Progressive Revelation

Before I knew the Baha'i faith, I considered getting into other religions, read a lot about it and went to their meetings, but somehow, it was very hard to accept certain aspects of other religions (mostly, I looked into Christianity and Islam).

Probably the one thing that bothered me most about Christianity and Islam is the claim of exclusiveness and the claim the respective revelation is final: Christians claim you have to believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, or you go to hell -- so members of all other religions go to hell by default. Muslims say when you don't accept Mohammed, a mere human, is the "seal of the prophets" sent by God, and when you reject absolute monotheism i.e. by believing in trinity, you go to hell by default.

I could not believe that. Why would God allow billions of people go to hell, simply because they grew up in a different society than the chosen ones? Assuming Christianity is right, why would God allow 1 billion people to follow a false prophet (Muslims)? The same question could be asked vice-versa. Isn't it like in the famous "ring parable" (i.e. found in Lessing's play "Nathan the Wise"), that most of us all, Jews, Christians and Muslims, take our faith from our fathers and teachers who teach it to us, and of course we'll accept it, because we trust these people? And mere reason alone cannot determine which of these religions, which claim mutual exclusiveness, is the right one -- it's a matter of faith, it's word against word and book against book.

When I first learnt about the Baha'i faith by coincidence, I found convincing answers there: According to Baha'i theology, most religions are legitimate religions that stem from the same God. They all are the same in the core, just like the respective prophets are the same. The differences are due to the needs of the respective times when they were revealed, and due to changes in man's capabilities to understand it. No religion is final, religion always needs "upgrades", because mankind changes over time. All religions have in common that they were the respectively best cure of the illnesses of mankind in the respective time.

Baha'i theology distinguishes between "independent prophets" and "dependent prophets": Independent prophets are those which found a new religion, which bring a new "book". Explicitly names as such independent prophets or "manifestations of God" are Abraham, Krishna, Moses, Zarathustra, Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, the Bab (precursor of the Baha'i faith in 19th century Persia) and Baha'u'llah (founder of the Baha'i faith in 19th century Persia). Thus Judaism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam and Baha'i faith are legitimate religions stemming from the same God.

Dependent prophets do not bring a new book or found a new religion, but foster and advance the religion founded by an independent prophet. The OT prophets, such as Job, Jeremiah or David are such dependent prophets (they advanced Moses' religion), so is John the Baptist (he prepared people for Christianity) or certain Muslim imams (they advanced Mohammed's religion). In theory, any committed believer can become a dependent prophet.

Of course the best path to salvation, according to Baha'i theology as I understand it, is the Baha'i faith: It's the most recent revelation from the one and only God. It's best for our modern times. "Heaven" and "hell" are not absolute or even physical states, but symbols for the soul being close to or far from God in the next life. You can end up at one extreme, or another, or somewhere in the middle. And as much as i.e. Christianity, Islam or Buddhism are legitimate, though "outdated", religions, I guess a good and committed believer of any of these religions can well end up close to God in the next life.

Even the Baha'i religion is not final. Another independent prophet is expected to appear in ca. 850 years, to update religion once again.


What do you think about this concept of "progressive revelation"?

German guy said:

Before I knew the Baha'i faith, I considered getting into other religions, read a lot about it and went to their meetings, but somehow, it was very hard to accept certain aspects of other religions (mostly, I looked into Christianity and Islam).

Probably the one thing that bothered me most about Christianity and Islam is the claim of exclusiveness and the claim the respective revelation is final: Christians claim you have to believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, or you go to hell -- so members of all other religions go to hell by default. Muslims say when you don't accept Mohammed, a mere human, is the "seal of the prophets" sent by God, and when you reject absolute monotheism i.e. by believing in trinity, you go to hell by default.

I could not believe that. Why would God allow billions of people go to hell, simply because they grew up in a different society than the chosen ones? Assuming Christianity is right, why would God allow 1 billion people to follow a false prophet (Muslims)? The same question could be asked vice-versa. Isn't it like in the famous "ring parable" (i.e. found in Lessing's play "Nathan the Wise"), that most of us all, Jews, Christians and Muslims, take our faith from our fathers and teachers who teach it to us, and of course we'll accept it, because we trust these people? And mere reason alone cannot determine which of these religions, which claim mutual exclusiveness, is the right one -- it's a matter of faith, it's word against word and book against book.

