Is progressive revelation believable?

[TransmutingSoul]

At this point, I have to claim ignorance. You may be right... I have not learned the Islamic approach to the Mahdi, nor do I know about the Bab. But, I trust my Muslim friends just like I trust my High School Chemistry teacher. And if they say that the Mahdi has not arrived, I trust them to know best.

Just like I trust you to know best about Baha'u'llah, and we Jews know best about Moshiach. Each group has their own wheelhouse... so to speak.

The greatest gift of this age is to know through one's own search.

Regards Tony

 

[Dawnofhope]

No doubt. But the idea presented that I objected to is that Jesus' message was essentially the same as Muhammad's... that just doesn't seem right to me. And I am guessing that Muslims would object strongly to this notion as well.

Muslims would see themselves as much closer to Christianity than Christians would to Islam. Jesus is mentioned many times in the Quran and is seen as the bearer of a Divine Revelation as Moses revealed the Torah and Muhammad the Quran. Christian would object much more strongly IMHO. The real conversation is how similar the Hebrew Bible, New Testament and Quran really are. Baha'is accept the Divine inspiration and authenticity of all three books. Reconciling them is a challenge for modern scholars and ordinary people such as ourselves.

 

[Left Coast]

After a Messenger is no longer on this Earth, what else is there?

I'm not the one claiming long-dead people who lived before we had recording devices other than parchment and ink are Prophets of a deity.

The Bible remains and the Quran remain as the given standard of that age. Thus the writings of a Messenger will stand upon their own merit as a guide to humanity.

Regards Tony

You cannot use the writings of a Prophet to prove that the writings of the Prophet are true. That is circular. The Prophet's writings are claims. They require independent verification to determine if they are actually correct.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

[/QUOTE="post: 6430995, member: 65725"]And that's beautiful. But... potentially objectionable to Muslims, and they know Muhammad better than anyone.[/QUOTE]

That seems to be the eternal problem with faith.

Christ gives us advice that it may not be like that in Matthew 7:22

Regards Tony

That one ( 7:22 ) didn't land for me... I'm sorry. I didn't see the connection....

I was showing the Messengers may not agree, that those who claim to follow a Faith, have the right interpretation.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I'm not the one claiming long-dead people who lived before we had recording devices other than parchment and ink are Prophets of a deity.



You cannot use the writings of a Prophet to prove that the writings of the Prophet are true. That is circular. The Prophet's writings are claims. They require independent verification to determine if they are actually correct.

Yes you have that choice, or we can study them and see if they were the standard we did need to live by and if we had, would the world be a better place.

Regards Tony

 

[od19g6]

At this point, I have to claim ignorance. You may be right... I have not learned the Islamic approach to the Mahdi, nor do I know about the Bab. But, I trust my Muslim friends just like I trust my High School Chemistry teacher. And if they say that the Mahdi has not arrived, I trust them to know best.

Just like I trust you to know best about Baha'u'llah, and we Jews know best about Moshiach. Each group has their own wheelhouse... so to speak.

"And if they say that the Mahdi has not arrived, I trust them to know best.

Just like I trust you to know best about Baha'u'llah, and we Jews know best about Moshiach. Each group has their own wheelhouse... so to speak".

But that's falling into tribalism which is affecting the world negatively today.

The thing is when a new Prophet / Messenger / Manifestation appears in the world they fulfill the prophecies of old but the tragic thing is time and time again the followers of the old revelation don't believe in the Manifestation of God for the new revelation.

So the question is how can you say you believe in God when you don't accept the Person who was prophesied to you.

 

[shunyadragon]

If you told me that, I would say, "Show me your evidence."

In what terms of evidence are you requiring even the existence of God? There is no objective verifiable evidence. If on chooses the atheist belief that God does not exist because of the lack of such evidence than the perspective of a more universal God has little meaning. The argument is best described is if God exists, the human perspective the different beliefs in God throughout history is more a cultural human view of God set in the religion of the time. Also, if God exists a more universal God that is not the God of any one of the cultural view of God of the different religions, and progressive revelation is more reasonable.

 

[Vouthon]

Christianity while implementing a theocracy of sorts throughout its history has distanced itelf from such an approach in modern times preferring seperation of state and religion

I would say its more firmly rooted in the tradition than that. The New Testament, and the Christian Revelation in general, has no laws to put forward for the purpose of determining temporal legislation.

As any Protestant will tell you, Pauline theology spurns the "works of the law", which are dead, in favour of grace.

Throughout the medieval period, the secular law codes were based variously on Saxon, Roman and other legal norms because the religion itself lacked a divinely revealed legal system. Canon law can be changed by any pope. It's mutable, not an immutable divine code.

