Prophets, Legitimacy etc.

[JustGeorge]

Not about Hindu Rishi's. The gentleman said he is going to look for what the scripture says about Rishi's so I was just asking him to tell me also what his findings were. So its "what the scripture says about Rishi's", not what you know about Rishi's.

The Mahabharata is said to be recorded by Vyasa(a Rishi), if I'm not mistaken. Narada(another Rishi) appears in the scripture as well.

(I'm sure there are many more examples, but this is what came to mind.)

 

[Aupmanyav]

So its "what the scripture says about Rishi's", not what you know about Rishi's.

Oh yes (again). What we know about history or myths, is in books.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The Mahabharata is said to be recorded by Vyasa(a Rishi), if I'm not mistaken. Narada(another Rishi) appears in the scripture as well.

Thousands, JustGoerge. Not only Vyasa and Narada. After all, the book cover Indian (and Central Asian) history for upward of 6,000 years. RigVeda itself was written by over a thousand poet-priests. 'Anukramanikas' (Indexes) give the names and lineages of the Sages. The Oldest parts of RigVeda were written in Pontic steppes (North of Caspian Sea - Kurgan region).

 

[Aupmanyav]

Are Gurus thought to be messengers from the Hindu God or r Gods? If so they could qualify as the not predicting the future sort of prophets.

Many of the Sages/Rishis/Gurus were in communion (communicated with, reciprocal visits like friends do) with Gods. Some times the Rishis will go to Gods, other times the Gods will come to the Rishis. That was a routine thing. Lord Krishna and Arjuna went to the hermitage of my ancestor Upamanyu, a Kamboja Sage, some where in Afghanistan (Uttara Patha). That is recorded in Srimad Bhagawatham. But Gods did not give them any messages for people. None falsely claimed that they were messengers of God. Even though I am an atheist, my lines of communication with Gods are open. What the Rishis said was their own. None of them were messengers in Abrahamic sense.

 

[firedragon]

The Mahabharata is said to be recorded by Vyasa(a Rishi), if I'm not mistaken. Narada(another Rishi) appears in the scripture as well.

(I'm sure there are many more examples, but this is what came to mind.)

Thanks.

 

[Tiberius]

I guess you forgot why I would not agree. I wanted to know what the name of the guy and you would not tell me.

Why does his name matter if he has fulfilled the criteria you provided? Do you not trust the standards you set in place?

Perhaps you wanted to see if there was some personal bias you had for or against him before you made up your mind?

 

[Aupmanyav]

But how do you know what Moshe taught is or was the true religion without someone then backing him up at the time? What's your starting point? He had no known monotheistic forebears.

Moses had his monotheistic forebears. There were Adam, Noah and Abraham. I do not know whom the Bahais consider a manifestation. However, the argument still remains circular - Bahaollah is a manifestation of Allah since Bahaollah says so.

 

[firedragon]

Oh yes (again). What we know about history or myths, is in books.

Irrelevant you see.

 

[Trailblazer]

Oh yes. The 'tablets' and the archives of the House of Justice. As time goes by more will crop up.

Yes they will.

 

[Trailblazer]

Moses had his monotheistic forebears. There were Adam, Noah and Abraham. I do not know whom the Bahais consider a manifestation. However, the argument still remains circular - Bahaollah is a manifestation of Allah since Bahaollah says so.

Baha'is believe Adam, Noah and Abraham were Manifestations of God because Baha'u'llah said so and who would be better able to know but another Manifestation of God, since they are all the same Spirit of God made manifest.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why does his name matter if he has fulfilled the criteria you provided? Do you not trust the standards you set in place?

Perhaps you wanted to see if there was some personal bias you had for or against him before you made up your mind?

Because I cannot do my own checking in order to see if he really met the criteria unless I know who he was. Why would I take your word for it that there is some man who met all those criteria?

No, it has nothing to do with any personal bias, he either met those criteria or not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Baha'is believe Adam, Noah and Abraham were Manifestations of God because Baha'u'llah said so and who would be better able to know but another Manifestation of God, since they are all the same Spirit of God made manifest.

From what I have heard from some Baha'i that does not appear to be universal. Like Christians many know that those stories are morality tales and not history.

 

[Trailblazer]

From what I have heard from some Baha'i that does not appear to be universal. Like Christians many know that those stories are morality tales and not history.

Whether we call them Prophets, Messengers, or Manifestations of God all Baha'is believe that these men were sent by God since that is what Baha'u'llah wrote in The Kitáb-i-Íqán.

Actually, Baha'u'llah called them Prophets as I recall, but Baha'u'llah often referred to the Universal Manifestations of God as Prophets.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Whether we call them Prophets, Messengers, or Manifestations of God all Baha'is believe that these men were sent by God since that is what Baha'u'llah wrote in The Kitáb-i-Íqán.

Actually, Baha'u'llah called them Prophets as I recall, but Baha'u'llah often referred to the Universal Manifestations of God as Prophets.

Once again, not all Baha'i. There never was a single solitary man. And Abraham is likely legend as well. Those stories do work as morality tales, but they tend to fail as history. Many Baha'i appear to accept this. There may not be different sects of Baha'i, but there are definitely different beliefs.

 

[Trailblazer]

Once again, not all Baha'i. There never was a single solitary man. And Abraham is likely legend as well. Those stories do work as morality tales, but they tend to fail as history. Many Baha'i appear to accept this. There may not be different sects of Baha'i, but there are definitely different beliefs.

