Infallibility

[Dawnofhope]

And you are insisting that it is symbolic despite clear evidence that it’s meant as a literal documentation. Most of the OT is simply a chronicle of the doings and trials of the Israelites. It’s not symbolic at all— it’s meant to be a history of God’s people.

Your miracle explanation is pretty convoluted. God doesn’t want people to rely on miracles but puts things in his Book that seem like miracles just to confuse people who decide to read it literally?

Also, its a little funny that you insist the sun standing still bit must be symbolic but you apparently think the whole “day is as a year” thing is actually literal.

The day for a year principle is well established amongst many Christian traditions.

Day-year principle - Wikipedia

While its true that much of the OT documents the history of Hebrew people, the prophets often used symbolic or allegorical language.

 

[Falvlun]

The day for a year principle is well established amongst many Christian traditions.

Day-year principle - Wikipedia

It’s well-established that various Christian groups take this literally, sure.

But it’s still funny that this is the thing you take literally, as opposed to a literal account of a battle, when the symbolism for day-year is such low-hanging fruit.

While its true that much of the OT documents the history of Hebrew people, the prophets often used symbolic or allegorical language.

You don’t have to take my word for it. Read the context yourself:

Joshua 10:1-15
1 It wasn't long before My-Master-Zedek king of Jerusalem heard that Joshua had taken Ai and destroyed it and its king under a holy curse, just as he had done to Jericho and its king. He also learned that the people of Gibeon had come to terms with Israel and were living as neighbors.
2 He and his people were alarmed: Gibeon was a big city - as big as any with a king and bigger than Ai - and all its men were seasoned fighters.
3 Adoni-Zedek king of Jerusalem sent word to Hoham king of Hebron, Piram king of Jarmuth, Japhia king of Lachish, and Debir king of Eglon:
4 "Come and help me. Let's attack Gibeon; they've joined up with Joshua and the People of Israel."
5 So the five Amorite (Western) kings - the king of Jerusalem, the king of Hebron, the king of Jarmuth, the king of Lachish, and the king of Eglon - combined their armies and set out to attack Gibeon.
6 The men of Gibeon sent word to Joshua camped at Gilgal, "Don't let us down now! Come up here quickly! Save us! Help us! All the Amorite kings who live up in the hills have ganged up on us."
7 So Joshua set out from Gilgal, his whole army with him - all those tough soldiers!
8 God told him, "Don't give them a second thought. I've put them under your thumb - not one of them will stand up to you."
9 Joshua marched all night from Gilgal and took them by total surprise.
10 God threw them into total confusion before Israel, a major victory at Gibeon. Israel chased them along the ridge to Beth Horon and fought them all the way down to Azekah and Makkedah.
11 As they ran from the People of Israel, down from the Beth Horon ridge and all the way to Azekah, God pitched huge stones on them out of the sky and many died. More died from the hailstones than the People of Israel killed with the sword.
12The day God gave the Amorites up to Israel, Joshua spoke to God, with all Israel listening: "Stop, Sun, over Gibeon; Halt, Moon, over Aijalon Valley."
13 And Sun stopped, Moon stood stock still Until he defeated his enemies.
14 There's never been a day like that before or since - God took orders from a human voice! Truly, God fought for Israel.
15 Then Joshua returned, all Israel with him, to the camp at Gilgal.

This is clearly meant to be taken literally. It even goes so far to say how amazing it was that God listened to Joshua.

Edit: sorry for the funky version. Was having trouble finding a place I could copy from without the formatting getting messed up. Here’s a link to my usual bible version: Redirect Notice

 

[Windwalker]

I had a look at the link. Can you quote which part says, the Prophets imagined a flat earth?

I will after you answer my question you skipped over in that post:

"So what do you say if science reveals the truth of something that demonstrates the prophet was wrong? Is science wrong, or the prophet? Or will you say one day they will find out they were wrong and the prophet was right all along, as you had believed?"

