconcilable and ultimately noncontradictory. Come, let's don't be ridiculous. No amount of logic and reason is involved in understanding the Trinity. Most apologists have admitted this, and make no rational defence, as to do so would border on the naivete. I'll speak a bit more about this when he makes his defence.

Again Beckwith appeals to something the non-Bahá'í said in response to his book to further his argument. Like I said before, who cares what the non-Bahá'ís think about it?

The statement that we may not fully comprehend how the divine and human natures interacted in Jesus is the understatement of the month. Beckwith says that when the Bible asserts both the humanity and deity of Jesus it isn't asserting something self-contradictory. Oh yes it is! God is perfect and man is not. Man errs; God does not. How could you have a being that is perfect and not perfect simultaneously? How could a being be infinite and finite at the same time? How could a being be ignorant of some things yet omniscient? For example, Mark 13:32 which states that only God knows the hour, and that the Son of man and the angels do not know it. This verse means that only God knows the hour intrinsically. If Jesus is supposedly God, this verse not only gives indication that God was someone different to Jesus, but that Jesus couldn't be God because He didn't know the hour. Beckwith claims that Jesus took on a human nature "In addition to His divine nature." That's hard to believe. If Mark 13:32 doesn't prove Jesus isn't God then it does show that He couldn't have still had His divine nature while on earth. Apparently the Trinity doesn't teach that Jesus is both God and not God, yet it has to, considering how in John 5:30 Jesus said, "I can of mine own self do nothing." (KJV) This is a statement someone other than God would make. It could then be claimed that Jesus did not function as God while on earth. This could be explained by someone time travelling into someone else's body to help out, yet acting as the other person, while not being that person. The problem is that it is stated that Jesus took on a human nature in addition to the divine nature. Logical problems aside, if Jesus still had His divine nature then He would know the day and hour, and He would not say, "my Father is greater than I" (John 14:28 KJV). After all, what made Jesus lesser? Why assume that Jesus referred to His human nature? Where does the Bible indicate that Jesus became greater when His earthly mission ended?

This argument is better than others I've seen which try to make sense of the Trinity, but since my beliefs haven't been refuted, I can still hold that the Trinity is quite self-contradictory. He says that "The Trinity asserts that three divine persons share the same substance." I know that the Trinity teaches this, but where does the Bible teach it? They must share the same essence, as already shown. His argument is a bit like saying that because three trees have one substance, they can be referred to as one bark. If three "persons" who are God doesn't make three Gods then three trees don't actually add to three trees. He claims that the Trinity doesn't teach that there are three individual substances. If we apply this to the example of a tree we do see one substance in three trees, though there are still three trees. The problem is that the Bible speaks of God as being both a substance and a being. Yes, a tree is different to God, but what is the difference between the two examples? The three trees are only made one if grouped according to their qualities or characteristics. To apply this to the Trinity, God would become a quality. Didn't the numerous angels of God have this quality? If Ronald is a human and Martin is a human, how could human be a third being? Human is a quality; it is not a being per se. If Jesus is God and the Father is God, then God can't be a being. If the Trinity teaches three persons in one being then mustn't the being be separate to the three? Wouldn't that make four Gods? If three "persons" who are God make one God, because of the substance in them, then three trees make one bark, because the three share this substance. This same reasoning could be used for other living creatures which have the same substance. The fact that there is one substance doesn't mean that there is only one in the category, rather it shows that it is confined to those having specified characteristics. So the "one substance" argument still means three Gods, but one substance which will make someone God.

The above type of argument sounds very much like a Catholic who sent me a copy of the Athanasian creed to support his argument in a discussion on the Trinity. The creed means nothing to me unless it can be shown that the Bible supports it. The Holy Spirit and the Father are never called persons anywhere in the Bible, period. The Trinity claims that there is only one being, shared by three persons. Without a lot of metaphysical double-talk, what are the differences between "person" and being? "Being" and "person" have no distinction and are merely elements of a ruse employed by apologists. Because they can come up with two different words, they will therefore claim they have two different entities. When Jesus was on the cross and said "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46 KJV) one will ask to whom Jesus was speaking. To that the Trinitarian will reply "God." "But I though that He was God," I might reply. "No, He is the Son of God" they say. "So we have two Gods?" "No, just one God but three persons." Let's examine this. We have one being, one source of intelligence, speaking to another being, a source of intelligence, and we are to assume that there is only one being. This sort of dialogue shows the incongruity of the problem. Apparently logic and reason have very little to do with understanding the Trinity.

