What is the difference between us and a Prophet

[Terrywoodenpic]

Terry,

Thanks for acknowledging my efforts. I think that perhaps you are right. I'm not going to be able to explain this in such an way that it is going to be logical to you. I guess it's just one of those things that will have to remain unresolved. I will, however, respond to your last post before I finally just throw up my hands and give up.


Kathryn

Hi Kathryn

I am sure you never Give up!
But you are right, our discussion has taken us as far as we can go.
To go further would be to start attacking the tenets of our own Churches.
I am sure that this topic has been useful to both those who have joined in, and to those (the majority ) who have just read what others have said.

In many ways, how God communicates with us and we with him, is central to faith.
In discussing Prophets we have shown that God is still communicating, and that Christianity is a living Religion.

Terry_______________________
Blessed are those who bring peace, they shall be children of God

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Excuse me, but didn't you say somewhere that you're a Baptist preacher? And you are referring to God as "she"? You've got to explain yourself!

I did earlier. God is Spirit, and the Bible expresses that God has both "father" and "mother" characteristics, being neither male nor female. We call God Father, but Parent or Mother would be the same thing in our modern context. There is no non-gendered pronoun in English - only "him' and 'her,' and the impersonal pronoun "it" just does not work in referring to God, who is a person, so I interchange the personal pronouns "he" and "she." It's not that I think of God as some gender-confused transvestite, or as asexual, God the "Parent" of the Trinity is Spirit.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Hi!

How do we know that what is being revealed to us is from God? Why do you believe that we get different messages from Him, sometimes even contradictory ones?

Generally, through investigation and prayer!

I would say that a TRUE message from God will be unific, peaceful, and loving, and will promote godliness, unity, and concord in society.

If may also fulfill prophecies made in earlier scriptures.

As ever, "By their fruits ye shall know them!"

(There is also the corollary teaching that a bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit, and vice versa. And some of the fruits of the spirit are explicltly listed iln the Bible, in Galatians.)

As to why parts of God's message change over time, that's simple!: because HUMANITY grows and develops over time!

Spiritual teachings are eternal and never change (there is a God, you're here for a reason, don't kill, etc.).

But social teachings are INTENTIONALLY temporary and subject to change or recission when God sends a newer message thru another Divine Messenger, just as Jesus abolished certain Jewish laws and amplified others during His ministry!

For a two-year-old, the law may be "Stay out of the stree1" But we don't expect a ten-year-old or an adult to be bound by this because it's no longer appropriate, so new rules are in effect. Same thing.

Best,

Bruce

 

[michel]

Then why do we have thousands of different interpretations of God's word? Why don't we agree on whether baptism is required, whether we should be baptizing infants and whether we should be doing so by sprinkling or immersion? Why do the Catholics have more books in their Bible than the Protestants? If these books really are God's word, shouldn't we all accept them as such? Is the Bible the only word of God? Which translation is the most accurate? Should we be paying tithing or not? When we take the Lord's Supper (communion, Eucharist, the sacrament) is the bread and wine/grape juice/water literally transformed into Christ's body and blood or is it merely symbolic of them? Will we be allowed to live forever with those we loved on earth, or will they be strangers to us after the resurrection. How important is faith versus works? Do we need only to believe in Christ to be saved or do our works contibute to our salvation. Once we have acknowledged Christ as our Savior, are we saved? And is this salvation reversible or not? Is God a trinity? What is His true nature? Do we have a responsibility to proselytize or should we just be good examples? How much emphasis should be put on Mary? Should we pray to her? Can she intervene on our behalf? Was she free from sin throughout her life? Was she a virgin throughout her life? Are the rest of us born in sin or are we born pure and clean? Do all churches have a valid claim to the authority Jesus gave Peter? If not, which one does? Or is authority even an issue?

And you ask, "What confusion is there?"

I understand your point completely, and I can empathise with all people from all branches of Christianity who would like nothing better than to have their particular brand name proved as being 'THE faith'.

