PureX
Veteran Member
I would say, "one man's prophet is another man's fool".
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is progressive revelation believable?
- Thread starter od19g6
- Start date
I think Mark Twain was a recent manifestation. I quote: "Better to remain silent and have people think you are a fool that to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
The hermeneutical key is in this passage:
"He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace, through the cross, thus putting to death that hostility through it. So he came and proclaimed peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near" (Ephesians 2:15-17)
And this one:
"having canceled the written legal code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he [Jesus] took it away, nailing it to the cross" (Colossians 2:14)
Justus sibi lex est (“the just man is a law unto himself”), an aphorism inspired by Romans 2:14, was one of the most widespread catchphrases of the early church. It implies, in the words of the church father St. Ambrose of Milan that: "the wise man is always free...the just man is a law unto himself, and he does not need to summon the law from afar, for he carries it enclosed in his heart" (Letters 54) and St. Clement of Alexandria: "virtue can come only through voluntary choice. The law assumes this from the outset" (Stromata 2:2).
The first disciples were still Jews and still prayed in the Temple, and they were aware that Jesus hadn't issued any new 'laws' or halakha per se (in the way I've described).
But they knew that the Mosaic 'law' was not their means of salvation any longer, faith and good works in Christ were - for both Jews and Gentiles. As the prologue to the Fourth Gospel puts it: "For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ" (John 1:17). Ellicot's New Testament Commentary says with respect to the exegesis of this verse: "But this is the essence of Christianity as distinct from Judaism; of a spiritual religion developed from within as distinct from a formal religion imposed from without; of a religion of principles, and therefore true for all time and for all men, as distinct from a religion of works, based, indeed, on an eternal truth (the oneness and the righteousness of God) but still specially designed for a chosen people and for a period of preparation".
I think its unquestionable that Jesus approach and purpose were quite different from Moses, Muhammad and Baha'u'llah in this regard. Jesus cannot be described as a "lawgiver" like them. Which is not to say he had no teachings on society - in fact the lion's share of the gospel is concerned with his thoughts on rich and poor, the reversal of fortune that should come with those at the top of society brought low and the meek raised, the inclusion of the marginalized and those on the fringes of society like prostitutes and lepers, up etc. There is a strong socio-political message: its social, moral and political but crucially not legal.
Jesus brought 'grace and truth', not a new 'law' like Moses and this was what Pope Nicholas I stressed to the bemused Bulgarian Khan in 855, who couldn't understand why his new faith seemed to have no 'law' for how he should dress, eat, arbitrate in property matters, for criminal justice etc. etc.. One would need to jump through exegetical hoops to try and tease some kind of rudimentary law out of Jesus's dominical sayings and parables in the gospels, because it really isn't there in the first place.
Professor Paula Fredriksen and Larry Hurtado, two of the best historical Jesus scholars, have written about the earliest stance in the Jesus movement (pre-66 A.D. / pre-destruction of the Second Temple):
“When Christians were Jews”: Paula Fredriksen on “The First Generation”
One of the strong points in Fredriksen’s previous book on Paul, echoed in this book too, is that Paul’s opposition to requiring male circumcision of his former-pagan converts was a principled stand based on OT predictions that in the last days the gentile nations would come to the God of Israel, as gentiles (e.g., Zechariah 8:20-23), not as proselytes to Israel. So, Paul insisted that his former pagans must not undergo proselyte conversion, for this would go against the divine intention. She is correct also to insist that James and the Jerusalem leadership were basically on board with this. And, quite plausibly in my view, contends that the demand by opponents to Paul that pagan converts should undergo circumcision was a somewhat later innovation, and not the position of the Jerusalem leadership
The basic opinion of the early Jewish Christian establishment under James the Just (Jesus's brother) and Paul the Apostle, was that Gentile converts were to be admitted as Gentiles - meaning they were not to be brought into the nation of Israel and made subject to the Torah, because God wanted them as Gentiles subject to the law of faith acting on their hearts, rather than proselytes as Paul says in that paragraph I quoted earlier:
Romans 2: 14-15
Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the Law, do by nature what the Law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the Law, since they show that the work of the Law is written on their hearts
Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the Law, do by nature what the Law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the Law, since they show that the work of the Law is written on their hearts
Romans 14:1-23
Again, one man thinks some days holier than others. Another man considers them all alike. Let every one be definite in his own convictions. If a man specially observes one particular day, he does so “to God”. The man who eats, eats “to God”, for he thanks God for the food. The man who fasts also does it “to God”, for he thanks God for the benefits of fasting. The faith you have, have as your own conviction before God.
Romans 2:29
No, a man is a Jew because he is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise does not come from men, but from God.
Galatians 5:6
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. All that matters is faith, expressed through love.
Galatians 6:15
For neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything. What counts is a new creation.
Colossians 3:11
Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, or free, but Christ is all and is in all.
Again, one man thinks some days holier than others. Another man considers them all alike. Let every one be definite in his own convictions. If a man specially observes one particular day, he does so “to God”. The man who eats, eats “to God”, for he thanks God for the food. The man who fasts also does it “to God”, for he thanks God for the benefits of fasting. The faith you have, have as your own conviction before God.
Romans 2:29
No, a man is a Jew because he is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise does not come from men, but from God.
Galatians 5:6
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. All that matters is faith, expressed through love.
Galatians 6:15
For neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything. What counts is a new creation.
Colossians 3:11
Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, or free, but Christ is all and is in all.