 

[Dawnofhope]

12The day God gave the Amorites up to Israel, Joshua spoke to God, with all Israel listening: "Stop, Sun, over Gibeon; Halt, Moon, over Aijalon Valley."
13 And Sun stopped, Moon stood stock still Until he defeated his enemies.
14 There's never been a day like that before or since - God took orders from a human voice! Truly, God fought for Israel.

Often OT stories are embellished narratives, so part history, part myth.

The verses above are likely mythical, allegorised embellishments rather than literal history....unless you want to believe the sun and moon literally stood still.

 

[siti]

Often OT stories are embellished narratives, so part history, part myth.

The verses above are likely mythical, allegorised embellishments rather than literal history....unless you want to believe the sun and moon literally stood still.

Indeed - like the one about Adam and Eve and the talking snake - and Moses and the burning bush that didn't burn...and yet you take these characters as literally existing "Manifestations"? So how do you know which is embellished mythological narrative and which is gnostic mystical symbolism? And how can any of the so-called "Manifestations" be "infallible" when they each seemed to believe in the literal "truth" of some things that later manifestations declared to be symbolic? One example I can think of (that I have been discussing in the Muhammad thread) is the "miracle" of Jesus talking from his cradle. Hardly any mainstream Christian would believe that this really happened. Almost all mainstream Muslims would believe it because it is presented as narrative in the Qur'an. What's the Baha'i take on that? And how come Muhammad was mistaken - if he was?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

And you are insisting that it is symbolic despite clear evidence that it’s meant as a literal documentation. Most of the OT is simply a chronicle of the doings and trials of the Israelites. It’s not symbolic at all— it’s meant to be a history of God’s people.

Your miracle explanation is pretty convoluted. God doesn’t want people to rely on miracles but puts things in his Book that seem like miracles just to confuse people who decide to read it literally?

Also, its a little funny that you insist the sun standing still bit must be symbolic but you apparently think the whole “day is as a year” thing is actually literal.

The difference is, when you say it is literal, you have no evidence that these verses are certainly literal. Your reasoning simply is, because you see it literal and cannot possibly believe that God tests people by these verses. But when I say it is symbolic, I have many evidence from the Bible. For instence Daniel says, the Book of God is sealed, and in chapter of Revelation it is written the Book is sealed with seven seals, and only Christ can unseal it, meaning there are secretes in the Book, which are not understood by ordinary people, and only Christ can unseal the Book and reveal its true interpretation. Likewise there are many other places, which shows there is a hidden meaning in symbols. For example in the dreams, such as the seven slim cows is seven years of poverty, but only a Prophet could reveal its meaning. There are many evidences like these, but I am not interested to make it too long and tiring.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I will after you answer my question you skipped over in that post:

"So what do you say if science reveals the truth of something that demonstrates the prophet was wrong? Is science wrong, or the prophet? Or will you say one day they will find out they were wrong and the prophet was right all along, as you had believed?"

Hello,
There are 5 views when it comes to scriptures :

1. Those who believe in literal interpretations of Scriptures, and when it contradicts the current science, they say, the science is false. For example young earth believers.
2. Those who believe in literal interpretations, but they see those verses representing miracles. For example, resurrection of dead people in bible.
3. Those who believe in literal interpretation, and when it contradicts science, they see it as an evidence for disproving religion and prophets.
4. Those who believe the scriptures contain both literal as well as symbolic, but the symbolic verses are fairly simple to recognize. Most Christians have this view. Miracles of prophets are seen as literal for them.
5. Those who believe the Book of God contain literal as well as Figurative verses. In this view there is a hidden meaning in Figurative verses, which is not possible to be known by ordinary people. Only a Prophet can reveal its true meaning. They are the secretes of God, which are not be revealed until it's appointed time according to the wisdom of God. In this view The miracles of prophets have a figurative meaning rather than literal facts. For example resurrection of dead, is not literal fact, but when God guides an unbeliever, a spiritually dead person, is resurrected spiritually.

Now going back to your question, my view is the category 5. If you see a verse which contradicts science, it means you are misinterpreting it. Such verses have a figurative meaning, which intentionally is made to appear literal, as to keep its hidden, and secret meaning, and ordinary people would be unable to recognize its figurative meaning. But your view is category 3.

