Is progressive revelation believable?

[Aupmanyav]

It's just how it was ordained, sometimes it takes awhile for humanity as a whole to become more mature and progress to the next level. And around about every 1000 years and new Manifestation comes into the world.

That is not at all true. That is falsehood by your own admission. Buddha was born about 5 hundred years before Jesus. Mohammad was born 670 years after Jesus. Bahaullah was born 1150 years after Mohammad (1817 CE). But Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of the Ahmadiyyas was born in the life time of Bahaullah (1835 CE), i.e., just 18 years after the birth of Bahaullah. The reason Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had to be sent early was that Allah must have made some serious mistake in the message sent to Bahaullah. Otherwise, what was the need of sending another messenger so quickly?

Hindu Gods do not have this problem of revision upon revision of messages. They did not even insist on their worship (that is why I am a strong atheist and a Hindu). They sent just a one-line message for all eternity, for all humanity. And the message is:

"Paropakāram punyāya, pāpāya parapīdanam" (To help others is merit, to pain others is sin)

 

[Dawnofhope]

@Vouthon

Thank you for your excellent thoughtful posts. I too have been wondering why Jesus, unlike Moses, Muhammad, the Bab and Bahá’u’lláh didn’t provide more in the way of Divine laws for a new religious dispensation.

The ministry of Jesus was very brief compared to Moses, Muhammad and Bahá’u’lláh. A useful comparison is with The Bab’s Mission which was just six years and like Jesus He was put to death. Their crimes in the eyes of their people were similar. They expounded similar Divine claims, Jesus being the Son of God and the Bab being the Mahdi or Promised Qa’im. Both were considered blasphemous: Jesus with His allusions to Divinity, Messianic claims and appearing to undermine the Torah and The Bab being a Messenger after Muhammad bearing a Revelation that would signify a break with Islam. Both men were destined to fall foul of the religious leaders. So my first response to your question about a Baha’i perspective of Jesus Revealing few Civil laws is to compare Jesus to the Bab, whom Baha’is consider a Manifestation of God.

The Báb | What Bahá’ís Believe

Báb - Wikipedia

The Bab appeared to bring a new set of laws in His main work the Bayan. Actually it’s central theme was to prepare His Followers for ‘Him whom God shall make manifest’, Bahá’u’lláh. The Bayan itself has laws that were never enacted and in some ways presented a test for the Babis once the Bab was executed. The Bayan may also have confused the Civil and Religious authorities. So as they set about slaughtering thousands of Babis, had they have known Bahá’u’lláh was the intended successor, He probably would have died in a prison in Tehran.

Persian Bayán - Wikipedia

So in regards Jesus, His Ministry was brief, His Life was often in grave danger and His Message was veiled in parables. However He indicated on the lead up to His inevitable death that His Disciples would be guided even after His death and explained why He could not say more while on earth.

He said:

I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
John 16:12-14

Baha’is and Christians may interpret these verses differently. Baha’is might emphasise these verses referring to another Christ, whereas the Christians see the Holy Spirit as exemplified by its descent in Acts of the Apostles 2.

What Jesus did make clear was He wished His Disciples to preach the Gospel to all the nations. Being freed from the obligation to follow the Torah was essential to the spread of the Gospels to all nations.

One of the greatest successes of Christianity was to repackage Judaism in such a way that it could be embraced throughout the world. The so called Great Commission had largely run its course by the latter half of the nineteenth century. Practically all nations had received the Gospels and Christianity was the first Abrahamic Faith to become universal.

We would probably agree that Jesus taught the Mosaic laws were no longer applicable but he taught this indirectly. The Apostles were much more explicit on this point. Jesus could not be so explicit Instead he prepared the way for this message to be interpreted and elaborated on much more explicitly through the appointment of Peter as His Successor.

What should now be clear is if Jesus could not explicitly teach the law should be abrogated, He certainly could not teach a new set of laws. There was a wisdom in this silence. However silence shouldn’t be confused with a statement to the effect there should never be Divine law that applies to individuals, families, communities, states, nations and beyond. I don’t believe Jesus taught that, nor did the Apostles. Subsequent Christian leaders centuries later may have believed Jesus taught civil laws shouldn’t be based on Divine laws but it is the Words of Jesus and the Apostles who have authority. Beyond that future Christ’s that best embody the Spirit of truth.

That leads to another important question as to how Baha’is should make sense of Christianity’s relative lack of theocracy? In the first instance they should study the Bible and live a spiritual life. In that manner they may become recipients of the bounty of the Holy Spirit and gain some critical insights. Its a work in progress for me but little by little day by day. The next step is to examine the Baha’i Writings for they certainly have a great deal to say about Islam and Christianity. I wish I had time to say more. Hopefully we continue conversing so we better understand each other’s worldviews.

