> > I'm a little puzzled as to why Daniel would have been referring to the third > edict especially, given that this edict isn't the best match to what > 'Abdu'l-Baha mentions, not being about the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Or is > this interpretation held just so that we can have a prophecy of Jesus here? > David,
I think that, as with many other prophecies about Baha'u'llah, the interpretation is consistent with interpretations concerning the advent of Christ, in other words, if Baha'u'llah is not the Manifestation of God, then neither was Christ. I don't time to do all the research into it now for exact details, but in the fifth century St. Augustine apparently used the same prophecy of Daniel in establishing the Christian church. "Then again, during the actual period of the Babylonian captivity there were two other major prophets. Daniel and Ezekiel. They prophesied in the earlier part of the exile. Of these Daniel specified the time when Christ was to come and to suffer, by giving the number of years that were to intervene. It would be a tedious business to demonstrate this by computation, and it has been done by others before us." City of God, Book XVIII, Chapter 34 Patti ---------- You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
