Can we prove or disprove the claims of any Messenger of God?

[paarsurrey]

He never claimed God-head.

I asked this question on this forum and some Bahai replied that Bahaullah was god. I have now noted that our friend adrian009 doesn't believe that Bahaullah was god.

I have noted here in this forum that Bahais don't reply the questions, even simple questions, in a straightforward manner.

So I have to ask again from one.

Do you unequivocally deny that Bahaullah was God, please?
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Judaism doesn't mention them. Christianity doesn't mention them. And, Islam doesn't. So why would the Baha'i Faith. But the Baha'i Faith at least says that they came from the same God. Do the others? I know fundamental/evangelical protestant Christians mention them now... as being a false religion. So were these religions really meant to be for the world and be a progression of the previous one? Or, were they meant only for a certain people and culture at a particular time?

Islam declares unequivocally that warners/guides/messengers/prophets of G-d in every people but not all of them have been mentioned in Quran and a Muslim have to believe in their truthfulness.

Regards

 

[Dawnofhope]

I asked this question on this forum and some Bahai replied that Bahaullah was god. I have now noted that our friend adrian009 doesn't believe that Bahaullah was god.

I have noted here in this forum that Bahais don't reply the questions, even simple questions, in a straightforward manner.

So I have to ask again from one.

Do you unequivocally deny that Bahaullah was God, please?
Regards

Theological questions in relation to the nature of the Manifstation of God are complicated.

Baha'u'llah was a man and a Messenger of God just like Muhammad.

However God also speaks through the Manifestation as God, so when a Manifestation of God says "I am God" it is God speaking not the Manifestation.

That is one example, there are others.

 

[Jim]

If I find Bahaullah saying something unreasonable or not saying something where he should have said something reasonable,shouldn't I point it out?

Help yourself. Don't let me rain on your parade! I was just curious.

 

[CG Didymus]

We cannot know for certain what miracles in the bible were literally true including the virgin birth and many of the recorded miracles. We don’t know for certain but maybe they really happened. Their significance rests in how they assist us better understand who Christ was, not whether they literally happened or not.

You can't say for certain? Is it scientifically possible to walk on water? And, Baha'is believe for certain he did not rise from the dead and ascend into heaven, don't they? So wouldn't make them myths?

 

[Dawnofhope]

You can't say for certain? Is it scientifically possible to walk on water? And, Baha'is believe for certain he did not rise from the dead and ascend into heaven, don't they? So wouldn't make them myths?

This does sound like very familiar territory for us lol.

God can act in ways that are contradictory to the laws of nature.

We can’t completely prove or disprove any of the miracles in the Bible including the resurrection and ascension of Christ.

Abdul-Baha teaches all the miracles as recorded in the gospels convey a deeper spiritual meaning.

I’m personally uncomfortable with the word as it’s used prejoratively to dismiss the reality of Christ. It’s also used to make a determination about the gospel narrative that suggests none of it actually happened. We don’t know that and it feels disrespectful. Therefore I personally avoid using this word but I have no problem with you using it.

 

[CG Didymus]

This does sound like very familiar territory for us lol.

God can act in ways that are contradictory to the laws of nature.

We can’t completely prove or disprove any of the miracles in the Bible including the resurrection and ascension of Christ.

Abdul-Baha teaches all the miracles as recorded in the gospels convey a deeper spiritual meaning.

I’m personally uncomfortable with the word as it’s used prejoratively to dismiss the reality of Christ. It’s also used to make a determination about the gospel narrative that suggests none of it actually happened. We don’t know that and it feels disrespectful. Therefore I personally avoid using this word but I have no problem with you using it.

Is Jesus' body dead and buried? Do the Baha'is believe the resurrection was the disciples "coming" alive again spiritually and that is the true resurrection, not a literal resurrection of Jesus physically. Sounds like a myth to me.

But the big issue I have is that the early believers thought the resurrection really happened. They had no doubt it was a resurrected Jesus they saw and spoke to. Because of that, Christians today, to be true believers, have to believe they were being truthful. To say everything about Jesus was a myth has its problem. But, also, to say it was all literally true has a lot of problems.

To say it was symbolic has its problems too. The writers didn't write the stories as parables. They wrote them as if they were telling of actual events. Did they know it was only symbolic? I don't think so. Were they embellishing the stories with a few miraculous events to make Jesus out to be god-like? Sure, I could see that. So what would you call that? Lying? Exaggerating? Making up myths about Jesus?

