Why did God send Messenger to convey His message instead of directly coming to speak?

[1213]

For those who believe that God sent Prophets and Messengers, the Question is why He did not directly make Himself appear on earth and talk to humanity?

Maybe the others just didn’t want to hear?

 

[Ponder This]

For those who believe that God sent Prophets and Messengers, the Question is why He did not directly make Himself appear on earth and talk to humanity?
I suppose those who believe in Prophets and Messengers would be limited to Jews, Christians, Muslims, Zoroatrians, and Bahais. If I missed anyone else, please include.


If you say, God is invisible or cannot possibly come to earth as a Being, then how do you explain those verses in your Holy Book which explicitly speaks of the Day of Resurrection or the judgement Day, or the Last Day, when the Lord would be on earth?

Great Question!
What do you make of the statements by Prophets not to rely on them as intermediaries between us and God?
Why would God send a Messenger that tells us not to rely on him but instead to cultivate a personal relationship with God?

If each person has a personal relationship with God...
then there is no reason to send someone else to deliver the message.
If not every person has a personal relationship with God...
then there is a reason to send someone to deliver a message:

Hey! Stop ignoring me! And respond to my text messages! ​

Of course, if you believe Moses, then no one can see the face of God and live...

I could show you who I really am... but then I'd have to kill you...​

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

What is the least bit wrong about it?

There's plenty that has been demonstrated to be wrong about it (believing in things without evidence, that is).

For one, it opens you up to con-men. If you are willing to believe things without evidence, you are far more likely to be gullible to the point that charlatan's "pull the wool over your eyes." This is decidedly bad, and these con-men require that they find people to believe their scams without having to provide evidence of their claims.

Secondly, it makes you far more likely to be wrong. Does anyone want to be wrong? Do you want to be wrong? Each thing you believe to be true without evidentiary support increases your chances of being wrong. Far better to admit you simply don't know a thing. It's one thing to not mind being proven wrong, and quite another to willfully seek out opportunities to be wrong. When you believe things without evidentiary support, you are participating in the latter.

Thirdly, as others have hinted at or pointed out - there has been real harm dealt to real people based on beliefs held without evidence. The people who "drank the Kool-Aid". Children who have died of their ailments because their parents believed that prayer was a better strategy for healing than hospitalization. Corporations claiming that DDT was entirely safe to be around. There are mountains of examples where holding a belief without evidence can be harmful or even deadly.

Don't be naive.

 

[stvdv]

If you say, God is invisible or cannot possibly come to earth as a Being, then how do you explain those verses in your Holy Book which explicitly speaks of the Day of Resurrection or the judgement Day, or the Last Day, when the Lord would be on earth

The Scriptures of India also describe a few incarnations of Divinity on Earth. The Lord incarnates to restore Dharma [or for other purposes]
I don't see any problem with this. For humans it's impossible to understand "God", at best we can have some glimpses I think.
Hence the Indian Scriptures advise to search within "who am I" and not to search outside "who is God"

And in most religions it is believed "God is omnipresent". If that is true then He will be on earth always, so also on the Last Day.
Maybe your line means that "on the judgement Day" people will be aware that God is on Earth
Many verses in Scriptures are figuratively meant or with hidden meanings

 

[Salvador]

For those who believe that God sent Prophets and Messengers, the Question is why He did not directly make Himself appear on earth and talk to humanity?
I suppose those who believe in Prophets and Messengers would be limited to Jews, Christians, Muslims, Zoroatrians, and Bahais. If I missed anyone else, please include.


If you say, God is invisible or cannot possibly come to earth as a Being, then how do you explain those verses in your Holy Book which explicitly speaks of the Day of Resurrection or the judgement Day, or the Last Day, when the Lord would be on earth?

God wanted to prove to almost everybody He could resurrect a beloved follower of His back to life from death.

 

[WalterTrull]

For those who believe that God sent Prophets and Messengers, the Question is why He did not directly make Himself appear on earth and talk to humanity?