As he says, 'circumcision (and by implication the law Torah as a whole) is nothing', Christ has completely relativised its importance as being merely a cultural heritage for Jews, the "written code" and outward conformance to the Jewish law has been superseded by the "law of the heart" and being a Jew "inwardly / spiritually" without outward things like circumcision and kashrut (kosher). That's why by the time Second Temple fell in 70 CE, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews in the New Testament could write definitively: "There is the abrogation of an earlier commandment because it was weak and ineffectual (for the law made nothing perfect)... the introduction of a better hope, through which we approach God [...] Since the law has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the true form of these realities..." (Hebrews 7:18-19).
Just as Paul explains above, "let everyone be definite in his own convictions": if one day is a 'holy day' to you, keep but don't expect your brother Christian from a different ethnicity to follow your 'Jewish' or your 'Roman' ways. Its all about one's own "conviction before God" in a "new creation" in which Jesus has broken down all barriers between Greeks and Jews, circumcised and uncircumcised, kosher and non-kosher, slaves or free etc.
And so, for all these reasons St. Augustine of Hippo (most influential of the early church fathers in Catholicism and Protestantism) could write in his mammoth tome, The City of God (413–426 CE):
Philip Schaff: NPNF1-02. St. Augustine's City of God and Christian Doctrine - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
"It is a matter of no moment in the city of God whether he who adopts the faith that brings men to God adopts it in one dress and manner of life or another, so long only as he lives in conformity with the [ethical] commandments of God. And hence, when philosophers themselves become Christians, they are compelled, indeed, to abandon their erroneous doctrines, but not their dress and mode of living, which are no obstacle to religion...
This heavenly city [the Church], then, while it sojourns on earth, calls citizens out of all nations, and gathers together a society of pilgrims of all languages, not scrupling about diversities in the manners, laws, and institutions whereby earthly peace is secured and maintained, but recognizing that, however various these are, they all tend to one and the same end of earthly peace. It therefore is so far from rescinding and abolishing these diversities, that it even preserves and adopts them, so long only as no hindrance to the worship of the one supreme and true God is thus introduced.
Even the heavenly city, therefore, while in its state of pilgrimage, avails itself of the peace of earth, and, so far as it can without injuring faith and godliness, desires and maintains a common agreement among men regarding the acquisition of the necessaries of life, and makes this earthly peace bear upon the peace of heaven." (De civitate Dei Ch. XXV)
This heavenly city [the Church], then, while it sojourns on earth, calls citizens out of all nations, and gathers together a society of pilgrims of all languages, not scrupling about diversities in the manners, laws, and institutions whereby earthly peace is secured and maintained, but recognizing that, however various these are, they all tend to one and the same end of earthly peace. It therefore is so far from rescinding and abolishing these diversities, that it even preserves and adopts them, so long only as no hindrance to the worship of the one supreme and true God is thus introduced.
Even the heavenly city, therefore, while in its state of pilgrimage, avails itself of the peace of earth, and, so far as it can without injuring faith and godliness, desires and maintains a common agreement among men regarding the acquisition of the necessaries of life, and makes this earthly peace bear upon the peace of heaven." (De civitate Dei Ch. XXV)
(continued....)
Last edited:
Consider closely what St. Augustine says here: the Christian dispensation gathers people of 'diverse laws' (legal systems) and institutions (governments), and does nothing to 'rescind' or 'abolish these diversities' but actually preserves and adopts them purged only of the elements that are antithetical to Christian ethics. In the third century, the great theologian and church father Origen provided the following explanation for the resistance of Christians to certain legal systems: “Suppose that a man were living among the Scythians, whose laws are contrary to the divine law, and was compelled to live among them ... such a man for the sake of the true law, though illegal among the Scythians, would rightly form associations with like-minded people contrary to the laws of the Scythians.”
Christians followed the example of Jesus himself, who resisted immoral laws in his own society (both high priestly Judean and Roman) but without resorting to replacing the system with a new theocratic one.
In this way, when the Roman Empire embraced Christianity under Theodosius in 389, the church did not abolish the pagan Roman legal system and replace it with a new 'New Testament'-derived one. No, quite the contrary under the Christian Emperor Justinian (canonised as a saint by the Eastern Church) in the sixth century, the Byzantine Christian Romans codified both the legal jurisprudence of the pagan Emperors and the Christian jurists into a definitive code (something the pagan Romans had never done), this secular body of law, in the form of the Corpus Juris Civilis:
Corpus Juris Civilis - Wikipedia
Likewise in the High Middle Ages, Christian countries used many other legal systems: English Common Law, Saxon law, Norman law......All 'secular', all 'mutable', none of them considered 'divinely revealed'. Just promulgated by human jurists and kings, using reason and conscience (by which Christian doctrine held one accessed, though imperfectly, the 'natural law').
None of these legal systems was 'abolished', each was allowed to contribute to European civilization - as per Augustine's vision.
The church also influenced these systems, however, infusing them with Christian principles derived from revelation.
As the political scientist Francis Fukuyama argued in his 2011 book, The Origins of Political Order:
The Origins of Political Order
Apostolic Journey to Germany: Visit to the Federal Parliament in the Reichstag Building (Berlin, 22 September 2011) | BENEDICT XVI
Christians followed the example of Jesus himself, who resisted immoral laws in his own society (both high priestly Judean and Roman) but without resorting to replacing the system with a new theocratic one.
