The Exclusivity of Christianity

[Trailblazer]

The Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, was born to royalty. He renounced it later in life to live as an aesthetic, but he was not born destitute.

I did not mean they were born that way. What I meant is that the prophets appeared to their followers just like ordinary men.
Baha'u'llah was born to an aristocratic family in Persia, and His family was considerably wealthy.

Except for those stories of walking on water, and raising the dead?

Anyone can write stories and there will always be people who believe them.

So, God's purpose is to make the Truth difficult for humans to find? God deliberately hides the Truth from humans, you are saying, to test to see who are worthy by just being able to believe it when someone claims to come from God?

God does not deliberately hide the Truth from humans, it is all there for people to find, but it is not 'easy' to recognize the Messengers, because if it was too easy it would be like giving away the answers on a test that was intended to differentiate the students from each other.

 

[Trailblazer]

That is exactly what I was saying. Scholars are okay, up to the point their scholarship is thrown upon the fire because the prophet gets to throw all that out the window if he doesn't like it. Isn't that like saying we can disregard the evidence that the sun is the center of the solar system as science says, because the Pope decides the earth is the center instead? What's different there?

You are conflating science and religion. Scientific evidence about material things is not the same as religious truth about spiritual things such as God and prophets. Science offers objective proofs, religion is a matter of subjective personal opinion about things that cannot be proven.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

Baha'is do not believe that Jesus was resurrected after death but we do believe that Jesus was born of a virgin.

"First regarding the birth of Jesus Christ. In light of what Bahá’u’lláh and ‘Abdu’l-Bahá have stated concerning this subject it is evident that Jesus came into this world through the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit, and that consequently His birth was quite miraculous. This is an established fact, and the friends need not feel at all surprised, as the belief in the possibility of miracles has never been rejected in the Teachings. Their importance, however, has been minimized."

So, regardless of the claims that the mothers of Messengers were virgins or not, do all the Messengers come through from intervention of the Holy Spirit? In other words - is every Messenger's father God directly?

 

[Windwalker]

God does not deliberately hide the Truth from humans, it is all there for people to find, but it is not 'easy' to recognize the Messengers, because if it was too easy it would be like giving away the answers on a test that was intended to differentiate the students from each other.

Why do you view life and finding Truth to be a test? Are you saying life is about earning a good grade in order to pass God's entrance exam? God doesn't what everyone to graduate, in other words, only those who are good enough, those who earn the degree? Isn't that a salvation of works, where you can boast about how accomplished you are spiritually?

 

[Windwalker]

You are conflating science and religion. Scientific evidence about material things is not the same as religious truth about spiritual things such as God and prophets. Science offers objective proofs, religion is a matter of subjective personal opinion about things that cannot be proven.

I was referring to academic scholarship of understanding the nature of scripture in service of better interpretations. Good hermeneutics in other words. That is scientific in that sense. You can't just pull an interpretation out of thin air and claim that's what it means, unless you can support it.

That's what I am saying is the problem with these prophets who somehow get to disregard all that and make pronouncements that well-supported scholarship might disagree with. That's like the Pope saying science is wrong because God told him it was. You don't get to throw out scholarship, or scientists via claims of divine authority. That's only valid if you disregard the sciences altogether.

As far as religion being about personal subjective opinions that cannot be proven, I would disagree with this. Religion should be able to support its claims that are being made as universal truths for everyone. I can't just saying. "God told me this or that", and call that a valid universal truth. I have to be able to support it with something objective.

If I am part of a religious community, my subjective views should be able to find corroboration in the views and experiences of others, and a least somewhat fit within the framework of the tradition itself. It's not just a "My opinion is just a good as anyone else's, and there's is no better or worse than my own." Religions are supposed to be about shared beliefs and practices, not whatever anyone comes up with and it's all valid and equal.

 

[Trailblazer]

So, regardless of the claims that the mothers of Messengers were virgins or not, do all the Messengers come through from intervention of the Holy Spirit? In other words - is every Messenger's father God directly?

I do not believe that God was the father of Jesus, because God is not a biological entity who has offspring.
Saying that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit simply means that Jesus found existence through the Spirit of God so His birth was quite miraculous.
Saying that Jesus was the Son of God is saying that He was like a son is in relationship to His father, not that He was literally the offspring of God.