I think it however a little sad that we all (except for me that is) feel the need to protest that ours is the 'correct' version. Does it actually matter ? - of course it does, otherwise there would not be so much debate.

let us go down to the bare essentials though, and view God as haveing the three facets of God the Father , the son, and the Holy ghost. Let us go further, and accept that Jesus Christ was incarnate as a man, but with the knowledge of God. His purpose was to show us all what we should do - even that message is pretty clear, and uncomplicated. Baptism, prayer and determined efforts to repent for those sins which we have commited, a Love of Jesus Christ, and the attempt to love our fellow man - whatever we see as 'wrong in him' - that is between him and God.

I think we can pretty well all agree (except for the Muslims) that that, in its most basic of contexts, is the way we think..........Why build barriers, each one of us vying for the place of 'top dog'. lets just concentrate on what matters; payer, loving one and other, and trying to live as virtuous life as we can, as humans.

 

[Katzpur]

My first reaction to this is to say that I'm not Christian. I don't know if you realize this but I spend time in the other forums as well, and my personal practice is more Buddhist and nature-based than anything else. But then again, I've had (liberal) Christian friends tell me that they consider me to be Christian (and my ethics are most definately Christian), so who am I to argue? I certainly don't think it's a label to be avoided.

I would say that, if you don't consider yourself to be a Christian, it's certainly not my place to say you are. You posted something about Jesus not too long ago that led me to believe you were, but I obviously misunderstood. On the other hand, I'm sure that when your Christian friends say that they consider you to be a Christian, I'm sure that they mean it as a compliment. And I'm sure you take it that way.

I leave it up to you to decide from what I've written whether I am Christian or not. But of course I hope that whatever you decide to call me that we still respect each other. I certainly respect you!

It really annoys me (which is putting it mildly) when people say I'm not a Christian. I say I am and I have the right to define myself as one. Likewise, you have the right to define yourself any way you wish. I'll continue calling you what I've always called you before: A very nice Unitarian Universalist.

Kathryn

 

[Katzpur]

I did earlier. God is Spirit, and the Bible expresses that God has both "father" and "mother" characteristics, being neither male nor female. We call God Father, but Parent or Mother would be the same thing in our modern context. There is no non-gendered pronoun in English - only "him' and 'her,' and the impersonal pronoun "it" just does not work in referring to God, who is a person, so I interchange the personal pronouns "he" and "she." It's not that I think of God as some gender-confused transvestite, or as asexual, God the "Parent" of the Trinity is Spirit.

Thanks for the explanation, ae. I disagree, but it's interesting to hear your perspective, particularly since I've never heard a Baptist speak of God as "she" before.

 

[Katzpur]

I understand your point completely, and I can empathise with all people from all branches of Christianity who would like nothing better than to have their particular brand name proved as being 'THE faith'.

Hi, Michael.

I think you may be missing my point. For me, it's not a matter of "liking nothing better" than to see my "particular brand name proved as being THE faith." That's not where I'm coming from at all. I just believe that spiritual truths are absolute. If John believes one thing, and Mary believes the exact opposite, I don't believe they can both be right. That doesn't give either one of them the right to pass judgment on the other, but to me, saying, "Nothing matters except that we love one another," is just flat out incorrect. I believe that it matters very much to God that we know the truth about Him and about the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I think it however a little sad that we all (except for me that is) feel the need to protest that ours is the 'correct' version. Does it actually matter ? - of course it does, otherwise there would not be so much debate.

Do you really think that you are the only one who doesn't feel the need to protest?

let us go down to the bare essentials though, and view God as haveing the three facets of God the Father , the son, and the Holy ghost. Let us go further, and accept that Jesus Christ was incarnate as a man, but with the knowledge of God. His purpose was to show us all what we should do - even that message is pretty clear, and uncomplicated. Baptism, prayer and determined efforts to repent for those sins which we have commited, a Love of Jesus Christ, and the attempt to love our fellow man - whatever we see as 'wrong in him' - that is between him and God.

I realize that's what you believe, and I respect your right to believe it. On the other hand, I don't see God as having "three facets" as being an essential doctrine at all. I see God as being "the distinct beings." So we're not even on the same page from the get go! I'm with you, though, that when it comes to an understanding of what's most important of all, love for one's fellow man is going to be right at the top of God's list.