In this way, when the Roman Empire embraced Christianity under Theodosius in 389, the church did not abolish the pagan Roman legal system and replace it with a new 'New Testament'-derived one. No, quite the contrary under the Christian Emperor Justinian (canonised as a saint by the Eastern Church) in the sixth century, the Byzantine Christian Romans codified both the legal jurisprudence of the pagan Emperors and the Christian jurists into a definitive code (something the pagan Romans had never done), this secular body of law, in the form of the Corpus Juris Civilis:
Corpus Juris Civilis - Wikipedia
The Corpus Juris (or Iuris) Civilis ("Body of Civil Law") is the modern name[1] for a collection of fundamental works in jurisprudence, issued from 529 to 534 by order of Justinian I, Eastern Roman Emperor...
The Corpus Juris Civilis was revised into Greek, when that became the predominant language of the Eastern Roman Empire, and continued to form the basis of the empire's laws, the Basilika (Greek: τὰ βασιλικά, 'imperial laws'), through the 15th century. The Basilika in turn served as the basis for local legal codes in the Balkans during the following Ottoman period and later formed the basis of the legal code of Modern Greece. In Western Europe the Corpus Juris Civilis was revived in the Middle Ages and was "received" or imitated as private law. Its public law content was quarried for arguments by both secular and ecclesiastical authorities.
This revived Roman law, in turn, became the foundation of law in all civil law jurisdictions. The provisions of the Corpus Juris Civilis also influenced the canon law of the Catholic Church: it was said that ecclesia vivit lege romana – the church lives by Roman law.[2] Its influence on common law legal systems has been much smaller, although some basic concepts from the Corpus have survived through Norman law – such as the contrast, especially in the Institutes, between "law" (statute) and custom. The Corpus continues to have a major influence on public international law
The Corpus Juris Civilis was revised into Greek, when that became the predominant language of the Eastern Roman Empire, and continued to form the basis of the empire's laws, the Basilika (Greek: τὰ βασιλικά, 'imperial laws'), through the 15th century. The Basilika in turn served as the basis for local legal codes in the Balkans during the following Ottoman period and later formed the basis of the legal code of Modern Greece. In Western Europe the Corpus Juris Civilis was revived in the Middle Ages and was "received" or imitated as private law. Its public law content was quarried for arguments by both secular and ecclesiastical authorities.
This revived Roman law, in turn, became the foundation of law in all civil law jurisdictions. The provisions of the Corpus Juris Civilis also influenced the canon law of the Catholic Church: it was said that ecclesia vivit lege romana – the church lives by Roman law.[2] Its influence on common law legal systems has been much smaller, although some basic concepts from the Corpus have survived through Norman law – such as the contrast, especially in the Institutes, between "law" (statute) and custom. The Corpus continues to have a major influence on public international law
Likewise in the High Middle Ages, Christian countries used many other legal systems: English Common Law, Saxon law, Norman law......All 'secular', all 'mutable', none of them considered 'divinely revealed'. Just promulgated by human jurists and kings, using reason and conscience (by which Christian doctrine held one accessed, though imperfectly, the 'natural law').
None of these legal systems was 'abolished', each was allowed to contribute to European civilization - as per Augustine's vision.
The church also influenced these systems, however, infusing them with Christian principles derived from revelation.
As the political scientist Francis Fukuyama argued in his 2011 book, The Origins of Political Order:
The Origins of Political Order
"...The papacy established a strong tradition of rule of law in Western Europe as early as the twelfth century as part of the Catholic Church's effort to seek independence from the influence of kings who could depose popes at will...
Two of the three basic institutions that became crucial to economic modernization – individual freedom of choice with regard to social and property relationships, and political rule limited by transparent and predictable law – were created by a premodern institution, the medieval Church. Only later would these institutions prove useful in the economic sphere..." (p. 275)
I'll end by quoting the former Pope Benedict XVI from an address to the German Reichstag in 2011:Two of the three basic institutions that became crucial to economic modernization – individual freedom of choice with regard to social and property relationships, and political rule limited by transparent and predictable law – were created by a premodern institution, the medieval Church. Only later would these institutions prove useful in the economic sphere..." (p. 275)
Apostolic Journey to Germany: Visit to the Federal Parliament in the Reichstag Building (Berlin, 22 September 2011) | BENEDICT XVI
In history, systems of law have almost always been based on religion: decisions regarding what was to be lawful among men were taken with reference to the divinity. Unlike other great religions, Christianity has never proposed a revealed law to the State and to society, that is to say a juridical order derived from revelation. Instead, it has pointed to nature and reason as the true sources of law – and to the harmony of objective and subjective reason, which naturally presupposes that both spheres are rooted in the creative reason of God. Christian theologians thereby aligned themselves with a philosophical and juridical movement that began to take shape in the second century B.C. In the first half of that century, the social natural law developed by the Stoic philosophers came into contact with leading teachers of Roman Law.[2]
Through this encounter, the juridical culture of the West was born, which was and is of key significance for the juridical culture of mankind. This pre-Christian marriage between law and philosophy opened up the path that led via the Christian Middle Ages and the juridical developments of the Age of Enlightenment all the way to the Declaration of Human Rights and to our German Basic Law of 1949, with which our nation committed itself to “inviolable and inalienable human rights as the foundation of every human community, and of peace and justice in the world”.
