How can you tell if a Prophet is true?

[loverofhumanity]

The main proof is miracles. This is why a lot of the Quran is about how in the past miracles are proof and the philosophy of why they are a proof.

But miracles are only proof for those living in their time. Centuries later none of us can see these miracles. So upon what then do we base our belief?

 

[loverofhumanity]

I don't really use the concept of "prophet", mainly because it only has a real place in conceptions of religious practice that I don't validate.

But taking for granted that prophets can both exist and be worth the attention, they would be fairly easy to validate, and the way to validate them would be by careful examination of what they actually teach and the consequences of applying those teachings.

Of particular value would be the examination of how they deal with mistakes of transmission of their doctrines and how willing they are to reconsider previous teachings and course-correct.

The term Educator is also valid because people like Buddha taught others how to become enlightened.

 

[LuisDantas]

The term Educator is also valid because people like Buddha taught others how to become enlightened.

But that is significantly different from what is usually called a Prophet, don't you think?

Yes, I am all too aware that the Bahai Faith does not like to lampshade that.

 

[Sumadji]

After the Prophet has left the earth all you have is words and books. No one alive today was present when Jesus walked the earth so they have nothing to rely on except His reported Words. The same with all the Manifestations. All we have is a record of their lives and teachings.

Yes, but that misses the point: if you're going to have Jesus as a yardstick, how else will you know about him except by what is written about him, mostly in the New Testament, but also in the Quran where he is also written of as a miracle worker?

Nobody is saying anyone has to believe those accounts, however it is the Baha'i who keep bringing Jesus into these discussions. If Baha'u'llah was the returned Christ in the station of the Father wouldn't his works be self evident without always referring back to Jesus Christ the Son as the example?

 

[loverofhumanity]

But that is significantly different from what is usually called a Prophet, don't you think?

Yes, I am all too aware that the Bahai Faith does not like to lampshade that.

In our writings they are called by many names. Manifestations is one, Educators is common and also Suns of Truth and many other terms relevant to the function they fulfil.

 

[LuisDantas]

In our writings they are called by many names. Manifestations is one, Educators is common and also Suns of Truth and many other terms relevant to the function they fulfil.

Probably true, but besides the point. You may or may not have noticed that by replying to you I am inviting you to think and react beyond what is strictly and explicitly supported by your (Bahais') writings.

Your writings come from Abrahamic expectations. I am not interested in validating Abrahamic expectations just because they are there wanting to be validated.

Dharma teachers are not all that similar to Abrahamic-styled Prophets, nor should they be, nor should be confused or mistaken for those Prophets.

And there are other forms of religious transmitters and teachers beyond those two categories.

Or maybe this thread is only meant for those who accept the validity of Prophets in the first place? If so, then my apologies.

 

[Link]

But miracles are only proof for those living in their time. Centuries later none of us can see these miracles. So upon what then do we base our belief?

You were asking for original disciples and followers. But there is two ways to answer your question. After the Prophet, the Imams who are successors continue miracles. The only complication occurs now that the last successor is hidden. But per Quran, the guidance is the same, we just have to ask God to show us miracles/signs by the guide of our time. God will guide who turns to him often.

But in a way, you are right. There is no longer public miracles. But from what I understand, Quran is a miracle just not the physical type.

 

[soulsurvivor]

When Jesus walked upon the earth He was surrounded by disciples who were fishermen mostly and couldn’t read or write. So how did they know He was the Lord?

Same with most religions. The followers weren’t really educated but they seemed to be able to recognise the truth.

How is this so and why were the priests and educated class unable to recognise the Prophet?

What criteria, not using any scripture would determine whether a prophet is true or not?

This is a thread mainly for religionists to share, explain and explore how the first disciples of their religion came to know the truth without having knowledge of scriptures or even no basic human learning. It is said the disciples of Jesus couldn’t count to 10.

If you have been near a real 'Prophet', you actually feel the energy coming out of him and going into you. There is no mistaking this feeling/experience (Insensitive people who are steeped in materialism will feel nothing.) In his absence this conscious feeling is gone. Recognizing such a person is actually very easy.

 

[firedragon]

When Jesus walked upon the earth He was surrounded by disciples who were fishermen mostly and couldn’t read or write.

How do you know that for sure?

 

[firedragon]

But taking for granted that prophets can both exist and be worth the attention, they would be fairly easy to validate, and the way to validate them would be by careful examination of what they actually teach and the consequences of applying those teachings.

So you are a Consequentialist. How do you assess the consequences in your Consequentialism? What's your epistemology in your worldview?

 

[Vinayaka]

If you have been near a real 'Prophet', you actually feel the energy coming out of him and going into you. There is no mistaking this feeling/experience (Insensitive people who are steeped in materialism will feel nothing.) In his absence this conscious feeling is gone. Recognizing such a person is actually very easy.

Important point that will go right past many.

 

[Trailblazer]

What criteria, not using any scripture would determine whether a prophet is true or not?

It just so happens I made a list of criteria some time ago.

Please bear in mind that the following criteria are my personal criteria which is based upon who I believe were Prophets/Messengers of God, who met all these criteria. My criteria narrow the playing field and it will eliminate most claimants, since they will fail to meet all the criteria.

The minimum criteria would be:

1. He had good character as exemplified by his qualities such as love, mercy, kindness, truth, justice, benevolence, gracious, merciful, righteous, forgiving, patient.
2. He believed he had been given a mission by God and did everything he could to see that it was carried out. He was completely successful before his death, and he accomplished everything that He set out to do.
3. He wrote much about God and God's purpose for humans both individually and collectively, or scriptures were written by others who spoke for him. He firmly believed that the work he was doing was for the Cause of God.
4. He had many followers while he was alive, and there are still millions who follow his teachings and gather in groups based on the religion he founded.
5. His followers have grown more numerous in recent times.

