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

[Dawnofhope]

What do any of these have to do with God?

I mean, how do you start with any of them (or all of them) and get to “therefore, this person is a messenger of God?”

I have laid out a clear framework. If you have better criteria I’m all ears.

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?

If you say so. I’ve met plenty of religious people who have said that “faith” stands opposed to logical inference from the facts.

I don’t agree with them.

And I asked @adrian009 what any of them had to do with establishing that someone was a messenger of God. If you have any thoughts on the matter, feel free to share.

You have decided there is no God, have you not?

 

[Marcion]

from Christ (came) the Gospels

The christian gospels come from christians who concocted their own syncretic religion, it has little to nothing to do with the historical Yeshua.
The influence of those 'religious works' may have been great because this religion was accepted as leading by the Roman emperors but its basis in the tantric teachings of Yeshua was heavily obscured.

Islam was also influenced by Tantra. Perhaps the founder had invited all kinds of tantric teachers (dark rumours have it that he had them killed after extracting their wisdom).
The way that muslims do their prayers looks like an odd mix of very simplified physical yoga and guru puja (special mix of mudra and mantra to surrender one's everything to God) and they also know the same half bath system ('ablutions') as practised in tantra-yoga.

 

[loverofhumanity]

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.

What is important though is to have accurate information and facts available to people so they can make an informed decision based on facts and correct information.

 

[Jumi]

The Chinese word C'han is derived from Sanskrit Dhyana.
So Dhyana > C'han > Zen and Tantra > Ta'o > To.

Though you're right about dhyana. (I checked) I saw no evidence that tao comes from tantra.

Islam was also influenced by Tantra. Perhaps the founder had invited all kinds of tantric teachers (dark rumours have it that he had them killed after extracting their wisdom).

I'd place zero stock on these rumors.

 

[Marcion]

I'd place zero stock on these rumors.

Given the odd mixture of spiritual wisdom and much less enlightened ideas in the Quoran, it would not surprise me in the least.
The same thing happened in the New Testament where the christian gospel writers "stole" the spiritual wisdom instructions of Yeshua and "warped" them into their own teachings.

All this shows that the so-called religions are heavily endebted to more tantric or mystic traditions while at the same time claiming a special or religious status of their own proclaiming unique "holy messengers", "sons of God" or "apostles".
That is why I don't treat the very diverse traditions of Eastern origin as religions because they lack such claims.

 

[Dawnofhope]

The christian gospels come from christians who concocted their own syncretic religion, it has little to nothing to do with the historical Yeshua.
The influence of those 'religious works' may have been great because this religion was accepted as leading by the Roman emperors but its basis in the tantric teachings of Yeshua was heavily obscured.

Im starting to learn about the Christian heretic Marcion.

It’s helpful to make better sense of this thread you started recently.

The Tantric master Yeshua and the Christians

Islam was also influenced by Tantra. Perhaps the founder had invited all kinds of tantric teachers (dark rumours have it that he had them killed after extracting their wisdom).
The way that muslims do their prayers looks like an odd mix of very simplified physical yoga and guru puja (special mix of mudra and mantra to surrender one's everything to God) and they also know the same half bath system ('ablutions') as practised in tantra-yoga.

I imagine if you could find an analogous historic figure for Islam like Marcion was to Christianity you could formulate a theory based on history. One of the strengths of Islam over Christianity is the Quran was standardised by the Caliph Uthman not too long after Muhammad passed. Uthman was a contemporary of Muhammad so I’m sure if there was any major departure from what Muhammad taught Uthman would have twigged. Uthman lasted 10 years and was murdered. The next Caliph Ali is recognised as the first Imam by the Shi’a. Ali married Fatimih, Muhammad’s favourite daughter. So Ali also knew well what Muhammad taught and that the Quran reflected His Teachings.

OTOH the Christian canon wasn’t agreed upon until the fourth century. By that time there were all sorts of ‘gospels’ in circulation. Islam doesn’t have the same problem. So other than the way Muslims prostrate themselves during prayer there’s very little that’s tantric about the Quran.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Jesus stressed that as a follower of Jesus one should actively put his teachings into practice and not just know or admire them (or even Jesus as a person). This is the Tantric or the Dharmic approach that spirituality is practical rather than theoretical (faith or belief).

So what are the sacred texts of any in your practice that best reflects the ‘universal’ Dharmic or Tantric approach as you see it?

 

[danieldemol]

(dark rumours have it that he had them killed after extracting their wisdom).

Murder is a very serious charge and mere heresay cannot be acceptable as evidence for such a crime

 

[Dawnofhope]

Another great thread, this one really took off in a hurry.

Now for "proof". Christians tell me that the Bible is the "infallible" Word of God. So in it they can prove Jesus is God and the "only" way to get a person's sins forgiven. To turn away from this "truth" means a person will be cast into hell. By saying all those things and more, they negated, or disproved, Judaism... and all other religions. They can also use their infallible book of truth to disprove Islam and the Baha'i Faith too. So all messengers of God that aren't in the Bible are false.

