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

[Marcion]

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?

I could not really answer the poll.
The reason is that my Preceptor never used the words 'prophet' or 'messenger' or 'messiah' in any of his writings. He does mention the word 'saint' somewhere in relation to John and Paul from the New Testament but much more often he mentions 'rishi'.

Now 'great Teachers' (Gurus) already sounds very different and he gives a whole long list of qualities with which such a great Teacher can be identified or proven.
Only three personalities qualify in that way but that does not mean that all the other great teachers did not play their very important roles in human history in furthering Dharma.

The main difference seems to be that the really great Gurus were born already fully enlightened or realised and did not have any teacher (guru) of their own. I don't suppose such a thing would be seen as possible in the Islamic of Bahai faiths?

I find it confusing that there are so many types of titles, is a prophet the same thing as rishi and is a rishi the same thing as saint? And who invented the title 'messenger of God' or is that the same thing as a 'prophet'?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Thanks for sharing your perspectives Jim. As explained in the OP this thread came about as the result of a conversation with another participant of this forum, who happens to be a Baha'i. Trailblazer and I have completely different perspectives on this one as we do. That's fine as there's no rigid formulaic approach in the Baha'i writings when it comes to investigating a religion or worldview. OTOH the independent investigation of reality is a fundamental Baha'i principle outlined in the Baha'i writings many times.

I don't want this thread to be specifically about what Baha'is believe or think. Its much broader than that. Its about how we as individuals make important decisions in life with a particular emphasis on considering the claims of any religious founder. Obviously there is no one size fits all and it doesn't bother me in the slightest if others including Baha'is run a bus through the principles stated in the OP. What is important is we have a sensible approach, especially if we are considering leaving or joining a religion. Its too big a decision to leave to chance or make on a whim.

It doesn't really matter to me. 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.

OK. That is your experience. I'm learning to love, trust, and follow Baha'u'llah too. But it took me five years of searching and considering some tough questions before I could do that. Besides, I do periodically reassess if I have made the best decision. I would be deeply concerned if a friend or family member joined a religious movement where they hadn't thought it through and then found themselves in a controlling religion where they trusted someone they never should of. Worse, their freedom to speak or even think for themselves is severely restricted.

So what matters to you is for the proofs to be convincing to you, and not for them to be convincing to anyone else? Does that apply to other people's beliefs? When considering other people's beliefs, are you satisfied for their beliefs to be convincing to them, even if they aren't convincing to you?

I do care about people but I've been around long enough to know the diversity of beliefs when it comes to religion. 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. That could entail physical violence. Closer to home I've witnessed first hand friends and family members becoming Christian fundamentalists and shunning others who don't share their convictions.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I don't want this thread to be specifically about what Baha'is believe or think. Its much broader than that. Its about how we as individuals make important decisions in life with a particular emphasis on considering the claims of any religious founder.

It may be impossible to seperate an important individual decision from the motivating aspect of that decision.

I made many important decisions in life that were not motivated by Faith as I was oblivious of Faith. They were all based in wordly thought, mainly they are to satisfy ones own self.

It is not until we find a higher motivation, that we change more of those decisions away from self, to include a wider audience, to family, friends, community and beyond.

This is when one cannot seperate a decision from ones Faith, as Faith can become the motivation for all decisions. This then becomes ones life, all decisions are motivated by what a religious founder has said.

Regards Tony

 

[Dawnofhope]

It may be impossible to seperate an important individual decision from the motivating aspect of that decision.

I made many important decisions in life that were not motivated by Faith as I was oblivious of Faith. They were all based in wordly thought, mainly they are to satisfy ones own self.

It is not until we find a higher motivation, that we change more of those decisions away from self, to include a wider audience, to family, friends, community and beyond.

This is when one cannot seperate a decision from ones Faith, as Faith can become the motivation for all decisions. This then becomes ones life, all decisions are motivated by what a religious founder has said.

Regards Tony

Hi Tony,

I think we both became Baha'is in our early adult years, rather than being born into. Like you I have found living the Baha'i life enormously fulfilling and life changing. I rarely think about whether or not I'm a Baha'i these days as being a Baha'i has become a natural part of my thoughts and actions.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Hi Tony,

I think we both became Baha'is in our early adult years, rather than being born into. Like you I have found living the Baha'i life enormously fulfilling and life changing. I rarely think about whether or not I'm a Baha'i these days as being a Baha'i has become a natural part of my thoughts and actions.

Adrian, yes I was 26 and my wife 28 at the time.

I think this is one of the proofs of the Claims of a Messenger.

Do the teachings motivate great overall change and produce fruits if the spirit on a significant level of acceptance.