The other messengers had a human father and mother so their births were not miraculous. However, it is a Baha'i belief that all the messengers of God have a twofold nature, so they were all both divine and human. That applies to their souls, not to their bodies, since the soul is the person himeslf.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why do you view life and finding Truth to be a test? Are you saying life is about earning a good grade in order to pass God's entrance exam? God doesn't what everyone to graduate, in other words, only those who are good enough, those who earn the degree? Isn't that a salvation of works, where you can boast about how accomplished you are spiritually?

God does not deliberately hide the Truth from humans, it is all there for people to find, but it is not 'easy' to recognize the Messengers because one has to meet certain criteria, as noted in the Tablet of the True Seeker, in order to be able to recognize their divine station.

The Truth is not obvious to most people. In fact, few people find it.

Matthew 7:13-14 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

Few people find the narrow gate and even fewer people enter through it because it is narrow, so it is difficult to get through...

It is difficult to get through because one has to be willing to give up all their preconceived ideas, have an open mind, and think for themselves. Most people do not embark upon such a journey. They go through the wide gate, the easy one to get through – their own religious tradition or their own preconceived ideas about God or no god. They follow that broad road that is easiest for them to travel.... and that is why new Messengers of God are always rejected by most people for a very long time after they appear on earth.

 

[Trailblazer]

You can't just pull an interpretation out of thin air and claim that's what it means, unless you can support it.

But that is exactly what most people do, pull an interpretation out of thin air and claim that's what it means, with nothing to support it.
Granted, they usually got their interpretation from a church leader, but not always. I see Christians on this forum with thie own private interpretations of scriptures and they insist only they are correc, as they argue with other Christians.

That's what I am saying is the problem with these prophets who somehow get to disregard all that and make pronouncements that well-supported scholarship might disagree with.

Well, if they are really Prophets of God then they have knowledge from God who is all-knowing, so they know are better able to know what scriptures mean than any scholar.

If I am part of a religious community, my subjective views should be able to find corroboration in the views and experiences of others, and a least somewhat fit within the framework of the tradition itself. It's not just a "My opinion is just a good as anyone else's, and there's is no better or worse than my own." Religions are supposed to be about shared beliefs and practices, not whatever anyone comes up with and it's all valid and equal.

That's true, and Baha'is generally find corroboration in the views of other Baha'is, since Baha'u'llah appointed interpreters and their interpretations carry authority within the religion. You won't find that in Christianity since nobody was appointed by Jesus to interpret the Bible, so it was left to the churches which then conveyed their interpretations to in individual members. There are many different interpretations of the same scriptures, which is why there are so many different sects of Christianity. That same can be said for other older religions which hold various beliefs that are not the same. For example, some Buddhists believe in God and others don't. Why the discrepancy?

 

[PearlSeeker]

I do not believe that the resurrection stories are literally true since I do not believe that Jesus rose physically from the dead. I am not alone in this belief as many liberal Christians do not believe that Jesus rose from the dead and they are reading the same Bible as the Christians who believe Jesus rose.

Many don't believe it but they don't try to change the original meaning and intention of the stories.

 

[CG Didymus]

Many don't believe it but they don't try to change the original meaning and intention of the stories.

Exactly. If Baha'i say they don't believe the resurrection really happened, then I don't see how they can claim that the NT is true.

 

[101G]

if there is only one true religion, then all others are false. If there is only one true God, who is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ—the triune God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit—then there is no other God. So you get the idea.

then you said,

But on the face of it, it’s impossible that Christianity is true and other religions are true. This is the basic law of reason called the law of noncontradiction. Just from a rational standpoint, the law of noncontradiction is, “A cannot be non-A at the same time in the same way.”

That is correct. If Christianity is true that means that all other religions are false, given Christians believe that Jesus is “the Only Way” to God.

Then you said,

can get to heaven by any religion.” A lie from the devil. Deuteronomy 4:35 says, “The Lord, He is God; there is no other besides Him.” That’s the exclusivity of the true God. Deuteronomy 4:39, “The Lord, He is God in heaven [alone] and on the earth below; there is no other.” First Kings 8, verse 60, “The Lord is God; there is no one else.”

Question, "How can your ONE TRUE God be triune when the scriptures you gave said that God is a "HE" a single one person? ".
Deuteronomy 4:39 "Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else."

the verse said, "consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God". CONSIDER "HE" is a Single person.

this is the question then, "is God triune, (IN PERSONS), according to men, or is he the "ECHAD", (IN PERSON of his own-self), as God clearly states in Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:" and this "one", (PERSON), is in Ordinal designation of "First"/Father, and "Last"/Son.

this is the crust of the problem, is God a Triune of PERSON(S), or an ECHAD of a single PERSON, in an Ordinal designation of TIME, PLACE, ORDER. or RANK, just as Genesis 1:1 clearly States.

