in the Bahá'í FAITH

"Was Christ within god, or God within Christ ? No in the name of God. " (Abdul Baha Questions pg 97)

‘Further than this (Bahá'u'lláh) man has no other point for concentration. He is god." (Star of the West Feb.7,1914)

"Were any of the all-embracing Manifestations of God to declare: "I am God," He, verify, speaketh the truth, and no doubt attacheth thereto. For ... through their Revelation, their attributes and names, the Revelation of God, His names and His attributes, are made manifest in the world. ...."(Gleanings p.50-55)

As we can see even within their own belief framework they contradict themselves. The claim Jesus cannot be God or have God dwell in him and then they can say the other manifestations are God. (which would include Jesus). which is it? It is also contending God is the same by many names in different religions.

This also contradicts the Scripture of which Jesus said, 
John 14:10:  "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? "

John 14:11: "Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me" 

John 10:30: "I and My Father are one."

Jesus is called the Only Begotten son of God for a reason- there  is no other like Him.

Baha'u'llah continues...'And were any of them to voice the utterance, "I am the Messenger of God," He, also, speaketh the truth, the indubitable truth.'  (Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 54).

So anyone who claims to be a messenger of God speaks the truth? How Can Bahá'í' know this, or do they just accept it? How would this be possible if the messengers contradict each other? Is God confused? Or are the messengers of the different religions delivering different concepts of God and what He requires of man and the Bahai do not understand this.

Baha'u'llah thought of himself  as more than just a messenger or manifestation. He wrote: “O Jews! If ye be intent on crucifying once again Jesus, the Spirit of God, put Me to death, for He hath once more, in My person, been made manifest unto you” (Gleanings, p.100).

Here their prophet claims to be like Jesus in the incarnation. He even wrote to Pope Pius IX the following: “O Pope! Rend the veils asunder. He Who is the Lord of Lords is come overshadowing with clouds,...He, verily, has come down from Heaven even as He came down the first time” (Proclamation of Baha'u'llah, p.83)

Here it is plain what Baha'u'llah thought of himself. He made himself a competitor with Jesus. He denies that Jesus was God but then states  he is as the Lord that came the first time.

Here is the very opposite of Bahá'í's previous statements.

"Ten thousand prophets, each a Moses, are thunderstruck upon the Sinai of their search at his forbidding voice "thou shalt not behold me!" whilst a myriad of messengers, each as great as Jesus, stand dismayed upon the heavenly thrones by the interdiction, "mine essence shalt never be apprehend." (Gleanings from the writings of Bahá'u'lláh  p.62) 

Myriads as great as Jesus, really. Did any rise from the dead, did any do miracles like him ? No. What of Moses? The Bible says " But since then there has not arisen in Israel a prophet like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face" (Deut. 34:10). 

Whose right about Moses? The Bible or Bahá'í.

Abdul Baha " writes therefore all that the human reality discovers & understands of the names the attributes and the perfection of god refer to his holy manifestations, there is no access to anything else. THE WAY IS CLOSED & SEEKING IS FORBIDDEN. (Abdul Baha, Questions pg. 169 )

"Thus hath Muhammad, the Point of the Qur'an, revealed: "I am all the Prophets." Likewise, He saith: "I am the first Adam, Noah, Moses, and Jesus." Similar statements have been made by Imim 'Ali" (Gleanings from the writings of Bahá'u'lláh  p.51).

  If Mohammed claimed this he certainly was proven wrong, but I don't think he ever said this. He claimed he was the last prophet which is ignored by Bahá'í and so they make the same mistake for Bahá'u'lláh and claim he is the last prophet for our age.

"That which thou hast heard concerning Abraham, the Friend of the All-Merciful, is the truth, and no doubt is there about it. The Voice of God commanded Him to offer up Ishmael as a sacrifice, so that His steadfastness in the Faith of God and His detachment from all else but him may be demonstrated unto men. The purpose of God, moreover was to sacrifice him as a ransom for the sins and iniquities of all the peoples of the earth. ( Gleanings from the writings of Bahá'u'lláh p.75 -76 )

This is the teaching of Islam not the Bible, so we have an absolute contradiction. Not only the fact that Ishmael was never considered a ransom for the sins of the world, but to be a ransom for sin according to Islamic teaching is false. There was never any ransom of sin for the whole world in the Old Testament in Judaism, only for the nation Israel. Only in the New Testament with Jesus is this found. It is in Islam where we find the teaching of Ishmael being raised instead of Isaac. They believe Abraham was a true prophet but he said it was Isaac not Ishmael.  Besides, Bahá'ís do not believe in sins needing to be forgiven with a sacrifice. This passage is inimical at the least.

“Allah or Yahweh, God or Brahma…we are speaking about the same unique Being.” (The Bahai world, the Bahai concept of God) 

How is this possible when Allah has no son and Brahama is impersonal, that god exists in everything increation. The God of the Bible has a son and is personal. These are different Gods- that is why they are different religions.

Bahá'í's John Esslemont explains that, "Bahá'u'lláh teaches that the universe is without beginning in time. It is a perpetual emanation from the Great First Cause." (J. E. Esslemont, Bahá'u'lláh and the New Era, 3d ed. 1970,p. 204.)

Gen. 1:1 in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. That is a complete difference of no beginning and having a beginning.

Dr. John Esselmont heard and recorded that Abdu'l Baha stated which year "Universal peace will firmly be established...and misunderstandings will pass away." This was 1957 (BAHA'U'LLA'H AND THE NEW ERA 1923 p.212) later editions were changed after Esselmont's death as 1963 and gave an indefinite meaning to the year.