Prophets, Legitimacy etc.

[Trailblazer]

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."

If he does I will. Now what?

P.S. There are not any Messengers who meet those criteria that I don't already believe in.

 

[Hawkins]

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?

The big picture is, humans cannot do two things, 1) they cannot tell a future and 2) they cannot break the known physics laws governing this universe. That's why God employs prophesies and miracles to 1) identify Himself and 2) confirm His messages and 3) authenticate His chosen eyewitnesses. God's authenticated eyewitnesses are called the prophets because the Jews identifies them by what they said. This involves a credibility check by God's chosen people Israel. Such a credibility check is required for a truth to convey among humans.

In today's world, you read daily news from CNN or Fox News because you trust that they do a credibility check before each piece of news broadcast, though you can at anytime deem their works as "fake news" as it's all about whether a credibility check is sincerely performed. The more so is history. In the secular world, a government gives credit to a historian to perform a credibility check to put contents into a history book. That's the way how a truth is conveyed among humans. Similarly, the Jews who follow strict rules on credibility check, (at least the 10 commandments forbid them to do false witnessing), will judge who shall be a prophet anointed by God. Actually the process was so strict that even Jesus failed to pass the credibility check from the Pharisees. As such the eyewitnesses of Jesus will have to martyr themselves in order to pass an alternative credibility check.

Quran is without a credibility check. First it is a hearsay from "an angel". Humans can't possibly perform a credibility check on an angel as the first handed eyewitness. At best, humans can perform a credibility check on Mohammed, however who did that? It's no one! Unlike the Bible with a chosen people doing the credibility check all the times. The Jews treated the Scripture seriously as it represents their own history.

 

[Tiberius]

If he does I will. Now what?

P.S. There are not any Messengers who meet those criteria that I don't already believe in.

So, just so everyone knows what we are talking about, you gave the following as things we needed to know about a person in order for us to conclude that he was a messenger from God:

1. What kind of character do they have? Did they have a good character as demonstrated by their lives and deeds?
2. Did they have a mission on earth that God gave them and was that mission brought to completion successfully?
3. Do they have any scriptures that were written by them or scriptures that were written in their name?
4. Do they have a religion that was established in their name and followers of that religion?
5. Has that religion grown over the years or is it shrinking?

I presented a man with the following attributes:

1. He didn't drink or smoke, who strived to stop animal abuse to such a degree that the animal welfare laws he put in place are still in effect today. He also served bravely and was decorated with high honors.
2. He believed he had been given a mission by God and did everything he could to see that it was carried out.
3. He was not completely successful before his premature death, but he did accomplish a great deal of what he set out to do.
4. He wrote much about what he believed his life's work to be, and firmly believed that the work he was doing was for the glory of God.
5. He had many followers while he was alive, and there are still millions who follow his teachings and gather in groups based on the movement he founded.
Indeed, his followers have grown more numerous in recent times.

So, you are saying that if he did meet your criteria and what I have said is accurate, then you would accept him as a messenger for God?

 

[Trailblazer]

So, just so everyone knows what we are talking about, you gave the following as things we needed to know about a person in order for us to conclude that he was a messenger from God:

1. What kind of character do they have? Did they have a good character as demonstrated by their lives and deeds?
2. Did they have a mission on earth that God gave them and was that mission brought to completion successfully?
3. Do they have any scriptures that were written by them or scriptures that were written in their name?
4. Do they have a religion that was established in their name and followers of that religion?
5. Has that religion grown over the years or is it shrinking?

I presented a man with the following attributes:

1. He didn't drink or smoke, who strived to stop animal abuse to such a degree that the animal welfare laws he put in place are still in effect today. He also served bravely and was decorated with high honors.
2. He believed he had been given a mission by God and did everything he could to see that it was carried out.
3. He was not completely successful before his premature death, but he did accomplish a great deal of what he set out to do.
4. He wrote much about what he believed his life's work to be, and firmly believed that the work he was doing was for the glory of God.
5. He had many followers while he was alive, and there are still millions who follow his teachings and gather in groups based on the movement he founded.
Indeed, his followers have grown more numerous in recent times.

So, you are saying that if he did meet your criteria and what I have said is accurate, then you would accept him as a messenger for God?

