Can we prove or disprove the claims of any Messenger of God?

There's one sure way of knowing whether or not, if a messenger is really sent from God.
Can that Messenger give a Prophecy and when it will take place during his life and have it to happen just the way he gave it.

adrian009 said:

Bahaullah’s Message was from God. That’s all the authority required to break any seal.

Click to expand...

So God can make himself a liar if he wants to?

If God planned more messengers/prophets after Muhammad, why do you think God had Muhammad tell the world that there would be no more prophets after him?

Or do you think Muhammad wasn’t trustworthy?

9-10ths_Penguin said:

So God can make himself a liar if he wants to?

If God planned more messengers/prophets after Muhammad, why do you think God had Muhammad tell the world that there would be no more prophets after him?

Or do you think Muhammad wasn’t trustworthy?

Click to expand...

Sometimes faith adherents misunderstand and misinterpret their own scripture. The problem wasn't with Muhammad but His followers.

Faithofchristian said:

There's one sure way of knowing whether or not, if a messenger is really sent from God.
Can that Messenger give a Prophecy and when it will take place during his life and have it to happen just the way he gave it.

Click to expand...

So what are the prophecies which Jesus spoke that would meet such criteria?

Somewhat, yes. If (1) I have a consistent message and my word can be trusted, (2) if my followers have to resort to force to uphold my teachings, they probably are not legitimate, (3) if I make a failed prophecy, I am not a real prophet.

Islam was false on all three accounts, the Quran has numerous sections where something completely changes, and he tells followers Allah makes no mistakes but here is an old and new lesson, and followers are instructed to abrogate (toss out the old one). Jihad is a real thing, followers have over the centuries committed violence exactly according to the writings of the Quran, and Hadiths, and Surahs. Lastly, well I'll just post this list of false prophecy.

Muhammad's False Prophecies

The Bible on the other hand does have contradictions, but Jesus's message is pretty consistent. And passes all three. Most decent religions have at least two. As message, Jesus says turn the other cheek and love your neighbor. He reportedly does this even under pain of death, asking his tormentors be forgiven. The violent people in Christianity are NOT following the source material, they are acting against the Bible, which whenever possible talks about forgiveness and moves from more violent world to a less violent one. The real folloers are able to convert peacefully without resorting to force. And lastly, Jesus, among his many prophecies said the Temple would be torn down. The disciples thought this was a great event, but about 70 years later, it got smashed up. Matthew 24:1-2

The Fall of Jerusalem in 70 A. D.

One of these men is a true prophet, whether he is your prophet or not. The other is not.

adrian009 said:

So what are the prophecies which Jesus spoke that would meet such criteria?

Click to expand...

All Prophecy's that were given by Christ Jesus concerning himself were all fulfilled while Jesus was still alive.

For example Jesus gave prophecy about how he would be betrayed, This all being fulfilled while Jesus was still alive.

Matthew 20:18-19.
18-- "Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death"

19 "And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again"

There you have Jesus gave prophecy about himself and were all fulfilled while Jesus was still alive. To see his Prophecy's fulfilled while he was still alive.

Shall I go on, Take note that this Parable, was a Prophecy that was fulfilled while Jesus was still alive.
Matthew 22:33-42--"Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:

34 And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.

35 And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.

36 Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.

37 But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.

38 But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.

39 And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.

40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?

41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.

42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes"

So you have Jesus given Prophecy about himself and all fulfilled while Jesus was still alive.

Samantha Rinne said:

Somewhat, yes. If (1) I have a consistent message and my word can be trusted, (2) if my followers have to resort to force to uphold my teachings, they probably are not legitimate, (3) if I make a failed prophecy, I am not a real prophet.

Islam was false on all three accounts, the Quran has numerous sections where something completely changes, and he tells followers Allah makes no mistakes but here is an old and new lesson, and followers are instructed to abrogate (toss out the old one). Jihad is a real thing, followers have over the centuries committed violence exactly according to the writings of the Quran, and Hadiths, and Surahs. Lastly, well I'll just post this list of false prophecy.

Muhammad's False Prophecies

The Bible on the other hand does have contradictions, but Jesus's message is pretty consistent. And passes all three. Most decent religions have at least two. As message, Jesus says turn the other cheek and love your neighbor. He reportedly does this even under pain of death, asking his tormentors be forgiven. The violent people in Christianity are NOT following the source material, they are acting against the Bible, which whenever possible talks about forgiveness and moves from more violent world to a less violent one. The real folloers are able to convert peacefully without resorting to force. And lastly, Jesus, among his many prophecies said the Temple would be torn down. The disciples thought this was a great event, but about 70 years later, it got smashed up. Matthew 24:1-2

The Fall of Jerusalem in 70 A. D.