Odd God concept. He does you know, continuously.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Whose translation is this one? Many seem to be leaning on the first one:


Those are all I found for now.

Does it say so? Where?

That is just one occation. I mean in the Quran, one story.

Depends what you mean by interpretation. Plenty of the scholars *know* the interpretation. Does that mean they know or understand All?


Another translation of 3:52-3:

"For We had certainly sent unto them a Book, based on knowledge, which We explained in detail,- a guide and a mercy to all who believe.

Do they just wait for the final fulfilment of the event? On the day the event is finally fulfilled, those who disregarded it before will say: "The messengers of our Lord did indeed bring true (tidings). Have we no intercessors now to intercede on our behalf? Or could we be sent back? then should we behave differently from our behaviour in the past." In fact they will have lost their souls, and the things they invented will leave them in the lurch."
​

Doesn't say anything about interpretation, but fulfilment.

Look at the islamawakened various translation. Are you familiar with Arabic?
How do we know if "fulfilment " or "interpretation" is intended? Who is telling the truth? And the verse 3:7 talks about a group of people known as 'firm rooted in knowledge of the Book'. Do such people exist? If not, why would God talks about them? Was it only Joseph, or there are more? If yes, did God introduce some of them? All are questions. I mean it takes independent investigation of truth to find out. It takes more than just accepting one translation over another one randomely or wishfully.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

God wanted to prove to almost everybody He could resurrect a beloved follower of His back to life from death.

Did He prove it? Hoe many acknowledge that?

 

[Salvador]

Did He prove it? Hoe many acknowledge that?

Jesus Christ's resurrection was allegedly witnessed by most everybody whom God wanted to prove He could bring His greatest follower back to life from death. Everybody else who didn't directly witness Jesus Christ's resurrection, but who've read the testimonial accounts of Jesus Christ's resurrection, can only have faith that Jesus Christ arose from death.

"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God."—1 Corinthians 15:3-9 (ESV)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

For those who believe that God sent Prophets and Messengers, the Question is why He did not directly make Himself appear on earth and talk to humanity?
I suppose those who believe in Prophets and Messengers would be limited to Jews, Christians, Muslims, Zoroatrians, and Bahais. If I missed anyone else, please include.


If you say, God is invisible or cannot possibly come to earth as a Being, then how do you explain those verses in your Holy Book which explicitly speaks of the Day of Resurrection or the judgement Day, or the Last Day, when the Lord would be on earth?

What I cannot understand is the complete inanity of the following beliefs:

1. God is omnipotent (can do anything)
2. Got is omniscient (knows everything)
3. God is omnibenevolent (has only goodness in mind for humanity)
4. God wants us to know stuff, for our own good
5. God can tell some of us about it
6. God can't tell us all about it (denial of omnipotence)
7. God knows, because it has always, always happened, that telling some and hoping the message won't be mucked up will fail (see "history of religions")
8. Therefore humans have spent millennia killing one another because an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God can't get his important message across without ridiculous ambiguity and confusion.

 

[Remté]

Look at the islamawakened various translation. Are you familiar with Arabic?
How do we know if "fulfilment " or "interpretation" is intended? Who is telling the truth? And the verse 3:7 talks about a group of people known as 'firm rooted in knowledge of the Book'. Do such people exist? If not, why would God talks about them? Was it only Joseph, or there are more? If yes, did God introduce some of them? All are questions. I mean it takes independent investigation of truth to find out. It takes more than just accepting one translation over another one randomely or wishfully.

From the whole of the Quran "interpretation" in a literal meaning doesn't make much sense to me.

Of course there are people firmly rooted in knowledge of the book, but is there among them anyone who says they know and fully understand All of the book?

Even if the people firmly rooted in knowledge of the book did understand, they could never understand like Allah. So whether you like to put the sentences together or not it still leaves the wisest of people sparate in knowledge from Allah.

