Scenario of a prophet

[Peace]

[

QUOTE=gnostic]Here is a scenario for the 3 main Abrahamic religions.

The problem with Christianity, is that there were no other independent witness of Jesus' miracles and resurrection. We only have testimonies from the few. No Roman or Greek had reported such things at that time.

But it happened nevertheless, and I am sure of Prophet Jesus' miracles and that he was a Prophet of God as I am sure that I exist

The problem with Islam is that Muhammad was the only one who saw this angel Gabriel. And there are no definite and independent proof that the Qur'an was received from God. We only have his words that it came from God.

The companions of Prophet Muhammad saw Angel Gabriel too. In a hadith that goes on:

Umar ibn Khattab (Allah be pleased with him) narrated:
``As we sat one day with the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings upon him), a man with pure white clothing and jet black hair came to us, without a trace of traveling upon him, though none of us knew him. He sat down before the Prophet (pbuh) bracing his knees against his, and resting his hands on his legs, said:

`Muhammad, tell me about Islam.' The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said: `Islam is to testify there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and to perform the prayer, give zakat, fast in Ramadan, and perform the pilgrimage to the House if you can find a way.' He said: `You have spoken the truth,' and we were surprised that he should ask and then confirm the answer. Then he said: `Tell me about true faith (iman), ' and the Prophet answered: `It is to believe in Allah, His angels, His inspired Books, His messengers, the Last Day, and in destiny, its good and evil.'' You have spoken the truth,' he said, `Now tell me about the perfection of faith (ihsan), ' and the Prophet answered: `It is to worship Allah as if you see Him, and if you see Him not, He nevertheless sees you.' `Tell me of the Hour,' said the visitor, and he was told: `The one questioned knows no more about it than the questioner.' 'Then tell me of its portents,' he said, and the Prophet replied: 'That the slave woman shall give birth to her mistress, and that you shall see barefoot, naked, penniless shepherds vying in constructing high buildings.' Then the visitor left. I waited a while, and the Prophet said to me, `Do you know, `Umar, who was the questioner?' and I replied, `Allah and His messenger know best.' He said, `It was Angel Gabriel (the Angel), who came to you to teach you your religion ' ''

(Sahih Muslim (y-92), 1.37-38).

I would say I believe in Prophet Muhammad, Prophet Moses, Prophet Jesus and all Prophets of God peace be upon them all. If I say that I doubt them, I doubt their existance or Prophethood, it is as if I say I doubt whether I really do exist.

Peace

 

[Darkdale]

But it happened nevertheless, and I am sure of Prophet Jesus' miracles and that he was a Prophet of God as I am sure that I exist

What makes you so sure? How can you be certain of something of which you have no knowledge? In other words, how does faith equate to certainty?

 

[gnostic]

Sorry, Peace, but Muhammad's companion can't be considered as independent eye-witness of the angel's visitation, anymore than from Joseph Smith's companions.

A visit from angel is not the same as the appearance of God. Angels can appear to many people. My problem with all Abrahamic scriptures is that nothing can be vertified, independently and conclusively.

Don't equate independent eye-witnesses with prophet's followers or companions, because they are usually the ones who are biased. This not applied to Muhammad and Joseph Smith, but also to Moses and Jesus.

 

[Peace]

What makes you so sure? How can you be certain of something of which you have no knowledge? In other words, how does faith equate to certainty?

Because Gods told me so in His Holy protected book Quran, and I haven't the least doubt in the authenticity of the Quran and that it is a true revelation from God the Almighty. I am sure 100%

Peace

 

[sojourner]

I haven't read the rest of this thread, but here's my answer to the original question:

The religion and the God that I have "grown into" over the years differs greatly from the God and the religion that I was introduced to as a child. In my experience, I have seen evidence and manifestations of what I can only define as God -- revealing things and helping me to grow. To me, religious conviction is a mixture of personal, subjective revelation and communal revelation through the Body of Christ, the Church. a public appearance of a heavenly being wouldn't be any more compelling to me than what I have experienced in my own being.

Many revelations have been public. One just needs to be sensitive to their appearing. The Church has changed -- even those bastions of tradition, the Roman and Eastern Churches, have changed over time, as God has directed them.