There is a big difference between believing that the morality tales told in the Old Testament are historical events and believing that Adam, Abraham and Noah actually existed. Baha'is differ on what they believe about the Old Testament, whether it is literal or allegorical, but we agree that these Prophets existed. However, just because they existed that does not mean they did 'everything' that was delineated in the Old Testament. For example, we do not believe that Adam was with Eve in the Garden of Eden, as we believe that was an allegorical story. We do not believe in the story of Noah's Arc and a great flood that flooded the whole earth either. Baha'u'llah delineated the significance of Noah's earthly mission in The Kitab-i-Iqan.

Deluge Myths, Noah’s Ark and the Renewal of Religion

A New Ark -- Why the Story of Noah Matters

Here are some Baha'i views of the Bible:

Introduction

Although Bahá'ís universally share a great respect for the Bible, and acknowledge its status as sacred literature, their individual views about its authoritative status range along the full spectrum of possibilities. At one end there are those who assume the uncritical evangelical or fundamentalist-Christian view that the Bible is wholly and indisputably the word of God. At the other end are Bahá'ís attracted to the liberal, scholarly conclusion that the Bible is no more than a product of complex historical and human forces. Between these extremes is the possibility that the Bible contains the Word of God, but only in a particular sense of the phrase 'Word of God' or in particular texts. I hope to show that a Bahá'í view must lie in this middle area, and can be defined to some degree.

Conclusion

The Bahá'í viewpoint proposed by this essay has been established as follows: The Bible is a reliable source of Divine guidance and salvation, and rightly regarded as a sacred and holy book. However, as a collection of the writings of independent and human authors, it is not necessarily historically accurate. Nor can the words of its writers, although inspired, be strictly defined as 'The Word of God' in the way the original words of Moses and Jesus could have been. Instead there is an area of continuing interest for Bahá'í scholars, possibly involving the creation of new categories for defining authoritative religious literature.

A Baháí View of the Bible

 

[loverofhumanity]

If your religion has prophets or a prophet, messengers etc., how do you determine that he is or was a prophet? What are the criteria?

If you religion hasn't any such messengers, what proves its legitimacy to you? That is, why this faith instead of another faith? What makes it more true to you than another one that you choose to follow it?

To a person with a pure heart no proofs or evidences are needed to recognise a Prophet.

 

[blü 2]

If your religion has prophets or a prophet, messengers etc., how do you determine that he is or was a prophet? What are the criteria?

If you religion hasn't any such messengers, what proves its legitimacy to you? That is, why this faith instead of another faith? What makes it more true to you than another one that you choose to follow it?

This isn't a problem that we materialists have.

But I favor the 'correspondence' definition of truth ─ truth is a quality of statements, and a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality.

And prophets aren't about objective reality, so whatever they say doesn't come within my idea of what's true.

 

[sayak83]

If your religion has prophets or a prophet, messengers etc., how do you determine that he is or was a prophet? What are the criteria?

If you religion hasn't any such messengers, what proves its legitimacy to you? That is, why this faith instead of another faith? What makes it more true to you than another one that you choose to follow it?

From the perspective of Hinduism, in Gita, the criteria of a realized sage is discussed. (Chapter 2)

Arjuna said:
‘O Krishna What are the signs of a person who has attained samadhi and
whose intellect doesn’t waver? How does he speak, how does he sit and how
does he walk?’

Krishna said:
‘O Arjuna! A person is said to be unwavering in intellect when he banishes all
desires from his mind. He is content within his own Self.
He is not disturbed by unhappiness and he is beyond desiring happiness. He has
overcome attachment, fear and anger and he is known as a sage who is
unwavering in his intellect.’
In everything, he has no emotion, regardless of whether something pleasant or
something unpleasant has been attained. He is not pleased, nor is he dissatisfied,
and in him wisdom is established.
Like a tortoise withdraws its limbs, such a person withdraws his senses, in
every way, from sensual objects. In him is wisdom established.’
He who starves himself may withdraw from sensual objects, but not from
desire. In him, who has seen the Absolute Self, even desire is restrained.’
He who has controlled his mind is freed from attachment and hatred.
Having used himself to control his senses, he uses these to enjoy objects and
satisfy himself.’
When there is such serenity, in him is eliminated all unhappiness. Because in
the mind of someone at peace, wisdom is quickly established.
Just as the waters enter an ocean and leave the full ocean undisturbed, similarly,
all sensual objects enter that person, but leave him at peace, unlike those
attached to desire.
A man who gives up all desire and exists without longing, without ego and
without a sense of ownership, he attains peace.’
‘O Arjuna! This is the state of being established in the brahman. If one attains
this, one is not deluded. Even at the end, established in this state, one attains
union with the brahman.

Many such self realized persons existed and continue to exist in Hinduism (and in other religions too) and it is their experiences, words and deeds that provide authenticity to the practice.

 

[Link]

If the Guide is in public - miracles. If he is hidden, ask God to make you meet him, and again miracles.

 

[Tiberius]

Because I cannot do my own checking in order to see if he really met the criteria unless I know who he was. Why would I take your word for it that there is some man who met all those criteria?

No, it has nothing to do with any personal bias, he either met those criteria or not.

I have a very trustworthy face.

In any case, you seem even incapable of saying, "IF he meets those criteria, I will accept him as a messenger from God."