 

[Kenny]

For those who believe that God sent Prophets and Messengers, the Question is why He did not directly make Himself appear on earth and talk to humanity?
I suppose those who believe in Prophets and Messengers would be limited to Jews, Christians, Muslims, Zoroatrians, and Bahais. If I missed anyone else, please include.


If you say, God is invisible or cannot possibly come to earth as a Being, then how do you explain those verses in your Holy Book which explicitly speaks of the Day of Resurrection or the judgement Day, or the Last Day, when the Lord would be on earth?

He did... The Word, God, came in the flesh.

 

[dybmh]

What I cannot understand is the complete inanity of the following beliefs:

1. God is omnipotent (can do anything)
2. Got is omniscient (knows everything)
3. God is omnibenevolent (has only goodness in mind for humanity)
4. God wants us to know stuff, for our own good
5. God can tell some of us about it
6. God can't tell us all about it (denial of omnipotence)
7. God knows, because it has always, always happened, that telling some and hoping the message won't be mucked up will fail (see "history of religions")
8. Therefore humans have spent millennia killing one another because an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God can't get his important message across without ridiculous ambiguity and confusion.

The question was not for you.

It was "for those who believe that God sent Prophets and Messengers".

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Of course there are people firmly rooted in knowledge of the book, but is there among them anyone who says they know and fully understand All of the book?

Good question! According to Islamic traditions, yes. There were some people who claimed that they are the 'firmly rooted in knowledge' who Allah mentioned in Quran.

H 554, Ch. 22, h 1
A number of our people has narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad from al-Husayn ibn Sa‘id from an-Nadr ibn Suwayd from Ayyub ibn Hurr and ‘Imran ibn Ali from abu Basir from abu ‘Abdallah (a.s.) who has said the following. "We are the people well-grounded in knowledge and we are the ones who know how to interpret it."

H 555, Ch. 22, h 2
Ali ibn Muhammad has narrated from ‘Abdallah ibn Ali from Ibrahim ibn Ishaq from ‘Adallah ibn Hammad from Burayd ibn Mu‘awiya who has narrated the following from either one of the Imams (a.s.) about the words of Allah, Allah, the Most Majestic, the Most gracious. "No one knows its true interpretations except God and those who have a firm grounding in knowledge . . ." (3:7). The Holy Prophet is the best among the people well-grounded in knowledge. Allah, the Most Majestic, the Most gracious, taught him all that He had revealed to him in the form of original text and in the form of interpretations. Allah, the Most Majestic, the Most gracious, would not reveal anything to him that he would not know the meaning thereof. The successors of the Holy Prophet (s.a.) after him knew all revelations.
As for those who do not know the interpretations thereof, when the scholar speaks to them with knowledge, they say, "We believe in it, for all of this is from our Lord." The Holy Quran consists of specific, general, clear, not so clear, abrogating and abrogated statements. The people who are well-grounded in knowledge know all of the Holy Quran."

H %556ch22, h 3
Al-Husayn ibn Muhammad has narrated from MuAlia ibn Muhammad from Muhammad ibn ’Uwarma from Ali ibn Hassan from ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Kathir from abu ‘bdallah (a.s.) who has said the following. "People well-grounded in Knowledge stands for Amir al-Mu’minin Ali (a.s.) and the Imams after him."

Even if the people firmly rooted in knowledge of the book did understand, they could never understand like Allah.

So whether you like to put the sentences together or not it still leaves the wisest of people sparate in knowledge from Allah.

It is not how I like it. According to Islamic tradition which i quoted above, it is read as in

"No one knows its true interpretations except God and those who have a firm grounding in knowledge . . ." (3:7)


The question is, should we accept these islamic traditions or not? If yes, why? If no, why not?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The question was not for you.

It was "for those who believe that God sent Prophets and Messengers".

I can see that it's always gratifying to get answers to questions that you ask only of people who already believe as you do.

I strongly doubt that it's very enlightening, however.