 

[Buttons*]

I would be sceptical too. I am, however, willing to learn. I have been searching for answers, because the religions as it is today, is not good enough. I can't follow any scripture on blind faith. Proving the existence of spirit, like an angel appearing for all to see, and not just to prophet, like claims from Muhammad and Joseph Smith, is not valid and definite proof.

The truth is that the bible had never satisfied me.

If you read some of the biblical events, and the miracles that have taken place, you would find that they are no more convincing than mythology from Sumer, Babylon, Egypt, Greece and Rome. There are far older myths in Sumer and Akkad (Babylonia) that tell of the Creation and the Flood; and there are some striking similarities between what is found between Mesopotamian myths and the Genesis. The original Noah was Ziusudra (Sumerian), who was lated named Atrahasis or Ut-napishta (Akkadian-Babylonian). What is now called the Eridu Genesis showed Ziusudra surviving the Flood in the ark with his family.

The Genesis forming part of the Hebrew Torah, as one of 5 books that was attributed to Moses, was composed until over a thousand years later. If you are to believe that tales of time before Abraham was handed down from generation to generation (oral tradition) until Moses' time, and if you are to believe the Genesis literally, then you would have notice that Abraham (possibly flourished in the 1800 BC) had come out of Babylonia, in the city of Ur. Mesopotamia at that time of Abraham, had ancient religion and long oral tradition. Sumerian language ceased to exist as spoken language by 2000, after the fall of 3rd Dynasty of Ur. The Akkadian language had taken over Mesopotamia as language of choice, this Akkadian diverge into 2 different dialects, Assyrian in the north and Babylonian in the south. By Abraham's time, the most prominent city was Babylon. Where did the Hebrew creation myth come from? You could say (this is speculation) that Abraham brought the tale of creation and flood out of Mesopotamia. From oral tradition from Abraham to Moses, the Hebrew version would have changed over that period of time, so that instead of Ziusudra or Atrahasis, there is Noah.

The creation of man in the Genesis resembled a couple of Sumerian legends, where humans was created from soil or clay, is far older than the biblical Genesis of Adam and Eve.

Even Jesus' resurrection is not original. The Egyptian myth of Osiris is one of resurrection.

Sorry, I've gotten sidetracked. But the point is that I don't trust the bible supernatural events any more than I would from mythology of that regions of the Middle East.

There are no proof of any writing before Moses' time. There is only the possibility of oral tradition.

I think more people should pay attention to this post.
Yeshua performed miralces that had been performed by Greek gods as well. Dionysis turned water into wine. They even had a ritual every year that had something to do with Dionysis dying on the cross. o.0
I'm heretical, but the actions performed by Yeshua are no more than a combination of Osiris, Dionysys, and prophecies that needed to be fulfilled in order for people to believe the story...
(oh, today is my dying day...*hides under a rock*)

 

[Popeyesays]

I think more people should pay attention to this post.
Yeshua performed miralces that had been performed by Greek gods as well. Dionysis turned water into wine. They even had a ritual every year that had something to do with Dionysis dying on the cross. o.0
I'm heretical, but the actions performed by Yeshua are no more than a combination of Osiris, Dionysys, and prophecies that needed to be fulfilled in order for people to believe the story...
(oh, today is my dying day...*hides under a rock*)

I tend to agree. So you can peek out from under that rock while I talk to you. (You might want to stay there because others will be waiting with a rope and an appropriate tree in mind.)

I'll say it clearly - a miracle proves squat to those who do not experience it.

"What then is the mission of the divine prophets? Their mission is the education and advancement of the world of humanity. They are the real teachers and educators, the universal instructors of mankind. If we wish to discover whether any one of these great souls or messengers was in reality a prophet of God we must investigate the facts surrounding His life and history; and the first point of our investigation will be the education He bestowed upon mankind. If He has been an educator, if He has really trained a nation or people, causing it to rise from the lowest depths of ignorance to the highest station of knowledge, then we are sure that He was a prophet. This is a plain and clear method of procedure, proof that is irrefutable. We do not need to seek after other proofs. We do not need to mention miracles, saying that out of rock water gushed forth, for such miracles and statements may be denied and refused by those who hear them. The deeds of Moses are conclusive evidences of His prophethood. If a man be fair, unbiased and willing to investigate reality he will undoubtedly testify to the fact that Moses was verily a man of God and a great personage.
(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 273)

So the prophet's quality is tested by what He actually accomplishes for mankind. Today who has the greater impact on society - Jesus or Osiris?