 

[siti]

The difference is, when you say it is literal, you have no evidence that these verses are certainly literal.

The evidence is in the text - as your examples of Daniel and Revelation show. There is also an indication that the sun and moon standing still in the account in Joshua may not have been meant as a either a literal narrative or as a religiously symbolic passage but probably more of a poetic retelling of an account already recorded in the "Book of Jasher" - of course we have no idea what this book was or what it contained exactly, but given that the "Song of the Bow" - David's lament over the death of Jonathan (from which we get the familiar English idiom "how the mighty have fallen" - is also attributed to the "Book of Jasher" - perhaps it was a poetry book. And in that case, perhaps the passage in Joshua 10:12-13 was simply referring to a poem about Joshua's exploits and not a literal retelling. But in that case, it has no specific symbolic meaning either. Its just literature.

 

[Falvlun]

Often OT stories are embellished narratives, so part history, part myth.

The verses above are likely mythical, allegorised embellishments rather than literal history....unless you want to believe the sun and moon literally stood still.

If they are mythical embellishments, then they are lies. God allowed falsehoods in his scriptures.

As for allegory, there is no indication that these accounts are meant to be allegorical. This isn’t some parable or analogy— of which there are plenty in the Bible with which to compare.

Taking a passage at face value— believing that the intention is to literally recount a battle— does not mean I must accept it is true.

The difference is, when you say it is literal, you have no evidence that these verses are certainly literal. Your reasoning simply is, because you see it literal and cannot possibly believe that God tests people by these verses. But when I say it is symbolic, I have many evidence from the Bible. For instence Daniel says, the Book of God is sealed, and it chapter of Revelation it is written the Book is sealed with seven seals, and only Christ can unseal it, meaning there are secretes in the Book, which are not understood by ordinary people, and only Christ can unseal the Book and reveal its true interpretation. Likewise there are many other places, which shows there is a hidden meaning in symbols. For example in the dreams, such as the seven slim cows is seven years of poverty, but only a Prophet could reveal its meaning. There are many evidences like these, but I am not interested to make it too long and tiring.

You have no evidence that it’s symbolic. You have given some examples of symbology in the Bible. Do you think that there are no examples of literal passages in the Bible as well? Of course there is. Context is what distinguishes them, and the context of this is to recount the literal trials and development of the Israeli people.

Your dream example doesn’t work. Of course dreams are meant to be symbolical. This is not presented as a dream or a story being told to illustrate some concept.

As for god being all sneaky and hiding things in the Bible for Jesus to reveal, well that’s a) useless and b) convenient.

I thought the whole point of Messengers for the Baha’i was that they were to communicate God’s message. If they can’t do it clearly, then they are useless. Why even bother?

And it certainly is convenient to simply handwave away any inconvenient massage as “allegorical” or to claim that it is one of those things Jesus is keeping secret.

Not very convincing, guys.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Indeed - like the one about Adam and Eve and the talking snake - and Moses and the burning bush that didn't burn...and yet you take these characters as literally existing "Manifestations"? So how do you know which is embellished mythological narrative and which is gnostic mystical symbolism? And how can any of the so-called "Manifestations" be "infallible" when they each seemed to believe in the literal "truth" of some things that later manifestations declared to be symbolic? One example I can think of (that I have been discussing in the Muhammad thread) is the "miracle" of Jesus talking from his cradle. Hardly any mainstream Christian would believe that this really happened. Almost all mainstream Muslims would believe it because it is presented as narrative in the Qur'an. What's the Baha'i take on that? And how come Muhammad was mistaken - if he was?

Abdu'l-Baha is clear the story of Adam and Eve is full of symbolism with different meanings.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 122-126

The burning bush narrative is Moses experience with the Holy spirit, similar to Jesus with the Dove, Muhammad with the Angel Gabriel, and Baha'u'llah's maid of heaven experience in the Siyal Chal.

Holy Spirit - Wikipedia

The language no doubt has symbolism too.

We have no commentary on the account of baby Jesus in the surah of Maryam. Baha'is are under no obligation to interpret it literally as the Muslims have.