 

[dybmh]

“From this review of the history of the Jewish people we learn that the foundation of the religion of God laid by His Holiness Moses was the cause of their eternal honor and national prestige, the animating impulse of their advancement and racial supremacy and the source of that excellence which will always command the respect and reverence of those who understand their peculiar destiny and outcome. The dogmas and blind imitations which gradually obscured the reality of the religion of God proved to be Israel’s destructive influences causing the expulsion of these chosen people from the Holy Land of their Covenant and promise.”

This is the quote that I found to be problematic to say the least.

"the animating impulse of their advancement and racial supremacy"

racial supremacy? That's anti-Jewish.

That's pretty bad. Judaism does not teach that Jewish people are racially superior. If this were true, there would be no conversions of any kind.

A claim that Jews are "racially superior" is anti-Jewish. And I think that it would be perfectly nature for someone to read this and come to some of the same conclusions you did.

Judaism thinks it's the only true religion. Jews think they are chosen, and chosen means they're better, superior. The Jewish Messiah is the only messiah, and their messiah is better than all the others.

It's perfectly natural to come to these conclusions, but that doesn't mean they're true. And it looks like these ideas are supported by Baha'i texts? How many other times in Baha'i texts is "racial supremacy" of Jewish people claimed?

 

[dybmh]

@Trailblazer ,

Then there's this. It's not as bad as using the words "racially superior" in reference to Jewish people, but it shows a complete disregard and ignorance of the spiritual elements of the The Torah and Jewish Law.

"Thus, at the end of the Mosaic Dispensation, which coincided with the advent of Christ, the true religion of God vanished from among the Jews, leaving behind a form without a spirit."

Some Answered Questions | Bahá’í Reference Library

My religion is form without spirit?

That's anti-Jewish.

 

[od19g6]

First of all, how are you an atheist and a hindu at the same time? You may want to explain that one to me.

Buddha was born about 5 hundred years before Jesus. Mohammad was born 670 years after Jesus. Bahaullah was born 1150 years after Mohammad (1817 CE). But Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of the Ahmadiyyas was born in the life time of Bahaullah (1835 CE), i.e., just 18 years after the birth of Bahaullah.

That's why if you've been listening I've been saying that God have been sending Manifestations 'around and usually about every thousand' apparently the Manifestations it's not always exactly sent a 1000 years from each other. We recognize: Adam, Abraham, Jesus Christ, the Buddha, Moses, Krishna, Zoroaster, Prophet Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah as Manifestations of God.

I looked on wikipedia on the initial headline of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad [even though wikipedia don't always have reliable sources] and it says that he claimed to have been divinely appointed as the promised Messiah and Mahdi. But aren't the Mahdi and Messiah two different figures in Islamic prophecy?

Hindu Gods do not have this problem of revision upon revision of messages. They did not even insist on their worship.

I would say be very careful. Some of these revelations such as hinduism and buddhism are very old and back in those old times They didn't write things themselves, the teachings was for the most part oral traditions and over time the very original revelation and teachings have gotten convoluted. All of the revelations have always taught the teachings of one God, it was just in accordance to the capacity of the people of the time and place and said in a way they could mostly understand.


Check this out:

"The Lord our God is one Lord." Christianity (Mk 12:29)

"But just how many Gods are there? One". Hinduism, Upanishads

"He is God alone: God the eternal and there is none like unto Him." Islam, Quran (112: 1-2,4)

"Bear thou witness that verily He is God and there is no God but Him, the King, the Protector, the Incomparable, the Omnipotent." Baha'i, Tablet of Ahmad

"I am the Lord, and there is no other; there is no God besides Me." Judaism, (Isa 45:5).

"There is, o monks, an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed." Buddhism, Udana

 

[dybmh]

I think your belief can be improved upon to be more consistent with reality, by slightly altering it:

I believe it is because their religions teach that it is the only true religion so they cannot accept progressive revelation.​

Do you think it's accurate to say:

"their religions teach that it is the only true religion for Jewish people so they cannot accept progressive revelation."

It has been my position in this thread ( and others ) that Judaism does not claim that other religions are "false". That other religions are simply not of interest and are not important to Jewish people considering the busy lifestyle of someone who is attempting to be Torah Observant.

Do you think that is a fair assessment? Or am I being too soft and too optimistic because the alternative is potentially uncomfortable for me to accept?

 

[dybmh]

@shunyadragon ,

I have reviewed your comments in this thread. And I was right.

Your God is, as you have said, "Universal".