Regards,
Scott

 

[Buttons*]

I tend to agree. So you can peek out from under that rock while I talk to you. (You might want to stay there because others will be waiting with a rope and an appropriate tree in mind.)

Yeah, i'll make myself at home under this rock... And wont come out till the hanging squad is gone :help:

"What then is the mission of the divine prophets? Their mission is the education and advancement of the world of humanity. They are the real teachers and educators, the universal instructors of mankind. If we wish to discover whether any one of these great souls or messengers was in reality a prophet of God we must investigate the facts surrounding His life and history; and the first point of our investigation will be the education He bestowed upon mankind. If He has been an educator, if He has really trained a nation or people, causing it to rise from the lowest depths of ignorance to the highest station of knowledge, then we are sure that He was a prophet. This is a plain and clear method of procedure, proof that is irrefutable. We do not need to seek after other proofs. We do not need to mention miracles, saying that out of rock water gushed forth, for such miracles and statements may be denied and refused by those who hear them. The deeds of Moses are conclusive evidences of His prophethood. If a man be fair, unbiased and willing to investigate reality he will undoubtedly testify to the fact that Moses was verily a man of God and a great personage.
(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 273)

This is true on so many levels. I'm glad you shared this with us. (I find TONS of truth in it...)

So the prophet's quality is tested by what He actually accomplishes for mankind. Today who has the greater impact on society - Jesus or Osiris?

Well, since Yeshua kind of took over the roles of both Osiris and Dionysis.... *shrugs*
Personally, i think humankind would be better off focusing on what Yeshua was trying to accomplish rather than his miracles and divinity. Peace, love, all those things that we strive for. Miracles mean nothing, it's the parables and truths behind the texts that we gain from. imo...

 

[Anastasios]

"... it is a guidance for the righteous, Who believe in the unseen... Quran 2:3-4.

TO BELIEVE IN THE 'UNSEEN' is a fundamental constituent of the Muslim faith as mentioned in the verse quoted above. But as has been well demonstrated, the Quran is a book of reason and rationality which roundly condemns coercion or threat in any form to change human ideas. Thus to interpret this verse to indicate that it promotes blind faith by requiring man to believe in the 'unseen' would stand counter to this Quranic emphasis. Quite to the contrary, to believe in the spurious without evidence and solid justification is what the Quran attributes to the non-believers. It further condemns them for attempting to change the views of the believers by sheer brutality. What then, does the phrase 'Belief in the Unseen' mean? This is the important question which needs to be fully addressed.
One must make an in-depth study of this phrase as a specific term coined by the Quran. The failure to grasp its true meaning may result in serious consequences as happened in the medieval ages during the scholastic debates between different Muslim schools of thought. Some rigid and uncompromising Muslim scholars disallow the use of rationality altogether in matters of faith. They state that the revealed truth by itself is all-sufficient and as such it should be accepted without any rational investigation. Others who oppose this view quote many Quranic verses requiring everyone to abide invariably by the dictates of reason at every stage of decision making and give priority to rationality over blind faith.

But what is faith? How can one have faith without satisfying one's sense of inquiry? Is it not a reality that the majority of common people belonging to all religions believe without actually comprehending the meaning of their belief? They just happen to believe and that is all there is to it.

This is the dilemma which necessarily requires one to address the issue of faith versus reason, and the need to determine the nature of their interrelationship becomes all the more important. As this question is sufficiently covered in the chapter entitled European Philosophy, we shall endeavour not to unnecessarily repeat what has already been covered therein. What is left therefore is to acquire a more elaborate understanding of the term 'unseen'.

To begin with, let us point out that the lack of knowledge about things does not necessarily mean that they do not exist. They may exist, but lie hidden behind the veil of the unknown. Later, either through the course of human investigation or through the agency of Divine revelation, they emerge from the realm of the unseen to that of the seen.