Another thing here is, that is also deceptive messages, or changes in an original message that can produce change, thus this is where we must use logical reason.

To me all Faith is given to produce a virtuous unified mindset, that was my mind before finding the Message of Baha'u'llah, thus I guess that is why the Oneness was so logical.

Regards Tony

 

[Dawnofhope]

You cannot "prove" anything with regard to God....that is why we need "faith". Faith does not require proof (Hebrews 11:1) ...it requires conviction. We all have to find our own, based on what we accept as truth.....why we accept it tells God a lot about who we are.

Christians cannot accept the teachings of anyone but Jesus Christ. We have no prophets after him. If their prophet is believed to be the returned Messiah, then where are the fulfilled Messianic promises? Where is the end of pain, suffering and death? (Revelation 21:2-4)
Where is the paradise that was foretold by the Jewish prophets like Isaiah? Where is the end of war? (Isaiah 11:1-9; Isaiah 65:21-25; Isaiah 2:2-4)

Or Psalm 46:8-9....
"Come and witness the activities of Jehovah,
How he has done astonishing things on the earth.
9 He is bringing an end to wars throughout the earth.
He breaks the bow and shatters the spear;
He burns the military wagons with fire."

Where do we see that? When have we seen a time when humans are not warring with one another? It seems to be consistently increasing. And the weaponry has just become more indiscriminate and lethal.

With regard to Bahá'u’lláh.....is the Messiah to return, only to die twice? His sacrificial death in the first century was the ransom paid to redeem mankind....he was not going to return in the flesh and then lead people in a different path, trying to unite all religions and give credence to false prophets. Jehovah kept his people strictly separated from the nations who worshipped other gods.

Christ's return as judge of all the earth was going to be spectacular, accompanied by his angelic forces, to deal with disobedient mankind who followed the devil into false worship....and to reward those who remained faithful to the truth (sheep and goats).....it was to be the end of the age....and the beginning of the "new earth" under the "new heavens".....God's Kingdom. (2 Peter 3:13)

If you see the criteria listed for a true prophet...."The true prophet would speak in Jehovah’s name; the things foretold would come to pass (Deuteronomy 18:20-22); and his prophesying must promote true worship, being in harmony with God’s revealed word and commandments (Deuteronomy 13:1-4)"

1) Bahá'u’lláh did not speak in the name of YHWH. (Yahweh, Jehovah)

2) If what he said did come to pass, then that is a matter of interpretation.

3) His prophesies did not harmonize with the revealed word of God.

Baha'i sprang from Islam, not Judaism. The nation that God chose descended from Isaac not Ishmael. Jesus himself said that salvation originates with the Jews.....it was not to end with them however.

I do not believe that you can ever harmonize all the false religion in the world and meld them into one universal plan for the human race...that to me is something that the devil would promote....not because universal harmony is itself a bad thing, but because of the compromise involved in facilitating such a movement. It might sound good in theory, but it fights with everything the Bible teaches and it means that no one has to take a stand for God amid false religious opposers. It would mean that God didn't really mean what he said when he forbade Israel to adopt the worship of the Canaanites. He commanded that they remain separated from those beliefs and practices...but Israel disobeyed their God and immersed themselves in those false religious practices. God punished them severely for doing that...so why would Jehovah send a prophet into the world to negate everything that he taught his people....going against the teachings of his own son?

You will notice something interesting with the first requirement of a prophet listed above.....the importance of Jehovah's name. In his model prayer, the first thing that Jesus mentioned was the sanctification of God's name. (Matthew 6:9) Out of the three "Abrahamic faiths still on earth to this day...what do you see with regard to God's divine name...YHWH (Jehovah in English)?

The Jews cannot utter it, so the use of the name is lost to history because no one really knows how to pronounce it now. So "Hasham" (literally meaning "the name") is as close as they can get to the divine name. "Adonai" (LORD) is the substitute when reading their scripture though YHWH is written there. It seems odd that the Bible writers had no such hesitation to use God's name freely and reverently throughout their writings.....so why was there a decision made to remove God's name from their speech? Their excuse for this is not valid when you consult their scripture.

Islam calls God "Allah" which again simply means "LORD".....so again God remains nameless.

Christendom adopted the Jewish tradition of leaving God's name out of their vocabulary as well, and its not found in most of their Bible translations either......and because Jesus is also called "Lord" they have confused him with his Father and made them into one god, throwing in the holy spirit for good measure. So it seems that a nameless "LORD" is worshipped by all three.