Let's go back to what he said before:

Beckwith is creating a lot of problems for himself by stating this. He begins by saying that the Trinity is paradoxical, thought not self-contradictory, yet proceeds to say things which prove the opposite. He says that three persons are one and the same God. So when John 17:3 refers to "the one true God" as the Father, and lists Jesus simply as the one sent by God, is Jesus part of "the one and the same God?" The verse says no, and Trinitarians know that only the Father is referred to as God here. So to be part of the same God Jesus must actually be the Father. This is the same with Romans 16:27, which speaks of the only wise God as someone other than Jesus. If Jesus is not that only wise God then He is not the same God as the Father. The Father is God, so unless Jesus is the Father He is not God. Since Jesus is not the Father, and not the one true God referred to in John 17:3, then He must be a different God. That makes two Gods. The Trinitarian would probably try to escape this dilemma by saying that the Father is a person who has the substance which makes Him God, and that Jesus is only different in person. The problem is supporting this assertion biblically, and showing how the Bible is making itself clear. When the Bible refers to there being one God, it never suggests that it means one being who is God, composed of multiple members. With the Trinity, there are three "persons" who can be called God. If Jesus is God, then He is one God. When we add the other two, that makes three that are God, or three Gods. Why assume that when the Bible says that there is one God that it means a composite unity God with multiple members? Why not assume that the Bible means that there is only one "entity" which can be referred to as God?

The New Testament made it clear that Jesus is not God by calling Him the Son of God. The New Testament clarifies that Jesus is the Son of the Father. This is the time when people claim that He was the Son of the Father, who is God, but not Himself or the Holy Spirit. This just makes things more confusing. So Jesus was the Son of part of God, but not the whole Trinity. To make Jesus not the son of the whole Trinity He would have to be the son of the "person" of the Father. If He were the son of the substance of God then He would be His own son, since it is claimed that the members of the Trinity are the same God, because of their substance. God is not a person, and even if He was, how could Jesus be born through anything other than the substance? He would have to be; otherwise He isn't the Son of God. This also shows that Jesus would have to be His own son, according to logic.

It was said that there are three divine persons who compose one God, and have one substance. This would be to say that at least two of the three could have become God. Having the substance is supposed to make them God, not just being a person. So couldn't they have been given the substance at a point in time? While this argument may not show that the Bible doesn't teach Trinitarianism, it shows one of the logical flaws of what this doctrine states. It is clear that a real and powerful God wouldn't provide so many holes in a doctrine that is valid. If the members of the Trinity are God because they have the substance, then wouldn't the substance have to be independent of them?

In Isaiah 63:16 the Father is referred to as Yahweh. Might there be a reason for this? To make matters worse, Jesus defined God by saying "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." (John 4:24 KJV) Since the Old Testament God was a Spirit, and God doesn't change, according to Malachi 4:6, we can assume that no man of flesh was God. A son is by definition younger than a father. Would God use an inappropriate analogy, or is there a point to referring to various people including Jesus as sons of God?

The final part of Beckwith's comments seem to have him admitting that the Trinity is logically impossible. He says that the Trinity does not suggest that there are three Gods which become one God, because that is contradictory. But that's exactly what the Trinity attempts to claim! Let's put it this way. John 17:3 and 1 Corinthians 8:6 say that there is only one God, the Father. Jesus is not referred to as God in either verse. Since He is not that God then if He is God then He is a different one. It might be said that Jesus is simply not the Father who is also God. But why assume the verses speaking of the one true God as the Father speak of the substance which was in Him, instead of just His"person"? This being so would necessitate a distinction to show that the entity of the Father should be separated from God the substance. Since it doesn't do this it is clear that there could be no other who could be God. This is because the Father is supposed to be one who has the substance which makes Him God. Two others possess this as well, so the Father can't be the only true God, just someone else who is God, but contains the substance of the one true God. This could have been said, but wasn't. The Trinity has three who can be called God, yet there is only one God. One can rationalize all he wants, but that is three Gods becoming one, and he's admitted this is contradictory.

Zoroaster taught no such thing. Satan is referred to as "the god" of this world in the Bible, which is the same as what is indicated in the Zoroastrian scriptures. I can't help but be amused by the above statement that "It is contradictory to say that there is only one god and that there is more than one god," in light of the fact that the Trinity attempts to do just that. If Jesus is God and the Father is God, that is two Gods. If adding the Father doesn't make two then the Father would have to be the Son, which is something plainly incorrect. If one God is added to one God you get two Gods. Apparently simple addition differs when dealing with this subject. As shown before, the Bahá'ís are not required to accept contradictory concepts of God between the different Manifestations, because there is no contradiction at all.

Why does Beckwith put quotation marks around the word "manifestations?" Is there a good reason for this?