The term 'unseen' in its wider application is employed to cover everything which is not directly visible or audible. Likewise it also covers all that is not directly accessible through other human sensory faculties. In this respect we may also define the unseen as a domain which covers all forms of existence which lie beyond the direct access of the five senses. The things which belong to this category do not remain permanently inaccessible. They are inaccessible only with reference to a given period in time.

All hidden knowledge of perceivable things, whether it pertains to the past, the present or the future, lies within the scope of this category. In other words, we are required to believe in the existence of things which are not known at a given point in time, but do exist and may become known at another point in time. This belief cannot be dubbed as blind faith. The Quran does not require the believers to have faith in anything which is not supported by irrefutable arguments. Hence the unseen covers only such things as may become accessible through the instruments of reason, rationality and deductive logic. The point to be noted here is that the unseen as defined, though not directly perceivable by the senses, is yet verifiable. The rationale of this Quranic injunction is fully supported by human experience."

 

[lilithu]

Sorry, Peace, but Muhammad's companion can't be considered as independent eye-witness of the angel's visitation, anymore than from Joseph Smith's companions.

Just to play devil's advocate... what if someone were an aquaintance of Mohammed before he was called by Gibreel. What if someone just knew him casually, didn't think any special of him other than that by all accounts he was a stand-up guy. So this person is just standing with Mohammed talking about the weather and all of the sudden an angel visits him. And because of this visit, now he believes that Mohammed is a true prophet and after that he become one of the Prophet's most devoted followers because of what he has seen with his own eyes. Centuries later people are going to say that he was biased because history shows that he was a follower.

I'm not saying that Mohammed really was visited by an angel. I do not know. But it seems to me that if any other potentially independant eye-witnesses did see it, they would likely have then converted. You're asking for a person who saw the angel and yet still did not believe. By your criterion then, it makes "independant" verification darn near impossible.

A visit from angel is not the same as the appearance of God. Angels can appear to many people.

In some interpretations of these scriptures angels are God. They do not exist as independant beings but are manifestations of God in a human form so that the people being visited are able relate. That said, even if the angel is not the same as God, why does that matter? Most people would accept a supernatural appearance of God's messenger as evidence of God.

My problem with all Abrahamic scriptures is that nothing can be vertified, independently and conclusively.

That's true of all scriptures, not just the Abrahamic ones. When Buddhist scripture says that the Buddha was visited by Brahma shortly after his enlightenment, do you think there was an independant eye-witness to this? Even the scriptures say that he was alone. Yet he gained hundreds (perhaps thousands) of followers before he died because people perceived truth in what he taught. If you're looking for independant verification you are wasting your time. Religion isn't science. The Buddha said not to accept things based on the authority of tradition, nor sages and prophets, nor perception, nor logic, nor even on even himself. Practice the the teachings. If by your own experience they make you a better person then accept them as true. If they do not, then do not accept them. That is the only valid test of religion, and it's entirely and utterly subjective.

 

[Popeyesays]

Yeah, i'll make myself at home under this rock... And wont come out till the hanging squad is gone :help:

This is true on so many levels. I'm glad you shared this with us. (I find TONS of truth in it...)

Well, since Yeshua kind of took over the roles of both Osiris and Dionysis.... *shrugs*
Personally, i think humankind would be better off focusing on what Yeshua was trying to accomplish rather than his miracles and divinity. Peace, love, all those things that we strive for. Miracles mean nothing, it's the parables and truths behind the texts that we gain from. imo...

In other words, the profound differences the Prophet makes in the world after His physical presence is gone.
I think there is a real honest expectation that the Prophet will change the world FOR us, when what He really changes is our perceptions so that WE change the world. Jesus was the Messenger of God and gives us a message, but it is up to us to understand the message and truly implement it in the world.
So, can we really expect the appearance of single such Messenger to actually create the "Kingdom of God" in this world? I don't think so. Building the Kingdom is kind of like building the Gothic cathedrals. Each of those massive architectural projects took more than a century to complete. And in that time it was not the labor of the Messenger that got the work done. It was the back breaking and dedicated labor of humanity.