Often we don't know for certain what is literal and what is allegorical. Sometimes its clear as with the account of the sun standing still.

We could have a Manifestation of God such as Christ referring to the story of Noah and the flood. That doesn't mean its literal though.

As we become more acquainted with sacred scriptures from different religions and not just one religion it becomes easier to discern what is literal and what isn't.

Baha'is differ from atheists of course in that we believe in God and that miracles can happen. However just because God can do miracles doesn't mean to say He has performed a miracle. Just because an account in sacred scripture suggests a miracle, doesn't mean we should take it at face value.

Hope that helps.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

The evidence is in the text - as your examples of Daniel and Revelation show. There is also an indication that the sun and moon standing still in the account in Joshua may not have been meant as a either a literal narrative or as a religiously symbolic passage but probably more of a poetic retelling of an account already recorded in the "Book of Jasher" - of course we have no idea what this book was or what it contained exactly, but given that the "Song of the Bow" - David's lament over the death of Jonathan (from which we get the familiar English idiom "how the mighty have fallen" - is also attributed to the "Book of Jasher" - perhaps it was a poetry book. And in that case, perhaps the passage in Joshua 10:12-13 was simply referring to a poem about Joshua's exploits and not a literal retelling. But in that case, it has no specific symbolic meaning either. Its just literature.

By the way, have you ever had a dream which somehow was fulfilled? For example when one of my close relatives accidentally died, one night before his death, my sister saw a dream in which one of her teeth fell in the dream. I had heard from many other people same story, that such dream can appear before death.

 

[Dawnofhope]

If they are mythical embellishments, then they are lies. God allowed falsehoods in his scriptures.

As for allegory, there is no indication that these accounts are meant to be allegorical. This isn’t some parable or analogy— of which there are plenty in the Bible with which to compare.

Taking a passage at face value— believing that the intention is to literally recount a battle— does not mean I must accept it is true.

I don't see it that way at all. Take the accounts in genesis about creation, Adam and Eve, and Noah. They are all clearly allegorical stories that tie in with a narrative about the relationship of God with humanity. They can not be true as science has discounted the possibility of a young earth.

Sure, you can take the argument that God is a liar because He inspires people to write allegorical tales. If that works for you I'm not going to change your mind. I'm just explaining how Baha'is view biblical scripture.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

If they are mythical embellishments, then they are lies. God allowed falsehoods in his scriptures.

As for allegory, there is no indication that these accounts are meant to be allegorical. This isn’t some parable or analogy— of which there are plenty in the Bible with which to compare.

Taking a passage at face value— believing that the intention is to literally recount a battle— does not mean I must accept it is true.


You have no evidence that it’s symbolic. You have given some examples of symbology in the Bible. Do you think that there are no examples of literal passages in the Bible as well? Of course there is. Context is what distinguishes them, and the context of this is to recount the literal trials and development of the Israeli people.

Your dream example doesn’t work. Of course dreams are meant to be symbolical. This is not presented as a dream or a story being told to illustrate some concept.

As for god being all sneaky and hiding things in the Bible for Jesus to reveal, well that’s a) useless and b) convenient.

I thought the whole point of Messengers for the Baha’i was that they were to communicate God’s message. If they can’t do it clearly, then they are useless. Why even bother?

And it certainly is convenient to simply handwave away any inconvenient massage as “allegorical” or to claim that it is one of those things Jesus is keeping secret.

Not very convincing, guys.

I didnt think it would be convincing. But I thought it would make you see as possiblity. I don't see why you see it impossible, other than you just cannot believe it.

 

[siti]

Abdu'l-Baha is clear the story of Adam and Eve is full of symbolism with different meanings.

But he (and therefore you) maintains that Adam was a real person - a Manifestation of God no less.

The burning bush narrative is Moses experience with the Holy spirit, similar to Jesus with the Dove, Muhammad with the Angel Gabriel, and Baha'u'llah's maid of heaven experience in the Siyal Chal.

We have no commentary on the account of baby Jesus in the surah of Maryam. Baha'is are under no obligation to interpret it literally as the Muslims have.