Sure, laws could be adapted to be more in keeping with Christian ethics but there wasn't an actual Christian "law" akin to Sharia that anyone could point to and say, "yeah, God wants us to divide inheritance up as follows" or dish out "xyz" punishment for such-and-such a crime.

In 866, the pagan Khan Boris of the Bulgars wanted to convert to Christianity and sent a letter to Pope Nicholas asking him to explain the "law of the Christians" so that he could live by it.

The pope replied as follows:


The Responses of Pope Nicholas I to the Questions of the Bulgars A.D. 866

Now then, at the very beginning of your questions, you properly and laudably state that your king seeks the Christian law...One should know that the law of the Christians consists in faith and good works. For faith is the first of all virtues in the lives of believers. Whence, even on the first day there is said to be light, since God is portrayed as having said: Let there be light,[Gen.1:3] that is, "let the illumination of belief appear." Indeed, it is also because of this illumination that Christ came down to earth. Good work is no less demanded from a Christian; for just as it is written in our law: Without faith it is impossible to please God,[Heb. 11:6] so it is also written: Just as a body without a spirit is dead, so, too, faith without works is dead.[James 2:20] This is the Christian law, and whoever keeps this law properly, shall be saved.​

He proceeds to explain in subsequent that Christians have no laws covering dress, diet or in terms of legal punishments. Indeed he invites the Khan to have a read of Justinian's Institutes of Roman Law as a model. A particularly amusing interchange came in answer to question LVIIII by the Khan:

We consider what you asked about pants (femoralia) to be irrelevant; for we do not wish the exterior style of your clothing to be changed, but rather the behavior of the inner man within you, nor do we desire to know what you are wearing except Christ — for however many of you have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ [Gal. 3:27] — but rather how you are progressing in faith and good works
​

Likewise, when Jesus was asked by someone to act as arbiter in a family property dispute, he completely disowned even a modicum of interest in telling people how to run their own lives in that way:

Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.” 14But he said to him, “Man, who made me a judge or arbitrator over you?”

And he said to them, “Take care! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; for one’s life does not consist in the abundance of possessions.” 16 Then he told them a parable... (Luke 12:13-14)​

In other words, whereas Numbers 27:7-11 (which says a man's sons inherit first, daughters if no sons, brothers if he has no children, and so on) in the Torah and Sura 4 of the Qur'an have extensive details about inheritance law, Jesus prioritizes ethical living over the legal details and sees the development of law as a human responsibility, not a religious one. That's just a difference in mindset about the role of divine law but its an important one for Christians.

Eastern Christianity was, for a time, a bit more theocratic, inasmuch as you had caeseropapism - a sacral emperor and a sort of kingdom of God on earth, like the Sunni caliphate.

Western Christianity, both Catholic and Protestant, was fundamentally different.

The Western half of the Roman Empire collapsed and religious authority in the abandoned West became consolidated in the papacy.

When the Holy Roman Empire of the Germans under the House of Hohenstaufen tried to impose a similar caeseropapist system in Europe in the 11th century, and were investing bishops (i.e. performing religious functions), the papacy under Gregory VII resisted and this sparked the century long investiture conflict between church and state.

The resulting Concordat of Worms in 1112 circumscribed the powers of both, preventing the Emperor from issuing canonical laws in the ecclesiastical courts or investing bishops and the Papacy from interfering with the secular courts or having any direct role in public affairs, out with the limited domain of the Papal States.

As a result, secular law - already compiled from Justinian's Roman codex and customary law such as English Common Law - diverged even further under royal control from the canons of the church. Because the pope denied the Emperor any sacral authority, he had to justify his law codes based upon secular rationales as did every other King in Christendom.

Thus in the Islamic world, the study of law (jurisprudence) was bracketed under theology, because it was a matter of shariah. In medieval universities, they were studied as distinct academic disciplines.

 

[Left Coast]

I would like to say first that, Be careful about what you're asking. If you're asking me to preach to you then that's not what I'm going to do. Preaching is something that was done in the times of old. You have to understand that in this time and age we all have a mind and we all have the responsibility to investigate truths for ourselves.

The point of this forum is religious discussion and debate. If you start a thread saying, "Bob is a Prophet of God," people are very obviously going to ask you what the heck your evidence for that claim is. If you're not interested in making such a demonstration, then at least don't post in the Debates section. Stick to the Baha'i DIR section so you can just talk about your beliefs with people who already agree with you.

"I'm asking you what about his life demonstrates that he's the prophet of a deity".

I actually just told you. It's the 'combination' of the Prophet / Messenger / Manifestation's life and teachings that gives you the proofs and demonstration of who the person is.

Yes, what about his life, exactly? I already addressed why you can't point to his teachings, as that would be circular.

