Is Christ superior to other Prophets/Founders

[Madmogwai]

Yes each person has their own perspective.
With Buddha there is no pov except that he is a man like any other person that walked the earth.
With Jesus there is evidence that He came from God.

No, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever

 

[wellwisher]

This question to me has been a huge cause of strife, disunity and even war. All the great Teachers/Prophets (Buddha, Muhammad, Krishna etc) in history taught spirituality. So in my mind They are all equal with regards to this purpose.

But many Christians , clinging to one or two verses, fanatically assert Christ’s superiority and that other religions are ‘Satan inspired’ and their founders - false prophets. Do you agree with this?

Krishna and Buddha are revered by their followers and were well before the time of Christ yet no mention is made in the Bible that Krishna or Buddha are from Satan. And as the Bible is claimed to be God’s Word and God is All Knowing, no mention either that Muhammad, the Bab or Baha’u’llah are false Prophets. So where is the Bible stating all these other religions are false according to Christians.

There are verses where Christ says He is the beginning and the end but so too did Krishna say the same thousands of years before Christ appeared. So why the insistence on Jesus being superior when if anything Jesus taught love above anything else. Why is supremacy so important to so many Christians?

One of the main differences is Jesus, did not go along with the classic polarizing of reality into opposites, such as law of good and evil. In Western religion this is connected to the tree of knowledge of good and evil. St Paul, in his understanding of Jesus, says it is not yes and no; good and evil, but yes in him. It is about a unity view of reality, instead of a view that divides reality into all the various opposites. This is subtle and esoteric but can be explained with an example in science.

Say we have a magnet, it has north and south poles. We appear to see and then explain the magnetic with its two equal and opposite poles. Yet science has never seen a monopole all by itself. North and South poles do not have a life of their own, since neither has been observed all by itself. They are really both a part of a single principle. However, the human brain has been conditioned to interprets its as two opposites, neither of which actually exist on their own. This polarization affect is a convention, that is sort of an illusion, but looks very convincing to where is appears hard to deny.

Let me give another example, as a home experiment so you can play around with the concept and special affect. Sit near a table and place any object in front of you. Now cross your eyes so you can see two. Now that you can see two, does two now exist? This exercise is playing with your brain, showing how simply crossing yours eyes, can alters the signals going into your brain, so one can appear to be two, one of which is not really there. This illusion affect of the brain was classically called coming from Satan or some type of Eastern Dragon. It is really a type of neural subroutine that cross the mind's eye in a very skilled way so input data appears to see one as two.

Many people see humanity in all its diversity, while others see how humans are the same with many similarities. It depends if your eyes got crossed, so to speak, allowing you to see more than one or one. Law and knowledge of good and evil is subjective; imaginary crossing of the mind's eye. Jesus tries to do away with cross eyed traditions, but it is not as easy as it sounds to change. One has to learn to uncross their eyes, which takes practice.

Picture you live in a world where you were expected to cross your eyes under penalty of law. This becomes your way of life to go along to get along. Eventually, it will be hard to uncross the eyes. That will take will and be tiring, but it will show a different world, where two seem to merge and become one.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Think of the physical sun. It returns each day but is the same sun. But with regard to the days we call them by different names but it is still the same sun. So too the Word of God rises and sets in every age and although at one time it is called Jesus and at another Krishna, it is the same Sun of Truth rising and setting each day.

The problem with this analogy is that we can tell that it's the same sun by the fact that it rises and sets predictably (time and place) and always looks the same if the sky is clear. These people meet none of these criteria, and thus cannot be considered the same as one another.

I believe God does not lie so finding a false concept by Krishna reveals that He is not an incarnation of God.

Many of the words attributed to that god have already been falsified.

To me this makes you sound like you know the TRUTH and there's nothing that I (as a Baha'i) could possibly say that would open a way for you to consider other possibilities.

If either of you had truth, you could demonstrate that fact. That's what distinguishes truth from cherished unfalsifiable beliefs, which should not be called truth, fact, correct, or knowledge before being empirically confirmed..