So without someone else telling you, you don't know what to believe in this case?

Often we don't know for certain what is literal and what is allegorical. Sometimes its clear as with the account of the sun standing still.

Why is this clear to someone who believes in miraculous manifestations, angels, holy spirit and a whole range of supernatural mumbo jumbo? Why, from a Baha'i perspective would you discount this miracle and not some of the others? Is it because you believe that the "event" is so preposterous it could not possibly have really happened? But that's the same to me if we are talking about the burning bush, the parting of the Red Sea, the "maid of heaven" or other clandestine visitations by angels and spirits.

We could have a Manifestation of God such as Christ referring to the story of Noah and the flood. That doesn't mean its literal though

As far as anyone could possibly tell from scripture, Jesus firmly believed in a literal flood - his (reported) retelling in Matthew 24 doesn't make much sense unless we are meant to believe that he really believed the flood account as a literal event. So if you deny that, then you have to decide either to disbelieve Jesus himself (heaven forbid) - or claim that the account (in Matthew 24) was invented or amended by someone else. But that is, of course, part of the Olivet discourse so cherished by Baha'is because it talks about the "coming" of the "Son of Man"...and thereby lends Biblical support to whole Manifestation thing...anyway, you've got to do some fairly judicious "cherry-picking" in Matthew 24 to get to the official Baha'i interpretation.

As we become more acquainted with sacred scriptures from different religions and not just one religion it becomes easier to discern what is literal and what isn't.

No it doesn't - it becomes even more confused because they all contradict each other. And bear in mind, I'm not saying we can't determine which are "real" events and which are not - of course that's easy - the sun didn't really stand still, Muhammad didn't really meet the Angel Gabriel, Moses didn't part the red sea and there was no world wide flood - that's easy. But its not about that - its about what the writers of scripture presented as "literal narrative" and what they intended as "symbolic". Clearly the writer of Genesis did not intend the parting of the red sea or the flood to be symbolic - they are presented as literal narrative. The author almost certainly believed he was writing history - but he was wrong. But the sun standing still one - as I said - is probably just poetic - not intended as literal narrative and not intended as religious symbolism - just poetry.

Baha'is differ from atheists of course

Ah! You noticed that did you?

...in that we believe in God and that miracles can happen.

Yes indeed!

However just because God can do miracles doesn't mean to say He has performed a miracle. Just because an account in sacred scripture suggests a miracle, doesn't mean we should take it at face value.

Unless you are told to take it at face value by an infallible "Manifestation" (or one of his equally infallible interpreters) who claims to have had a supernatural experience every bit as preposterously unbelievable as the accounts of miracles you reject just because he did!

You're right! That is very different from atheism. And very different from investigating the truth individually and independently.

 

[siti]

By the way, have you ever had a dream which somehow was fulfilled? For example when one of my close relatives accidentally died, one night before his death, my sister saw a dream in which one of her teeth fell in the dream.

What the devil do your sister's teeth have to do with somebody else dying?

 

[Dawnofhope]

But he (and therefore you) maintains that Adam was a real person - a Manifestation of God no less.

He was the first prophet according to Islam.

Adam in Islam - Wikipedia

But he (and therefore you) maintains that Adam was a real person - a Manifestation of God no less.

That's based on the Qur'an, not the bible.

So without someone else telling you, you don't know what to believe in this case?

I have my opinions just like anyone else. I know the differences between my personal opinions and what my faith teaches.

Why is this clear to someone who believes in miraculous manifestations, angels, holy spirit and a whole range of supernatural mumbo jumbo? Why, from a Baha'i perspective would you discount this miracle and not some of the others? Is it because you believe that the "event" is so preposterous it could not possibly have really happened? But that's the same to me if we are talking about the burning bush, the parting of the Red Sea, the "maid of heaven" or other clandestine visitations by angels and spirits.

The parting of the red sea didn't happen. I believe in the Divine inspiration through the Holy Spirit of Moses, Christ, Muhammad, and Baha'u'llah through the sacred books that have resulted through their revelation and the influence these Great Teachers have had on world history.