So, the building of the Kingdom is a much more ambitious project it will take millenia, and in the process we are going to have to be visited by more Messengers to keep us on track over the course of all those years. Therefore we have Abraham and Krsna, Moses and Jesus, Buddha and Zoroaster, the Bab and Baha`u'llah reiterating the teachings of Their predeccesors and giving the new guidance required to keep the project moving forward. The Message is that we persevere, step by step til we raise the Kingdom, because THAT is how God wills it be done.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Squirt]

I wish more theists would chime in on this thread. I think for most if not just about all of them faith is a matter of "what feels right" to them as opposed to evidence or proof. It is a common misconception by many non-theists that theists arrived at their beliefs by intrepreting what they precieved as "proof" or "evidence". If that thought is true it is irrelevant if some angel came out of the sky with proof because in the long run, proof is not what determines ones faith instead feeling is. If the angel could invoke a feeling of inpiration or elicit a strong emotional response that might be a better convesion tool than tangable evidence.

I think that's a valid point. I think it is a perfect explanation of why we theists believe as we do. Call it blind faith or anything else you want, there is something to be said for belief based on spiritual confirmation that something is true. Physical evidence is nice, but for those of us who have experienced evidence of a Higher Power from that Higher Power, it's not something than can easily be dismissed. It's also something that cannot be easily explained. Maybe that's why more theists haven't responded.

 

[Squirt]

Just to play devil's advocate... what if someone were an aquaintance of Mohammed before he was called by Gibreel. What if someone just knew him casually, didn't think any special of him other than that by all accounts he was a stand-up guy. So this person is just standing with Mohammed talking about the weather and all of the sudden an angel visits him. And because of this visit, now he believes that Mohammed is a true prophet and after that he become one of the Prophet's most devoted followers because of what he has seen with his own eyes. Centuries later people are going to say that he was biased because history shows that he was a follower.

I'm not saying that Mohammed really was visited by an angel. I do not know. But it seems to me that if any other potentially independant eye-witnesses did see it, they would likely have then converted. You're asking for a person who saw the angel and yet still did not believe. By your criterion then, it makes "independant" verification darn near impossible.

How'd you get to be so darned smart? I am so glad to see you posting again. I joined RF shortly before you disappeared for awhile, and I always loved reading your posts. Everything you say always makes so much sense to me.

 

[lilithu]

I think there is a real honest expectation that the Prophet will change the world FOR us, when what He really changes is our perceptions so that WE change the world. Jesus was the Messenger of God and gives us a message, but it is up to us to understand the message and truly implement it in the world.

Amen to that! (and some frubals too).

 

[gnostic]

That's true of all scriptures, not just the Abrahamic ones. When Buddhist scripture says that the Buddha was visited by Brahma shortly after his enlightenment, do you think there was an independant eye-witness to this? Even the scriptures say that he was alone.

I think you forget that the original Buddha didn't actively call people to follow him, like Jesus and Muhammad; the Buddha's method of conversion (that if you call it that) was passive. He didn't ask for conversion to his teaching; he just accepted anyone who was willing to learn his way. That's a big difference between Buddhism and the Abrahamic religions.

The Buddha set no laws people for the people, and he didn't ask for people to leave their old religions. Even today, Buddhists would happily teaching Christians, Muslims or any other religion without asking for full conversions. Acceptance of the visitation of Braham is not really important in Buddhist teaching.

Jesus and Muhammad ask people to follow their ways only. With Islam and Christianity they tried to actively convert people as their religions to being the only true ones. The Buddha didn't say follow me as your only mean of salvation; reaching enlightenment and ninvana is a goal for each individual; he was not trying to enforce it.

Gee, Lilithu. You got me all sidetracked. :dan:

 

[lilithu]

I think you forget that the original Buddha didn't actively call people to follow him, like Jesus and Muhammad; the Buddha's method of conversion (that if you call it that) was passive. He didn't ask for conversion to his teaching; he just accepted anyone who was willing to learn his way. That's a big difference between Buddhism and the Abrahamic religions.

First, I did not forget that difference. It's just not relevant to your statement that the problem that you have with the Abrahamic faiths is that "nothing can be verified." If you have other problems with the Abrahamic faiths, then perhaps that's what you should be discussing.