Jehovah's Witnesses sought to rectify that situation and to restore God's name to its rightful place in scripture. We use God's name freely and reverently in whatever language is spoken by us, because God is the originator of language and recognizes his name in any tongue. It isn't how you say it...its the identity of the true God who is distinguished in the scriptures by his unique name. To us there has to be a clear distinction between the true God and his prophets and the many false gods and their prophets. We have no trouble making that distinction because we see it as something God has done all through Bible history. There can be no amalgamation. (2 Corinthians 6:14-18)

This is how we see things...

Thank you for your thorough and well considered answers with extensive reference to the bible. It provides an appreciation of how different faith groups may use their sacred writings to support or discount a religious leader as being a true prophet of God or not.

Its useful to remember that sacred writings such as biblical texts have often been used as justification to discount a religious leader whereas in fact they may be.

It would be interesting for us to consider more closely to what extend Baha'u'llah does or doesn't meet the criteria for a prophet or Messiah. It could be quite a useful discussion for us both but I doubt either one of us would convince the other.

You are welcome to start a thread using the material shared here and I will respond in more depth. I don't want to derail my own thread by commenting further.

Thanks again.

 

[Dawnofhope]

You misinterpret my comments as something akin to hate mail. Oh well

I don't think so lol.

It is simply not possible to live two simultaneous lives. You can't be a Baha'i and not a Baha'i to compare it. Same with marriages and relationships. Perhaps one would have been happier married to someone else. We can never know. (Of course people are free to make claims to the contrary, but it's not logical, in my view.)

But my comment was more based on observational experience. I know a few people who did make that claim, after a major conversion. So I knew them as adolescents, or young adults, and than met them again, later after religion got into their lives. In two cases, absolutely, I preferred the old friend the one before religion. So although from their own perspective, (and indeed they claimed it, as you have) they were better people because of their new found faith. But from my perspective, they were better people before it ... less condescending, kinder, less critical of others, and generally far more fun to be around. So my comment was along those lines, and I'm sorry if I didn't explain it that well to you before. The same may well be true of me. In fact I know some folks who definitely preferred the old me. They didn't have to cater to any picky vegetarianism to be a good host.

Thanks for clarifying.

I've definitely changed...more Abrahamic so I suppose more condescending and less empathetic lol.

 

[Vinayaka]

I don't think so lol.



Thanks for clarifying.

I've definitely changed...more Abrahamic so I suppose more condescending and less empathetic lol.

If you had a trusted friend from your youth, you could go ask them. It's odd to me how others can see stuff we can't see in ourselves. Indeed, your manner of speech does come across as quite condescending to me. But my observational skills are lacking.

 

[Dawnofhope]

If you had a trusted friend from your youth, you could go ask them. It's odd to me how others can see stuff we can't see in ourselves. Indeed, your manner of speech does come across as quite condescending to me. But my observational skills are lacking.

Projective identification?

Projective identification - Wikipedia

 

[Jim]

What is important is we have a sensible approach, especially if we are considering leaving or joining a religion. Its too big a decision to leave to chance or make on a whim.

Closer to home I've witnessed first hand friends and family members becoming Christian fundamentalists and shunning others who don't share their convictions.

I'm confused now about what this thread is all about for you. You've said more than once that what matters to you is how people decide to leave or join a religion. Now you're talking about people people becoming what you call "Christian fundamentalists." Whatever you mean by "becoming Christian fundamentalists," the only way I see that it would have anything to do with the credentials or authenticity of a spiritual teacher is that they might have been influenced in their decision by some Christian evangelist.

You've said repeatedly that what matters to you is how people decide to leave or join a religion. Is that what you really want to discuss? The only example you've given is not about leaving or joining a religion. It's about joining a faction of Christianity, or identifying with one. Does that mean that what you're really talking about is how people decide to leave or join a religious faction or alliance, or identify with one?

I think that for many people, the decision to join a religious alliance, or identify with one, has nothing to do, at least consciously, with anyone's credentials or authenticity. Is the discussion you want to have, limited to credentials and authenticity, or is it a more general question about how people decide to leave or join a religious community or faction, or identify with one, whether or not it depends any decision about anyone's credentials or authenticity, which might rarely be the case. I think that more often it's the other way around. I think that more often, the desire to join a community or alliance, or identify with one, comes first, then a person's way of thinking changes to accommodate popular thinking in that community or alliance.