As far as anyone could possibly tell from scripture, Jesus firmly believed in a literal flood - his (reported) retelling in Matthew 24 doesn't make much sense unless we are meant to believe that he really believed the flood account as a literal event. So if you deny that, then you have to decide either to disbelieve Jesus himself (heaven forbid) - or claim that the account (in Matthew 24) was invented or amended by someone else. But that is, of course, part of the Olivet discourse so cherished by Baha'is because it talks about the "coming" of the "Son of Man"...and thereby lends Biblical support to whole Manifestation thing...anyway, you've got to do some fairly judicious "cherry-picking" in Matthew 24 to get to the official Baha'i interpretation.

There is no good reason to believe that Jesus believed the flood really happened. The language in Matthew 24 is apocalyptic in style, although He does foretell actual events at the beginning.

No it doesn't - it becomes even more confused because they all contradict each other. And bear in mind, I'm not saying we can't determine which are "real" events and which are not - of course that's easy - the sun didn't really stand still, Muhammad didn't really meet the Angel Gabriel, Moses didn't part the red sea and there was no world wide flood - that's easy. But its not about that - its about what the writers of scripture presented as "literal narrative" and what they intended as "symbolic". Clearly the writer of Genesis did not intend the parting of the red sea or the flood to be symbolic - they are presented as literal narrative. The author almost certainly believed he was writing history - but he was wrong. But the sun standing still one - as I said - is probably just poetic - not intended as literal narrative and not intended as religious symbolism - just poetry.

God is not the author of confusion. The Divine Message of Moses, Jesus, Muhammad and Baha'u'llah is clear as the noon day sun.

Isaiah 6:10, Jeremiah 5:21, Ezekiel 12:2, Matthew 13:15, Acts of the apostles 28:27, Romans 11:8

Ah! You noticed that did you?

I'm very perceptive lol.

Unless you are told to take it at face value by an infallible "Manifestation" (or one of his equally infallible interpreters) who claims to have had a supernatural experience every bit as preposterously unbelievable as the accounts of miracles you reject just because he did!

You're right! That is very different from atheism. And very different from investigating the truth individually and independently

Becoming a Baha'i was the culmination of a 5 year search for me. I've been a Baha'i for nearly 30 years. I'm happy with the outcome of my search and am no longer searching.

There are many references to the qualities one must have when searching as Baha'u'llah outlines:

O My brother! When a true seeker determineth to take the step of search in the path leading unto the knowledge of the Ancient of Days, he must, before all else, cleanse his heart, which is the seat of the revelation of the inner mysteries of God, from the obscuring dust of all acquired knowledge, and the allusions of the embodiments of satanic fancy. He must purge his breast, which is the sanctuary of the abiding love of the Beloved, of every defilement, and sanctify his soul from all that pertaineth to water and clay, from all shadowy and ephemeral attachments. He must so cleanse his heart that no remnant of either love or hate may linger therein, lest that love blindly incline him to error, or that hate repel him away from the truth. Even as thou dost witness in this Day how most of the people, because of such love and hate, are bereft of the immortal Face, have strayed far from the Embodiments of the Divine mysteries, and, shepherdless, are roaming through the wilderness of oblivion and error.

Bahá'í Reference Library - Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, Pages 264-270

I wasn't a particular spiritual person when I was searching for the truth and I'm not now. What I did learn is that I can not use my intellect alone to work out the truth.

 

[Trailblazer]

Becoming a Baha'i was the culmination of a 5 year search for me. I've been a Baha'i for nearly 30 years. I'm happy with the outcome of my search and am no longer searching.

Wow, that is a long time. You must have done a lot of searching and research...

Becoming a Bahai for me was the outcome of one two week Christmas vacation back in 1970. I was not searching for anything but when I found the Faith I knew it was the truth after reading a few books. After that, I fell away from the Faith for decades for personal reasons, but I never lost my belief in Baha'u'llah. I am sort of back now although I am still not active in the Baha'i community, for personal reasons.

 

[siti]

The language in Matthew 24 is apocalyptic in style, although He does foretell actual events at the beginning.

Yes - that's what I mean by "cherry-picking".