Like my favorite to give you a hard time about, the Virgin Birth story. A star moving in the sky? Herod ordering babies in Bethlehem to be killed? One gospel story has the family taking Jesus to Egypt. Another has them go into Jerusalem to the Temple, and then on to Nazareth. And two gospels don't mention the Virgin Birth at all. Who was there? Definitely not those two gospel writers. So who were their sources? Mary? And she told each writer something different? I don't know. If you don't like calling it a myth, than how about a fabrication? Or, is that still disrespectful to Christians? Not like calling their stories, that they believe are literal, symbolic? I got a feeling that's already being disrespectful. But, of all the Baha'is here, you are definitely trying to be as respectful as possible.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Is Jesus' body dead and buried?

I doubt if we know where most people's bodies were buried that died nearly 2,000 years ago.

Do the Baha'is believe the resurrection was the disciples "coming" alive again spiritually and that is the true resurrection, not a literal resurrection of Jesus physically. Sounds like a myth to me.

That is one understanding of the significance of the resurrection. As you know Abdu'l-Baha discussed it in 'Some Answered Questions'. There will be other meanings too.

The first biblical book that mentions the resurrection is Paul's letter to Corinthians. It was Paul who repeatedly used the phrase 'body of Christ' to refer to the church. So the resurrection narrative as understood by the Christians most likely arose from the Apostles teachings to the Gentiles. The evidence points to Paul when teaching the Greeks.

I agree it does sound like a myth and certainly meets any dictionary definition of myth.

But the big issue I have is that the early believers thought the resurrection really happened. They had no doubt it was a resurrected Jesus they saw and spoke to. Because of that, Christians today, to be true believers, have to believe they were being truthful. To say everything about Jesus was a myth has its problem. But, also, to say it was all literally true has a lot of problems.

The narrative is Jesus literally came back to life 3 days after being crucified and appeared to His disciples over a period of 40 days until ascending to heaven as recorded in Acts of the Apostles 1. It either happened or it didn't. I've explained how the resurrection narrative began and from there we have various embellishments of the story as recorded in the synoptic gospels with events that are equally unlikely to have happened. You can decide one way or another or of course remain undecided.

To say it was symbolic has its problems too. The writers didn't write the stories as parables. They wrote them as if they were telling of actual events. Did they know it was only symbolic? I don't think so. Were they embellishing the stories with a few miraculous events to make Jesus out to be god-like? Sure, I could see that. So what would you call that? Lying? Exaggerating? Making up myths about Jesus?

They were embellished stories. Because the embellishments convey deep spiritual truths I'm very comfortable with it. I'd go as far as to call them allegorical stories not too dissimilar to those in Genesis.

Like my favorite to give you a hard time about, the Virgin Birth story. A star moving in the sky? Herod ordering babies in Bethlehem to be killed? One gospel story has the family taking Jesus to Egypt. Another has them go into Jerusalem to the Temple, and then on to Nazareth. And two gospels don't mention the Virgin Birth at all. Who was there? Definitely not those two gospel writers. So who were their sources? Mary? And she told each writer something different? I don't know. If you don't like calling it a myth, than how about a fabrication? Or, is that still disrespectful to Christians? Not like calling their stories, that they believe are literal, symbolic? I got a feeling that's already being disrespectful. But, of all the Baha'is here, you are definitely trying to be as respectful as possible.

I like it that the virgin birth narrative doesn't get bulldozed like the literal resurrection does. The way its mentioned in the Baha'i writings gives flexibility to understand it in different ways. I appreciate the irony with how the literal resurrection is rejected and the virgin birth doesn't seem to be. I don't think it matters too much whether people believe they are true or not. Problems arise when Christian apologists start arguing it was all literally true because its written in the Bible, God can do anything, and Jesus is the only way. Then we need to examine their claims as is only fair. Likewise the Baha'i claims need to be investigated too.

Thank you. I believe its much more important to be kind and respectful towards others than to win an argument. We all have different beliefs. Lets not make it harder than it needs to be.

 

[paarsurrey]

Theological questions in relation to the nature of the Manifstation of God are complicated.

Baha'u'llah was a man and a Messenger of God just like Muhammad.

However God also speaks through the Manifestation as God, so when a Manifestation of God says "I am God" it is God speaking not the Manifestation.

That is one example, there are others.

The term "Manifestation of G-d" is not given in Quran. Is it, please?

Regards

 

[InvestigateTruth]

The term "Manifestation of G-d" is not given in Quran. Is it, please?