Originally my only reason for wanting to join the Baha'i Faith was to be able to contribute to the Baha'I Fund, because I liked what I thought Baha'is were doing. At that time I saw more harm than good in organized religion, but I liked what I thought the Baha'is were doing enough to make it worth the trouble for me to join the Baha'i community. One thing that kept me from joining is that I saw responsibilities in it that I didn't think I would fulfill very well. Another thing was that I didn't believe everything I saw Baha'u'llah saying about Manifestations of God, and Himself as one of them. Finally I joined, impulsively, after I saw for myself a glimpse of the reality of what He says about the oneness of the prophets. Many times since then I've reviewed my reasons for being a member, and for many years, my only reason has been because I think I can better serve Baha'u'llah's purposes that way.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Religion is always somewhat limiting, that is why you can best embrace Dharma so you are not stuck to a limiting religious or sectarian perspective. You don't need to be a Hindu, Buddhist, Jain or Sikh to follow Dharma, for Dharma you only need to have a human body (well at least on this planet).

So for you Dharma is like this unspoken universal law?

 

[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).

In the final analysis any faith comes down to how we live our lives, does it not? If faith has no practice then what is the point?

James 2:14-26

 

[Dawnofhope]

Doesn't seem like proof to me. Talented, good kids are many. Any prophet I've heard of has had personality flaws and seemed to me just like anyone else.


There are texts that have valid advice such as tao teh ching, yet they aren't revelations, but from men who've had mystical experience and observed life and deduced quite rightly some variables of the human condition.


I would go with my national epic on this, since nothing gets as eloquent and inspiring as that. Point being, it's a matter of personal preference.


Lots of people dedicate themselves to religions and causes with or without God. Many died for communism after reading the "revelations" of it's "prophets."


Persecution is quite normal. Pagans were persecuted by clergy that replaced their old ways which they honestly kept, wouldn't that make them prophets too?


I'd say they were 6,7 and 8.

I've heard of the ones of the major religions present in western countries as well as some smaller ones. I was taught many of the Christian ones in school and how supposedly the Jews didn't understand their prophecies so they missed Jesus. Many of the ones I heard of, required intense mental gymnastics to get to or a suspension of disbelief. Non-verifiable and after the fact reinterpretations seem to be the rule in my observation.

Thank you for your considered response. I've had several posters who have similarly concluded the framework I might use, would not work for them at all and they see it as being flawed. I have had others who would see no merit in any principles when assessing the claims of a religious leader. Others have told me there is no God, so its all in vain. I accept that.

I am curious. You once taught Christianity in schools including prophecy. You clearly don't feel the same way anymore. Personal question that you should only answer if you're comfortable, but what changed?

 

[CG Didymus]

The Chinese word C'han is derived from Sanskrit Dhyana.
So Dhyana > C'han > Zen and Tantra > Ta'o > To.
Tantra is many thousands of years old and so is the Tao or Chinese Tantra, so some adjustment to the teachings is only natural. But there is no fundamental difference.
Such differences can also be found between Hindu and Buddhist forms of Tantra.
The Tantra in the teaching of Jesus also has its own flavour.

Lord Shiva was the big reformer of Tantra who lived just over 7000 years ago (when Tantra had already been present for thousands of years).
It's a bit sad that Baha'u'llah did not realise that Lord Shiva was such an important historical personality.
Of course by the time of the Shaeva Puranic religion Shiva had since long been turned into a largely mythical part of their spiritual philosophy, so Baha'u'llah must have concluded that He was a purely mythical god.

Baha'is have something about the Adamic cycle having just ended with the coming of the Baha'i Era. I don't see how any religion from India fits into that cycle. I don't remember when they said it started, but the Bible puts Adam at about the same time you're saying Lord Shiva lived. But I've never heard any mention of Shiva in the Baha'i Faith.

 

[Dawnofhope]

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?

I don't have a problem with that. Its when a religion causes harm the closer scrutiny is called for.

 

[Deeje]

Thank you for your thorough and well considered answers with extensive reference to the bible. It provides an appreciation of how different faith groups may use their sacred writings to support or discount a religious leader as being a true prophet of God or not.

What makes identifying a true prophet from a false prophet difficult, is trying to meld the words and actions of various prophets from different religious faiths in different time periods with a God who does not change. The messages of these prophets do not meet the criteria laid down in the Bible for us to identify them as true prophets. Nor does their message align with what is written in the word of God concerning the Messiah.

Its useful to remember that sacred writings such as biblical texts have often been used as justification to discount a religious leader whereas in fact they may be.

The most famous of these is of course Jesus Christ. The Jews still use their interpretation of scripture to discredit him as the Messiah....yet he spoke in Jehovah's name....many prophesies were fulfilled in his life and by his words and actions. And everything he spoke was in harmony with the revealed will of God as recorded in their scriptures. These were the only scriptures he referenced......Jehovah was the only God he served.