But, isn't all circular reasoning? And isn't what the Baha'i do circular also. Baha'u'llah is latest messenger from God. What God says is the truth. What the Baha'i Faith says is the truth, because Baha'u'llah said so, and he speaks the truth from God. Therefore, whatever the other religions say is not the truth, unless it agrees with what the Baha'i Faith says.

We’re all entitled to our POV whether we have a religion or not. At some point in our lives we may question our beliefs or explore anothers religious belief. We may even consider joining a different faith. What I was hoping we could consider in this thread are some of the criteria we might use to consider which of the religions you mention if any are from God and why.

 

[Marcion]

Im starting to learn about the Christian heretic Marcion.

It’s helpful to make better sense of this thread you started recently.

The Tantric master Yeshua and the Christians

I imagine if you could find an analogous historic figure for Islam like Marcion was to Christianity you could formulate a theory based on history. One of the strengths of Islam over Christianity is the Quran was standardised by the Caliph Uthman not too long after Muhammad passed. Uthman was a contemporary of Muhammad so I’m sure if there was any major departure from what Muhammad taught Uthman would have twigged. Uthman lasted 10 years and was murdered. The next Caliph Ali is recognised as the first Imam by the Shi’a. Ali married Fatimih, Muhammad’s favourite daughter. So Ali also knew well what Muhammad taught and that the Quran reflected His Teachings.

OTOH the Christian canon wasn’t agreed upon until the fourth century. By that time there were all sorts of ‘gospels’ in circulation. Islam doesn’t have the same problem. So other than the way Muslims prostrate themselves during prayer there’s very little that’s tantric about the Quran.

Although the person in the video gets some things right about Marcion in his introduction such as how Marcion's theology was heavily distorted by the biased writings of the church fathers who "hated his guts", he makes one huge mistake.

Modern theologians have already concluded from carefully comparing a reconstructed original version of the Pauline epistles with the version in the Christian New Testament that it was not Marcion who had edited the letters to make them more suitable to his different vision of the Jewish God, but exactly the other way round. The Christian orthodoxy of Rome adopted and edited the gnostic Pauline epistles, which they found in Marcion's Bible that were based on a new type of theology that did not agree with their link between Jesus and the Jewish religion and edited them heavily and even added extra letters to suit their own orthodox theology honouring the Jewish vision of God instead of the more gnostic vision.

Plus they twisted the description of this mythical figure Paul in their 'Acts' which was written by the same author as the final editor of Luke (who edited the gLuke found in the Marcion Bible).

Most of the church fathers wrote long after Marcion lived. They still posessed his shorter Bible and quote extensively from what they describe as "Marcion's heavy editing" but if you read their arguments it becomes clear how they are lying and misinformed. They even write how they don't understand that Marcion did not edit out certain judaising parts of the text thinking or pretending that it was Marcion who had done the editing.

What they probably didn't even know was that their own much extended Bible did not yet exist when Marcion decided on defining his Bible with just original Luke (original name: Gospel of the Lord) and the original epistles of Paul.
Isn't it odd that Marcion never seems to have added anything but was always "reducing the text"?
Or had it rather been the orthodox church that simply added to and changed the text they found in Marcion's Bible?

You can read more about this in 'The Falsified Paul' by Hermann Detering (parts are free to read online).
http://www.egodeath.com/FalsifiedPaul/DeteringChapter1.pdf
http://www.egodeath.com/FalsifiedPaul/DeteringChapter2.pdf

So eventhough all the works and even the Bible of Marcion were destroyed by later christians, the text of his version of Luke (more original than the orthodox adulterated version) as well as the original epistles of "Paul" can/could for the most part still be reconstructed by reading the commentaries with quotes from the Marcion Bible written by the church fathers.

Now does this mean that with the more original version of the Pauline letters and Luke reconstructed we are any closer to the teachings of the historical Jesus? Well, in a way yes, but broadly speaking 'no way'. Both the original authors of the epistles and the Lukan gospel are far removed from knowing much about the historical Jesus and his teachings and are really creating different religions of their own (syncretically blended by the orthodox church of Rome later on and extended with even newer visions of other christian thinkers). But inside this original version of Luke as well as inside gMatthew Q-lite still lies hidden as a very valuable treasure.

Islam was even more rigorous in hiding the true origins of its scriptures.
But how does that make those scriptures more original or more "trustworthy"?

 

[Marcion]

Murder is a very serious charge and mere heresay cannot be acceptable as evidence for such a crime

Indeed, how dare one associate such nasty violence with such a peaceful religion?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have laid out a clear framework. If you have better criteria I’m all ears.

You really haven’t. You haven’t established how any of the criteria you gave relate back to God.

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.

Or take #1, “his character:” do you really mean that there’s some level of goodness where, if a person exhibits it, we have to conclude that they’re so good that God must have intervened in his life specially? If so, you’ve done nothing to even attempt to establish this.

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.

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.

The writings themselves are pretty unremarkable. IMO, the reason they’re so widespread now is that they were adopted by peoples who were willing to coerce others at swordpoint into joining their religion (and kill people who still refused).

We can see this in the relative size of the three religions you mentioned: it’s the two proselytizing religions (Christianity and Islam) that are massive and the non-proselytizing one (Judaism) that’s tiny in comparison.

