Kitab-i-Badi/GPT4 291: Difference between revisions

From Baha'i Writings Collaborative Translation Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "O people of expression, although you have appeared to some extent, it is never thought that anyone will attain sanctification and purification. It seems that if a hundred thousand doors of divine knowledge were opened, no one would listen, let alone comprehend. Listen to the divine advice and contemplate the previous Manifestation and the events that occurred during its days, so that perhaps those new events will not be erased from sight and become a cause for steadfastn...")
 
m (Pywikibot 8.1.0.dev0)
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
O people of expression, although you have appeared to some extent, it is never thought that anyone will attain sanctification and purification. It seems that if a hundred thousand doors of divine knowledge were opened, no one would listen, let alone comprehend. Listen to the divine advice and contemplate the previous Manifestation and the events that occurred during its days, so that perhaps those new events will not be erased from sight and become a cause for steadfastness.
You had also written: "And if the claimant claims to be the very Point of Revelation himself, it is not without these possibilities: either he means that he is the same in essence and person, which is clearly false, as the repetition of manifestations is not permissible and is evidently invalid; or if it is a renewal of the likes, its falsehood is even more evident. Moreover, in this case, he must also issue the same previous ordinances without any difference. So, where is the change permissible?"

Latest revision as of 19:15, 14 May 2023

You had also written: "And if the claimant claims to be the very Point of Revelation himself, it is not without these possibilities: either he means that he is the same in essence and person, which is clearly false, as the repetition of manifestations is not permissible and is evidently invalid; or if it is a renewal of the likes, its falsehood is even more evident. Moreover, in this case, he must also issue the same previous ordinances without any difference. So, where is the change permissible?"