One of these men is a true prophet, whether he is your prophet or not. The other is not.

Click to expand...

Can you explain what Jesus ment by turn the other cheek?

As for knowing who is a false prophet, that's not hard to figure out.

Seeing that Jesus himself has foretold all things himself.

So if someone comes to give Prophecy,That person is a false prophet. Seeing that Jesus already foretold all things.
Mark 13:23--" But take you heed, Behold, I have foretold you all things"

Therefore if anyone comes to give Prophecy they are a false prophet.

Jesus has already foretold all things, from the book of Matthew to Revelation.

adrian009 said:

Sometimes faith adherents misunderstand and misinterpret their own scripture. The problem wasn't with Muhammad but His followers.

Click to expand...

I’ve read the Baha’i interpretation of the phrase “Seal of the Prophets;” it seems to need a fair bit of mental gymnastics. The typical Muslim interpretation seems to be much more straightforward.

If, as you seem to be arguing, the Quran was not meant to create the impression that there would be no more prophets after Muhammad, I’d say that the problem is with the content of the book.

Here’s the thing: a thoughtful author should be able to anticipate reasonable interpretations of their writings and take them into account. This means that if the author of the Quran really didn’t mean to suggest that Muhammad was the last prophet, then one of two things is going on: either the author failed to take a reasonable interpretation into account (which would be a failing of the author) or this interpretation is unreasonable.

The typical Muslim interpretation certainly seems to me to match a straightforward reading of the text, so I don’t see how it could be unreasonable.

9-10ths_Penguin said:

I’ve read the Baha’i interpretation of the phrase “Seal of the Prophets;” it seems to need a fair bit of mental gymnastics. The typical Muslim interpretation seems to be much more straightforward.

If, as you seem to be arguing, the Quran was not meant to create the impression that there would be no more prophets after Muhammad, I’d say that the problem is with the content of the book.

Here’s the thing: a thoughtful author should be able to anticipate reasonable interpretations of their writings and take them into account. This means that, if the author of the Quran really didn’t mean to suggest that Muhammad was the last prophet, then one of two things is going on: either the author failed to take a reasonable interpretation into account (which would be a failing of the author) or this interpretation is unreasonable.

The typical Muslim interpretation certainly seems to me to match a straightforward reading of the text, so I don’t see how it could be unreasonable.

Click to expand...

As you will appreciate the Quran wasn't written by Muhammad. It was composed after His death but based on the memory of his words. The version we have now is widely considered to be very similar to Uthman's version who was a contemporary of Muhammad. It therefore doesn't have many of the problems we have with the gospels. So when Christians above are telling me about all the prophecies Christ fulfilled such as the destruction of Rome, the earliest synoptic gospel (Mark) was in all likelihood written after the destruction of Rome in 70 AD.

If you study the history of Muhammad and what He taught and achieved its very impressive that He managed to unite a disparate group of Nomadic peoples on the Arabian penisula. The tribes were largely pagan and Muhammad taught them to turn away from their pagan gods and worship Alah who was the God of the Christians and Jews. The Pagans, particularly His own people, the Quraysh did not take kindly to His advice so sought to destroy Muhammad and His followers. Muhammad defended against the Quraysh tribe (His own kinsmen) in several battles and Surah 33....

Al-Ahzab - Wikipedia

...was written after the battle of the Trench

Battle of the Trench - Wikipedia

...which led to a decisive victory for the Muslims.

The failure of the siege marked the beginning of Muhammad's undoubted political ascendancy in the city of Medina. The Meccans had exerted their utmost strength to dislodge Muhammad from Medina, and this defeat caused them to lose their trade with Syria and much of their prestige with it. Watt conjectures that the Meccans at this point began to contemplate that conversion to Islam would be the most prudent option.

This the context in which Surah 33 was revealed by Muhammad including ....

Khatam an-Nabiyyin - Wikipedia

which reads:

"Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but (he is) the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of the Prophets: and Allah has full knowledge of all things."
 The Qur'an - Chapter 33 Verse 40

Obviously there are different interpretations including the traditional ones by Muslims and Baha'is.

I think its always good to know the historic context a verse was written as well as the context of one verse within a whole chapter.

I'm not that interested in convincing you the Baha'is or Muslims are right, or even convincing you about the existence of God. I would encourage to learn some history and familarise yourself with the Qur'an if you haven't done so.

Faithofchristian said:

Can you explain what Jesus ment by turn the other cheek?

As for knowing who is a false prophet, that's not hard to figure out.

Seeing that Jesus himself has foretold all things himself.

So if someone comes to give Prophecy,That person is a false prophet. Seeing that Jesus already foretold all things.
Mark 13:23--" But take you heed, Behold, I have foretold you all things"

Therefore if anyone comes to give Prophecy they are a false prophet.