101G.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then you said,

Deuteronomy 4:35 says, “The Lord, He is God; there is no other besides Him.” That’s the exclusivity of the true God. Deuteronomy 4:39, “The Lord, He is God in heaven [alone] and on the earth below; there is no other.” First Kings 8, verse 60, “The Lord is God; there is no one else.”

I did not say that. I was quoting from the article entitled One Lord, One Faith, One God: The Exclusivity of Christianity

Question, "How can your ONE TRUE God be triune when the scriptures you gave said that God is a "HE" a single one person? ".

I did not give those scriptures, they were in the article. I do not believe that the ONE TRUE God is triune.

the verse said, "consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God". CONSIDER "HE" is a Single person.

I believe that God is One, but I do not believe that God is a Person.

 

[Trailblazer]

Many don't believe it but they don't try to change the original meaning and intention of the stories.

I did not try to change the original meaning and intention of the stories. Abdu'l-Baha did that.
I do not pretend to know the original meaning or intention of the stories since I did not write them.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Yes, their souls existed in the spiritual world before they were born into this world. By contrast, the souls of ordinary humans come into existence at the time of conception, so our souls did not exist before we were conceived.

That was in response to, " is there anything special or miraculous about the way the messengers came into existence?" There is no test for which souls are which, which is what it means to say that the claim is unfalsifiable (nonscientific, metaphysical, "not even wrong"). You can't know who fits which description before deciding who to consider a messenger.

Jesus was born of a virgin, but that is not what made Him special. It was what He did on His mission and His message that made Him special.

I'd have said it exactly the other way around. Without the miracles, the life of Jesus was ordinary, and miracles in a life make that life extraordinary. Do you really think that you could not have lived that life, or that thousands if not millions of lives have been better lived? If so, which part? The part where he wanders about telling people to be more loving and pious and collects a following?

God does not deliberately hide the Truth from humans, it is all there for people to find, but it is not 'easy' to recognize the Messengers, because if it was too easy it would be like giving away the answers on a test that was intended to differentiate the students from each other.

That sounds like hiding the truth to me.

Scientific evidence about material things is not the same as religious truth about spiritual things such as God and prophets.

Did you mean that empirical knowledge is different from faith-based belief? If so, I agree. Only the former has practical value beyond comforting. I don't call fervently held, faith-based belief truth or knowledge - just unjustified belief. They are very different kinds of ideas.

 

[Trailblazer]

That was in response to, " is there anything special or miraculous about the way the messengers came into existence?" There is no test for which souls are which, which is what it means to say that the claim is unfalsifiable (nonscientific, metaphysical, "not even wrong"). You can't know who fits which description before deciding who to consider a messenger.

He asked me if there was anything special or miraculous about the way the messengers came into existence, so I answered what he asked.
No, there is no test that can be used to determine how their souls came into existence, so we cannot use that to determine if a man is a messenger or not.

I'd have said it exactly the other way around. Without the miracles, the life of Jesus was ordinary, and miracles in a life make that life extraordinary. Do you really think that you could not have lived that life, or that thousands if not millions of lives have been better lived? If so, which part? The part where he wanders about telling people to be more loving and pious and collects a following?

Jesus did more than wander about telling people to be more loving and pious and collect a following. No, I do not think any ordinary man could do what Jesus did. Jesus uplifted the standard of God before all the people of the world, and withstood them. Of course, I base what Jesus did not only upon what is in the New Testament, but also upon what the Baha'i Writings say about Jesus:

“Know thou that when the Son of Man yielded up His breath to God, the whole creation wept with a great weeping. By sacrificing Himself, however, a fresh capacity was infused into all created things. Its evidences, as witnessed in all the peoples of the earth, are now manifest before thee. The deepest wisdom which the sages have uttered, the profoundest learning which any mind hath unfolded, the arts which the ablest hands have produced, the influence 86 exerted by the most potent of rulers, are but manifestations of the quickening power released by His transcendent, His all-pervasive, and resplendent Spirit.

