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

[Dawnofhope]

Why did your preceptor overlook or forget to mention Him?
He can be forgiven, for even most hindus no longer remember Lord Shiva as a historical person who actually walked the earth thousands of years ago but now see Him only as a god.
The collection of talks 'Namah Shiváya Shantáya' had not yet been written in the days of Bahaullah.
Namah Shivaya Shantaya - Sarkarverse, the wikipedia of all things Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar

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.

 

[Dawnofhope]

So it seems we have no lack of spiritual reformers in this day and age.
Which one will have the most impact on the human society as compared to the greatest reformers of the past?

Time will tell. But it is our responsibility to ensure our own path is the best one for us. To what extent we should engage in informed analysis of each Ones Teachings is the focus of this thread.

 

[Vinayaka]

Could Shiva have been a Manifestations of God?

No, because there is no such thing as a manifestation of God in that way. Of course the entire universe is a manifestation (emanation) of God.

 

[Dawnofhope]

No, because there is no such thing as a manifestation of God in that way. Of course the entire universe is a manifestation (emanation) of God.

So Shiva is an emanation (manifestion) of God. Of course everything is an emanation of God. Presumably there’s a heirachy with higher and lower forms or is the dust the same as a most liberated being who delays Moksha to educate others.

Presumably Shiva manifested (emanated) in human form? How would we have known of Him if He did not?

 

[Vinayaka]

So Shiva is an emanation (manifestion) of God. Of course everything is an emanation of God. Presumably there’s a heirachy with higher and lower forms or is the dust the same as a most liberated being who delays Moksha to educate others.

Presumably Shiva manifested (emanated) in human form? How would we have known of Him if He did not?

The anthropomorphised version of Siva comes from a section of Hindu scripture called Puranas, which are essentially myths, in my view. Some folks do take them very literally, but that's not part of my school. There is no individualisation of manifestation. It's just 'everything'.

So He's not manifested. It's just a story. Harry Potter isn't real.

 

[Dawnofhope]

The anthropomorphised version of Siva comes from a section of Hindu scripture called Puranas, which are essentially myths, in my view. Some folks do take them very literally, but that's not part of my school. There is no individualisation of manifestation. It's just 'everything'.

So He's not manifested. It's just a story. Harry Potter isn't real.

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

I don’t believe in Harry Potter either lol

 

[Vinayaka]

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

I don’t believe in Harry Potter either lol

You'd have to ask the people who take the Puranas literally. I don't.

 

[Marcion]

So Shiva is an emanation (manifestion) of God. Of course everything is an emanation of God. Presumably there’s a heirachy with higher and lower forms or is the dust the same as a most liberated being who delays Moksha to educate others.

Presumably Shiva manifested (emanated) in human form? How would we have known of Him if He did not?

It is a matter of contention. The same with the God Rama.
People are also quarreling whether Jesus really existed in person and that was only 2000 years ago.
Over the millennia people made up so many things because preserving any "real history" was not really on their minds.
It was also not possible, without having any script you could endlessly adjust and expand things.

 

[Dawnofhope]

It is a matter of contention. The same with the God Rama.
People are also quarreling whether Jesus really existed in person and that was only 2000 years ago.
Over the millennia people made up so many things because preserving any "real history" was not really on their minds.
It was also not possible, without having any script you could endlessly adjust and expand things.

I think the evidence for the historic Jesus, Buddha and even Krishna are quite strong. It is an inevitability that the further back in history we go the harder it is to establish historic facts. One attractive feature of the Abrahamics for me is the emphasis on authenticity of sacred writings.

 

[Marcion]

My favourite theologian Hermann Detering is not convinced that Jesus was real and holds that the historical version of Jesus was invented by Jewish Christians. He thinks Christianity started with the gnostic Simon Magus and a purely spiritual (mythical) Christ who only appeared to be human (docetism). I tend to think he is wrong and the sayings in Q-lite were spoken by a historical Jesus who has little to do though with Christianity.

My preceptor writes that Rama is a purely mythical hero from very ancient times (even before the advent of Lord Shiva) and that there are many versions of the Ramayana, also because it had not been written down for thousands of years.