Judaism worships the God of Abraham. It's Abraham's God, It's not my opinion, it's just Torah, it's just scripture. If you or anyone wants a Jewish person to accept this "Universal" God, it has to be in the Torah ( I would even accept evidence from the Tanach as a very good start). If you want to equate "Universal God" to "God of Abraham" you need to find something from Abraham to back it up. Otherwise... it's unsubstantiated drivel.

But even if you can't find something from Abraham directly, If you can find me something, anything, in the Torah ( or Tanach ) that describes God as Universal. You win. I will agree and apologize with my tail tucked between my legs. If you can do this, I think that you have a good case to claim that The God of Abraham = Universal God. And maybe Jews have been wrong all these years about the Baha'i and what they claim to be progressive revelations.

If you cannot find it. Then it is obvious, your God is not the God of the Torah; it is not the God of Abraham. It's something else. And it is no wonder that Jewish people do not accept it. Because { bugles playing } it's not in the Torah.

Do you accept the challenge? Can you find evidence of the "Universal" God in the Torah ( or Tanach )? And what did Abraham say about it if he even said anything about it at all?

 

[dybmh]

@Trailblazer ,

Well... I'm up super early and browsing on RF... and look what I found... Thank you @pcarl ! this is coming from his thread.

"As did Maimonides and Yehudah Halevi, we acknowledge that the emergence of Christianity in human history is neither an accident nor an error"

And apparently this is in The Mishneh Torah and the Kuzari. Both are Jewish source texts that were compiled approx 900+ years ago.

This is evidence that Judaism does not consider itself the only true religion. It's the only true religion for Jews. And it was documented as such a long long time ago.

Now do you believe me?

Here's the full details and a long list of Rabbis are supporting this.

Orthodox Rabbinic Statement on Christianity

 

[Tumah]

Do you think it's accurate to say:

"their religions teach that it is the only true religion for Jewish people so they cannot accept progressive revelation."

It has been my position in this thread ( and others ) that Judaism does not claim that other religions are "false". That other religions are simply not of interest and are not important to Jewish people considering the busy lifestyle of someone who is attempting to be Torah Observant.

Do you think that is a fair assessment? Or am I being too soft and too optimistic because the alternative is potentially uncomfortable for me to accept?

Personally I think you're being a bit optimistic (if that requires optimism for you). In the context of my statement, I was actually speaking more generally: that each religion teaches that it is the one true religion, so they can't accept other religions.

In Judaism, we do have requirements on non-Jews called the Noahide Laws. Those Laws preclude the possibility of following other religions. There was a Rabbi named Elijah Benamozegh who considered that other religions could be altered to conform to the Noahide Laws. But as far as I know, he's a lone opinion in this regard celebrated more among progressive groups than religious, and certainly against that of Maimonides.

 

[Vinayaka]

Personally I think you're being a bit optimistic (if that requires optimism for you). In the context of my statement, I was actually speaking more generally: that each religion teaches that it is the one true religion, so they can't accept other religions.

Not all religions teach that. Mine, for example teaches that there are many religions, each valid for its own practitioners. Not all of us have that religiocentrism you speak of. In practice, it's seen in the disdain for proselytising. It's telling everyone to just keep doing what they're doing, but leave us alone.

 

[Tumah]

Not all religions teach that. Mine, for example teaches that there are many religions, each valid for its own practitioners. Not all of us have that religiocentrism you speak of. In practice, it's seen in the disdain for proselytising. It's telling everyone to just keep doing what they're doing, but leave us alone.

I'm not sure what you mean by religiocentrism in this context, but you're right not ever religion in the world has negative beliefs about other religions.
As a side note, Judaism doesn't proselytize either and we do prefer that other's leave us alone. At the same time, we see other religions as false. So I don't think proselytization is an indicator of the views of a religion about other religions.

 

[dybmh]

Personally I think you're being a bit optimistic (if that requires optimism for you). In the context of my statement, I was actually speaking more generally: that each religion teaches that it is the one true religion, so they can't accept other religions.

In Judaism, we do have requirements on non-Jews called the Noahide Laws. Those Laws preclude the possibility of following other religions. There was a Rabbi named Elijah Benamozegh who considered that other religions could be altered to conform to the Noahide Laws. But as far as I know, he's a lone opinion in this regard celebrated more among progressive groups than religious, and certainly against that of Maimonides.

I hear you, and thank you for the reply and information.

 

[dybmh]

@Tumah,

So are you saying that no other religion in the entire world conforms to the noahide law without alteration and adjustment? ( aka religious tailoring )

 

[Trailblazer]

This is the quote that I found to be problematic to say the least.

"the animating impulse of their advancement and racial supremacy"

racial supremacy? That's anti-Jewish.

That's pretty bad. Judaism does not teach that Jewish people are racially superior. If this were true, there would be no conversions of any kind.