Christ isn't a prophet or founder. Christ is a way of being based on a Divine revelation and a promise, delivered to us via the storied example of the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth.

This is a trend in Abrahamic theology that I like. This deity is gradually being depersonified. Abrahamic theology, which extracts the sacred from nature and turns it into a person with orders, has been a wrong turn for man intellectually and spiritually.

Everyone needs The Saviour Jesus Christ in order to enter heaven.

Not if neither exist.

There’s no disproof of a worldwide flood less than 5000 years ago. All I’ve read anywhere is assumption, no hard evidence.

You are not the measure of what is considered relevant evidence or how to interpret it, and with little understanding of geology and biology, your opinion is uninformed. Others who can critically evaluate the evidence and argument for and against the flood reject the claim, and can't be moved by an opinion that isn't based in the relevant evidence. There's a reason you can't see the evidence. It's called a faith-based confirmation bias. It acts like a filter, sheltering you and your belief from contradictory evidence.

Assuming, when you say scientifically, you mean man’s efforts to work out how creation was achieved without God the Creator, then that is pitifully lacking in any knowledge. There’s simply no fact to it.

None for you, but there is for others. The science is correct. How do we know? It works.

God has given a nice précis in the Bible how and why He did it and it is obvious to anyone who can think clearly with average intelligence that The Creator was involved.

You might want to bring a bit more than average intelligence to the process. Most people end up believing in gods. As intelligence and education increase, the prevalence of such beliefs decrease.

Thanks to God I don’t have to go through the inner turmoil of guessing and picking the right way.

You sound like a career military guy who's happy to let others determine his life path because it's easier. I was once on that same track with you, but not because it was easy. Then I left faith and began exploring the world. Yes, there was some turmoil, and some mistakes were made. But within a decade or two, I had a good data base of experience and a wealth of understanding about how the world works that has served me since. That's where I learned right from wrong. And abandoning faith and returning to university facilitated learning critical thinking, an invaluable skill to take along on life's ride.

 

[Apostle John]

The problem with this analogy is that we can tell that it's the same sun by the fact that it rises and sets predictably (time and place) and always looks the same if the sky is clear. These people meet none of these criteria, and thus cannot be considered the same as one another.

Many of the words attributed to that god have already been falsified.

If either of you had truth, you could demonstrate that fact. That's what distinguishes truth from cherished unfalsifiable beliefs, which should not be called truth, fact, correct, or knowledge before being empirically confirmed..

This is a trend in Abrahamic theology that I like. This deity is gradually being depersonified. Abrahamic theology, which extracts the sacred from nature and turns it into a person with orders, has been a wrong turn for man intellectually and spiritually.

Not if neither exist.

You are not the measure of what is considered relevant evidence or how to interpret it, and with little understanding of geology and biology, your opinion is uninformed. Others who can critically evaluate the evidence and argument for and against the flood reject the claim, and can't be moved by an opinion that isn't based in the relevant evidence. There's a reason you can't see the evidence. It's called a faith-based confirmation bias. It acts like a filter, sheltering you and your belief from contradictory evidence.

None for you, but there is for others. The science is correct. How do we know? It works.

You might want to bring a bit more than average intelligence to the process. Most people end up believing in gods. As intelligence and education increase, the prevalence of such beliefs decrease.

You sound like a career military guy who's happy to let others determine his life path because it's easier. I was once on that same track with you, but not because it was easy. Then I left faith and began exploring the world. Yes, there was some turmoil, and some mistakes were made. But within a decade or two, I had a good data base of experience and a wealth of understanding about how the world works that has served me since. That's where I learned right from wrong. And abandoning faith and returning to university facilitated learning critical thinking, an invaluable skill to take along on life's ride.

What does your shrink say about all this? There must be a correct label/diagnosis he/she can give. Confess to them you spend all your time making up ‘strange’ characters on various specialised forums. I bet they’ll say it’s all harmless and not to worry.

 

[PureX]

This is a trend in Abrahamic theology that I like. This deity is gradually being depersonified. Abrahamic theology, which extracts the sacred from nature and turns it into a person with orders, has been a wrong turn for man intellectually and spiritually.