When I first learnt about the Baha'i faith by coincidence, I found convincing answers there: According to Baha'i theology, most religions are legitimate religions that stem from the same God. They all are the same in the core, just like the respective prophets are the same. The differences are due to the needs of the respective times when they were revealed, and due to changes in man's capabilities to understand it. No religion is final, religion always needs "upgrades", because mankind changes over time. All religions have in common that they were the respectively best cure of the illnesses of mankind in the respective time.

Baha'i theology distinguishes between "independent prophets" and "dependent prophets": Independent prophets are those which found a new religion, which bring a new "book". Explicitly names as such independent prophets or "manifestations of God" are Abraham, Krishna, Moses, Zarathustra, Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, the Bab (precursor of the Baha'i faith in 19th century Persia) and Baha'u'llah (founder of the Baha'i faith in 19th century Persia). Thus Judaism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam and Baha'i faith are legitimate religions stemming from the same God.

Dependent prophets do not bring a new book or found a new religion, but foster and advance the religion founded by an independent prophet. The OT prophets, such as Job, Jeremiah or David are such dependent prophets (they advanced Moses' religion), so is John the Baptist (he prepared people for Christianity) or certain Muslim imams (they advanced Mohammed's religion). In theory, any committed believer can become a dependent prophet.

Of course the best path to salvation, according to Baha'i theology as I understand it, is the Baha'i faith: It's the most recent revelation from the one and only God. It's best for our modern times. "Heaven" and "hell" are not absolute or even physical states, but symbols for the soul being close to or far from God in the next life. You can end up at one extreme, or another, or somewhere in the middle. And as much as i.e. Christianity, Islam or Buddhism are legitimate, though "outdated", religions, I guess a good and committed believer of any of these religions can well end up close to God in the next life.

Even the Baha'i religion is not final. Another independent prophet is expected to appear in ca. 850 years, to update religion once again.


What do you think about this concept of "progressive revelation"?

Click to expand...

i like its perspective of tolerance, and individual acceptance, of other religious views
shinto is quite similar

German guy said:

Even the Baha'i religion is not final. Another independent prophet is expected to appear in ca. 850 years, to update religion once again.


What do you think about this concept of "progressive revelation"?

Click to expand...

I suspect it's a natural progression in the evolution of humans. The process requires rejection of the old, and advancement of the new, so I find no contradictions in new religious ideas. We are all just a huge hodge podge of people with different methods for determining the truth, and each of us has to find our own way. Two Christians, two Muslims, or two Buddhists don't likely believe in the exactly the same way as each other. My personal belief is that all paths lead to the same place.

If it's the same guy I'm thinking of he was basically ostracized by main stream Christians for his views. I heard an interview with him on NPR and I liked what he had to say. Most Christians are far too dogmatic and rigid in their interpretation of the bible.

sawyerloggingon said:

If it's the same guy I'm thinking of he was basically ostracized by main stream Christians for his views. I heard an interview with him on NPR and I liked what he had to say. Most Christians are far too dogmatic and rigid in their interpretation of the bible.

Click to expand...

Maybe you heard a Baha'i on NPR, I don't know, but it wouldn't take me wonder if mainstream Christians opposed him.

The Baha'i faith is usually considered a seperate monotheist religion by religion scientists, which originated in 19th century Persia out of Shia Islam, much like Christianity originated in Judaism. Baha'u'llah, who is considered a prophet and founder of the Baha'i faith, lived from 1817 to 1892 in Persia and the Osman Empire.

Today, the Baha'i faith has between 6 million and 8 million followers, and is the geographically second most expanded religion after Christianity. There are ca. 800.000 Baha'i in North America, ca. 2 million Baha'i in India and it's the largest religious minority in Shia Muslim Iran with ca. 300.000 followers, heavily persecuted by the theocracy there.

Even in Christianity's perhaps most stunning case of conversion, Saul on the road to Damascus, revelations remain after the proverbial "seeing the light". While, spiritually, he was completely transformed, I think he remained limited in his, shall we say human, ability to comprehend, understand and conceive. This is represented by his blindness (our inability to fully get our head around something) and continued dependence upon God for leadership. A mere church leader was the vessel of now Paul's sight returning miraculously. I think this demonstrates that, despite a most definite and transforming conversion, one remains dependent upon God (and his messengers) for further revelations as we are limited even if clean.

German guy said:

Maybe you heard a Baha'i on NPR, I don't know, but it wouldn't take me wonder if mainstream Christians opposed him.

The Baha'i faith is usually considered a seperate monotheist religion by religion scientists, which originated in 19th century Persia out of Shia Islam, much like Christianity originated in Judaism. Baha'u'llah, who is considered a prophet and founder of the Baha'i faith, lived from 1817 to 1892 in Persia and the Osman Empire.