I think we can pretty well all agree (except for the Muslims) that that, in its most basic of contexts, is the way we think..........Why build barriers, each one of us vying for the place of 'top dog'. lets just concentrate on what matters; payer, loving one and other, and trying to live as virtuous life as we can, as humans.

Again, I'm sorry you see me as trying to be "top dog." I certainly don't see myself as trying to build barriers. I just see myself trying to present what I sincerely believe to be true. If someone else is influenced by what I have to say, and comes to believe that I am correct in what I believe, I'm happy to have been able to help them come to a new level of understanding. If someone rejects what I have to say, I am 100% content to know that I've presented the truth as I see it. I go on from there to respect the fact that they do not share my point of view but that God isn't going to need my help to sort things out!

Kathryn

 

[almifkhar]

the difference between us and a prophet? my view on this is perhaps different but here's what i think.

there are two sides to every religion. one is the side that the masses of people practice and the other side is the occult or magikical if you will. the occult side of religon is practiced by very few and fewer still take the long hard journey to oneness with god. if you notice in the stories of the prophets reguardless of religion, there is always occult overtones in the stories and they were able to do things like talk to god, cast a spell, foretell the future, etc.

i believe that we all have the ability to do these things, however, most don't know how or just cannot commit themselves to do it because of family obligations, or simply have no clue about this aspect of religion.

ghandi was considered a modern day adept because of what he achived with self sacrifice.

now according to my religion muhammad was the last one. i feel that if a prophet did come down apon us modern day folks, nobody would listen and the poor cat would probably get shot and killed.

 

[lilithu]

the difference between us and a prophet? my view on this is perhaps different but here's what i think.

there are two sides to every religion. one is the side that the masses of people practice and the other side is the occult or magikical if you will. the occult side of religon is practiced by very few and fewer still take the long hard journey to oneness with god. if you notice in the stories of the prophets reguardless of religion, there is always occult overtones in the stories and they were able to do things like talk to god, cast a spell, foretell the future, etc.

i believe that we all have the ability to do these things, however, most don't know how or just cannot commit themselves to do it because of family obligations, or simply have no clue about this aspect of religion.

ghandi was considered a modern day adept because of what he achived with self sacrifice.

now according to my religion muhammad was the last one. i feel that if a prophet did come down apon us modern day folks, nobody would listen and the poor cat would probably get shot and killed.

Namaste almifkhar,

Except for the part about Mohammed being the last one, our views are not that different. I am especially struck by your use of the phrase "oneness with god." I realize that there is a basis for this in the Qur'an. "God is closer to you than your own jugular vein." However, I still had the impression that Islam emphasizes the transcendence of God, over the immanence. God as untouchable, unknowable, as opposed to God in me. Am I mistaken in this impression? (I assume that if you were a Sufi you would say so.)

thanks,
-lilith

 

[BruceDLimber]

Except for the part about Mohammed being the last one, . . .)
-lilith

Hi, there!

In fact, according to the Qur'an, Muhammad is the seal of the MINOR prophets ("nabi"), not of the major Divine Messengers ("Ras'ul"). So while He is indeed the Seal, He's hardly the end of the line!

Best,

Bruce

 

[michel]

Yes, but I'm not trying to convert you, in fact, I urge against you converting to Judaism or anyone else.

We recently had a new member join us; I forget his name, but I do remember that he explained his faith as being 'Judaism for Gentiles' (if I remember correctly) - and that is not far from my 'stance'.


.

Hi, Michel.

I think you may be missing my point. For me, it's not a matter of "liking nothing better" than to see my "particular brand name proved as being THE faith." That's not where I'm coming from at all. I just believe that spiritual truths are absolute. If John believes one thing, and Mary believes the exact opposite, I don't believe they can both be right. That doesn't give either one of them the right to pass judgment on the other, but to me, saying, "Nothing matters except that we love one another," is just flat out incorrect. I believe that it matters very much to God that we know the truth about Him and about the gospel of Jesus Christ.

No, no, I do realize 'where you are coming from' - and I admire devotion and resolute determination such as yours as in 'Spiritual Truths are accurate". Also, when I said
"Nothing matters except that we love one another," I include God ; after all, it is through his teachings and that of Jesus Christ that we understand the need to Love;of course we need to learn the truth about God. Without learning the truth about him, life would make no sense, to me.