Probably not originally. I doubt humans were very capable of grasping ideological representation back when they understood so little of the actuality of things. Even today a lot of people still have great difficulty grasping the concept of ideological representation.

 

[Apostle John]

Probably not originally. I doubt humans were very capable of grasping ideological representation back when they understood so little of the actuality of things. Even today a lot of people still have great difficulty grasping the concept of ideological representation.

Would you rather have the whole world like Japan and China where there’s mainly folklore?

 

[PureX]

Would you rather have the whole world like Japan and China where there’s mainly folklore?

Folklore is just another means we humans use to capture and share the ideas and experiences that matter to us n life, with each other. it's a form of artifice. And artifice is a very, very important aspect of the human experience. We wouldn't be humans without it. Literally.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What does your shrink say about all this? There must be a correct label/diagnosis he/she can give. Confess to them you spend all your time making up ‘strange’ characters on various specialised forums. I bet they’ll say it’s all harmless and not to worry.

You don't want to play this game with me. It won't go well for you. Behold: Of the two of us, I AM the shrink. I have a medical degree, which included a two-month rotation through psychiatry treating hospitalized and outpatient psychiatric patients under the guidance of psychiatrists. This was followed by decades of identifying psychiatric illness for referral and co-management of the problem with the psychiatrist, and treatment of minor problems like minor depression and anxiety independently.

I have a diagnosis for you, but I've allowed my malpractice insurance to lapse since retirement. Besides, you wouldn't like my diagnosis very much.

Would you rather have the whole world like Japan and China where there’s mainly folklore?

Those are two advanced technological societies.

 

[Apostle John]

You don't want to play this game with me. It won't go well for you. Behold: Of the two of us, I AM the shrink. I have a medical degree, which included a two-month rotation through psychiatry treating hospitalized and outpatient psychiatric patients under the guidance of psychiatrists. This was followed by decades of identifying psychiatric illness for referral and co-management of the problem with the psychiatrist, and treatment of minor problems like minor depression and anxiety independently.

I have a diagnosis for you, but I've allowed my malpractice insurance to lapse since retirement. Besides, you wouldn't like my diagnosis very much.


Those are two advanced technological societies.

Sure. No, I wouldn’t want to play games with you. It’s best if I speed read all the posts you make under your various aliases. It’s less taxing on the mind.

 

[Pete in Panama]

...If either of you had truth, you could demonstrate that fact. That's what distinguishes truth from cherished unfalsifiable beliefs, which should not be called truth, fact, correct, or knowledge before being empirically confirmed...

ah, so you're saying that you're able to easily identify truth. NEAT!

 

[Firenze]

Yes each person has their own perspective.
With Buddha there is no pov except that he is a man like any other person that walked the earth.
With Jesus there is evidence that He came from God.

If Jesus came from some god, that creates massive difficulties for Christianity and its claim to derive from the OT - since the original Jewish authors provided us with a list of attributes of the Messiah, and they do not include any divine attributes whatsoever - just as they do not include a virgin birth, crucifixion, or resurrection. It's why the Jews rejected Jesus as soon as divinity was claimed for him.
It's almost as if the gospel authors - committed fraud from the jump.

 

[CG Didymus]

This is exactly the impression I got. They say things like... "Yes, they are all true, but... they've all gotten corrupted... Their teachings are outdated. And they've taken symbolic things and made them literal. But, we still believe that their original message was true. And now Baha'u'llah has come to bring the new teachings for today that will bring peace and unity to the whole world."

"They say"? Who do you think I'm talking about? It is Baha'is here on the forum that have said those things.

This whole dust up started back w/ your post#242 when you were saying some things about what you understood about Baha'i beliefs & my take was that the things you said were off the mark.

So, were they "off the mark"? Baha'is do believe that at least all the major religions are true? Do Baha'is believe they have all been corrupted in some ways and have lost the original teachings and meanings that were brought by the prophet? Have the teachings of the other religions become outdated? Have people in some of the other religions, especially Chrisitianity, taken some things literal when they were meant to be taken symbolically? Has Baha'u'llah brought new teachings that are meant to replace and/or correct misinterpretations and teachings from the past religions?