One attractive feature of my own path is that all the scriptures are quite recent and well recorded.
The language is therefore not archaic and you can get to know the preceptor quite well from the many stories about him and the photo's and movies taken. I feel very much that South Asia is at the heart of the human spiritual historical journey.

 

[Dawnofhope]

One attractive feature of my own path is that all the scriptures are quite recent and well recorded.
The language is therefore not archaic and you can get to know the preceptor quite well from the many stories about him and the photo's and movies taken.

Who is your preceptor?

 

[paarsurrey]

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.

"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." Unquote

Then Bahaullah's claim for god-head is unreasonable.
Regards

 

[Jim]

Then Bahaullah's claim for god-head is unreasonable.
Regards

How many reasons for discounting Him do you need to find, to be satisfied?

 

[CG Didymus]

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.

Judaism doesn't mention them. Christianity doesn't mention them. And, Islam doesn't. So why would the Baha'i Faith. But the Baha'i Faith at least says that they came from the same God. Do the others? I know fundamental/evangelical protestant Christians mention them now... as being a false religion. So were these religions really meant to be for the world and be a progression of the previous one? Or, were they meant only for a certain people and culture at a particular time?

 

[CG Didymus]

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

I don’t believe in Harry Potter either lol

By what Baha'is teach, what Christians believe are only myths, myths about Jesus. Crazy myths, like him walking on water, healing people with leprosy, calming a storm, rising from the dead, and being born from a virgin. Crazy myths, yet some people believe them literally. Oh, I forgot, Baha'i don't believe the virgin birth is a myth. That is so obviously a historical fact... right.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Judaism doesn't mention them. Christianity doesn't mention them. And, Islam doesn't. So why would the Baha'i Faith. But the Baha'i Faith at least says that they came from the same God. Do the others? I know fundamental/evangelical protestant Christians mention them now... as being a false religion. So were these religions really meant to be for the world and be a progression of the previous one? Or, were they meant only for a certain people and culture at a particular time?

I see a similarities between Buddhism emerging from Hinduism and Christianity from Judaism. Both Buddha and Christ asked their followers to spread their Teachings throughout the whole world.

Muhammad was clear in the Quran that Christians and Jews were people of the book following the same God as Allah. They were provided with special protection accordingly. Eventually this protection extended to Buddhism as well in many places that were ruled by Muslims.

The Baha’i Faith extends this further and sees Buddha as a Manifestation of God, though we can no longer be certain what the Buddha actually taught and can not rely on the available Sutras to reflect the actual words of Buddha.

Buddha spoke of one who would teach the Dharma again once it had decayed. His title is the Maitreya Buddha and Baha’is believe this was Bahá’u’lláh.

Maitreya - Wikipedia

 

[Dawnofhope]

By what Baha'is teach, what Christians believe are only myths, myths about Jesus. Crazy myths, like him walking on water, healing people with leprosy, calming a storm, rising from the dead, and being born from a virgin. Crazy myths, yet some people believe them literally. Oh, I forgot, Baha'i don't believe the virgin birth is a myth. That is so obviously a historical fact... right.

We cannot know for certain what miracles in the bible were literally true including the virgin birth and many of the recorded miracles. We don’t know for certain but maybe they really happened. Their significance rests in how they assist us better understand who Christ was, not whether they literally happened or not.

 

[Marcion]

So were these religions really meant to be for the world and be a progression of the previous one? Or, were they meant only for a certain people and culture at a particular time?

Since they were centered on the Jewish people and the Arabian "holy land", they are clearly full of geo-sentiment and socio-sentiment and therefore less suitable for the world as a whole.

With the historical Jesus this was not the case, but his teachings were obscured and replaced by syncretic Christianity.

 

[Dawnofhope]

"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." Unquote

Then Bahaullah's claim for god-head is unreasonable.
Regards

He never claimed God-head.

 

[paarsurrey]

How many reasons for discounting Him do you need to find, to be satisfied?

If I find Bahaullah saying something unreasonable or not saying something where he should have said something reasonable,shouldn't I point it out?

Regards