There’s a strong case they were inspired by God. Have you studied any of these works?

Yes. More the Bible than the Qur’an, but yes.

... though they’re irrelevant to the discussion until you demonstrate that any of them actually came from God. If you say you have “a strong case they were inspired by God,” I welcome you to actually make that case.

I don’t agree with them.

Fair enough.

You have decided there is no God, have you not?

My position on God is like the one attributed to Laplace: “I have had no need for that hypothesis.”

And you have decided that there is a god, right? I hope this wasn’t because of the “proofs” you gave in the OP.

 

[loverofhumanity]

How do we decide?

There are for and against websites everywhere.

I think the need is to be thorough. Don’t just believe it or discount it because everybody else does. Use your own mind.

 

[Marcion]

How do we decide?

There are for and against websites everywhere.

I think the need is to be thorough. Don’t just believe it or discount it because everybody else does. Use your own mind.

Yes, find people who have done the most thorough or fundamental type of research and consider how thorough their research as well as how convincing their conclusions sound.

 

[loverofhumanity]

How do we decide?

There are for and against websites everywhere.

I think the need is to be thorough. Don’t just believe it or discount it because everybody else does. Use your own mind.

Thank you. I wonder if there’s an Aramaic version of the New Testament.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Okay. I'm awake.

I’m just about to head off to sleep. It’s been a long day and I just haven’t been able to respond to everyone as I would like.

Thank you for considering in detail my framework for assessing the Divine claims of a Religious founder. What I’ve been reminded of is how personal and unique each person’s journey is and how each and every one of us will have differing standards. Of course how we approach our investigations will vary dramatically, including amongst Baha’is.

Proof of any supernatural claims cannot , by definition, be proven material. Can you imagine if bahai etc are literally true how many of us will be all over testing for more proof, it would be on t.v. twenty four seven. Believe me, we would go wild if these were objective claims.

That does sound dramatic. Yet the ‘God of Abraham’ belief has established itself as the dominant belief throughout the planet within a very short period of history. Nearly 60% of the worlds population are either Christian or Muslim. So while it’s not on the news 24/7 it’s mentioned a great deal and we wouldn’t be having this conversation if that were not true.

His testimony is only and have meaning to its believers. How is this proof for those outside in that when we read the proof we think bahaullah and god? Sounds far fetched.

Remember that Muslims also believe in Christ and Moses. Consider that Islam is set to become the largest religion on the planet within 50 years.

Why Muslims are the world’s fastest-growing religious group

That’s about all I can manage for today. Sorry.

Thank you to everyone whose analysed my analysis including those who have found obvious weaknesses and shortcomings. I accept the criticism as valid. Thank you for taking the time to point that out.

There’s no definitive or absolute proofs. There’s a great deal that’s circumstantial that may assist weaving together a more coherent picture. There’s plenty of subjectivity too as we’re all on a journey.

 

[Vinayaka]

How about your own?

Lots of folks (and religions) just don't think in 'proof' terms. Do you have to prove Marmite exists before liking it or hating it? I'm not sure why anyone feels they need to prove any philosophical idea. Why can't they just enjoy it for what it is, remaining aloof from intellectual analysis?

 

[Audie]

Lots of folks (and religions) just don't think in 'proof' terms. Do you have to prove Marmite exists before liking it or hating it? I'm not sure why anyone feels they need to prove any philosophical idea. Why can't they just enjoy it for what it is, remaining aloof from intellectual analysis?

That is fine for some things.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Lots of folks (and religions) just don't think in 'proof' terms. Do you have to prove Marmite exists before liking it or hating it?

We certainly have to be satisfied that it exists before we'll seek it out to even try it. It's just that satisfying ourselves that Marmite exists is usually a trivial task.

One thing's for sure, though: if someone said to me "I can't say whether Marmite exists, but it's the best thing I've ever tasted!" I'd think - at the very least - that they hadn't thought things through.

I'm not sure why anyone feels they need to prove any philosophical idea. Why can't they just enjoy it for what it is, remaining aloof from intellectual analysis?

Because the intellectual analysis often underpins everything else. Take a religion that's revealed through scriptures and messengers: you have practices based on beliefs based on scriptures that come from messengers that received them from God. If any link in that chain is broken, it undermines the whole religion: if your messengers aren't "real" messengers, the religion fails. If your god doesn't exist, your religion fails. If the scriptures have been altered since the messenger wrote them down, the religion fails.

And it's worse than that, because the truth of each level depends on the certainty of each level below: someone who can't say for sure that God doesn't even exist is in no position to say that God has chosen a particular person to be their messenger. Someone who can't say for sure that a particular scripture is inspired by God is in no position to say that any practice advocated by that scripture is what God wants them to do.

My impression is that Dharmic religions can work a bit differently in this regard: correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that practices and beliefs are often "verified" by actually putting them into practice, with the assumption that if they work as advertized, this is a sign that they're correct, right?

 

[Muffled]

I don't believe all nine are necessary.

i believe RF sys you can't know anything. We may think we are pretty sure about something but that is not a guarantee.

I believe there are different kinds of proofs. There are accounts of witnesses, personal experience and scientific proof.