OK maybe that's a bit unkind - its true that the scriptures have to be read with intelligence (whether or not one happens to be a believer) otherwise you will run the risk of either accepting or dismissing some idea in them based on a misunderstanding of what is actually said - like that bit about the sun standing still. I think it is pretty clear that that was not meant to be taken literally - but then again neither was it meant to be taken as having some hidden religious message - I think it was just a poetic way of expressing how much God had permitted the Israelites to achieve in battle in a single day - that seems to me to be the most rational and sensible interpretation and especially when it plainly says that it is quoting from another book which we know, from the only other direct reference to it, contained poetry.

And with reference to Matthew 24, it is clear that "Jesus" refers to "real events" that would take place in "the future" from the point of view of the setting (but clearly not from the point of view of the time of writing). "He" also made liberal use of hyperbole (see for example verses 9, 14, 21 and 22), and it is all written in apocalyptic style - intended by the writer to symbolize the sudden and catastrophic (from a Jewish point of view) transfer of God's special favour from the Jews to the newly emerging Christian religion.

God is not the author of confusion. The Divine Message of Moses, Jesus, Muhammad and Baha'u'llah is clear as the noon day sun.

Isaiah 6:10, Jeremiah 5:21, Ezekiel 12:2, Matthew 13:15, Acts of the apostles 28:27, Romans 11:8

There are about 8 centuries between the earliest and latest of these "revelations" - you'd have thought at least a few eyes would have been opened in that time. But no - despite the succession of divinely approved prophets and the most widely influential Manifestation of God so far to have appeared on earth, the eyes of the majority seemed still to be firmly shut. There's none so blind as those who will not see!

What I did learn is that I can not use my intellect alone to work out the truth.

Hmmm! Indeed - anyone whose version of the truth depends entirely on their own intellect is either mistaken or a genius. I am certainly not the latter - but I do have access to their ideas and discoveries. But the final analysis can only be a matter of individual intellect. That's the problem with revelation - even if it is from God, it still has to be processed through the human thinking faculties of the receiver before it can be encoded in scripture and passed on to others who must - of necessity pass it through their own human intellectual faculties in their attempt to understand it. "The truth" may not depend on your intellect - but your understanding of it certainly does.

 

[KT Shamim]

So when did this idea that a scripture or a prophet or a messenger or a pope is absolutely perfect in every way come into practice? Has it been there since early times, or is it more recent? What purpose does it serve?

What or who do you consider infallible, if anything?

As an eastern thinker and logical person, I don't get infallibility. To be clear, I understand what it means, I just don't get how anyone else could believe in it, yet I know some do. I just shake my head and go 'really?'

Here's an example. "I'm infallible. I said I was infallible, and since I'm infallible, it is only logical to conclude I'm infallible. I mean, how could an infallible person claiming to be infallible possibly be wrong?"

Does this sound logical to you?

Everyone is fallible including Prophets of God because we are all human. But in matters of religion Prophets are infallible.

That claim is only logical if the claimant can prove it. Onus is on the claimant ... as it was ... on all Prophets to prove that they are sent by God Himself and are, therefore, infallible as far as religious matters are concerned. With extraordinary signs that is what the true Prophets of God did.

What is the definition of extraordinary signs? ... well if you think the above makes sense we can continue.

You also asked what purpose it serves: so let it be understood that in the fight of good against evil the good side requires a leader around whom all good-natured could rally for an effective and focused strategy against the forces of evil. The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community to which I belong is that community of majority good-natured human beings who are fighting against the forces of evil. War is long. Took Jesus' followers 300 years. But 300 years won't pass and we'll be victorious.

 

[Marcion]

Everyone is fallible including Prophets of God because we are all human. But in matters of religion Prophets are infallible.

That claim is only logical if the claimant can prove it. Onus is on the claimant ... as it was ... on all Prophets to prove that they are sent by God Himself and are, therefore, infallible as far as religious matters are concerned. With extraordinary signs that is what the true Prophets of God did.

Does the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community consider guru's such as Shiva and Krishna as Prophets? If not, then why not?