The same could be said of the prophecies concerning the first coming, in relation to Jesus. Take Micah 5:2. Beckwith believes this verse is a messianic prophecy fulfilled by Jesus, as do most others. This verse promises a ruler. What method would Beckwith use to explain how Jesus was a ruler to some Jews? Why, of course, Jesus was a spiritual ruler. The burden of proof lies on the person who alleges, so he must show them something from the context to indicate the entity spoken of will not be an outward ruler. I've challenged Christians before to come up with something on this, with the sole reason of showing them that the prophecies for the first and second comings are similar. They seem to be unable to show that this verse doesn't promise someone who will be an outward ruler, like one who has numerous subjects. After all, in 1 Chronicles 22:9-10, David tells how God told him that he would have a son, who would be given a kingdom, and that his throne would be established by God. These prophecies are identical to those of the Messiah. The first verse of the next chapter has the fulfillment of this, when Solomon was made king over Israel. The prophecy was of someone who would rule, and the fulfillment was someone who sat on a literal throne. Numerous other examples exist in the Old Testament of someone referred to as a ruler, or a prophecy of someone who was to be a ruler, and they were all rulers outwardly. While Beckwith criticizes the Bahá'í interpretation, he seems to be the one who hasn't understood the Bible correctly. Further on in this article, Beckwith argues that Isaiah 53 shows that the Messiah will be a suffering Messiah, and that from other prophecies of the Messiah it is shown that He would also be a conquering one. Isaiah 53 speaks of Israel in a personified way, which is spoken of as God's servant frequently in the chapters just prior. It does not say it is speaking of the Messiah. If it did speak of a person noone could know who was referred to, as the verses apply to thousands of people who have ever lived. Even if it spoke of the Messiah, Beckwith hasn't eliminated the problem, as many outward rulers have had a life of suffering. The fact that you suffer doesn't make you a spiritual ruler. Since this is so, Beckwith will have to demonstrate how the prophecies of a conquering Messiah are different than those speaking of a normal ruler. If no distinction is provided we would have to believe that Beckwith can't prove that Jesus was to be a spiritual ruler, and is using circular reasoning to convince others of his argument. While Beckwith professes to have knowledge concerning the prophecies of the first coming, he is actually bringing in a lot of irrelevant material to make it seem like he has interpreted the symbols correctly. Since this is not refuted, he has the choice of rejecting Jesus, because he hasn't shown that He was to be a different type of ruler, or believing that the Bahá'ís have correctly interpreted the signs of the second coming.

Beckwith's argument was that taken literally, the prophecies of Christ's return don't fit Bahá'u'lláh's claim. The question is whether or not they should be taken literally. Acts 2:28-32 promised something which appears very literal. If we look to the fulfillment in Acts 2:17-21, we find that it was not literal. I imagine the only reason Beckwith doesn't believe Joel is literal in saying the moon will be turned into blood is because the fulfillment wasn't outward. In other words, he interprets the Old Testament through the New, and doesn't make distinctions as to why these prophecies aren't literal, and why some expressed very similar are. Matthew 24:29 speaks of a sign just like Joel mentions, and is inserted alongside the other second coming prophecies, which Beckwith says are very much literal. How could the same prophecy become literal only the second time? If it's not literal, then neither are the surrounding verses. The Bahá'ís are accused of circular reasoning when speaking of the signs, but that is something Beckwith often does when reading the Old Testament. I will provide further evidence of why these prophecies are symbolical later on. Beckwith would agree that should I do so then he could accept the claims of the Bahá'í Faith.

One thing I have noticed throughout his article is that Beckwith doesn't seem to have looked very deep for Bahá'í proofs from prophecy. I would agree that not many Bahá'ís have written on the subject, as no special importance has been given to it. In my view much of the literature on this subject is not the greatest, because many questions biblicists have are not answered, and not enough study has been put into them. Perhaps there are a couple things Beckwith could have read which would have impressed him more, and given his beliefs a challenge, but like I say, not enough people have written on the subject. You can thus hardly conclude that there couldn't be proof, or even a better scriptural argument for the Bahá'í Faith. I won't blame Beckwith for this too much because to him interpretation of scripture is so obvious in this subject that he "knows" we are wrong before we begin to pick up the pen to write a better proof.