Go ahead correct any of these things that you think isn't part of the teachings of the Baha'i Faith. It will be a big help to several of us here... especially those Baha'is that have said those types of things in their posts over the last couple of years.

 

[loverofhumanity]

One of the main differences is Jesus, did not go along with the classic polarizing of reality into opposites, such as law of good and evil. In Western religion this is connected to the tree of knowledge of good and evil. St Paul, in his understanding of Jesus, says it is not yes and no; good and evil, but yes in him. It is about a unity view of reality, instead of a view that divides reality into all the various opposites. This is subtle and esoteric but can be explained with an example in science.

Say we have a magnet, it has north and south poles. We appear to see and then explain the magnetic with its two equal and opposite poles. Yet science has never seen a monopole all by itself. North and South poles do not have a life of their own, since neither has been observed all by itself. They are really both a part of a single principle. However, the human brain has been conditioned to interprets its as two opposites, neither of which actually exist on their own. This polarization affect is a convention, that is sort of an illusion, but looks very convincing to where is appears hard to deny.

Let me give another example, as a home experiment so you can play around with the concept and special affect. Sit near a table and place any object in front of you. Now cross your eyes so you can see two. Now that you can see two, does two now exist? This exercise is playing with your brain, showing how simply crossing yours eyes, can alters the signals going into your brain, so one can appear to be two, one of which is not really there. This illusion affect of the brain was classically called coming from Satan or some type of Eastern Dragon. It is really a type of neural subroutine that cross the mind's eye in a very skilled way so input data appears to see one as two.

Many people see humanity in all its diversity, while others see how humans are the same with many similarities. It depends if your eyes got crossed, so to speak, allowing you to see more than one or one. Law and knowledge of good and evil is subjective; imaginary crossing of the mind's eye. Jesus tries to do away with cross eyed traditions, but it is not as easy as it sounds to change. One has to learn to uncross their eyes, which takes practice.

Picture you live in a world where you were expected to cross your eyes under penalty of law. This becomes your way of life to go along to get along. Eventually, it will be hard to uncross the eyes. That will take will and be tiring, but it will show a different world, where two seem to merge and become one.

I liked your comment about a unity view of reality instead of a view that divides us. There’s so much truth in that. We can choose to see each other as opponents or friends. The competition mindset when applied to religion has had ugly results. Just to see the good in each other and the world as our family would go a long way to healing the rifts that unnecessarily divide us. It’s all a matter of whether we view the world in terms of ‘us and thems’ or ‘we’.

 

[loverofhumanity]

The problem with this analogy is that we can tell that it's the same sun by the fact that it rises and sets predictably (time and place) and always looks the same if the sky is clear. These people meet none of these criteria, and thus cannot be considered the same as one another.

Many of the words attributed to that god have already been falsified.

If either of you had truth, you could demonstrate that fact. That's what distinguishes truth from cherished unfalsifiable beliefs, which should not be called truth, fact, correct, or knowledge before being empirically confirmed..

This is a trend in Abrahamic theology that I like. This deity is gradually being depersonified. Abrahamic theology, which extracts the sacred from nature and turns it into a person with orders, has been a wrong turn for man intellectually and spiritually.

Not if neither exist.

You are not the measure of what is considered relevant evidence or how to interpret it, and with little understanding of geology and biology, your opinion is uninformed. Others who can critically evaluate the evidence and argument for and against the flood reject the claim, and can't be moved by an opinion that isn't based in the relevant evidence. There's a reason you can't see the evidence. It's called a faith-based confirmation bias. It acts like a filter, sheltering you and your belief from contradictory evidence.

None for you, but there is for others. The science is correct. How do we know? It works.

You might want to bring a bit more than average intelligence to the process. Most people end up believing in gods. As intelligence and education increase, the prevalence of such beliefs decrease.