We testify that when He came into the world, He shed the splendor of His glory upon all created things. Through Him the leper recovered from the leprosy of perversity and ignorance. Through Him, the unchaste and wayward were healed. Through His power, born of Almighty God, the eyes of the blind were opened, and the soul of the sinner sanctified.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 85-86

“But in the day of the Manifestation the people with insight see that all the conditions of the Manifestation are miracles, for They are superior to all others, and this alone is an absolute miracle. Recollect that Christ, solitary and alone, without a helper or protector, without armies and legions, and under the greatest oppression, uplifted the standard of God before all the people of the world, and withstood them, and finally conquered all, although outwardly He was crucified. Now this is a veritable miracle which can never be denied. There is no need of any other proof of the truth of Christ.

The outward miracles have no importance for the people of Reality. If a blind man receives sight, for example, he will finally again become sightless, for he will die and be deprived of all his senses and powers. Therefore, causing the blind man to see is comparatively of little importance, for this faculty of sight will at last disappear. If the body of a dead person be resuscitated, of what use is it since the body will die again? But it is important to give perception and eternal life—that is, the spiritual and divine life. For this physical life is not immortal, and its existence is equivalent to nonexistence. So it is that Christ said to one of His disciples: “Let the dead bury their dead;” for “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” 1”
Some Answered Questions, p. 101

That sounds like hiding the truth to me.

The truth is not hiding because it is there to find, for people who are looking for it. There is no reason why God should make it easy to recognize His Messengers. If it was too easy it would not be worth having. Nothing in life worth having is easy to obtain. It takes work.

Did you mean that empirical knowledge is different from faith-based belief? If so, I agree. Only the former has practical value beyond comforting. I don't call fervently held, faith-based belief truth or knowledge - just unjustified belief. They are very different kinds of ideas.

You can speak for yourself. Faith-based belief has practical value for most people in the world far beyond comforting, and it is perfectly justified given there is ample evidence that God exists, even though there is no proof. I call it truth and knowledge, the most important kind one can ever have.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Jesus did more than wander about telling people to be more loving and pious and collect a following. No, I do not think any ordinary man could do what Jesus did. Jesus uplifted the standard of God before all the people of the world, and withstood them. Of course, I base what Jesus did not only upon what is in the New Testament, but also upon what the Baha'i Writings say about Jesus:

“Know thou that when the Son of Man yielded up His breath to God, the whole creation wept with a great weeping. By sacrificing Himself, however, a fresh capacity was infused into all created things. Its evidences, as witnessed in all the peoples of the earth, are now manifest before thee. The deepest wisdom which the sages have uttered, the profoundest learning which any mind hath unfolded, the arts which the ablest hands have produced, the influence 86 exerted by the most potent of rulers, are but manifestations of the quickening power released by His transcendent, His all-pervasive, and resplendent Spirit.

We testify that when He came into the world, He shed the splendor of His glory upon all created things. Through Him the leper recovered from the leprosy of perversity and ignorance. Through Him, the unchaste and wayward were healed. Through His power, born of Almighty God, the eyes of the blind were opened, and the soul of the sinner sanctified.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 85-86

“But in the day of the Manifestation the people with insight see that all the conditions of the Manifestation are miracles, for They are superior to all others, and this alone is an absolute miracle. Recollect that Christ, solitary and alone, without a helper or protector, without armies and legions, and under the greatest oppression, uplifted the standard of God before all the people of the world, and withstood them, and finally conquered all, although outwardly He was crucified. Now this is a veritable miracle which can never be denied. There is no need of any other proof of the truth of Christ.

The outward miracles have no importance for the people of Reality. If a blind man receives sight, for example, he will finally again become sightless, for he will die and be deprived of all his senses and powers. Therefore, causing the blind man to see is comparatively of little importance, for this faculty of sight will at last disappear. If the body of a dead person be resuscitated, of what use is it since the body will die again? But it is important to give perception and eternal life—that is, the spiritual and divine life. For this physical life is not immortal, and its existence is equivalent to nonexistence. So it is that Christ said to one of His disciples: “Let the dead bury their dead;” for “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” 1”
Some Answered Questions, p. 101

My comment was that once one removes the miracles and magic, which there is no reason to believe occurred, you are left with an ordinary life. Your comment doesn't rebut that. It supports it. All I see there are vague, flowery, language ("uplifted the standard of God before all the people of the world, and withstood them, and finally conquered all") and claims of exceptional acts like healing lepers and giving sight to the blind. Absent miracles, what's special here? And you needn't quote Baha'u'llah again. He wasn't witness to that life, and he has only the Gospels to go by as well, just like you and me.