The reason why we call them Manifestations of God is because all of the Prophets / Messengers displays all of the names and attributes of God at the highest level perfectly, that means that what we know as good human qualities are actually attributes of God, we just don't call them that.

Wait, they display all the attributes of God, perfectly? This is the typical Abrahamic, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent God, yes? I'd love to see the evidence that Baha'u'llah was any one of those, let alone all three. And isn't God eternal? But Baha'u'llah died, didn't he?

Bahá'u'lláh says in the Kitáb-i-íqán:

"And of all men, the most accomplished, the most distinguished and the most excellent are the Manifestations of the Sun of Truth. Nay, all else besides these Manifestations live by the operation of their Will, and move and have their being through the outpourings of their grace. “But for Thee, I would have not created the heavens.” Nay, all in their holy presence fade into utter nothingness, and are a thing forgotten. Human tongue can never befittingly sing their praise, and human speech can never unfold their mystery. These Tabernacles of holiness, these primal Mirrors which reflect the light of unfading glory, are but expressions of Him Who is the Invisible of the Invisibles. By the revelation of these gems of divine virtue all the names and attributes of God, such as knowledge and power, sovereignty and dominion, mercy and wisdom, glory, bounty and grace, are made manifest".

"These attributes of God are not and have never been vouchsafed specially unto certain Prophets, and withheld from others. Nay, all the Prophets of God, His well-favored, His holy, and chosen Messengers, are, without exception, the bearers of His names, and the embodiments of His attributes. They only differ in the intensity of their revelation, and the comparative potency of their light. Even as He hath revealed: “Some of the Apostles We have caused to excel the others". It hath therefore become manifest and evident that within the tabernacles of these Prophets and chosen Ones of God the light of His infinite names and exalted attributes hath been reflected, even though the light of some of these attributes may or may not be outwardly revealed from these luminous Temples to the eyes of men. That a certain attribute of God hath not been outwardly manifested by these Essences of Detachment doth in no wise imply that they Who are the Daysprings of God’s attributes and the Treasuries of His holy names did not actually possess it. Therefore, these illuminated Souls, these beauteous Countenances have, each and every one of them, been endowed with all the attributes of God, such as sovereignty, dominion, and the like, even though to outward seeming they be shorn of all earthly majesty".

I highlighted the key section of the passage here. So Prophets don't necessarily display all God's attributes - but we're supposed to believe they have them, even if they show no evidence of it.

So which of God's attributes did Baha'u'llah display, and how so, specifically?

Not all of His teachings are claims. The claims that He did makes is that he fulfills the prophecies of old. Most of the teachings that He makes is letting the human being know what it really is which is spiritual beings, His teachings is actually divine education, and that was mission of all the Prophets / Messengers / Manifestations. The main motivation for God to send these Manifestations was out of love and education.

The teaching that we are "spiritual beings" is also a claim. So yes, again, his teachings are claims.

Here's an excellent site: prophecy-fulfilled

Waaaaaaayyyyy too long and too many rabbit trails to delve into all that. Hit me with your best prophecy, and I'm happy to discuss it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Each group has their own wheelhouse... so to speak.

But those wheelhouses operate on their own wheels so they are biased from the get-go.

Can't you see how any or all of them could be wrong, and if they contradict each other then they cannot all be right.
I definitely approach religion from logic, not from mere belief.

 

[Left Coast]

Yes you have that choice, or we can study them and see if they were the standard we did need to live by and if we had, would the world be a better place.

Regards Tony

Someone right here on RF could give me good advice that I can test and see if it would be wise to follow it. That doesn't mean that person is a prophet.

 

[od19g6]

But you are biased; you say so yourself, to wit:

• Divine revelation continued up to and including the Baha'u'llah, and no new stuff for 1,000 years.
• No absolute truth; all truth is relative.

If those aren't biases, I don't know what you think "biases" are.

"Divine revelation continued up to and including the Baha'u'llah, and no new stuff for 1,000 years".

Well for the Abrahamic religions, didn't they come 1000 years apart from one another?

"No absolute truth; all truth is relative".

Correct.
We are an ever advancing civilization, what was true in in society let say 700 years ago is not true in society today.

 

[dybmh]

The real conversation is how similar the Hebrew Bible, New Testament and Quran really are.

Well, that is exactly what I was thinking too...

The Torah says, "No intermediaries between people and God" ( This is in the 10 commandments )
The New Testament says "Jesus is the intermediary/gate" (John 4:16 and others I think )
The Qur'an returns back to what The Torah says, "No intermediaries between people and God." ( clearly defined in the Qur'an as Shirk, i think )

That's not progressive, that's regressive: No intermediary >>> Intermediary >>> No Intermediary. Perhaps The Torah stands alone, and is not part of the progression? If so, then taking the Torah out of the chain of revelation seems to make it progressive again. It would just be: Intermediary >>> No Intermediary. That seems like progress to me. But going back and forth from "No intermediary" to "Intermediary" then back again to "No Intermediary"... that's not progressive. Not if the Torah is included.