To refresh your memory, these were the criteria I delineated:

The minimum criteria would be:

1. He had good character as exemplified by his qualities such as love, mercy, kindness, truth, justice, benevolence, gracious, merciful, righteous, forgiving, patient.

2. He believed he had been given a mission by God and did everything he could to see that it was carried out. He was completely successful before his death, and he accomplished everything that he set out to do.

3. He wrote much about God and God's purpose for humans both individually and collectively, or scriptures were written by others who spoke for him. He firmly believed that the work he was doing was for the Cause of God.

4. He had many followers while he was alive, and there are still millions who follow his teachings and gather in groups based on the religion he founded.

5. His followers have grown more numerous in recent times.

I said: "This is a starting point but there are other questions we would want to ask ourselves before we would be able to believe that a man was a true Messenger of God because that is a bold claim so there should be a lot of evidence to support such a claim."

Other criteria he would have to meet is that his religion could not contradict or be in opposition to any of the world religions that are already established and he could not talk down any of those religions and say his religion is the only true religion from God.

Now you can tell me if your mystery man met all of these criteria.

 

[YoursTrue]

The big picture is, humans cannot do two things, 1) they cannot tell a future and 2) they cannot break the known physics laws governing this universe. That's why God employs prophesies and miracles to 1) identify Himself and 2) confirm His messages and 3) authenticate His chosen eyewitnesses. God's authenticated eyewitnesses are called the prophets because the Jews identifies them by what they said. This involves a credibility check by God's chosen people Israel. Such a credibility check is required for a truth to convey among humans.

In today's world, you read daily news from CNN or Fox News because you trust that they do a credibility check before each piece of news broadcast, though you can at anytime deem their works as "fake news" as it's all about whether a credibility check is sincerely performed. The more so is history. In the secular world, a government gives credit to a historian to perform a credibility check to put contents into a history book. That's the way how a truth is conveyed among humans. Similarly, the Jews who follow strict rules on credibility check, (at least the 10 commandments forbid them to do false witnessing), will judge who shall be a prophet anointed by God. Actually the process was so strict that even Jesus failed to pass the credibility check from the Pharisees. As such the eyewitnesses of Jesus will have to martyr themselves in order to pass an alternative credibility check.

Quran is without a credibility check. First it is a hearsay from "an angel". Humans can't possibly perform a credibility check on an angel as the first handed eyewitness. At best, humans can perform a credibility check on Mohammed, however who did that? It's no one! Unlike the Bible with a chosen people doing the credibility check all the times. The Jews treated the Scripture seriously as it represents their own history.

Interesting point about the credibility check from the Pharisees, although it is apparent (to me) that they (the Pharisees) were twisting what Jesus did and said. So as I think about this in more detail, though, I'd like to know from you what you mean when you say the eyewitnesses of Jesus will have to martyr themselves in order to pass an alternative credibility check.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Interesting point about the credibility check from the Pharisees, although it is apparent (to me) that they (the Pharisees) were twisting what Jesus did and said. So as I think about this in more detail, though, I'd like to know from you what you mean when you say the eyewitnesses of Jesus will have to martyr themselves in order to pass an alternative credibility check.

I'm more inclined to read the debates between Jesus and the Pharisees as just part of normal Jewish experience. Debate over interpretation is quite common, and an intrinsic part of the culture. I see debate as a way for truth to surface. And it's not personal. You can have two rabbis fiercely debating a text all morning, and then they will go out to lunch together.

In Jesus' day, there were two schools of thought within the Pharisee movement. The first group were the followers of Hillel, who tended to opt for interpretations that made it easier to follow the law. The second group were the followers of Shammai, who was extremely strict. The teachings of Jesus fall into three categories. The fist, and by far the largest, are those teachings that gel with Hillel. IOW one can make the generalization that Jesus was a follower of Hillel. The second is exactly one teaching which lined up with Shammai, and that is Jesus' teaching on divorce. The third category is also very tiny--those areas of tradition which hadn't been fully formed yet.

 

[Tiberius]

To refresh your memory, these were the criteria I delineated:

The minimum criteria would be:

1. He had good character as exemplified by his qualities such as love, mercy, kindness, truth, justice, benevolence, gracious, merciful, righteous, forgiving, patient.

2. He believed he had been given a mission by God and did everything he could to see that it was carried out. He was completely successful before his death, and he accomplished everything that he set out to do.