Today, the Baha'i faith has between 6 million and 8 million followers, and is the geographically second most expanded religion after Christianity. There are ca. 800.000 Baha'i in North America, ca. 2 million Baha'i in India and it's the largest religious minority in Shia Muslim Iran with ca. 300.000 followers, heavily persecuted by the theocracy there.

Click to expand...

My mistake, I should not have skim read your OP . I was thinking of this guy, he basically says the same thing.






Brian D. McLaren is an activist and public theologian, and author of The Church on the Other Side: Doing Ministry in the Postmodern Matrix and A New Kind of Christianity.
Walter Schmidt/Jericho Books







Time magazine named author and pastor Brian McLaren one of the 25 most influential evangelicals in America.

McLaren has written more than 20 books, and he is a principal figure in the Emerging Church, a Christian movement that rejects the organized and institutional church in favor of a more modern, accepting community.

McLaren's new book is called Why Did Jesus, Moses, the Buddha and Mohammed Cross the Road?: Christian Identity in a Multi-Faith World.

McLaren chose the title deliberately, evoking the beginning of a familiar joke in the hope that Christians would be more understanding of the religions that surround them. "One thing I think is quite certain," McLaren tells weekends on All Things Considered host Guy Raz, "If Jesus, Moses, the Buddha and Mohammed were to bump into each other along the road and go have a cup of tea or whatever, I think we all know they would treat one another far different and far better than a lot of their followers would."


Embracing Diversity In A 'Multi-Faith World' : NPR

German guy said:

The Baha'i faith is usually considered a seperate monotheist religion by religion scientists, which originated in 19th century Persia out of Shia Islam, much like Christianity originated in Judaism. Baha'u'llah, who is considered a prophet and founder of the Baha'i faith, lived from 1817 to 1892 in Persia and the Osman Empire.

Click to expand...

My personal suspicion is that Islam originated as a Jewish rebellion to a rising Christianity.

lizzie said:

My personal suspicion is that Islam originated as a Jewish rebellion to a rising Christianity.

Click to expand...

That might pass the sniff test, but calling Muslims Jewish is not gonna make you popular with anyone

ecofarm said:

That might pass the sniff test, but calling Muslims Jewish is not gonna make you popular with anyone

Click to expand...

Thank God I'm not in a personality contest.

lizzie said:

My personal suspicion is that Islam originated as a Jewish rebellion to a rising Christianity.

Click to expand...

That's an interesting theory. I read that Mohammed knew Jewish and Christian people when he grew up, who lived in Arab cities such as Mekka and Medina as merchants.

At any rate, according to Baha'i theology, all three of them are legitimate, divine religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

German guy said:

What do you think about this concept of "progressive revelation"?

Click to expand...

God is a constant revelation.

I tried to find Him on the Christian cross, yet He was not there;
I went to the Temple of the Hindus and to the old pagodas, but I could not find a trace of Him anywhere.

I searched on the mountains and in the valleys but neither in the heights nor in the depths was I able to find Him.

I went to Kaaba in Mecca, but neither was He there.

I questioned the scholars and philosophers but He was beyond their understanding.

At last, I looked into my own Heart and it was there, where He dwelled that I saw Him;
He was nowhere else to be found...

(Jelalludin Rumi)

Click to expand...

Maybe God speaks to individuals in their hearts not to society through individuals who would otherwise be burned at the stake :shrug:

With all this natural progression, what is the need for revelation? What's being revealed? Revelations are about the nuances. They're about which prophet you're supposed to follow. The basic fundamental truths about doing good deeds and upholding a lawful society haven't changed with all these revelations. They existed long before anyone revealed anything and persist no matter who is revealing what. The only variation comes from whether you think Moses had the real scoop on Mt. Sinai, or Jesus had it on the cross, or Joseph Smith had it in a hat with golden disks. So what's being revealed here? That love is the way? People have known that for longer than they've had language. That you shouldn't kill, steal, or rape? I don't think it took revelation to figure that one out.

So, I get the idea of progressive revelation, but revelation just seems to be the continual substitution of a new leader for an old one.

German guy said:

What do you think about this concept of "progressive revelation"?

Click to expand...

First let me say you've provided a nice introduction. Then to answer your question, from what you've wrote and the question that you've posed it seems that this is a greater take, an expanded view of dispensationalist theology taught in some circles of Christianity.

If you aren't aware of this movement, perhaps you might find some common ground in it to better propogate your faith...

You've peeked my interest at any rate, I've read a little on it, but will give it a deeper look.

Kudos...