The same could be said of Jesus's revelation. It seems to me that "progressive" is a good description if Jesus's revelation is not part of the chain. That's an option , too, IMHO, if the revelation is to be understood as "progress". But as long as Jesus's revelation is in the middle, It just doesn't seem progressive to me. Something in the chain, either Jesus' revelation, or the Torah, does not fit into the model of "progressive revelation" as I am imagining it.

But that's just a guess. It's just how I picture it in my head. I'm not trying to be difficult.

 

[Left Coast]

In what terms of evidence are you requiring even the existence of God? There is no objective verifiable evidence.

Precisely, thank you. Why believe a proposition that has no objective verifiable evidence for it?

If on chooses the atheist belief that God does not exist because of the lack of such evidence than the perspective of a more universal God has little meaning.

I don't choose my beliefs, but I also don't claim God does not exist. I simply don't believe he does exist because, as you said, there is no objective verifiable evidence for him.

The argument is best described is if God exists, the human perspective the different beliefs in God throughout history is more a cultural human view of God set in the religion of the time. Also, if God exists a more universal God that is not the God of any one of the cultural view of God of the different religions, and progressive revelation is more reasonable.

Sure, and if I'm a fortune teller you should ask me for winning lotto numbers. But the point is, you have no reason to think I actually am a fortune teller, so why would you?

 

[Trailblazer]

Waaaaaaayyyyy too long and too many rabbit trails to delve into all that. Hit me with your best prophecy, and I'm happy to discuss it.

Hi, it's me again...
What kind of prophecy are you looking for? There are so many.

I am sorry I dropped the ball on the evidence thread I promised you a while back, but I knew I would not have time to post it and answer posts. I could still post it but the timing would have to be right.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Someone right here on RF could give me good advice that I can test and see if it would be wise to follow it. That doesn't mean that person is a prophet.

I agree, you would need to look and decide for your own self.

Regards Tony

 

[Left Coast]

Hi Trail!

Hi, it's me again...
What kind of prophecy are you looking for? There are so many.

I'm not sure, the gentleman claimed that fulfilled prophecy demonstrates that Baha'u'llah is a prophet. I asked him for his best (most convincing) example. Perhaps you can be of assistance?

I am sorry I dropped the ball on the evidence thread I promised you a while back, but I knew I would not have time to post it and answer posts. I could still post it but the timing would have to be right.

I understand that life gets in the way and we get busy. But I have noted you've started several other threads since then... Quit beating around the bush!

 

[Terry Sampson]

Or you could just tell me I'm wrong. I would believe you. Seriously.

I'm not so learned in the Christian scriptures that I'd be comfortable telling you that you're wrong and discovering later, much to my dismay, that you aren't but I am.

Doing that results in John 4:16. Is that enough?

Any chance that the verse you'd rather be citing is John 14:6?

• If so, then: "Jesus said to him [his disciple, "Doubting" Thomas]: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me."
  • What the heck does that mean? Is it, as you appear to have suggested, a command to "submit to him and let him do the work?"
  • Maybe according to some Christians, but I read:
• Matthew 16:24 New American Standard Bible (NASB) Discipleship Is Costly
  24 "Then Jesus said to His disciples, 'If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.' "
  • Which I understand to mean: "You want to be my disciple? Forget about satisfying your carnal needs and wants before anything else, take up your cross (i.e. the yoke of Heaven?), and follow me while I am here or do what I am doing when I'm not."
• "Submission"??? Maybe someone else sees it, I don't.

 

[Left Coast]

I agree, you would need to look and decide for your own self.

Regards Tony

Look at what, though? What would demonstrate that a person is a prophet of a deity?

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm not sure, the gentleman claimed that fulfilled prophecy demonstrates that Baha'u'llah is a prophet. I asked him for his best (most convincing) example. Perhaps you can be of assistance?

I could but I would need to know what YOU consider a prophecy. Do you mean something in the Bible that has been fulfilled by the coming of Baha'u'llah, or do you mean something Baha'u'llah predicted that came to pass?

I understand that life gets in the way and we get busy. But I have noted you've started several other threads since then... Quit beating around the bush!

Yes I did because I was in the midst of talking to someone who caused me to want to post those threads, and I was sorry for that later, not because I minded posting to people but because I overextended myself and got sick. Now I have to be more prudent which is why you have not seen any new threads from me lately.

But the important thing is that I did not forget you.