In various religious books, similar signs are given to the ones Beckwith is familiar with, yet never do the Prophets explain exactly what they mean by the signs, whether the signs are to be taken literally or not. Some prophecies when taken literally do prove that Bahá'u'lláh fulfils Bible prophecy. These are mostly numerical prophecies. I have personally had some very well studied Christian's look at my comments and basically admit they can't answer them. Their answer indicates that they don't see how I could be right, because the wonderful return they expect didn't occur. Sometimes in written responses I remind them that in saying this they are hardly better than the Jews, who rejected Jesus because they hadn't seen the signs appear. To this the person I write to usually doesn't respond. God forbid that they could "lose their salvation" to an obscure eastern religion! In this one case they will assume that their knowledge is fallible, and that the Bible couldn't mean what I've shown it to say.

The Bahá'ís can claim this because of direct proof that the signs are not to be interpreted literally. This part of my article is the major part, where I will prove this exact point. While I could give a huge number of pages providing evidence for my views, only some of my objections will be given. I will show how the prophecies relating to the end times are very similar to those related to the return from the first exile.

Yes, the Bahá'ís did recognize Christ through another person. The Christians recognize Elijah through John the Baptist, despite the fact that Malachi 4:5 says that Elijah will come. The Bahá'ís also believe that John was the same as Elijah in spirit. Now the following comments I will make on this subject might appear to suggest that I don't believe in what the New Testament claims. This is not so, but I need to give an example to prove a point. Malachi 4:5 doesn't say that someone like Elijah will come, or a different Elijah, but just Elijah. Beckwith says that Bahá'ís insist that the literal meaning is to be ignored, yet the Christians do so in the interpretation and thus fulfillment of this prophecy. Why do they not reject John the Baptist? Because Jesus said that John was Elijah. If John is rejected then Jesus doesn't have a forerunner, thus invalidating His claim. I would be interested in seeing Beckwith defend this claim to someone who doesn't accept the New Testament. I doubt he can provide indication from the Old Testament that Elijah himself wasn't supposed to return, thus he would be forced to admit that he believes John is the fulfillment because Jesus said so. So because Beckwith believes something that makes it true, not because of evidence from the former scripture. Funny that, considering the allegation is that the Bahá'ís commonly give no evidence. Going by this logic of someone saying that a verse meant something, without providing evidence from the original source that it did, the interpretational claims of any and everyone would have to be accepted. Beckwith would really have to accept Bahá'u'lláh or any other claimed Prophet stating that an apparently literal prophecy was symbolic, even if no proof was given. But as I said before, if Beckwith can't provide indication from the Old Testament that Elijah won't come then he wouldn't be doing anything more meritorious. The only reason he would reject someone other than Jesus saying that the Bible meant something is because he does not believe in that particular person.

Beckwith states that the Bible promises Jesus Himself returning in the skies. This is very similar to the example of Elijah. Considering Beckwith would believe that Elijah physically went up to heaven, and was promised to return (if Elijah did ascend into the literal skies he could only come back by descending in his body from the sky), then how is it that he accepts the fulfillment of the Elijah prophecy as John, yet in a comparable example, where someone seems to have gone up to heaven physically, Beckwith expects a literal fulfillment? Also, how does he reconcile Jesus' statement in John 3:13 which says He is the only person who has ascended up to heaven with 2 Kings 2:11 which speaks of Elijah going up to heaven? Perhaps he would say that Jesus' statement was speaking of a spiritual condition, not anything physical. But if John 3:12 gives an indication that the next verse, which speaks of ascension, is spiritual, then shouldn't it always be? Shouldn't Acts 1:9 be metaphorical? How is it that Jesus had ascended to heaven already, as John 3:13 shows?

If you want to say that Bahá'u'lláh claimed that the signs had been fulfilled just to make Himself the return of Christ, then you will have to only refer to the signs as a reason to dismiss His claim, as there is more evidence from the New Testament of someone other than Christ returning than in the Old. Of course many Trinitarians will say that Jesus is God, thus He will return. This is based on the incorrect belief that Jesus is God Himself, and then concluding with a correct belief (that the return of Christ promised is not below the rank of Jesus) to reach the idea that God would return, considering someone lesser wouldn't come. They will also back up this assertion with their belief that Jesus physically went up to heaven, and will come down from there. But since they hold that Elijah physically went to heaven, this argument shouldn't be used for proof. Acts 1:11 is also taken to support this assertion, when it refers to the ascension, and says that "this same Jesus" (KJV) who went to heaven will return from heaven. Not all translators agree with having the word "same" in the verse, some just saying "This Jesus." For these reasons it is clear how few have considered the chance that someone like Jesus, who can be referred to as Jesus in the way John was Elijah, might return.