Do you really think that you are the only one who doesn't feel the need to protest?

- When I see fast and furious debates on these forums, I feel somewhat alone, in not feeling the need to assert that 'mine is the right way' - it is, but it is for me - no one else need buy into my brand.

I realize that's what you believe, and I respect your right to believe it. On the other hand, I don't see God as having "three facets" as being an essential doctrine at all. I see God as being "the distinct beings." So we're not even on the same page from the get go! I'm with you, though, that when it comes to an understanding of what's most important of all, love for one's fellow man is going to be right at the top of God's list.

Of course we are not going to agree - but hey, that doesn't matter as far as I amconcerned - it makes no difference the way I think of you - as you say, I respect your views, and admire you for them.

Again, I'm sorry you see me as trying to be "top dog." I certainly don't see myself as trying to build barriers. I just see myself trying to present what I sincerely believe to be true. If someone else is influenced by what I have to say, and comes to believe that I am correct in what I believe, I'm happy to have been able to help them come to a new level of understanding. If someone rejects what I have to say, I am 100% content to know that I've presented the truth as I see it. I go on from there to respect the fact that they do not share my point of view but that God isn't going to need my help to sort things out!

Sorry, sloppy words of mine were misleading; when I said 'top dog' it was more as a case of 'My faith is the correct one' - which I think we all must feel, to some degree - I am not implying that you think of yourself as top dog - only that you see your faith as being the right one; and who can blame you for that ? of course it is, for you.........

 

[andyjamal]

I think it is important to mention the difference between minor prophets and major Prophets. Although they both reveal God's message, it is only the major Prophets who act as the actual Voice of God and manifest all of His attributes. It is only the major Prophets who abrogate and establish divine law. Minor prophets are ordinary men whom God has chosen to speak to in order to reiterate the fundamental truths revealed by the previous major Prophet and foretell the coming of the next.

Muhhamed definitely fits the description of a major Prophet. His dispensation, however, marks the end of the Prophetic Cycle. This means that there will be no more minor prophets, and the advent of the next Manifestation of God marked the beginning of the Age of Fulfillment. (He was shot and killed by the way)

 

[Katzpur]

Muhhamed definitely fits the description of a major Prophet. His dispensation, however, marks the end of the Prophetic Cycle. This means that there will be no more minor prophets, and the advent of the next Manifestation of God marked the beginning of the Age of Fulfillment. (He was shot and killed by the way)

That's odd, in that it's not what other members of the Baha'i Faith have said. Oh, Bruce DLimber! Where are you? :shout

 

[BruceDLimber]

Hi, Jamal!

Muhhamed definitely fits the description of a major Prophet. His dispensation, however, marks the end of the Prophetic Cycle. This means that there will be no more minor prophets, and the advent of the next Manifestation of God marked the beginning of the Age of Fulfillment. (He was shot and killed by the way)

Say what?!

Muhammad died peacefully in bed.

And "shot" would have been pretty tough, anyway, given that there were no firearms back then! (Or did you mean bow and arrow?)

Either way, I've never heard such a thing, and have ALWAYS understood that Muhammad died peacefully....

Regards,

Bruce

ADDENDUM: As I explain in the message following, I apparently misconstrued what you were saying as referrilng to Muhammad instead of referring to the Bab, so please disregard the above as it was posted under that impression. Thanks!

Bruce

 

[BruceDLimber]

That's odd, in that it's not what other members of the Baha'i Faith have said. Oh, Bruce Limber! Where are you? :shout

Right here; greetings, greetings!

I just put in a reply to Jamal, but now as I read what YOU quoted, I think he just badly identified the antecedent of his pronoun. The "He" refers to the Bab (literally in his post, to the "Next Manifestation"), NOT to Muhammad! And it is indeed true that the Bab was shot (by a 750-rifle firing squad, no less!).

The rest is correct: Muhammad was indeed the Seal of the lesser prophets (tho' not of the Divine Messengers).

Half of the problem in online communication is correctly construing what the other guy is saying! . . . :-S

Cheers,

Bruce

 

[Deut 13:1]

We recently had a new member join us; I forget his name, but I do remember that he explained his faith as being 'Judaism for Gentiles' (if I remember correctly) - and that is not far from my 'stance'.