Second, I think you overstate the difference. True, there are a few stories in Buddhist scriptures where the Buddha told someone not to follow him but instead to stay with their original teacher. These stories are often repeated by people in order to show how Buddhism is more open and accepting than the Abrahamic traditions. But there are many more stories in Buddhist scriptures where the Buddha says that his teachings are the only correct teachings. (Other teachings may have merit and lead to a better rebirth but they still lead to rebirth. Only his teachings lead to nirvana.) If he did not try to convince everyone of this, it's because he could see that most people were not ready for his teachings. Technically, Buddhism is a proselytizing faith, along with Christianity and Islam. Judaism, otoh, is not. Tho I agree with you that the level of proselytizing in Buddhism is markedly lower.

 

[gnostic]

If you have other problems with the Abrahamic faiths, then perhaps that's what you should be discussing.

LOL

Well, if you didn't get me sidetracked with Buddha and Buddhism, then I wouldn't be sidetracked.

This is a topic about prophet of the Abrahamic faiths. The question was, if a real prophet and angel from God, was willing to provide proof of his existence, and their religions have stray from the path, would you change religion? Would the people from all three religions would stop bickering over petty issue of the existence of messiah, last prophet, or has a better religion?

To me, I see religions, particularly Christianity and Islam as a petty religions, fighting over whose religion is right. I simply don't care for "my religion is better than yours". I have a tendency to switch off, when either Muslisms or Christians act this way.

 

[Buttons*]

To me, I see religions, particularly Christianity and Islam as a petty religions, fighting over whose religion is right. I simply don't care for "my religion is better than yours". I have a tendency to switch off, when either Muslisms or Christians act this way.

Most religions have a tendency to act this way. It's people getting the wrong message out of a good idea. (imo anyway...)

 

[Ibrahim Al-Amin]

LOL

This is a topic about prophet of the Abrahamic faiths. The question was, if a real prophet and angel from God, was willing to provide proof of his existence, and their religions have stray from the path, would you change religion? Would the people from all three religions would stop bickering over petty issue of the existence of messiah, last prophet, or has a better religion?

Gnostic,

As a theist, I have been hesitant to post because they're is so much bating by people who have an agenda. So far, however, this post seems fair, and you post a very good question.

I think that people always need to be prepared for self-improvement, whether it's as humanistic as recovering from alcoholism, or as spiritual as a change of religions. Personally, I went through an emotional switch from Christianity to Islam for what I consider to be well-researched reasons, and the thought of reconsidering that switch is exhausting. The problem of posing this issue to Muslims is that the Quran states that Muhammad is the "Final Prophet." So any following prophets would be, theologically, false. For Muslims to switch, the apparition would have to be that of God himself.

From a Muslim perspective, the Quran is God's Word, so it cannot be "wrong." That does not dispute the possibility that many Muslims could be practicing the religion wrong, however. Islam was founded on the premise that Jews and Christians are not practicing the religion of Abraham "correctly." So of course, it is conceivable that some Muslims are also practicing the religion of Abraham incorrectly.

If conclusive proof existed that God appeared, I certainly would listen to what he had to say. Whether we know that it was "proof" or not is a separate debate.

Cheers.
IA-A

 

[gnostic]

As I recalled about the Christian bible, John the Baptist was the last prophet. If what the Qur'an say is true, then God had changed his mind, in regarding to the Islam/Muhammad.

And according to the Judaism, the last prophet was well before Alexander the Great's arrival (possibly Malachi or Joel).

If God can change his mind on two occasions, then what stopping him bring more prophets, if the world is in dire needs?

Religions all around the world have generally dropped (this really depends region to region). I am quite sure you have noticed that there are some extreme radical interpretations to the Qur'an by some factions of Islam. If moderate Muslims don't stop extremists would continue to grow, then where would that leave you.

I really wished that all three Abrahamic religions can exist peacefully, but the reality is that some don't want peace. How do you mend such rift of not Islam with other religions, but among themselves? I don't see any single, moderate Muslim leader today, who is charismatic enough to call for all Muslims to reject the violent leanings. All the charismatic Muslim leaders tends to have very violent tendencies.

That's why a new prophet, who have no tie with the current mainstream religions, to mend the rifts, and hopefully quash mis-interpretations and misunderstandings from all religions.

For anyone to deny any real prophet would actually defeat God's work, just because a prophet is not Jew or Arab. To me, quarreling over the messiah and last prophet is pure selfishness.

To me, old scriptures are not enough, and today it clearly showed that there are different understandings that often cause frictions.