Revelation 3:12 provides indication that someone other than Jesus will return. The previous verse says "Behold, I come quickly," (KJV) which clearly shows that it is referring to the second advent. In verse 12, it says: "I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name." This is interesting. The information pertains to those who have gained the crown of life. Clearly the speaker is not God, because "my God" is used. This is used by those who are not God, and have a God of their own, from whom they receive salvation. The speaker mentions His new name. In light of the events it is speaking of, which is the return, this new name is connected with that very time. Apparently the name is something other than Jesus. Remember that the text doesn't give a human name.

It seems that Beckwith considers Matthew 24 as proof that Jesus Himself will return, but for faulty reasons. If Elijah can come as John the Baptist, then Jesus can respond to a question about His coming in a way that might indicate He will return. Based on the Elijah example, Jesus wouldn't have needed to say that actually the signs will be of someone else coming. He could say this, but He doesn't need to. The return of Jesus could be spoken of as Jesus. Jesus doesn't speak of "me" coming in that chapter. The fact that the title "Son of man" is used doesn't mean Jesus is spoken of. Ezekiel is referred to in this way as well.

Jesus Himself indicates that another will return; though later than Matthew 24, which occurred two days before the Passover. In John, just after the last supper, important information on the return of Christ is given. The important thing to note is the context. Jesus said "Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. If ye love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever." (John 14:11-16 KJV)

Now, the above passage speaks about Jesus returning to the Father, and that Jesus reflects the Father. Since the context is Jesus speaking of a Messenger of God who reflects the light of God, it is clear that the Comforter must be another Messenger of God, who comes after Jesus dies. It says "another Comforter." This indicates that Jesus was also a Comforter. By what logic should the next Comforter not be a man? There is no indication that anyone else has fitted this role prior to Jesus, so I see no good reason to assume it. The suggestion that the Holy Spirit is the Comforter is only correct in a certain sense, in that the Spirit dwells in the person. After all, if the Spirit didn't dwell with Jesus, as shown in John 1:32-33, then Jesus wouldn't have been a Prophet. Without it, He just has His flesh, and John 6:63 makes it clear that "It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." (KJV) Further, in John 7:17, Jesus says that if any man do his will, he will know whether His teaching is of God or not. In the next verse He says that whoever speaks of himself seeks his own glory, but the person who seeks the glory that sent him is true. If someone speaks of God then they are moved by the Holy Ghost, as written in 2 Peter 1:21.

Since the Comforter must not have existed at the time of the prophecy, it couldn't be the Holy Spirit, which has always existed. Or was God not sending the Holy Spirit at the time? One might say that Pentecost is referred to, but that stretches the meaning of the text, which indicates something which has not yet come. So it becomes clear that a person who has the Holy Spirit is intended.

John 14:17 then says "Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." This is thought to be problematic to the Bahá'í argument. Others will say that it speaks of a spirit. Who said that? "Spirit of truth" could be a title. The word spirit can be used as a title for a person, as the flesh counts as nothing. The fact that it refers to dwelling with the people and being in them gives no indication that a human isn't spoken of. In Matthew 28:20, Jesus said that He would be with the people. This is no different. John 14:18 then says "I will not leave you comfortless; I will come to you." This indicates that the Spirit of truth is embodied in a person, which is proven by John 16:13. Otherwise, what's the point of Jesus mixing in prophecies of His return with those of the Holy Spirit? John 14:19 provides about the strongest proof, with Jesus saying "Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also." This refers back to verse 12, which speaks of going to the Father. Since shortly after this the promise of the Comforter is given, which is followed by Jesus saying He will come, it is clear that all verses speak of the same thing. The strong indication is that Jesus and the next Comforter will not be around at the same time. This is shown by John 14:25-26, which says "These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." The fact that the Father is to send the Comforter in the name of Jesus indicates that it refers to another Jesus, who is the same spiritually. In John 15:26, Jesus speaks of the Comforter, saying that He will testify of Him. This seems to indicate a verbal address, not just a feeling. John 16:8 says "And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment." The Holy Spirit did no such thing at Pentecost. In John 16:12-13 Jesus says "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come."

When Jesus says that He has many things to say which they can't bear at the time, it logically follows that the second coming would be the time when they can. I can't think how the apostles were more able to bear those things at Pentecost. Obviously a major change needs to take place. If whatever the Spirit of truth hears He speaks then He is a man. This sounds like what is said of Jesus, as John 5:19 demonstrates. There is no evidence that the Holy Spirit hears what it speaks.

John 16:14 continues, saying "He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you." Clearly a man is referred to, who will glorify Jesus. The next verse says that the Spirit of truth has everything Jesus has. Since this is so, and since Jesus is another Comforter, or advocate, as shown by the same word being applied to Him in 1 John 2:1, then Jesus can speak of this person as Himself.

John 16:25 sums up my whole message, when Jesus says "These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I