For the development of law and for the development of humanity, it was highly significant that Christian theologians aligned themselves against the religious law associated with polytheism and on the side of philosophy, and that they acknowledged reason and nature in their interrelation as the universally valid source of law. This step had already been taken by Saint Paul in the Letter to the Romans, when he said: “When Gentiles who have not the Law [the Torah of Israel] do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves ... they show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness ...” (Rom 2:14f.). Here we see the two fundamental concepts of nature and conscience, where conscience is nothing other than Solomon’s listening heart, reason that is open to the language of being.
Through this encounter, the juridical culture of the West was born, which was and is of key significance for the juridical culture of mankind. This pre-Christian marriage between law and philosophy opened up the path that led via the Christian Middle Ages and the juridical developments of the Age of Enlightenment all the way to the Declaration of Human Rights and to our German Basic Law of 1949, with which our nation committed itself to “inviolable and inalienable human rights as the foundation of every human community, and of peace and justice in the world”.
For the development of law and for the development of humanity, it was highly significant that Christian theologians aligned themselves against the religious law associated with polytheism and on the side of philosophy, and that they acknowledged reason and nature in their interrelation as the universally valid source of law. This step had already been taken by Saint Paul in the Letter to the Romans, when he said: “When Gentiles who have not the Law [the Torah of Israel] do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves ... they show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness ...” (Rom 2:14f.). Here we see the two fundamental concepts of nature and conscience, where conscience is nothing other than Solomon’s listening heart, reason that is open to the language of being.
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
You are most welcome. But did the Maid of Heaven visit you in a vision! You have to provide us the proof like Bahaullah did. Otherwise, we are not going to accept you.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
Progressive revelation doesn't make much sense when you consider who most people claim God "is" and what's He/She/It is all about.
The reason can be summed up by looking at the human condition. We constantly evolve our knowledge because when we started, we basically knew nothing at all. Right? So, obviously we keep adding to the tomes of knowledge, keep seeking correctness and correlating evidence wherever we can find it. This process is ongoing, and we probably never will know "Everything."
However, God is supposedly not like this. There is not a time when He "knows nothing" as we humans suffer in our infancy. He doesn't need to "evolve" His knowledge. Doesn't need to change or amend portions of His understanding. Correct? Or no? Do you not subscribe to God as the keeper of all possible knowledge? If not, then it would make sense that He would reveal certain things to us in time - as He went about the process of learning it all Himself. But if God is supposedly the keeper of all knowledge, and He knows what He wants us to know, then it makes absolutely no sense for Him to reveal things piecemeal, or change things, or have multiple versions for things... unless things are changing ON HIM. Meaning His realm is also in tumult, and He is, as I stated before, just learning these things Himself as He goes along. Even then, that doesn't excuse multiple versions of things unless one "version" is outmoded and defunct when the new one comes out.
If you know a thing that is true and concrete - that does not change and is reproducible without fault - then there is no other "version" of that thing that needs to be communicated. Think along the lines of the equation for gravity given two bodies of mass, or the resistance of copper wire as opposed to iron - those things have definitive formulations/values, and no one can dispute them without looking like an idiot or lying. Could there be different units of measurement being used? Sure. Could there be differences in the ways people utilize these basic formulas or values to achieve their goals? Of course. But within various religions, it is the CORE of everything that is fundamentally different between them a lot of times. There is no base level from which everyone grew their stories/ideas/culture/values. You are claiming there is such a "standard" or "unchangeable" piece - but there isn't. You can't point to it, and you can't demonstrate it.
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
The last thing I'll add on this Christian understanding @adrian009 and how it differs from the other Abrahamic faiths:
The goal of human law is the temporal tranquility of the state and not eternal salvation, according to Catholic and Protestant doctrine. Given this goal of temporal peace and order, St. Thomas Aquinas noted in his 13th century Summa, that the mandate of human law is to prohibit "whatever destroys social intercourse" and not to "prohibit everything contrary to virtue." So there is no need for a divinely revealed law for the state, reason and conscience - illuminated by Christian charity - is sufficient.
From St. Thomas Aquinas:
SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: Things that are contained in the New Law (Prima Secundae Partis, Q. 108)
The goal of human law is the temporal tranquility of the state and not eternal salvation, according to Catholic and Protestant doctrine. Given this goal of temporal peace and order, St. Thomas Aquinas noted in his 13th century Summa, that the mandate of human law is to prohibit "whatever destroys social intercourse" and not to "prohibit everything contrary to virtue." So there is no need for a divinely revealed law for the state, reason and conscience - illuminated by Christian charity - is sufficient.
From St. Thomas Aquinas:
SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: Things that are contained in the New Law (Prima Secundae Partis, Q. 108)
Article 1. Whether the New Law ought to prescribe or prohibit any external acts?
The New Law of Christ consists chiefly in the grace of the Holy Ghost, which is shown forth by faith that worketh through love....
On the other hand, there are works which are not necessarily opposed to, or in keeping with faith that worketh through love. Such works are not prescribed or forbidden in the New Law, by virtue of its primitive institution; but have been left by Christ, to the discretion of each individual.
And so to each one it is free to decide what he should do or avoid; and to each superior, to direct his subjects in such matters as regards what they must do or avoid. Wherefore also in this respect the Gospel is called the "law of liberty" [Cf. Reply to Objection 2]: since the Old Law decided many points and left few to man to decide as he chose.
Accordingly the New Law is called the law of liberty in two respects. First, because it does not bind us to do or avoid certain things (except such as are of themselves necessary or opposed to salvation) and come under the prescription or prohibition of the law. Secondly, because it also makes us comply freely with these precepts and prohibitions, inasmuch as we do so through the promptings of grace. It is for these two reasons that the New Law is called "the law of perfect liberty" (James 1:25).