Regards

As far as I know, the term Manifestation of God is not in the Quran. There are many terms which are in the Quran, but not in Injil. And there is nothing wrong with that, because, each Revelation of God teaches new things to humanity.
Bahaullah clearly proclaimed that His appearance is Manifestation of God, which was promised in the Quran as 'meeting with Lord' (laghaullah = لقاء الله). The Bahais do not believe Bahaullah is incarnation of God. They do not believe it is possible for God to incarnate Himself on earth. But they believe God can manifest Himself on the earth in the form of a human.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

.
Do you unequivocally deny that Bahaullah was God, please?
Regards

if we are talking the physical body of Bahaullah who passed away, obviously the body was not God. If we are talking about the Spiritual reality of Bahaullah, then He was the Spirit of God in the same way that Jesus was the Spirit of God.
Now, in Bible, the apostles of Jesus ask Him about His return. Jesus replies that He comes down from heaven with the cloud. Now, Quran also promises that God comes down with the cloud. If you notice both statements are the same, when one considers that Christ is the Spirit of God.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

So is it possible to see God or even know God?

The people who saw Him thought so. I don't think John read the other books of the bible.

From the Teachings of Moses came the Torah, from Christ the Gospels, and from Muhammad the Quran. These are works that have no parallel in human history in regards the breath and scope of their influence. There’s a strong case they were inspired by God. Have you studied any of these works?

Moses is fictional. Jesus ... depends on how you look at it. Scope of influence doesn't mean much since all were jammed down people's throats, often at the point of a sword. All of them are largely only really concerned with a few spots in the Middle East. Show me a scripture that talks about the entire globe (and not just metaphorically or because they didn't know there were places outside their local neighborhood) and we can discuss "scope". Of course, in ancient times, Gods didn't usually have global influence, just local or regional at best. It might be asking too much for a global scope.

I think we can only prove a Messenger’s truth to ourselves after our own personal research and it is for everyone to do the same - investigate the matter for him or herself and decide whether the Messenger is true or not.

I feel it's not the messenger that's important, but the message. Messengers live and die and messages can evolve or die out. However, messages can be held onto, while messengers still die.

The Way is the Way. The tour guide is irrelevant.

Take your #7, “future events foretold:” why would that be evidence for something to do with God as opposed to, say, clairvoyance? If we’re entertaining outlandish options, we should do it consistently.

I have precognitive abilities. It sucks because most of the time, it's bad. However, I also accept that I daydream a lot and precognition could just be the brain simulating events over and over and over and over, much like how people run simulations in a computer to predict events. It would explain why my abilities only seem to work for myself or people very close to me and are affected by my emotional state.

Or do you mean just that the God you believe in wouldn’t choose a bad person to be his messenger? If so, then the argument really isn’t that good character is a sign of being God’s messenger; it’s that bad character is a sign of not being God’s messenger.

And considering that even people like Jesus could be jerks, it makes their qualifications seem iffy at best.

I don't think Christians go to church "to prove God exists" either. They go to practice their religion... it's just that their religion would be undermined if their god didn't literally exist.

I doubt it. There was a convention once and I asked my brother to go because I wanted a Celebii for my Pokemon game. He was very irritated when he got home, noting that grown men were throwing tantrums if they didn't get a fictional creature. After looking at the range of religious people, I've concluded religion is just a kind of fandom and it ranges from the casual fan to the hardcore geek who wears all the merchandise and remodels their house to look like a fictional locale and stuff.

What matters to me is for people to learn to love, trust and follow Baha'u'llah, and for me that has nothing to do with any beliefs. It's just something that happens from personal experience with Him.

The problem is that I can't have a personal relationship with him. I guess I could in the same sense I do Jesus, but the fact remains Jesus is no longer actually in play.

No human could be G-d and the truthful G-d is not a human being. I agree with one here.
If Bahaullah claimed to be a human being, then his claim for divinity is not correct.

I agree, but if we're made in God's image, we are divine in a sense, just like everyone else. Therefore, the label is useless.

There is a great deal I'm comfortable with through the main religions, folk religions and even agnosticism and atheism. What disturbs me the most is religious fanaticism when people hurt others as a result of their misplaced trust in hateful ideologies.

Exactly.

Indeed, your manner of speech does come across as quite condescending to me.

Adrian's not that bad.

Indeed, but who is to judge what harm is? Some folks merely think that practicing another faith outside their own is causing that person harm. I think you and I agree that harm relates mostly to violence or killing. I would include exploitation.

To me, violating civil rights would be a start.

 

[Jim]

The problem is that I can't have a personal relationship with him. I guess I could in the same sense I do Jesus, but the fact remains Jesus is no longer actually in play.