He's probably talking about Noahites who follow 7 basic laws. It's like being a rightous gentile.

 

[Popeyesays]

What is the difference between you and me having a message from God and a Prophet recieving the same message?

Is there a difference in Kind between a Prophet and us?

Why would God differentiate?

Forgetting what might be written. Can you think of a reason why God would no longer Have Prophets?

My view is that it is most likely that there are prophets.
It is just that most Churches are so set against them that they are neither acknowledged nor their messages respected?

Terry_______________________________

Amen! Truly I say to you: Gather in my name. I am with you.

------------------------------

Dear Terry,

I'm a Baha`i . I don't believe that the cycle of Prophecy will ever be finished. I do believe, however, that the Divine Prophet, the Manifestation of God is human in physical form, but the Spirit that dwells there is "the word made flesh" as the Gospel of John would have it. Many of these Manifestations have come in the past. Many are yet to come. Whoever it was that first revealed that there is ONE God (most would call Him Adam) was the first we know of. Abraham, Moses, Zoroaster, Krshna, Buddha, Jesus, Muhammed, the Bab and Baha`u'llah are the ones we can identify to specific faiths, books and Revelations. Muhammed adn Baha`u'llah refer to two others, Salih and Hud, They also call Noah a Manifestation of God, but we do not know what "Gospel" They bore.

Ther have been other Manifestations Who have been lost in time as to identity, scripture, laws, and peoples.

When They announce Themselves, judgement day arrives. They judge between the spiritually quick and the spiritually dead. Those who live in the Spirit are transformed, those who do not generally oppose the Manifestation and His revelation.

"Consider the past. How many, both high and low, have, at all times, yearningly awaited the advent of the Manifestations of God in the sanctified persons of His chosen Ones. How often have they expected His coming, how frequently have they prayed that the breeze of divine mercy might blow, and the promised Beauty step forth from behind the veil of concealment, and be made manifest to all the world. And whensoever the portals of grace did open, and the clouds of divine bounty did rain upon mankind, and the light of the Unseen did shine above the horizon of celestial might, they all denied Him, and turned away from His face -- the face of God Himself. Refer ye, to verify this truth, to that which hath been recorded in every sacred Book."
(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 4)

Regards,
Scott

 

[Katzpur]

Bruce and Scott,

Thanks for the information!

 

[Popeyesays]

Right here; greetings, greetings!

I just put in a reply to Jamal, but now as I read what YOU quoted, I think he just badly identified the antecedent of his pronoun. The "He" refers to the Bab (literally in his post, to the "Next Manifestation"), NOT to Muhammad! And it is indeed true that the Bab was shot (by a 750-rifle firing squad, no less!).

The rest is correct: Muhammad was indeed the Seal of the lesser prophets (tho' not of the Divine Messengers).

Half of the problem in online communication is correctly construing what the other guy is saying! . . . :-S

Cheers,

Bruce

And understanding the history inside the events.

Were there 750 soldiers in either of the firing squads? It is almost certain that was not the exact number.
A Persian battalion was set at 750 rank and file; but on that given day how many men was the battalion short? There was sick-call, there was leave and furlough, there would be vacancies in the rolls. And in Persia in particular it was customary for the officers of the regiment to pad their income by reporting more enlistees than were actually there (so they could divvy up the pay to the fraudulent enlistees).

Probably the battalions numbered 500-700 men present to fire, but who has the daily muster report for the two battalions involved? Probably no one, so we'll never be able to count the muskets who fired.

Was it a mass volley? SURE!

Why two battalions needed?

Because the first execution failed. The Bab told the officers that He could not be harmed til He had finished His message to His secretary, the officers tried anyway.

When the smoke of the three volleys cleared, the Bab was nowhere to be seen. The first musket ball had cut the rope and dropped Him to the ground.

When the searchers finally looked in His cell, He was there completing the dictation to His secretary. He told them, "Now my purpose is finished and you may do with me as you will."

The first battalion refused to fire a seconod time, and a Muslim officer offered his battalion to carry out the sentence, which they did without incident.

Regards,
Scott