The New Law of Christ consists chiefly in the grace of the Holy Ghost, which is shown forth by faith that worketh through love....
On the other hand, there are works which are not necessarily opposed to, or in keeping with faith that worketh through love. Such works are not prescribed or forbidden in the New Law, by virtue of its primitive institution; but have been left by Christ, to the discretion of each individual.
And so to each one it is free to decide what he should do or avoid; and to each superior, to direct his subjects in such matters as regards what they must do or avoid. Wherefore also in this respect the Gospel is called the "law of liberty" [Cf. Reply to Objection 2]: since the Old Law decided many points and left few to man to decide as he chose.
Accordingly the New Law is called the law of liberty in two respects. First, because it does not bind us to do or avoid certain things (except such as are of themselves necessary or opposed to salvation) and come under the prescription or prohibition of the law. Secondly, because it also makes us comply freely with these precepts and prohibitions, inasmuch as we do so through the promptings of grace. It is for these two reasons that the New Law is called "the law of perfect liberty" (James 1:25).
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
For these small changes he sent Zoroaster, Moses, Jesus, Joseph Smith, Bahaullah, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, and many more; and they created different religions which have kept fighting each other in all history! Did not he know that these things will happen whenever he sends a new prophet\son\messenger\manifestation\Mahdi. Is he off his rocker!
That is a big if. Indian religions are always universal in nature. A belief in one God is limited to the Abrahamic cultures. In Hinduism you can have a thousand Gods and Goddesses, three male and one female, a single one or even none. We do not have any fetters about Gods and Goddesses.
Last edited:
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
I'm going to have to get back to you regarding the Maid. I didn't see, in the Divine Script, where I'm supposed hook up with a maid, Divine or otherwise.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
So, you are proposing that your god is not based in absolute truth, but rather is based in perceived and changing truth.
Your god can contradict himself, in essence call himself a liar, change his expectations of humanity, and can't write a revelation of himself that is complete.
So you have a prophet you like. So do many people today, some have a prophet that is alive as I write.
Have you looked into these prophets ? How do you know your god hasn't changed, again, and these guys haven't replaced your prophet ?
I suspect your particular prophet declared himself so in the 19th century. A century that produced other prophets, Ellen G. White, Joseph Smith, and Mary Baker Eddy. Why aren't these prophets, prophets ? As I recall, the Hindu's had prophets during this century, why aren't these fellows prophets of your god ?
The Christian God of the Bible gave a manifestation of Himself to His followers, His constant guide for the believer in any and all times, the Holy Spirit.
Your prophet isn't needed, no new prophet is needed. The Holy Spirit is all a true believer needs to be guided by the God of the Bible.
I suspect your prophet, like all since The Apostles, meets the particular needs of his followers. The theology fits with who they think God should be, and this new god conveniently fits how they think God wants them to live their lives.
Parts of the Bible you don't like, your god allows you to eliminate them. I assume you do the same with the koran, a lot of odd stuff in there. You get to demote Christ from being The Son of God, to being just another prophet. You make Him a liar. You make the Apostles liars.
There is truth, and there are lies pretending to be truth. I know where your prophet and your view of God fits into the equation.
Not that I know of.
od19g6
Member
You're a divine "manifestation" eh, prove it.
1. What prophecies of the revelations of old have you fulfilled?
2. What are the brand new social teachings that you bring to humanity / the world without repeating what the current Manifestation's words?
3. Where is the biography of your life and teachings that we can read, so that we can see did you walk the walk as well as talk the talk?
4. Where are your followers / believers so that we can actually see the fruits that you bear?
Seriously I think you just failed number 1. so we can scratch that first.
Oh and just to let you know, you used a lower case "m" for Manifestation...
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Well, some proof is necessary. I do not think your mother was visited by Gabriel with the Good News, nor did he visit you, nor you were given any golden plates. You better cook up some story. All others have stories.
It's believable, as long as one firstly allows for at least one religion to have some value other than being constructed by humans (where it still could have value), and then one might see some value in other ones. On the other hand - my position - if one religion might be viewed as being suspect, then why not all of them - especially when they seem to conflict with others, which they have done? As in, they just developed locally by the same process that tended to initiate them all - some wise person or persons attempting to do something about human bad behaviour and using whatever means they thought necessary to get others to believe such - as well as providing other explanations concerning our existence.
If there was any progressive revelation, something has seemingly gone wrong, given the amount of friction each new one seems to cause. Or are all the deaths and atrocities just a by-product - of the human kind - and no divine responsibility involved? It also seems to me that any revelations might have been better targeted at diseases and such. Took us long enough (and by science) to understand why all the deaths were occurring.
I'm afraid the progressive revelation doesn't work for me, but then neither do most religions. I think it is a good attempt at reconciling all religions but as we still see, most aren't that interested in being absorbed into something greater and some are decidedly not interested in being reconciled but rather dominating all.
Hmm, what you say here reminds me of the appraisal of Muhammad's ministry that Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (1401 – 1464) wrote for Pope Pius II in his 15th century study, Cribatio Alkorani (Sifting the Qur'an) in three volumes.
At the time, Cardinal Nicholas was the most powerful office-holder in the Roman church after the Pontiff himself and in his role as vicar-general in the Papal States (equivalent to our modern day Prime Minister under a monarch), he was tasked with overseeing the diplomatic relations of the Papacy with the new Ottoman caliphate that had been established in Constantinople after its fall in 1453.