That’s like saying that Mr. Rogers and Horton the elephant are no longer in play. It’s all in the story itself.

 

[paarsurrey]

As far as I know, the term Manifestation of God is not in the Quran. There are many terms which are in the Quran, but not in Injil. And there is nothing wrong with that, because, each Revelation of God teaches new things to humanity.
Bahaullah clearly proclaimed that His appearance is Manifestation of God, which was promised in the Quran as 'meeting with Lord' (laghaullah = لقاء الله). The Bahais do not believe Bahaullah is incarnation of God. They do not believe it is possible for God to incarnate Himself on earth. But they believe God can manifest Himself on the earth in the form of a human.

" in the Quran as'meeting with Lord' (laghaullah = لقاء الله)" Unquote.

If it is mentioned by Bahaullah, then it is his wrong understanding of Quran by him. If it is your understanding then it is wrong understanding of Quran by one.

Regards

 

[Dawnofhope]

The term "Manifestation of G-d" is not given in Quran. Is it, please?

Regards

The phrase Manifestation of God would include the Messenger status of a Manifestation as elucidated by Muhammad. Muhammad used this phrase to correct the misunderstanding of Christians about Christ.

In a similar manner Baha'u'llah uses the phrase Manifestation to develop our understanding of the nature of previous prophets just as Muhammad did. Part of the problem is Muslims can misunderstand Muhammad's words in the Holy Quran and assign meanings that were never intended, just as the Christians did with the Gospels.

" in the Quran as'meeting with Lord' (laghaullah = لقاء الله)" Unquote.

If it is mentioned by Bahaullah, then it is his wrong understanding of Quran by him. If it is your understanding then it is wrong understanding of Quran by one.

Regards

Is it possible that your understanding is the incorrect one?

 

[paarsurrey]

The phrase Manifestation of God would include the Messenger status of a Manifestation as elucidated by Muhammad. Muhammad used this phrase to correct the misunderstanding of Christians about Christ.

In a similar manner Baha'u'llah uses the phrase Manifestation to develop our understanding of the nature of previous prophets just as Muhammad did. Part of the problem is Muslims can misunderstand Muhammad's words in the Holy Quran and assign meanings that were never intended, just as the Christians did with the Gospels.

Is it possible that your understanding is the incorrect one?

"The phrase Manifestation of God would include the Messenger status of a Manifestation as elucidated by Muhammad. Muhammad used this phrase to correct the misunderstanding of Christians about Christ." Unquote.

Please quote the verse of Quran with the context verses, some preceding and some following verses, and that prove one's point of view that the term "manifestation of G-d" has been given by G-d in Quran, unequivocally.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

This thread is the start of a discussion between @Trailblazer and I about Proofs. What are the proofs that God exists, that a prophet is who He says He is, or that He is a Messenger of God? Are there really any proofs at all or is it all an illusion and wishful thinking at best and delusion at worst?

Bahá’ís believe God has inspired Divine Teachers with laws and teachings for mankind in each age. In the past there have been many Prophets and Messengers. How do we know whether any of these past Messengers were really from God?

I believe there are several proofs which can used to demonstrate the truth of such a claim. These proofs can be used to demonstrate the truth of great Teachers of the past such as Krishna, Buddha, Moses, Christ and Muhammad and more recently Bahá'u’lláh.

So what are these proofs of the truth of any Manifestation of God?

____________________________________________________________________________________

1. His Character

According to Bahá'u’lláh the 'first and foremost testimony' of a Messenger of God is 'His own Self'. The Manifestation of God has a dual nature consisting of both a divine station and a human station. For example He may show innate knowledge from childhood and from an early age be renowned for Their extraordinary wisdom. The religious leaders of the day may find themselves unable rival Him.

He may always the friend of those in need and be detached from the worldly pursuits. Instead He may accept a life of persecution, imprisonment or poverty in the path of God. From His lowly state He may fearlessly address the religious and worldly rulers proclaiming His Mission, calling upon them to be just and fair to their people.

2. His Revelation

The laws and teachings brought by the Manifestation of God are the next proof. They identify God to
be the origin of this Revelation rather than Themselves. Such Teachings are like those from a Divine Physician who has His pulse on the finger of mankind. In His unerring wisdom He proclaims the remedy of the age in which They live.

3. His verses

The verses (words) revealed by the Manifestations of God are different from those of men. They are the 'Word of God'. They have great spiritual power and change the hearts of men. They possess a special beauty and eloquence.

4. The martyrs

When God sends a new Teacher to mankind detached pure-hearted souls seek Him out. They become so inspired and transformed that they readily and joyfully sacrifice their wealth, position and even their lives in the path of God.