3. He wrote much about God and God's purpose for humans both individually and collectively, or scriptures were written by others who spoke for him. He firmly believed that the work he was doing was for the Cause of God.

4. He had many followers while he was alive, and there are still millions who follow his teachings and gather in groups based on the religion he founded.

5. His followers have grown more numerous in recent times.

I said: "This is a starting point but there are other questions we would want to ask ourselves before we would be able to believe that a man was a true Messenger of God because that is a bold claim so there should be a lot of evidence to support such a claim."

Other criteria he would have to meet is that his religion could not contradict or be in opposition to any of the world religions that are already established and he could not talk down any of those religions and say his religion is the only true religion from God.

Now you can tell me if your mystery man met all of these criteria.

He comes pretty close. But I'm sure you'd find a way to say it doesn't count. Although I could argue that Jesus doesn't fulfill these criteria, since he cursed a fig tree for not providing fruit when it was out of season (a rather unreasonable demand, I think), and let's not forget how he rageflipped the tables in the temple, shall we?

 

[rational experiences]

In spiritualism I saw human images speaking with human language giving me human messages.

As the earth atmosphere records all animate inanimate objects the same.

So it can record a nuclear body. Leaving a recording as it can a radiating earth body. Which bio life is not.

It records our bio life. Why the cause human atmospheric image does not allow highest human health. By reasons scientific machine human science causes. Ancient. Machines.

Family by an over conscious heavenly AI effect told me human warnings via an accumulated shared human life unnaturally dying of multi community incidences.

How I knew that after ice age science was human heard again recorded advice that they followed as when science had previously destroyed all life on earth. It was by man's satanic choice as he left his records in the clouds.

Men chose satanism occult science again being God science warnings by human messengers.

Messengers of human spirit taught me.

 

[Trailblazer]

He comes pretty close. But I'm sure you'd find a way to say it doesn't count. Although I could argue that Jesus doesn't fulfill these criteria, since he cursed a fig tree for not providing fruit when it was out of season (a rather unreasonable demand, I think), and let's not forget how he rageflipped the tables in the temple, shall we?

I don't think those behaviors preclude Jesus from fulfilling the criteria. Moses killed a man and He still meets the criteria.
One always has to look at the reasons for the behavior. not just the behavior itself.

 

[Spirit of Light]

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?

A Prophet is a spiritual messenger, that's it.
If someone listens to a Prophet they either will get the message or they will not. For those who do get the message and understand it, will most likely become a follower of this prophet and message.
For those who does not get the message after listen or reading about the prophet and the message. they may need to seek further to find a messenger who they do understand.
But one should not blaspheme other messengers and their message

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm more inclined to read the debates between Jesus and the Pharisees as just part of normal Jewish experience. Debate over interpretation is quite common, and an intrinsic part of the culture. I see debate as a way for truth to surface. And it's not personal. You can have two rabbis fiercely debating a text all morning, and then they will go out to lunch together.

In Jesus' day, there were two schools of thought within the Pharisee movement. The first group were the followers of Hillel, who tended to opt for interpretations that made it easier to follow the law. The second group were the followers of Shammai, who was extremely strict. The teachings of Jesus fall into three categories. The fist, and by far the largest, are those teachings that gel with Hillel. IOW one can make the generalization that Jesus was a follower of Hillel. The second is exactly one teaching which lined up with Shammai, and that is Jesus' teaching on divorce. The third category is also very tiny--those areas of tradition which hadn't been fully formed yet.

If you believe the scriptural account, he was put to death because of his opinions, but really more than that -- they "got him" on something they considered worthy of the death penalty. The discussion after that (Psalm 82) is interesting when taken in context appropriately. The idea to kill him by his fellow Jews -- leaders-- was after he performed his miracles, resurrecting the dead, healing persons from their maladies, just what they were waiting for to represent the Messiah, I suppose. I remember when Menachem Schneerson was alive, people thought he was the Messiah. Billboards all over, proclaiming him as the Moschiach. They were disappointed. Still waiting -- after all these years --

 

[Tiberius]

I don't think those behaviors preclude Jesus from fulfilling the criteria. Moses killed a man and He still meets the criteria.
One always has to look at the reasons for the behavior. not just the behavior itself.