You sound like a career military guy who's happy to let others determine his life path because it's easier. I was once on that same track with you, but not because it was easy. Then I left faith and began exploring the world. Yes, there was some turmoil, and some mistakes were made. But within a decade or two, I had a good data base of experience and a wealth of understanding about how the world works that has served me since. That's where I learned right from wrong. And abandoning faith and returning to university facilitated learning critical thinking, an invaluable skill to take along on life's ride.

Of course they can by their spiritual teachings. Just like the one sun has many names after the days of the week, so too the Suns of Truth are known by different names. In the Book of Revelation even Jesus says He will return with a ‘New Name’.

 

[Brian2]

No, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever

It is evidence for me. It starts with His claim to be from God and His fulfillment of OT prophecies concerning the Messiah and goes on to the things that He did and prophecies that people made about Him in His life and the witness reports of what He did. Then there are the things that have happened after He died including the resurrection and prophecies concerning what would happen surrounding the Messianic visit from God.

 

[Brian2]

If Jesus came from some god, that creates massive difficulties for Christianity and its claim to derive from the OT - since the original Jewish authors provided us with a list of attributes of the Messiah, and they do not include any divine attributes whatsoever - just as they do not include a virgin birth, crucifixion, or resurrection. It's why the Jews rejected Jesus as soon as divinity was claimed for him.
It's almost as if the gospel authors - committed fraud from the jump.

The Jews saw the Messiah with different expectations about what He would do and who He would be.
They weren't expecting the Son of God in a divine sense even though it is there in the OT.
They had ideas of more than one Messiah being prophesied about in the OT, a suffering one and a King. They did not expect one Messiah to fulfill it all and anyway the idea of more than one Messiah I don't think was widely held even though it was held.
These days the Messianic prophecies that the Jews use have probably shrunk considerably from ideas held in the past about Messianic prophecies. And of course it is as if God was wanting to hide some of the Messianic prophecies that Christians use and Jews do not.
Jesus spoke in parables so that people would not know what He means and Isa 6 gives that as something that Isaiah would do also. So they did not see the OT prophecies and did not know what the Messiah was on about when He came.
Suggestion of divinity for the Messiah are in the OT and for most (if not all those prophecies) the Jews say they are not Messianic.
One day they will understand.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

so you're saying that you're able to easily identify truth.

That's not what I said, but yes, there is a reliable method for determining which statements deserve to be called knowledge by the definition provided, and which statements should not be considered that. What I was commenting on is the loose use of the word truth by the faithful, who use it to describe whatever they believe including many unfalsifiable religious claims believed by faith.

Of course they can by their spiritual teachings. Just like the one sun has many names after the days of the week, so too the Suns of Truth are known by different names.

Their teachings don't map onto one another well except with a few principles that are not the product of any religion, although religions might teach them. The names of the days of the week are not names for the sun, and they are not mistaken for it, either. Humanism shares many of the principles of the religions, but those ideas don't come from them. They come from the same place the religious got them - human nature as shaped by evolution.

 

[Pete in Panama]

...So, were they "off the mark"? Baha'is do believe that at least all the major religions are true? Do Baha'is believe they have all been corrupted in some ways and have lost the original teachings and meanings that were brought by the prophet? Have the teachings of the other religions become outdated? Have people in some of the other religions, especially Chrisitianity, taken some things literal when they were meant to be taken symbolically? Has Baha'u'llah brought new teachings that are meant to replace and/or correct misinterpretations and teachings from the past religions?

Go ahead correct any of these things that you think isn't part of the teachings of the Baha'i Faith. It will be a big help to several of us here... especially those Baha'is that have said those types of things in their posts over the last couple of years.

You're making a very good point here & my approach may very well be wrong in that I'm trying to correct what I see as your mistakes. You're not making mistakes in fact you're quite right to ask what possible reason anyone would want to be a Baha'i if the faith had nothing unique to offer. That's a fair question --but please correct me if you're not asking this question.

Another problem we're getting is the fact that you're seriously trying to get a straight answer about Baha'i teachings and you're getting one story from one clown and a different from some other clown. Why is that? Another reasonable question --one that I honestly believe you're wondering about.