5. The repudiation

Christ was persecuted by the clergy and the rulers of His day. The same happened to Muhammad and to every Manifestation of God.

6. The two-fold sign

Many of of us know of the star which signaled the birth of Jesus and of John the Baptist who spoke of Him. Bahá’u’lláh says that every Manifestation of God is announced by one sign in the physical heaven (e.g. a star or comet) and another sign in the spiritual heaven (eg Matthew 24:29).

7. Prophecies Fulfilled

All the Manifestations of God are part of one Plan and each one foretells the coming of the next.

8. Future Events Foretold

The Manifestations of God may make prophecies of future events.

9. Miracles

While the Manifestations of God may perform many miraculous deeds we should be cautious with this proof as theyare only proofs for those who see and but not so much for those who hear them second-hand.

____________________________________________________________________________________

So are these 'proofs' of any value? Why do you believe what you do and is evidence or proof important?

I'm not looking for an argument or to push my Baha'i beliefs on anybody, just respectful courteous discussion. Thanks again for your thoughts and comments.

"In the past there have been many Prophets and Messengers. How do we know whether any of these past Messengers were really from God?
I believe there are several proofs which can used to demonstrate the truth of such a claim. These proofs can be used to demonstrate the truth of great Teachers of the past such as Krishna, Buddha, Moses, Christ and Muhammad and more recently Bahá'u’lláh." Unquote.

Sorry, one has included Bahaullah's name in "Prophets and Messengers" of G-d wrongly.
I believe Bahaullah has no Seal of Authenticity as was essential for a prophet and messenger of G-d, after Muhammad, please. Right, please?

Regards

 

[TransmutingSoul]

"In the past there have been many Prophets and Messengers. How do we know whether any of these past Messengers were really from God?
I believe there are several proofs which can used to demonstrate the truth of such a claim. These proofs can be used to demonstrate the truth of great Teachers of the past such as Krishna, Buddha, Moses, Christ and Muhammad and more recently Bahá'u’lláh." Unquote.

Sorry, one has included Bahaullah's name in "Prophets and Messengers" of G-d wrongly.
I believe Bahaullah has no Seal of Authenticity as was essential for a prophet and messenger of G-d, after Muhammad, please. Right, please?

Regards

Paarsurry, It could be said that Baha'u'llah was the first to show that He was a Manifestation of God which in biblical Prophecy has many other names.

Shoghi Effendi has explained;

Baha'u'llah (Glory of God)

“Who in the Old Testament hath been named Jehovah, Who in the Gospel hath been designated as the Spirit of Truth, and in the Qur’án acclaimed as the Great Announcement.” “But for Him no Divine Messenger would have been invested with the robe of prophethood, nor would any of the sacred scriptures have been revealed. To this bear witness all created things.” “The word which the one true God uttereth in this day, though that word be the most familiar and commonplace of terms, is invested with supreme, with unique distinction.”

Thus Muhammad as the seal of the Prophets, who closed the door on Prophecy about the 'Great Announcement', paved the way for the door to opened for the Manifestation of God.

Right, please?

Regards Tony

 

[Dawnofhope]

"The phrase Manifestation of God would include the Messenger status of a Manifestation as elucidated by Muhammad. Muhammad used this phrase to correct the misunderstanding of Christians about Christ." Unquote.

Please quote the verse of Quran with the context verses, some preceding and some following verses, and that prove one's point of view that the term "manifestation of G-d" has been given by G-d in Quran, unequivocally.

Regards

Muhammad taught pagan tribes about the God of Abraham using language that was comprehensible to those He taught. He did not use the term Manifestation of God. He did not abrogate slavery. He did not teach the full equality of men and women. He did not teach of the importance of democracy. These are more advanced Teachings suited to the modern age which Bahá’u’lláh taught.

 

[Dawnofhope]

"In the past there have been many Prophets and Messengers. How do we know whether any of these past Messengers were really from God?
I believe there are several proofs which can used to demonstrate the truth of such a claim. These proofs can be used to demonstrate the truth of great Teachers of the past such as Krishna, Buddha, Moses, Christ and Muhammad and more recently Bahá'u’lláh." Unquote.

Sorry, one has included Bahaullah's name in "Prophets and Messengers" of G-d wrongly.
I believe Bahaullah has no Seal of Authenticity as was essential for a prophet and messenger of G-d, after Muhammad, please. Right, please?

Regards

Bahaullah’s Message was from God. That’s all the authority required to break any seal.