Still, I bow out, since I'm a voice you don't wish to hear....

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Great question....As I began to write an explanation I had to delete my response because ultimately I don't know. I truly don't know, but I like the Qur'anic explanation on the matter:

"And even if We had sent down to you, [O Muhammad], a written scripture on a page and they touched it with their hands, the disbelievers would say, "This is not but obvious magic."

"And they say, "Why was there not sent down to him an angel?" But if We had sent down an angel, the matter would have been decided; then they would not be reprieved."

Surah Al-An'am 6-8

I believe ultimately people would still disbelieve regardless how the message came.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I can see that it's always gratifying to get answers to questions that you ask only of people who already believe as you do.

I strongly doubt that it's very enlightening, however.

Still, I bow out, since I'm a voice you don't wish to hear....

Join the club

 

[Remté]

Good question! According to Islamic traditions, yes. There were some people who claimed that they are the 'firmly rooted in knowledge' who Allah mentioned in Quran.

H 554, Ch. 22, h 1
A number of our people has narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad from al-Husayn ibn Sa‘id from an-Nadr ibn Suwayd from Ayyub ibn Hurr and ‘Imran ibn Ali from abu Basir from abu ‘Abdallah (a.s.) who has said the following. "We are the people well-grounded in knowledge and we are the ones who know how to interpret it."

H 555, Ch. 22, h 2
Ali ibn Muhammad has narrated from ‘Abdallah ibn Ali from Ibrahim ibn Ishaq from ‘Adallah ibn Hammad from Burayd ibn Mu‘awiya who has narrated the following from either one of the Imams (a.s.) about the words of Allah, Allah, the Most Majestic, the Most gracious. "No one knows its true interpretations except God and those who have a firm grounding in knowledge . . ." (3:7). The Holy Prophet is the best among the people well-grounded in knowledge. Allah, the Most Majestic, the Most gracious, taught him all that He had revealed to him in the form of original text and in the form of interpretations. Allah, the Most Majestic, the Most gracious, would not reveal anything to him that he would not know the meaning thereof. The successors of the Holy Prophet (s.a.) after him knew all revelations.
As for those who do not know the interpretations thereof, when the scholar speaks to them with knowledge, they say, "We believe in it, for all of this is from our Lord." The Holy Quran consists of specific, general, clear, not so clear, abrogating and abrogated statements. The people who are well-grounded in knowledge know all of the Holy Quran."

H %556ch22, h 3
Al-Husayn ibn Muhammad has narrated from MuAlia ibn Muhammad from Muhammad ibn ’Uwarma from Ali ibn Hassan from ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Kathir from abu ‘bdallah (a.s.) who has said the following. "People well-grounded in Knowledge stands for Amir al-Mu’minin Ali (a.s.) and the Imams after him."

Even if the people firmly rooted in knowledge of the book did understand, they could never understand like Allah.


It is not how I like it. According to Islamic tradition which i quoted above, it is read as in

"No one knows its true interpretations except God and those who have a firm grounding in knowledge . . ." (3:7)


The question is, should we accept these islamic traditions or not? If yes, why? If no, why not?

Most scholars agree on the other translation.

Yet I still don't see that it matters. This is sort what you first said that everything is to be taken literally in the Quran if it is God's word, but the Quran says otherwise. You will never know which one is the more correct option.

 

[Remté]

I can see that it's always gratifying to get answers to questions that you ask only of people who already believe as you do.

I strongly doubt that it's very enlightening, however.

Still, I bow out, since I'm a voice you don't wish to hear....

Of course atheists can speak their mind, but that need not be confused with enlightment in the light of that the atheists never say anything each of them has not said the day before..

 

[dybmh]

I can see that it's always gratifying to get answers to questions that you ask only of people who already believe as you do.

I strongly doubt that it's very enlightening, however.

Still, I bow out, since I'm a voice you don't wish to hear....

We are having a high level religious debate. The reply you gave is out of place in this particular thread.