The pope wasn't sure how to respond to the new Islamic regime (he obviously had little knowledge of the 'Arab religion') that had replaced the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire and so tasked Cardinal Cusa with undertaking a comprehensive study of the Qur'an in Latin translation, and then provide His Holiness with the brief so that he could inform himself about Islam in his discussions with the Caliph (as detailed knowledge of Islam was, at this time, lacking in Europe).
In the opening prologue, addressed in the form of a letter "to Pius II, supreme and most holy pontiff of the Universal Christian Church", Cardinal Cusa wrote the following (see the underlined in particular):
A SCRUTINY OF THE KORAN
As best I could, I made a careful attempt to understand the book-of-law of the Arabs—[a book] which I obtained at Basel in the trans-lation commissioned for us by Peter, Abbot of Cluny. [I obtained it] together with a debate among those noble Arabs, [wherein] one of them, a follower of Muhammad, attempted to win over another of them. There were also [contained therein] certain other works on the origins of Muhammad, his twelve successors in the king-dom, and on his Doctrinae ad centum questiones. I left the book with Master John of Segovia 4 and journeyed to Constantinople, where among the Minorites who were living at [the Church of ] the Holy Cross, I found the Koran in Arabic [...]
Now, since there can be many ways that seem to be good, there remains doubt about which is the true and perfect way that leads us assuredly unto a knowledge of the Good (a Good which, indeed, we call God) in order that when we discourse about it we may understand one another. To be sure, Moses described a way; but it is not accepted or understood by everyone. Christ illumined and perfected this way, though many remain who are still unbelieving. Muhammad attempted to describe this same way as quite easy, so that it might be accepted by all, even by idolaters.
These are the most renown descriptions of the aforementioned way, although many other [descriptions] have been made by wise men and prophets. But all the aforesaid descriptions hold as their basis the view that that oft-mentioned Good is maximal and, thus, is one; and this One all call God...
But Jesus, the son of the Virgin Mary and the Christ who was fore-told by Moses and the Prophets to be coming, did come and did re-veal most perfectly—according to the testimony even of Muhammad the oft-mentioned way [...]
Moreover, if some-one had asked Muhammad in what form God would have sent to men an envoy who was someone greater than an angel, then Muhammad would certainly have answered [that] if God were to send to men an angel as an envoy, He would indue him with human form.
And [Muhammad] would reply similarly if [God] were to send someone greater than an angel. Now, according to Muhammad [God] sent Christ, whom [Muhammad] declares to be the Word of God and the son of Mary. Therefore, since the Word of God is of the same nature as God, whose Word He is (for all the things of God are God on ac-count of His most simple nature), then when God willed to send a supreme envoy, He sent His Word, than whom no greater envoy can be conceived. And because He sent [Him] to men, He willed for Him to put on a most clean human nature. And [Jesus] did so in the Virgin Mary, as is often found written in the Koran.
Therefore, there will be no difficulty in finding, in the Koran, the truth of the Gospel, although Muhammad himself was very far re-moved from a true understanding of the Gospel. Now, must not fail to mention that the chapters of the collection of the aforesaid book of Arab law do not form a continuous sequence with one another [...]
[Followers of Muhammad] also say that God sent to all nations indigenous messengers and that [through them] He admonished these nations regarding what they had to believe and had to do in order to be numbered, on the day of judgment, among those who are good and in order to attain unto the Paradise full of joy [...]
Moreover, [followers of Muhammad maintain] that [these nations] ought to believe those messengers of God and ought to obey the divine precepts made known by them; and in this [belief and obedience the nations] were not able to be deceived. For with respect to anyone who trusts in God (who is most veracious) by obeying His command: how could he find himself deceived on that day [of judgment]? Accordingly, [followers of Muhammad] conclude that if the variety of laws and of rites is found to be present in the identity- of-faith that is exhorted within the various nations by the messengers of God,13 then indeed this [kind of diversity] cannot at all prevent one who is obedient from obtaining a fitting reward at the hands of the most gracious and most just Judge. Now, [the Koran] enumerates the prophets and the messengers of God who were supposed to be believed: [viz.,] Abraham, Ismael, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Christ, and numerous others [...]
Unless the Gospel is included in the Koran, one cannot say that the Koran suffices and is the right way; moreover, it is evident that, with-in the Koran, only that which agrees with the Gospel ought to be called the light of truth and of the right way. Furthermore, the author of the Koran did not have any doubts about the Gospel; for he cited passages and contents of the Gospel regarding the fact that some [men] turned away from Christ when He expounded the parables 38 regarding the grain of wheat,39 regarding the man born blind,40 and regarding other matters [...]
Hence, if any beauty or truth or clarity is found in the Koran, it must be a ray of the most lucid Gospel [...] Therefore, in the Koran the splendor of the Gospel shines forth to the wise, i.e., to those who are led by the spirit of Christ [...]
Accordingly, the Koran speaks correctly in ascribing to this Word wisdom and every magisterium.97 Moreover, [the Koran] speaks rightly in affirming [the following: viz.,] that Christ made known to the world that He had come with divine power, in order that, as the Envoy of God, who placed all things in His power, He would be able to do whatever men can ask of God.98 For the miracles that Christ worked made known that in Him was the same power which is in God the Father, who sent Him. And in order that the Koran might better exhibit this revealed [power] to the uneducated, it cites briefly His curing of diseases that are incurable by men and His resuscitating of the dead.99 And it even adds—as if to say that He lacked nothing that we ascribe to God—that by breathing into birds made of clay, He gave them life.