Jesus has already foretold all things, from the book of Matthew to Revelation.

Click to expand...

If a man asks for your cheek, give him the other cheek, he said. That is, if he wants to slap you, offer to have him slap you twice. While I don't know of many Christians that live up to this example, it is a good example nonetheless.

That definition is sketchy because it relies on us defining someone based on Jesus. But it's still pretty easy. A prophet does what they say, they don't suddenly and dramatically change their mind. They are able to enforce their teachings without the sword, because their words are true or at least logical. And thet say something that comes to pass.

...the problem wasn't with Muhammad but his followers.

Click to expand...

If I write a book, and it causes people reading to adopt strange or violent customs, that's on me. The Bible has turn the other cheek, less followers than we would hope do that. Some kill ppl in abortion clinics cuz "Jesus said to". That's on them.
But if some says, "fighting is prescribed for you and you dislike it, but it is possible that you dislike a thing that is good for you and like a thing that is bad for you." ( actually in the Quran along with other pro-violence stuff) If followers do this, they are GOOD followers. But it means the leader is an evil one.

Samantha Rinne said:

If a man asks for your cheek, give him the other cheek, he said. That is, if he wants to slap you, offer to have him slap you twice. While I don't know of many Christians that live up to this example, it is a good example nonetheless.

That definition is sketchy because it relies on us defining someone based on Jesus. But it's still pretty easy. A prophet does what they say, they don't suddenly and dramatically change their mind. They are able to enforce their teachings without the sword, because their words are true or at least logical. And thet say something that comes to pass.

Click to expand...

The question is, What's the reason behind to turn the other cheek.
What did the person do for the other person to slap their cheek.

They must haved done something for a person to slap their cheek.
So what did the person do that caused the other person to slap their cheek?

adrian009 said:

Bahá’u’lláh was born and lived in 19th century Persia until He was exiled to Iraq, Turkey and finally Palestine. Most, though not all of His interactions were with people from a Muslim background. He didn’t have too much to say about Hinduism. Krishna and Buddha were mentioned as manifestations of God, Shiva wasn’t. If Bahá’u’lláh had spent time on India I’m sure He would have said a lot more.

Click to expand...

Now, I admire the more inclusive nature of Bahai, but in all honesty, if a messenger is claiming to be a manifestation of God, wouldn't it make sense that such a manifestation know more than what would be expected of a regular person? Jesus and Muhammad and Moses and others all claimed to be messengers of some sort, but interestingly enough, they only spread conclusions about stuff they've learned, not blown anyone's mind in some revolutionary way. Let's say Jesus would say women should be included too. That sounds revolutionary ... but it isn't, because ancient Egypt had women's rights. It's like giving credit to someone for inventing a car in the 21st century. THEY might not have had cars, but the rest of the world did.

adrian009 said:

But it is our responsibility to ensure our own path is the best one for us.

Click to expand...

Indeed. It's because they're all just different flavors of ice cream that it's up to the person to decide which one floats their boat more.

adrian009 said:

So why believe in a myth or something that isn’t real?

Click to expand...

It's a lot like a fandom, though. It doesn't have to be real to speak to you in some profound way. The bible teaches me I, a disabled gentile woman, would probably be stoned to death for an entire laundry list's worth of reasons. I grew up on the Muppets, where making people happy and hanging out with a ton of different kinds of entities was a good thing. So, in essence, the Muppets spoke to me more than the bible did.

Outside of that, though, I'll be honest: the bible has never made me cry, but the prose version of the Mahabharata I read did. I don't agree with everything Krishna said either, but he definitely seems more "with it" than anyone in the bible, despite the fact the entire plot centers around him manipulating two kingdoms to extinction. What I love about that story, though, is that he gets his too, his kingdom falling just the same. I love a religious story that doesn't whitewash the characters or avoid making them live through their consequences. Many biblical "heroes" are jerks (which is the usual for ancient Mediterranean heroes, as being heroic meant you were epic, not moral). The bible tries SOOOOOO hard to give them all relatively happy endings. Jacob founds a lineage despite being blessed only through cheating. David gets a kingdom and dies before seeing it ripped apart by his dynasty. Moses dies a friend of God despite being a murdering psychopath who got the majority of "his" people killed off in various ways.

adrian009 said:

I think the evidence for the historic Jesus, Buddha and even Krishna are quite strong.

Click to expand...

But even if it could be established they existed, that doesn't make all the legends about them true. It's like being an ancient king: sure, it sounds great and epic, but a kingdom was usually a town if not a few towns. Whoop-de-doo.

adrian009 said:

One attractive feature of the Abrahamics for me is the emphasis on authenticity of sacred writings.

Click to expand...