So what's the exceptional part of what Jesus did that makes that life exemplary? If you can't be concrete and specific, there is no need to answer at all. Was being a rabbi what made this life so different from all others? Was being a fundamentalist it? Was being itinerant it? Was telling people to love God it, or to love one another it? Was having a following it? Was getting in trouble with local authorities and being executed what made this life unique in your estimation Because all of those things are mundane and commonplace.

Faith-based belief has practical value for most people in the world far beyond comforting, and it is perfectly justified given there is ample evidence that God exists, even though there is no proof.

Disagree. If you were correct, I would expect a counterexample in refutation if you had one. And no, that belief is not justified by existing evidence. We've gone over this before. Just because it is good enough for you doesn't mean it's good enough to justify belief according to the rules for interpreting evidence.

I call it truth and knowledge, the most important kind one can ever have.

That just means that you use the word truth differently than I do. Truth for you is whatever you fervently believe by whatever method you come to that belief. I reserve the word for ideas that are demonstrably correct, not ideas that are either demonstrably incorrect nor ideas that are untestable like most faith-based beiefs.

The truth is not hiding because it is there to find, for people who are looking for it.

Just like a Easter egg on Easter. That's a pretty good description of hiding unless the truth is in plain view. If you think there is truth in your scriptures, it's pretty well hidden there. Who's finding it there besides a handful of Baha'i? You even bring large swathes of to these threads and still you don't get any new believers. With all due respect, I only read that one above because I needed to in order to respond to you, to see if it contained anything extraordinary about the life of Jesus apart from the alleged miracles. I already knew that I wouldn't find anything useful there from the few dozen times I did read them before losing interest.

There is no reason why God should make it easy to recognize His Messengers.

You can't think of a reason why a deity with a message would want to have its messenger be readily recognized as such? I can.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

Who's finding it there besides a handful of Baha'i? You even bring large swathes of to these threads and still you don't get any new believers.

To be fair, once someone makes their mind up on religion, it's really, really difficult to change their opinion on the matter. And frankly, most people who visit RF already have an established position that they want to share with the community. Why would someone go to a forum called Religious Debates if they didn't have a position to debate religion? I discovered the Baha'i Faith before I found out about Earthseed, yet I clung onto Earthseed because I actually believe it, and I have since I was 14. The Baha'i Faith is a great religion, with a few problems here or there with consistency. But all religions are like that. Let @Trailblazer be who she is and advocate for her apparently fringe religious beliefs. It makes the world a more unique, diverse place when we don't agree with each other.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Let @Trailblazer be who she is and advocate for her apparently fringe religious beliefs.

I do that already both by choice and perforce. But I enjoy dialectic.

once someone makes their mind up on religion, it's really, really difficult to change their opinion on the matter.

Not for me or any other critical thinker. Just bring new, compelling evidence, and his narrative adapts to include it.

Perhaps you're referring to the faithful. If so, I'm not trying to change their minds. I don't think my posting has any impact on them. I write for the benefit of those who prefer a reasoned argument to belief by faith. Here's a little something I have posted in the past from time to time:

"Who's trying to convert theists? I never even think about or discuss the matter except when a theists is proselytizing, and even then I'm not trying to change his mind, just to tell him why I don't think that way. That would be a waste of time not only because it would be impossible to make any headway against a faith-based confirmation bias, but because it really doesn't matter. If my neighbor wants to dance around a tree in his back yard at midnight baying at the full moon while shaking a stick with a bloody chicken claw nailed to it in order to center himself and give his like meaning, that's fine, as long as he keeps the noise down."

I tried to give you a friendly frubal for being kind and good-natured, but it wasn't an option, and none of the available options was appropriate. To me, "like" means agree.

 

[Trailblazer]

My comment was that once one removes the miracles and magic, which there is no reason to believe occurred, you are left with an ordinary life. Your comment doesn't rebut that. It supports it. All I see there are vague, flowery, language ("uplifted the standard of God before all the people of the world, and withstood them, and finally conquered all") and claims of exceptional acts like healing lepers and giving sight to the blind. Absent miracles, what's special here?

If Jesus was an ordinary person who led an ordinary life, way does 33% of the world population still follow Jesus 2000 years later? I suggest you put your logic cap on.

It is not the language that is used to describe what Jesus did that matter, it is what Jesus actually did.
Those of us who believe in God believe that the 'standard of God' is of utmost importance.

I already explained why miracles are not important.