Now, since there can be many ways that seem to be good, there remains doubt about which is the true and perfect way that leads us assuredly unto a knowledge of the Good (a Good which, indeed, we call God) in order that when we discourse about it we may understand one another. To be sure, Moses described a way; but it is not accepted or understood by everyone. Christ illumined and perfected this way, though many remain who are still unbelieving. Muhammad attempted to describe this same way as quite easy, so that it might be accepted by all, even by idolaters.
These are the most renown descriptions of the aforementioned way, although many other [descriptions] have been made by wise men and prophets. But all the aforesaid descriptions hold as their basis the view that that oft-mentioned Good is maximal and, thus, is one; and this One all call God...
But Jesus, the son of the Virgin Mary and the Christ who was fore-told by Moses and the Prophets to be coming, did come and did re-veal most perfectly—according to the testimony even of Muhammad the oft-mentioned way [...]
Moreover, if some-one had asked Muhammad in what form God would have sent to men an envoy who was someone greater than an angel, then Muhammad would certainly have answered [that] if God were to send to men an angel as an envoy, He would indue him with human form.
And [Muhammad] would reply similarly if [God] were to send someone greater than an angel. Now, according to Muhammad [God] sent Christ, whom [Muhammad] declares to be the Word of God and the son of Mary. Therefore, since the Word of God is of the same nature as God, whose Word He is (for all the things of God are God on ac-count of His most simple nature), then when God willed to send a supreme envoy, He sent His Word, than whom no greater envoy can be conceived. And because He sent [Him] to men, He willed for Him to put on a most clean human nature. And [Jesus] did so in the Virgin Mary, as is often found written in the Koran.
Therefore, there will be no difficulty in finding, in the Koran, the truth of the Gospel, although Muhammad himself was very far re-moved from a true understanding of the Gospel. Now, must not fail to mention that the chapters of the collection of the aforesaid book of Arab law do not form a continuous sequence with one another [...]
[Followers of Muhammad] also say that God sent to all nations indigenous messengers and that [through them] He admonished these nations regarding what they had to believe and had to do in order to be numbered, on the day of judgment, among those who are good and in order to attain unto the Paradise full of joy [...]
Moreover, [followers of Muhammad maintain] that [these nations] ought to believe those messengers of God and ought to obey the divine precepts made known by them; and in this [belief and obedience the nations] were not able to be deceived. For with respect to anyone who trusts in God (who is most veracious) by obeying His command: how could he find himself deceived on that day [of judgment]? Accordingly, [followers of Muhammad] conclude that if the variety of laws and of rites is found to be present in the identity- of-faith that is exhorted within the various nations by the messengers of God,13 then indeed this [kind of diversity] cannot at all prevent one who is obedient from obtaining a fitting reward at the hands of the most gracious and most just Judge. Now, [the Koran] enumerates the prophets and the messengers of God who were supposed to be believed: [viz.,] Abraham, Ismael, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Christ, and numerous others [...]
Unless the Gospel is included in the Koran, one cannot say that the Koran suffices and is the right way; moreover, it is evident that, with-in the Koran, only that which agrees with the Gospel ought to be called the light of truth and of the right way. Furthermore, the author of the Koran did not have any doubts about the Gospel; for he cited passages and contents of the Gospel regarding the fact that some [men] turned away from Christ when He expounded the parables 38 regarding the grain of wheat,39 regarding the man born blind,40 and regarding other matters [...]
Hence, if any beauty or truth or clarity is found in the Koran, it must be a ray of the most lucid Gospel [...] Therefore, in the Koran the splendor of the Gospel shines forth to the wise, i.e., to those who are led by the spirit of Christ [...]
Accordingly, the Koran speaks correctly in ascribing to this Word wisdom and every magisterium.97 Moreover, [the Koran] speaks rightly in affirming [the following: viz.,] that Christ made known to the world that He had come with divine power, in order that, as the Envoy of God, who placed all things in His power, He would be able to do whatever men can ask of God.98 For the miracles that Christ worked made known that in Him was the same power which is in God the Father, who sent Him. And in order that the Koran might better exhibit this revealed [power] to the uneducated, it cites briefly His curing of diseases that are incurable by men and His resuscitating of the dead.99 And it even adds—as if to say that He lacked nothing that we ascribe to God—that by breathing into birds made of clay, He gave them life.
Cardinal Cusa, in other words, reached much the same conclusion as you have above: "The emphasis [of Muhammad] was on moving from polytheism and idolatry to monotheism and a means of worship acceptable to the God of Abraham".
So, he instructed Pope Pius II to proceed in his discussions with the Caliph on that basis. While he disagreed with a number of elements of the Qur'an, he also noted that, "any beauty or truth or clarity found in the Koran, must be a ray of the most lucid Gospel" and identified parts where the Qur'an "speaks correctly".
Even when he was at his most vituperative about Islam as in Book II, Cardinal Cusa always seemed to balance it with a subtle positive i.e. "Nevertheless, God Almighty willed that amid all these filthy and vain things...there also be inserted [into the Qur'an] things in which the splendor of the Gospel was so contained as hidden that it would manifest itself to the wise if it were sought for with diligent effort".