See, that's what annoys me. Religions that accept that the stories can change and still be "true" are at least more honest about what happens during storytelling. The Abrahamics try to argue it's unchanged despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. It's not a problem if you don't mind "wiggle room" in your stories (like, say, the endless Batman reboots), but it's a problem if you believe there is only one version (Kevin Conroy is the best Batman, LOL).

Jim said:

That’s like saying that Mr. Rogers and Horton the elephant are no longer in play. It’s all in the story itself.

Click to expand...

And we need Mr. Rogers now more than ever.

Samantha Rinne said:

As message, Jesus says turn the other cheek and love your neighbor.

Click to expand...

I'm sure the pig herder, the owner of the fig tree, and everyone in the temple Jesus smacked with a whip were totally convinced about his message of love.

Samantha Rinne said:

The violent people in Christianity are NOT following the source material, they are acting against the Bible, which whenever possible talks about forgiveness and moves from more violent world to a less violent one.

Click to expand...

LOL, have you READ it?

Samantha Rinne said:

And lastly, Jesus, among his many prophecies said the Temple would be torn down.

Click to expand...

The Temple had been raided and stuff on multiple occasions even before Jesus was born. Saying the temple is going to have a bad day is like saying storm clouds will bring rain.

Hell, the temple was the Second one, after all, because the original was blasted to oblivion. The Temple is like the X-mansion in the X-Men franchise: it blows up every other week.

Kelly of the Phoenix said:

Now, I admire the more inclusive nature of Bahai, but in all honesty, if a messenger is claiming to be a manifestation of God, wouldn't it make sense that such a manifestation know more than what would be expected of a regular person?

Click to expand...

I agree.

Kelly of the Phoenix said:

Jesus and Muhammad and Moses and others all claimed to be messengers of some sort, but interestingly enough, they only spread conclusions about stuff they've learned, not blown anyone's mind in some revolutionary way. Let's say Jesus would say women should be included too.

Click to expand...

All three emerged at a time when there was a meeting of various cultures, a time is new ideas, and profound change. It doesn't matter that the ideas were present beforehand. They all brought an amalgamation of ideas and practices that were the right ones to enable their peoples to move forward and succed. They were all profoundly successful as teachers and the very fact their words are cherished by so may after the passing of time says a great deal. Regardless of whether they were from God or not they have shaped and redefined enduring truths that have influenced civilisations and contributed to what the world is today. The fact that many of their teachings are outdated and belong to a bygone era doesn't take away from them each having a message that was right for the age they lived as well as many generations beyond.

Kelly of the Phoenix said:

t's a lot like a fandom, though. It doesn't have to be real to speak to you in some profound way. The bible teaches me I, a disabled gentile woman, would probably be stoned to death for an entire laundry list's worth of reasons. I grew up on the Muppets, where making people happy and hanging out with a ton of different kinds of entities was a good thing. So, in essence, the Muppets spoke to me more than the bible did.

Click to expand...

But who was the inspiration behind the muppets?

Jim Henson - Wikipedia

Kelly of the Phoenix said:

Outside of that, though, I'll be honest: the bible has never made me cry, but the prose version of the Mahabharata I read did. I don't agree with everything Krishna said either, but he definitely seems more "with it" than anyone in the bible, despite the fact the entire plot centers around him manipulating two kingdoms to extinction. What I love about that story, though, is that he gets his too, his kingdom falling just the same. I love a religious story that doesn't whitewash the characters or avoid making them live through their consequences. Many biblical "heroes" are jerks (which is the usual for ancient Mediterranean heroes, as being heroic meant you were epic, not moral). The bible tries SOOOOOO hard to give them all relatively happy endings. Jacob founds a lineage despite being blessed only through cheating. David gets a kingdom and dies before seeing it ripped apart by his dynasty. Moses dies a friend of God despite being a murdering psychopath who got the majority of "his" people killed off in various ways.

Click to expand...

Why not explore Krishna some more. For Baha'is He is a Manifestation of God.

Who was Krishna in your tradition?

Kelly of the Phoenix said:

But even if it could be established they existed, that doesn't make all the legends about them true. It's like being an ancient king: sure, it sounds great and epic, but a kingdom was usually a town if not a few towns. Whoop-de-doo.

Click to expand...

Of course history and myth are woven together,

Kelly of the Phoenix said:

See, that's what annoys me. Religions that accept that the stories can change and still be "true" are at least more honest about what happens during storytelling. The Abrahamics try to argue it's unchanged despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. It's not a problem if you don't mind "wiggle room" in your stories (like, say, the endless Batman reboots), but it's a problem if you believe there is only one version (Kevin Conroy is the best Batman, LOL).

Click to expand...

I had in mind the Qur'an which is more authentic than the Gospels.

The Qur'an or the Gospels: Which is more authentic?