Since Jesus said that salvation originates with the Jews, (not with Muslims and that God's people were to descend from Isaac, not Ishmael) I am surprised that anyone would accept the writings of someone from a breakaway group from Islam as being truth from God.

Do Baha'i's worship Allah as Muslims do? Does your god have a name?

There was only one Messiah and his return was not going to be in the flesh. That Baha'u'llah claimed to be the returned Christ goes against all revealed scripture concerning the Messiah's return. To me the Bible is the only work authored by the true God. He does not give mixed messages through different prophets representing other gods or other scripture .Ignoring all that is a hurdle I simply cannot jump over.

So, that leaves me with only one conclusion...that regardless of his winsome words, Baha'u'llah does not have the credentials of a true prophet of Jehovah.

Jesus said...."Look out that nobody misleads you; for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will mislead many.” (Matthew 24:5)
You can't mislead people unless you have convinced them. You can't convince someone who is already convinced of something else. The discussions on these boards are proof of that. But I guess the unconvinced are still searching....and we can give them something to think about.

It would be interesting for us to consider more closely to what extend Baha'u'llah does or doesn't meet the criteria for a prophet or Messiah. It could be quite a useful discussion for us both but I doubt either one of us would convince the other.

You are welcome to start a thread using the material shared here and I will respond in more depth. I don't want to derail my own thread by commenting further.

I will leave that to you. If you wish to pursue the subject I will contribute. You know my views already.

Thanks for your reply Adrian.

 

[CG Didymus]

I don't think that's necessary at all. I don't think that any of the good that religious lore and scriptures can do depends on believing that any of it ever really happened. It could all be pure fiction and still have all the same possibilities. In fact, I think that debating about how much of it really happened actually gets in the way of the good it can do.

Like with the story of Jesus in the Gospels, the story is presented as if it really happened and most Christians believe it as actual historical events. If they are fictional events and stories, then why follow the teachings?

 

[CG Didymus]

This is one of the things I've seen people complaining about in forums all over the Internet. Often in Internet discussions it looks like what Baha'is mean by saying that they believe in the divine origin of other religions, is that they accept the parts of them that they can interpret in a way that agrees with their own personal beliefs.

Since you are learning about following the Baha'i Faith, how are you dealing with that problem?

 

[Dawnofhope]

I don't think that the fact that it's founded on the teachings of Baha'u'llah is any proof in itself that it isn't syncretic or a mish mash.

I did elaborate further and the points made though succinct are a starting point.

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

Religious syncretism - Wikipedia

Its a complex subject of course. A more comprehensive exploration of how the Baha'i Faith is a religion may be covered in a more scholarly manner for someone who's really interested in this level of detail. I doubt if Osgart is. If not he's free to ask.

The Bahá'í Faith

If you've any further thoughts to share, please do.

 

[Jim]

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?

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

I have some more thoughts about this discussion, after thinking about it some more.

1. You've said repeatedly that what really matters is how people choose to leave or join a religion, and from your example of people becoming "Christian fundamentalists," it looks to me like that includes choosing to leave or join a religious faction.

2. Your list of proofs looks to me like a list of Baha'i beliefs about Manifestations of God, and it uses Baha'i terminology, which makes it inevitable that it will lead to a discussion about the Baha'i Faith.

3. Discussing proofs of the credentials and authenticity of religious leaders, in a context of people leaving or joining a religious faction or community, looks to me like an invitation for people to parade the superiority of their religions or ways of thinking over all others. The ones who make exclusive claims for some religious leader will be discussing whatever proofs they think work best for that purpose, and those who don't will be trumpeting that as proof of the wider inclusiveness of their ways of thinking.

4. Originally I joined my religion impulsively, after seeing a resolution to a theological issue that was holding me back. My reason for wanting to join in the first place was because I liked what I thought Baha'is were doing. My only reason for many years now has been because I think I can better serve Baha'u'llah's purposes that way.

5. The reason I'm trying to follow Baha'u'llah is because I keep wanting to. I've learned from experience to love and trust Him and what He's promoting, but I think there's more to it than that. I think that maybe He has seized and possessed my heart, which is what He says is His mission. It has nothing to do with thinking that I can prove anything about Him. There was a time when proofs meant something to me, but even then, I don't think that the proofs were part of what motivated me. Finding proofs might have been more about finding ways around my objections to some claims that I thought Baha'u'llah was making, and later, to defend myself against other people's objections.

6. The way I would like people to choose a religious community would be to consider where they think they can do the most good, for the benefit of all people everywhere, regardless of ideology. Of course in joining they would need to be honest about their beliefs, which might exclude them from some communities, but not by their own choice.

7. The way I would like people to choose people to follow would be from their own experience and observation of what happens from following them.