Cardinal Cusa gets especially close to your evaluation when he writes the following in Book II:
A SCRUTINY OF THE KORAN
The goal and intent of the book of the Koran is not only not to detract from God the Creator or from Christ or from God’s prophets and envoys or from the divine books of the Testament, the Psalter, and the Gospel, but also to give glory to God the Creator, to praise and to bear witness to Christ (the son of the Virgin Mary) above all the prophets, and to confirm and to approve of the Testament and the Gospel. [If so,] then when one reads the Koran with this understanding,47 assuredly some fruit can be elicited [from it]...
If Muhammad had simply preached the Gospel to these Arabs and had not given them their own law, they would not have come to the Christian law, which they rejected for almost six hundred years.
Therefore, he preached to them that they were Ismaelites and had descended from Abraham and that both Jews and Christians praised the man [Abraham] as a prophet and approved of his faith— through which faith he obtained from God the greatest things both here below and in the other world.
And [Muhammad preached that] since this [praising and approving] was done by the Gentiles, who after following Abraham in the rejection of idols favored a certain law (whether the law of Moses or the law of Christ), then a fortiori the Arabs, who were descended from Abraham, ought themselves to do [this. Moreover, Muhammad preached] that God had chosen him as His messenger unto them and that God commanded them to accept the faith and the law of Abraham, a most excellent man, who was a believer and who was neither a Jew nor a Christian, having preceded both the Jews and the Christians. Having rejected idols, Abraham turned toward the Creator of the universe and worshiped and obeyed Him, as did also his descendants Isaac, Jacob, and the twelve tribes of Israel.
In the foregoing way [Muhammad] frequently taught the abandonment of idolatry, which, previously, [the Arabs] were never concerned to abandon as a result of the Gospel. [They were unconcerned] especially because evangelical perfection seemed to them to be onerous and to be such that their parents were afraid to accept it. For their parents had been taught (as even the Koran contains) that those who accept Christianity and do not keep its commandments offend against God more than do all [others] and that they will be tormented very grievously in Hell.
Therefore, Muhammad hid from the Arabs the secrets of the Gospel, believing that in the future [these secrets] could become known by the wise—just as in its beginning period the Gospel, too, remained obscure and unknown to many but was made progressively more evident. And if this [procedure] had not been expedient, then Christ would not have spoken to the people in parables....
The faith of the Gospel was despised everywhere by the idolatrous Orientals. The law of the Arabs came as someone unwilling to consent unto the faith [of the Gospel,] and it led the Arabs unto the worship of one God; nevertheless, the Gospel was secretly approved [by the Koran]"
Therefore, he preached to them that they were Ismaelites and had descended from Abraham and that both Jews and Christians praised the man [Abraham] as a prophet and approved of his faith— through which faith he obtained from God the greatest things both here below and in the other world.
And [Muhammad preached that] since this [praising and approving] was done by the Gentiles, who after following Abraham in the rejection of idols favored a certain law (whether the law of Moses or the law of Christ), then a fortiori the Arabs, who were descended from Abraham, ought themselves to do [this. Moreover, Muhammad preached] that God had chosen him as His messenger unto them and that God commanded them to accept the faith and the law of Abraham, a most excellent man, who was a believer and who was neither a Jew nor a Christian, having preceded both the Jews and the Christians. Having rejected idols, Abraham turned toward the Creator of the universe and worshiped and obeyed Him, as did also his descendants Isaac, Jacob, and the twelve tribes of Israel.
In the foregoing way [Muhammad] frequently taught the abandonment of idolatry, which, previously, [the Arabs] were never concerned to abandon as a result of the Gospel. [They were unconcerned] especially because evangelical perfection seemed to them to be onerous and to be such that their parents were afraid to accept it. For their parents had been taught (as even the Koran contains) that those who accept Christianity and do not keep its commandments offend against God more than do all [others] and that they will be tormented very grievously in Hell.
Therefore, Muhammad hid from the Arabs the secrets of the Gospel, believing that in the future [these secrets] could become known by the wise—just as in its beginning period the Gospel, too, remained obscure and unknown to many but was made progressively more evident. And if this [procedure] had not been expedient, then Christ would not have spoken to the people in parables....
The faith of the Gospel was despised everywhere by the idolatrous Orientals. The law of the Arabs came as someone unwilling to consent unto the faith [of the Gospel,] and it led the Arabs unto the worship of one God; nevertheless, the Gospel was secretly approved [by the Koran]"
Last edited:
od19g6
Member
Not if that Prophet comes with proofs of His mission.
PureX
Veteran Member
None of them ever do. Prophesy is interpretation, not fact.
Last edited:
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
What were the social teachings of Jesus that were changed by Muhammad?
In just the major religions, what are the eternal spiritual teachings that each religions teaches? And, in each one, what were the social teachings that the next religion in the progression changed?
Prophecies... What prophecies did Jesus fulfill from the religions that proceeded him? Which should be Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism and Judaism.
Baha'u'llah has brought new social teachings, but what new social teachings did Krishna bring? And how did it change Hinduism?
Let's take Moses and Jesus. What do we know about their lives? Did Moses kill a man? Was he a "perfect" reflection of the attributes of God? Did Jesus walk on water and raise Lazarus from the dead? Did he cast out demons out of people? Is all of this true?
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
In all this I would think it would be important to read a little of Joseph Campbell and other anthropologists to see how religion evolves. And, as it evolves, some religions go extinct. While others adapt to change and morph into something else. But is it an Almighty God bringing this about? I would very much question how a one God had anything to do with some of the ancient religions. They very much seem like they were made up by the people and culture in those times and are not seen as being real, but are seen as being mythology.