This is a starting point but there are other questions we would want to ask ourselves before we would be able to believe that a man was a true Prophet of God because that is a bold claim so there should be a lot of evidence to support such a claim.

 

[LuisDantas]

So you are a Consequentialist.

Yes.

How do you assess the consequences in your Consequentialism? What's your epistemology in your worldview?

This is a very good question! Thanks for presenting it.

Mainly, I have to nurture a sincere desire to understand the consequences of actions and omissions to the widest range and most detailed understanding that I can.

I have concluded a few years ago that morality is an emergent property that arises from the meeting of rationality with empathy.

It is therefore limited by one's reason and ability to understand and empathise with others, resulting in having as one of its very earliest directives is that it must strive to question and improve on its own understanding.

In a nutshell, my (moral) epistemology is, by necessity, perenially provisional and keeps expanding and becoming more nuanced, complex and ambitious to the best of my abilities.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Probably true, but besides the point. You may or may not have noticed that by replying to you I am inviting you to think and react beyond what is strictly and explicitly supported by your (Bahais') writings.

Your writings come from Abrahamic expectations. I am not interested in validating Abrahamic expectations just because they are there wanting to be validated.

Dharma teachers are not all that similar to Abrahamic-styled Prophets, nor should they be, nor should be confused or mistaken for those Prophets.

And there are other forms of religious transmitters and teachers beyond those two categories.

Or maybe this thread is only meant for those who accept the validity of Prophets in the first place? If so, then my apologies.

The thread was to try and explore why people accept the great teachers or prophets before they have even revealed their teachings. So for example, at the beginning of the Buddha His scriptures did not fully exist nor did the Gospels with Christ yet people today having access to works like the Dhammapada, the Bible and Quran accept these Figures but in the early days what was it that attracted them?

What the followers saw then and what they see now with access to the teachings constitute beliefs on a different basis or foundation. Was it the actual Person that was what attracted the followers? Christians claim Christ is special because He performed miracles yet today they never saw any of them so current belief can only be on reported events not first hand experiences.

People erect pagodas, churches, mosques in the name of their Teacher yet they have never personally met that person so what is it that makes Them different from the rest of humanity as you and I who is going to remember us thousands of years after we are gone?

Who are These Educators, where do they really come from and I suspect that although in a human body they are far from normal humans?

Its not a thread about Baha’i but about what motivates us to accept these Educators or Prophets depending on the belief. Why did early believers believe when they basically had no scriptures at the time?

 

[LuisDantas]

The thread was to try and explore why people accept the great teachers or prophets before they have even revealed their teachings. So for example, at the beginning of the Buddha His scriptures did not fully exist nor did the Gospels with Christ yet people today having access to works like the Dhammapada, the Bible and Quran accept these Figures but in the early days what was it that attracted them?

What the followers saw then and what they see now with access to the teachings constitute beliefs on a different basis or foundation. Was it the actual Person that was what attracted the followers? Christians claim Christ is special because He performed miracles yet today they never saw any of them so current belief can only be on reported events not first hand experiences.

People erect pagodas, churches, mosques in the name of their Teacher yet they have never personally met that person so what is it that makes Them different from the rest of humanity as you and I who is going to remember us thousands of years after we are gone?

Who are These Educators, where do they really come from and I suspect that although in a human body they are far from normal humans?

Its not a thread about Baha’i but about what motivates us to accept these Educators or Prophets depending on the belief. Why did early believers believe when they basically had no scriptures at the time?

You assign way too much weight to written texts, @loverofhumanity

 

[ppp]

The thread was to try and explore why people accept the great teachers or prophets before they have even revealed their teachings. So for example, at the beginning of the Buddha His scriptures did not fully exist nor did the Gospels with Christ yet people today having access to works like the Dhammapada, the Bible and Quran accept these Figures but in the early days what was it that attracted them?

What the followers saw then and what they see now with access to the teachings constitute beliefs on a different basis or foundation. Was it the actual Person that was what attracted the followers? Christians claim Christ is special because He performed miracles yet today they never saw any of them so current belief can only be on reported events not first hand experiences.

People erect pagodas, churches, mosques in the name of their Teacher yet they have never personally met that person so what is it that makes Them different from the rest of humanity as you and I who is going to remember us thousands of years after we are gone?

Who are These Educators, where do they really come from and I suspect that although in a human body they are far from normal humans?

Its not a thread about Baha’i but about what motivates us to accept these Educators or Prophets depending on the belief. Why did early believers believe when they basically had no scriptures at the time?

All of the stuff that you laid is don by normal humans

 

[loverofhumanity]

You assign way too much weight to written texts, @loverofhumanity

The matter I’m exploring is why the early believers accepted these Educators without the texts. Today it’s only the texts but in the early days what was it that attracted them?

 

[an anarchist]

Today it’s only the texts but in the early days what was it that attracted them?

I think myself and others have already pointed out to you in this thread that the prophets supposedly did miracles.

 

[LuisDantas]

The matter I’m exploring is why the early believers accepted these Educators without the texts. Today it’s only the texts but in the early days what was it that attracted them?

Do you think it is the texts even now?

I don't think that is how it works, or how it ever worked.

 

[Spice]

The matter I’m exploring is why the early believers accepted these Educators without the texts. Today it’s only the texts but in the early days what was it that attracted them?

It's NOT only the texts now, nor has it ever been.

In James Michener's novel, The Source, the very first "god" was depicted to have come from a family being spared by a rushing river flood. Humankind "feels" the unknown power and humbly is in awe. Any man that comes along and talks and lives in a way to enhance this innate awareness and stirs the wonder will be listened to. But we can enhance that awareness and stir the wonder without words, written or spoken. That is the power of the Spirit.