paarsurrey
Veteran Member
The poster belongs to Shaivism of the Hinduism conglomerate of religions. Please name the prophets/messengers of Hinduism religions for our information, please.
Regards
-
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!
Problems with the Baha'i faith
- Thread starter Kapalika
- Start date
Regards
InvestigateTruth
Well-Known Member
I think the Laws of Abraham. We do not have a written, and detail history of teaching of Abraham. Bible gives some general view of it. But i think from Bahai point of view, Abraham was the Manifestation before Moses. Typically each Manifestation renews and replaces the Religion of the previous Manifestation.
One cannot name them, Paar, because there are none. We (the school of Hinduism I follow) don't believe in prophets.
Personally, I doubt any revealed religion or revealed spiritual path is a trustworthy source of truth.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Let us see a reply from a Baha'i and his reasons and arguments.
Any Baha'i, please.
Regards
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe there is no need to know more since I am already saved by Jesus.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe that is because you do not know the truth.
The word prophet has different meanings for each of us. One meaning could be one who is appointed by God to deliver a message to the people. The Baha’is most frequently cited example of a prophet in Hinduism is Krishna.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
I'm not sure but the word "prophet" seems to be more of a Abrahamic thing. Words like "Sages" "Enlightened" are more of what I remember hearing from religious groups based on Hinduism.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
You know when we talk about "progressive" revelation, Judaism is a good example. From Adam to Noah to Abraham to Moses shows a progression, but it is all within Judaism. So I do don't see it as a replacement or a revealing of a new religion.
That’s true. As a universalist I would argue that there are different terms to describe essentially the same thing.
Interestingly both the Vaishavite Hindus and Christians have a belief in Krishna and Christ as being incarnations of Vishnu/God.
Some do. Many don't. We can't generalise it.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Thanks for the clarification.
Our friend Kapalika mentioned prophets in plural in Hinduism, that is why I asked him to provide a list of them.
I also believe that Krishna was a messenger of G-d, while some Hindus believe that he was a god. It is like Jesus, we Ahmadiyya Muslims believe him to be a messenger of G-d but some Christians believe that he was a god.
It is OK.
Regards
I'm always interested to hear what a Hindu says about these connections.
Reading Wikipedia, that I accept has Western bias, worship of Krishna appears central. What would be a better source?
The worship of Krishna is part of Vaishnavism, a major tradition within Hinduism. Krishna is considered a full avatar of Vishnu, or one with Vishnu himself. However, the exact relationship between Krishna and Vishnu is complex and diverse,[163] with Krishna sometimes considered an independent deity and supreme.[164] Vaishnavas accept many incarnations of Vishnu, but Krishna is particularly important. Their theologies are generally centered either on Vishnu or an avatar such as Krishna as supreme. The terms Krishnaism and Vishnuism have sometimes been used to distinguish the two, the former implying that Krishna is the transcendent Supreme Being.
All Vaishnava traditions recognise Krishna as the eighth avatar of Vishnu; others identify Krishna with Vishnu, while traditions such as Gaudiya Vaishnavism,[166][167] Vallabha Sampradaya and the Nimbarka Sampradaya regard Krishna as the Svayam Bhagavan, the original form of Lord or the same as the concept of Brahman in Hinduism.[4][168][169][170][171] Gitagovinda of Jayadeva considers Krishna to be the supreme lord while the ten incarnations are his forms. Swaminarayan, the founder of the Swaminarayan Sampraday, also worshipped Krishna as God himself. "Greater Krishnaism" corresponds to the second and dominant phase of Vaishnavism, revolving around the cults of the Vasudeva, Krishna, and Gopala of the late Vedic period.[172] Today the faith has a significant following outside of India as well.
Vaishnavism - Wikipedia
Kapalika appeared to be following Satanism and the LHP the last time I checked. She had more Hindu leanings when she started the OP a year ago.
I think the Ahmadiyya Muslim belief is similar to the Baha'i perspective of both Jesus and Krishna. Interesting both faiths claim their founder to be the Madhi.
Mahdi - Wikipedia
What do you make of that?
Edit: Its actually Shaivism (not Satanism) so part of Hinduism after all. A Freudian slip perhaps?
Last edited:
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
We Ahmadiyya Muslims believe Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as Mahdi, Messiah and the End-Time Reformer of all the religions.
Regards
Thank you. Baha'is have a similar belief in regards to Baha'u'llah. I'm from a Christian, not Islamic background so its probably hard for us to converse too long about it. We may just have to wait round a few hundred years and see what happens lol.
I thought you were saying (post 191) that both Vaishnavites and Christians honoured both Krishna and Christ, but it was likely my misunderstanding. Please note that there is no mention of Christ in the above.
Still, as you know from before, in our long discussions, the concept of prophet, and that of avatar are different, according to most Hindus.
I'm clear that Vaishnavites worship Krishna and not Christ as I am with Christians worshipping Christ not Krishna.
The words prophet and avatar belong to the Abrahamic Faiths and Hinduism respectively. The terms prophet and avatar are not synonomous, but the term 'return' (used in Christianity eg return of the Christ) is similar though not exactly the same as avatar. As I understand it, an avatar is the return or re-incarnation of a spirit, in regards Krishna, the 8th avatar of Vishnu.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
Generalizing things in the other religions is one of the problems that Baha'is are susceptible in doing. To become "enlightened" or to become a "sage" in some religions is something that any person can become. It might take many lifetimes to achieve it, but they can do it. A "prophet" in Judaism seems way different to me. These people were chosen by their God to deliver a message. A "manifestation" is even more special and unique... if it is true. Those people are supposedly "perfect" mirrors of God?
And that's a problem for me believing the Baha'i explanation. As we talked about all ready in other threads, all the patriarchs in Judaism are very human, with imperfections and faults. Some of the prophets in Judaism like Samuel, Jeremiah, Elijah and Isaiah, to me, would be closer to fitting the description of "manifestation" than even Abraham or Noah and especially Adam. And then we have David, the Lord's Anointed King. He made so many mistakes, yet he was called the "apple" of God's eye?
Then the problem of religions that make their prophets/founders/manifestations into God/men. Baha'is have to disagree with these kinds of claims and find alternative interpretations of the religion's Scriptures that say or imply that those people are "God in the flesh" or some kind of incarnation of a God. Re-interpreting verses is already a problem, but then Baha'is also say that the Scriptures aren't "authentic" and have had "traditions" added in. Which makes the Scriptures of that religion, not the "Word of God", but the word of men. Which, if that's what Baha'is really said in the first place, I'd be fine with it... That all the previous religions were men's attempts to understand an unknowable Spirit Being, and they were all wrong. That some traditions they came up with had some benefit to people and civilization, but many rules and practices weren't all that good and needed to be replaced and done away with... like animal sacrifices, stoning people for breaking the Sabbath, sacrificing people to the various gods etc.
So did the real God order people to obey those kinds of rules? Did God ordain those kinds of practices? I don't think so. So then, where did those things come from? I'd have to believe it came from the leaders of the people. People made the rules of their society and defined their religion and their gods. I don't see it didn't coming from the "real" God in some "progressive" way that slowly evolved over time as people advanced. For me, right now, the Baha'i explanation is too simplistic and over generalizes religious evolution. I think man had much more to do with it then God.