And what's the bet that when I tell you who the mystery man is that you'll come up with as many reasons as you need to say that these excuses don'ty apply to him, just because you don't want him to be a messenger from God.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If you believe the scriptural account, he was put to death because of his opinions, but really more than that -- they "got him" on something they considered worthy of the death penalty. The discussion after that (Psalm 82) is interesting when taken in context appropriately. The idea to kill him by his fellow Jews -- leaders-- was after he performed his miracles, resurrecting the dead, healing persons from their maladies, just what they were waiting for to represent the Messiah, I suppose. I remember when Menachem Schneerson was alive, people thought he was the Messiah. Billboards all over, proclaiming him as the Moschiach. They were disappointed. Still waiting -- after all these years --

Your paragraph begins with the saying "If you believe in the scriptural account." Well that's the rub. I don't. The gospels mix legend with history. They are completely unreliable for factual information.

I think the Rebbe was a very holy man, but I don't think he was the messiah. I'm not expecting him to rise from the dead. But seeing how the love and hope from his followers inclines to that explanation, it is an object lesson in how the rumors of Jesus resurrection first began.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Okay thanks, but according to my beliefs those were not true religions unless they taught that there was only one true God, so Moses would have been right to oppose them.

.

You are setting your own criteria there.
why should prophets be limited to a single god or a religion that believes in a single god, or "one true god"

There might be one creator God of this universe, and gods responsible of each star system or planet.
We simply do not know about the social structure or responsibilities of gods.

It is as much a speculation that there is only one god, as it is that there are multiple gods.
there is no reason to believe that this world would be any different following either scenario.

 

[Trailblazer]

It is as much a speculation that there is only one god, as it is that there are multiple gods.
there is no reason to believe that this world would be any different following either scenario.

It is not really speculation, it is a belief that there is only one true God in reality.
I cannot say the world would be any different if there were many gods, how could I know?
How people live is more important than what they believe, Imo.

 

[Rival]

Still waiting -- after all these years --

You mean just like you, for your messiah to come back and do the things the Messiah is actually meant to do? When's your 'second coming'? Been 2,000 years already, buddy.

 

[Trailblazer]

You mean just like you, for your messiah to come back and do the things the Messiah is actually meant to do? When's your 'second coming'? Been 2,000 years already, buddy.

Christians will wait for Jesus to return until hell freezes over. They say that Jesus will fulfill the remainder of the prophecies, the messianic ones, when He returns... I guess they don't read their Bibles or else they skip over the verses they don't like. When I present them with these verses they come up with some funny interpretations.

John 14:19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

Jesus never claimed to be a king, and He never said he was coming to rule, as Christians believe.

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

John 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

These two verses in John 18 completely negate that Jesus is the King of this world or that Jesus will ever come to this world to rule it, and they fit perfectly together with John 17:4 and John 17:11. Jesus came into this world to bear witness unto the truth about God. He did that so there is no more reason for Jesus to come back to this world again. That is why Jesus said “I am no more in the world” and that is why Jesus has not returned to this world.

no more

1. nothing further.
   "there was no more to be said about it"
2. no further.
   "you must have some soup, but no more wine"
3. exist no longer.
   "the patch of ground was overgrown and the hut was no more"
4. never again.
   "mention his name no more to me"
5. neither.
   "I had no complaints and no more did Tom"

Definitions from Oxford Languages

 

[Trailblazer]

And what's the bet that when I tell you who the mystery man is that you'll come up with as many reasons as you need to say that these excuses don't apply to him, just because you don't want him to be a messenger from God.

I don't want anything. It's not about what I want, it is about what actually is. Tell me who he is and I will tell you what I think.

 

[Tiberius]

I don't want anything. It's not about what I want, it is about what actually is. Tell me who he is and I will tell you what I think.

I don't care what you think. I care about whether he meets the criteria that you set. He either meets it or he doesn't, and your personal opinion on the matter is irrelevant.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't care what you think. I care about whether he meets the criteria that you set. He either meets it or he doesn't, and your personal opinion on the matter is irrelevant.

The same exact thing applies to you. I don't care what you think. I care about whether he meets the criteria that I set. He either meets it or he doesn't, and your personal opinion on the matter is irrelevant.

Who do you think should be the judge of whether or not he meets the criteria?