A claim that Jews are "racially superior" is anti-Jewish. And I think that it would be perfectly nature for someone to read this and come to some of the same conclusions you did.

Judaism thinks it's the only true religion. Jews think they are chosen, and chosen means they're better, superior. The Jewish Messiah is the only messiah, and their messiah is better than all the others.

It's perfectly natural to come to these conclusions, but that doesn't mean they're true. And it looks like these ideas are supported by Baha'i texts? How many other times in Baha'i texts is "racial supremacy" of Jewish people claimed?

I have never heard that before and to be honest, I did not read that passage I quoted so I did not even see that. I do not know what Abdu'l-Baha meant by racial supremacy, perhaps another Baha'i on this forum might know.

He was certainly not implying that the Jews think they are racially superior.

I have never seen that in any other Baha'i texts.

 

[Trailblazer]

@Trailblazer ,

Then there's this. It's not as bad as using the words "racially superior" in reference to Jewish people, but it shows a complete disregard and ignorance of the spiritual elements of the The Torah and Jewish Law.

"Thus, at the end of the Mosaic Dispensation, which coincided with the advent of Christ, the true religion of God vanished from among the Jews, leaving behind a form without a spirit."

Some Answered Questions | Bahá’í Reference Library

My religion is form without spirit?

That's anti-Jewish.

Context is everything. You would have to understand what he meant by that.
I am at a loss since I do not know religious history, but this is related to the stages of religion.

 

[Vinayaka]

I'm not sure what you mean by religiocentrism in this context, but you're right not ever religion in the world has negative beliefs about other religions.
As a side note, Judaism doesn't proselytize either and we do prefer that other's leave us alone. At the same time, we see other religions as false. So I don't think proselytization is an indicator of the views of a religion about other religions.

That's true, and I knew and respected that about Judaism. Non proselytising is just an example of how it could be. Religiocentrism is just a dumb word I coined as ethnocentrism didn't seem quite right. It simply means how some folks wear their religion on their sleeve, with pride.

 

[dybmh]

Context is everything. You would have to understand what he meant by that.
I am at a loss since I do not know religious history, but this is related to the stages of religion.

Exactly.. context. which means it it's only true at the that time and at that place. if it was ever true at all.

Don't forget about conversion. It can't "racial" if it allows for conversion.

 

[dybmh]

I have never heard that before and to be honest, I did not read that passage I quoted so I did not even see that. I do not know what Abdu'l-Baha meant by racial supremacy, perhaps another Baha'i on this forum might know.

He was certainly not implying that the Jews think they are racially superior.

I have never seen that in any other Baha'i texts.

Well... there is a lot of inertia behind this whole superiority complex thing. I mean, you did speak about it yourself...

 

[Trailblazer]

@Trailblazer ,

Well... I'm up super early and browsing on RF... and look what I found... Thank you @pcarl ! this is coming from his thread.

"As did Maimonides and Yehudah Halevi, we acknowledge that the emergence of Christianity in human history is neither an accident nor an error"

And apparently this is in The Mishneh Torah and the Kuzari. Both are Jewish source texts that were compiled approx 900+ years ago.

This is evidence that Judaism does not consider itself the only true religion. It's the only true religion for Jews. And it was documented as such a long long time ago.

Now do you believe me?

Here's the full details and a long list of Rabbis are supporting this.

Orthodox Rabbinic Statement on Christianity

That link did not come up but I will look at it later. I have to run to work now, I mean bike, and it is a long way and I cannot afford to be late...

The CONTEXT of Judaism believing they are the only true religion is that they do not accept any of the Messengers of God (Prophets) that came after Moses, namely Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah. If they do not accept those Messengers as being from God, they cannot SAY they accept those religions as true religions.

The Baha'i Faith accepts Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah and other Messengers as being true Messengers of God so we believe that their religions are true religions from God, all part of the eternal religion of God that unfolds over time.

 

[dybmh]

@Rival,

If you don't mind, I feel like you are an authority on this. I'm familiar with the 7 noahide Laws. And Islam conforms to it naturally without adjustment. Am I wrong?

Also.. Baha'i... conforms to the Noahide law, right?

I would expect the Sihk's conform to it naturally. And I could probably come up with a few others given time.

So. If the metric is the Noahide Law, and those that don't conform to it naturally are considered false, is it logical, reasonable, etc... to consider that Islam, and Baha'i, and potentially Sikhs are not false?

I don't know what "true religion" means. But I know what "false" religion means. And if the Noahide Law is the objective metric.. there are at least 2 religions which are at the very least not false.

And this shuts down the whole: Judaism is tribal argument. It's not tribal, it's based on an objective set of rules. Follow the rules, and it's not false.

Am I still being optimistic?