I"m hoping that my response to the second will shed some light on the first, namely that all the religions are equal and they all get corrupted --including the Baha'is. Understand that when food in the fridge goes bad we throw it out, but when we hear nonsense about a religion we don't throw out the religion, we throw out the clown we're talking too. Important Baha'i teaching: the individual search for the truth. If you want to know about the Baha'i teachings The Baha'i Reference Library is where to go, and it would also be good to understand that only the teachings of the Bab and Baha'u'llah are sacred. The others are good & probably not changed but they don't have nearly the same import.

For a long time Baha'is still attended their original faiths. Baha'u'llah himself prayed at the local mosque. Over time it was necessary for Baha'is to establish a Baha'i identity so we had separate meetings and we enrolled members. Over the past few decades I've seen what I'd call a trend of more involvement of like minded people who are not Baha'i members --for example the vast majority of Baha'i functions in my local community are being run by folks who aren't Baha'i members.

Not everyone sees it this way. There are a lot of very good dear people who are Jehovah's Witnesses. Seems that one of their core beliefs is that you have to be a member to pray to God (if I err someone please correct me). I feel that's wrong and I'd rather be a Baha'i --respecting the equality and validity of all religions --but that's me.

There's more but I'm going on way too long.

 

[Pete in Panama]

That's not what I said, but yes, there is a reliable method for determining which statements deserve to be called knowledge by the definition provided, and which statements should not be considered that. What I was commenting on is the loose use of the word truth by the faithful, who use it to describe whatever they believe including many unfalsifiable religious claims believed by faith.

Ah, I'm not as connected w/ the faithful as you probably are so I'll agree w/ whatever info u got.

At any rate, my guess is that you've got as good a definition of "truth" as anyone else so I don't think definitions are an issue. My problem is that I'm always learning new things and something I think is true at one time might later find me thinking that there's a lot more to it. My bottom line, I try to ask lots of questions and I'm very careful about spouting off about what's "The Truth".

How about you?

 

[Firenze]

The Jews saw the Messiah with different expectations about what He would do and who He would be.
They weren't expecting the Son of God in a divine sense even though it is there in the OT.
They had ideas of more than one Messiah being prophesied about in the OT, a suffering one and a King. They did not expect one Messiah to fulfill it all and anyway the idea of more than one Messiah I don't think was widely held even though it was held.
These days the Messianic prophecies that the Jews use have probably shrunk considerably from ideas held in the past about Messianic prophecies. And of course it is as if God was wanting to hide some of the Messianic prophecies that Christians use and Jews do not.
Jesus spoke in parables so that people would not know what He means and Isa 6 gives that as something that Isaiah would do also. So they did not see the OT prophecies and did not know what the Messiah was on about when He came.
Suggestion of divinity for the Messiah are in the OT and for most (if not all those prophecies) the Jews say they are not Messianic.
One day they will understand.

Self serving Christian church nonsense. The Jews did not have 'different expectations'. They literally wrote the book on the subject of Messianic prophesy - presumably as inspired to them by the same god you worship. To claim that they somehow got it all wrong is to impugn that same god. But of course, for Paul and the early church to sell their new, invented snake oil - they had to convince their ignorant pagan victims to not look at the OT too closely, but to simply focus on that carrot dangled before them - the bribe of heaven. Ask any Jewish scholar - other than disaffected Jews for Jesus - why they rejected Jesus, and the answer comes directly from the eschatology that did not exist in Judaism until 200 BCE. The concept of a Messiah did not even exist until that time. It steadily gained steam, which is why the 1st century was the heyday of bogus Messiah claimants - Jesus being yet another. All were rejected because they did not fulfill the actual prophesies that the experts that wrote book knew were required.

The Messiah - Key beliefs in Judaism - GCSE Religious Studies Revision - AQA - BBC Bitesize

Learn about and revise key Jewish beliefs with BBC Bitesize Religious Studies - AQA.

www.bbc.co.uk

There is a reason not a single word was written about this Jesus until 2 full decades later. The church needed that time to cherry pick scriptures and pretend they were Messianic - and then squeeze a long dead Jesus into them. It's fraud, pure and simple. And the result? A multi trillion dollar business.