"The outward miracles have no importance for the people of Reality. If a blind man receives sight, for example, he will finally again become sightless, for he will die and be deprived of all his senses and powers. Therefore, causing the blind man to see is comparatively of little importance, for this faculty of sight will at last disappear. If the body of a dead person be resuscitated, of what use is it since the body will die again? But it is important to give perception and eternal life—that is, the spiritual and divine life. For this physical life is not immortal, and its existence is equivalent to nonexistence. So it is that Christ said to one of His disciples: “Let the dead bury their dead;” for “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” 1”
Some Answered Questions, p. 101

And you needn't quote Baha'u'llah again. He wasn't witness to that life, and he has only the Gospels to go by as well, just like you and me.

It is laughable that Baha'u'llah would have to go by the gospels in order to know what Jesus did in His life. Baha'u'llah had the knowledge of God so He knew more about who Jesus was and what Jesus did than the gospel writers, who never even knew Jesus. That is why I believe that the Writings of Baha'u'llah are a much better source of information about Jesus than the New Testament.

So what's the exceptional part of what Jesus did that makes that life exemplary? If you can't be concrete and specific, there is no need to answer at all. Was being a rabbi what made this life so different from all others? Was being a fundamentalist it? Was being itinerant it? Was telling people to love God it, or to love one another it? Was having a following it? Was getting in trouble with local authorities and being executed what made this life unique in your estimation Because all of those things are mundane and commonplace.

Jesus was God's Representative on earth. If that is not exceptional and important I don't know what is. Jesus manifested the attributes of God and revealed the will of God. Jesus did exactly what Baha'u'llah and all the other messengers of God did.

Jesus came to bear witness to the truth about God.

John 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

Disagree. If you were correct, I would expect a counterexample in refutation if you had one. And no, that belief is not justified by existing evidence. We've gone over this before. Just because it is good enough for you doesn't mean it's good enough to justify belief according to the rules for interpreting evidence.

You can expect anything you want to expect, but I am not trying to win a debate so I have no need to provide a counterexample.

Justified means having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason. I have justified the belief by the existing evidence. YMMV.

There are no rules for interpreting evidence for Messengers of God. Any criteria you use do not apply to anyone except you. I have my own set of criteria for determining who is a Messenger of God.

That just means that you use the word truth differently than I do. Truth for you is whatever you fervently believe by whatever method you come to that belief. I reserve the word for ideas that are demonstrably correct, not ideas that are either demonstrably incorrect nor ideas that are untestable like most faith-based beiefs.

Truth is what is actually true. Methods of determining what is true vary according to what you are examining.

Religious truth is testable but not by scientific tests since religion is not science.
Proofs of Prophethood, Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, pp. 8-9

To conflate religion and science is the fallacy of false equivalence.
False equivalence - Wikipedia

Just like a Easter egg on Easter. That's a pretty good description of hiding unless the truth is in plain view. If you think there is truth in your scriptures, it's pretty well hidden there. Who's finding it there besides a handful of Baha'i? You even bring large swathes of to these threads and still you don't get any new believers.

It is completely irrelevant how many people believe in a religion because that is not what determines if it is true or not.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so." Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

The converse of this is that if many or most people do not believe it, it cannot be so, and that is fallacious.

Matthew 7:13-14 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

With all due respect, I only read that one above because I needed to in order to respond to you, to see if it contained anything extraordinary about the life of Jesus apart from the alleged miracles. I already knew that I wouldn't find anything useful there from the few dozen times I did read them before losing interest.

Jesus was God's Representative on earth. That alone is extraordinary. Everything else follows from there.

You can't think of a reason why a deity with a message would want to have its messenger be readily recognized as such? I can.

Tell me what you think the reason is.

If an omnipotent deity with a message wanted to have its messenger readily recognized, you don't think that deity could accomplish that?

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

Not for me or any other critical thinker. Just bring new, compelling evidence, and his narrative adapts to include it.

What kind of evidence would you need to believe in God? Obviously everything the theists write in here doesn't count. You might think it is easy to change your mind, but using all the resources of RF it would be virtually impossible to convert any atheist into a believer of any religion. Obviously digital text doesn't cut it, if I post a picture it could be photoshopped, if I post a video of evidence it could be nit-picked to death or subject to scrutiny. As most atheists say, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." There's nothing I can do, or rather, anything Trailblazer could do, to convert you to any religion, because any "evidence" we come up with will be hyper-analyzed and picked apart from, piece by piece.